The bible claims Pharaoh had male newborns killed. But there's no historic proof?

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The bible claims a king named Pharaoh had a bunch of first born male newborns killed. But there's no historic proof of this. If that never happen, then nothings true in the bible. After that. Any thoughts?

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend or folklore.[4] It is found in no other gospel, and the Jewish historian Josephus does not mention it in his Antiquities of the Jews (c.  AD 94), despite recording many of Herod's misdeeds including the murder of three of his own sons.[3] It appears to be modeled on Pharaoh's attempt to kill the Israelite children (Exodus 1:22), and more specifically on various elaborations of the original story that had become current in the 1st century.[5] In that expanded story, Pharaoh kills the Hebrew children after his scribes warn him of the impending birth of the threat to his crown (i.e., Moses), but Moses' father and mother are warned in a dream that the child's life is in danger and act to save him. Later in life, after Moses has to flee, like Jesus, he only returns when those who sought his death are themselves dead.[6] The story of the massacre of the innocents thus plays a part in Matthew's wider nativity story, in which the proclamation of the coming of the Messiah (his birth) is followed by his rejection by the Jews (Herod and his scribes and the people of Jerusalem) and his later acceptance by the gentiles (the Magi).[7] The relevance of Jeremiah 31:15 to the massacre in Bethlehem is not immediately apparent, as Jeremiah's next verses go on to speak of hope and restoration.[8]

Some scholars argue for the historicity of the event. R. T. France, despite noting that the massacre is "perhaps the aspect [of his story of Jesus' infancy] most often rejected as legendary",[9] and acknowledging that the story is similar to that of Moses, argues "t is clear that this scriptural model has been important in Matthew's telling of the story of Jesus, but not so clear that it would have given rise to this narrative without historical basis."[10] Some scholars, such as Everett Ferguson, write that the story makes sense in the context of Herod's reign of terror in the last few years of his rule,[11] and the number of infants in Bethlehem that would have been killed – no more than a dozen or so – may have been too insignificant to be recorded by Josephus, who could not be aware of every incident far in the past when he wrote it.[12]


Massacre of the Innocents - Wikipedia


The last sentence in the passage above, could be the most relevant.

 

[HTacianas]

The bible claims a king named Pharaoh had a bunch of first born male newborns killed. But there's no historic proof of this. If that never happen, then nothings true in the bible. After that. Any thoughts?

There is an account in the new testament of a tower collapsing and killing a number of people:

Luk 13:4 “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?

There is no historic record of any tower falling and killing eighteen people. But that does not mean the event never occurred, only that no one recorded it. There are all kinds of things that have occurred throughout history that no record exists for. Some Pharoah may have ruled for decades but his entire life story isn't in the historical record.

Outside verification of an event can be used as evidence to prove that the event occurred, but lack of outside verification doesn't prove that it didn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible claims a king named Pharaoh had a bunch of first born male newborns killed. But there's no historic proof of this. If that never happen, then nothings true in the bible. After that. Any thoughts?

You may be conflating a Bible story. In Exodus God killed the first born of everyone in Egypt, except for those that knew to paint their door frame with blood from a sacrificial lamb. That way Moses's people would not die:
Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 12 - New International Version

So it was not Pharaoh the killed the first born, it was God. But you are right. There is no evidence of this event. Or the actual exodus from Egypt either. Most historians do not think that it happened at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is an account in the new testament of a tower collapsing and killing a number of people:

Luk 13:4 “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?

There is no historic record of any tower falling and killing eighteen people. But that does not mean the event never occurred, only that no one recorded it. There are all kinds of things that have occurred throughout history that no record exists for. Some Pharoah may have ruled for decades but his entire life story isn't in the historical record.

Outside verification of an event can be used as evidence to prove that the event occurred, but lack of outside verification doesn't prove that it didn't.

You are correct for some events. But some events told of in the Bible would have left massive evidence. That there is no such evidence of those events tells us that those events did not happen.

