Most recent biographers of Herod therefore do not regard the massacre as an actual historical event, but rather, like the other nativity stories, as creative hagiography.Is the Massacre of the Innocents true or false?
That is a very good question. Since I doubt the historicity of Jesus (I don't believe in the birth, but I can't exactly prove it DID NOT happen) I also doubt the massacre of the innocents. The story has the scent of something being made up, that it was a miracle that kept Jesus out of harm's way; the same way that the Virgin Birth story itself has that feeling of something invented years, decades, centuries later.Is the Massacre of the Innocents true or false?
Considering the actions of Herod, I wouldn't doubt it. If someone told me Mother Theresa euthanized 1 million indian poor, I would instantly dismiss that. Herod, however, was responsible for many, many deaths. He killed or had killed most of his children. His wife. Political rivals. Enemies. Friends. I've also heard it mentioned that the young children in Bethlehem under the age of 2 were probably only 20 or 25 in number. With all of the massacres going on around him, maybe no one would have noticed such a low body count.
Given the morbid detail in which contemporary biographers recorded the life of Herod the Great if it had happened someone would have mentioned it.
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/…
Fairy tales are just that dear : Fairy tales...
It was most likely a true event.
King Herod the Great was VERY paranoid for his own throne.
No comments:
Post a Comment