History ButForMeItWasTuesday / ReligionAndMythology

29th Mar '16 1:12:26 PM Nakuyabi
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** To give some further perspective on that: the year Herod the Great may very well have perpetrated the massacre, ca. 4 B.C., was also the year he immolated 2 religious teachers and about 40 youths over a religious conflagration that flared up in Jerusalem, and executed his son Antipater II. It was also the year he died, after which his son Herod Archaleus took control of Bethlehem and the surrounding area. Archaleus, for his part, began his reign with the massacre of an estimated 3,000 Israelites ([[FridgeLogic possibly including some of the witnesses of the Nativity and subsequent Wise Men's visit]]) for opposing his ascension. In view of these atrocities, the overnight slaughter of a few babies in Bethlehem (the most reliable estimates range from a mere 4 to no more than 20 babies) could easily have gotten lost in the shuffle.

to:

*** To give some further perspective on that: the year Herod the Great may very well have perpetrated the massacre, ca. 4 B.C., was also the year he immolated 2 religious teachers and about 40 youths over a religious conflagration that flared up in Jerusalem, and executed his son Antipater II. It was also the year he died, after which his son Herod Archaleus Archelaus took control of Bethlehem and the surrounding area. Archaleus, Archelaus, for his part, began his reign with the massacre of an estimated 3,000 Israelites ([[FridgeLogic possibly including some of the witnesses of the Nativity and subsequent Wise Men's visit]]) for opposing his ascension. In view of these atrocities, the overnight slaughter of a few babies in Bethlehem (the most reliable estimates range from a mere 4 to no more than 20 babies) could easily have gotten lost in the shuffle.
16th Mar '16 9:25:34 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This is a theory behind why secular historians (such as Josephus) did not mention [[Literature/TheBible the Bethlehem Massacre]] -- Herod the Great was such a deadly monarch that to record every minor massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls. (He massacred numerous members of his own family, for Heaven's sake! Regularly!) This is typically how Christian scholars respond to skeptical scholars and hostile historians' [[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument_from_Silence argument from silence]] that since the secular historian Flavius Josephus (born thirty years later and writing more than ''seventy'' years after the alleged incident) makes no mention of it in his otherwise meticulous records of Herod's (mis)rule, [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie the Apostle Matthew (lone reporter of this incident) must have been making up an extra atrocity to frame Herod as the villain of a heroic origin story]].
** There's also the theory that it was recorded at the time, but as time went by and records were lost, it wasn't considered important enough to remember, again because of all the horrendous crimes Herod committed. For killing wives and sons and anyone ''important'', he regularly wrote to Emperor Augustus in Rome asking permission. For killing anybody else, he could mostly just put it down to a "police action" in his ''Acta'', assuming he bothered to record it at all.

to:

* This is a theory behind why secular historians (such as Josephus) did not mention [[Literature/TheBible the Bethlehem Massacre]] -- Herod the Great was such a deadly monarch that to record every minor massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls. (He massacred numerous members of his own family, for Heaven's sake! Regularly!) This is typically how Christian scholars respond a common response to skeptical scholars and hostile historians' [[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument_from_Silence argument from silence]] the idea that since the secular historian Flavius Josephus (born thirty years later and writing more than ''seventy'' years after the alleged incident) makes no mention of it in his otherwise meticulous records of Herod's (mis)rule, [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie the Apostle massacre was either a legend or that Matthew (lone reporter of this incident) must have been making [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie made it up to discredit Herod]] and provide an extra atrocity to frame Herod as the villain of a heroic origin story]].
story to Jesus that was like Moses and other figures'.
** There's also the theory that it was recorded at the time, but as time went by and records were lost, it wasn't considered important enough to remember, again because of all the horrendous crimes Herod committed. For killing wives and sons and of anyone ''important'', he regularly wrote to Emperor Augustus in Rome asking permission. For killing anybody else, he could mostly just put it down to a "police action" in his ''Acta'', assuming he bothered to record it at all.
10th Mar '16 10:38:21 PM Nakuyabi
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This is a theory behind why secular historians (such as Josephus) did not mention [[Literature/TheBible the Bethlehem Massacre]] -- Herod the Great was such a deadly monarch that to record every minor massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls. (He even killed members of his own family, for Heaven's sake! Repeatedly!) This is probably the best counter-argument to the charge by Herod's defenders that [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie the Apostle Matthew made the story up to discredit Herod]].

