Wednesday, December 24, 2025
Does the behavior of the figures involved in Matthew 2 make sense?
I've seen some recent skeptical videos that repeat the common objection that the behavior of the people involved in Matthew 2 doesn't make sense (God's behavior, the behavior of Herod, the behavior of the magi, etc.). We've addressed those issues many times over the years, and I want to gather some of those responses in one place. Here are five posts I've written that address the topic to one extent or another: one, two, three, four, and five. And here's one Steve Hays wrote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the videos I had in mind is this one Richard Carrier recently did with Modern Atheism. Go here for the beginning of the section on the Slaughter of the Innocents. I address many of the issues Richard brings up in my article on the Slaughter here.
ReplyDeleteHerod did have the sort of reputation Richard says he would have had if he'd been involved in an event like the Slaughter. The Assumption Of Moses, an early Jewish source, refers to Herod as somebody who slayed both the old and the young and shortly after compares what he did to what the Egyptians did to the Jewish people. One of the things that brings to mind is the attempt to execute the Jewish boys in Exodus 1. Geza Vermes, a non-Christian scholar who was highly critical of the infancy narratives, even cited the Assumption Of Moses passage as evidence of an atmosphere in which Matthew's account might have arisen:
"Already, the work known as the Assumption of Moses, which probably originated at the turn of the era, depicts Herod as the king who 'shall slay the old and the young, and shall not spare...And he shall execute judgments on them as the Egyptians executed upon them' (Assumption of Moses, 6)." (The Nativity [New York: Doubleday, 2006], 110)
See my article linked above for a discussion of another non-Christian source, Macrobius, who likewise offers partial corroboration of what Matthew reported.
Richard suggests that Herod could have "run an investigation" to find the child he wanted to execute rather than executing all of the children. Richard goes on to comment that Herod also shouldn't have done what Matthew reports because Herod should have known that Jesus' family could have "run away" with him, as Matthew reports they did. Richard also says that Herod should have done what Matthew reports "sooner rather than later".
ReplyDeleteBut the family only fled because of God's supernatural intervention. Without Divine intervention, Herod would likely have been successful in executing the child. Herod did act "sooner rather than later" by doing what Matthew reports instead of running the kind of investigation Richard suggests. Keep in mind that he'd just been betrayed by the magi. He'd already tried the more restrained approach Richard refers to. That didn't work, and it failed in the context of the magi's interaction with the people of Bethlehem. The magi who had betrayed Herod had just been interacting with the people of Bethlehem, which gave him reason to be suspicious of them. The people of Bethlehem presumably hadn't informed Herod of a visit from some magi who were looking to honor a rival to Herod, which would have given him further reason to be angry with and distrust the people of Bethlehem. If Herod is angry with the people of Bethlehem at that stage, then he's no longer just seeking one child. He's also angry at some other people who are involved. He couldn't retaliate against the magi. He could retaliate against Bethlehem.
We see Herod acting in a somewhat similar manner in other contexts. As I wrote in one of the threads linked in my original post here:
"For example, Pearce refers to how Herod had one of his wives executed on dubious grounds, then regretted the execution shortly after. Was that behavior rational in the sense of being the best course of action Herod could take under those circumstances? No, it's a highly problematic course of action that falls well short of being the best option. Similarly, Herod tried to get people to mourn at the time of his death by having other significant figures executed around the same time. Is that the best way to try to get people to mourn around the time of your death? Is there even much value in having people mourn the death of others when you die? Wouldn't there be a good chance that people would refrain from mourning your death even more, since you did something so evil just before you died (i.e., unjustly arranging the death of those other individuals) and since those who would have mourned for you would have their mourning diverted to the loss of so many other people as well? Herod's behavior on such occasions doesn't rank high on the rationality scale. Yet, such actions by Herod are commonly accepted as historical, including by Pearce. On pages 129-30 of his book, Pearce quotes what Josephus wrote about Herod's behavior during the first instance cited above, when he had one of his wives executed. Josephus refers to how Herod was 'stark mad and leaping out of his bed he ran around the palace in a wild manner'. Pearce's own quote of Josephus goes on to refer to how Herod's jealousy and rage were 'ungovernable' and how Herod changed his mind about executing his wife 'as soon as his passion was over'. Then Josephus refers to how Herod 'could not think she was dead but he would appear under his disorders to speak to her as if she were still alive'. Doesn't sound very rational to me."
Notice the language of Matthew 2:16: "when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged". He was still seeking the child he had been after. But he was angry about more than that.
ReplyDelete