The gospel stands on historical credentials. David Jackman helpfully demonstrates this in his column this month.
Objections to the Christmas story come from many quarters. Sometimes these objections make fair points. Jesus was almost certainly not born in a barn on December 25, etc. These are objections to later traditions and not to the biblical account of the birth of Jesus at all. However, we do need to respond to objections made against the reliability of what we read in the Bible.
Luke’s mistake?
A good example is the historical context of the birth of Jesus. Luke tells us that the birth happened while Augustus Caesar was emperor and during the time of a Roman census when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2.1-3). Richard Dawkins remarks: ‘Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning events that historians are capable of independently checking. There was indeed a census … but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod’s death’ (The God Delusion, p.94). Geza Vermes suggests: ‘From whichever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality’ (Nativity: History and Legend, p.86). Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, influential New Testament theologians, say that Luke’s account of history is wrong, but then go on to affirm the theological value of his Gospel: ‘What was Luke attempting to say when he got his facts so wrong?’ (The First Christmas, p.148). With theologians like these, who needs Richard Dawkins?
