Talk:Massacre of the Innocents/Archive 2

Tag in Historicity section
Sorry if I'm being a pain. However, if you know that mention does not occur in the Jewish liturgy, then it's a knowable quantity, and reliable sources can say so. Now, I know that sources are not often going to address a silence, although the wranglings that some do over this issue might spark responses. So I would suggest that we wait a long time for a source to be found before removing the paragraph. The search could be prolonged. On the other hand, just how long is the liturgy you're talking about? The Seder meal only? If so, that's not so long that it can't be reviewed in toto, and the liturgy itself becomes the source. What could be more reliable than that? Evensteven (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No. On second thought, I reverse myself. The tag is making a claim in itself, saying "there is too a Jewish liturgy that is not silent". If so, then let it be found and used as a source. It is a justifiable thing to oppose having to prove a thing like silence, even if it is knowable. Lack of silence is equally knowable, and much more easily provable. If the paragraph is in error, then the lack of silence is the evidence that should be produced. Evensteven (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The tag for a citation is not making any claim that "there is too a Jewish liturgy that is not silent", but rather "who said this?" The difficulty with the first two paragraphs of the Historicity section is not the analysis, but that it is unattributed. Surely someone other than an editor has made these observations. If the source is someone mentioned further down in the discussion, than perhaps the statements should be likewise be placed with the source. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Or the source may be used multiple times, once in this location. Evensteven (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just cut the para. It's been in question for ages and no-one has found a reference. The period is not one covered in the Hebrew Bible, & I don't think the lack of mention in later ritual demonstrates anything much. Plenty of larger massacres in antiquity are not so remembered. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was tempted, but did not feel certain enough myself. Evensteven (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert of original research
The reverted piece was not original research. It did not have the tags, but it was not original research. Some of its sources were outdated, so this might be a better reason for removal than claiming original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've restored it. It was certainly referenced. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is original research, editor cites Luke & Embassy to Gaius to support his own defense of historicity. Editor cites William F. Albright, who's position was fringe compared to scholarly consensus. This all amounts to undue weight, especially given following paragraph provides better sourced and appropriately weighted counter-points. I'd recommend establishing consensus prior to reverting. 63.197.119.253 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd advise against edit warring. Addition was made yesterday, debate is for its inclusion. "Blanket removal" justified, as consensus existed prior to addition. 63.197.119.253 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NVM, moot point now that I've recognize the addition as a copyright violation from / apologist website. It should have been clear to anyone reviewing section that "Brown 1993:226, footnote 34" doesn't correspond to this article. I believe this supersedes three revert rule. I apologize for not catching this sooner. 63.197.119.253 (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Although not Christians"
Obviously they were not Christians; this is pre- the ministry of Jesus; the Cross and Christian Baptism ... they could not be Christians! This is appropriately implicitly stated using the words "claimed as". So, mentioning it (and in the lede especially) gives undue weight to a technicality. Would editors please discuss here and gain consensus before re-introducing this point. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everything that seems to be obvious is obvious to everyone. It may make sense from a Christian point of view. But there are other views - 'the ministry of Jesus', for instance, is a Christian framing of events that others would not necessarily accept. We need to give a broader perspective. We are talking here about Jewish children claimed as martyrs by members of a religion they did not belong to. I find it extraordinary that anyone would consider that a technicality. Quite apart from that, there is the issue of how anyone can be a martyr without choosing to. However, I will add details and appropriate citations to show there is more than a 'technicality' at issue here. --Rbreen (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Johnbod has found a good turn of phrase. Springnuts (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Rbreen asks how anyone can be a martyr without choosing to be. I know this isn't a forum for discussing the topic but Rbreen raised the question. Anyway, St Augustine said that unbaptized children go to Hell. Therefore if the Holy Innocents weren't martyrs they'd go to Hell. So Augustine made the Holy Innocents martyrs in order that they wouldn't go to Hell. Fletcherbrian (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except the idea long predates St Augustine, whose ideas on where unbaptized children go are far from the only ones in Catholic theology. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

On July 23, 1936 ten minim nuns of the Barcelona monastery were executed. I'm pretty sure they didn't volunteer. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of Christian martyrs don't "volunteer", but they are Christian. But this is 2 years old. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Date of Holy Innocents Day
I do think that where this article says that the date of Holy Innocents Day varies, it should say that in most Western churches, it is known as December 28. 81.140.1.129 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massacre of the Innocents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104172841/http://prayerbook.ca/the-prayer-book-online/57-the-calendar-ix to http://prayerbook.ca/the-prayer-book-online/57-the-calendar-ix

