I saw on CBS the other night a documentary on Jesus' birth, and whether or not the gospels of Matthew and Luke can be reliable with their accounts of it. They interviewed the typical guys who discount some of the details about the birth, but the last guy they interviewed, Ben Witherington, closed the show providing his thoughts on why you can trust what Matthew and Luke tell about Jesus' birth. One thing he mentioned, responding to lack of evidence for the killing of baby boys by Herod's decree, was that the reason there may not be a mass grave is because there probably weren't that many killed in the first place. I've heard numerous times that there is no account of such a decree by Herod, and if there were, we would definitely have been able to uncover some sort of grave site. Any thoughts? I thought it was interesting that Ben suggested that there probably weren't that many killed anyways. I, like many others, would have expected a lot of dead children. Evidence, or lack of (funny how the Bible doesn't count as evidence), doesn't change what happened in history.