My professor told us the Holy Innocents weren’t real?

[Gabrielle]

This has been bugging me for days. I decided to take a religion course for one of my generals this year, and my professor, who is very clear about his being agnostic but a really nice guy either way, told us that the Holy Innnocents never existed. He told us that there is no historical proof that Herod ever called for the killing of these children. He mentioned a historian, I believe Josephus, who was very keen on keeping record of oppression and abuse during that time, and he told us that it made no sense that he would have left something like the murder of the innocents out. I’m not going to say this didn’t shake me a bit so I am hoping someone o here can help me clear this up? I found an explanation that says that maybe the number of the children was rather small and that the news of the slaughter didn’t reach as far because of it. I still feel like I want a more solid answer both for myself and others. Another thing that he mentioned was the sensus that took Our Lord to Bethlehem. According to what my professor said, there are no records of this sensus, which is strange considering that the Romans kept accurate records of everything. His arguments are super solid in class, and honestly I find myself unable to challenge him even to myself.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Hi and welcome to academia LOL.
Being atheist or agnostic does not make somebody a bad guy, but they might have a few biases (just like we all do).
No, at this present time there don’t seem to be any corroborating reports of the murder of the Holy Innocents.
Big whoop.
There aren’t that many surviving manuscripts of any kind from that era. Most documents have been lost or destroyed along the way.
In fact, most of the stuff from that time is gone, too.
About 100 years ago the idea was set forth that the Bible wasn’t an accurate document all by itself. Archeology was in its infancy, and some scholars of a skeptical bent gleefully explained away various persons and events in the Bible as legends and myths.
In the years since then, as archeology became more sophisticated, they are finding that a lot of the things that were formally dismissed as legend actually happened or persons actually existed.
I can’t sit here and show you evidence outside of the Bible that the murder of the innocents happened, but I certainly wouldn’t rule it out, either.
Peace

 

[bobperk]

It can be understandable that neither event was covered by Josephus. First of all, Josephus was born around 37AD and was writing Roman and Jewish history. So it is understandable that he may have been impartial towards some of the less noble things that the Romans did. Also, both the massacre of the Innocents and the census mentioned in Luke took place four decades before Josephus, and could have been minor issues compared to the sweeping breadth of history that Josephus was writing.

A good site you may want to consult is called Tekton apologetics, and you can search for these issues within the website itself. Here is one link that provides an overview of the historical narrative of Christ’s birth: The Nativity Stories Harmonized

You may also want to read Pope Benedict’s book on the details surrounding the birth of Jesus. I can’t remember if he wrote this one before becoming Pope, so it may be under his name of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, but I believe it is called The Infancy Narratives.

I know it is easy to get discouraged upon hearing things like this, especially from a professor. I admit that when I first heard or read them they bothered me too, but they forced me to research and find out the truth behind the stories. And, what your professor is stating is not new…many folks believe that every single detail in the Bible should be corroborated by external sources, but that is not always the case. Furthermore, there is no great reason to trust Josephus over Luke.

Do your research with prayer, do not be discouraged, and reach out to people on here who can help you find resources you need. The Catholic Answers main page should have plenty of resources as well.

 

[BlackFriar]

I don’t think our faith stands or falls on this small issue.
If it did happen it was probably not a big event (maybe a few dozen babies in those villages).
No reason for it to be recorded by Tacitus.

In the end nobody knows.

 

[FiveLinden]

If your faith depends on the literal truth of scripture, and you keep studying, you will have problems. Why bother with literal interpretation when you have other choices?

 

[Gabrielle]

Thanks everyone, I’ll definitely do my research and won’t let this brother me beyond what it has to. I especially like the argument about there being no reason to trust Josephus over Luke. This is great. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not doubting my faith, though I won’t say a little bit of panic didn’t hit me for a few minutes, it’s more a mater of we enter into discussion after lecture and I feel defeated not being able to defend my faith. Everyone in my class just seems ready to agree that the Gospels are false, and honestly, if I used faith as an argument, I have a feeling they won’t take that. So I’m definitely grateful for the links and good points. This will hopefully give me amo for battle lol

 

[KevinK]

How can you ever know what to take literally or not?

 

[Kaninchen]

If you want to understand the ‘holy innocents’ story, Exodus I/II would be the place to start.

 

[ascetic]

As someone else said, Josephus wrote with potential biases, sometimes about events that occurred before he was born. Herod was known for behavior like the slaughter of the innocents, and I have also heard that the number was probably small. Given that Herod was known for such behavior, and that it was small (other than to the families), and Josephus’ potential biases combined with lack of firsthand knowledge, believing in the massacre is not unreasonable. A lot of things happen every day that aren’t written about, even(or especially) in 2018! Perhaps it didn’t fit his narrative…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You’ve gotten some great responses on this thread already, so I would just add/ reiterate that a lack of historical proof of something from 2000 years ago, when written records were scarce and much proof has been destroyed in the course of history, doesn’t necessarily mean that it didn’t happen. It does mean that faith is required to believe it did happen, which an agnostic and/or someone approaching it from a pure historical perspective is not going to have.

