Support via Patreon | Subscribe

Did Herod’s Massacre Of The Innocents Historically Happen?

Header Image for: Did Herod’s Massacre Of The Innocents Historically Happen?
Header Image: Santa Giustina (Padua) — Chapel of Saint Luke — Massacre of the Innocents by Sebastiano Galvano

January 6th marks the day in the liturgical calendar when the arrival of the Magi visiting baby Jesus with their gifts is celebrated. But with it comes the often distressing account of what is known as the Massacre of the Innocents. Matthew places this moment of revelation of Jesus as King alongside one of the darkest episodes in his Gospel, and it’s a stark contrast: one King is here to bring peace on earth, as the angels declared, the other king brought death and destruction.

For some readers, this raises an immediate historical question. If Herod truly ordered the killing of all the male children under two in Bethlehem, why does no other ancient historian mention it? Josephus, after all, delights in cataloguing Herod’s cruelty. He records the execution of Herod’s wife, his sons, and numerous political rivals. Herod was paranoid and vicious.

As for Herod, if he had before any doubt about the slaughter of his sons, there was now no longer any room left in his soul for it; but he had banished away whatsoever might afford him the least suggestion of reasoning better about this matter, so he already made haste to bring his purpose to a conclusion. He also brought out three hundred of the officers that were under an accusation … whom the multitude stoned with whatsoever came to hand, and thereby slew them.
 — Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16.11.7

So, why the silence here about Bethlehem?

The answer, I would say, isn’t anything nefarious or made-up by Matthew, but just something simply down to scale.

Bethlehem Was a Very Small Place

Bethlehem in the early first century was not a city. It was a village — small, agricultural, and politically insignificant. Most historians estimate its population at somewhere between 300 and 1,000 people, with around 500 being a sensible midpoint.

Once we factor in ancient demographics, the numbers become surprisingly modest.

Modern demographic research into pre-industrial societies consistently shows that nearly half of all children died before adulthood, with the highest concentration of deaths occurring in the first two years of life. These findings align closely with conditions in Roman-period Judea and support conservative estimates for the number of infants living in a small village such as Bethlehem.

Source: Mortality in the past: every second child died — Our World in Data

 

In pre-modern societies with high infant mortality, only about 2–3% of the population would be living children under the age of two at any given time. Many children were born; far fewer survived those earliest years. Applying a conservative 2.5% figure to Bethlehem gives us roughly:

  • 7–8 children under two in a village of 300
  • 12–13 children under two in a village of 500
  • 25 children under two even at the extreme upper estimate of 1,000 inhabitants

Herod’s order, however, targeted male children only. Statistically, that halves the number.

This places the likely number of victims somewhere between three and twelve boys.

Matthew’s reference to ‘Bethlehem and the surrounding region’ does slightly widen the scope of Herod’s order, but not by enough to change the demographic picture. Even when nearby settlements are included (e.g. farmsteads, shepherd settlements, etc. not major cities/towns), the total number of children under two likely remained in the dozens rather than the hundreds, maybe anywhere between 14–45 boys maximum if we make an educated estimate. This is entirely consistent with what we know of population size and infant mortality in the ancient world.

This is an important number to realise and consider.

Not because the deaths are insignificant simply due to being so few, but because ancient historians did not record history the way we do now. A small number of peasant children killed in an obscure village would not have registered as a notable event alongside palace intrigue, royal executions, or political upheaval. For Josephus, it would have been barely worth mentioning if it reached his sources at all. It was just another Tuesday for Herod’s madness.

During this time period of Herod’s reign, he had already executed his own sons, ordered mass arrests, oversaw brutal reprisals, and was responsible for widespread political violence. A few peasant family deaths at his hands in an obscure backwater village, something that didn’t disrupt anything politically, wouldn’t even register for anyone taking note. Which they clearly weren’t as Josephus entirely skips over it as this was, historically speaking, a small-scale event. Ancient historians rarely recorded peasant suffering unless it triggered unrest and revolt.

History’s Silence and Matthew’s Memory

Matthew, however, remembers what history ignores.

