Return To Gone Away

So this popped up in my stats, indicating a mild revival of interest in something I wrote 16 (!) years ago. And my first thought is: “Who was that masked man?” (IYKYK)

I would call it the earnestness of youth, but at 55, I was hardly young. Still, matters that seemed deeply important to me then, seem now as nattering and foolish as Dawkins and Hitchens did then. (Remember when they were Titans bestriding the globe? Except they never were; they were just the idols of a handful of people on the Intertoobs who were impressed by the pairs Oxonian tones. Neither Hitchens nor Dawkins ever knew what the fuck they were talking about; not when the subject was philosophy of religion.) My position now feels like Aquinas’ famous statement that, having finished the Summa, he had a vision that made all his efforts look like straw in comparison. The absolute figure of reason had a mystical insight that changed him utterly. Except I had no mystical experience; and I never claimed to be Aquinas redux.

I don’t now, either. I’m reading the Summa, casually. I follow all the arguments. I just end up thinking what I did reading Tillich in seminary: “Okay. But who cares?” I understand the foundation Aquinas laid. I even understand I stand on it. I’m not dismissing Aquinas. I’m just thinking about Kierkegaard. What does this mean for my life? How does it help me explain my existence?  Kierkegaard was attacking Hegel’s systemization of thought, his reduction of existence to an abstract system. As he put it in an example I’ll misrepresent from memory, there was a man who was so abstracted from his own existence by contemplating the teachings of Hegel, he awoke one day to find he was dead, a fact he’d missed because he’d quit paying attention to his existence.

I used to pay close attention to philosophy (and theology), in order to apply it to real life, to effectively return philosophy to its status as wisdom. That pursuit actually began to dissolve in seminary, when I learned (but didn’t quite know it) that wisdom and western philosophy had diverged almost ab initio. The Greeks focused on philosophy, while the Hebrews, even as they examined the word of God minutely and intensely (and very argumentatively), were more interested in wisdom, or Sophia. Ironic since the Greeks gave us the word “philosophy,” or philo Sophia.” A lover (philo) of wisdom. But wisdom became a hyper technical pursuit, divorced and abstracted more and more from human existence. Of course, the Greeks of Plato’s time were more concerned with abstractions and buggering boys, which they justified as being superior to base lusts of men for women. The Hebrews were concerned with the law of Moses, which focused (read the prophets) on care for the widow and the orphan and the alien among them.  For comparison’s sake, consider the play “Medea.” Or that the Hebrews gave us the “Song of Solomon.” And the Greeks? Ovid’s “Metamorphoses.”

So is wisdom about understanding the nature of the universe? Or about living in the human condition, and how best to do that? Aristotle’s answer to resolving the human condition in one’s life was to find the most successful person in your society, and emulate them. Trump? Elmo? There’s a reason few of us strive to learn from Aristotle’s Ethics. Then again, “ethics” just means “behavior.” It has precious little to do with justice.

The Hebrew prophets were first and last, and in between, about justice. To the Hebrews, Sofia was from God, with God, and essential to justice. Sofia was even essential to creation. John replaces Hebrew Sofia with the Greek Logos in his opening Hymn to the Logos. But it’s not really a one/to-one correspondence.

The more I lived with these teachings, the more I calved away from philosophy. Not that I’ve abandoned it. I was reading a recent New Yorker review of a book about modern philosophy and Derrida. The author didn’t seem to understand much about phenomenology or even Continental philosophy, but made one point that seemed stumbled upon rather than understood. Derrida’s deconstructionism (which he had largely mived beyond after using it to create a reputation. It’s not an unusual move in philosophy  or the arts, for that matter) was, the article rightly pointed out, a tool for critiquing prior philosophy. Again, something almost any philosopher or artist does. How else to establish something new, if you don’t distinguish from the old? But the argument of the reviewer was that Derrida was trying to break out of the Academy he literally spent his life in; but his arguments were so esoteric, only the Academy could understand them. 

Which, ironically, is why Plato set up his Academy: so the “right” people could understand him, and think as he did. It’s an unfortunate comparison, but three people in history, three very influential people, went the other way: Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus.  You will say Paul at least established house churches. True, but he never controlled them like Plato controlled his Academy. And he spent his time trying to teach them, even as he wandered the eastern fringe of the Roman Empire. In fact, maybe the central thread here is teacher, a peripatetic one. One engaging people, not other academicians.  It’s not that discussions among teachers is a bad thing. Midrash is a valuable record of analysis of the Hebrew Scriptures. It’s rabbis arguing with rabbis arguing with rabbis, and that record is instructive and insightful. But rabbi, which means “teacher,” is a person in a community, not an academy.

An academy is a community, too. But it’s one most of us pass through, isn’t it? It’s not where we live the rest of our lives.

Kierkegaard published his books for the readers of Copenhagen; admittedly, a small percentage of the population (those who could afford books, and were educated enough to understand what S.K. was on about). Sartre wanted his ideas popularized. It’s why he wrote his most famous, and accessible, essay on existentialism. Being and Nothingness, on the other hand, is a very technical slog. There’s nothing wrong with that. The Summa Theoligica is not a beach read, either. And Kierkegaard presumes a lot of knowledge about Hegelian thought, as well as Greek literature.

There is no royal road to geometry, as some Greek supposedly said. Then again, geometry is techne, not sophia. We need a modern form of philotechne (a portmanteau of my own poor creation), or at least a word to explain our devotion to it (to name it is to recognize it), but more than that we need a new appreciation, at least, of sophia.

It was Wittgenstein, if memory serves, who said of his Tractatus that he meant it to serve only as a ladder that those who understand would climb and discard. IYKYK, as the kids say now. I think that’s how I came to understand, or at least conceive, that philosophy had not disserved me, but in fact had served me. And I haven’t discarded it; I’ve just moved in another direction. I’m not even sure it’s a better direction, but that’s the way it goes.

"The sense of the world must lie outside the world....in it no value exists...” Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, §6.41.

