Today is the feast of the Holy Innocents—the baby boys that Matthew records were slain on the orders of Herod the Great in his attempt to kill the infant Jesus.
Did he really?
Sometimes we hear skeptics dismiss the idea by saying that we have no record of him doing so.
But it’s not exactly like we have the complete records of what Herod did in his reign. So much has been lost that this kind of argument from silence is the logical fallacy they teach it to be in beginning philosophy classes. Just because we don’t have a record of Herod doing something doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.
And, after all, don’t we have a record in this case? Matthew mentions him doing it. That’s a record, right? Only if Matthew were a systematically untrustworthy source would one be warranted in summarily dismissing what he says, and judged by the ordinary standards applied to evaluating other first century historical works—even apart from the perspective of faith—Matthew must surely be reckoned as far more trustworthy than that.
Further, what Matthew says fits with what we know about Herod’s character. The man was ruthless, from the beginning of his reign to the end. As he got closer to the end, he became intensely paranoid and cruel, and even if we don’t have a second record of the slaughter of the innocents, anyone who has studied Herod’s life recognizes how in keeping this is with what we know of him.
Consider these excerpts from his biography in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary:
Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem in 37 did not bring his problems to an end. Inheriting a divided city, he moved swiftly and decisively to thwart all opposition. Forty-five leaders of the pro-Antigonus faction in the city were executed (Ant 15 §5) and others were forced into hiding (Ant 15 §264). The wealthy were despoiled, and the revenue gained was used to pay Herod’s debts to his Roman patrons and his army.
In the years following his ascension, Herod was almost obsessively concerned about the security of his rule.
Little time elapsed before he realized the extent of Aristobulus’ popularity and the potential danger he posed (Ant 15 §52). Herod ordered the young man drowned in a swimming pool at his Jericho palace (Ant 15 §54–56).
Herod’s moves to forestall any Jewish uprising are noted by Josephus on a number of occasions. It was for this reason that Antigonus was beheaded in Antioch (Ant 15 §8–9) and that the king kept the young Aristobulus homebound despite Antony’s request, at one point, for the lad to join him (Ant 15 §28–30). Even as late as the year 30, before leaving for a fateful rendezvous with Octavius, Herod executed Hyrcanus II and placed Alexandra in a fortress under guard. He feared that in his absence either of them might foment a rebellion or assert his right to leadership (Ant 15 §174–78, 183–86). Similarly, Herod justified the execution of his wife Mariamme two years later, claiming that a popular disturbance might have broken out had she lived (Ant 15 §231).
Having already eliminated Hyrcanus II just prior to his journey to Rhodes, Herod then executed Alexandra: the king had fallen ill, and Alexandra, finding this to be a propitious opportunity for insurrection, moved to capture the Jerusalem fortress. Apprised of the situation, and having recovered from his illness, Herod immediately ordered her execution (Ant 15 §247–51). A year or so later Herod’s sister Salome sought to divorce Costobar who, together with others, was plotting a revolt. She also told Herod that Costobar had provided refuge for his enemy, the Baba family, during the conquest of Jerusalem a decade earlier. Already aware of Costobar’s seditious proclivities, Herod now moved quickly to execute him and his companions (Ant 15 §253–66).
All this was but a prelude to the most tragic—and, in the long run, the most significant—execution of all. Despite the extraordinary love he felt for his wife, Mariamme, Herod’s relationship with her had seriously deteriorated. Precisely owing to his passionate attachment, and dreading the thought that his beloved might be wedded to another, Herod on two separate occasions had ordered her death should he fail to return from a fateful encounter. Mariamme, however, misjudged his intentions and was incensed at such plans. Salome’s machinations against her only added fuel to the fire, as did Mariamme’s own intemperate remarks and actions vis-à-vis the king. Imbued with a sense of familial superiority because of her Hasmonean lineage, she often treated her husband and sister-in-law with contempt and arrogance. In 29, under the incessant prodding of Salome, Herod finally ordered her execution (Ant 15 §222–39).
Herod exercised complete control over his realm by dominating all key institutions. No matter was beyond his scrutiny. The highest tribunal (Sanhedrin), whatever its composition and authority in the previous era, was now merely a rubber stamp for the king’s wishes.
However, the brothers [Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus] carried a heavy burden of antagonism vis-à-vis their father. They left no doubt that they did not forgive those responsible for their mother’s death and that in due time they would seek revenge.
Matters degenerated in the following years, and the brothers’ fate was sealed by the discovery of a number of alleged plots to murder the king. Herod believed the evidence presented by Antipater, Salome, and Pheroras, and following a trial in Berytus with the participation of Roman officials, Alexander and Aristobulus were executed in 7 B.C.E.
