Small point: Matthew and Luke detail the birth of Jesus, but Mark and John don't have it at all. Neither do the Pauline Letters or the Pastorals. There are some indirect allusions to it but nothing in detail in the later letters and books. Obviously, he was born
For me, it does not fit the motifs of the Gospel of Mark: the immediacy of the Kingdom, or the secrecy of the ministry. Besides, I do not think Mark had a nativity source available to him like Matthew and Luke. For Mark, the beginning of Jesus ministry was at the baptism of John. After that, hold on to your seats. Like the Acts of the Apostles, I also think the Gospel of Mark is intentionally an unfinished work. We are still experiencing the resurrection life of Jesus.
I think the better question is why did Matthew and Luke felt compelled to have the nativity story in their books? Because questions were being raised as to who was Jesus. sire?
The focus of Matthew's nativity is almost entirely aristocratic.
I don't completely agree. The focus is on Jesus as the New Moses and Herod as the New Pharoah. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that the scenes that don't focus on Joseph and Jesus are set in Herod's Palace.
I was always taught that the Messiah was supposed to be the new David
It's not his fault if you're reading stuff into it--which is what I'm seeing. Really, you call an ordinary family fleeing on foot through the desert "international travel"? Try "refugees."
In what sane definition of the term does being a refugee mean never crossing an international border?
It's not his fault if you're reading stuff into it--which is what I'm seeing. Really, you call an ordinary family fleeing on foot through the desert "international travel"? Try "refugees."
In what sane definition of the term does being a refugee mean never crossing an international border?
The focus of Matthew's nativity is almost entirely aristocratic.
I don't completely agree. The focus is on Jesus as the New Moses and Herod as the New Pharoah. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that the scenes that don't focus on Joseph and Jesus are set in Herod's Palace.
I was always taught that the Messiah was supposed to be the new David
The Messiah was to be a Greater David - not just king, but priest and prophet. Matthew does appear to be emphasising the Law-giver/Law-interpreter aspect of prophecy, with direct parallels to Moses.
The focus of Matthew's nativity is almost entirely aristocratic.
I don't completely agree. The focus is on Jesus as the New Moses and Herod as the New Pharoah. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that the scenes that don't focus on Joseph and Jesus are set in Herod's Palace.
I was always taught that the Messiah was supposed to be the new David
The Messiah was to be a Greater David - not just king, but priest and prophet. Matthew does appear to be emphasising the Law-giver/Law-interpreter aspect of prophecy, with direct parallels to Moses.
OK but if Matthews gospel was for the Jews, it appears to have failed.
But that's the story Matthew wanted to tell. If you find it overstated, that's his fault.
I think Lamb Chopped's point is that if you said you were thinking of a story consisting of royal intrigues, government assassins, international travel, and visiting mystics with gifts of fabulous luxury goods, your audience would not guess Matthew's version of the nativity unless you really laid the emphasis on the visiting mystics with gifts bit. And even then they might come up with Sleeping Beauty.
I also think you're underestimating the status of the military units assigned such duties. Killing off the regime's enemies, real or imagined, isn't a job you can trust to just anyone. Historically death squads are elite units..
I have no doubt that death squads were elite units, but I can't see elite squads being sent to murder infants. Such murders would require no special skill.
I also think you're underestimating the status of the military units assigned such duties. Killing off the regime's enemies, real or imagined, isn't a job you can trust to just anyone. Historically death squads are elite units..
I have no doubt that death squads were elite units, but I can't see elite squads being sent to murder infants. Such murders would require no special skill.
Anyway, as far as the use of elite units for death squads go, there's a necessity for a certain level of both competence and loyalty. Competence because the task usually involves not just killing the enemies of the state (real or perceived) but also finding them and deploying in such a manner that escape is impossible. (Obviously there was a gap in Herod's deployment, but there's only so much you can do in the face of a superior intelligence operation.) Loyalty because you don't want troops that are willing to take bribes to let their assigned victims escape or who get sick of the process mid-slaughter.
The soldiers in Breughel's painting of the Massacre of the Innocents don't look particularly like elites to me.
The painting depicts fully armored cavalry in tight formation. That's pretty darned elite in any era when people are fighting from horseback, leaving aside the fact that all the details came from Bruegel's imagination.
I don't think the Ku Klux Klan or other lynch mobs had elite training either.
The Klan was formed out of the officer corps of the Confederacy. I'm not sure what definition of "elite training" that fails to meet.
