![\"Marko](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Marko-Marina-Author-Bart-Ehrman.png\" "\\"Marko")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D.<\/a><\/p>\n Author | \u00a0Historian<\/p>\n Author |\u00a0 Historian | \u00a0BE Contributor<\/p>\n Verified! \u00a0See our guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n Verified! \u00a0See our editorial guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n\nDate written: November 20th, 2025\n\nDate written: November 20th, 2025\n Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p>\n Going to a Catholic church during the Christmas season <\/strong>brings feelings of warmth, renewal, and hope.<\/p>\n Surrounded by carols, candlelight, and nativity scenes, believers around the world are reminded of the comforting message of God entering the world as a child. The Christmas story evokes peace and joy, shepherds rejoicing, angels singing, and a newborn lying in a manger.<\/p>\n Yet, tucked within the same Gospel that tells of this wondrous birth lies a very different kind of story, one that darkens the edges of the celebration. It\u2019s the episode known as the Massacre of the Innocents: the account of King Herod<\/a> ordering the slaughter of Bethlehem\u2019s infant boys.<\/p>\n I remember when I first learned about it as a child. The idea that such cruelty could be part of the Christmas narrative was deeply unsettling.<\/p>\n I couldn\u2019t understand how violence, fear, and murder could coexist with a story meant to bring joy and light. And yet, as the Gospel of Matthew<\/a> presents it, this grim scene isn\u2019t an accidental addition. It\u2019s an integral part of the story of Jesus\u2019 birth<\/a>, however disturbing it may be.<\/p>\n Years later, as I began studying the Bible more seriously, I found myself asking different questions, not just about its emotional impact, but about its historical reality. Did this horrific event really take place? If it did, why is it mentioned only in one Gospel and nowhere else in our ancient sources? Could it be that Matthew included it for reasons beyond the merely historical?<\/p>\n In the pages that follow, we\u2019ll look more closely at this striking episode<\/strong>, first recalling what the Bible actually says, then exploring what we know about Herod the Great, and finally asking what purpose such a story might have served within Matthew\u2019s Gospel.<\/p>\n Whether history or myth, the Massacre of the Innocents remains one of the most haunting episodes ever linked to the Christmas story.<\/p>\n But before we embark on our journey, I want to invite you to check out Bart D. Ehrman\u2019s excellent course<\/strong> The Unknown Gospels<\/a>. In eight 30-minute lessons, Dr. Ehrman presents a historically grounded analysis of the documents that form the basis of the Christian religion! If you think everything in the Gospels is accurate history, this course is for you!<\/p>\n What was the Massacre of the Innocents? To answer that question, we need to get back to the pages of the New Testament!<\/p>\n Writing approximately 50 years after Jesus\u2019 death<\/a>, the author of Matthew\u2019s Gospel<\/strong> presents an account of events surrounding Jesus\u2019 birth that differs notably from those in the other Gospels. Following the visit of the Magi from the East, Matthew recounts that an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, warning him that King Herod sought to destroy the child.<\/p>\n Obeying the divine message, Joseph took Mary and the infant Jesus and fled by night to Egypt, where they remained until Herod\u2019s death. When Herod realized that the Magi hadn\u2019t returned to inform him of the child\u2019s location, Matthew says he became enraged.<\/p>\n In response, he ordered the killing of all male children<\/strong> in Bethlehem and its surrounding region who were two years old and under, the age he had inferred from the Magi\u2019s (wise men that came to visit baby Jesus after following a star) report about the time of the star\u2019s appearance. The act, meant to eliminate a potential rival to his throne, is presented in the Gospel as a calculated political measure driven by fear and suspicion.<\/p>\n According to Matthew, this episode fulfilled a prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures. He cites the words of the prophet Jeremiah: \u201cA voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.\u201d<\/p>\n In the Gospel narrative, this verse serves to frame the event within Israel\u2019s broader story of suffering and loss. It\u2019s significant that this episode (referred to as the Massacre of the Innocents) appears only in the Gospel of Matthew<\/strong>. The other canonical Gospels, including Luke\u2019s detailed infancy narrative, make no mention of it.<\/p>\n However, before we can address the question of its historical authenticity, we need to take a closer look at the main figure driving the story: King Herod himself.<\/p>\n By the way, to learn more about the boundaries between the history, myth, and tradition in the stories of Jesus\u2019 birth, check out Bart\u2019s course Did the Christmas Story Really Happen? The Birth of Jesus in History & Legend<\/a>.<\/p>\n To understand the Massacre of the Innocents and its central figure, we must first situate Herod the Great within the broader historical context of the late Roman Republic and the early Empire.