Talk:Massacre of the Innocents

Revert

@Phrozenfenom: recent and current are qualifiers from 1998. Also, you should not change verbatim quotes. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that this is referring to an event that allegedly took place over 2000 years ago, and there have likely been many Herod biographers and biblical scholars in that time, dropping the recent qualifier because 25 years have passed seems to me to be unfounded. Unless by a majority of Herod biographers we mean the ones currently alive rather than all Herod biographers throughout history. In which case, 25 years is long enough to where the set of living Herod biographers may have changed significantly, so wouldn't we need a more recent source that attests that this statement is still true of today's biographers?

As for the verbatim quote, I only changed it because it was incorrect, as the cited source includes the current qualifier. It seems that you confirmed this from the source for yourself, since I see that you made a follow-up edit to change the quote again but replaced the current qualifier with [...]. However, I would argue that the current qualifier is relevant for similar reasoning to the above.

I notice you also reverted my other edit which added a rebuttal to the argument of Josephus' silence. Was this due to the content itself or my formatting? It seems odd to me to include an argument from a source, but then ignore the rebuttal that is provided by that very same source.

Thanks for your time btw. I realize now that if I'd checked out the talk page before editing the article I would have seen that there was a lot of discussion on this already. I'm new here so I apologize for any protocols I may have overlooked.

Phrozenfenom (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Phrozenfenom: The discussions hereupon were long and protracted. However the consensus was reached that Maier should be quoted for the WP:RS/AC claim and not for his own POV. In a way, your edits were overcorrect. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Paul Maier apologetics

Please don't use Paul Maier apologetics [1]. He is an inveterate Missouri-Synod Lutheran. We don't need biblical literalist commentary here. It's baloney par excellence. jps (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස: The above comment is unacceptable. We do not discriminate based on religious belief/non-belief. Because Maier was published in a reliable source and is a known scholar who mitigates against his own minority view. The content you removed has been discussed at length previously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:YWAB. Literalist bullshit does not belong in Wikipedia. I'm glad he mitigates against his "minority view". We can include that mitigation. But the facts of the matter are that his belief is not worthy of inclusion on a page that is dedicated to high-quality scholarship. No one cares about what someone who thinks the Earth is literally 6000 years old thinks of anything historical. Great that he can summarize people who are better than him. Now let's leave his idiocy out of our encyclopedia. jps (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

More to the point WP:ONEWAY. If it is important to his biography, put it there. But it is not important to the subject of this page on Christian mythology. He has nothing to offer except literalism. jps (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I have mentioned this dispute at WP:FTN. If y'all came to a problematic WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that parroting the beliefs of someone who thinks the bible is literal is fine and dandy, then, yes, we have a problem. jps (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

People: Maier published in an invited chapter in a compendium of a second-tier university press. It was not peer-reviewed by competent historians since they don't peer review contributed chapters. We don't need to parrot it here. jps (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not only that but the invited compendium is to honor Ray Summers!!!! A professor of New Testament and Greek at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Are you kidding me? This is a profound misread of genre. This is not history. This is apologetics. Full stop. jps (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is really pushing the absolute limit. If someone is a believer, are they disallowed from being reliable experts on statements related to their faith, regardless of the regard their scholarship is held in? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No, as long as it is considered reliable we can use it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, nothing that is biblical literalist is reliable. We know that's just nonsense. jps (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Was he not a professor, That seems to be to establish his credientials. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Credentials are irrelevant. The publication is basically apologetics entirely. Professors can be biblical literalists. You know that. jps (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC

Actually it's not, as RS have a "reputation for fact checking", not the right bias". 16:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Biblical literalists have got to be near the bottom of "reputation for fact checking". Lol. jps (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Name one respected biblical scholar who thinks biblical literalism is a legitimate way to make sense of the bible. jps (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, Maier is not WP:CITED for his own POV, but for candidly admitting that the WP:RS/AC is the opposite of his own POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Only in the lede. In the part I removed, he is parroting literalism. jps (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Maier is arguing that this is an argument from criterion of embarrassment. That because it doesn't help the Christian cause it must be true. ::rolleyes:: This isn't serious scholarship. This is apologetics. jps (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of bullshit, statements attacking individuals for their religious beliefs, and the above comment are not going to facilitate a conversation that changes things in your favor. We can start this conversation over from the top, but this is not how we should deal with disagreements on the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Grow a thicker skin. Bullshit is a scholarly and technical term for what is going on right now. Religious beliefs do not belong promoted in the encyclopedia which is what is happening. It is extremely difficult for a biblical literalist to edit this encyclopedia. I know, I've drummed many of them out of here because they just couldn't abide by the truth that their beliefs were going to be described as manifestly incorrect in Wikipedia's voice. We know that there is no evidence for this event. That needs to be made very clear to the reader when the context is history. If that offends a believer, then they need to leave this project. jps (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

But we can still say they believe its true. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The content is accompanied by inline attribution and comes from a reliable source. As tgeorgescu also noted, Maier recognized his view was in the minority. However, Maier also supports his perspective using valid historical approaches (if still arriving at a position that hesitatingly supports the massacre as historical). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It depends how it sits within WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Brown's apologetics get mentioned in other sources. Do Maier's? (genuine question). Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Only other Christian apologetics sources. Those who study the historicity of the Bible do not take him seriously. How can they? He has to contend with things like the Earth's rotation stopping in the Book of Joshua. He's a total freak! jps (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Outside of dissertations and theses, at least 10 peer reviewed works reference Maier's work [2]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha! What a joke! None of those are in the relevant field and I don't think any of them show any evidence of peer review. What makes you think they're peer reviewed? jps (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there any scholarly discussion of his views on this topic? Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not that I can find. As you see above, there are weirdoes citing it (10 of them), but nothing that would rise to the level of "this has something to say about what was going on in Palestine during the reign of Herod the Great". And we have boatloads of excellent, reliable sources that discuss that subject. jps (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked the José D. Najar book from that list, and it offers the opposite conclusion, "In the Bible story, which scholars considered to be based on legend rather than historical fact, King Herod ordered the massacre (101-102)". I don't see that as supporting the reliability of the Paul Maier article. It's not uncommon for someone to publish reliable material in one field and unreliable material in another (like apologetics), Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That absolutely does demonstrate his reliability. He's being cited for the objectively accurate statement he provides: most scholar disagree with him. This is an endorsement of him as a sound source, while not endorsing his conclusion. Since he is a scholar of note who is widely cited even by those who disagree with him, his opinion is relevant. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

??? If I publish an longform article about the origins of the Earth and I say that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old which is in direct contradiction to the position that Answers in Genesis holds, that is not a means to declare Answers in Genesis is reliable about the topic. jps (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

He absolutely does not. Maier is a charlatan. A hack. A biblical literalist who wants to play with the real scholars but can't because his faith requires him to believe absolute absurdities. Some researchers can get around that. They can compartmentalize. Maier was unable to do so and, moreover, no one cared to notice that this was his position. So why should we? jps (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Only if someone noticed. The standard has to be higher than "oh, someone said this thing". We need to decide whether it is important that they said it. From what I can see, no serious scholar takes Haier's argument from the criterion of embarrassment nor France's argument about how "no one probably thought this massacre was worth writing about" seriously. It's all just fodder for a Sunday School lesson. It's what you console the gal or guy who comes to your parsonage worried that they're losing their faith. It's apologetics and unless that apologetics has been commented on, it doesn't belong here since it is WP:FRINGE and not WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship. jps (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel those who have had more than their say need to stop wp:bludgeoning and let fresh blood be spilt. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Richard T. France must go too

Richard T. France is quoted as saying that it is not surprising it wasn't recorded outside the bible. But he is not an expert in this kind of research. His bullshit needs to go too. Anglican clerics jockeying for their own hoped-for confirmation of their sacred texts do not a reliable source on the veracity of a claim about Roman Empire Palestine make. jps (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

A big chunk of Anglicans clerics are atheists or agnostics. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of sectarian identity, Anglicans can be reliable sources on subjects related to their religion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