The Infancy Gospels

What follows is largely old stuff; not just in the world, but in the history of this blog.  With some new and improved bits added.

My starting point is an "X-Files" episode I saw in re-runs, long ago now. It was from the one-season "revival" of the show, one of the many efforts at comedy in that season.  This one involved a false "recording" of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (don't ask).  That it even existed (it was a fake, even in the narrative of the show) was a great scandal to the Catholic (is there any other kind?) Archbishop who found it (where it was planted) in the catacombs under the cathedral (in California?).  Nothing really signficant about the plot there, except the recurrent idea that a simple story will someday arise to destroy Christianity, or at least the  Church (almost always the Roman church), and Rome is scared stiff of this possibility.  (Which, if you remember, sort of takes us back to “Burnt Norton.” Well, it will when I attempt to tie this up with a bow sometime during the 12 days, later.)

(In a similar example, a story by George R.R. Martin, IIRC, posits the discovery of a "Gospel of Judas" in the far future, and the trouble such an "heretical text" poses to the Church.  Except there already is one, written in the 2nd century.  Not the scandalous gospel of Martin's story, but the very idea of one is not the earth-shattering discovery Martin and the rest of us assume it to be.  There is indeed nothing new under the sun.) 

Here, this might give you a better flavor of what I mean.  This, in blog years, is older than my introduction:

John Shelby Spong, in his 1998 book Why Christianity Must Change or Die (Bishop Spong doesn't pussyfoot around, obviously. And 27 years later Xianity still hasn’t. I guess it’s a more long term demise. 🤷🏻‍♂️) discusses (on pp. 75-83) the chronological development of the notion of Jesus as the Christ. 

He notes that, as the earliest of the canonical writings, the Epistles of Paul, written between 50 and 60 C.E., not only fail to mention the birth of Jesus, but, in Romans (1:1-5) states that Jesus was designated "Son of God" by the Father only at his resurrection. Spong is not wrong about that; but it’s an open secret.

Mark, the earliest of the synoptic writers, writing some 20 years later than Paul’s letter, moves this designation backward in time to the baptism of Jesus (1:9-10), while Matthew, writing 10 to 20 years after Mark, moves even further backward in time to his birth.

Luke, writing 5 to 10 years after Matthew, changes the birth details somewhat, but makes the Annunciation the moment of divine designation. Although the angels singing to the shepherds announce a cosmic event that’s meant to be a bit more publicized than in Matthew’s story.

Finally, John, writing almost 100 years into the Common Era, dispenses with all previous times of designation and proclaims that Jesus shared divine identity from "In the beginning," then states that "the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us." I learned this stuff in seminary, but I realized it had been hiding in plain sight in the New Testament scriptures the whole time.

I have this note buried in previous versions of this post. No doubt the formatting was lost at some point, and any convenient introduction went with it. Now it’s just a fragment, but still an instructive one.

As for the noncanonical infancy narratives, many are based on the 2d century Protoevangelium of James, which concentrates on the virginity of Mary, rather than the circumstances of Jesus's birth as well as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of James (It's worthwhile to note, I think, that these latter sources are the basis for Anne Rice's recent novel, Christ the Lord. No doubt it'll become a best seller, given the current temper of the times... Boreas 

Most of what Boreas says, and what follows, is unknown outside of seminaries and Biblical scholarship.  That may seem to make it "secret" knowledge, or even suppressed knowledge: but it's nothing of the sort.  You can find this stuff on the internet; or in books like Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, a very mainstream Catholic (Brown was a priest) study; lots of places, really. Some of it, as I say, is plainly in the canonical scriptures. It isn’t "obscure", it's just not widely known. In the case of the canon, we’re just taught to ignore what’s right in front of us. "Obscure" implies "hidden."  But these narratives are only hidden from people either not interested in them, or afraid of them.

Let's start with a bit of history, just to provide context. I said this a moment ago, but restating it may clarify a thing or two.

The Gospel of Mark is dated to around 70 C.E., and contains no mention of a nativity at all. Neither does The Gospel of John, which clocks in between 100 and 120 C.E., is the last of canon, both in placement and appearance. Mark is the earliest canonical gospel, John the latest; Matthew and Luke fall in between, in that chronological order.

The only story from the life of Jesus of Nazareth in Paul's letters is the reference to the eucharisto in Corinthians. Otherwise, Paul preaches "Christ crucified," which for Paul clearly is what made Jesus of Nazareth "Messiah" Or Christos. Both terms better translate as “Anointed One.” It also which means the "last supper" for Paul is a memorial meal; the metaphysics of it came much later. Although it raises the interesting question, again: what do the words of institution in Corinthians mean? But that is another question, isn’t it?

Matthew and Luke both have widely divergent nativity stories, which cannot be reconciled. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, and the wise men come when Jesus is 2 or younger (because that's the age of the innocents slaughtered by Herod). The family flees to Egypt (recaptiulating Israel's history: in with Joseph, out with Moses), and comes back to settle in Nazareth. 

In Luke, they live in Nazareth and go to Bethlehem for the census (for which there is no other record than in Luke's tale).

By John's gospel, metaphysics has taken over, and Jesus not only predates Creation, but is the shaping force of Creation (the logos of Greek philosophy is thus reconciled with the Creator of Hebraic belief). Birth is irrelevant to the Word, which exists, with God, prior to the beginning. (John establishes Jesus’ humanity in ways other than his birth to a woman.)

What does this mean? 

Well, that the gospels are not history texts in the way the Greeks understood them, or even as we, after them, do.* They are, in seminary language, confessional documents. They confess a belief in the God of Abraham and Jesus, based on an experience that the communities which created these documents felt could best be expressed in this way. I learned all this in seminary, and yet I still sing "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" every December, still read Luke 2 in the King James Version every Christmas Eve, still believe in the songs of Mary and Zechariah and Simeon and the angels, and even in the dreams of Joseph. I know what it all means, and yet is still means something to me. I can exegete the Magnificat and the gifts of the Magi and even the journeys of the holy family and the visitation of shepherds.