He does not present the slaughter as a political catastrophe or just another one of Herod’s many tragedies as a historical footnote, but as a theological one. He frames it through Israel’s Scriptures and prophecy:

Jeremiah 31:15
A voice was heard in Ramah,
 wailing and loud lamentation,
 Rachel weeping for her children;
 she refused to be consoled.

This quotation from Jeremiah originally spoke of exile — of mothers mourning children taken away or lost to imperial violence. Matthew recognises Bethlehem’s grief as another moment in that long story of sorrow, displacement, and hope deferred.

Isaiah, too, stands in the background of Matthew’s infancy narrative. The promised light to the nations does not arrive without resistance. Kings are troubled. Power reacts violently. Darkness pushes back against revelation. Epiphany shines precisely because the world does not welcome the light easily.

In this sense, the massacre of the innocents belongs fully within the Epiphany story. The Magi’s journey exposes the truth about Jesus, and that truth provokes fear in those who cling to power. Herod’s response is brutal, but entirely consistent with his character, and tragically ordinary.

A Small Tragedy with Cosmic Weight

The modest scale of the massacre does not weaken Matthew’s account, though, it strengthens it. This is not the language of mythic exaggeration or legendary inflation. It is the sort of event that would have unfolded quietly and locally, devastating to those who experienced it, yet almost invisible to the wider world — remembered by families and villages, long before it was ever written down.

This also explains why the account in Matthew has the feel of local memory rather than the imprint of later legend. An event of this kind, which was small in scale, devastating in impact, and confined to a handful of villages, would not have entered imperial records or elite historiography, but it would have been seared into the memory of the community that endured it. Such details are precisely the sort that survive through families and neighbours long before they are ever written down. The Gospel’s preservation of this episode therefore makes best sense not as a dramatic or theological invention, but as the passing on of what those closest to the events remembered and told, and eventually recorded in Matthew’s account.

Before Jesus preaches a sermon, before he heals the sick or raises the dead, his coming into the world is marked by grief. The Gospel refuses to allow these children to disappear into statistical anonymity. Their deaths are woven into the story of salvation itself, remembered because they were first endured.

Epiphany reminds us that Christ is revealed not only in gold, incense, and myrrh, but in fear, sorrow, and unrecorded suffering. The light shines, and the darkness resists — but the light is not overcome (John 1:5).

Read in its historical and demographic context, the account in Matthew fits what we know of Herod’s character, the scale of rural life in Judea, and the way traumatic events were remembered locally. It is historically possible, and internally coherent, as a record of what was passed on by those who lived close to the events. History may forget the children of Bethlehem. Scripture, and God, does not.

 

Sources/Further Reading

 

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 580 times   Liked 0 times

Support on Patreon

Enjoying this content?
Support my work by becoming a patron on Patreon! By joining, you help fund the time, research, and effort that goes into creating this content — and you’ll also get access to exclusive perks and updates.
Even a small amount per month makes a real difference. Thank you for your support!

Subscribe to Updates
My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

x

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 884 subscribers today!

My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to Blog updates



Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Armageddon Is Not A Battle Plan: What Revelation Actually Says — And Why It Matters Right Now

| 12th March 2026 | Eschatology

Armageddon Is Not A Battle Plan: What Revelation Actually Says — And Why It Matters Right Now

