Christmas And Immature Liberal Faith

James McGrath writes:

Scholars and historians who ask awkward historical questions are probably considered the “worst offenders” when it comes to allegations of grinchiness. While churches host pageants which nonchalantly combine details from Matthew and Luke into a cute little drama, with adorable kids dressed as magi, shepherds, sheep, historians are prone to point out that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to the time of the census under Quirinius, around 6 CE, while Matthew dates it to sometime prior to the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, leaving us with a contradiction between the only Gospel to feature shepherds and the only one to tell of the visit of the wise men. And while in Matthew’s Gospel the family’s story begins in Bethlehem in a house, and they seek to return there from Egypt, in Luke’s Gospel they start in Nazareth, go to Bethlehem and, after Jesus is born, within a month or so (compare Luke 2 with Leviticus 12) are in Jerusalem and then heading back to their home town of Nazareth. The chronologies of the two accounts, both in terms of when they are set and the geographical movements depicted, are historically irreconcilable....

Perhaps it is those who insist that the only way to really celebrate and appreciate Christmas is to treat the infancy stories as factual, historical accounts, who are posing the biggest threat to faith, if what we mean is a mature faith.

The Grinch discovered that Christmas in Whoville wasn’t something that could be stolen. I wish those reading this a Merry Christmas, and the discovery of a meaning to Christmas that does not disappear as a result of historical or other scholarly analysis.

McGrath refers to "scholars and historians" and what "historians are prone to point out". But the view that Luke dates Jesus' birth to about 6 A.D. is a minority position in modern scholarship, despite how unconservative that scholarship tends to be. For a discussion of the large amount of internal and external evidence against such a late date for Jesus' birth in Luke, see my series on Luke's census here.

On the other objections McGrath raises, see my post in the comments section of the thread here. And here's an index of Triablogue's Christmas material in general.

McGrath puts forward a highly unlikely reading of Luke's gospel, one that's contradicted by a large amount of internal and external evidence. He keeps referring to scholarship in the process, even though the view of Luke he's describing is rejected by most scholars. He then appeals to dubious readings of passages like Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:39, which require reading unsupported assumptions into the text. Then, without addressing counterarguments to his objections or the arguments for a conservative view of the infancy narratives, he refers to the immaturity of the people he's criticizing.