But they still have their confessional meanings, too.

To that I would add this postscript, regarding the fear some modern theologians have is that this is a rational age and Christianity is not "rational" enough for the age (the “problem” with Christianity is usually described as being too "metaphysical."  I'll accept that classical metaphysics is almost as dead as logical positivism (which is really well and truly dead, despite what Carnap's disciples say), but what is the material and physical explanation of love?  If you can answer that without an absurdly reductio argument, I'd be interested.  A professor told me once he read that Emmanuel Levinas, the philosopher of phenomenology, once witnessed a stranger rescue a young girl on a busy street from the traffic and an oncoming car.  Why, Levinas wondered, would this happen?  Levinas was no logical positivist or Anglo-American materialist; he worked on his own answers.  But it's a profoundly simple question with no simple answer. So while I don't defend classical metaphysics, I don't toss out the baby with the bathwater.  Not everything, at all, is material; or can be understood as such.  Some things are "human nature," or just the "human psyche," and what is more metaphysical than that?

But more importantly, people don't ratiocinate about matters religious (or miraculous, or absolutely contrary to human experience, like a "virgin birth") nearly so much as some theologians (and non-theologians), imagine they do.  Kierkegaard wrote (mockingly) of the young man who so objectively observed his own life he awoke one day to find he’d reasoned himself out of existence. No one, as he pointed out, stands apart from their own existence, nor can we explain it objectively. The same is true of religion.

Christianity won't die because people can't think about a virgin birth or a triune but simultaneously monotheistic god.  I, too, thought they should think more about such matters; they taught me otherwise.  Pastors, even those with the briefest of careers, see the people in the church a bit differently. Close contact with reality will do that to you. I just had a note from a member of my first church, the one I pastored as a student. Almost thirty years on, he remembers my first sermon there because, he says, I painted a picture (in words) of bluebonnets. And all I remember of those sermons was struggling to make my abstruse theological ideas understandable in a 15 minute monologue. 

The point I’m trying to make is that Christianity is not nearly so fragile as "outsiders" believe; and to introduce the idea of the infancy narratives of Jesus aren't so singular and simple as, especially at this time of year, we often think.  The following nativity gospels all post-date the canonical gospels; but they are interesting takes on the birth, and even childhood, of Jesus the Christ.  What interests me are not the similarities, but the variations, and the way the details change, and then get cemented into place. We have traditions around the nativity stories, and even Christmas, almost buried here.

Arabic infancy gospel:

1. We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

2. In the three hundred and ninth year of the era of Alexander, Augustus put forth an edict, that every man should be enrolled in his native place. Joseph therefore arose, and taking Mary his spouse, went away to Jerusalem, and came to Bethlehem, to be enrolled along with his family in his native city. And having come to a cave, Mary told Joseph that the time of the birth was at hand, and that she could not go into the city; but, said she, let us go into this cave. This took place at sunset. And Joseph went out in haste to go for a woman to be near her. When, therefore, he was busy about that, he saw an Hebrew old woman belonging to Jerusalem, and said: Come hither, my good woman, and go into this cave, in which there is a woman near her time.

3. Wherefore, after sunset, the old woman, and Joseph with her, came to the cave, and they both went in. And, behold, it was filled with lights more beautiful than the gleaming of lamps and candles, and more splendid than the light of the sun. The child, enwrapped in swaddling clothes, was sucking the breast of the Lady Mary His mother, being placed in a stall. And when both were wondering at this light, the old woman asks the Lady Mary: Are you the mother of this Child? And when the Lady Mary gave her assent, she says: You are not at all like the daughters of Eve. The Lady Mary said: As my son has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women. The old woman replied: My mistress, I came to get payment; I have been for a long time affected with palsy. Our mistress the Lady Mary said to her: Place your hands upon the child. And the old woman did so, and was immediately cured. Then she went forth, saying: Henceforth I will be the attendant and servant of this child all the days of my life.

4. Then came shepherds; and when they had lighted a fire, and were rejoicing greatly, there appeared to them the hosts of heaven praising and celebrating God Most High. And while the shepherds were doing the same, the cave was at that time made like a temple of the upper world, since both heavenly and earthly voices glorified and magnified God on account of the birth of the Lord Christ. And when that old Hebrew woman saw the manifestation of those miracles, she thanked God, saying: I give You thanks, O God, the God of Israel, because my eyes have seen the birth of the Saviour of the world.

....

7. And it came to pass, when the Lord Jesus was born at Bethlehem of Judæa, in the time of King Herod, behold, magi came from the east to Jerusalem, as Zeraduscht had predicted; and there were with them gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And they adored Him, and presented to Him their gifts. Then the Lady Mary took one of the swaddling-bands, and, on account of the smallness of her means, gave it to them; and they received it from her with the greatest marks of honour. And in the same hour there appeared to them an angel in the form of that star which had before guided them on their journey; and they went away, following the guidance of its light, until they arrived in their own country.

8. And their kings and chief men came together to them, asking what they had seen or done, how they had gone and come back, what they had brought with them. And they showed them that swathing-cloth which the Lady Mary had given them. Wherefore they celebrated a feast, and, according to their custom, lighted a fire and worshipped it, and threw that swathing-cloth into it; and the fire laid hold of it, and enveloped it. And when the fire had gone out, they took out the swathing-cloth exactly as it had been before, just as if the fire had not touched it. Wherefore they began to kiss it, and to put it on their heads and their eyes, saying: This verily is the truth without doubt. Assuredly it is a great thing that the fire was not able to burn or destroy it. Then they took it, and with the greatest honour laid it up among their treasures.