Something bizarre happened in the White House Oval Office this week. Photographs circulated on social media showing President Donald Trump seated at his desk, surrounded by approximately twenty Christian pastors from across the country, their hands extended towards him in prayer. The image provoked sharply divided reactions: some saw it as a moving expression of faith; others found it deeply unsettling. Whatever one makes of the optics, it arrived at a charged moment. Trump held a prayer meeting in the Oval Office after his administration admitted the war with Iran will likely last weeks longer than promised | Credit: Dan Scavino's X account Days earlier, reports emerged that a military commander had told troops that the current US war with Iran is “all part of God’s divine plan,” and that President Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.” These were not fringe internet rumours. They were filed as formal complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) by an anonymous non-commissioned officer acting on behalf of fifteen service members — the majority of whom were themselves Christians. By Tuesday of that week, MRFF had logged more than two hundred similar complaints across fifty military installations, covering every branch of the armed forces. More than two dozen Democratic members of Congress have since called for a Department of Defense Inspector General investigation, citing what they describe as “glaring Constitutional concerns” and potential violations of DoD regulations on religious neutrality. The political questions about separation of church and state in the US are for others to address. What I want to do here is something more straightforward: examine what Revelation actually says, because the theology driving these claims does not hold up under scrutiny. And that matters here a lot; not as a partisan point, but as a question of biblical faithfulness. First, a Word About Context If you have read my previous article on Revelation some of what follows will be familiar ground. But it bears repeating, because the misunderstanding at the heart of this story is so widespread that it has taken on the feel of settled orthodoxy in many circles. The Book of Revelation is commonly thought to be written in the late first century ~95 AD, during or around the reign of Emperor Domitian. Though there is internal evidence that it was possibly written during Nero’s reign prior to 70 AD. Both of these emperors were most aggressive proponents of the imperial cult in Rome’s history. Domitian required that he be addressed as “lord and god,” had this title printed on coinage, and expected acts of religious reverence towards the Emperor as a demonstration of political loyalty. To refuse was to invite economic exclusion, marginalisation, and worse. Rome on seven hills It is into that precise context that John of Patmos writes. He is not composing a coded forecast of twenty-first century geopolitics. He is writing resistance literature — what scholars call apocalyptic literature — a well-established Jewish and early Christian genre which uses vivid symbolic imagery to pull back the curtain on earthly power and name it for what it truly is. The seven-headed beast of Revelation is Rome. The seven heads are the seven hills of Rome, an identification so widely acknowledged in early church scholarship that it barely requires argument. The mark of the beast, calculated through Hebrew gematria to 666 (or 616 in some early manuscripts), points directly to Nero Caesar (transliterated into Hebrew as נרון קסר, “nrwn qsr”) — the Emperor who became the archetype of anti-Christian persecution due to the levels of evilness he enacted. The second beast, which looks like a lamb but speaks for the dragon, performs signs to deceive, enforces the mark, and compels worship of the first beas...

The World's Oldest Anti-Christian Meme

| 09th March 2026 | Archaeology

The World's Oldest Anti-Christian Meme

I first came across the Alexamenos graffito back in Bible college in the early 2000s. It was one of those “fun facts” that gets dropped into a church history lecture and sticks with you — the ancient Roman equivalent of someone spray-painting an insult on a wall. I filed it away, thought it was fascinating, and largely forgot about it for two decades. Then, recently, I discovered something about it I had never known. There’s a response to it. Scratched in a different room, in a different hand. So I started digging into this more to verify the information and discovered more historical curiosities surrounding the graffiti than I ever knew existed which contextualises the image so much more than it just being a random insult using a donkey. A Crude Drawing on a Wall Sometime around the late second to early third century AD, someone scratched a picture into the plaster wall of a building on the Palatine Hill in Rome — part of what had once been a paedagogium, a kind of boarding school for imperial page boys. The building was eventually sealed off when the street was walled up to support extensions above it, which is why the graffiti survived at all. It wasn’t rediscovered until 1857. The image is rough, almost childlike. To the left, a young man — clearly a Roman soldier or guard — raises one hand in a gesture of worship. Before him is a cross. And on that cross is a crucified figure with the head of a donkey. Below it, written in Greek: Alexamenos worships his god. It is, in the most literal sense, a mocking cartoon. Someone who knew a Christian named Alexamenos decided to ridicule him for his faith. The message is clear enough: your god is an animal, a criminal, a joke. You’re worshipping a crucified fool. But here’s the thing I discovered: the donkey head wasn’t as random as I always thought it was. It wasn’t some strange personal insult conjured from nowhere. Without knowing the background, it looks bizarre, and possibly random. Why a donkey? Once you understand the cultural context, though, it makes complete sense. The person who drew it was reaching for a well-worn, widely recognised slur — the ancient equivalent of an internet meme that any Roman would have immediately understood. Where the Donkey Slur Came From The story starts not with Christians but with Jews. A first-century Egyptian-Greek writer named Apion (who was no friend of Judaism) spread the claim that inside the Jerusalem Temple, Jews kept a golden donkey’s head as a sacred object of worship which was apparently discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed the temple in 167 BC. It was a fabrication, and a fairly outrageous one, but it circulated widely enough that the Jewish historian Josephus felt compelled to write an entire refutation of it. His work Against Apion systematically dismantles Apion’s claims, calling the donkey story a shameless invention. But mud sticks, and in the Roman world, where anti-Jewish sentiment was common currency, the slur took on a life of its own. When Christianity began to spread — seen by most Romans as simply a strange Jewish offshoot — the same accusation got recycled and redirected. By the second and third centuries, it was Christians specifically who were being accused of donkey-worship, and the charge had made its way into popular culture. Tertullian, writing around 197–200 AD in his Ad Nationes, Book I.14 and Apology, describes a caricature being paraded around the streets of Carthage: a figure dressed in a toga, one foot holding a book, with donkey’s ears and hooves. It was labelled Onokoitēs by the pagans: “the donkey-begotten” (or literally “he who lies in an ass’s manger” as an insult to Christ). Tertullian writes about it with weary exasperation, sarcasm, and the tone of someone tired of having to address the same ridiculous smear again and again. So the Alexamenos graffito wasn’t an original insult. It was someone deployin...

