To view the English translation, please scroll down to the bottom.
「希律見自己被博士愚弄、就大大發怒、差人將伯利恆城裡、並四境所有的男孩、照著他向博士仔細查問的時候、凡兩歲以裡的、都殺盡了這就應了先知耶利米的話、說：在拉瑪聽見號咷大苦的聲音、是拉結哭他兒女不肯受安慰、因為他們都不在了。」（馬太福音2：16-18）
「耶和華如此說，在拉瑪聽見號啕痛哭的聲 音，是拉結哭她兒女不肯受安慰，因為他們都不在了。」（耶利米書31:15）
公元前37年，希律被羅馬人任命為國王之後，他施壓暴虐統治人民，成為了歷史上有名的大暴君。儘管如此，他的功高蓋世卻是無可置疑。 希律王上任之後，將統治的領土從巴勒斯坦擴大到現在的約旦、黎巴嫩和敘利亞，提升了以色列在古代時期的世界地位。此外，他還建造了堡壘、渡槽、宮殿、住宅區、圓形劇場、並耶路撒冷週邊的圍牆，使以色列成為東方最重要的貿易中心。因他輝煌的功績而贏得了“Herodes Magnus”（大希律王）之稱號，也由於他是羅馬帝國境內“自治國”──猶太王國的猶太王，羅馬人還給希律王加冠了“猶太人之王”的封號。
今天，一般的基督徒對希律王普遍的印象，多半來自聖經為他塑造的形象。在耶穌誕生的故事中，希律王被描繪成一個冷酷、高傲、好忌妒、無情、自私的嬰兒大屠殺者。他一聽說有一位新生的未來猶太人國王在伯利恆誕生了，馬上為這迫在眉睫的威脅感到十分的不安，於是下令將伯利恆全城所有兩歲以下的男孩一盡殺光。那一夜，無辜的生命一個一個被宰殺，只聽見城裡四處都是嚎啕大哭的淒厲之聲。這段聖經故事的描述，令人驚心動魄、毛骨悚然。其實依照大希律王一向暴戾冷峻、不擇手段的慣例作風，嬰兒大屠殺好像也不足為奇。想當年，他還不是為了懷疑妻子威脅他的王權，又深恐兒子篡自己的王位，不惜把妻子和三個親生骨肉相繼殺了，更何況是別人的兒子呢？
以希律王這種冷血的性格來看，推斷他屠殺嬰兒並不離譜。但問題是，目前該事件的歷史紀錄，除了聖經之外，沒有任何歷史文獻的證據。甚至在全本聖經裡，也只有馬太福音中的一節經文（馬太福音 2：16）提到了它。
歷史學家一向對約瑟夫斯（Flavius Josephus 公元37-100）筆下的歷史紀錄視如珍寶──約瑟夫斯是第一世紀名聲顯赫的歷史學家。他對希律王的生活有許多的描述，可是完全沒有提到嬰兒屠殺這件大事。另一位著名的猶太歷史學家名叫尼古拉斯（Nicolaus of Damascus 公元前64年-公元4年）──他是希律王的朋友。同樣的，他記載了不少希律王的事蹟，但在他的記錄裡，也完全見不到任何殺嬰事件的蹤影。設想，如果今天在某個城市發生了大屠殺事件，頭條新聞絕對是逃不過的。到底是什麼原因讓這些歷史學家選擇記錄希律王生活上的瑣碎雜事，卻跳過這麼重要的事件呢？歷史學家如此做這是刻意的選擇嗎？ 我們是不是都要在心裡畫上一個大問號呢？
一些學者對這問號做了不同的分析：
1. 猶太伯利恆的希律王朝時期（耶穌誕生前後）嚴重缺乏古物。以色列古物管理局（Israel Antiquities Authority）表示，要找到那個時期的證據相當困難。因此，沒有這方面記錄是乎情有可原。
2. 依照第一世紀巴勒斯坦的人口統計線索分析，伯利恆這個小村莊人口只有約在 30 到 1000 之間。 以這種估計方式來計算，兩歲以下嬰兒的人數頂多只會在7到20之間。他們認為因為人口數字相當低，導致歷史學家覺得不值得提及這個屠殺事件。
如果基督徒能夠接受“找不到證據”或“小事一樁、不值得一提” 這兩種解釋方法，或許可以再進一步試想：如果今天有一個人傳了一則大新聞，並一口咬定這是一個真人真事的新聞。但全世界除了他以外，沒有任何一家報社或傳播媒體報導這則消息，更沒有證人出來作證，甚至連同儕、朋友、家人都沒幫他出聲、講幾句話。在這種情況下，我們是否會質疑他消息的可靠性？還是我們仍會不問是非情由，代代相傳，將這則新聞廣傳到全世界的各個角落？
Baby Massacre
"When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted because they are no more” (Matthew 2:16-18).