I found this at New Advent.  It goes on to describe Jesus' early life, where he performs various miracles, including making a dead boy speak and tell who pushed the dead boy from the roof (which is why he's dead; all the other boys accuse Jesus).  I mention this only because the story shows elements both from Matthew's infancy narrative, and from Luke's.  Luke is the only gospel that gives us a glimpse of Jesus as a young boy (in the Temple, teaching the elders).  The Arabic infancy gospel expands on those stories, echoing Luke to lend these stories authenticity.  It even echoes Luke’s Nunc Dimmitus. This should not be a surprise. Even today we have a "canon" which fictional characters must follow, be the character James Bond or Dr. Who or just in the comic books. The non-canonical part is the introduction of a cave as the birthplace. But that becomes “canonical” in the other nativity stories.

That's the other interesting bit, for our purposes, in this nativity story: the reference to a cave as the birthplace of the Christ child.  I can't tell you where this idea comes from, but it persists in the narratives that follow, which is a curious thing in itself.

 

So close in time we can’t say which came first, the Infancy Gospel of James (a/k/a Protevangelium of James) also betrays familiarity with the canonical gospel accounts. But it does some interesting things with point of view, while shifting the location of the birth from Bethlehem to the desert. Like Matthew’s version, it centers on Joseph, not Mary. It even tries to combine the two: there is a census, but Joseph is ashamed of his pregnant wife. And in that desert there is again a cave.

Chapter 17

(1) Then, there was an order from the Emperor Augustus to register how many people were in Bethlehem of Judea. (2) And Joseph said, "I will register my sons. But this child? What will I do about him? How will I register him? (3) And my wife? Oh, I am ashamed. Should I register her as my daughter? The children of Israel know that she is not my daughter. (4) This day, I will do as the Lord wants."

(5) And he saddled his donkey and sat her on it and his son led and Samuel followed. (6) And they arrived at the third mile and Joseph turned and saw that she was sad. (7) And he said to himself, "Perhaps the child within her is troubling her." (8) And again Joseph turned around and saw her laughing and said to her, "Mary, what is with you? First your face appears happy and then sad?"

(9) And she said, "Joseph, it is because I see two people with my eyes, one crying and being afflicted, one rejoicing and being extremely happy."

(10) When they came to the middle of the journey, Mary said to him, "Joseph, take me off the donkey, the child pushing from within me to let him come out."

(11) So he took her off the donkey and said to her, "Where will I take you and shelter you in your awkwardness? This area is a desert."

Chapter 18

(1) And he found a cave and led her there and stationed his sons to watch her, (2) while he went to a find a Hebrew midwife in the land of Bethlehem.

(3) Then, Joseph wandered, but he did not wander. (4) And I looked up to the peak of the sky and saw it standing still and I looked up into the air. With utter astonishment I saw it, even the birds of the sky were not moving. (5) And I looked at the ground and saw a bowl lying there and workers reclining. And their hands were in the bowl. (6) And chewing, they were not chewing. And picking food up, they were not picking it up. And putting food in their mouths, they were not putting it in their mouths. (7) Rather, all their faces were looking up.

(8) And I saw sheep being driven, but the sheep were standing still. (9) And the shepherd lifted up his hand to strike them, but his hand remained above them. (10) And I saw the rushing current of the river and I saw goats and their mouths resting in the water, but they were not drinking. (11) And suddenly everything was replaced by the ordinary course of events.

....

Chapter 20

(1) And the midwife went in and said, "Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place."

(2) When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself. And Salome inserted her finger into her body. (3) And Salome cried out and said, "Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed in fire."

(5) And Salome dropped to her knees before the Lord, saying, "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, (6) do not expose me to the children of Israel, but give me back to the poor. (7) For you know, Lord, that I have performed service and received my wage from you."

(8) Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying to her, "Salome, Salome, the Lord of all has heard your entreaty. (9) Stretch out your hand to the child and lift him up and he will be salvation and joy for you."

(10) And Salome went to the child and lifted him up, saying, "I worship him because he has been born a king to Israel." (11) And at once Salome was healed and left the cave justified.

(12) Suddenly, there was a voice saying, "Salome, Salome, do not proclaim what a miracle you have seen until the child comes to Jerusalem."

You’ll find some similarities there, and in the section from the Apocalypse to John (below), to the Ted Hughes poem “Minstrel’s Song.” I’m pretty sure Hughes knew the scriptural passage; I can’t say he also knew the Protevangelium. But describing dreams in the voice of the character is an old narrative technique, and it’s interesting how effective it is in both works.

Notice, too, how quickly the birth comes. Mary can’t even complete the journey. Luke’s gospel gives us the story of the journey and the pregnant Mary.  But the family is in Bethlehem several days before Mary gives birth. (Luke 2:6) As I said before, we accelerated the pregnancy. What we see already is the acceleration of the dramatic tension from Luke’s original.

There are also characters here, and a conversation between Joseph and Mary. This version probably gave license and material for the mystery plays in medieval England, which added characters to the nativity and made the shepherds comic figures. We’ve continued this, too: Amahl and the night visitors; La Befana, in Italy; the 3 Magi who became men of different ethnicities (the original DEI?). Even the little drummer 🥁 boy.

As I mentioned, the cave reference is not limited to this gospel. Several retellings of the nativity story from the medieval era on often place the birth of Christ in a cave.  I have memories of nativity scenes set in a grotto rather than a barn or a stall.  I think there were even sets for household use sold with a cave as the backdrop, rather than a stable.  (In fact, I know of one from a pottery company in Louisville, Kentucky.) We've lost the source of that echo, but we still hear the echo.  The earliest reference seems to be from Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, a very early work of Christian apologetics:

"Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was thus written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet: 'And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall feed my people.' Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the Child, and presented Him with gifts, gold and frankincense, and myrrh; but returned not to Herod, being warned in a revelation after worshipping the Child in Bethlehem. And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Judah. But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you," I continued, "what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage." Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "[Chapter 78]

A mix, again, of Luke and Matthew, but with the birth relocated to a cave. A cave with a feeding trough. But now the Magi come from Arabia, which is interesting specificity. It was popular once to connect Christianity and Mithraism. It seems that supposed connection is quite old (this dialogue is an apologetic), which may explain the origins of the cave in the nativity stories.