Realizing his end was imminent, Herod ordered that upon his death the men whom he had locked up in the Jericho hippodrome should be executed, thus ensuring general mourning at the time of his death (Ant 17 §173–75). He ordered [another of his sons,] Antipater killed and once again altered his will by naming Archelaus, the older son of Malthace, successor to the throne, Antipas tetrarch of the Galilee and Perea, and Philip, son of Cleopatra, tetrarch of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Panaeas (Ant 17 §188–90).
Got all that? And that’s just a fraction of the people who lost their lives to Herod.
Note in particular: Herod had his wife killed, more than one of his own sons killed, and (although circumstances prevented it from happening) he ordered the death of a bunch of dignitaries just so there would be wailing among Jewish families at the time of his own death.
Is there any reason to think that Herod would scruple at killing the baby boys in Bethlehem to try and eliminate another potential rival for power?
The people of Jerusalem, of course, knew Herod’s character, and it is small wonder that St. Matthew records:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.”
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
It is also small wonder, given that Herod was an observant Jew (though his family had only converted to Judaism a generation or so earlier), and thus not someone supposed to eat pork, that Augustus Caesar is reputed to have quipped:
It is better to be Herod’s pig than to be his son.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Of course, this feast day is a perfect opportunity to remember our own Holy Innocents slaughtered day after day at the Altar of Choice in abortion chambers across our nation and our world.
This would be an excellent Historical Fiction novel in the style of Taylor Caldwell. The only problem would be to find or create a believable protagonist. Hmmm…
Awesome as usual from Mr. Akin!
(...and of course I agree with Mr. Maffeo. May God bless our own Holy Innocents.)
Herod’s murder of children would be best to have some kind of confirmation. A deed that bad would have been infamous even at that time I.e. Firstborns of Egypt also (without a confirmation.)
herod was a bad guy but that doesn’t allow us to convict of crimes with only this witness.
As Jimmy points out, it WAS recorded, in the gospel of Matthew…
The Gospel according to Matthew is thoroughly reliable. This record is consistent with Herod’s character and whatever other surviving records there were, which unfortunately isn’t many. And if anyone wishes they can go to Jerusalem and find the graves under the Church of the Nativity.
And actually a ‘deed this bad’ wouldn’t necessarily have been that ‘infamous’ in such a time as such monarchs were prone to doing many bad things that one could scarcely know where to begin ordering them, and likely many more things were lost, perhaps even worse ones, and many we’ll likely never know. And it is likely the number of children between the ages of a new-born to 2 years could be estimated to be between 6 - 20 in number around the village of Bethelehem, so despite that it’s still terrible, it’s hardly such a significant historical occasion compared to other times at war when hundreds to thousands could be slaughtered, men, women and children. Worse things happen around the world today, but how often do you hear about them in your daily news? How many would be willing to infuriate Herod at the time by spreading word of it publicly out in the open? In any case, the account is an infamous one, and we know it from the Gospel of Matthew, and no one, not even in his time lays out any claims to dispute its authenticity about the account of the slaughter of the children. If it were not true, then this would’ve been something the Jews would’ve used to dispute the authenticity of Christianity and expose the Gospels as errornous.
Matthew also connects the account with that of Jerimiah lamenting over the Babylonian exile and Rachael lamenting for her children. Thus we see typeology at work where following the slaughter of others by a king, the remaining are sent into Exile to a foreign land, but will inevitably return, thus this is symbolically demonstrated in the slaughter of the children of Bethelehem, and the Holy Family fleeing into Egypt. It is also a type reflecting that of the account of the Egyptians killing the first born male children of the Hebrews, and Moses escaped by being secretly hidden away and adopted by an Egyptian princess. Later God would punish the Egyptians by sending the Angel of Death to kill all their first born sons (adults and children), as a final demonstration against the stubborn-ness of the Pharoah who, being considered a deity, had the job of protecting the first born sons of Egypt. And thinking himself a god, hardened his heart at the thought of a foreign deity of the Hebrews telling him what to do. God considered the nation of Israel to be His ‘first born son’ and stated this to the Pharoah to ‘let His first born go’ and to stop persecuting them and keeping them as slaves and murdering them. Pharoah refused claiming them as his slaves. The Egyptians, being a proud, arrogant people and an unrivaled world power of the time, would have no records of this because they made it a point never to record any of their defeats, only their victories, miraculous or otherwise, but you’d hear of such things from other sources.