"This is what the Lord says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more”(Jeremiah 31:15).
In 37 BCE, Herod was appointed as king by the Romans, and he became a notorious tyrant in history. Despite his cruelty and oppressive rule, his accomplishments were undeniable. After assuming power, Herod expanded his territory from Palestine to what is now Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, elevating Israel's status in the ancient world. He constructed fortresses, aqueducts, palaces, residential areas, and amphitheaters, as well as walls around Jerusalem, making Israel a vital trade center in the East. His impressive achievements earned him the title "Herodes Magnus" (Herod the Great), and because he was the Jewish king of the Jewish kingdom, which was an autonomous state within the Roman Empire, the Romans also granted him the title "King of the Jews."
Today, the common perception of King Herod among Christians is largely shaped by the image presented in the Bible. In the story of Jesus' birth, King Herod is portrayed as a ruthless, arrogant, jealous, heartless, and selfish infant killer. Upon hearing of the imminent threat posed by the birth of a future Jewish king in Bethlehem, he immediately felt deeply uneasy and ordered the massacre of all male infants under the age of two in Bethlehem. That night, innocent lives were systematically taken one by one, and the city echoed with the piercing cries of grief. The description of this biblical story is chilling and heart-wrenching.
In reality, given King Herod's notorious reputation for cruelty, ruthlessness, and unscrupulous methods, such an act as the massacre of infants might not have been entirely surprising. After all, he had previously killed his own wife and three of his own sons out of fear that they posed a threat to his rule.
However, the problem is that there is no historical evidence for this event outside of the Bible. Even within the entire Bible, only one verse (Matthew 2:16) mentions it, and the other Gospels do not reference this incident at all.
Historians have always regarded the historical records of Flavius Josephus (37-100 CE) as highly valuable. Josephus was a prominent historian of the first century. He provided numerous descriptions of King Herod's life, yet he made no mention of the massacre of infants. Another renowned Jewish historian named Nicolaus of Damascus (64 BCE-4CE) was a friend of King Herod. Similarly, he recorded many events in King Herod's life but made no reference to any such infant killing event. It's worth imagining that if a massacre of infants occurred in a city today, it would unquestionably make headline news. So, what could have led these historians to document various aspects of King Herod's life while omitting such a significant event? Did historians deliberately choose to exclude it from their records? Perhaps we should all have a big question mark in our minds regarding this matter.
Some scholars have offered different analyses of this question:
1. During the time of King Herod in Bethlehem, which is around the birth of Jesus, there is a severe lack of archaeological evidence. The Israel Antiquities Authority has stated that finding evidence from that period is quite challenging. Therefore, the absence of records from this aspect can be understandable.
2. Based on population estimates for Bethlehem in first century Palestine, the village likely had a population ranging from 30 to 1000 people. By this estimation, the number of infants under two years old would have been at most between 7 to 20. Some argue that due to the relatively low population figures, historians might not have considered it significant enough to mention the massacre.
If Christians can accept the explanations of "lack of evidence" or "insignificance" in this context, one might consider this analogy: Suppose today, a person spreads a major news story, claiming it to be a true event. However, no news outlet or media organization in the world reports this news except for that individual. There are no witnesses, and even peers, friends, and family members do not support or confirm the story. In such a scenario, would we question the reliability of the news, or would we unquestioningly pass it down through generations to every corner of the world?
Comments