<\/p>\n Herod lived through one of the most turbulent eras<\/strong> in Roman history, a time of civil wars and shifting allegiances that reshaped the Mediterranean world. In 44 B.C.E., Julius Caesar was assassinated, and the following year, the Second Triumvirate (composed of Mark Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus) emerged to fill the power vacuum.<\/p>\n Herod, then a young ruler in Palestine, initially allied himself with Antony, whose influence extended across the eastern provinces. When Antony was defeated by Octavian at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, Herod shrewdly realigned himself with the victor.<\/p>\n Peter Richardson and Amy Marie Fisher<\/a> describe the shifting of the political tides and the capability of Herod to anticipate possible problems and find the suitable solutions:<\/p>\n (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>)<\/p>\n For a full decade, from 40 bce – when Antony and Octavian and Herod had spent a week together in Rome – until Actium, Antony had been the lynchpin in Herod\u2019s position, and Herod had justified Antony\u2019s trust. Octavian knew Herod and had followed his career, but he had little idea how Herod would respond now. He had, however, some reasons for thinking well of Herod, beginning with the ties between Antipater and Julius Caesar, Herod\u2019s father and Octavian\u2019s adoptive father… Antony\u2019s cause was obviously hopeless, so Herod risked everything on a single throw<\/strong>: he would go to Octavian to offer his support. He appointed his younger brother Pheroras to manage affairs in his absence, and then sent his children, with Salome his sister and Cypros his mother, to Masada. Relations within the family were sufficiently tense that he sent Mariamne and her mother Alexandra to Alexandreion, with his steward, another Joseph, and Soemus, an Iturean, in charge… Herod, now about forty-three years old, met the decade-younger Octavian at Rhodes, without crown or other signs of royal status. Herod stressed his integrity, saying he would be as loyal to Octavian as he had been to Antony<\/strong>. The transfer from one patron to another was duly concluded; Octavian expressed thanks that Herod did not have to share Antony\u2019s defeat. The accounts can best be understood as patronage operating at the highest levels of society. Octavian received Herod more enthusiastically than Herod had any right to expect, promising he would reign \u201cmore securely than before,\u201d confirming Herod as \u201cfriend and ally,\u201d and bestowing additional honors.<\/p>\n So, accompanying Octavian\/Augustus from Egypt and pledging loyalty, Herod secured his position<\/strong> and was confirmed as Rome\u2019s client king in Judea.<\/p>\n Augustus is said to have later remarked that he would rather be Herod\u2019s pig than his son (melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium), an ironic comment on Herod\u2019s Jewish adherence to dietary laws and his notorious record of executing members of his own family.<\/p>\n Herod\u2019s lineage reflected the complex ethnic and political landscape of the region. His grandfather, Antipater, was an Idumean <\/strong>(a descendant of the Edomites<\/a>) who had converted to Judaism and was appointed strategos (military governor) of Idumea by the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus.<\/p>\n Herod\u2019s father<\/strong>, also named Antipater, rose to prominence during Rome\u2019s campaigns in the East. Aligning himself with Pompey during the Roman capture of Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E., Antipater helped restore Hyrcanus II to the throne.<\/p>\n When Julius Caesar later defeated Pompey, he rewarded Antipater for his loyalty by appointing him procurator of Judea and granting him Roman citizenship. Herod\u2019s mother<\/strong>, Cypros, came from Nabatean aristocracy and was related to King Aretas of Petra, further tying the family to both Jewish and Arabian elite networks.<\/p>\n Herod\u2019s early political career was marked by decisive (and often ruthless) action. Appointed governor of Galilee in 47 B.C.E., he swiftly crushed a local uprising led by Hezekiah, executing many of the rebels.<\/p>\n His efficiency impressed Roman authorities but alarmed the Jewish leadership, and the Sanhedrin sought to try him for overstepping his authority. Herod escaped condemnation, likely due to the intervention of the Syrian governor, who recognized his potential as a stabilizing force in the volatile region.<\/p>\n From this point onward, Herod proved a capable, pragmatic, and, at times, brutal ruler who secured Roman interests while consolidating his own power base.<\/p>\n Everett Ferguson, in his book Backgrounds of Early Christianity<\/a>, describes Herod\u2019s rule in the following way:<\/p>\n Herod proved to be an able king<\/strong>. His firm rule brought peace and order to his realm and successfully put down brigandage. He brought great wealth to his kingdom through agricultural and commercial enterprises. He spent these funds in a lavish building program \u2013 not only in his own realm but in other cities as well. Most notable for Jewish history was his massive rebuilding of the temple<\/strong>, planned so that the building of the sanctuary was done by trained priests without the interruption of the worship\u2026 He also built a theatre and amphitheatre in Jerusalem; and on the site of Strato\u2019s Tower he built the city of Caesarea as the port of entry to his realm.