Also, while it’s great that you want to defend your faith, don’t feel bad if this is just not a good arena for you to do that. It sounds like a lot of people are coming into this class with a preconceived bias and also, it is not really a faith-based class, so you could likely make wonderful arguments that would fall on deaf ears.

 

[HolySpirit]

This is what happens when you take a religion class with a nonbeliever.

If this is an introductory course, and you want to get anything above a C, you would be wise to keep your mouth shut.

Do you think he is unfamiliar with the evidence on the other side of his argument? A Religion 101 student is not going to change his mind no matter the evidence presented.

He has presented his beliefs to you. He has chosen your text books. He has written the syllabus. He will choose the test questions and the topics for your papers.

Play his game if you want to have future success. Chalk this up as a learning experience. Next time, pay attention to your Professor’s beliefs during the drop period. Drop the class if you are unwilling or unable to tow the line.

 

[Kaninchen]

A lot of things happen every day that aren’t written about,

I don’t really want to argue about things that Christians take as a matter of faith but . . .

Herod was hugely unpopular and such an event would have certainly been noticed - yet there are no sources beyond something in one Gospel.

Such an action by such a King and no mention in Jewish sources?

 

[Gorgias]

If your faith depends on the literal truth of scripture, and you keep studying, you will have problems.

…says the person whose profile ID’s him as “interested but unbelieving”…!

Everyone in my class just seems ready to agree that the Gospels are false

That’s because it was the state of the scholarship – some 40 years ago! – to assert these things, and people generally haven’t taken the time to see what advances in Scripture scholarship have taken place since then, so they’re just rolling with what was being said decades ago.

and honestly, if I used faith as an argument, I have a feeling they won’t take that.

The good news is that you don’t have to rely on “faith alone”! There are plenty of Scripture scholars out there (Brant Pitre comes to mind immediately, but there are others) who argue for early dating of the Gospels, and therefore, make the claim that not only are they accurate (for their genre) but also written by eyewitnesses.

So I’m definitely grateful for the links and good points. This will hopefully give me amo for battle lol

Here’s my best advice to you: don’t treat this class as if it were a ‘battle’. Your peace of mind will suffer (not to mention your QPA). Listen to what your prof says, and recognize it as what it is: one guy’s opinion. Do your coursework, give him the answers he wants to hear (if that’s the way he structures his tests and papers), and walk away with a good grade and with the knowledge that there are lots of folks in the world who think they “know better”…

 

[Entwhistler]

Correct. Herod was a complete jerk who killed off family members because he thought they were plotting against him. So killing babies isn’t beneath him.

 

[ascetic]

A lot of things happen every day that aren’t written about,

I don’t really want to argue about things that Christians take as a matter of faith but . . .

Herod was hugely unpopular and such an event would have certainly been noticed - yet there are no sources beyond something in one Gospel.

Such an action by such a King and no mention in Jewish sources?

As far as I know, Flavius Josephus is the only written source of history from that time and place since, as another user pointed out, written histories for them are rare. People relied on oral tradition in such a vacuum, especially when so many were illiterate, and Josephus himself was inclined to ignore such a thing. But even if the fullness of time proves me wrong, the crux of my post was where I said that it’s not unreasonable to believe in the massacre. Do you think that the mere belief is unreasonable?

more about him

 

[TechieGuy]

It could be the case that the event didn’t really happen but that the story is a narrative device used to tie in the Old Testament passages Jeremiah wrote about the lamentations of Rachel.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Vatican isn’t really inclined to have feast days commemorating deaths of martyrs that didn’t really happen, though. They have removed various saints they found questionable from their feast day calendars (such as St. Philomena). The Feast of the Holy Innocents marches on, however.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Everyone in my class just seems ready to agree that the Gospels are false, and honestly, if I used faith as an argument, I have a feeling they won’t take that. So I’m definitely grateful for the links and good points.

I took a similar class when I was an undergrad (seems like eons ago now). The fact of the matter is that faith is the glue that holds everything together for us. You are on a very slippery slope if you think you are going to argue them into submission with points that aren’t faith-based.

There simply is not enough historical or archeological data left for us to be able to definitively say that certain things took place, so we put our faith in the Holy Spirit working through Tradition and Apostolic authority to help us.

 

[Kaninchen]

As far as I know, Flavius Josephus is the only written source of history from that time and place

It really does depend on what one counts as ‘history’ and ‘written’ (for example, how far a redacted text counts as original).

Meanwhile, whether belief is reasonable/unreasonable might depend on whether there’s a reasonable alternative explanation - I think there is one but I’m Jewish and would be expected to think so, wouldn’t I?

 

[HarryStotle]

ascetic:

A lot of things happen every day that aren’t written about,

I don’t really want to argue about things that Christians take as a matter of faith but . . .

Herod was hugely unpopular and such an event would have certainly been noticed - yet there are no sources beyond something in one Gospel.

Such an action by such a King and no mention in Jewish sources?

The expulsion of Jews from Rome is not mentioned by any extant Jewish sources either – not Josephus nor Philo – but it is in Acts and corroborated by recently available Roman material. Arguments from silence are not very compelling especially where there is very little source material from the time.