Skip to main content

In Regards to the beginnings of Christianity, the connections of King Herod and of his descendants with the early church were important to the nascent movement. Herod was a Jew; but Herod’s Judaism, no doubt like that of many others, was simple and uncluttered.

One of the problems in assessing the New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus is the messianic convictions motivated the New Testament writers. It is not surprising, therefore, that in their own ways they weave their accounts of Jesus’ birth around the conviction that he was the coming one of intertestamental expectation. This necessarily required that Jesus as messiah and Herod as king conflict directly in the birth accounts.

Though neither the birth nor the death of Jesus can be securely dated, I conclude that he was born in 7 BCE and died in 33 CE. His birth must have occurred before the death of Herod (Matt, 2:1; Luke 1:5), still to be dated- despite recent challenges- to just before Passover 4 BCE. How much before? The census in the tradition of Jesus birth which brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem cannot be used as a datum: this leaves one possible clue, fragile at best, the “star of Bethlehem.”

If the tradition of the Magi has any value at all, it leads to the conclusion that Jesus was born sometime in 7 BCE. The conjunction would be interpreted by Zoroastrian astrologers to mean that a world ruler of the last days was born in Judaism; the start of their visit would have been occasioned by the dramatic celestial events. They travelled to Jerusalem, the obvious place to ask, and were directed from there to Bethlehem. Such speculation hangs on slender threads, but for this account of King Herod it has one consequence, that Herod may have heard of an astrological prediction of a “successor,” a ruler of the last days.

Given King Herod’s long-standing concern for the succession (seven wills, intra-family troubles, sibling rivalries, attempts to undercut his hold on power), rumors of a non-Herodian “king of the Jews” would have enraged him-at least that is the view of the sources behind Matthew’s birth story. He therefore deviously tried to get the Magi to return via Jerusalem after they had located the baby so as to learn the location himself.

Herod did not know the scriptural basis for Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem so, according to Matthew, he consulted with “all the chief priests and scribes of the people.” The account first supposes a close, historically improbable, relationship between Herod, the scholars and the Temple authorities, so that the Sanhedrin happily revealed the location of the Messiah because “all Jerusalem” was upset by the news (Matt 2:3-4).

Second, the account presupposes Matthew’s polemic against the chief priests, elders and scribes (see Matt, 27:4; Mark 15:31). This consultation between Herod and the chief priests and scribes was the first instance of a hostility that would lead, according to Matthew, to the cross. Th Magi saw through the opposition and returned home from Bethlehem by a different route after leaving their gifts with Mary.

The homage by Eastern visitors has an appropriate ring to it for that period. A significant instance of such homage was Tigranes the Younger of Armenia, who submitted himself and his nation to Rome in 66 BCE, leaving his daughter as a hostage. Queen Helena of Adiabene paid homage to Jerusalem upon her conversion, bringing substantial gifts intended to reduce the effects of the famine in the 40s CE.

Dignitaries came when Herod completed Caesarea Maritima; even the Empress Livia sent a generous gifts. In Jesus case homage was momentary, for divine interventions removed both the Magi and Joseph’s family (in both cases by way of dreams that gave travel instructions). Herod’s intention to kill Jesus had an important place in Joseph’s dream, so he and the family stayed in Egypt until Herod’s death.

According to Matthew, King Herod angrily killed the boys under the age of two in Bethlehem and in the area around it, a scene that has shaped both artistic and popular views of Herod, yet there is little in the story that carries historical conviction. The differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s birth accounts, together with the incident’s absence from Josephus’s account of the excesses of Herod’s final years, work against the account’s accuracy.

Brown speaks of the verisimilitude of these accounts, but correctly distinguishes between that and historicity; plausibility does not guarantee accuracy. Brown’s argument for a strong theological element (particularly motifs drawn from Old Testament accounts), especially in Matthew’s narrative, is convincing. Luke does not know the tradition of the “massacre” and merely connects Herod with John the Baptist’s birth-not Jesus’ (Luke 1:5) – just as eh connects John the Baptist’s ministry-not Jesus’-with chronological data in 3:1-2.

Herod the Great: A Biblical Tyrant But An Able Protector of Judaea | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)

The All Christmas Website – (celebratechristmas.co)

Leave a Reply