<\/p>\n Despite his reputation for violence, Herod generally avoided direct confrontation with Jewish religious sentiment. He refrained from placing imperial symbols within the Temple precincts and supported Jerusalem\u2019s infrastructure, including improving the city\u2019s water supply.<\/p>\n At the same time, Herod actively cultivated loyalty in Rome and abroad. He contributed funds to public works and temples throughout the Mediterranean, sponsored the Olympic Games (in either 12 or 8 B.C.E.), and supported both Roman and Samaritan cults.<\/p>\n For over three decades, Judea remained relatively peaceful, its borders restored to something resembling the territorial scope of ancient Israel under David.<\/p>\n Herod\u2019s long reign, however, ended in paranoia, intrigue, and family tragedy. In his later years, he executed several of his sons and his beloved wife, Mariamne, under charges of conspiracy, actions that contributed to his reputation for cruelty in both Jewish and Roman sources.<\/p>\n In his study H\u00e9rode le Grand<\/a> (Herod the Great), Christian-Georges Schwentzel explains the outcome of Herod\u2019s paranoia:<\/p>\n \u201cPolitical assassinations multiplied in the years following Herod\u2019s confirmation by Octavian. The first to be executed, in 28 B.C.E., was Alexandra [the Hasmonean princess, mother of Mariamne and grandmother of Herod\u2019s sons]. Then followed a series of Herod\u2019s close associates, accused \u2013 rightly or wrongly \u2013 of conspiracy: Sohaimos, Lysimachus, Antipater Gadias, and Dositheus. All these condemnations had one thing in common: they were based on accusations made by Salome <\/strong>[Herod\u2019s sister, a powerful and influential figure at court]. The king\u2019s sister and confidante effectively dominated court life; she spent her time spying on courtiers and continually reporting to her brother any real or imagined plots directed against him. It was she herself who uncovered the conspiracy of her second husband, Costobarus, whom she denounced and had executed \u2013 just as she had earlier done to Joseph, her first husband.\u201d (my translation)<\/p>\n It appears that dinner invitations from Herod came with no guarantee of making it to dessert. But again, with relatives like these, he hardly needed enemies!<\/p>\n When he died in 4 B.C.E.<\/strong>, the kingdom was divided among his surviving sons, bringing to a close a reign of nearly 40 years. With that historical context set, we can now turn our attention to the infamous episode known as the Massacre of the Innocents!<\/p>\n TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE of the Historical Jesus!<\/p>\n Think you know the Jesus of the Bible?\u00a0 Uncover the historical figure behind the texts!<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default”,”value”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”}},”gradients”:[]},”original”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(19, 114, 211)”,”hsl”:{“h”:210,”s”:0.83,”l”:0.45,”a”:1}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ sTART QUIZ<\/strong> <\/a><\/p>\n It’s free!<\/em><\/p>\n Most critical scholars today, as exemplified by Michael Grant\u2019s book<\/a>, hold that the Massacre of the Innocents cannot be taken as something that really happened. He writes:<\/p>\n The Massacre of the Innocents is all that most people have heard about Herod the Great\u2026 As will become clear, however, when we come to this last phrase of Herod\u2019s long life, the tale is not history but myth or folk-lore<\/strong>: a portentous symbol of the grip which one man\u2019s formidable personality exerted upon the imagination of his contemporaries.<\/p>\n As it turns out, when Matthew\u2019s account is examined in light of the available historical evidence, it stands apart as an isolated and unsupported tradition<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The problem isn\u2019t that Herod was incapable of such an atrocity (as we saw, his reign offers many examples of ruthlessness) but that every other source from the period remains entirely silent about it.<\/p>\n Scholarly Insights<\/strong><\/p>\n From History to Memory: The Afterlife of Herod the Great in Christian Imagination.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n As a historian of early and late antique Christianity with a special interest in collective memory and reception history, I like to look beyond the first centuries to see how New Testament figures continued to live on in the imagination of later generations.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0Following the insights of post-linguistic-turn historiography, what matters is not only what happened but how it was remembered, represented, and re-narrated across time. Few examples illustrate this more vividly than the evolving image of Herod the Great.<\/em><\/p>\n As it turns out, the massacre of the innocents scene inspired one of the earliest surviving depictions of royal evil: a 5th-century mosaic in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. There, the artist (too modest to portray the slaughter itself) shows Herod enthroned, receiving mothers who do not yet know their children\u2019s fate.