The Massacre of the Holy Innocents: Humanities Guilt

Amongst all the joy and celebrations of the Christmas season, a tragic story lurks amongst the tales of wise men, angels and shepherds that goes unknown by many both with in and outside the church. The Massacre of the Holy Innocents is a story found in the Gospel of St Matthew (80-90 AD), squeezed in between the flight of the holy family to Egypt and their return to Judea after the death of King Herod the Great. The King James Version puts it thus,

'Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.  Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,  In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not (Matthew 2: 16-17).

 Here we come face to face with a ancient despot who would rather kill a group of babies based on the stargazing and ancient oracles of mystics just in case one of them in the future may challenge him for his throne. Even worse, here was a man who would do so to thwart the plans of the Judah's own God, in case those plans didn't feature him. Such a terrible act was never forgotten by the church. These infants were counted among the first Christian martyrs who died for Christ unknowingly. In the Western Church their deaths have been commemorated on the 28th of December, on the day known as Childermas. However in the modern Christmas, which tends to focus on the more child friendly elements of the season, the Massacre of these Holy Innocents is over looked. and one of the deeper meanings of the celebration is lost,

As in much of his account of the birth of Christ, Matthew gives us few details out side of the bare bones of the story. We are not told who the slaughtered children were or how many were killed. This had to be left to the fertile imagination of the early church to fill in the details. The remains of two child saints, St Sicarius of Bethlehem and St Memorius, are still venerated as victims of the massacre how ever the authenticity of such claims doesn't go unquestioned today, with the likelihood of such remains surviving intact until the time of the early church's interest in relics being extremely unlikely.  According to  Wikipedia, that font of all knowledge, numbers such as 14,000, 64,000 and 144,000 were given by different church traditions, the later of which seems to be derived from John's vision in Rev 7: 4, suggesting that these numbers are more likely theological than actual. However given the size of the Bethlehem population at the time, approx 1000, according to William Barclay, the amount of children two and under may have been anything from twenty to thirty babies. Other  sources suggest that archaeological excavation of ancient Bethlehem shows that the population may have been a low as 300, suggesting a figure closer to six children in the age range of two and under (Gordan Franz, biblicalarcheology.org). Still the massacre of six children is a terrible event, just as the loss of one can shatter the world of a parent. 

The next mention of the Massacre of the Holy Innocents is found in a book with the long winded title of The Protoevangelium of James. Written about 140 AD, this book, which begins with an account of Mary's infancy and childhood, draws its version of the birth of Christ from the canonical gospels. Here it is not just the life of Christ that is in danger but the life of John the Baptist as well. Included in the killing is John's father, Zechariah, who is slain  in the forecourt of the Jerusalem Temple after refusing to reveal the location of his infant son. 

It wasn't until around 400 AD that a mention of the slaughter appears in a non-Christian source. The historian Macrobius in his Saturnalia says, "when Augustus had heard, that among the children within two years of age, which Herod king of the Jews commanded to be slain in Syria, his own son had been killed, he said: 'It is better to be Herod's hog than his son.' (Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.f.11). However this passage seems to confuse the massacre with Herod's murder of his own son which was a separate event with an identical motive. 

It would seem that with such support from ancient texts that Massacre of the Holy Innocents would be generally accepted as an historical fact, however this is far from the case. Although it would seem that the Protoevangelium of James is an early second source for an account of the massacre, it is heavily dependant on the Gospel of St Matthew and therefore is not an independent account of the incident. Even the seemingly independent account of Macrobius and its mention of the broader area of Syria and not specifically Bethlehem, cannot be considered a reliable evidence for the event. The confusion of the whole account and the four centuries between the events described and Macrobius' work, render this passage an unreliable source. Although a non-Christian, it is not inconceivable that Macrobius had become familiar with the story of the massacre through accounts told by the  adherents of the popular Christian religion and that had it had entered the popular consciousness. 

The main point that leaves many historians sceptical is that, besides The Gospel of St Matthew, no other contemporary witnesses mention the massacre in Bethlehem and it surrounds. This leads them to speculate that maybe the whole event was a sacred creation, a bit of parable writing, to try and compare Jesus with Moses, another survivor of a fearful kings infanticidal intentions. Despite such a act being totally in line with Herod's other brutal acts to protect his kingship, with only Matthew's word to go by and no other contemporary independent sources to back the story up, some want to place it in the category of story created to teach theological thought rather than historical reality.

There is a tragic twist to all this speculation. Some suggest that in a world where children's rights were virtually non-existent and a king could slaughter six infant peasant subjects with out impunity, such an event would probably go unrecorded. This was a world where children were property and infant mortality was not uncommon. A Roman father was entitled to let his new born child die if unwanted and the Greeks in Sparta regularly practised infanticide as birth control (Franz). In such a world, why would the death of a handful of children warrant a mention in the annals of Roman Imperial history. 

If anything the ambiguity around the historicity of the event is probably the most poignant element of the whole affair. Whether or not the event happened will never be answered for secular historians because in the bigger scheme of things it didn't matter. The account serves as a reminder of all the atrocities that have been visited on the helpless and powerless in fear by those welding power. It is fitting that we find it told in the birth story of the one who called for a new way of seeing things, where the powerless are kings and the tyrants are in last place. In the kingdom of Jesus the slaughtered babes of Bethlehem and all other times, sit in the places of honour and look down on us, calling us each to make a difference so the vision of Christ's kingdom of love can become a reality where ever we find ourselves.

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

Revelation 21:4 KJV