Aside from the secular symbols of Santa, candy canes and the Christmas tree, the nativity is one of the most common associations with Christmas in the Western world. A child born to a virgin in a manger, visited by angels, shepherds and wise men, hunted by the bloodthirsty King Herod, and announced by a mysterious star above the city, as the scene has been depicted in numerous nativity displays and artistic renderings acrosss the globe. 'Remember the reason for the season,' many believers will proclaim: a celebration of the birth of the Christ child in that little town of Bethlehem... or was he from Nazareth? In the spirit of the holidays, we will examine the various birth narratives found in the gospels and it will be shown that, like the accounts of the resurrection, the nativity story has numerous discrepancies among the gospels that report it, as well as ahistorical inventions. Finally, the implications of these details for the Christmas season will also be considered.

I. Contradictions & Embellishments

The first thing one should notice in the gospels is that Mark and John contain no birth narrative. Mark's gospel begins by introducing Jesus as an adult and John's vaguely describes the incarnation on a theological or metaphysical level, with none of the details from the nativity story. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are the only two that record a birth narrative for Jesus. Obviously, the authors of Mark and John either were not aware of a birth story or did not consider it important to the purpose of their own writings. So instead of four separate claims, as there are for the resurrection, we only have two for the nativity. How reliable are they?

Matthew: Luke: Visitation by an angel No. Yes (Luke 1:26-38) Joseph has a dream Yes (Matthew 1:20-21) No. Visitation by shepherds No. Yes (Luke 2:8-20) Star of Bethlehem Yes (Matthew 2:1-2) No. Visitation by the three wise men (Magi) Yes (Matthew 2:3-12) No. Joseph has a 2nd dream Yes (Matthew 2:13) No. Flight into Egypt Yes (Matthew 2:16-18) No. Herod's massacre of the innocents Yes (Matthew 2:13-15) No.

The chart on the left provides the details of the birth narratives of both Matthew and Luke in contrast to each other. As we can see from this, the two stories don't share anything in common except the birth of Jesus itself. There is nothing in these details alone to cause conflict if the accounts are harmonized, yet it does produce a different version than in the two gospels and is motivated more by dogma than honest investigation. If God inspired the authors of the bible, why couldn't he have kept the story straight? How is divine inspiration any different from human inspiration if there is just as much room for error and variation in it? Nonetheless, there are other parts of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke that cannot be harmonized, because they would yield a contradiction. One example would be the date on which Jesus was allegedly born. Luke claims that he was born during a "census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Luke 2:2), whereas Matthew places the birth "during the time of King Herod"

(Matthew 2:1). The significance of this is that while Herod the Great died in 4 BC, the census of Quirinius was not taken until 6 or 7 AD according to the historian Josephus, making for a difference of about 10 years. Apologists have tried to reconcile this discrepancy in many ways, even suggesting that Quirinius governed Syria twice (though there is no historical evidence of this), but the discrepancy exists for other reasons important to both gospels.

Matthew uses the murderous intentions of Herod to drive Joseph, Mary and Jesus into Egypt so that a prophecy in Jeremiah might be fulfilled (Matt. 2:16-20). Luke uses the census of Quirinius to make Joseph, Mary and Jesus return to Bethlehem, in fulfillment of the prophecy and expectation that the Messiah would be born from that city (Micah 5:2). I have addressed both so-called prophecies in another article [60 Prophecies of Jesus Debunked], but the point here is that the discrepancy in Jesus' birth year is the result of Matthew and Luke each finding a different way to make the story fulfill different prophecies. Thus, not only do we have a contradiction, but we also have evidence of the gospel authors embellishing events to suit their agendas.

Another example of this sort is found in the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke. From David to Jesus, Matthew's gospel records 28 generations (Matt. 1:6-16), while Luke's records 43 generations (Luke 3:21-31). This lineage from David to Jesus also only contains just four names that are found in both gospels (Salathiel, Zorobabel, Eliakim and Joseph). Furthermore, Matthew names Jacob as the father of Joseph, while Luke names him Heli. Some apologists have surmised that this is because one gospel traces Jesus' lineage through Mary and the other through Joseph. However, Luke does not even mention Mary in the genealogy and Matthew only mentions her incidentally, as the wife of Joseph. Luke specifically says, "Jacob the father of Joseph" and Matthew, "Joseph, the son of Heli". Additionally, Numbers 1:18 explains that genealogies were assembled, "by ancestry in their families, by their fathers' households," and there is not any genealogy traced through the mother anywhere in the bible, Old Testament or New.

Once again, though, these contradictions point to embellishment or 'creative license' on the part of the gospel authors. The emphasis in Matthew is on numbers, as the generations of Jesus are divided into three sets of fourteen generations (Matt. 1:17). Not only is three a number of significance in Christianity (the trinity, raised from the dead after 3 days, Peter denied Jesus 3 times), but fourteen is seven doubled, and seven is the number of perfection (7 days of creation, 7 last words of Jesus, 7 days to bring down Jericho's walls), as well as the numerical value of the Hebrew name David. Instead of three sets of fourteen, Luke simply gives 77 generations from God to Jesus. Both gospels emphasize the divinity of Jesus with numerical representations in the genealogy, but each author chooses a different way of doing it. Because of this, we are left with two contradictory genealogies and more evidence that the gospel authors felt free to work their own agendas into their writings, rather than record the most accurate history they could.