#NOTALLANGLICANS isn't really an argument. The point is that this Anglican is engaging in apologetics and that's WP:NOT What Wikipedia is for. Similar to the above: unnoticed by the actual experts. How'd y'all get to a consensus to include such... and I say this with all the respect afforded by the scholarly and rigorous term defined above... bullshit? jps (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from further BATTLEGROUND behavior, ජපස. Your comments remain remarkably unproductive. Please articulate the specifics of how this is a scholar we shouldn't use beyond "they're Anglican". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This scholar makes a specious argument that no one in the relevant epistemic field noticed. How's that? jps (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's how scholarship works. I've written about how another NT scholar iterated on previous scholarship to produce a new conclusion in the past (going the other direction on the whole biblical literalism thing). This is normal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My instinct tells me that jps is basically right, but the words he chose give the impression he would suggest something exceedingly radical. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Your instinct does you a disservice, as France's perspective is one that has been widely cited and bears mention, even if in the context of being marginal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Nah... you need to read through those sources. None of them take his "oh... they probably just didn't write it down" claim seriously. They all agree that this event didn't happen. Let it die. jps (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you've gotten too close to this topic, Pbritti. You are displaying the ugly side of WP:OWN and I think you may be WP:POVPUSHing here hoping to not offend believers with the facts that this event didn't happen. Does that critique ring true at all? jps (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think jps could have been nicer, but I don't think they're wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Why should an oft-cited piece of scholarship be precluded? ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Oft cited by which serious biblical scholar? Name one. jps (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Many, according to Google Scholar. Here are a smattering of the more recent citations:

• Louise Lawrence, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, University of Exeter, in An ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew
• Ian Boxall, Senior Tutor and Tutor in New Testament, University of Oxford, in Discovering Matthew
• Eugene Eung-Chun Park, Professor of New Testament, University of Redlands, "Rachel's Cry for Her Children: Matthew's Treatment of the Infanticide by Herod"

I have found other citations of the France in works published within the last 15 years by Brill, T&T Clark, and other reputed publishers. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: You can't just declare something regularly referenced in academic articles seems fringey in several respects. You have to prove it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS rests with the would-be includer. And asserting that this myth is an "event" in the lede seems distinctly problematic. I'm seeing nothing above but vague links and claims. If the authors in contention have views which have been discussed in reputable WP:SECONDARY sources, we should be citing those sources. Have they? If so, let's have chapter & verse. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You can verify all of these citations via both Google Scholar and the link I provided. The secondary citations don't need to be cited themselves—they demonstrate that reference to these sources is WP:DUE. If you can't read some of the sources, I'll share quotes. But you have yet to demonstrate any evidence that the positions are fringe despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ...". To show a possibly fringe scholar's view X is not fringe, let's see X being discussed in a pukka source. Bon courage (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, all indication demonstrates this is not fringe. Widespread citation across dozens of academic sources by reputed scholars published by reputed publishers is overwhelming evidence that this isn't fringe. These are minority positions, not fringe ones. Repeating unsubstantiated claims that they are fringe does not constitute a valid argument. I think we should probably transition to a broader noticeboard discussion. Do you want to suggest a forum? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but just pointing at citation counts is a mug's game. Are the citations just listings with no discussion? are they cited to dismiss? As I write: "To show a possibly fringe scholar's view X is not fringe, let's see X being discussed in a pukka source". The appropriate noticeboard to discuss fringe questions is WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be working for the next 10ish hours and the preexisting discussion at that noticeboard doesn't seem active. Feel free to bring up some points there whenever and we can carry on the conversation. I apologize that I'll be making you wait for a response. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No hurry! Bon courage (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It is untrue that no one in the relevant epistemic field noticed. I'd defer to tgeorgescu here, but can we take W. D. Davies as a serious biblical scholar for Matthew? But you have to look at how he is cited. Boxall says he is one of "eminent scholars" in pointing out that he maintains a minority position as to authorship and dating. Specifically for the 1981 paper in question he is cited for opposition to Goulder's argument that the stories are 'midrash', but not anything concerning historicity. Davies mentions within a footnote:

The attempt of R. T. France, 'Herod' (v), 'Massacre' (v), to uphold the historicity of the massacre of the infants fails in part because he does not prove that the Mosaic typology is a 'redactional gloss' on an already established narrative. In our reconstruction, the earliest stage (I), was largely determined by Mosaic legends. And even if one disputes our tradition-history, when one takes away from Mt 2 all the items with parallels in the Moses materials, little more than a few lines about magi remain.