It’s also interesting how the Matthean nativity dominates in these versions. Joseph is prominent, Mary much less so; there are references to Egypt, if not the flight there; and the Magi. Except for them, we tend to favor Luke’s version now. Tastes change.

 Origen also puts the birth in a cave, and notes the location is still known, which he offers as proof of the veracity of the story.

CHAP. LI.

Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour's birth--that the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem--in the following manner: "And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among the thousands of Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me who is to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from everlasting." Now this prophecy could not suit any one of those who, as Celsus' Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who gave out that they had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He had been born in Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth from Bethlehem to be the leader of the people. With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians. Moreover, I am of opinion that, before the advent of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of the people, on account of the distinctness and clearness of this prophecy, taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to be born. And this opinion had prevailed also extensively among the Jews; for which reason it is related that Herod, on inquiring at the chief priests and scribes of the people, heard from them that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, "whence David was." It is stated also in the Gospel according to John, that the Jews declared that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, "whence David was." But after our Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief that the place of His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld such teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these eye-witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And if this come to the governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you."

No Mithra this time, but a cave and a great deal more interest in establishing authorities in order to establish the authority and veracity of the infancy narrative. A very Matthean take, in other words. But there is one other nativity story in the canon, one that captures not what happened, but what it meant. From the Revelation to John:

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.

Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.

She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back,

but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.

They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death.

Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."

When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.

But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.

The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.

But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

It took its position on the sand of the sea.

John’s vision and version have the virtue of capturing the truly revolutionary, truly apocalyptic (in terms of revelation) aspect of the nativity stories. Rather like a modern day CGI laden movie, he makes vivid and visual what the other stories merely suggest. Sometimes subtlety is nice; but sometimes, you want the spectacle.

What do all these versions tell us?  To even consider that, we have to include the canonical gospels in this discussion. Mark is the oldest, and it doesn’t have a nativity story. The question of Jesus’ divinity is answered in the events of his life. Paul established Jesus’ divinity at his resurrection. Mark moves it back to the Transfiguration, so the sayings and events of his life can be significant. (Paul centers on the resurrection. Between the time of Paul and Mark’s gospel, there came “sayings gospels@ that collected sayings attributed to Jesus, but these were very short on events.) Matthew presents the first nativity making the birth of Jesus important, and establishing the “virgin birth.” Luke radically moves the story from men to women, and makes Mary the main character of the nativity story, as well as the most impressive. John leaves out the nativity, but pushes the existence of Jesus back until it is co-equal to God, and the primary force of creation. So over the course of 120 years, followers of Jesus adapt stories of his life that answer the questions they have about who he was ab initio; and what those events can teach us. That desire to know, that interest in what it means to say “Jesus is God,” didn’t end with John’s gospel, even if the results didn’t get into the canon. The infancy gospels stand in that tradition.

We’ve been creating an infancy narrative to suit our purposes almost since the original birth. The cave, for example:

One of the queerest spots on Earth — I hope — is the patch of planet where, according to tradition, a cave once stabled animals, and where Mary gave birth to a son whose later preaching — scholars of every stripe agree, with varying enthusiasm — caused the occupying Romans to crucify him.  Generations of Christians have churched over the traditional Bethlehem spot to the highest degree.  Centuries of additions have made the architecture peculiar

That tradition comes from these “infancy gospels,” which themselves have passed almost completely out of mind. But their influence continues.

Our current narrative is largely a blend of Luke and Matthew, heavy on the Luke:  magi and shepherds coming to a manger, angels and a star shining down over the holy family and the first worshippers as they mingle with animals and offer rich gifts to the baby.  I should point out Luke’s version provided us with the idea of Xmas songs, and the opportunity to add characters, via the Shepherds plays of medieval England (at least). The favoritism shifted early as the story moved away from apologetics to characters the people in the nave (pews didn’t come along for centuries) could identify with. 

We never lost characters, of course. Sometimes we even name the magi, but always we think there were three of them (Matthew only identifies three gifts.  We've lost the significance of those, though Matthew couldn't be any clearer about it.)  Are we closer, or further away, from the truth, then? 

That depends on what you mean by "truth."  Is the actual birthdate and birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth that important?  Should we clean up our manger oriented nativities; remove the camels and the rich visitors and their gifts, maybe even put the whole thing inside a 1st century Palestine peasant's dwelling, rather than some imagined European-style stall, complete with hay and oak beams? Should we erase the "innkeeper" from all the Christmas pageants, because there was no such industry in first century Bethlehem?  Call an immediate halt to all those Las Posadas observations? And shouldn't we make all the characters at the manger scenes look Middle Eastern?

Or is that really what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown?

*Even the Greek histories aren’t history as we think of it. The historian Josephus wrote of the Roman assault on Jerusalem that the blood in the streets came up to the horses’ knees. Everyone pretty much understands that as his attempt to convey the brutality and horror of the attack,  History and literature often overlap like that.

The Center Of The Universe Is Some Jive Ass Shit

 This is precisely where I think the “battle” between science and religion exists: in the fight for which gets to claim the role of defining reality.

Based on that, I think it's inaccurate to call those self-serving declarations of science that Epstein felt entitled to practice is "pseudo-science." I agree with what Marilynne Robinson said, if religion is answerable for bad religion then science has to be answerable for bad science - especially as so much of it exists quite contentedly within what is called science.

Eugenics was scientifically sound enough in this country to base laws on it and force the sterilization of individuals by it; until the Nazis took our example to its logical extreme, and embarrassed us out of it altogether.