It should also be noted that lynch mobs in the American south would typically murder people who had been taken into custody by the legal authorities, removing them from jails or courthouses to kill. The skill set necessary for executioners is different than that of death squads, though there's obviously some overlap.
The soldiers in Breughel's painting of the Massacre of the Innocents don't look particularly like elites to me.
Was he working from photographic evidence? Or is there a bit of artistic license being layered on guesses about what really went down?
It's at least a mainstream position among art historians that Breughel, working in the Netherlands during the Dutch revolt against the Spanish Empire, had a better idea than most of us of what a death squad looked like.
The soldiers in Breughel's painting of the Massacre of the Innocents don't look particularly like elites to me.
The painting depicts fully armored cavalry in tight formation. That's pretty darned elite in any era when people are fighting from horseback, leaving aside the fact that all the details came from Bruegel's imagination.
The fully armoured cavalry in tight formation are in the background keeping their hands clean, leaving the killing to the largely unarmoured infantry. (Also, cavalry couldn't fight effectively in formation that tight: so they're either not expecting action or they're not trained for action or both.) The people doing the actual killing aren't the fully armoured cavalry but the largely unarmoured infantry.
I don't think the Ku Klux Klan or other lynch mobs had elite training either.
The Klan was formed out of the officer corps of the Confederacy. I'm not sure what definition of "elite training" that fails to meet.
I think you're confusing elite in terms of combat effectiveness with elite in terms of social status.
I am not convinced by your distinction, when it comes to lynch mobs, between death squads and execution squads, especially since I doubt that there was universally a firm distinction between the lynch mob that did the killing and the legal authorities who had taken people into custody.
To introduce another example, there were a lot of death squads killing civilians on the eastern front in World War II. Some were relatively elite: the SS, for example. Others were basically local thugs given bayonets and set on the neighbouring villages.
That presupposes that there has been no change in military strategy or tactics in 1600 years. Knowing all about 17th century Dutch death squads and knowing all about first century Roman death squads are not the same thing.
Knowing all about 17th century Dutch death squads and knowing all about first century Roman death squads are not the same thing.
True. However, in the absence of other evidence I would suppose that Roman-era death squads are more like (pedant) 16th century death squads than they are like death squads in Bond-genre spy fiction.
Knowing all about 17th century Dutch death squads and knowing all about first century Roman death squads are not the same thing.
True. However, in the absence of other evidence I would suppose that Roman-era death squads are more like (pedant) 16th century death squads than they are like death squads in Bond-genre spy fiction.
Matthew is the only Biblical writer that mentions the slaughter of innocents. Could it be a repeat of Pharoh killing all Hebrew male babies mentioned in 1 Exodus 1:22? The only other mention of the slaughter is from the Protoevangelum of James (c150). Josephus does not mention in his Antiquities of the Jews. He does mention that Herod did kill three of his sons, though, so it is possible. However, at the most, only 12 males under 2 would have been killed---although one would have been too much if it did happen.
Given that Infanticide in Roman empire is well-documented, an argument from silence to question Matthew's reliability is rather weak. In fact, the opposite is true.
Archaeological evidence from across the Roman Empire (mass graves of infants) suggests that killing a relatively large number of babies was not a particularly rare event.
When you consider that Bethlehem was an unimportant town in a backwater province of the Empire, it then becomes surprising that any one would bother to record it.
Unless they thought it important for some other reason...
While exposure of unwanted babies was normal, I don't think infanticide of children whom their parents had decided to keep would have been considered acceptable. Bethlehem is actually in one of the best documented parts of the Roman Empire because of Josephus. I'm willing to be convinced that Josephus might have passed over the massacre of the innocents, but I'd need a good deal of convincing.
I think the practice of exposing babies in Ancient Rome has been known of for a while. I think that is rather different from a ‘mass’ killing of infants.
I think the practice of exposing babies in Ancient Rome has been known of for a while. I think that is rather different from a ‘mass’ killing of infants.
Yes and no.
Firstly, a perusal of Google shows multiple links to works suggesting that suffocation was common as well as exposure.
Secondly, whilst it is different, it's not that different. Infants clearly had no legal status throughout the empire.
The painting depicts fully armored cavalry in tight formation. That's pretty darned elite in any era when people are fighting from horseback, leaving aside the fact that all the details came from Bruegel's imagination.
