Both are fascinating discussions, not least because they present standard challenges to Christian belief in sympathetic and persuasive ways. The fundamental issue, it seems to me, comes at the end of the second episode when they engage with the question of methodology. Can a historian say that the most likely explanation for the data we have, given the principle of Occam’s razor, is that Jesus was indeed the Son of God? Or is historical enquiry committed to materialist or naturalist explanations by its very nature, and therefore unable to acknowledge the possibility of miracles or religious truth claims more generally? (I found it interesting that the logic of David Hume and Edward Gibbon loomed so large in Tom Holland’s response here; it’s almost as if 1776 has ongoing cultural significance.) Clearly, if the word “history” is defined in such a way that divine interaction with the world is ruled out altogether, then many of Scripture’s most important claims cannot be “historical.” Whether that definition is warranted, or suitable for studying a figure like Jesus in the first place, is another matter.

Here is a much fuller discussion on the question of method, and the historical problems (and solutions) in the nativity stories, from the reliably excellent Glen Scrivener and Peter Williams. If you listened to the episodes and were pondering the issues they raise, or are simply curious about how to respond to such questions from a Christian perspective, it is well worth a look: