Christmas 2025

Late this Christmas Eve, I will stand on my front porch, covered, but no matter the weather, and I will sing a verse of “Silent Night,” as I have in the past.  As I do, I will remember Simon and Garfunkel in 1966 singing the carol as background to a narrative of news about the Vietnam War and the race riots in the U.S.  I will sing it as a way of asserting peace in a world that is very much in turmoil.  I will sing because peace is not necessarily found in silence.  No one will have the misfortune of hearing me sing – everyone’s windows will be closed, but there may be passing strangers on their way to or from Christmas Mass at a Catholic church across the street.

In my religious tradition, there is nothing else so powerful and warm as wishing someone a Merry Christmas. 

I thought that, as part of being anything but silent at Christmas, I would write about the original story.  I don’t know whether many of my readers share my heritage, nor even a strong secular experience of Christmas, but I want to explain generally why it is so significant to me.

Let’s examine the several stories – just the birth, not the side stories. Only two of the Gospels recount the story, and their versions differ. 

Biblical scholarship has at least two interesting notes about these stories. 

One is that, although each story is first in each book, it is generally accepted that the stories which defined who Jesus was, were the crucifixion (a political act) and the resurrection (the divine act).  The general acceptance of those within the Christian communities led to looking back and collecting stories about his earlier life, such as his healings, miracles, and teachings.  Lastly were put forth the birth stories, which apparently had not been perceived at the time as indicative of who Jesus was.  The nativity stories were not definitive, nor necessary to the faith – you need not accept them nor any aspect (i.e., the virgin conception) to come to faith.  The death and resurrection, teachings, and miracles, are profoundly different from much of their faith heritage, although the gospel books try to interpret them within that historical trajectory by citing prophecies which seemed fulfilled in those events.  The nativity stories accomplish that transition more easily. 

That they were not and are not necessary to the Faith, may vouch for their truthfulness:  why add them if they are a stumbling bloc, unless they are true?¹  The Christian tradition is like that through and through:  in a culture and time when women’s opinions had no standing², why insist that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection?  Why insist on stories about women’s perception of Jesus’ significance, why name the women, unless the early communities, especially the women in them, knew them to be true and insisted that others accept not only the information but also the female bearers of the stories and the very personages in the stories?   (The subsequent history of the church which became highly male-oriented should not be allowed to obscure the stubborn testimony of the First Disciples.  Also, it should be noted that the stories were not expunged.)

When we seek truthfulness in these, we must remember that facts and figures don’t define truth, although they may be evidence for it.  We make sense of the world by thinking up stories which rest upon facts but explain them as well.  It is in story that truth lies for our minds.

The second thing which Biblical scholarship generally acknowledges, is that Paul, who authored the letters to and among the early churches before the Gospels were composed, does not mention the nativity stories at all.  Paul had not met any of the First Disciples by the time he began persecuting them; he met some only after his own conversion by his auditory  perception (heard a voice, did not see) of the resurrected Jesus.  So perhaps he never heard the stories; or heard but did not think them important, or did not believe them.  But obviously they did not seem part of what he wanted people to know about the faith. Again the question:  so why bother to add these stories later, if they were not considered true?

So: we construct story to find truth in life, and make sense of it.

Let’s now examine the stories. I use the New International Version for this (it’s good enough). One set is from the gospel of Matthew, the other, Luke.  Scholarship does not believe that these are the actual names of single authors.  These are probably compilations by a final individual, but the two names appear on early manuscripts and on letters among church fathers.  We don’t know their actual provenance.

¹  What do I mean by “true”?  In addition to the above discussion of truth in story, do I mean that the events actually happened – that had a video recorder been available, it would have shown what is described?  Or do I mean a group psychological experience like mass hysteria?  Or something primarily emotional –  a spiritual experience?  Lacking additional information, I don’t know.  I am pretty comfortable with the concept of a divine creator who can do anything.  And as an avid reader of science (see my earlier blogs), I regard some things such as an electron’s ability to be in two places simultaneously even with a physical barrier between, just as hard to “believe” as anything in the Christmas story.  Indeed, the more I learn about science, the easier it is to believe in my faith.  And these stories.

² For a fascinating discussion of the importance of four women in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus – that these four were not “traditional” Jewish women but were profoundly instrumental in the process, see Raymond E. Brown’s  The Birth of the Messiah.

Matthew 1:18-25

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Another instance of the question:  why, if not true, include this information?

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

Angels (messengers of God) were not, as far as we know, daily phenomena in those days: another deliberate difficulty in the story, and not necessary to move the plot along.

Conception with the Holy Spirit:  we’re dealing with the Creator here, so nothing is impossible.  Does it mean God sired Jesus?  Jewish tradition identified many people as “sons of God,” including all of Israel.  The Spirit of God in the Hebrew language was feminine, in Greek, neuter.  This is not a male figure impregnating Mary – it is creation by God’s own methods, whatever they be.  Another unnecessary difficulty in the story.

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

There are many scholarly arguments about this:  which prophecies, did they really say this, did the word translated “virgin” really mean this or a “young woman.”  I suggest that the fulfillment in prophecy was not necessary to the story either, but clearly it was important to the early Christians who told the story.  Only they know why.