The fully armoured cavalry in tight formation are in the background keeping their hands clean, leaving the killing to the largely unarmoured infantry. (Also, cavalry couldn't fight effectively in formation that tight: so they're either not expecting action or they're not trained for action or both.)
It’s likely that the formation naturally loses some rigidity in that last charging gallop, as stronger horses outpace weaker ones, but that is why the gallop is held until relatively close to contact – the aim is to keep a solid line (that this is ideal resounds from our sources, which talk a lot of serried ranks, tightly packed, saying things like “the wind could not blow between their lances” or how “it was not possible to throw a prune except on mailed and armored men,” quotes from Verbruggen, op. cit.).
Bruegel has depicted a cavalry formation three or four horses deep, which about where it should be by the military doctrine of the time.
I don't think the Ku Klux Klan or other lynch mobs had elite training either.
The Klan was formed out of the officer corps of the Confederacy. I'm not sure what definition of "elite training" that fails to meet.
I think you're confusing elite in terms of combat effectiveness with elite in terms of social status.
Not really. The Confederate officer corps had a lot of West Point graduates. Whatever might also be said about their social status, they had received some of the best military training available in the early-to-mid-19th century U.S. This tactical and logistical training would show up after the war at things like the Colfax Massacre or the Battle of Liberty Place.
While exposure of unwanted babies was normal, I don't think infanticide of children whom their parents had decided to keep would have been considered acceptable. Bethlehem is actually in one of the best documented parts of the Roman Empire because of Josephus. I'm willing to be convinced that Josephus might have passed over the massacre of the innocents, but I'd need a good deal of convincing.
Matthew is the only Biblical writer that mentions the slaughter of innocents. Could it be a repeat of Pharoh killing all Hebrew male babies mentioned in 1 Exodus 1:22?
I think that there is very definitely intended to be a parallel between them. The first Moses is saved from a slaughter of male babies and the same thing happens for the second (and greater) Moses.
Just because it's a theological parallel does not mean it's factual as well...
Anyway: what was the population of Bethlehem at the time? How many infant murders?
Once again, I suspect the answer being a small number would suggest it would be an event not likely to be thought newsworthy by contemporary historians...
It was my understanding that cavalry fighting was made possible by the introduction of the stirrup, which dates to about the 6th century CE (in Europe).
Just because it's a theological parallel does not mean it's factual as well...
In and of itself, the massacre of infants might not be so out of the ordinary that it wouldn't be reported (although given the geographical location and political context of the time, it might be thought remarkable that there were no other contemporary reports. The Jewish people under the Romans were renowned for easily taking offence - slaughtering infants in the City of David would be an obvious reason to take offence).
But when you add in all the other elements of the Matthew's nativity story, it all starts to stretch credulity as a factual event. In some ways, the massacre of infants is the easiest to take as factual.
It was my understanding that cavalry fighting was made possible by the introduction of the stirrup, which dates to about the 6th century CE (in Europe).
This is an exaggeration: there are heavy cavalry in the classical world, most notably in Alexander the Great's army. Cavalry without stirrups is not as powerful but still effective.
Bruegel has depicted a cavalry formation three or four horses deep, which about where it should be by the military doctrine of the time.
I think you're misreading Devereux. While he says heavy cavalry aims to ride in tight lines, he says tight and deep is to be avoided: maybe three to four lines, though two is more likely, and spaced, more so if there are more lines. (What he says in other articles on cavalry charge you want to avoid is a horse in the first line going down under missile fire and the horse behind not having time or space to swerve because then the horses behind also go down.) Tightly spaced or deep, pick one.
Regardless, for present purposes the main point is that the tightly spaced cavalry are keeping their hands clean and not doing the killing themselves.
The Confederate officer corps had a lot of West Point graduates. Whatever might also be said about their social status, they had received some of the best military training available in the early-to-mid-19th century U.S.
As I understand it, training an officer corps in tactics and logistics, so each officer is able to lead units effectively in battle, is not the same as training a unit to work together effectively. An elite unit is not the same as a unit composed of officers.
I think the practice of exposing babies in Ancient Rome has been known of for a while. I think that is rather different from a ‘mass’ killing of infants.
Yes and no.
Firstly, a perusal of Google shows multiple links to works suggesting that suffocation was common as well as exposure.
Secondly, whilst it is different, it's not that different. Infants clearly had no legal status throughout the empire.
And particularly those of the subject peoples in a remote and troublesome part of the empire
Anyway: what was the population of Bethlehem at the time? How many infant murders?
