The murder of the innocents is myth, but then so is most of the birth story from conception onwards. That there was a birth of a baby Jesus to a Mary is probably the only fact within it.

frank, sydney,

zeno - you completely missed the point. It's the fundamental elements *of the story* which are known or not known. No-one said anything about whether they were true. You obviously think you're pretty clever, but sorry - you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions in an effort to show off. Good for you. Find another soap box.

BTW - how did you make the jump from "they're not known" to "they're false"? Are you dogmatic?!

Gareth, London, UK

"The fundamental elements, such as the appearance of an angel to Mary and where Jesus was born, were known by 73 per cent."

Eh? Most of the story of the birth of Jesus is simply tradition, handed down over the years after having been made up! There is so much that is not known - even the fact of his existence is hotly disputed. It is highly unlikely Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to escape Herod's massacre of children: the dates of historical fact of Herod's reign, don't match up; there is no other reference to the massacre in any reliable source; the place (or year) of his birth is not known with any degree of certainty (stable, cave, Bethlehem, Nazareth). In fact, it is most likely that the whole birth narrative was made up by the early Christians to give credence to the fulfilling of old prophecies. If only people would not take the stories in the bible as if they were historical fact: they're not.

zeno, Glasgow,