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0The viewer\u2019s awareness of the impending tragedy renders the scene all the more haunting. This early image set the pattern: Herod, the false king who turned against the divine child, became the Christian symbol <\/strong>par excellence of political power corrupted by fear<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0Throughout the Middle Ages the motif flourished. Giovanni Pisano\u2019s sculpted Massacres in Pisa and Pistoia, and Giotto\u2019s frescoes in Assisi and Padua, placed Herod\u2019s cruelty at the heart of Christian visual storytelling.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0Over time, the historical king of Judea faded, replaced by an archetype: the persecutor of innocence, the ruler blinded by insecurity. Thus the memory of Herod, rooted in Matthew\u2019s narrative of the Massacre of the Innocents, endured for centuries as a mirror through which Christian culture contemplated the moral dangers of authority itself.<\/em><\/p>\n The first and most striking fact is that Josephus, our principal historical source for Herod\u2019s life and times, says nothing <\/strong>about any such massacre. Josephus<\/a> was a 1st-century Jewish historian who chronicled in extraordinary detail the political and social turbulence of Roman Judea.<\/p>\n His works, The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, preserve accounts of Herod\u2019s political maneuvering, his architectural achievements, and his acts of violence, including the execution of his wife Mariamne, three of his sons, and several members of his extended family.<\/p>\n Josephus also recounts lesser uprisings, such as those led by charismatic prophets and insurgents, including one \u201cEgyptian\u201d prophet who stirred up revolt during the Roman procuratorship. In short, he wasn\u2019t inclined to omit <\/strong>the darker aspects of Herod\u2019s rule or the unrest of the age.<\/p>\n That he never mentions a mass killing of infants makes it exceedingly difficult to treat Matthew\u2019s report as a historical event.<\/p>\n It should be noted that Everett Ferguson, for instance, has argued that the massacre might have been too small in scale to attract Josephus\u2019 attention.<\/p>\n Bethlehem was a modest village, perhaps with only a few hundred inhabitants; the number of male children under the age of two could have been fewer than twenty. It\u2019s conceivable, therefore, that the slaughter of a few infants in an obscure hamlet might have gone unrecorded.<\/p>\n Yet this explanation isn’t fully convincing. As Raymond E. Brown explains in his masterpiece The Birth of the Messiah,<\/a> Josephus\u2019 interest in Herod\u2019s character and the political psychology of his reign was such that even a minor atrocity revealing his paranoia or cruelty would have suited his narrative perfectly.<\/p>\n Moreover, no other contemporary writer<\/strong>, Jewish or Roman, ever refers to this event, not Philo of Alexandria, not Tacitus, not Suetonius. The silence of all independent sources suggests that Matthew\u2019s account doesn\u2019t rest on historical memory but on something else entirely.<\/p>\n Further reasons reinforce this conclusion. Matthew\u2019s infancy narrative is filled with elements that mirror well-known biblical patterns and ancient story motifs. Herod\u2019s fear of a rival king, the consultation of learned men, the deceit of the ruler, and the slaughter of children all echo scenes from the story of Pharaoh and Moses in the Book of Exodus<\/a>.<\/p>\n Additionally, in ancient literature, especially within Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions, the birth of a great figure was often surrounded by omens, prophecies, and threats from a jealous tyrant. Such patterns can be found in legends about the births of Sargon of Akkad, Cyrus the Great, and even the Roman emperor Augustus.<\/p>\n Gilbert Picard, in his article \u201dLa date de naissance de J\u00e9sus du point de vue romain\u201d<\/a> (\u201cThe Birth of Jesus from the Roman Perspective\u201d), notes:<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s easy to understand the reasons that led Matthew to present the birth of Jesus in the version he fashioned. The hatred that almost all Jews felt toward Herod<\/strong> made it desirable to portray the Savior as being persecuted by the worst of tyrants. Certainly, the king\u2019s successors \u2013 beginning with Archelaus \u2013 were no better than he; but they were less well known and, in practice, deprived by Rome of any real autonomy and therefore of true responsibility. Moreover, as we have seen, Matthew is entirely lacking in historical sense. His testimony becomes reliable only from the moment when he finally encounters the personality of Jesus himself, whose first author was probably the apostle.\u201d (my translation)<\/p>\n The Massacre of the Innocents, therefore, fits this literary and symbolic framework far more naturally than it does the historical record of 1st-century Palestine.