I have seen the estimate that approximately twenty male babies were killed. I don't remember the source and I have no way of knowing how accurate it was.
It was my understanding that cavalry fighting was made possible by the introduction of the stirrup, which dates to about the 6th century CE (in Europe).
Shock cavalry in Europe dates to the 4th century BCE. The stirrup was definitely a quantum leap in the effectiveness of such troops though.
The size of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was around 300. I believe there may have been 12 male children under the age of two at the time of Harod's purported slaughter of innocents.
There is no reference in Matthew to Mary and Joseph travelling from Nazareth so it is reasonable to assume that they already lived in Bethlehem. Matthew infers that they only later went to Nazareth because Galilee was safer than Judea.
Luke mentions Joseph in Luke 1:27 to say that Mary and Joseph are betrothed. Luke puts Mary in Nazareth for the Annunciation and then she travels to Judah to see Elizabeth. Joseph doesn't feature again until Luke 2:4 when Joseph is described as travelling to Galilee from Nazareth, travelling to Bethlehem where he enrolled with Mary.
Matthew starts with "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together ..." in 1:18. Joseph has his dream and agrees not to put Mary aside as this is God's son, with no places given at all. Jesus is then born in Bethlehem at the beginning of Matthew 2.
We wondered if Joseph lived in Bethlehem and was betrothed to Mary in Nazareth? And he travelled to collect Mary to bring her to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus (and the registration of his household)?
Luke mentions Joseph in Luke 1:27 to say that Mary and Joseph are betrothed. Luke puts Mary in Nazareth for the Annunciation and then she travels to Judah to see Elizabeth. Joseph doesn't feature again until Luke 2:4 when Joseph is described as travelling to Galilee from Nazareth, travelling to Bethlehem where he enrolled with Mary.
Matthew starts with "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together ..." in 1:18. Joseph has his dream and agrees not to put Mary aside as this is God's son, with no places given at all. Jesus is then born in Bethlehem at the beginning of Matthew 2.
We wondered if Joseph lived in Bethlehem and was betrothed to Mary in Nazareth? And he travelled to collect Mary to bring her to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus (and the registration of his household)?
I see no point in making assumptions. If Mary came from Nazareth, it would have said so.
There is no reference in Matthew to Mary and Joseph travelling from Nazareth so it is reasonable to assume that they already lived in Bethlehem. Matthew infers that they only later went to Nazareth because Galilee was safer than Judea.
Who to believe Mathew? Luke or neither of them ?
This is such a poor argument. The logic failure creates a contradiction where none exists.
Of course, it's reasonable to infer from Matthew that Mary and Joseph were residing in Bethlehem and had never been to Nazareth before. However, that is your inference (in absolutely the correct usage of that word). Matthew is completely silent on this point. It is entirely reasonable to make several different assumptions. None of which can be weighed against the other in the absence of other information. Matthew simply says "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem..." Nothing more, nothing less.
I, for example, might infer that Joseph and Mary were not residing in Bethlehem, because Matthew describes the relationship between the two and Joseph's not unreasonable concerns once he found out his fiance was pregnant. He only then mentions the place of birth - i.e. it's not where he expected them to be - in the next section. Now, of course, that's not a firm conclusion.
Conversely, the fact that Matthew says nothing about location apart from where Jesus was actually born; may be taken to imply where Jesus' parents were living prior to his birth. But that's not a firm conclusion either. Matthew is simply silent on this point. The idea that Matthew and Luke are in conflict because Matthew doesn't tell one part of the narrative that Luke does is just silly. Unless, of course, the narratives they tell contain aspects that are mutually exclusive. Which is why Luke's dating to Quirinius and Matthew's to Herod is problematic as there seems to be evidence that makes these two sets of dates incompatible.
Similarly, @Curiosity killed has outlined an interesting idea of what the back-story might be. But whether this is spot-on or nowhere near the truth, there remains no contradiction between Matthew and Luke here.
There simply is no conflict here. Matthew says Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem and they then travelled to Nazareth where Jesus grew up. Luke says Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem and they then travelled to Nazareth where Jesus grew up.
Here's a silly example:
In 2004 I flew to South Africa, where I spent 6 weeks on elective (I was a medical student at the time).
The above statement is 100% accurate. I think you've read enough of my posts to know that I live in the UK. It would not be unreasonable for you to infer from the above statement that I flew from one of the UK airports to South Africa.