Science really has no more claim to “objective truth” than religion does (and the concept of “objective truth” as most people bandy it about was done in by Kierkegaard in the 19th century in Denmark). I can remember (a few years ago) how apologists for Thomas Kuhn pulled his concept of paradigm shifts back from the ledge by arguing Kuhn was not undermining the “objective truth” (read: “God’s knowledge”) basis of science. But his concept clearly does (whether he meant it to, or not, is beside the point). Science changes (forget “progresses” or its synonym, “evolves”) because paradigms change, not in response to new information, but in response to new arguments. Newtonian physics is not Einsteinian physics is not quantum mechanics. Which is not to say one wipes out another. Existentialism replaces idealism and empiricism, in one sense; and in another, it doesn’t. And none of those replace Platonic metaphysics or Aristotelian logic, anymore than deconstructionism replaces Western philosophy, even as it critiques its bases and analyses.

In theology, few of us may be Augustinians any more, or Thomists, but try to engage theology without those two fundamental schools. You’re just kidding yourself or betraying your ignorance if you think you can. To return to Kierkegaard’s conclusion, the more we think we can get an objective perspective (which means to see as we imagine God sees; or “perfectly,” if we prefer to be Platonic), the more we mire ourselves in subjective experience. And, I would say, culture. You really can’t formulate an idea that can’t be imagined, much less understood, in the context of your culture. Even a “perfect” idea involves a cultural concept of “perfection.” And that concept lines up with your culture, not the nature of the universe. Just ask the victims of British colonialism; or French; or Belgian.

How this happens is more simply explained. The arguments of any paradigm shift may be based on new information (atoms; quanta), and the paradigm shift may allow room for new information; but there is no fundamental change in how decisions are made. They are made by a community that gains authority by numbers accepting the new arguments, not by superior rationality. The old guard pass away, the young Turks become the “establishment,” and the world spins on. 

I’ve studied literary criticism, theology, and law. Starting with the first one, I was trained in contemporary literary theory in the late ‘70’s, encountered the new theories of structuralism and reader response criticism, “multicultural” theories like feminist studies and colonialism critiques, even the then “bleeding edge” of deconstructionism. (Derrida’s Of Grammatology had just been translated into English when I was in graduate school, and the translator, Gayatri Spivak, was a prize guest in our seminars for a semester. She seemed to regard us all as yokels in Austin. So it goes.) Almost 50 years later all of that is as ancient as British imperialism. And about as well regarded.

In law I learned the traditional forms of statutory and constitutional interpretation, and even a bit in jurisprudence about legal realism. “Originalism” and “textualism,” equivalent to religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, now control, at least among the Sinister Six from their Olympian heights. None dare call that “progress.” Or they shouldn’t, anyway.

In theology, the “new” historical interpretation theories of the Jesus Seminar are already forgotten (not really; but neither are they the bleeding edge anymore), and much of what I studied was already old news in other seminaries at the time I studied it. Reagan and the CIA obliterated liberation theology (which would now be simply dismissed as “woke”), although I see its influence still (if not its truly radical nature) in Pope Francis and in Pope Leo. There are shifts that reaffirm the status quo, shifts that alter it. The latter seem to disappear quickly, but actually persist. Status quo changes, and very slowly for the better.*

What does this have to do with the “battle” between science and religion? Everything. The fundamental conflict is over who gets to define reality: engineers, or preachers? That’s the popular dichotomy, and it’s a false one. The fundamental concept of reality is not explained by mathematics and data (what even the empiricist David Hume called unimportant information to the question of how we understand existence), anymore than its explained by strained Platonic metaphysics and the tangled mess of Christian doctrine/dogmatics. But those two warriors vie for the superior position, the authority to provide the Grand Unified Theory of what it all is: God’s Creation, or the product of physical laws (or at least wholly explained by those “laws”. And both, in their claim for “truth” (which both understand in a Platonic context, even if one claims to be Aristotelian), assert a claim to know the mind of God: either literally, or metaphorically. Because that’s the objective standard, one set (again) by Plato (it’s not an ideal that has anything to do with the Hebrew Scriptures). My claim for the basileia tou theou has nothing to do with the claims of quantum computing (which, after all, is mere techne in Plato’s world), but everything to do with how AI is used, and abused, and misdefined (and who picks up the pieces after that bubble explodes). I am not in conflict with science. I am in conflict with the claim to the superior explanation for the world and how we should then live in it (which seems to be largely as consumers of technology and its products). Computers are not “wrong.” Using computers to further inequality and injustice, is quite wrong. And science really has nothing either fundamental nor useful to say about that.

I’ve wandered far afield from the original post I quoted, but I wouldn’t leave you here without redirecting to that post. The “objective” view of sexual intercourse and consent has consistently been viewed from the male perspective. “Incels” today are merely boys primed by popular culture (James Bond being the paradigm, since Playboy is gone but Bond is forever) to believe women are merely sex objects and receptacles for male desire (Pussy Galore is even more clearly a lesbian in the novel than the movie. Still, it just takes a good man to change her mind.). The same paradigm permitted Jeffrey Epstein to walk away from serious charges of sex trafficking in Florida, something the prosecuting attorney admitted under questioning by Jasmine Crockett, recently. “Walk away” because the victims were poor, from broken families, and easily portrayed as deserving their fate because, after all, they accepted poverty and took the rich man’s money. 

“Objective” is always a matter of perspective. We condemn Epstein now, in no small part because he preyed on young women from a higher economic bracket than those in Palm Beach, and he did it in NYC, where people with more money (and so, power) took it more seriously. Acosta, in Florida, was just following the cultural rules. But then came the paradigm shift.

Or, as some Christians would put it, the arc of the universe, which bends towards justice. They would also call justice the moral center of the universe, and urge us to take it more seriously. Which is not such a bad idea. What, after all, would science put at the center of the universe. The laws of physics? And how should we then live?

*I have to belatedly add that liberation theology came out of a central concern for the people as the starting point of Christian concern, and out of the experiences of corruption and oppression in the Americas. And it can’t be coincidence that the echoes of that theology (however faint) now sound from the Papacy, where the last two Popes have been: from the Americas.

There is still more light to spring forth.