<\/p>\n Moreover, Mireille Hadas-Lebel<\/a> points out that Herod, \u201ctoward the end of the year 29 BCE, (\u2026) had executed the woman he cherished, his Hasmonean wife Mariamne. From that moment on, he was no longer the same man: (\u2026) executions multiplied, among the people as well as at court, and even within the royal family. Thus there was formed for posterity the image<\/strong> of a Herod as a \u2018slayer [massacrer] of innocents.\u2019\u201d (my translation)<\/p>\n In other words, the memory of Herod\u2019s historical brutality helped create the later image of a ruler capable of any atrocity, providing fertile ground for the development of the Gospel story of the Massacre of the Innocents.<\/p>\n In light of this evidence, the consensus among historians is clear: the massacre of the innocents is almost certainly a legendary episode. Schwentzel even asserts that \u201cit seems pointless [il para\u00eet vain] to look for any historical basis\u201d of this story.<\/p>\n Peter Richardson and Amy Marie Fisher summarize the arguments against the historicity:<\/p>\n The story includes several indications that Matthew constructed it, more or less of whole cloth: (1) it is absent from the other gospels; (2) there are major differences between Matthew\u2019s and Luke\u2019s birth accounts; (3) Josephus and other first-century sources are silent concerning the event; (4) rather obvious theological concerns account for the story\u2019s development; (5) it relies on Old Testament motifs to develop the story.”<\/p>\n But if this episode never happened, why would Matthew include it in his Gospel? What is the meaning of that story? To this question we now turn.<\/p>\n If the Massacre of the Innocents didn\u2019t happen, why did Matthew include it? What was he trying to achieve from both a rhetorical and a theological perspective? Read within 2:13-23, the scene is the center panel of a tightly composed triptych<\/strong>:<\/p>\n #1 \u2013 The flight to Egypt with a fulfillment from Hosea;#2 \u2013 The killings at Bethlehem with a fulfillment from Jeremiah;#3 \u2013 The divinely guided return that ends in Nazareth;<\/p>\n Rhetorically, the sequence sharpens the Gospel\u2019s programmatic contrast: Gentiles (the magi) recognize and honor the child, while the Judean ruler and his advisers respond with hostility. The episode therefore functions less as archival reportage than as a literary hinge that moves the story from homage to persecution, all under the rubric of \u201cfulfillment.\u201d<\/p>\n William A. Davies and Dale C. Allison, in their Commentary<\/a>, note that, thematically, Matthew casts Herod as a new Pharaoh and Jesus as both \u201cnew Moses\u201d and \u201ctrue Israel.\u201d The child\u2019s descent to Egypt, preservation from a tyrant, and return to the land recapitulate Israel\u2019s national story.<\/p>\n That is why the narrative is framed by fulfillment formulae: Scripture originally applied to Israel can be truthfully applied to Israel\u2019s Messiah who gathers up Israel\u2019s vocation in himself. Joseph\u2019s repeated dreams and exact obedience underline that the plot is governed by divine initiative; human power rages, but the child is preserved because God\u2019s design is at work.<\/p>\n In this way, the narrative is doing Christology<\/a> by means of Israel\u2019s Scriptures. In other words, it situated Jesus inside the Exodus<\/strong> arc-threat, preservation, and return.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Jeremiah citation (31:15) shows how Matthew\u2019s exegesis operates. In Jeremiah, \u201cRachel weeping\u201d laments the catastrophe of exile at Ramah, a deportation point north of Jerusalem; in later Jewish memory Rachel is also linked to a tomb near Bethlehem.<\/p>\n Matthew fuses these memories so that Bethlehem\u2019s tragedy can be heard through Israel\u2019s archetypal lament. Notably, he quotes only the verse of weeping and leaves aside the following words of comfort and restoration precisely because the accent is on acknowledged grief.<\/p>\n Even his fulfillment formula is carefully phrased (\u201cThen was fulfilled\u2026\u201d) without the purpose conjunction, avoiding the suggestion that God intended the children\u2019s deaths in order to meet a prophecy.<\/p>\n The exegetical move isn\u2019t a proof-text for Bethlehem but a theological overlay: Israel\u2019s ancient sorrow is re-voiced to frame the new episode within the larger saga of exile and promised deliverance.<\/p>\n At the same time, the scene advances inside the Gospel\u2019s plot. Herod doesn\u2019t act in isolation. Rather, he is inquiring with \u201call the chief priests and scribes,\u201d and \u201call Jerusalem\u201d is disturbed with him.<\/p>\n The hostility of the ruler and establishment, therefore, foreshadows the opposition that will surface again in Jesus\u2019 public ministry and culminate in the Passion<\/a>.<\/p>\n Set against the reverence of the foreigners, the Massacre marks a second, darker response to the same revelation.<\/p>\n For Matthew\u2019s audience, this pattern explains their own experience: allegiance to Jesus brings both worship and resistance. Yet the dreams, the timely departures and returns, and the relocation to Galilee all insist that divine guidance is effective<\/strong>. To put it more bluntly, human schemes fail to derail the mission.<\/p>\n Finally, the conclusion of the unit (settling in Nazareth \u201cso that he will be called a Nazorean\u201d) gathers its Christological claims into identity.