II. Where History Begs to Differ

As referenced before, the census of Quirinius was taken in 6/7 AD, cited in Luke's gospel as the reason for Joseph and family to return to Bethlehem. Luke 2:1-7 reads,

The first item of note here should be the extent of the census. Although the New International Version (NIV) bible translation, provided above, describes the census as involving "the entire Roman world," other translations simply say "all the world" or "all the inhabited earth" (NAS, KJV, ESV, Young's, etc). The Greek word used is oikoumenen, which literally means 'all the inhabited earth,' and is elsewhere used to refer to the whole world, such as in Acts 17:31, Hebrews 1:6, and Revelation 12:9. This is one of many examples of how the NIV translation alters passages to appear less contradictory or absurd, when the original text does not support it. There is no historical evidence for a worldwide census or a Roman-controlled census of the whole world, and a census commanded by Augustus would only cover Roman citizens [1].

Another clash with history in this passage is the idea that subjects were expected to return to their ancestral homes. This would be impossible to enforce worldwide or even in the Roman world alone, it would produce massive chaos with such a large number of travelers, and no evidence has ever been found that Roman censuses required this [2]. The allegation is made even more ridiculous by the notion that Joseph would have taken his very pregnant wife on a trek from Nazareth to Bethlehem, when only the head of a household was expected to report for a census. Much about the census in Luke is preposterous in the light of history, but the author's concern was on fulfilling prophecy anyway, even if it could only be accomplished by embellishing some details.

Matthew's tale of Herod's massacre of the innocents as a means of fulfilling the flight into Egypt prophecy suffers from many similar problems. There is no evidence that Herod ever ordered the slaughter of all infant male children in Bethlehem, and in fact, the majority of modern biographies on Herod the Great do reject the claim [3]. Even so, Herod was well known for his ruthlessly violent behavior, and one incident in particular, his murder of his own sons, as told by Josephus, has been suggested as the inspiration behind the massacre of the innocents legend. It has previously been explained that the legend was used by the author of Matthew to fulfill a prophecy in Jeremiah, and so once again we have a case of theological agenda being favored before historical accuracy. Lastly, let's talk about the star of Bethlehem and the Magi. Alternately known as the three wise men or three kings, the Magi were men who followed the star to Jesus' manger, bringing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The Greek word magos, from which Magi is derived, refers to a priestly caste in the religion of Zoroastrianism [4], known for their practice of astrology. In Matthew 2:2, the Magi tell Herod they have seen the star of Jesus, and upon leaving the king "went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was" (Matt. 2:9). Apologists have proposed all sorts of explanations for the star of Bethlehem moving to rest over the inn, but there is no celestial body, not even a comet, that exhibits this kind of behavior, especially when it would have to be close enough to the earth to be followed for the 6 mile trip from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.

The Massacre of the Innocents by Giotto di Bondone, c. 1305.

No reports of this star appear in historical accounts (or in Luke's gospel), but, as with so many examples we have seen by now, the purpose of this portion of the nativity myth is rooted in prophecy. The Star Prophecy, found in Numbers 24:17, was one of the most well known signs of the Jewish messiah in first century Judea, appearing frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

While history and science do not support the idea of a hovering star leading the way to the inn at Bethlehem, Matthew was not focused on such things as much as he was focused on incorporating prophecy fulfillment into his narratives of Jesus. As for the Magi, their role in the story would have been about earning credibility, as they were the resident experts on stars at the time. The creative license employed by the authors of Matthew and Luke, as well as their distinctly religious agenda, should be pretty apparent by now.

III. Christmas and the Nativity

In his book, The Case for Christmas, apologist Lee Strobel concludes by saying, "if you drill down to its core, Christmas is based on a historical reality" [5]. Yet as we have seen, there is very little about the nativity story which can be called historical. Although there was a Herod the Great and a census of Quirinius, virtually everything else surrounding the birth of Christ is in serious doubt, especially portions invoking the supernatural. It deserves repeating: if divine inspiration is no more able to preserve the full truth of a story than human inspiration, then what is the difference between the two?

The Religious Right in America has created an imaginary 'war on Christmas' to rile up the blood of believers against non-believers who do not wish for the holiday season to become anymore of an opportunity for sectarian preaching than it already is. The purpose of this article has not been to attack Christmas, as I am one atheist who enjoys the holiday. However, Christianity does not have a patent on Christmas, despite its name. In ~350 AD, Pope Julius I declared December 25th as the Christmas holiday in order to supplant the Roman festival of Saturnalia [6], meaning that Christmas is not truly of Christian origin, and the December 25th celebration is also not based on any scripture. I point this out not to ridicule any believers for celebrating an originally pagan holiday, but merely to serve as a reminder that Christmas belongs to no single group.

With this in mind, the discrepancies in the nativity story do not undermine Christmas. Discovering the fictitious nature of Santa Claus has not crushed the value of Christmas for millions of adults, it has only put their focus where it needs to be: not on myths, fantasies, or dogmas, but on friends, family, and loved ones. The birth of Jesus is enshrouded by fables, yet accepting this fact and relinquishing faith will not spell the end of peace on Earth and goodwill towards men. When we look beyond superstition and allow evidence and reason to guide us in our understanding of reality, no immaculately conceived savior is necessary, for we will be giving ourselves and future generations the greatest gift of hope that can be given.

1. Schürer, E. (1973) The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol 1. p.401. Continuum International.
2. Sanders, E.P. (1993) The Historical Figure of Jesus. p.86. Penguin Press.
3. Maier, P.L. (1998) "Herod and the Infants of Bethlehem." Chronos, Kairos, Christos II. p.170. Mercer University Press.
4. Boyce, M. (2001) Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. p.48. Routledge.
5. Strobel, L. (2005) The Case for Christmas. p.90. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI.
6. Martindale, C.C. (1908) Christmas. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved Dec. 21, 2010.