But I didn't. How about if you only knew this bit of the story:
In 2004 I went to Ghana for 5 weeks. Without further information, you'd have no reason not to think that I went from the UK to Ghana and back again.
The truth is that I went from the UK to Ghana and subsequently from Ghana to SA and then from the SA back to the UK.
The size of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was around 300. I believe there may have been 12 male children under the age of two at the time of Harod's purported slaughter of innocents.
Yeah, I think this is about right too. So, Josephus' silence on this point is perhaps surprising and worthy of discussion, I think. But why would anyone else be interested in the local puppet king killing a dozen babies (who had no right to live)? Please do not misunderstand me here: I do not need to be convinced that the killing of babies was abhorrent. But to many contemporary minds, it would not even be worth mentioning. Thus the silence of other witnesses on this point is not surprising. Moreover, we do not know that there wasn't recording by other witnesses. So little survives from the pre-paper era. There are so many famous classical works that we simply don't have: Aristotle's dialogues don't still exist and Euripides is said to have written 90 plays, of which we have 19. So the lack of other evidence for Herod's murder of innocents, whilst disappointing as independent corroboration is always nice to have, it is not strong evidence that Matthew was wrong. In fact, it's almost no evidence at all.
There is no reference in Matthew to Mary and Joseph travelling from Nazareth so it is reasonable to assume that they already lived in Bethlehem. Matthew infers that they only later went to Nazareth because Galilee was safer than Judea.
Who to believe Mathew? Luke or neither of them ?
This is such a poor argument. The logic failure creates a contradiction where none exists.
Of course, it's reasonable to infer from Matthew that Mary and Joseph were residing in Bethlehem and had never been to Nazareth before. However, that is your inference (in absolutely the correct usage of that word). Matthew is completely silent on this point. It is entirely reasonable to make several different assumptions. None of which can be weighed against the other in the absence of other information. Matthew simply says "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem..." Nothing more, nothing less.
I, for example, might infer that Joseph and Mary were not residing in Bethlehem, because Matthew describes the relationship between the two and Joseph's not unreasonable concerns once he found out his fiance was pregnant. He only then mentions the place of birth - i.e. it's not where he expected them to be - in the next section. Now, of course, that's not a firm conclusion.
Conversely, the fact that Matthew says nothing about location apart from where Jesus was actually born; may be taken to imply where Jesus' parents were living prior to his birth. But that's not a firm conclusion either. Matthew is simply silent on this point. The idea that Matthew and Luke are in conflict because Matthew doesn't tell one part of the narrative that Luke does is just silly. Unless, of course, the narratives they tell contain aspects that are mutually exclusive. Which is why Luke's dating to Quirinius and Matthew's to Herod is problematic as there seems to be evidence that makes these two sets of dates incompatible.
Similarly, @Curiosity killed has outlined an interesting idea of what the back-story might be. But whether this is spot-on or nowhere near the truth, there remains no contradiction between Matthew and Luke here.
There simply is no conflict here. Matthew says Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem and they then travelled to Nazareth where Jesus grew up. Luke says Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem and they then travelled to Nazareth where Jesus grew up.
Luke Chapter 1
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke appears to know about the visit of shepherds but not the Magi. He doesn't appear to know that Jesus spent time in Egypt. Not exactly an orderly account
Now, why would Joseph and family settle in Nazareth in the first place? It is within reasonable walking distance to Capernaum, the seat of the Roman Province. He likely was a carpenter plying his trade there.
@Gramps49, presumably Luke is correct in placing Mary in Nazareth to start with, which suggests Mary has family there. Bethlehem, where Joseph's family originated, is now too hot following the visits of the Magi and Herod's death squads, so where else to go for family support than to live near Mary's family?
@Telford I'm sure Luke collected ample material for his telling of the life of Jesus, and like biographers and historians now, selected the stories and anecdotes to tell us what he thought his readers needed to know to understand his message. In the case of Luke, he compares and contrasts Jesus's claims to be the son of God to those of the ruling Roman emperors, who also made that claim, and includes information to bolster that case. Matthew is choosing different information as he is comparing Jesus to Moses in his gospel. Both those overarching themes are pretty widely recognised, but a readable book discussing this further is Borg and Crossan's The First Christmas.