<\/p>\n The child preserved from the tyrant isn\u2019t simply a survivor. Instead, he is the one whose life recapitulates Israel\u2019s Scriptures and who will bring light from Galilee.<\/p>\n Read this way, the Massacre of the Innocents is the narrative\u2019s necessary middle movement: it binds Jesus\u2019 birth to Israel\u2019s deepest wounds, signals the pattern of opposition his mission will face, and prepares the reader for the Exodus-shaped return that follows.<\/p>\n Schwentzel concludes:<\/p>\n \u201cThe combination of the two themes \u2013 the massacre and the flight into Egypt \u2013 serves to create a parallel between Jesus and Moses, as well as between Herod and Pharaoh<\/strong>: on one side the saviors, on the other the persecuting tyrants. Matthew draws inspiration from the opening of Exodus (Exod 1:22), where Pharaoh orders the Egyptians to put to death the newborn sons of the Hebrews by throwing them into the Nile. The episode of the massacre also allows Matthew to have Jesus flee to Egypt; this, in turn, strengthens the parallel between the Messiah and Moses according to an inverted pattern, since Jesus finds refuge in Egypt while Moses departs from it, notably when he goes to settle in the land of Midian \u2013 in what would later become Idumea. Yet the massacre is not simply a fable invented out of whole cloth: the evangelist echoes both the messianic propaganda surrounding Herod and the historical reality of the king\u2019s tyranny. A first-century reader would undoubtedly have remembered that Herod had put his own sons \u2013 Alexander, Aristobulus, and then Antipater \u2013 to death. By situating the \u2018massacre of the innocents\u2019 at the very end of Herod\u2019s reign, that is, at the time of Antipater\u2019s execution, the author of the Gospel provides a historically plausible backdrop for the episode he invents<\/strong>. (my translation)<\/p>\n When I think back to that childhood Christmas Mass (to the candlelight, the carols, and the priest\u2019s voice recounting the story of Herod\u2019s fury) I can still feel the same unease that first struck me all those years ago.<\/p>\n The Massacre of the Innocents <\/strong>seemed so out of place amid wise men and angels. Decades later, studying the text with the tools of history and critical scholarship, I now understand that Matthew\u2019s story wasn\u2019t meant to be a journalistic report of a crime in Bethlehem but a theological drama.<\/p>\n By framing Jesus\u2019 early life through patterns drawn from Israel\u2019s Scriptures (exile, peril, deliverance) Matthew sought to show that even from birth, the Messiah\u2019s destiny was intertwined with both suffering and redemption.<\/p>\n Recognizing that the Massacre of the Innocents never happened as history doesn\u2019t diminish its power as a story. On the contrary, it reveals how early Christians sought to interpret the meaning of Jesus\u2019 life in the idiom of Scripture and memory<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Andr\u00e9 Gounelle<\/a>, who accepts that Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth is a theological exegesis, parallel to that of Moses’ birth, still maintains that one shouldn’t “accuse the evangelists <\/strong>of fraud or dishonesty, for they use methods of writing and composition that were common in their time and widely accepted.” (my translation)<\/p>\n In any case, the tale of the murdered kids still echoes because it exposes the tension at the heart of the Christmas story itself: divine light breaking into a dark and violent world.<\/p>\n Even as a historian who no longer reads Matthew\u2019s account as literal fact, I have to admit: whenever that passage is read during Christmas Mass, it still sends a chill down my spine.<\/p>\n TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE of the Historical Jesus!<\/p>\n Think you know the Jesus of the Bible?\u00a0 Uncover the historical figure behind the texts!<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default”,”value”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”}},”gradients”:[]},”original”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(19, 114, 211)”,”hsl”:{“h”:210,”s”:0.83,”l”:0.45,”a”:1}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ sTART QUIZ<\/strong> <\/a><\/p>\n It’s free!<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Massacre of the Innocents: History vs Myth Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D. Author | \u00a0Historian Author |\u00a0 Historian | \u00a0BE Contributor Verified! \u00a0See our guidelines Verified! \u00a0See our editorial guidelines Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart D. Ehrman […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":22959,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","tve_updated_post":" Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p><\/div> Going to a Catholic church during the Christmas season <\/strong>brings feelings of warmth, renewal, and hope.<\/p> Surrounded by carols, candlelight, and nativity scenes, believers around the world are reminded of the comforting message of God entering the world as a child. The Christmas story evokes peace and joy, shepherds rejoicing, angels singing, and a newborn lying in a manger. <\/p> Yet, tucked within the same Gospel that tells of this wondrous birth lies a very different kind of story, one that darkens the edges of the celebration. It\u2019s the episode known as the Massacre of the Innocents: the account of King Herod<\/a> ordering the slaughter of Bethlehem\u2019s infant boys.