Questions on assignment:
1. What, if anything, do we know of Herod the Great’s alleged slaughter of Judean babies as told in Matt 2: 13-23? What is the argument against the historicity of this event?
2.Explain the Roman witticism “Better to be Herod’s pig than his son.”
3.How do most historians evaluate (pros and cons) the reign of Herod?
4.How can we explain the fact that at the end of the Great Rebellion against Rome in 70 CE only two Jewish sectarian movements survived (through the present): the Pharisees (founders of what came to be called ‘Rabbinic Judaism”) and the followers of Jesus (founders of what came to be called Christianity)?
1. What, if anything, do we know of Herod the Great’s alleged slaughter of Judean babies as told in Matt 2: 13-23? What is the argument against the historicity of this event?
ReplyDeleteWhile King Herod was a brutal dictator with a lot of blood on his hands, he did not order the death of all of the babies in Judea. There are no other sources that make this claim. Surely the historians who kept records of Herod's evil deeds would have mentioned this. This story told by Matthew is a legend based on the Moses story. People in the time of Jesus said the same thing about Abraham's birth.
Answer to number 1: In Wylen pg 72 it states that " Though he had blood on his hands, Herod never ordered the death of all the babies in Judea, as told in a New Testament story. THAT IS A LEGEND BASED ON THE MOSES STORY." She goes on to state that the ancient historians who wrote about all of Herod's evil deeds would have surely spoke on the slaughtering of all the babies in Judea.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I thought I was assigned to number 1 but Sam being the studious student he is jumped on it. So, we have two entries. sorry about that folks
ReplyDelete2. Explain the Roman witticism “Better to be Herod’s pig than his son.”
ReplyDeleteKing Herod killed two of his sons and their mother because of their Hasmonean blood he also killed another son for reasons which I believe are unrelated. The remark is made in humor because Herod follows the a certain Jewish law (although his ancestors were not from Israel) that does not allow him to eat pigs.
3.How do most historians evaluate (pros and cons) the reign of Herod?
ReplyDeleteWeylin includes that most can agree on the fact that Herod could be seen as somewhat of a ruthless individual (this opinion is derived from his cruelty especially towards enemies...and even family members) but most historians have concluded that as a ruler, he was fairly successful. Although his building projects can be seen as his attempt to make the population work tirelessly and submit to his authority, the case can also be made that these projects created a "social welfare system...a way of employing the most desperate people". In other words, his building projects could be seen as selfish or strategic. Herod was also distinct from other rulers because he was able to maintain peace between Jews and Gentiles. This was probably due to Herod's ability to appease both by acting the role of both, therefore, neither Jews nor Gentiles felt as though one were being favored over the other. Additionally, it must be noted that Herod was probably no more violent (towards his enemies) than other Hellenistic rulers. "...We just pay more attention to Herod because he lived on a great cusp of history".
(Sources: Pg. 74 Weylin)
Historians believe that Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism survived for several reasons. After the temple was destroyed, the sects of Judaism that relied on ceremonial sacrifice dissolved because there was no place for them to sacrifice. In Contrast, the Pharisees (later known as Rabbinic Judaism) and the Christians advocated the idea of symbolic sacrifice, thus a temple was not needed. Also both were more or less neglected by the Roman government since they did not actively partake in the rebellion.
ReplyDeleteAll of your comments and responses are right on target. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMML