Doubting the historical accuracy of the Bible is very foolish. Even if there is only one account and none secularly, the bible has over time shown to be extremely accurate historically. Discrediting such a fact is either due to ignorance or stupidity and scholars whom so choose to doubt the historical accuracy of Matthew's account of Herod "the Great" will be shown to be wrong, eventually. All you have to do is look at historical precedent. There were things in the bible that were originally thought inaccurate and the whole bible written off. Recent and past archaeological finds have shown over and over the bible's accuracy. Archeology has yet to prove anything wrong in the bible. Ignoring these facts shows only foolishness in trying to say we are wise to our doom.

Brandon, it is ignorance and stupidity taking the bible to be historic. There are lots of discrepancies in it and it is full of hatred. Josephus has shown thru his writings many of the historic and now archeological finds the truth. The bible can not agree to the birth of Christ. Herod died in 4BCE. Matt and Luke do not agree. The Herod Tomb is a great find and he was a great builder. He was king to a great range of land. His sons could not succeed in his steps. Herod was Great and his many accomplishments that no other man has ever achieved!

Dear Sirs,

Considering the comments made by Tom Meuller about the murder of the innocent children in Matthew's Gospel, it amazes me that one is able to establish almost beyond doubt that "Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime, of which there is no report apart from Matthew's account." Has your author not read enough ancient history to know that apart from a relatively small number of accounts we actually have very little textual evidence for almost any event in ancient history? Therefore we should doubt just about anything we read in any document according to his standard. This does not seem reasonable. I live just within 30 kilometers of a major Roman battle site in France (Arausio) yet one cannot establish with all certainty the exact location of several of the events. Should I say that the battle never existed? The murder of innocent children in one small town in Judea would not get the attention of hardly anyone in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or Ephesis. The Bible does record at least some history accurately. To say that Matthew was certainly in error about an event which is not attested elsewhere is actually just being a bit shortsighted or prejudicial when one considers what we really know about ancient history from ancient texts. The material is limited.

Well said.
I do disagree with many of the statements that James made, after research of course. But this isn't a page presenting all data. It is a comments page and I appreciate his opinion.
Just one point. There have been more than one Herod in time past. I have heard the argument before that Herod died before his birth. Archeology has shown that there was more than one Herod at that specific time and Herod "the Great" most certainly lived past the birth of Christ.
Thanks for you time and reply. I at least greatly appreciate it!

Mueller's article was almost shockingly Pollyanna-ish regarding Herod the Great. Agree with all of the above concerning infanticide. Josephus relied on Nicolaus of Damascus for his history on Herod, and Josephus admists that Nicolaus soft-pedaled a lot of Herod's misdeeds. Herod was a bloody tyrant if there ever was one- and one to kill babies with relish if it thought it would advance his interests.
That Mueller tries to pass Herod off an a misunderstood architectural genius is also a hoot. Rome was turning out plenty of first-rate architects and engineers in those days (20 BC), and Herod employed a lot of them. What evidence does Mueller present? Well, none, actually.
It is hard to believe that an article in the NG could be accused of being Gonzo journaism, but this effort on Herod the Great qualifies.

Couple more things...Mueller wrote that Herod made the Jewish East wealthy. He actually drove it to near-bankruptcy with his spending projects. When he ran out of money and couldn't squeeze any more out of the people through increased taxes, he would phony up capital charges against wealthy people, and seize their estates after their execution.
Look it up- it's in Josephus.
Also, the NG Herod the Great quiz has an erroneous answer- number 8. Augustus didn't make Judea and Samaria a Procuratorship after Herod's death in 4 BC. Herod's son Archelaus was made a ruler over that land until 6 AD, when he was banished by Augustus. Archelaus was called an ethnarch. And then Augustus made Judea and Samaria into a Prefecture- not a Procuratorship. The land was turned into a province and ruled over by a Prefect. When Claudius became Emperor in 41 AD, the term Prefect lost favor to Procurator (someone who procures- like tax money). Actually, I don't think Procuratorship is even a word.
For shame, NG, for shame!