<\/p> I remember when I first learned about it as a child. The idea that such cruelty could be part of the Christmas narrative was deeply unsettling. <\/p> I couldn\u2019t understand how violence, fear, and murder could coexist with a story meant to bring joy and light. And yet, as the Gospel of Matthew<\/a> presents it, this grim scene isn\u2019t an accidental addition. It\u2019s an integral part of the story of Jesus\u2019 birth<\/a>, however disturbing it may be.<\/p> Years later, as I began studying the Bible more seriously, I found myself asking different questions, not just about its emotional impact, but about its historical reality. Did this horrific event really take place? If it did, why is it mentioned only in one Gospel and nowhere else in our ancient sources? Could it be that Matthew included it for reasons beyond the merely historical?<\/p> In the pages that follow, we\u2019ll look more closely at this striking episode<\/strong>, first recalling what the Bible actually says, then exploring what we know about Herod the Great, and finally asking what purpose such a story might have served within Matthew\u2019s Gospel. <\/p> Whether history or myth, the Massacre of the Innocents remains one of the most haunting episodes ever linked to the Christmas story.<\/p> But before we embark on our journey, I want to invite you to check out Bart D. Ehrman\u2019s excellent course<\/strong> The Unknown Gospels<\/a>. In eight 30-minute lessons, Dr. Ehrman presents a historically grounded analysis of the documents that form the basis of the Christian religion! If you think everything in the Gospels is accurate history, this course is for you!<\/p><\/div> What was the Massacre of the Innocents? To answer that question, we need to get back to the pages of the New Testament! <\/p> Writing approximately 50 years after Jesus\u2019 death<\/a>, the author of Matthew\u2019s Gospel<\/strong> presents an account of events surrounding Jesus\u2019 birth that differs notably from those in the other Gospels. Following the visit of the Magi from the East, Matthew recounts that an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, warning him that King Herod sought to destroy the child.<\/p> Obeying the divine message, Joseph took Mary and the infant Jesus and fled by night to Egypt, where they remained until Herod\u2019s death. When Herod realized that the Magi hadn\u2019t returned to inform him of the child\u2019s location, Matthew says he became enraged. <\/p> In response, he ordered the killing of all male children<\/strong> in Bethlehem and its surrounding region who were two years old and under, the age he had inferred from the Magi\u2019s (wise men that came to visit baby Jesus after following a star) report about the time of the star\u2019s appearance. The act, meant to eliminate a potential rival to his throne, is presented in the Gospel as a calculated political measure driven by fear and suspicion.<\/p> According to Matthew, this episode fulfilled a prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures. He cites the words of the prophet Jeremiah: \u201cA voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.\u201d<\/p> In the Gospel narrative, this verse serves to frame the event within Israel\u2019s broader story of suffering and loss. It\u2019s significant that this episode (referred to as the Massacre of the Innocents) appears only in the Gospel of Matthew<\/strong>. The other canonical Gospels, including Luke\u2019s detailed infancy narrative, make no mention of it.<\/p> However, before we can address the question of its historical authenticity, we need to take a closer look at the main figure driving the story: King Herod himself.<\/p> By the way, to learn more about the boundaries between the history, myth, and tradition in the stories of Jesus\u2019 birth, check out Bart\u2019s course Did the Christmas Story Really Happen? The Birth of Jesus in History & Legend<\/a>.<\/p><\/div> To understand the Massacre of the Innocents and its central figure, we must first situate Herod the Great within the broader historical context of the late Roman Republic and the early Empire. <\/p> Herod lived through one of the most turbulent eras<\/strong> in Roman history, a time of civil wars and shifting allegiances that reshaped the Mediterranean world. In 44 B.C.E., Julius Caesar was assassinated, and the following year, the Second Triumvirate (composed of Mark Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus) emerged to fill the power vacuum.<\/p> Herod, then a young ruler in Palestine, initially allied himself with Antony, whose influence extended across the eastern provinces. When Antony was defeated by Octavian at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, Herod shrewdly realigned himself with the victor.