 

[HTacianas]

You are correct for some events. But some events told of in the Bible would have left massive evidence. That there is no such evidence of those events tells us that those events did not happen.

To play devil's advocate, I can counter that by simply saying no evidence has yet been found. It doesn't mean no evidence exists, only that no evidence has been found.

 

[mmksparbud]

The bible claims a king named Pharaoh had a bunch of first born male newborns killed. But there's no historic proof of this. If that never happen, then nothings true in the bible. After that. Any thoughts?

Pharaoh is not a particular person---it is a titular name---such as King David. There were many Pharaoh's. So you have top know which Pharaoh you are referring to. There is no Pharaoh that had children killed. If you are referring to Herod -- He was not a Pharaoh, but a King. There was more than 1 King Herod, but only 1 associated with what is called "The Slaughter of the Innocents." As post #2 says---there is no proof outside of the bible that mentions it. No archeological proof of it---yet. So far, archeology has confirmed what the bible says. Maybe in time it will be discovered.

 

[CuriousPagan]

If you are referring to the Pharaoh's killing of Hebrew infants, Egyptian history is about as reliable as Soviet propaganda-if a pharaoh was unpopular (and no doubt one who couldn't stop a slave rebellion would be) they were quietly removed from the records.

 

[dzheremi]

Just to follow up mksparbud's good post with a little bit more information that might not be well-known to non-Coptic people, Pharaoh is indeed a title in Egyptian society used for its monarchs from the 1200s BC until the Roman annexation of Egypt a few decades before Christ. It is preserved in Coptic Egyptian (the native language of the ethnic Egyptians before the arrival of Islam to Egypt eventually realigned the country linguistically and religiously) as Pouro, as in the famous Church hymn Epouro (usually rendered in English as "O King of Peace", from its first line):

So for us in the Egyptian Orthodox Church, Christ is our eternal Pharaoh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To play devil's advocate, I can counter that by simply saying no evidence has yet been found. It doesn't mean no evidence exists, only that no evidence has been found.

That is not a "counter". That is a misunderstanding of the argument.

 

[Sketcher]

The bible claims a king named Pharaoh had a bunch of first born male newborns killed. But there's no historic proof of this.

1) One has to determine which Pharaoh of Egypt was the Pharaoh of Exodus before one can properly assess the evidence of what he did or didn't do.
2) Egypt had levels of propaganda that were way, way out there - not unlike North Korea today. We know that there was a massive battle between Ramses III and the Hittites, but the evidence of that battle is far less flattering for the Egyptians than their own reports of the battle. It therefore may well have been a custom for the Pharaoh of Egypt, whom we know had divine claims about the position, to very effectively cover up bad news. If that were the custom, and if Pharaoh considered killing the newborn Hebrew children to be bad publicity, then he could have covered it up.
3) There was much less that was known about the ancient world 200 years ago than there is today. New archeological finds tell us more information than we had previously, and we used to not have evidence for quite a few things that we know now about many ancient civilizations. Absence of evidence is not evidence that something never happened.

If that never happen, then nothings true in the bible. After that. Any thoughts?

1) This is a massive logical fallacy. The Bible tells us of many, many events. If one event it describes didn't literally happen, it doesn't mean that others it reports also didn't literally happen.
2) What is far more relevant than Pharaoh having boys killed is whether or not the Exodus and the encounter with God at Mt Sinai happened.
3) The Bible teaches us philosophical, moral, and spiritual truths first and foremost. It is about God and people's relationship to him. This must be kept in focus when reading it always, especially when reading stories that seem improbable.

 

[HTacianas]

That is not a "counter". That is a misunderstanding of the argument.

The argument is, "there is no evidence for it therefore it does not exist". I can spot you though that you say "massive evidence" would exist. If massive evidence would exist then at least some evidence would be found. But still, lack of evidence doesn't disprove it.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Those who wish to reject God will make endless arguments to give themselves a reason to. In the end God isn't concerned about loose ends in the Bible because if everything was a total fact them the majority of people would automatically accept God and there would be no faith or trust in him just acceptance like water is wet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The argument is, "there is no evidence for it therefore it does not exist". I can spot you though that you say "massive evidence" would exist. If massive evidence would exist then at least some evidence would be found. But still, lack of evidence doesn't disprove it.