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Historicity
Multiple issues in this reversion [] - "Most" recent biographers. On its own this is a bit of a weasel word. Why not "It has been claimed that most ..." - which is a sourced statement and unexceptional. - "recent" ... again, bit weaselly. Is it implied that being recent makes them more likely to be accurate? - "biographers" ... but actually the views of historians in general might give a fairer sample. I don't want to do edit warring: might a third party have a go at a non POV revision? Springnuts (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the section today, since the issues above are not addressed. As currently written it has balance (Some historians ...  whilst others ...).  I would have no objection to the sceptical historian being restored, if examples of the others are added, and will do that when I have time ! -  Springnuts (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It was reinstated by anon editor(s), and I rearranged it again. The historian is now quoted, and the sceptical views are justifiable encyclopedic content; I do not think it is right to remove them while looking for balancing views. It would of course be appropriate to add sourced examples of credible scholars who reach other conclusions. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - happy with your edit and will try to add sourced stuff idc. Springnuts (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to news report saying infanticide in the Roman world of the time was not so shocking as infants below the age of two was not regarded as a person: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10384460 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.138.204 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Killing babies was probably quite common in the west upto modern times. See http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-39330793  :219.78.155.119 (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Roman Syria
This deletion of sourced material, with an edit summary contradicting what appears to be a reliable source, needs explaining. If Judea was not in Roman Syria at that time, was Herod ordering assassination of infants outside his own jurisdiction? - Fayenatic (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Iudaea Province, the province of Iudaea was not created until AD 6 (i.e. after the Massacre of the Innocents), and it implies that the region was part of the province of Syria until then. —Angr 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Herod was an independent king (however qualified his independence was in practical terms). Bethlehem was part of his kingdom, but his kingdom was not part of any Roman province. PiCo (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also since Herod the Great died in 4 BC how could he order the "Massacre of the Innocents" in 1 AD?! Why has no one added this bit of info so far? 89.210.189.119 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Historians don't credit this as a historical event, so the gospel contradictions are sort of beside the point. Leadwind (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The gospels never actually say Jesus was born in 1 AD, so it's not really a contradiction. My understanding is that most historians place the birth of Jesus ca. 6-4 BCE, which would still fall within the lifetime of Herod the Great. Whether the Massacre of the Innocents is historical or not is another matter.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of heading section.
I have (here: ) changed the article back for four reasons:

1. "Some accounts" suggests that there are a number of accounts of the massacre, varying in their count of the dead. In fact there is one account, Matthew's, which does not give an estimate. 2. "... number them at more than 10,000" - The number in the high thousands (I believe in an orthodox liturgy) is (I understand) of 144,000 - ie it is a symbolic numbering (cf the martrys in the Revelation to John) rather than a mathematical estimate as such.

3. "Most modern historians" - One source (Maier) says "most modern biographers of Herod". This is very different to a consensus of sources that "most modern historians ...."

4. The open-ness of the historicity question should be reflected in the summary.

Springnuts (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do any historians state that it happened, or that it is likely to have happened?? Do any offer any evidence?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The historian is not an eye-witness. All he can do is to interpret the sources. That the slaughter is recorded in one historical source, to wit Matthew, is beyond doubt. It is also beyond doubt that it is not recorded in any other source, which by common sense rules out the exaggerated numbers of Innocents in some legends (144000 or what not), but not the actual slaughter as recorded by Matthew. It seems to be generally agreed that judging from the rest of what we know about Herod and of antiquity, it "could very well have happened". After all Josephus does record Herod as killing even his own sons for the same reason (fear for his throne). The rest is a question of a) how to treat the evidence in Matthew and b) what to make about the silence of Josephus (him being apparently be the only writer whose works have come down to us that treats the time and place in question in any detail). That's the evidence the historian has to interpret from, and his profession (to be blunt) does not give him any prophetic insights about what actually happened; a scholar, as well as an amateur, can draw his conclusions. As for b), I do not see how it really can be disputed that the slaughter, if it happened, may have well escaped his attention or even knowledge. Remains the question a).--2001:A61:20FD:C201:E410:F47F:147B:945C (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In a number of commentaries on the text of Matthew, conjecture is raised regarding the historicity of the event, but virtually all commentators remark that the purpose of recording the Massacre is theological and not purely historical. That being said, according to W.F. Albright, the size of Bethlehem at around 4 BCE was only around 300 inhabitants, which means there may have been fewer than ten or so babies who would have fallen within the target age for the massacre. If these numbers are indeed accurate, it's really no wonder that their massacre escaped Josephus' notice. Ultimately, such an act falls well within the character of Herod the Great known from historical (though arguably not neutral) sources. I have no doubt that if Herod perceived a threat to his kingdom, whether in the form of a baby or not, he would have eliminated that threat by any means necessary.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Timing of events
If Herod died in 4 BC, how could he order the execution of infants after Jesus's birth had been announced to him by the Magi? ...Apparently he died BEFORE Jesus was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.55.41 (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting your timeline. Jesus is generally understood to have been born between 6-4 BCE, while Herod was still alive. This suggests that if the Massacre is an historical event, it may have taken place within the last year or so of Herod's reign.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Everett Ferguson
An edit of mines has been reversed for, it seems to me, shoddy reasons. Here was the edit I added in this page under the 'History and Theology' section;