@Telford I'm sure Luke collected ample material for his telling of the life of Jesus, and like biographers and historians now, selected the stories and anecdotes to tell us what he thought his readers needed to know to understand his message. In the case of Luke, he compares and contrasts Jesus's claims to be the son of God to those of the ruling Roman emperors, who also made that claim, and includes information to bolster that case. Matthew is choosing different information as he is comparing Jesus to Moses in his gospel. Both those overarching themes are pretty widely recognised, but a readable book discussing this further is Borg and Crossan's The First Christmas.
So luke ignored the Magi story and the flight to Egypt and the killing of the children or he didn't know about them even though he says " I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you"
Are you trying to say that Luke's account cannot be 'orderly' because it is not comprehensive?
I'm sure a Greek scholar Shipmate can confirm the actual word here but I know a little about Biblical translation and I suspect they use the word 'orderly' very deliberately. It is not a common word but it does have a precise meaning. And it does not mean comprehensive. It does not imply that absolutely nothing has been left out. I've just flicked through half a dozen English translations and none of them render it as anything close to 'comprehensive.' It could mean in order which I might take to mean chronological (which Mark almost certainly isn't). It could mean 'organised.'
The context here, in the early church is that there must have been lots of circulating oral stories about the life of Jesus. If you think about it, we do that too. We tell each other stories of Jesus all the time; things Jesus said and did. Luke is just laying this out in an orderly way for Theophilus. Verse 2 is literally telling us that Luke is drawing together what was already known in the early church.
Once again, it's a big leap from what Luke says here to suggesting Luke is claiming to be a comprehensive account and thus he is necessarily in conflict with Matthew. Conversely, it is entirely typical for different authors with different over-arching themes to emphasise different things.
Arguing conflict from absence when the author intent is not to write a biography but a Gospel is always going to be a weak argument.
ISTM that the only way one would arrive at the smooshed-together nativity story told in Sunday School is by starting from a literalist assumption of how one must read the scriptures. Each story, by itself, is clear and cogent. However, when forced to tell the same story, they become neither -- at least to me. I am not in general a great fan of Borg, but I agree with his characterization of the two birth narratives as being something like the overture to an opera -- they introduce the main themes of each author. As literary devices, the birth narratives make a lot of sense. As history, they are filled with problems that impede getting to the real point of the Gospels.
As literary devices, the birth narratives make a lot of sense. As history, they are filled with problems that impede getting to the real point of the Gospels.
Comments
For me, it does not fit the motifs of the Gospel of Mark: the immediacy of the Kingdom, or the secrecy of the ministry. Besides, I do not think Mark had a nativity source available to him like Matthew and Luke. For Mark, the beginning of Jesus ministry was at the baptism of John. After that, hold on to your seats. Like the Acts of the Apostles, I also think the Gospel of Mark is intentionally an unfinished work. We are still experiencing the resurrection life of Jesus.
I think the better question is why did Matthew and Luke felt compelled to have the nativity story in their books? Because questions were being raised as to who was Jesus. sire?
This is so disingenuous.
Rwanda, Kosovo or the Warsaw Ghetto from the last century, South Sudan in this.
OK but if Matthews gospel was for the Jews, it appears to have failed.
I have no doubt that death squads were elite units, but I can't see elite squads being sent to murder infants. Such murders would require no special skill.
That was me, not @Lamb Chopped.
Anyway, as far as the use of elite units for death squads go, there's a necessity for a certain level of both competence and loyalty. Competence because the task usually involves not just killing the enemies of the state (real or perceived) but also finding them and deploying in such a manner that escape is impossible. (Obviously there was a gap in Herod's deployment, but there's only so much you can do in the face of a superior intelligence operation.) Loyalty because you don't want troops that are willing to take bribes to let their assigned victims escape or who get sick of the process mid-slaughter.
Sorry
I don't think the Ku Klux Klan or other lynch mobs had elite training either.
The painting depicts fully armored cavalry in tight formation. That's pretty darned elite in any era when people are fighting from horseback, leaving aside the fact that all the details came from Bruegel's imagination.
The Klan was formed out of the officer corps of the Confederacy. I'm not sure what definition of "elite training" that fails to meet.
It should also be noted that lynch mobs in the American south would typically murder people who had been taken into custody by the legal authorities, removing them from jails or courthouses to kill. The skill set necessary for executioners is different than that of death squads, though there's obviously some overlap.
Was he working from photographic evidence? Or is there a bit of artistic license being layered on guesses about what really went down?
I think you're confusing elite in terms of combat effectiveness with elite in terms of social status.