to:

* This is a theory behind why secular historians (such as Josephus) did not mention [[Literature/TheBible the Bethlehem Massacre]] -- Herod the Great was such a deadly monarch that to record every minor massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls. (He even killed massacred numerous members of his own family, for Heaven's sake! Repeatedly!) Regularly!) This is probably typically how Christian scholars respond to skeptical scholars and hostile historians' [[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument_from_Silence argument from silence]] that since the best counter-argument to secular historian Flavius Josephus (born thirty years later and writing more than ''seventy'' years after the charge by alleged incident) makes no mention of it in his otherwise meticulous records of Herod's defenders that (mis)rule, [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie the Apostle Matthew made (lone reporter of this incident) must have been making up an extra atrocity to frame Herod as the story up to discredit Herod]].villain of a heroic origin story]].



*** To give some further perspective on that: the year Herod the Great may very well have perpetrated the massacre, ca. 4 B.C., was also the year he immolated 2 religious teachers and about 40 youths over a religious conflagration that flared up in Jerusalem, and executed his son Antipater II. It was also the year he died, after which his son Herod Archelaus took control of Bethlehem and the surrounding area. Archelaus, for his part, began his reign with the massacre of an estimated 3,000 Israelites ([[FridgeLogic possibly including some of the witnesses of the Nativity and subsequent Wise Men's visit]]) for opposing his ascension. In view of these atrocities, the overnight slaughter of a few babies in Bethlehem (the most reliable estimates range from a mere 4 to no more than 20 babies) could easily have gotten lost in the shuffle.
*** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures' origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned except in the Gospel of Matthew.

to:

*** To give some further perspective on that: the year Herod the Great may very well have perpetrated the massacre, ca. 4 B.C., was also the year he immolated 2 religious teachers and about 40 youths over a religious conflagration that flared up in Jerusalem, and executed his son Antipater II. It was also the year he died, after which his son Herod Archelaus Archaleus took control of Bethlehem and the surrounding area. Archelaus, Archaleus, for his part, began his reign with the massacre of an estimated 3,000 Israelites ([[FridgeLogic possibly including some of the witnesses of the Nativity and subsequent Wise Men's visit]]) for opposing his ascension. In view of these atrocities, the overnight slaughter of a few babies in Bethlehem (the most reliable estimates range from a mere 4 to no more than 20 babies) could easily have gotten lost in the shuffle.
*** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures' origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned except in the Gospel of Matthew.
shuffle.
26th Feb '16 9:20:05 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures' origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned except in the Gospel of Matthew.
24th Feb '16 12:51:15 PM Nakuyabi
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This is a theory behind why secular historians did not mention [[Literature/TheBible the Bethlehem Massacre]] -- Herod the Great was such a monster that to record every massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls. (He even killed members of his own family, for Heaven's sake! Repeatedly!) This is probably the best counter-argument to the charge by Herod's defenders that [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie St. Matthew made the story up to discredit Herod]].
** There's also the theory that it was recorded at the time, but as time went by and records were lost, it wasn't considered important enough to remember, again because of all the horrendous crimes Herod committed.
*** To give some further perspective on that: the year Herod the Great may very well have perpetrated the massacre, ca. 4 B.C., was also the year he immolated 2 religious teachers and about 40 youths over a religious conflagration that flared up in Jerusalem, and executed his son Antipater II. It was also the year he died, after which his son Herod Archelaus took control of Bethlehem and the surrounding area. Archelaus, for his part, began his reign with the massacre of an estimated 3,000 Israelites for opposing his ascension. In view of these atrocities, the overnight slaughter of a few babies in Bethlehem (the most reliable estimates range from about 4 to 20 babies) could easily have gotten lost in the shuffle. Naturally, scholars tend to assume it was all these massacres which were eventually distorted into the Bethlehem Massacre.
** Furthermore, Bethlehem was a small rural town, and might not even have had all that many families with children that young in the first place.
** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures' origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned except in the Gospel of Matthew.
* The Romans crucified hundreds of people per year. Crucifixions were used for pirates, rebellious slaves, and enemies of the state. So to them [[{{UsefulNotes/Christianity}} Jesus's death was just another one]].