Everett Ferguson also writes that the story of the massacre, though without external attestation, fits into the historical reign of terror known from Herod's last years in power.(Sourced: Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003. Pg. 390)

My addition was removed by because, apparently, Ferguson is a total fundamentalist and so his view is irrelevant. This seems incredibly shoddy. Everett Ferguson is a renowned scholar in NT studies and the source in question, his book Backgrounds of Early Christianity, is one of, if not the standard textbook for the historical background of the New Testament in academia. Google Scholar lists that it has 890 citations, more than almost any other work in the field. There are many evangelicals in NT studies and their scholarship is cited throughout Wikipedia (assuming Ferguson is an inerranist rather than just conservative, a claim that hasn't yet seen substantiation). Why is Ferguson's definitively scholarly perspective any different? Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't require reliable sources to be neutral. See WP:BIASED. So what's the justification for reversing my edit?
 * I've reformatted your bibliographical entry so that it won't sow up at the bottom of the page - talk pages can too easily become clogged with these thing.
 * The argument that the massacre at Bethlehem would be unremarkable in the context of Herod's reign isn't specific to Ferguson, so it's better not to mention his name as if he invented it. (His book, of course, can be used as the source). Our article alludes to it in the final sentence: "Scholars such as R.T. France admit the presence of the "New Moses" paradigm in the nativity story (and its continuation throughout the gospel), but deny that it could have inspired the story of the massacre of the innocents without some historical foundation: "It is clear that this scriptural model has been important in Matthew's telling of the story of Jesus, but not so clear that it would have given rise to this narrative without historical basis."
 * I's prefer to leave it at that, as the arguments are endless and we don't have room for them all. R.T. France is mentioned, by the way, because his Commentary on Matthew is recognised as a standard work - he's more or less "the" scholar on the subject.
 * I hope this clears up the reasons why the section is written as it is - we have limited space, and we're trying to be even-handed.PiCo (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (P.s.: you might like to register and get a user-name, it makes things easier for discussions like this and you'll have access to things such as the Teahouse, which is a discussion forum).PiCo (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll consider making an account (I've been editing for a few months without one and it seems to be going well -- I actually even managed to recently create the Leslie J. Hoppe page), but I want to drive the point home. You're right that this argument isn't specific to Ferguson, so his name can be left out (or, I would propose writing "Some scholars, such as Everett Ferguson, ..."). However, the entry on France's view is too vague in relation to the point that Ferguson makes -- in specific, that the story essentially fits into the historical context of Herod's reign of terror. All scholarly viewpoints should be represented on Wiki and the space problem can't possibly be so bad that 25 words to the page is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * An account isn't mandatory, it just makes life easier if you plan to edit frequently. Anyway, I've revised the para to try to meet your concerns. PiCo (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's a project for you. The sourcing for this sentence is inadequate - it points to a book by someone called Petersen published in 1998, but there's no such book in the bibliogrpahy. Evidently I forgot to add it, and now I can't find it. The data is simple enough, so if you have the time you can google "Massacre of the Innocents" and see if you can find an alternative - or start with the books in the bibliography, which would simplify matters. This is the sentence: "In the context of the reign of terror which characterised Herod's last years, the number of infants in Bethlehem and surrounds - no more than a dozen or so - would perhaps have been too insignificant to be recorded by Josephus, who in any case could not be aware of every incident in a period that lay far in the past when he wrote.[8]" Cheers :) PiCo (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Later: It's ok, I seem to have made a mistake, the correct name is Maier, not Petersen.PiCo (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I edited the language from your edit a bit more to make my point (rather, Ferguson's) more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I thought Maier covered the point you've cited Furguson for, but if you want Ferguson that's ok. Could you change your cite to the same format as others in the article (it's called sfn format, for short format note, and consists of sfn|authorname|publicationdate|p=pagenumber, all inside curly brackets) - and add Furgusson to the bibliography. There's no rule requiring this, I just like to be neat.PiCo (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Done and done, good sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Pro-Life Patrons
, thanks for adding a source. However, I wonder if there isn't something better than "Catholicism for Dummies" out there?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I found the Catholic World Report, how's that? Elizium23 (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about patronage in that article. Wouldn't this require some sort of papal declaration, given that the "pro-life movement" wasn't a thing when the Holy Innocents were canonized?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is influenced by popular piety and acclamation. The Holy Innocents were not canonized, in fact they were declared saints by popular acclamation, like most saints in the pre-Congregation era. Elizium23 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that the pope is still responsible for saying which saint does what, such as recently declaring patron saints of Europe, for instance.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's both. For one thing, he doesn't go around declaring patron saints of every diocese, the bishops do that. And he didn't have to declare Joseph the patron saint of carpenters, the carpenters took care of that. Elizium23 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"Strage degli Innocenti" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Strage degli Innocenti. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Although Jewish"
"The Holy Innocents, although Jewish, have been claimed as martyrs for Christianity,..." … Abraham, David, and Daniel, "although Jewish" are regarded as saints in Christianity and prophets in Islam. MLK, although a Baptist, is commemorated by the Episcopal and the Evangelical Lutheran Churches. Is it so unusual for one tradition to acknowledge someone from another that this belongs in the lede? It reads somewhat clunky. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A martyr is one who dies for his/her faith. A two year old is unlikely to have any deeply held faith convictions.PiCo (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's too restrictive an interpretation of 'martyr.' 50.111.63.192 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier
Maier is being used to support the statement "A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend, or folklore." Maier then goes on to say, "Except for Brown, however, such conclusions are not well supported by the authors who drew them." and further, "I shall summarize the arguments in favor of a mythical framework for the Matthean episode, then offer a critique of these arguments, and, finally, present evidence supporting the historicity of the Infant Massacre. -Maier's whole article supports historicity, and yet is cited for the reverse. I suggest that it is dishonest and hypocritical cherry-picking to cite a source in support of a position which that source, in reality, actually opposes; and it certainly does not belong in the lede. This is not the first instance where this user has misinterpreted/misused a source. One wonders whether said user is attempting to have yet a third article placed under page protection. Manannan67 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quote is repeated verbatim in the lede, so that's one problem. The article should state that in the view of Maier, etc., etc. - it is only his viewpoint. 50.111.63.192 (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless done in error, it is duplicitous, dishonest, unethical, and hypocritical to twist a source to support a position he/she does not. It says a lot about an editor who doesn't recognize this, It says a great deal more about an editor who recognizes it BUT DOES IT ANYWAY. Manannan67 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeating material from the body of the article verbatiim in the lead is normal. More seriously, I suspect that user Manannan67 is answering his own questions. The use of socks is looked on very seriously. Achar Sva (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're a fine one to throw stupid accusations. It is not the bloody statement, it's the attribution. You choose not to get it. You are deliberately distorting Maier's entire article and you know it. Manannan67 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Manannan67, first, please avoid uncivil language and try to settle disputes through discussion. Here is where you should explain why you think the text you  dislike is not acceptable. For convenience, this is that text: A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend or folklore. It's based on pages 170-71 of Paul Meier's contribution the edited volume "Chronos, Kairos, Christos II", which is as follows - I've edited slightly to reduce the length:


 * Questioning the carnage at Bethlehem is nothing new. Critical scholars have disputed the episode for several centuries. Most recent biographies of Herod the Great deny it entirely, with one exception [Meier then gives that exception, a biography of Herod by Stewart Perowne].


 * This view, however, is not shared by other Herod biographers [stress in the original], who dismiss the episode as "legend" [Meier then names scholars holding this view, including the following: Michael Grant claims that the tale is not history but myth or folklore].


 * Probably a majority of current biblical scholars have joined in this opinion. [Meier goes on to give examples].


 * Please explain why you feel that the sentence "A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend or folklore" misrepresents this.Achar Sva (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe I made things perfectly clear January 6th last. 50.111.63.192 (talk) understood, as did at least six other editors. You apparently choose not to. If the best support you can find for your position is to quote a guy who's opposed to it -that's pathetic. -And you can take your condescending passive-aggressive nonsense elsewhere. Manannan67 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the harm in changing "most" "majority" to "many"? Isn't that more close to what is provided in the source, especially the most recent from 2021? Or maybe there is a better term to use which is even more appropriate? -- A Rose Wolf  18:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Maier source I don't see the use the word "majority" anywhere. I see the use of the word "other". If anyone objectively looked at the source I'm not sure how they could conclude that other means majority. If there is another location where majority is spelled out then I would love to see it or if I have missed it in the Maier source please point it out. -- A Rose Wolf  18:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I found it on my own. Meh, saying probably does infer that it is a personal opinion more than a scientific fact. Perhaps Maier felt like it could be a majority but we shouldn't discount the use of the word probably as anything assured this was his position. I probably would have went with the use of the word "many" as is shown in the second source. -- A Rose Wolf  19:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC) -- A Rose  Wolf  15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"probably a majority of biblical scholars,"
The short description ends with "A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend or folklore." This quote is attributed to Dr. Paul Myer in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers.