I suspect that that will be the way France is mostly cited, as a considered and rejected argument, or when an author points out the range of opinions on historicity. One problem here is i think this quote and attribute formula pushed on articles by RSN overemphasizes minority opinions. Text switches from an encyclopedic summary of the literature to: but according to X "...". I think if the article is summarizing the literature then R. T. France does not have a place. If the article reviews the literature, which might be appropriate, then he probably does, and his argument can be put in it's proper place. fiveby(zero) 14:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

@IP: Your sources are unreliable: one is about a painting, the other is WP:BLOGS.

About It is very disingenious to apply "myth" to formulate the narrative as false: in mainstream history it's either false or mythological. Get used to it. Wikipedia does not pander to religion, it kowtows to mainstream history.

What people often forget it is that it would still be a myth, even if it truly happened. Same as the suicide at Masada became a myth, even if it is properly attested historically. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I am sorry this IP attacked you personally. However, it would appear incorrect to describe the account as a "myth" in wikivoice when its historicity continues to be identified in scholarship as a matter of debate (see the first page of "Rachel's Cry for Her Children: Matthew's Treatment of the Infanticide by Herod", which I mentioned above). Additionally, other scholars, including Richard A. Horsley, provided evidence in support for the massacre's historicity (see a summary of Horsley's evidence here). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Wikipedia:Myth versus fiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That's an interesting essay that carries substantially less weight than scholarship; can you quote from sources to support the description of the narrative as myth? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: My argument isn't that it did not happen. My argument is that there is no way to know, and that makes it mythical. E.g. several scholars notice that the mass suicide at Masada functions as a myth for modern Jews, and there is much more evidence for Masada than for the Massacre of the Innocents. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Are you saying that you're describing the narrative as a myth for reasons other than reliable sourcing doing so? If we have a suitable source that describes the narrative as a myth, then we're good here (I agree with the point of the essay). If not, we don't impose wikivoice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: See e.g. George, Arthur (2020). The Mythology of America's Seasonal Holidays: The Dance of the Horae. Springer International Publishing. p. 218. ISBN 978-3-030-46916-0. Retrieved 20 March 2024.

And Leeming, David A. (2022). World Mythology: A Very Short Introduction. Very short introductions. Oxford University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-19-754826-4. Retrieved 20 March 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind adding the George source with the quote from the book (which is very sufficient to source the claim and would dissuade further opposition to the term's employment). ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This source seems to imply that "story" is a better label. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is also Michael Grant (classicist) apud Summers, Ray; Vardaman, Jerry (1998). Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers. Chronos, kairos, Christos / ed. by E. Jerry Vardaman. Mercer University Press. p. 171 fn. 6. ISBN 978-0-86554-582-3. Retrieved 20 March 2024.

And Maccoby, Hyam (1992). Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil. Free Press. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-02-919555-0. Retrieved 20 March 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as to which wording is appropriate either way. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Myth" in the first sentence is needlessly provocative & not really accurate. It has a precise literary origin, which myths don't. The sources for "myth" are absurdly weak. Just call it a "story" or an "episode" in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well its not fact, so it is either Myth or fiction. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of stuff does not get written often because it is assumed to be self-understood. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

POV text

I reworded a sentence to sound less dramatic. I do not think the article's use of the word "believer" was appropriate. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Biblical maximalism

I have no idea why biblical maximalism deserves discussing in the section of the historicity of the myth. Indeed, we could also say that people who were biblical inerrantists or biblical fundamentalists also made such arguments. To what end? There is absolutely no evidence that there was any Herod court intrigue over any Bethlehem births ever. Why would there be? LOL. jps (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

But would we have any evidence, other than the Bible, if there had been? No, we would not. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