<\/p> Peter Richardson and Amy Marie Fisher<\/a> describe the shifting of the political tides and the capability of Herod to anticipate possible problems and find the suitable solutions:<\/p> (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>)<\/p><\/div> For a full decade, from 40 bce - when Antony and Octavian and Herod had spent a week together in Rome - until Actium, Antony had been the lynchpin in Herod\u2019s position, and Herod had justified Antony\u2019s trust. Octavian knew Herod and had followed his career, but he had little idea how Herod would respond now. He had, however, some reasons for thinking well of Herod, beginning with the ties between Antipater and Julius Caesar, Herod\u2019s father and Octavian\u2019s adoptive father... Antony\u2019s cause was obviously hopeless, so Herod risked everything on a single throw<\/strong>: he would go to Octavian to offer his support. He appointed his younger brother Pheroras to manage affairs in his absence, and then sent his children, with Salome his sister and Cypros his mother, to Masada. Relations within the family were sufficiently tense that he sent Mariamne and her mother Alexandra to Alexandreion, with his steward, another Joseph, and Soemus, an Iturean, in charge... Herod, now about forty-three years old, met the decade-younger Octavian at Rhodes, without crown or other signs of royal status. Herod stressed his integrity, saying he would be as loyal to Octavian as he had been to Antony<\/strong>. The transfer from one patron to another was duly concluded; Octavian expressed thanks that Herod did not have to share Antony\u2019s defeat. The accounts can best be understood as patronage operating at the highest levels of society. Octavian received Herod more enthusiastically than Herod had any right to expect, promising he would reign \u201cmore securely than before,\u201d confirming Herod as \u201cfriend and ally,\u201d and bestowing additional honors.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div> So, accompanying Octavian\/Augustus from Egypt and pledging loyalty, Herod secured his position<\/strong> and was confirmed as Rome\u2019s client king in Judea. <\/p> Augustus is said to have later remarked that he would rather be Herod\u2019s pig than his son (melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium), an ironic comment on Herod\u2019s Jewish adherence to dietary laws and his notorious record of executing members of his own family.<\/p> Herod\u2019s lineage reflected the complex ethnic and political landscape of the region. His grandfather, Antipater, was an Idumean <\/strong>(a descendant of the Edomites<\/a>) who had converted to Judaism and was appointed strategos (military governor) of Idumea by the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus. <\/p> Herod\u2019s father<\/strong>, also named Antipater, rose to prominence during Rome\u2019s campaigns in the East. Aligning himself with Pompey during the Roman capture of Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E., Antipater helped restore Hyrcanus II to the throne. <\/p> When Julius Caesar later defeated Pompey, he rewarded Antipater for his loyalty by appointing him procurator of Judea and granting him Roman citizenship. Herod\u2019s mother<\/strong>, Cypros, came from Nabatean aristocracy and was related to King Aretas of Petra, further tying the family to both Jewish and Arabian elite networks.<\/p> Herod\u2019s early political career was marked by decisive (and often ruthless) action. Appointed governor of Galilee in 47 B.C.E., he swiftly crushed a local uprising led by Hezekiah, executing many of the rebels. <\/p> His efficiency impressed Roman authorities but alarmed the Jewish leadership, and the Sanhedrin sought to try him for overstepping his authority. Herod escaped condemnation, likely due to the intervention of the Syrian governor, who recognized his potential as a stabilizing force in the volatile region. <\/p> From this point onward, Herod proved a capable, pragmatic, and, at times, brutal ruler who secured Roman interests while consolidating his own power base.<\/p>![\"massacre](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/massacre-of-the-innocents.png\" "\\"massacre")
<\/p>\nWhat Was the Massacre of the Innocents? Overview of the Biblical Story<\/h2>\n
King Herod: The Portrayal of the Client King<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-down.png\" "\\"quote")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-up.png\" "\\"quote")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\nDid the Massacre of Innocents Really Happen?<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n![\"what](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/what-was-the-massacre-of-the-innocents.png\" "\\"what")
<\/p>\nMassacre of the Innocents: A Brief Exegesis<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\nConclusion<\/h2>\n
\n\t__CONFIG_colors_palette__{\"active_palette\":0,\"config\":{\"colors\":{\"62516\":{\"name\":\"Main Accent\",\"parent\":-1}},\"gradients\":[]},\"palettes\":[{\"name\":\"Default Palette\",\"value\":{\"colors\":{\"62516\":{\"val\":\"var(--tcb-skin-color-0)\"}},\"gradients\":[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__<\/div>\n\t\n\t\tGospels<\/span><\/span>\n\t<\/a>\n<\/div><\/div>Massacre of the Innocents: History vs Myth<\/h2><\/div>
__CONFIG_post_symbol__{\"id\":\"17827\"}__CONFIG_post_symbol__<\/div><\/div><\/span><\/div>What Was the Massacre of the Innocents? Overview of the Biblical Story<\/h2><\/div>
King Herod: The Portrayal of the Client King<\/h2><\/div>
\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>