The birth narratives of Jesus contain some of the most famous stories in Christianity: the virgin birth, angels and shepherds, the Magi, the star of Bethlehem and Herod’s massacre of the innocents. But did Matthew and Luke actually intend their readers to believe these events happened?
Dr Caleb Friedeman joins John Nelson to challenge a widespread assumption in historical Jesus scholarship: that the infancy narratives can largely be sidelined because they belong more to the world of legend and theological storytelling than history.
Drawing on his new book, Gospel Birth Narratives and Historiography: Reopening a Closed Case, Friedeman compares Matthew and Luke with ancient biographers including Plutarch, Suetonius and Philo. He argues that supposedly “legendary” ancient birth stories often show clear signs of historical intent — including the use and evaluation of sources — and asks whether scholars have been applying the wrong assumptions to the Gospels.
But historical intent doesn’t automatically mean historical accuracy. So what about the difficult questions? Did Luke get the census of Quirinius wrong? Is there any evidence for Herod’s massacre of the innocents? Did Luke really get his information from Mary? And can the apparently different birth stories in Matthew and Luke actually be reconciled?
Can we take the Christmas story seriously as history?

SOCIAL LINKS
Twitter: https://twitter.com/unbelievablefe
Facebook: / https://facebook.com/premierunbelievable
Instagram: / https://instagram.com/premierunbelievable
Tik Tok: / https://tiktok.com/@premier.unbelievable

• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: https://www.premier.plus/unbelievable
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: https://premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: http://www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/training
• Support us: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/geolink/donate

Released on 7 Oct 2026