:But would we have any evidence, other than the Bible, if there had been? No, we would not. Are you kidding? There is lot of independent attestation of intrigue in Herod the Great's court. I'm not sure why you think "No, we would not." jps (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It would only make sense that routinely discussed arguments by people who hold those views would be discussed in an article about a biblical narrative. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

For a non-fundamentalist argument for historicity: [3]. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the argument France made (but somehow that's "fundamentalism"). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I don't find this argument to be "non-fundamentalist" because it relies on taking the claims that there was some expectation of a Messiah born in Bethlehem at about that time pretty literally, and I don't see attestation that this is something that actually happened. As such, this is a very weird argument for historicity that requires more-or-less accepting the nativity story as being genuine when I think there is almost no evidence for such. In this way, it's different from the midrash-like incorporation of actual historical characters, for example. Literally all the events outlined lack independent attestation. jps (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have already responded to you here. Do you have a source for your claims—something needed per WP:V—or are you inserting your "maximalism" claim as original research? For someone who has attacked credibility of valid and discussed academic arguments, you have mustered remarkably few sources that actually do so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you are WP:POVPUSHing for your religious beliefs at this point. This is argumentative posturing in service of claims that event for which there is no evidence plausibly happened. jps (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am exclusively asking you to follow the policies. Again, you deflect from actually addressing your failure to provide sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you may not have been keeping up. I was trying to remove the maximalism claim from the text. I think there is good reason to do so. I don't think that the cited sources are decent for such maximalist claims. Do you? jps (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not have access to the second source, but the first one seems to indicate that your most recent edit was incorrect. The sources I removed literally entertained the possibility that the author of Matthew at least believed that he was writing down a historical event. I personally don't think the event is likely, but my opinion doesn't count. If you did not actually read the second source, I tempted to accuse you of WP:POVPUSHing for an unsourced interpretation of an academic consensus. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the writer of Matthew believed a lot of things that weren't true. What basis does this have for anything? The sources don't say anything about this event happening... indeed they all basically argue it didn't. I'm not sure why y'all think differently. It's as though you want to find reasons to believe even when the sources say "nah". jps (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස: R. T. France notes in this article that a text known as the Assumption of Moses (1st century AD) contains a vaticinium ex eventum description of Herod's reign stating that "[He] will slay the old and the young, and he will not spare" and that "[He] will execute judgments on them as the Egyptians executed upon them", which could be an allusion to the Bethlehem killing.

Additionally, Eugene Eung-Chun Park notes here that the historian Suetonius records another example of a ruler (Nero) who did something similar to what Matthew claims that Herod did. Suetonius records that, when a comet appeared in the night sky for several days, it was taken to be an omen of the death of a person of supreme importance. Following the advice of his astrologer, Balbillus, Nero was determined to kill a great many of the nobility in order to avert the heavenly portent, which he obviously believed to be against himself. The massacre was executed in the form of punishment for two alleged plots against his life. Suetonius adds that all the children of the massacred nobles were banished from Rome and eventually starved to death or were poisoned (Suetonius, Nero 36). Park argues that this parallel case shows that "Herod’s scheme in Matt 2:7 and 16 is in line with such an ethos of the ruling elites in an empire like Rome" (p. 477). Potatín5 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't look like arguments that state that there is positive evidence for these events. This looks like apologetics. How is this not just argumentative "it *could* have happened" consistent with the known personality of Herod and other events that were similar? jps (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you've misread both those sources. France points out that Ethelbert Stauffer made such an argument (which he does here) but then dismisses it. Shouldn't we also take Park at his word that The historicity of this account, however, is not an immediate concern of this article and recognize the use of such phrasing as in the narrative world of Matthew?
Also think there is an important element missing in all this argument, as expressed by Davies:

And even if one supposes that Herod the Great did in fact have children in Bethlehem slaughtered, his decision so to do cannot have come about as Matthew portrays it, for then we would have to accept as historical the story of the magi and the star and too many other improbabilities.

— Davies, W. D. (1988). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1. p. 265.

tgeorgescu if i understand your argument correctly, i think the cost is too high without making Davies point clear to the reader. fiveby(zero) 13:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)