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Uparshin

In September 2021, about a year after she joined the Supreme Court and six months before she cast the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Amy Coney Barrett attempted to assure anxious members of the public that the alignment between this seemingly inevitable result and the policy platform of the Republican Party was merely a coincidence.

“My goal today is to convince you that this Court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she told an audience at the University of Louisville. (An ambitious argument to make, given that Barrett was speaking at the McConnell Center, named for the Republican Senate Majority Leader who rammed through her confirmation just days before President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and who literally introduced Barrett prior to her remarks.) Barrett went on to complain about “hot takes on Twitter” that make Supreme Court decisions “seem results-oriented,” and she distinguished between the “judicial philosophies” that purportedly guide the Court’s work, and “political” considerations that ostensibly have nothing to do with it.

“Sometimes, I don’t like the results of my decisions,” Barrett said. “But it’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want.”

Now, Barrett has written an entire book about the subject: Listening to the Law, which publishing industry sources described to Politico in 2021 as—I swear this is real—an exposition on her belief that “judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule.” As a Supreme Court justice, Barrett’s salary is around $300,000. For Listening to the Law, her publisher reportedly paid her a $2 million advance.

Let me start with that book title. It’s a cute metaphor, but a misbegotten one. The problem is, the law doesn’t speak. You can’t listen to it. You can only read it, and that’s an act of interpretation. So is listening, for that matter. How do I know the music I’m listening to is the same music I hear?  My memories, my experiences, my knowledge, all affect the act of listening. Am I listening? Does it move me the way it did before? Is it new, and I have to decide what I think?

All acts of interpretation; and inescapably so.

This is the problem I have with the “Scalia” school of jurisprudence. Scalia called it “originalism,” but you don’t need to be a philosopher or a student of jurisprudence to pick apart the problems with it. Even an English major can spot the flaws.

Literary criticism, the sort of bastard step-child of philosophy, once professed an “objective” stance toward literary criticism. Kierkegaard put a hole on “objectivity” (who has an objective view of their own existence? And what is more important to an individual than their own existence?) that eventually led “Modernism” (as action in literary criticism) to discard it as a fiction.

The problem with lawyers is that too few of them study literary criticism or philosophy. Being lawyers, they (some, to be fair) think they know all they need to know. Ignorance is never replaced by specialized knowledge. And being unable to think critically about philosophy (any more than one ignorant of science can think critically about quantum mechanics), they think they know all they need to know. So you get stupid statements like: “judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule.” 

Lawyers don’t generally even study jurisprudence. Legal realism recognizes that judges can’t ignore their personal feelings, that they are lying to themselves to say they do. Scalia’s dodge was to say he could divine the “original intent” of legislation or constitutional provisions, and that made his judicial opinions “objective” and sound. But again, literary criticism abandoned trying to determine authorial intent when it abandoned the fiction of objectivity. Authorial intent is always interpreted through the subjective lens of the critic. Literary criticism finally accepted that the as author writes the work, and the reader interprets it, and that interpretation is the one that can be criticized, but cannot be “objectively” disproven. One can only make stronger, or weaker, arguments. If that leaves you feeling like you are wandering a post-apocalyptic hellscape where nothing has meaning and everything is subject to endless argument, welcome to post modernism. 

(It’s actually not that bad. There are backstops, like the text itself; or, in law, the statutes and constitution. Precedent and stare decisis should set boundaries, too, but the lasting legacy of Scalia is the Roberts “We’re the Supreme Court, bitches” Court and School of Jurisprudence. Which is not jurisprudential at all. But that’s the problem, isn’t it?)

And Justice Barrett is not deciding cases based on the outcome she wants. She’s deciding them based on the jurisprudence she wants, precedent and stare decisis be damned. I’d have hesitated on that conclusion but for over 70% of emergency appeals decided in favor of the Trump Administration on the shadow docket (i.e., without explanation, even when there is a blistering dissent), in the past 7 months alone. Which is remarkable, considering the Court’s been in recess for over two months, now. A lot of cases the Sinister Six can’t take up, but can’t leave alone; and can’t write opinions on, but can chide lower courts for not reading the handwriting on the wall Which, by the way, had to be interpreted, too.  Nobody could just “listen” to it.

Well, now I feel like I gave Justice Barrett too much credit as an acolyte if Scalia. Or as a non-ideological doofus at all. At least if this is accurate:

Whew -- I was reading about Amy Coney Barrett's new book yesterday, in which she says Roe is not settled law because it did not reflect the will of the people, and FUMING about how brazen the lying can be.

CNN confirms:

In her book, Barrett dismisses the view of the three liberal Dobbs dissenters, who began their opinion by declaring – and citing Ginsburg – that for half a century the court’s abortion-rights precedent “protected the liberty and equality of women” and guaranteed “government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life … .”

Barrett writes that the “complicated moral debate” about abortion distinguishes it from other rights more traditionally recognized as fundamental that enjoy broad public support, including “the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception.”

Not a jurisprudential concept I’ve ever heard of; well, outside the 19th century, anyway. Pretty clear ideological one, though. The very thing judges are supposed to leave at home, even on the high court.

Neutrality Is Chimerical

 

I don’t expect AI to understand this (I don’t expect AI to understand anything), but a “neutral” or its common synonym, “objective,” stance is an impossiblity.

Scholars aim for a neutral analysis in their studies, trying to achieve a conclusion produced only by the results of “objective” analysis.  It’s better than saying “I like it, that settles it!,” but that’s because the raw assertion of preference is replaced by argument. The better the argument, the better the conclusions. But there is no such thing as a truly objective stance. As Kierkegaard said: no one has an objective stance on their own existence. Which raises an interesting question: does AI have being, which is to say, existence?

The terms are not synonymous, nor co-terminous. The phone I’m typing on “exists,” in that it has mass, shape, form, even solidity. That doesn’t mean it has being. Even when all traces of personality have been erased by dementia, a person still has being. And everyone who knows them has a subjective view of them. No one is neutral.