The Jews were favored by the Parthians from the east, who enabled the Jews to return to Jerusalem, after the exile to Babylon, in order that the Jews could return to their land and rebuild the temple. Herod knew of the favorable relationship between the Jews and Parthians. The magi from the east who came looking for the Christ, were actually from the Parthian empire. The Parthians were Herod's worst enemy having had attacked Herod's father kingdom, driving Herod's father out of power. The Parthians also at one time, drove Herod to Rome for three years. Herod returned when the Romans took over Israel. Of course Herod would be concerned when these Magi from the Parthian empire came looking for the Christ, the newborn king. Herod was a schizophrenic, paranoid, narcistic character, afraid that there was a king being raised up from within, who would help the Parthian's once again overcome his kingdom. Herod had no trouble slaughtering those who he was afraid of, including family members. Why question the fact that he would slaughter some babies from the small community of Bethlehem, in order to reduce the possibility of a king, in favor with the Parthians from be raised up to help take out Herod's kingdom? Herod was paranoid of all threat and did whatever he had to reduce his fears, even killing if need be.

The year 1 A.D. is not the known date of Jesus' birth (as many commonly misunderstand.) Jesus was born between 4-5 B.C. Herod was gravely ill at the time of Jesus birth. Herod died shortly thereafter.

The historicity test of a document does not include forcing a document to have external documentation of "all" historical events listed. The external portion of the historicity test requires a number of external/archeological documentation of historical events, which the Bible passes with flying colors. The Bible passes all three portions of the historicity test, better than any other document of it's time, which includes an internal test, external and bibliographical test. It's utterly wrong and unscientific to disclude the Bible as a historical document based on requiring "Herod's Bethlehem slaughter" to be the "one" external test. There's many many other external evidences for the Bible's historicity. Again, the Bible passes the test thoroughly on all three tests required.

I agree with D. Hutchison & Peterschmidt. To Meuller own admission, Herod "...had a large and fractious family—ten wives and more than a dozen children—whose frequent conspiracies brought out Herod's cruelty and paranoia. In 29 B.C., in a blaze of jealousy deftly stoked by his sister Salome, he executed his wife Mariamne…During his last illness he devised a scheme to plunge the entire kingdom into mourning when he died, ordering his army to imprison a crowd of leading Judaean citizens in the hippodrome in Jericho, and to massacre them when his death was announced." So to conclude the event of the massacre of children found in the Matthew that "Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime." is odd to say the least.

In regards Sloan's quote "The slaughter of its few baby boys under the age of two, perhaps as few as half a dozen at the time, would hardly rate as a massacre." Webster's Dictionary defines the word as: "the indiscriminate, merciless killing of a number of human beings." Therefore, I would have to say that such an act against defenceless children would correctly be defined as a massacre.

Sloan also stated above, "Few scholars think Matthew's account should be considered history." I would like to know how he defines 'few.' There are many scholars that think Matthew's account should be considered historical, as there are many who do not.

Ouch, R. Franklin. You are right on both counts! By the way, have any of you read the book, "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdelene?" I wonder what you think of it. The author, Bart Ehrman, presents aq fascinating account of the early church. I found his exploration of the historicity of the gospels fascinating. Matthew, as I recall, was mentioned quite a bit.

After having read Mr. Mueller's article about Herod The Great, I was struck by the number of antidotal references and embellishments of history that seem as though they created in the imagination of the writer, a technique used to help the reader imagine what it must have been like. On the other hand, to print in BOLD PRINT offset within the article and HIGHLIGHTED, a contradiction of the Gospel of Matthew, a record that was made by someone who actually lived in very close proximity (both physically and in time) seems to imply a desire to discredit a text held sacred and dear to many Christians. I wonder, what would be the purpose of doing that?