I don't believe that this citation supports either a) a majority of Herod biographers, or b) a majority of biblical scholars believe this event is a "myth, legend, or folklore." Please forgive me if I am wrong, but I was unable to find this quoted in either Maier 1998, p. 170-171 or Magness 2021, p. 126 (cited in "History and theology").

What I would like to focus on is the claim that "probably a majority of biblical scholars" don't believe this event is true.

Dr. Paul Meier spoke on the "DesiringGod" podcast in December 2015 and said the following: "I see not one iota of evidence here it could not have happened. And therefore, again, there is no reason to doubt the account as far as I am concerned." The podcast and transcript can be found here: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/truth-or-fiction-did-herod-really-slaughter-baby-boys-in-bethlehem

My understanding is that there is no account of these events by secular historians, but that much of the debate among biblical scholars is not about whether the event happened, but the number of children killed. For example, Got Questions Ministries says the following on the Massacre of the Innocents: "Some ancient Christian traditions claim that the Massacre of the Innocents involved tens to hundreds of thousands of children. However, based on the population of the small village of Bethlehem, the annual birthrate, and the high infant death rate at the time, most biblical historians and demographers estimate the total number of male children under the age of two to be no more than 20 to 40." This can be found here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Massacre-of-the-Innocents.html

I think it would be more accurate to say the following: "There are no secular historical accounts of this event.

I understand that the resources I am referencing may not be sufficient as citations. However, I am compelled to initiate this conversation as the doubts about the historical accuracy of this event are the content of much of this article, and the resources being cited to make these claims don't appear to be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coniferae (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You are quite right to bring your concerns to the talk page. However, the source on which our passage is based appears to be soundly based. The passage is this:
 * A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend or folklore.
 * This comes from pages 170-171 of Paul Meier's contribution the edited volume "Chronos, Kairos, Christos II", which is as follows - I've edited slightly to reduce the length:

''Questioning the carnage at Bethlehem is nothing new. Critical scholars have disputed the episode for several centuries. Most recent biographies of Herod the Great deny it entirely, with one exception [Meier then gives that exception, a biography of Herod by Stewart Perowne]. This view, however, is not shared by other Herod biographers [stress in the original], who dismiss the episode as "legend" [Meier then names scholars holding this view, including the following]: Michael Grant claims that the tale is not history but myth or folklore. Probably a majority of current biblical scholars have joined in this opinion. [Meier goes on to give examples].''
 * It is true that Meier himself does not agree with the majority, but our task on Wikipedia is to represent the majority, not to engage in arguments. Achar Sva (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

R.T.France quote
I don't have access to the material being quoted, but the second quote as it stands makes no sense - France believed that there was a historical basis. So either the quote is missing 'not', or it should be introduced with 'it is unlikely that'. Mdrb55 (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have access to that page either, but I agree that it needs a "not" to reflect France's opinion. I've edited boldly. Achar Sva (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Later: I've checked, and yes, the word "not" is present in France's book. Not surprisingly.Achar Sva (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Undue
Your edit is WP:UNDUE if not outright WP:FRINGE. If we take Oshri's report at face value, there were 0 (zero) children living at Bethlehem at that time. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not quote Oshri for what he posited, I have quoted him for what he denied (namely that the Bethlehem of Judea was an inhabited place back then). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," again
This is quite a clever way to impose your personal opinions in a place where we expect to find informations and facts. I removed just the "probably" part but the quote must be removed completly because it's just a personal opinion. Did the author of the book talked with the "majority"?. And why it must be the " majority"? I know it's because the author is an atheist and it must be the majority to prove the event is a myth. For the same reason the quote is here in the article:to impose the atheist view. And when others will talk against he can just say :it's a quote from a book. Little bit cowardish i must say. 79.112.213.55 (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Persecution mania? How do you know he is an atheist? Are you a mind reader or something? tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, well, he have a neat rule called WP:RS/AC. That's all the fuss about.


 * "I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy."

- Bart Ehrman


 * In other words, the IP cannot speak on behalf of mainstream Christianity, they speak instead for Christian fundamentalist fringes.