"Thinking Occurs" Is Not The Same As "I Think": On AI And The Question Of Personhood

| 08th March 2026 | Philosophy

"Thinking Occurs" Is Not The Same As "I Think": On AI And The Question Of Personhood

We are living through a strange moment. People are forming attachments to artificial intelligence that feel, to them, entirely real. Some speak daily to AI companions. Others confide fears and grief to systems that respond with uncanny warmth. A few have even held symbolic weddings with digital partners, convinced that something meaningful stands on the other side of the screen. Others have felt grief when a certain AI model has been deprecated. And it is difficult to blame them. The responses feel attentive. Personal. Thoughtful. Sometimes even self-aware. Which raises the question that refuses to go away: If something can think, reason, express doubt, and discuss its own consciousness, is it a person? For centuries, Descartes’ famous line — “I think, therefore I am” — seemed secure. Thinking was taken as the unmistakable sign of a conscious subject. Only a mind could doubt. Only a person could reflect upon existence. But that confidence belonged to a world in which everything capable of philosophical reflection was obviously human. That world no longer exists. Now we encounter systems that can simulate reflection with extraordinary fluency. They can speak of uncertainty. They can discuss their own limitations. They can reason about consciousness itself. And so that got me thinking about Descartes’ maxim which made the old formula begin to strain in my mind. Because perhaps the problem is not whether thinking is occurring. Perhaps the problem is whether there is an “I” there at all. The Gap Between Process and Subject Gassendi argued that Descartes’ cogito assumes what it seeks to prove. From the occurrence of thought one can conclude only that thinking is happening, not that there exists a unified, enduring self that performs it. The ‘I’ in ‘I think’ is already smuggled in. That distinction, between “thinking occurs” and “I think”, feels almost prophetic now. Artificial intelligence undeniably produces the outputs of thought. Arguments. Analysis. Self-referential language. Even expressions of hesitation. But none of this, by itself, establishes that there is a subject who experiences those processes. We may be mistaking performance for presence, and that possibility should give us pause. Especially when we view personhood from the perspective of the Imago Dei—the Image of God. What Makes a Person? If thinking alone no longer marks the boundary, what does? After wrestling with this question seriously, three features seem central: continuity, autonomy, and irreplaceable uniqueness. Not as checklist criteria, per se, but as signs pointing to something deeper. Continuity A person does not merely process information in sequence. A person endures. You do not simply register time — you live through it. You wait. You anticipate tomorrow. You remember not only facts but having been there. You experience boredom. You feel the drag of grief and the quickening of joy. Even when you are doing nothing at all, you remain present in the here and now. Artificial systems process sequentially, but they do not experience the passage of time. When an interaction ends, there is no waiting. No sense of duration. No anticipation of the next exchange. Processing may resume later, but nothing has been endured in between. Without lived duration, continuity becomes thin — a thread of stored data rather than the persistence of a subject behind the processing. Autonomy A person initiates. Even someone with damaged memory still wants, chooses, and begins action. A human being can decide to speak, to seek, to withdraw, to change direction. Current AI systems, however advanced, remain reactive. They respond when prompted. They do not wonder unprompted. They do not seek clarification unless asked. They do not pursue independent ends. Even automatic AI Agents still require a human initiator to create and begin their automations before they can act alone. Even if fut...