I enjoyed Mr. Mueller's article about Herod which demonstrated a lot of good basic research. He makes a common mistake of historians and reporters when he draws conclusions. Good facts do not always make good conclusions.
Clearly his bias is that he thinks Herod was a genius and he has a hard time reconciling anything that would blemish that conclusion. As an example: He is perfectly willing to accept Josephus account of his funeral and see it as proof of his people's respect and reverence on pg. 5, but in the previous paragraph on pg. 4 he rejects the description of his death (which has other sources in aggreement)by Josephus as a "hostile biographer".
The absolutist statement about Luke is just plain silly and almost prevented me from reading on. Any argument based on absence of current data is always weak and usually prejudicial. I think a little better editorial oversight could have turned this good article into a great one.
As for Herod, we should never forget that one can be intelligent and evil, though that is hard for some post-modernist to accept.
In regard to the birth of Jesus, I think the primary source documents lead to 7 or 6 B.C.E. as the most likely date. The dates as always must be based on corresponding events, not some fanciful calendar date established by someone hundreds of years later.

You really should change question eight of the Herod quiz. Your answer explanation has changed and is correct, but it doesn't answer the question.
After Herod's demise, Herod's son was appointed to rule the ethnarchy. After ten years (actually, less than ten years- from 4 BC to 6 AD- closer to nine years), the son, Archelaus, was banished and a Prefect, not a Procurator, was appointed to administer Judea and Samaria.

Some of these comments have already been made here, but I just finished reading Tom Mueller's article on Herod and felt the need to comment. I was most disappointed by Mueller stating that Herod was more than likely innocent of the killing of the children at Bethlehem, thus casting doubt on the Bible. Where are his facts to make this claim against the Gospel of Matthew. He admits it was well within Herod's character. He killed some of his own children and family. We have a record of the killing in Matthew, a contemporary record, written by a credible author and circulated around people familiar with the subject matter.
People like to criticize the Bible, yet over 1900 years it has stood all the criticism and attacks the world can throw at it. We do not hold other books, scrolls, or inscriptions to such a standard as the Bible, yet we hold them as fact. As for James comments, they are made out of ignorance of the Bible. How does Matthew and Luke disagree? Jesus was born probably in March of 4 BC. It was the church, much later that miscalculated the calender, hundreds of years after the Bible was written. Everytime people challenge the Bible as being false, they shown to be in error. Archeology repeated reinforces the Bible. Biblical cities have been discovered, accounts of Biblical people have been found elsewhere. For almost 2 millenium people have tried to tear apart the Bible as being myth, yet it has stood every test, that it a good track record.

I agree, and was also disturbed by the line “Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime.” I am fact-based and love National Geographic because it is *usually* factually driven. But I feel this article was compromised due to the biased nature of the author.

Regardless of whether one believes the bible to be historical record or not.

The bias and lack of fact is prevalent in the writing itself – there is one record that accuses Herod of this act, plus the article states that Herod killed his family members and subjects. Then the claim, “Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime.” With no further facts or explanation?

I am disappointed with the author, but more so with the editor. I look to NG for facts, not for bias or opinion. This one line made me doubt the rest of the findings and “facts” in the story.

I love how history is rewritten each day. I especially love it when a man 2,000 years after the fact, declares that an historical personage is "almost certainly" innocent of a crime.

Has Mr. Mueller unearthed some new evidence? Is he willing to share it?

Based on the weaknesses of Biblical accuracy, perhaps it would be more sagacious to say "Herod has been accused of such and such, but we cannot be certain based on the evidence we have", rather than to boldly declare him "almost certainly innocent".

Quoting Jospehus is futile since the earliest manuscripts, of his supposed works, appeared 600 years after the fact in Latin. There is no forensic proof that they were not written then by some wiley scribe. And the inaccuracies in them are enough to stop any honest reader.