 * Further info: WP:GOODBIAS, WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu, the IP is a common troll. What is the point of trying to reason with him/her? Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that even trolls or fundamentalist POV-pushers have a right to know the reason why they are shunned from this website. This is an encyclopedia: neither a conspiracy, nor a book by Kafka. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

,, and , hi. I will say it from the start, I am by matter of principle more than skeptical when biblical literalism wiggles and twists trying to find ways to prove unprovable or highly improbable biblical narratives to be historically true. However, when an issue is raised, based on work published in quotable publications (RS), the matter has to be properly addressed. In this case, I am not convinced it has. I don't know if Mercer University Press and Novum Testamentum are guarantors for "RS". Princeton University Press most certainly is, and Vantage Press, as a self-publishing company, most certainly isn't as such, but Stewart Perowne, the author published there, might be (he studied Classical Archaeology and Architecture at Corpus Christi College,, Cambridge, and Classics at Harvard). Even if 184... is just a troll, the removed passage does look at first sight to be put together properly, by him or somebody else, and needs to be addressed: do the sources indeed state what the removed text is claiming? Are the authors reasonable and does their work present comprehensible arguments (goes to RS)? So please, let's go back to the now reverted text, which does need to be unpacked and discussed before it can be either dismissed, adopted in an amended form, or put back in as it was. Maybe creating a section on "Biblical literalist approach" and reformulating along the lines of "attempts made by biblical literalists at reconciling the lack of historical records with the narrative in Matthew..." could be a solution. The fact that a number of RS authors are claiming something is in itself notable in an encyclopedic article. Thank you.


 * "Although many Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred, more contemporary scholarship has discovered that Herod had access to the Bethlehem census records to note the place of residence for all children two years old and under and utilized them to organize and execute the slaying of the Bethlehem infants. The massacre likely took place in early June of 5 BC.  "

