It was also the year he died, after which his son Herod Archelaus took control of Bethlehem and the surrounding area. 4 B.C., was also the year he immolated 2 religious teachers and about 40 youths over a religious conflagration that flared up in Jerusalem, and executed his son Antipater II.

To give some further perspective on that: the year Herod the Great may very well have perpetrated the massacre, ca.For killing anybody else, he could mostly just put it down to a 'police action' in his Acta, assuming he bothered to record it at all. For killing wives and sons of anyone important, he regularly wrote to Emperor Augustus in Rome asking permission. There's also the theory that it was recorded at the time, but as time went by and records were lost, it wasn't considered important enough to remember, again because of all the horrendous crimes Herod committed.(He massacred numerous members of his own family, for Heaven's sake! Regularly!) This is a common response to the idea that the massacre was either a legend or that Matthew (lone reporter of this incident) made it up to discredit Herod and provide an origin story to Jesus that was like Moses and other figures. This is a theory behind why contemporary historians (such as Josephus) did not mention the Bethlehem Massacre - Herod the Great was such a deadly monarch that to record every minor massacre or other act of murder on his part would have required several scrolls.If a character only thinks this is happening but the apparent perpetrator really didn't do it, it may be Not Me This Time. Not the First Victim is an unusual case that can fall under this or Would You Like to Hear How They Died?. Contrast Reminiscing About Your Victims and Would You Like to Hear How They Died?.

Compare Forgotten First Meeting and He Had a Name. Alternatively, the hero may have saved someone who is now a devoted fan of them as a result, but when the rescuee later shows up to thank the hero, they could be hurt by their idol failing to recognize them. This is especially true if the forgotten enemy was a mook in their previous appearance(s). The alternate scenario, where this response comes from a hero unable to remember foiling some villain's scheme or putting them in jail simply due to how many bad guys they've defeated/put away, can really tick off a villain. Very frequently associated with The Sociopath with a Lack of Empathy to such a person, whatever reprehensible act they just did is just like any other mundane activity to a normal person in terms of emotional impact.

It can be done in a casually hurtful manner, but a Card-Carrying Villain may even mock the hero as being nothing special, just to be a bit more of a Jerkass. After all, if The Hero is upset over their murdered father, and the Big Bad barely remembers killing the guy, then clearly the villain has murdered a lot of people in their life, and they have a pretty callous attitude about it. That said, this response usually shows up to highlight just how evil a villain is. a death during a relatively routine war or invasion). Sometimes the act is not especially reprehensible, or was fairly mundane for all parties involved rather than just the one giving the response (e.g. This can be seen as a form of narcissism coming from the victim, who will automatically assume that the one responsible would specifically remember the event because of how important it is to them, and can go hand in hand with Unknown Rival. The instigator, however, has long forgotten this event, because to them, it wasn't really notable as they have likely done many similar acts this response shows up whenever a character is unable to remember a particular event that greatly affected someone. A critical event that started The Protagonist on their journey was an action by The Antagonist (or vice versa).

Ohhh burn gif