I am not convinced by your distinction, when it comes to lynch mobs, between death squads and execution squads, especially since I doubt that there was universally a firm distinction between the lynch mob that did the killing and the legal authorities who had taken people into custody.
To introduce another example, there were a lot of death squads killing civilians on the eastern front in World War II. Some were relatively elite: the SS, for example. Others were basically local thugs given bayonets and set on the neighbouring villages.
Well, yeah.
Archaeological evidence from across the Roman Empire (mass graves of infants) suggests that killing a relatively large number of babies was not a particularly rare event.
When you consider that Bethlehem was an unimportant town in a backwater province of the Empire, it then becomes surprising that any one would bother to record it.
Unless they thought it important for some other reason...
AFZ
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42911813
Yes and no.
Firstly, a perusal of Google shows multiple links to works suggesting that suffocation was common as well as exposure.
Secondly, whilst it is different, it's not that different. Infants clearly had no legal status throughout the empire.
Au contraire! The tightness of heavy cavalry formations during combat is attested by virtually all contemporary sources dealing with the subject.
Bruegel has depicted a cavalry formation three or four horses deep, which about where it should be by the military doctrine of the time.
Not really. The Confederate officer corps had a lot of West Point graduates. Whatever might also be said about their social status, they had received some of the best military training available in the early-to-mid-19th century U.S. This tactical and logistical training would show up after the war at things like the Colfax Massacre or the Battle of Liberty Place.
That's my feeling too.
I think that there is very definitely intended to be a parallel between them. The first Moses is saved from a slaughter of male babies and the same thing happens for the second (and greater) Moses.
Anyway: what was the population of Bethlehem at the time? How many infant murders?
Once again, I suspect the answer being a small number would suggest it would be an event not likely to be thought newsworthy by contemporary historians...
In and of itself, the massacre of infants might not be so out of the ordinary that it wouldn't be reported (although given the geographical location and political context of the time, it might be thought remarkable that there were no other contemporary reports. The Jewish people under the Romans were renowned for easily taking offence - slaughtering infants in the City of David would be an obvious reason to take offence).
But when you add in all the other elements of the Matthew's nativity story, it all starts to stretch credulity as a factual event. In some ways, the massacre of infants is the easiest to take as factual.
Regardless, for present purposes the main point is that the tightly spaced cavalry are keeping their hands clean and not doing the killing themselves.
As I understand it, training an officer corps in tactics and logistics, so each officer is able to lead units effectively in battle, is not the same as training a unit to work together effectively. An elite unit is not the same as a unit composed of officers.
And particularly those of the subject peoples in a remote and troublesome part of the empire
I have seen the estimate that approximately twenty male babies were killed. I don't remember the source and I have no way of knowing how accurate it was.
Shock cavalry in Europe dates to the 4th century BCE. The stirrup was definitely a quantum leap in the effectiveness of such troops though.
Who to believe Mathew? Luke or neither of them ?
Luke mentions Joseph in Luke 1:27 to say that Mary and Joseph are betrothed. Luke puts Mary in Nazareth for the Annunciation and then she travels to Judah to see Elizabeth. Joseph doesn't feature again until Luke 2:4 when Joseph is described as travelling to Galilee from Nazareth, travelling to Bethlehem where he enrolled with Mary.
Matthew starts with "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together ..." in 1:18. Joseph has his dream and agrees not to put Mary aside as this is God's son, with no places given at all. Jesus is then born in Bethlehem at the beginning of Matthew 2.
We wondered if Joseph lived in Bethlehem and was betrothed to Mary in Nazareth? And he travelled to collect Mary to bring her to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus (and the registration of his household)?
I see no point in making assumptions. If Mary came from Nazareth, it would have said so.
This is such a poor argument. The logic failure creates a contradiction where none exists.
Of course, it's reasonable to infer from Matthew that Mary and Joseph were residing in Bethlehem and had never been to Nazareth before. However, that is your inference (in absolutely the correct usage of that word). Matthew is completely silent on this point. It is entirely reasonable to make several different assumptions. None of which can be weighed against the other in the absence of other information. Matthew simply says "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem..." Nothing more, nothing less.
I, for example, might infer that Joseph and Mary were not residing in Bethlehem, because Matthew describes the relationship between the two and Joseph's not unreasonable concerns once he found out his fiance was pregnant. He only then mentions the place of birth - i.e. it's not where he expected them to be - in the next section. Now, of course, that's not a firm conclusion.
Conversely, the fact that Matthew says nothing about location apart from where Jesus was actually born; may be taken to imply where Jesus' parents were living prior to his birth. But that's not a firm conclusion either. Matthew is simply silent on this point. The idea that Matthew and Luke are in conflict because Matthew doesn't tell one part of the narrative that Luke does is just silly. Unless, of course, the narratives they tell contain aspects that are mutually exclusive. Which is why Luke's dating to Quirinius and Matthew's to Herod is problematic as there seems to be evidence that makes these two sets of dates incompatible.
Similarly, @Curiosity killed has outlined an interesting idea of what the back-story might be. But whether this is spot-on or nowhere near the truth, there remains no contradiction between Matthew and Luke here.
There simply is no conflict here. Matthew says Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem and they then travelled to Nazareth where Jesus grew up. Luke says Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem and they then travelled to Nazareth where Jesus grew up.
Here's a silly example:
In 2004 I flew to South Africa, where I spent 6 weeks on elective (I was a medical student at the time).
The above statement is 100% accurate. I think you've read enough of my posts to know that I live in the UK. It would not be unreasonable for you to infer from the above statement that I flew from one of the UK airports to South Africa.
But I didn't. How about if you only knew this bit of the story:
In 2004 I went to Ghana for 5 weeks. Without further information, you'd have no reason not to think that I went from the UK to Ghana and back again.
The truth is that I went from the UK to Ghana and subsequently from Ghana to SA and then from the SA back to the UK.
Anyway, enough of the travels of AFZ (for now).
A little bit of cross-posting here but or to paraphrase very slightly:
======================
Yeah, I think this is about right too. So, Josephus' silence on this point is perhaps surprising and worthy of discussion, I think. But why would anyone else be interested in the local puppet king killing a dozen babies (who had no right to live)? Please do not misunderstand me here: I do not need to be convinced that the killing of babies was abhorrent. But to many contemporary minds, it would not even be worth mentioning. Thus the silence of other witnesses on this point is not surprising. Moreover, we do not know that there wasn't recording by other witnesses. So little survives from the pre-paper era. There are so many famous classical works that we simply don't have: Aristotle's dialogues don't still exist and Euripides is said to have written 90 plays, of which we have 19. So the lack of other evidence for Herod's murder of innocents, whilst disappointing as independent corroboration is always nice to have, it is not strong evidence that Matthew was wrong. In fact, it's almost no evidence at all.
AFZ
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke appears to know about the visit of shepherds but not the Magi. He doesn't appear to know that Jesus spent time in Egypt. Not exactly an orderly account
@Telford I'm sure Luke collected ample material for his telling of the life of Jesus, and like biographers and historians now, selected the stories and anecdotes to tell us what he thought his readers needed to know to understand his message. In the case of Luke, he compares and contrasts Jesus's claims to be the son of God to those of the ruling Roman emperors, who also made that claim, and includes information to bolster that case. Matthew is choosing different information as he is comparing Jesus to Moses in his gospel. Both those overarching themes are pretty widely recognised, but a readable book discussing this further is Borg and Crossan's The First Christmas.
So luke ignored the Magi story and the flight to Egypt and the killing of the children or he didn't know about them even though he says " I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you"
I'm sure a Greek scholar Shipmate can confirm the actual word here but I know a little about Biblical translation and I suspect they use the word 'orderly' very deliberately. It is not a common word but it does have a precise meaning. And it does not mean comprehensive. It does not imply that absolutely nothing has been left out. I've just flicked through half a dozen English translations and none of them render it as anything close to 'comprehensive.' It could mean in order which I might take to mean chronological (which Mark almost certainly isn't). It could mean 'organised.'
The context here, in the early church is that there must have been lots of circulating oral stories about the life of Jesus. If you think about it, we do that too. We tell each other stories of Jesus all the time; things Jesus said and did. Luke is just laying this out in an orderly way for Theophilus. Verse 2 is literally telling us that Luke is drawing together what was already known in the early church.
Once again, it's a big leap from what Luke says here to suggesting Luke is claiming to be a comprehensive account and thus he is necessarily in conflict with Matthew. Conversely, it is entirely typical for different authors with different over-arching themes to emphasise different things.
Arguing conflict from absence when the author intent is not to write a biography but a Gospel is always going to be a weak argument.
AFZ
What I'm actually saying is that I don't accept any of the nativity stories.
Absolutely!