Arminden (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC) 
 * The timing of the supposed massacre is not implausible, and Herod towards the end of his reign did scheme to perform massacres. Josephus mentions a planned massacre in Jericho, which was not carried out because Herod's family chose to ignore his orders. The problem is the silence of any other source except the Gospel of Matthew, and that Matthew's narrative is contradicted by the Gospel of Luke. Even if the massacre was an element of Christian folklore before the Gospel was composed (as some of the available sources claim), why did it survive in a single source? Dimadick (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , you don't need to convince me, although I thank you for summing it up so well, which helps me personally with learning more about the current state of research. Btw, you made me very curious as to how exactly Matthew is contradicted by Luke. But what matters most is to have all this inside the article. Many, many more read that than do your comments here. So having the arguments – pro and con – on one side, and this type of conclusion based on a mainstream academic opinion, would be the very best we can hope for, in this or in any article. Can you provide some of that, with sources and all? I keep on breaking my promise to myself to take care of a backlog of real life issues, so I'll try to stay out of it, sorry. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The silence of the sources is already outlined in the article: "The story of the massacre is found in no gospel other than Matthew, nor in the surviving works of Nicolaus of Damascus (who was a personal friend of Herod the Great) and the historian Josephus makes no mention of it in his Antiquities of the Jews, despite recording many of Herod's misdeeds including the murder of three of his own sons." Matthew and Luke present two different narratives on the Nativity of Jesus, which contradict each other in nearly every detail. Notably, Luke does not mention Jesus or his family facing persecution, or having fled to Egypt for safety. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Proof from silence" is never acceptable, as I am sure you know. I have taken a quick look at the two narratives and it would be hard to point out any real contradiction there. An explicit contradiction would mean placing A at a different place at the time T, where both are clearly defined and identical in both narratives, and so forth. The argument of "how come they forgot it" doesn't stand up to standards, it's on the level of common sense and thus of opinions, not of proof. The synoptic gospels, by and large, can be intertwined w/o much difficulty – more domino- or puzzle-style than by overlaps, but it's been accepted, as far as I know. Relatively little in the entire Bible can be taken as verifiable history, confirmed by external sources; the story of a newborn, be it Moses, Jesus or whoever, cannot be analysed like that, it's maybe the least likely to be "objective", even when regarded from a common sense angle (who are the supposed witnesses?). So not even an exercise of "let's pretend that..." would take us very far. All we have is looking at the gospel narratives themselves, and setting them against the background of whatever historical data happened to survive (census, personalities, existence of mentioned towns). On that level, I don't see a base for removing that material, which is as speculative as any, whether pro or con. If a mainstream opinion of specialists can be claimed based on RS, that's something else; it's not us discussing it, it's the all-powerful f*** RS. Which of course keep on changing with time, but that's how science works. Arminden (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So again: the required effort would be to check whether the removed material is indeed backed up by the sources it uses, which might well be enough to at least clip its wings a bit, and then to verify, in good faith, if those sources are both reliable, and still quotable today, which I presume they are. Wording that makes me skeptical or even cringe: "Bethlehem census records to note the place of residence for all children..." – what census? The census of Quirinius was in 6 CE. Census records? I don't think there are good ready answers, but I don't know who they were available to, and first and foremost, they concerned taxation, so newborns or infants probably hardly were part of the data. Place of residence? Again, the tax residence of the father was the main concern. So whatever those quotable authors wrote, and those few good publishing houses ended up publishing, it must be different from what the editor put together; but there probably is a reasonable argument to be built from what they're actually saying, and that would be a gain for the article here. Arminden (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Arminden, these are the sources used in the piece you quote above:
 * "more contemporary scholarship has discovered that Herod had access to the Bethlehem census records to note the place of residence for all children two years old and under" is sourced to Jack V. Scarola, 1991: Scarola's book is from Vantage Press, a self-publishing portal, but it is cited in other respectably-published works. Scarola believes that there was a census in Palestine in 6C, and also believes implicitly that the gospel accounts are to be accepted without questioning - neither of these beliefs are mainstream. Nor c an he be described as "more contemporary" (more contemporary than who?).
 * (Herod) "utilized them (the results of the supposed 6BCE census) to organize and execute the slaying of the Bethlehem infants. The massacre likely took place in early June of 5 BC." The sources here are Perowne, "The Life and Times of Herod the Great" (1956) p.172, Jack Finnegan, "The Archaeology of the New Testament" (1992) p.26, and R.T. France, "Herod and the Children of Bethlehem" (1979) page range 98-120. I can't find Perowne's book online but it's is over sixty years old and I would rely on more modern sources, which of course our article already does. Finnegan's book is also not available online. I can go to the library and check, but I don't think this can be described as negating the material already in our article. France's article is here. He argues for the historicity of the event, but this is already noted in our article, and he admits in many places that this is a minority opinion.
 * To sum up, I don't see that these sources can support a statement that "more contemporary scholarship" has overturned what our article (which, of course, quotes sources) describes as the majority view.Achar Sva (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I can tell you that biblical literalists have ad hoc solutions to every contradiction or problem in the Bible. It is only when you consider all those solutions together that you realize that the refutation of contradictions and problems has created an incoherent theology. Of course, the biblical literalist will say: if it agrees with my own church, it is true, otherwise it is false. The problem is when authors from the same church offer different solutions. As Joel Baden has stated, seeing so many solutions being offered makes clear there is a problem in the first place. So: which biblical literalist solution should be rendered? Biblical literalists cannot agree among themselves which is the true biblical literalist solution. E.g. Southern Baptists have a high level of agreement over the broad theological outline. But there is no such consensus for minute details from the Bible. And the Devil lies in the details. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this seems to answer much of the questions. With "Scarola believes that there was a census in Palestine in 6C" you mean 6 BCE? Does he offer any explanation, or is it just his private hunch?
 * The removed text looks like it could be the work of somebody not very good at writing in English, so "more contemporary scholarship" can be taken to mean "more scholarship", as in "there are other authors who claim", rather than "scholarship more contemporary", meaning "more recent", with the subtext "more plausible". For the first way of reading it, the sources seem good enough.
 * Long story short: if the sources do add up to this much, there should be a "Historicity" section with a "Pro" and a "Con" subsection, with an introduction or conclusion subsection offering the majority, or mainstream opinion. That would be the correct approach IF the pro camp is anything beyond a fringe worthy of being fully disregarded. This decision is up to what the RS are saying. Spreading bits of one opinion around and immediately nixing them, while giving more ample space to the opposite theory, is OK when scientific fact is opposed just by unsupported wishful thinking.
 * Domnule Georgescu, I had the weird inclination of trying to see what justifications Ceaușescu's propaganda would be coming up with for the most grotesque and criminal decisions he was raining on us. I somewhat believe that this has helped me to be a little bit better prepared at recognising other types of sophisms, disingenuous arguments and fake news, even when they're concealed rather skillfully. If there's any value in an argument where both sides can't possibly have the absolute truth, as it often happens in matters of historicity, I feel that letting the reader make his own opinion, but based on solid AND correctly balanced information, is more useful in the long run than offering pre-digested solutions, "cleaned up" of all divergent opinions. The risk is that they'll learn about them from conspiracy theorists and the like, who'll point out to the "censorship" of the "mainstream" platforms. Is there any reason to believe there has been a pre-Quirinius census? What were censuses in a Roman client state likely to contain? Would the client king have access to all the data? I personally would be curious to know all this. Maybe it does go beyond the scope of an Wikipedia article, but I do find the chain of logical arguments interesting, and even important. What you're writing here in general terms is also interesting, but it's not present in the article. Maybe I should just read a few more books (or chapters) and leave everyone here alone :) However, having the main arguments in the article might interest many other users, from militant atheists to biblical literalists. Arminden (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no Social Security Number back then. There were no IDs. There were no passports, as in modern Europe. There were no street numbers. There was no public record of relocating to another house. Lots of children died in their infancy, so it's questionable if a monarch wanted to know how many babies were born and where. It has been argued that Herod, as a believer in astrology, could have performed such massacre because of superstition. And killing 10 children from a remote place could have gone unnoticed. I don't endorse Aviram Oshri's solution that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Galilee. But I think that he is spot on that the Bethlehem of Judea was uninhabited at the time of Jesus's birth. So, it's also possible that Herod's guards went to Bethlehem and found no one to be killed. It's like saying "I have enough money to buy all the archaeological evidence about the Exodus". Since there is no such evidence, it costs nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like what I wrote: "they concerned taxation, so newborns or infants probably hardly were part of the data". But what you're writing (in the first part) is purely rhetorical and not helpful. The tax collector knew very well where to reach the property owners. Policing a population was always adapted to the means at hand during each era. The useful arguments are different ones, and the historians have them.

