Is Herod's Massacre of the Innocents historical Matthew 2 v6?

KINDAWELL, IT IS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, SO, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING YES.


Outside the Gospel tradition, there is no record of this. Further, it sounds like a midrash of the Moses event. Decide for yourself.
 

Not Historical

When unable to discover Jesus what did Herod do?
Matthew: "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under" (ii, 16).
If this statement be true hundreds of innocent babes (the Greek Calendar says fourteen thousand) must have perished, a crime the enormity of which is almost without a parallel in the annals of history. It is strange that Mark, Luke, and John make no mention of this frightful tragedy. Luke's silence is especially significant. It is passing strange that the Roman historians and Rabbinical writers of that age, who wrote of Herod, should be silent regarding it. Josephus devotes nearly forty chapters to the life of Herod. He narrates with much particularity every important event in his life. He detested this monarch and dwells upon his crimes and errors. Yet Josephus knew nothing of this massacre.
In this silence of Josephus Dr. Farrar recognizes a difficulty too damaging to ignore. He says: "Why then, it has been asked, does Josephus make no mention of so infamous an atrocity? Perhaps because it was performed so secretly that he did not even know of it. Perhaps because, in those terrible days, the murder of a score of children, in consequence of a transient suspicion, would have been regarded as an item utterly insignificant in the list of Herod's murders. Perhaps because it was passed over in silence by Nikolaus of Damascus, who, writing in the true spirit of those Hellenizing courtiers, who wanted to make a political Messiah out of a corrupt and blood-stained usurper, magnified all his patron's achievements, and concealed or palliated all his crimes. But the more probable reason is that Josephus, whom, in spite of all the immense literary debt which we owe to him, we can only regard as a renegade and a sycophant, did not choose to make any allusion to facts which were even remotely connected with the life of Christ" (Life of Christ, pp. 22, 23).
A more absurd reason than the first advanced by Farrar it is difficult to conceive. The second, that it was a matter of too little consequence to record, an explanation which other Christian apologists have assigned, is as unreasonable as it is heartless. The silence of Nikolaus, who wrote of Herod after his death, is also significant, and the excuse offered by Farrar that he omitted it because he was the friend of Herod, even if admitted, cannot apply to Josephus, who abhorred the memory of this monarch. The contention that Josephus purposely ignored the existence of Christ because he saw in him a menace to his faith is childish. Jesus Christ, admitting his existence, had made no history to record. His birth was attended by no prodigies, and there was nothing in his advent to excite the fear or envy of a king. Josephus mentions no Herodian massacre at Bethlehem because none occurred. Had Herod slain a single child in the manner stated the fact would be attested by a score of authors whose writings are extant. Herod did not slay one babe. This story is false.
Herod's massacre of the infants of Bethlehem and the escape of Jesus was probably suggested by Kansa's massacre of the infants of Matura and the escape of Krishna Pharaoh's slaughter of the first born in Egypt may also have suggested it.

For Historicity

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This principle demonstrates the futility of trying to disprove something without any real contrary evidence. Many facts from our world have been shown to be true by science which previously were undiscovered.

The often produced 'arguments from silence' prove nothing either. There are many reasons which could satisfactorily explain an event being omitted. Differences in the four Gospel accounts of Jesus' life do not equal disagreement. Many other events are not recorded by Josephus and other historians. This again proves nothing either way.

What we do know can point to something being likely or possible but cannot prove it. We do know that Herod was a cruel tyrant. We also know that he was suffering terribly from an incurable and painful illness which finally killed him. People tend not to be at their best in such circumstances. Most importantly, we know that the Bible has been repeatedly been shown by archaeological discoveries to be factually correct where it was previously thought to be in error.
There is a First-Century, Jewish, apocryphal, pseudepigraphic work called the Assumption of Moses which states that "An insolent king will succeed [the Hasmonean priests]… he will slay all the young." Inarguably, Herod was an "insolent king" who ousted the Hasmoneans as ruler of Judea. Therefore it seems likely the writer of the Assumption of Moses had knowledge of such a slaughter - though he falsely presented his document as if it were a prophesy that pre-dated the slaughter. This certainly constitutes independent documentary evidence indicating the existence of such a slaughter.
Thus, I have no doubt at all this event was historical.

See the Related Link

See the link below for more information.