Did Matthew invent the massacre of innocents?

[marco]

My view is that Matthew made things up. He stumbled on Jeremiah, lamenting as only Jeremiah laments:


“A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.� Matthew 2:16-18 (NKJV)

What was upsetting the woman? Matthew explains that Herod was so annoyed at being deceived by the Magi that he just decided to kill all the male children, two years and under, in the entire region. A bit excessive. The incarnation was God's plan; the Magi were invited; so the murdered babies were collateral damage in God's plan. Rachel, in a town far away, is inconsolable, though she didn't know the babies personally.

What's Rachel got to do with anything?
Is this just Matthew inventing or can we believe the story?
Is Matthew blaming God - indirectly - for killing baby boys again?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]


The main lesson is that Matthew is a wonderful writer of fiction, gifted with a good imagination, able to take some innocent text and miraculously transform it into something significant in Christ's life.

One wonders how Matthew hit on the idea of having baby boys killed.

No, one wonders not!
Matthew copied that from Moses!

It's required by the plot. I hardly need repeat that I reckon that Nothing in the nativities is true. Other than historical background that was used like the Census of Quirinus or Herod succeeded by Archelaus. Matthew was interested in OT often for prophecies, and often showing that he didn't understand it. The whole Matthew plot is intended to do one thing - have Jesus born in Bethlehem as scripture (so they thought) required (see John 7.42). Matthew has them as Judeans living in Bethlehem, so forget Luke's tosh about no room at the inn. But how to get Jesus into Nazareth? The threat by Herod to kill Jesus forces them to be miraculously warned to relocate to Galilee (1). Now, the threat had to be real so Herod is made to arrange a massacre of possible Jesus up to 2 years old because that is how long it took the magi to arrive (Math 2.7). Which explains why Herod asked the pointless question at all. He knows he'll have to kill all the 2 year olds because the wise men won';t report back to him. One can see Matthew's clumsy plot, of which this prophecy (which is a metaphor for Assyria destroying the Northern Kingdom) is used to aid and abet Matthew's silly story.

In addition to which History knows nothing of it and nor do any of the other writers. Sure, Herod could have done this, but that's not the same as saying that he did, which is the best that the pitifully weak Bible apologetics can do. There are few things I'd bet my life on but Matthew's mobile star being a fairy tale is one of them.

(1) which is how, Mathew crows, Jesus came to be called a Nazorene, and turns this into a prophecy. Which is of course not in the OT. Christian apologists claiming (when they aren't swearing meticulous transmission of scripture) that it got lost. It didn't get lost. It was never there and is part of Matthew's tatty story. Once you know how the trick is done, you won't be fooled by it again.