THERE have been many letters recently wondering at the cynicism with which certain people and organisations view the accuracy of the Gospels insofar as the Christmas story is concerned.

But why wonder?

Just examine a few key facts.

Most readers may be surprised to learn that Mark and John don't mention the nativity at all and Matthew and Luke were not written until around 80 to 85AD.

What is the likely percentage split between fact on the one hand and hearsay/fiction on the other?

Even the unlamented Blunkett would have found it hard to prosecute Herod at that sort of remove.

Furthermore, the two nativity accounts differ from each other in several respects.

For instance, Matthew mentions the Magi but no shepherds; Luke has the shepherds but no Magi; Matthew has the star in the east, but Luke doesn't; Matthew has the Holy Family in Bethlehem from the start whereas Luke uses the dramatic device of a taxation census to get Mary and Joseph from Nazareth into the place they needed to be if the all-important prophecy were to be fulfilled.

I hope I have managed to establish that we have all, over the years, been fed an evangelistic mish-mash of a story which masquerades as seamless narrative fact but which simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It even relies greatly upon stories which are not even in the nativity chapters.

If your readers doubt me then they may care to check their bibles for any references to oxen, asses... or even a stable.

Rory Mulvihill,

Palmes Close,

Naburn,

York.

Updated: 11:09 Wednesday, December 22, 2004