Many people debate whether or not Jesus was literally born on Christmas day. In fact, a lot of people like to argue that Christmas is a sham and that it really is just a pagan ritual, and that no one should care.
So to my surprise, Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle decided to weigh in on the theological debate, concluding that it doesn't really matter that much to the literal timing.
From the REsurgence blog:
The Scriptures do not speak directly to the issue, but the presence of flocks in the field has caused many to question the traditional December date of Christmas. This is because grazing in the field seemingly indicates a milder climate than that of winter, although there are reports of occasional breaks, for upwards of a few weeks, in the rainy winter season.
Commentator William Hendriksen raises an interesting point as well: “At this season of the year many roads in that region are impassable. No government would have forced people to travel then to the places where they must be registered" (New Testament Commentary: Luke, vol. 11, 150).
On the other hand, theologian Darrell Bock shows that while “some Jewish traditions argue for grazing in the period from April to November,” others note “that these restrictions are limited to sheep ‘in the wilderness’” (Luke 1:1-9:50, 226-227). Furthermore, a section of Talmudic literature (M. Šeqal. 7.4) “implies year-round grazing, because the Passover lambs graze in February, which has the harshest weather of the year. Thus, this reason for rejecting the tradition is not definitive" (Ibid., 227)......