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matt. 2:1-24

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

These are generally considered to be astrologers.  This part of the story is somewhat an insult to Judaism of the time, in that the locals did not recognize Jesus’ significance, but foreigners did.  Moreover, they bring the story into a political context, asserting a new king in the face of Rome and its puppet king, Herod.

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
    are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
    who will shepherd my people Israel.“

It is curious that this prophecy was identified only when politics became involved. It suggests that those religious professionals were not themselves looking for a messiah (a chosen one of God, usually a prophet or king), at the moment.

Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 

The theme about the star’s appearing is story-telling over probable fact.  Astrologers would have known about the star from a variety of sources because they knew and watched the heavens.  It is unlikely that from their professional point of view it appeared out of nowhere, although modern science does sometime search for novae or other kinds of eruptions.

Speaking of science, if we are to spot it from the corner of our eyes, we would be fascinated at the thought that this heavenly confluence would have appeared only a long time after it took place: if the heavens were testifying to this birth they knew had been a long  time coming, and the astrologers would see the heavenly events only long after they had occurred. It takes a long time for light to travel here from the stars.   Talk about long-range planning!

He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child.

Again, story-telling over probable fact.  Anyone knows that if you are looking at the sky and something local simultaneously, their juxtapositions are perceived from standing in a particular place. The star need not have actually been moving for this to seem so.

This is a good point at which to wonder who told this story to begin with, as well as what we have now.

Let’s assume it is the astrologers who told someone how things appeared from their viewpoint; and also perhaps the family, people in Herod’s court, perhaps Herod’s official record-keeper, perhaps Herod, perhaps those religious officials (on the basis of what they heard).  Think of the various accounts we get of current events from radio, tv, newspapers, and social media:  each of us puts together a compilation or distillation of what we hear and read, probably influenced very quickly by what we hear that other people heard or read.  From this we put together the story.  We have no reason to think that an impartial historian/scribe went along with the astrologers and passed on that record.  The story we have is from one or more of the participants.

Stories are always edited by story-tellers to make a point, to convey certain information and not other information, to help one or more different types of audiences to get the point the story-teller want to make.  And neuroscience tells us that every time we remember an event, we change the neuron complex in which the memory is stored (no entire story is in just one neuron, but  scattered among neurons in different parts of the brain, and gathered together on the basis of instructions from elsewhere in the brain, but perhaps not gathered in the same way each time we “remember”).  Absent the impartial historian/scribe, this is how we got the story we have, unless it was and is fiction.

And again, there is this challenge:  why bother with a fiction when the whole story is unnecessary to the Faith?

When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,
    weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
    and refusing to be comforted,
    because they are no more.”^[

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egyptand said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”

So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

So much for the political story involving a king and wealthy astrologers. 

Now for Luke’s version, where the story involves very different people, and may anticipate a very different audience.

Luke 1: 1-4, 26-38

In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel ;”God is my strength” ]to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.

But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favour with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.  He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

Here is a case of either sloppy allusion to a prophecy (even Paul sometimes cites something we can’t find these days), or one of those many prophecies which may take place in the far, far future.  It hasn’t been fulfilled even now.

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”

The Greek text here says, not “the Holy Spirit,” but is anarthrous, i.e., no article, a deliberate vagueness.  This is true throughout Luke and his second book the “Acts of the Apostles,” in which holy spirit is very active.  Likewise, “the son of God” (see earlier notes).  I suspect that later church doctrine caused the article to be inserted in translations.  Try to read these texts with this in mind and see what it does to your understanding.

“Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.”\

“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Luke 2: 1-20

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.).

And everyone went to their own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.

Shepherds were generally despised, considered dirty and low-life.  Not wealthy, nor seekers of kings, like the astrologers.

The story-teller, and God, are sending a very different message, compared with Matthew, to the audience and to the family.  One wonders who, aside from the family, witnessed and told this story.

An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.

The titles saviour, messiah, and the Lord, are not synonymous in previous scripture.  This conflation is either original with the angel or the witness/story-teller.

This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

The titles saviour, messiah, and the Lord, are not synonymous in previous scripture.  This conflation is either original with the angel or the witness/story-teller.

This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

Heavenly hosts were God’s army.  Imagine a group of angelic soldiers chanting this.  Imagine being despised bottom-of-the-heep shepherds witnessing this show — probably very afraid, shocked, and confused. Can’t get much more dramatic or surprising than this, but that says nothing about veracity.

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.

A remarkably sensible response to such extraordinary events.

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger.

When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them.

So the shepherds were known to have spread the word, as probably did those they told.  No mystery here about who the story-tellers were. Quite the contrast with the wise men, Joseph, and anyone else in Matthew.

But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.

Not the story-teller, Mary.

The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Really gabby. Of course, one wonders who would have listened, let alone believed what they said?

That being so, we have another example of an unnecessary story, told by doubtful witnesses, which the later church insisted is true.

The Christmas stories are not necessary for the Faith; were either unknown to Paul or ignored by him, and put forth quite incredible events and witnesses.  Why bother, if not true?

So, I’ll sing “Silent Night” in full belief.  It may not improve my singing, but it will fill me with joy, and enrich my very rational faith.