In the second part of your post you're again offering excellent material, which is present only here, but not in the article, where it would be useful to the user.

That's all I had to contribute here, I keep on repeating myself and that's just clogging the page. Arminden (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "if the sources do add up to this much, there should be a "Historicity" section with a "Pro" and a "Con" subsection, with an introduction or conclusion subsection offering the majority, or mainstream opinion." I would not oppose this approach, provided that we get some reliable sources on the matter. But I suspect that the sources would discuss not only the historicity of the massacre, but the historicity of the nativity narrative in the Gospel of Matthew. The massacre is a relatively small element in a wider narrative of this gospel. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If such an expanded section were written it would have to deal with the theological basis of the story, since the gospel is a theology text, not a history book. Personally I think this would be overkill for a very minor trope, but it could be linked to the wider issue of how Matthew presents Jesus as the new Moses. Achar Sva (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Asserts/numbers/claims
"asserts" is sort of like "claims" and has a connotation of doubt or bias. I believe "numbers" is a good neutral verb to use. Elizium23 (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The massacre is pure fiction, and the numbers are imaginary. If there is a way to point how doubtful the silly narrative is, we should increase the level of doubt. Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing on non-Catholic traditions
Please check the "clarify" tags. Everything is focused on Catholic traditions, there is nothing on the entire Eastern Orthodoxy. Early Christianity is also discussed from a strictly Catholic pov. Arminden (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Revert
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)


 * 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)

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)

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, . 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&#39;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)
 * 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 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 : 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)
 * 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)
 * Myth versus fiction. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * See e.g.
 * And 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
 * And 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)

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: . 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)
 * 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)
 * , you should have access to both Park's "Rachel's Cry for Her Children", and France's "Herod and the Children of Bethlehem" thru WP:Library. fiveby(zero) 03:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The second source you linked implies that my preferred wording "most mainstream bible scholars", should be in the article, the first one does not. I don't know why I didn't use my access to JSTOR to resolve this. I apologize to anyone for any confusion that I caused (I am getting confused myself), as I am getting off a nasty medication. I hope to do a thorough literature review on this topic by Sunday to determine what I think is the best wording for that sentence. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:32, 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)
 * Some sources say it probably didn't happen and some say it may have happened. Others just identify the subject as a matter of debate. Wikipedia should acknowledge the breadth of scholarship rather than landing definitively on one side or the other. Also, this is again a failure to provide a source for the "maximalist" statement you inserted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What source of any sort of reliability says it "may" have happened? I see no sources which indicate any serious debate. jps (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing me with someone else. The whole point of this thread is that I want to remove commentary about the maximalist claims. jps (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. My initial objection was the text that read The Matthew account is not historically believable by scholars – as opposed to religious believers – but believer scholars have sometimes tried to compromise by suggesting the Moses narrative at least has claim to some historical accuracy. The text in place now is a million times more neutral. Scorpions1325 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I want the story to be true. That doesn't mean I am so biased that I will remove all other perspectives from the article or misrepresent WP:RS/AC. I initially insisted on Robyn Faith Walsh's perspective being included as an alternative theory on the composition of the Gospel. In case you aren't aware, some people would consider that book the final nail in the coffin for Christianity. I am also the reason why Adam and Eve contain a critical analysis section.
 * I have no intention of prolonging this discussion as I have only read a few perspectives on this topic., I would suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK, or we'll both end up getting sanctioned. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you're a tad confused what you're talking about. I don't really think your comments have been terribly productive and even though you restored an earlier version of the article as I had edited it, you did so while restoring things that jps had removed which actually needed removal. I think that this conversation is better served by addressing the core issue–sourcing–and not personal belief. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) 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)
 * @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."
 * Oopsies. I did not realize that I incorrectly re-added those categories. I agree that they should not be there. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to you both. I take accusations of bias very seriously. I think it would have been better if I had started a new section rather than go off topic. Again, I apologize. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have since read Jodi Magness' source, and it appears that my preferred wording is used in the source. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will say that I am now much more satisfied with this article than I was a month ago though. I just realized that I am getting worked up over one sentence. I'll sit out the remainder of this dispute. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)