[Dr. Sivana]

Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime, of which there is no report apart from Matthew's account.

Correction, there is no EXTANT report. A lot of good material has not survived 2,000 years. Since the best evidence has Matthew as the earliest Gospel, written well before 70 AD, I don't think that a whopper on a historical fact of that magnitude would have flown with the earliest reader. People would still have been talking about it as having happened in their lifetimes.

[slnk_rules]

Herod is almost certainly innocent of this crime, of which there is no report apart from Matthew's account.

The historical standards of authenticity the NT and OT are put to are really ridiculous. It is almost like "it is not true unless some other document affirms it."..... which makes you wonder what value, if any, secular historians accord it.

from the cuture of the Hittites to the tax of Caesar to Quirinius of Syria.... tons of fodder for the mockers out there until.... WHOOPS, HEY BOSS GUESS WHAT WE FOUND INSCRIBED ON THIS POTSHERD?

I think God has a sense of humor, myself.

[maryz]

Correction, there is no EXTANT report.

I recall seeing a TV show (EWTN?) years ago with a piece on Herod. Seems someone had done a demographic study on Bethlethem of 2,000 years ago, and based on estimated population, the number of male children under two would probably only have been a half dozen or so -- hardly a blip on the screen in view of all Herod's other depredations.