Furthermore, the fact that Herod ordered that children up to two years of age be killed, further goes to demonstrate that unlike popular belief, the wise men, whom could’ve been of any number, not necessarily 3, did not arrive on the night of Christ’s birth, but perhaps had spent around 2 years searching for Him after He was born until they finally encountered Him again.
Jimmy, the murder of the infants is most certainly recorded in the Roman Empire’s Cronicles which kept records of all events that took place in their Colonies. I always get baffled by the fixation to split hairs on what is recorded in the Holy Book, yet we all agree it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is infallible. We walk By Faith not by Sight.
Herod wasn’t well-liked by his superiors in Rome either.
I have to reply, as I accidentally booted myself from the conversation. I am learning from these replies, thank you! Also considering how nothing in the world is new. Our own Herod has said the decision to kill newborns or not is above his pay grade. I’m thinking we would have to add a line to “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?”...“Where have all the children gone?” When will they ever learn?
The actual slaughtering event must have been very chaotic and confusing. Women running with children, men trying to stop soldiers, screaming, blood, violence. It occurred to me that the executioners were probably not calm and methodical in finding only the boys. I bet a lot of female children were slaughtered as well…
Johnno, you’re posting is wonderful. Lots of wonderful insights, logic, etc. I also agree that the Wise Men must have encountered Herod close to two years after the birth of Jesus since Herod ordered the deaths of baby boys up to the age of two.
According to Venerable Mary of Agreda, the wise men were individually informed of the birth of Christ in a dream, and departed at once for Judea from their respective countries in Persia, Arabia and Sabba, east of Palestine. “On coming out of their palaces,” Agreda wrote, “each one of these kings saw this new star” (formed by an angel). Since the star arose at the birth of Christ, it would have taken the wise men time to travel that distance to Bethlehem from their homes. As the three of them followed the guidance of the miraculous star, they soon met and traveled together.
Thank you, Joanne. We need to always bear in mind that God can never leave us in doubt about this Great Event which He decreed and revealed from the beginning of the World for our Salvation as recorded in the Book of Genesis.
One must consider also that if Matthew had just invented the ‘Massacre of the Infants’ the more educated Jews would have immediately complained about the falshood of Matthew’s account.
Since the Matthew’s gospel was intended for a Jewish audience (an probably even originally written in Aramaic) and he wrote the gospel no later than 70 AD (but probably earlier) I doubt that he would commit such a gross mistake, since Herod’s crimes (or “deeds” if you prefer) would still be fresh in the minds of people, certainly the more educated ones like scribes and priests.
The difficulty in taking Matthew literally, especially where an audience of “educated Jews” is concerned, is that Matthew sometimes makes statements that anyone familiar with the Old Testament could not possibly take literally.
In the first chapter of his gospel, Matthew says there were “fourteen generations” between David and the exile to Babylon—but anyone who has read the books of Kings or Chronicles would know that the correct figure is more like eighteen, and that Matthew ignores four generations of the kings who were descended from David.
Similarly, in the second chapter of his gospel, Matthew says the Holy Family moved to Nazareth to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene—but there is no such prophecy in the OT.
The fact that Matthew makes odd statements like these does not necessarily make him a “systematically untrustworthy source”, but it *does* oblige us to ask just what *sort* of source he is, and whether we ought to read anything unique to his gospel through the lens of historical literalism.
Yeah, I happened to see the beginning of a show on the History channel lasy week or one of those stations with an anti-God agenda. They used the same silly argument, that there is no record of it. Then, they seemed to turn the matter into attacking Matthew’s Gospel. I think I yawned for a second, and quickly changed channels. It’s gotten to the point where these types of shows have nothing to say any more - they like to start out as giving the inpression the are non-biased but can only go 2 minutes before showing their true colors.
I believe it might’ve been on PBS. Herod had a very nasty habit of crapping on his bosses’ yards and getting away with it so long as he could scrape together enough “volunteers” or well-below min-wage workers to build his ideal “theme parks” for his Roman pals who were occupying the land and keeping him in power. And so long as Augustus kept his lackey in power, his comment about Herod’s piggish behavior packed as much credibility as any scrolls published by the emperor on successful “parenting.”
How ironic that today’s Herod, the deceased and ever so thoroughly mourned by his keening n’ wailing subjects, died a week before Christ’s birthday last month. Must be a NoKo thing of trashing even the calendar as well as any respect for the ruling family’s subjects dignity. Not exactly a pure display of Communism in practice. Nor on the other hand was Herod a shining example of what it meant to be a genuine “king of the Jews” while reigning roughshod over David’s descendants.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.