this respect also—brought upon him loathsome diseases from which he suffered greatly, his palace resounding with his cries. He consulted physicians, took baths, but all to no avail. Sensing that the Jews would rejoice at the news of his death, he determined to have mourning at his death such as no king had ever had before. To this end he ordered all the principal men of Jewry brought to Jericho, where he was staying at the time, and incarcerated in the hippodrome, and then gave secret instructions that upon his death, before the news was to be given out, all these men were to be slain. These latter instructions, however, were not carried out.

MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT LEGENDARY?

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, page 360, Herod’s connection “with the alleged massacre of the Innocents as related in the New Testament is now generally admitted by independent Christian thinkers to be legendary.” Evidently such ‘thinkers’ base their conclusions on the fact that this incident was not recorded by Josephus or other historians of the time.

However, for truly Christian thinkers that is no proof at all. They stand by God’s Word as true though it makes all men liars. (John 17:17; Rom. 3:4, NW) To deny the authenticity of Matthew, chapter two, would be to deny also the authenticity of Jeremiah 31:15, which prophetically foretold the incident, as well as remove the basis for the fulfillment of the prophecy at Hosea 11:1, regarding Jehovah’s calling his Son out of Egypt. (Matt. 2:15) Numerous reasons might be given why Josephus and others failed to mention this event, intentionally or unintentionally; and, besides, the number of times that archaeology has verified the Bible on points on which secular historians were silent estops any doubting of Matthew’s account simply because it was not mentioned by others!

Some question Matthew’s account because the date of Herod’s death is generally given as 4 B.C., at the age of seventy years, whereas Bible chronology indicates that Jesus was born 2 B.C. (Compare Luke 3:1, 23 with Daniel’s prophecy of “seventy weeks” at Daniel 9:24-27, and which weeks of years began in 455 B.C.) However, note the following:

According to Josephus’ Antiquities, Book 14, chapter 16, (¶1, 4) Herod took possession of Jerusalem in the summer of 37 B.C., and actually began to rule more than three years after he had been appointed to be king of Judea by the Roman senate. It is from this year, then, rather than from the earlier date, that Herod’s 37-year reign mentioned by Josephus in Book 17, chapter 8 (¶1), should be counted. On the basis of this calculation Herod’s death would fall in 1 B.C. or A.D. 1, which would easily allow for Jesus’ birth to fall in 2 B.C. during Herod’s reign, and for the visit of the magi to Herod thereafter and then the slaughter of the young boys in Bethlehem.

Among the proofs given for Herod’s death as occurring 4 B.C. is that he ordered the burning alive of two Jewish seditionists shortly before his death and that on the night they were executed there was an eclipse of the moon, and it is calculated that there was such an eclipse March 13, 4 B.C. But a lunar eclipse is not a sufficient date by which to locate the year of a certain event, because in any year there usually are two eclipse seasons and in many years two eclipses of the moon may be seen in a certain part of the earth. In fact, while only one partial eclipse is recorded for 4 B.C., three are given for 1 B.C., and they complete ones. So, on the basis of the eclipse, 1 B.C. would have a stronger claim than 4 B.C.

In this regard it is interesting to note that authorities differ greatly as to how old Herod was when he became governor in 47 B.C.; also that according to Appleton’s Cyclopedia, when it comes to dates, Josephus “is altogether too careless to be taken into account.” Thus the date of Herod’s death furnishes no obstacle to accepting the account of the slaughter of young boys mentioned by Matthew. And certainly in view of what we have seen about Herod’s disposition, his many murders and his scheme to slay all the principal men of Jewry so that there would be great mourning at his death, yes, everything we know about him is in keeping with that event.

Archelaus, the Ruthless Ethnarch

WITH Archelaus, son and successor of King Herod, the proverb held true, “like father, like son,” for he is described as “cruel and tyrannical, sensual in the extreme, a hypocrite and a plotter.” His policies resulted in his being banished by the Roman emperor, thus bearing out the Scriptural principle that “he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh.”—Prov. 11:17, AS.

Just a few days before he died King Herod made a final will in which he designated Archelaus instead of Antipas as heir to his throne and willed him half of his dominion, two other sons being given each one fourth. But due to opposition the best that Archelaus could secure from the Roman emperor Augustus was the title of ethnarch, a title considerably inferior to that of king although more honored than that of tetrarch, or territorial prince. However, he did receive, with the exception of a few important cities, the territory his father had willed him, namely Judea, Samaria and Idumea.

The rule of Archelaus was marked with turbulence even before he left for Rome to get the terms of his father’s will validated by the emperor. Like Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, he had inherited a land whose people were seething with discontent because of the burdens placed upon them by his much-married and construction-minded father. (1 Kings 12) And like Rehoboam, Archelaus handled the matter unwisely. Failing to sense the temper of the people, he soon had such a disturbance on his hands that before it was quelled the bodies of some three thousand Jews defiled the temple pavements. And after Archelaus left for Rome matters went from bad to worse. An armed uprising spread throughout the land, which was put down at the cost of the lives of thousands of Roman soldiers and of so many Jews that their tradition records it as one of the worst massacres in their history.

On his return Archelaus continued his unwise policies. His oppressive measures caused him to be summoned to Rome to answer charges made against him by the Jews and the Samaritans, who suffered even more at his hands. Caesar Augustus, after giving him a hearing, had him banished.

In view of these facts we can readily understand why Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, ‘upon hearing that Archelaus was ruling in Judea became afraid to depart for there but instead, upon being given divine warning in a dream, withdrew into the territory of Galilee [over which the tetrarch Herod Antipas ruled] and settled in a city named Nazareth.’—Matt. 2:22, 23, NW.