How was Herod able to kill the male children?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chuckd

Puritan Board Junior
Matt. 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.

Judea was not yet a province of the Roman Empire, but a client state. I'm still trying to understand how he had the power to do this. Who would have carried out this order? How did the region not completely revolt?
 
Herod was the Judaized Idumaean king of Judaea who had been installed by the Romans as a client ruler following the dismantling of the Hasmonean kingdom. He had authority enough to order massive building projects like the Second Temple or at Caesarea Maritima. I don't think it would have been difficult at all for him to carry out the slaughter of so many children.
 
Herod was the Judaized Idumaean king of Judaea who had been installed by the Romans as a client ruler following the dismantling of the Hasmonean kingdom. He had authority enough to order massive building projects like the Second Temple or at Caesarea Maritima. I don't think it would have been difficult at all for him to carry out the slaughter of so many children.
Maybe I'm not familiar with those times, but I would think the authority to order a building project was different than killing children. Our government can order building projects today, but not kill the children of an entire region. I know the narrative doesn't say, but who would have carried out his order?
 
Maybe I'm not familiar with those times, but I would think the authority to order a building project was different than killing children. Our government can order building projects today, but not kill the children of an entire region. I know the narrative doesn't say, but who would have carried out his order?
Side note, but our government does fund abortions and send out "aid" for the rest of the world to commit abortions. Not sure how helpful it is though to compare their government to our government.
 
Maybe I'm not familiar with those times, but I would think the authority to order a building project was different than killing children. Our government can order building projects today, but not kill the children of an entire region. I know the narrative doesn't say, but who would have carried out his order?
Have you read Josephus? He had free reign over his territory. He was also psychotic and paranoid killing a few of his own children.
 
Maybe I'm not familiar with those times, but I would think the authority to order a building project was different than killing children. Our government can order building projects today, but not kill the children of an entire region. I know the narrative doesn't say, but who would have carried out his order?
Ancient kingship cannot really be compared to modern democracies, which have separation of powers, checks and balances, etc. Herod was not mayor or even president, he was king, established by Roman power and apparently quite free to do as he pleased - so long as he did not step on any Roman toes. Apparently, killing babies was not something the Romans were too bothered about. And if ever Herod did experience any internal problems, he could count on help from his Roman allies.

(As someone else has noted, our governments do carry out infanticide on a scale many times larger than Herod's atrocity, not even attempting to cover it up, but rather promoting it as a good. But that is admittedly a bit off topic, for the reason that I have mentioned - an ancient government is a beast quite different to a modern one.)

King and rulers have always been able to find ruffians to do their dirty work. Herod seemingly had plenty of violent men at his disposal. Perhaps some were Idumaean, but I there were certainly Jews among Herod's loyal servants. We don't know how Herod carried out the massacre of children, but one would assume that local government was somehow involved. I also don't know how Herod's army functioned, but there was likely some form of militia, as well as a personal guard for the king. Since Bethlehem is not far from a power centre (Jerusalem), the suggestion that Herod's military élite carried out the slaughter is not unfeasible.
 
Some historians estimate there may only have been roughly a dozen babies killed in Bethlehem during this due to the population of the city. So this may not have even been widespread news.
 
Judea was not yet a province of the Roman Empire, but a client state. I'm still trying to understand how he had the power to do this. Who would have carried out this order? How did the region not completely revolt?

Herod the Great was a sick, old power-hungry, evil, insanely jealous monster. As I recall, he had several sons killed and I think one wife. But not sure.
An aside. It seems sure that Herod died in 4 BC; therefore, Jesus must have been born in either 5 or 6 BC. Historians, am I correct?
 
Bethlehem never had a population of more than 200 at any time in Biblical history. Many times, the number was substantially less. Therefore, one might speculate that persons qualifying for a near birth date of Jesus would be very insignificant, statistically.

Furthermore, Herod could make a case to his Roman benefactors that he was silencing a potential popular uprising. Who would have carried it out? I suspect the Herodian army.
 
Bethlehem never had a population of more than 200 at any time in Biblical history. Many times, the number was substantially less. Therefore, one might speculate that persons qualifying for a near birth date of Jesus would be very insignificant, statistically.
Some historians estimate there may only have been roughly a dozen babies killed in Bethlehem during this due to the population of the city. So this may not have even been widespread news.
Thanks. I guess this makes it more understandable. What source has this information?
 
Thanks. I guess this makes it more understandable. What source has this information?

According to Wikipedia:

"Some scholars, such as Everett Ferguson, write that the story makes sense in the context of Herod's reign of terror in the last few years of his rule, and the number of infants in Bethlehem that would have been killed – no more than a dozen or so – may have been too insignificant to be recorded by Josephus, who could not be aware of every incident far in the past when he wrote it."
 
ANd this, same Wikipedia article:

"Taking the narrative literally and judging from the estimated population of Bethlehem, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907–12) more soberly suggested that these numbers were inflated, and that probably only between six and twenty children were killed in the town, with a dozen or so more in the surrounding areas."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top