Here is a non-biblical example to start with: Your friend calls you almost in a panic telling you how a herd of buffalos just stampeded through his house. You rush over and his house is pristine. Did the stampede happen? It would have left also sorts of evidence, breakage, dirt, buffalo hair, poop, the list goes on and on. You should be able to conclude that he was pulling your leg at best.


For a biblical example we have the Flood myth. We know that never happened because of all of the clear cut evidence that such an event would have left behind. The buffalo stamped would have been more reasonable.

 

[HTacianas]

Here is a non-biblical example to start with: Your friend calls you almost in a panic telling you how a herd of buffalos just stampeded through his house. You rush over and his house is pristine. Did the stampede happen? It would have left also sorts of evidence, breakage, dirt, buffalo hair, poop, the list goes on and on. You should be able to conclude that he was pulling your leg at best.


For a biblical example we have the Flood myth. We know that never happened because of all of the clear cut evidence that such an event would have left behind. The buffalo stamped would have been more reasonable.

If you are arguing against a Sunday School level reading of the bible, you have a point. But when someone tells me there was a worldwide global flood that destroyed everything my reaction is, that's nice. And not much else. But if you told me that there was once a catastrophic flood that affected a large number of people and occurred so quickly they could only take with them what they could collect up and escape with I would find it to be a more reasonable story.

 

[Strathos]

We don't even know which pharaoh was the one referenced in Exodus. So how would we have accurate records of everything he did?

 

[doctorwho29]

Dictators killed people en masse all the time back then...it wasn't always newsworthy. Plus Pharaoh may have wanted historians recording only good or favorable things about him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are arguing against a Sunday School level reading of the bible, you have a point. But when someone tells me there was a worldwide global flood that destroyed everything my reaction is, that's nice. And not much else. But if you told me that there was once a catastrophic flood that affected a large number of people and occurred so quickly they could only take with them what they could collect up and escape with I would find it to be a more reasonable story.

If you go with your second option the story falls apart. Have there been large floods? Yes, they are not common but they do occur. But the idea of one family surviving is false. Was there an actual flood that inspired the story? Very likely.

The problem is that too many American Christians, though not even most of those, do tend to read the Bible literally. Does the story still work as an allegory or fable? Yes.

 

[HTacianas]

If you go with your second option the story falls apart. Have there been large floods? Yes, they are not common but they do occur. But the idea of one family surviving is false. Was there an actual flood that inspired the story? Very likely.

The problem is that too many American Christians, though not even most of those, do tend to read the Bible literally. Does the story still work as an allegory or fable? Yes.

Okay. We've resolved it.

 

[Philip_B]

You may be conflating a Bible story. In Exodus God killed the first born of everyone in Egypt, except for those that knew to paint their door frame with blood from a sacrificial lamb. That way Moses's people would not die:
Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 12 - New International Version

So it was not Pharaoh the killed the first born, it was God. But you are right. There is no evidence of this event. Or the actual exodus from Egypt either. Most historians do not think that it happened at all.

Exodus1:15-22
The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, ‘When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.’ But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live. So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, ‘Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?’ The midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.’ So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, ‘Every boy that is born to the Hebrews* you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live.’​

This is the text that elates to the OP. The absence of known evidence outside of scripture of this account is simply that. It does not imply that the story is not true. The story may well be true, and who knows, one day we may find the evidence. It may also be a micro event that has been told in a way the records it as a macro event.

It is a shame that this has been derailed by those missing the point of the OP. If we require external corroboration for everything in scripture, then there will be no place for faith. There is a lot that is remarkable in the accounts of Moses, and he formed a very significant component in Jewish eschatological hope. Compare how many times Moses is referred to in John as against David. The point is we need to understand the Moses story a little better.