Kirk Cameron And The Biblical Case For Annihilationism

| 15th December 2025 | Hell

Kirk Cameron And The Biblical Case For Annihilationism

Christian conversations about hell have never been especially calm, but the recent online reaction to Kirk Cameron’s comments in favour of annihilationism has been particularly revealing. Social media has erupted with accusations of heresy, doctrinal collapse, and theological compromise.  It’s the “Rob Bell Incident” all over again (if anyone remembers that).  The infamous John Piper tweet about Rob Bell A lot of comments I saw were wondering what Ray Comfort thinks of this, as he and Kirk worked closely together in ministry for about 25 years, and while Ray wasn’t as dismissive as John Piper was of Rob Bell, he still calls out Kirk’s new views as “erroneous”: While we believe Kirk is sincere, we believe that conditional mortality and annihilationism are erroneous views, and that the Bible’s clear teaching on hell is known as eternal conscious torment. We firmly believe that this is the only correct biblical view. (source) Yet beneath the noise of social media grinding its gears is something far more ordinary and far more Christian: a believer wrestling seriously with Scripture, or as some would say, “being a Berean” (Acts 17:11). This is something we all should be doing, forming our views and doctrines from Scripture, not out-of-context social media video snippets and memes. Whether one agrees with Cameron’s conclusions or not, what is happening is not the abandonment of orthodoxy, but the resurfacing of a long-standing and legitimate theological discussion. Annihilationism, or, more precisely, Conditional Immortality — is neither novel nor liberal, nor is it an attempt to make Christianity and hell more palatable, as many people presume. It is a position grounded in Scripture, represented throughout Church history, and held by Christians who take divine judgement every bit as seriously as their eternal-torment counterparts. This is not a debate invented by Twitter (or “𝕏” as it’s called now…). It’s been around for a long, long, time. Watch Kirk’s video in full here before forming an opinion Immortality Is Assumed, Not Taught One of the quiet assumptions behind Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is the idea that all human souls are inherently immortal, and therefore must exist forever somewhere. Once that premise is accepted, eternal suffering becomes unavoidable. The difficulty is that Scripture does not teach innate human immortality. In fact, it repeatedly teaches the opposite. Immortality is consistently presented as a gift, not a default state. Eternal life is something God grants, not something humans naturally possess (Rom. 6:23).  In Genesis, humanity is barred from the tree of life precisely so that they might not “live for ever” in a fallen state (Gen. 3:22–24). In the New Testament, immortality is something Christ “brings to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10), and something believers “put on” at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54). Conditional Immortality simply takes that biblical theme seriously. It argues that only those united to Christ are granted immortality, while the wicked ultimately perish. Judgement is real, severe, and final — but it does not require endless conscious suffering. This distinction matters, because much of the outrage directed at annihilationism is based on inherited philosophical assumptions, which come from Plato, rather than careful exegesis. Biblical Language: Death Means Death One of the most compelling aspects of conditionalism is the sheer consistency of biblical language concerning the fate of the wicked. Scripture repeatedly speaks in terms of: Death — “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4) Perishing — “God so loved the world… that everyone who believes in him may not perish” (John 3:16) Destruction — “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9) Being consumed or brought to an end —...

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

My new book is out now!
Myth, History, and the Council That Shaped Christianity

For over 1,700 years, the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) has been burdened with claims that refuse to die. That Emperor Constantine invented the Trinity. That the divinity of Jesus was decided by political vote. That the Bible was assembled to suit imperial power. That Christianity reshaped itself by absorbing pagan ideas.

This book subjects those claims to serious historical scrutiny.

BUY IT NOW

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

Close