to:

* This is a theory behind why secular historians (such as Josephus) did not mention [[Literature/TheBible the Bethlehem Massacre]] -- Herod the Great was such a monster deadly monarch that to record every minor massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls. (He even killed members of his own family, for Heaven's sake! Repeatedly!) This is probably the best counter-argument to the charge by Herod's defenders that [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie St. the Apostle Matthew made the story up to discredit Herod]].
** There's also the theory that it was recorded at the time, but as time went by and records were lost, it wasn't considered important enough to remember, again because of all the horrendous crimes Herod committed.
committed. For killing wives and sons and anyone ''important'', he regularly wrote to Emperor Augustus in Rome asking permission. For killing anybody else, he could mostly just put it down to a "police action" in his ''Acta'', assuming he bothered to record it at all.
*** To give some further perspective on that: the year Herod the Great may very well have perpetrated the massacre, ca. 4 B.C., was also the year he immolated 2 religious teachers and about 40 youths over a religious conflagration that flared up in Jerusalem, and executed his son Antipater II. It was also the year he died, after which his son Herod Archelaus took control of Bethlehem and the surrounding area. Archelaus, for his part, began his reign with the massacre of an estimated 3,000 Israelites ([[FridgeLogic possibly including some of the witnesses of the Nativity and subsequent Wise Men's visit]]) for opposing his ascension. In view of these atrocities, the overnight slaughter of a few babies in Bethlehem (the most reliable estimates range from about a mere 4 to no more than 20 babies) could easily have gotten lost in the shuffle. Naturally, scholars tend to assume it was all these massacres which were eventually distorted into the Bethlehem Massacre.
** Furthermore, Bethlehem was a small rural town, and might not even have had all that many families with children that young in the first place.
** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures' origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned except in the Gospel of Matthew.
shuffle.
* The Romans crucified hundreds of people per year. Crucifixions were used Crucifixion was basically the death penalty for pirates, rebellious slaves, and enemies of the state. ''any'' capital criminal who wasn't a Roman citizen. So to them Rome, [[{{UsefulNotes/Christianity}} Jesus's death was just another one]].
25th Jan '16 2:20:27 PM margdean56
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures' origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned expect in the Gospel of Matthew.

to:

** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures' origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned expect except in the Gospel of Matthew.
27th Dec '15 9:37:33 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned expect in the Gospel of Matthew.

to:

** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures figures' origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned expect in the Gospel of Matthew.
22nd Oct '15 4:56:13 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** The historian Josephus, who was born about thirty years later, meticulously documented Herod's misdeeds, but failed to mention this one, however. Most modern historians doubt it really happened, since it's very much like a lot of heroic figures origin stories (yes, even then) and isn't mentioned expect in the Gospel of Matthew.
13th Mar '15 1:58:57 PM Bezy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Romans crucified hundreds of people per year. Crucifixions were used for pirates, slaves, and enemies of the state. So to them [[{{UsefulNotes/Christianity}} Jesus's death was just another one]].

to:

* The Romans crucified hundreds of people per year. Crucifixions were used for pirates, rebellious slaves, and enemies of the state. So to them [[{{UsefulNotes/Christianity}} Jesus's death was just another one]].
17th Sep '14 1:56:24 PM SSJMagus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This is a theory behind why secular historians did not mention [[Literature/TheBible the Bethlehem Massacre]] -- Herod the Great was such a monster that to record every massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls. (He even killed members of his own family, for Heaven's sake!) This is probably the best counter-argument to the charge by Herod's defenders that [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie St. Matthew made the story up to discredit Herod]].

to:

* This is a theory behind why secular historians did not mention [[Literature/TheBible the Bethlehem Massacre]] -- Herod the Great was such a monster that to record every massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls. (He even killed members of his own family, for Heaven's sake!) sake! Repeatedly!) This is probably the best counter-argument to the charge by Herod's defenders that [[BasedOnAGreatBigLie St. Matthew made the story up to discredit Herod]].
This list shows the last 10 events of 15. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=ButForMeItWasTuesday.ReligionAndMythology