I’m squashing a lot into a little, here. 30 pounds of shit into a one-pound bag level squashing. In literacy criticism theory, the “objective” response to a text is considered a con…on the person who thinks their analysis starts from a non-subjective posture. It’s like saying you have an objective opinion about your own existence. You’re just fooling yourself, as surely as Trump does when he says polls show his approval rating is the highest recorded. Trump cannot consider any ideas that he doesn’t share could be valid, and he certainly can’t accept any ideas that threaten his ego.

No more can catturd consider an idea he doesn’t agree with. Catturd thinks Grok is woke because Grok analyzes data according to its programming and machine learning, and comes to different conclusions than he does. The fact is, Grok makes different assumptions, or starts from different bases, in making its analysis than catturd does, and probably considers information catturd rejects outright. Catturd hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. Grok analyzes a large body of relevant data and reaches reasoned conclusions based on its programming. Is Grok neutral? In this arena, what is “neutral”? If Grok’s arguments are sound and well reasoned, it is more challenging to reject them. But it isn’t incontrovertible proof that Grok is right because Grok is “neutral.”

Whether or not it is truly neutral (whatever that is), neutrality is never the goal. The only relevant question is: who has the better argument?

Tenth Day of Christmas 2025: The Infancy Gospels

What follows is not scholarship nor in any sense textual or historical analysis.  At best it's literary criticism, the area I'm most trained in when it comes to written material like the infancy narratives.  It's a seasonal bug of mine to write about this stuff.  The bulk of this is an old post somewhat reworked, by which I mean I've removed the original introduction, and gotten straight to the point:  the variety of infancy narratives in Christian history.

Not in Christianity, because most of these are unknown outside of seminaries and scholars.  That may seem to make it "secret" knowledge, or even suppressed knowledge: but it's nothing of the sort.  You can find this stuff on the internet; or in books like Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, a very mainstream Catholic (Brown was a priest) study; lots of places, really.  It isn't "obscure", it's just not widely known.  "Obscure" implies "hidden."  But these narratives are only hidden from people either not interested in them, or afraid of them. On the other hand, they show up in folk songs that are technically as outside of Christianity as Christmas trees are; and yet they are so “traditional” the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is over a cave. So…

Let's start with a bit of history, just to provide context:

The Gospel of Mark is dated to around 70 C.E., and contains no mention of a nativity at all. Neither does The Gospel of John, which clocks in between 100 and 120 C.E. 

The only story from the life of Jesus of Nazareth in Paul's letters is the reference to the eucharisto in Corinthians. Otherwise, Paul preaches "Christ crucified," which for Paul clearly is what made Jesus of Nazareth "Messiah" or Christos. Both terms better translate as “Anointed One.” It also means the "last supper" for Paul is a memorial meal; the metaphysics of it came much later. Although it raises the interesting question, again: what do the words of institution in Corinthians mean? But that is another question, isn’t it?

Matthew and Luke both have widely divergent nativity stories, which cannot be reconciled. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, and the wise men come when Jesus is 2 or younger (because that's the age of the innocents slaughtered by Herod). The family flees to Egypt (recaptiulating Israel's history; in with Joseph, out with Moses), and comes back to settle in Nazareth. 

In Luke, they live in Nazareth and go to Bethlehem for the census (for which there is no other record than in Luke's tale).

By John's gospel, metaphysics has taken over, and Jesus not only predates Creation, but is the shaping force of Creation (the logos of Greek philosophy is thus reconciled with the Creator of Hebraic belief). Birth is irrelevant to the Word, which exists, with God, prior to the beginning. 

What does this mean? 

Well, that the gospels are not history texts in the way the Greeks understood them, or even as we, after them, do.* They are, in seminary language, confessional documents. They confess a belief in the God of Abraham and Jesus, based on an experience that the communities which created these documents felt could best be expressed in this way. I learned all this in seminary, and yet I still sing "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" every December, still read Luke 2 in the King James Version every Christmas Eve, still believe in the songs of Mary and Zechariah and Simeon and the angels, and even in the dreams of Joseph. I know what it all means, and it all means something to me. I can exegete the Magnificat and the gifts of the Magi and even the journeys of the holy family and the visitation of shepherds. It’s all a part of my confession.

To that I would add this postscript:  the fear some modern theologians have is that this is a rational age and Christianity is not "rational" enough for the age (the “problem” with Christianity is usually described as being too "metaphysical.")  I'll accept that classical metaphysics is almost as dead as logical positivism (which is really well and truly dead, despite what Carnap's disciples say), but what is the material and physical explanation of love?  If you can answer that without an absurdly reductio argument, I'd be interested.  A professor told me once he read that Emmanuel Levinas, the philosopher of phenomenology, once witnessed a stranger rescue a young girl on a busy street from the traffic and an oncoming car.  Why, Levinas wondered, would this happen?  Levinas was no logical positivist or Anglo-American materialist; he worked on his own answers.  But it's a profoundly simple question with no simple answer. So while I don't defend classical metaphysics, I don't toss out the baby with the bathwater.  Not everything, at all, is material; or can be understood as such.  Some things are "human nature," or just the "human psyche," and what is more metaphysical than that?

But more importantly, people don't ratiocinate about matters religious (or miraculous, or absolutely contrary to human experience, like a "virgin birth") nearly so much as some theologians (and non-theologians), imagine they do.  Kierkegaard wrote (mockingly) of the young man who do objectively observed his own life he awoke one day to find he’d reasoned himself out of existence. No one, as he pointed out, stands apart from their own existence, nor can we explain it objectively. The same is true of religion.

Christianity won't die because people can't think about a virgin birth or a triune but monotheistic god.  I, too, thought they should think more about such matters; they taught me otherwise.  Pastors, even those with the briefest of careers, see the people in the church a bit differently. Close contact with reality will do that to you. I just had a note from a member of my first church, the one I pastored as a student. Almost thirty years on, he remembers my first sermon there because, he says, I painted (in words!)  a picture of bluebonnets. And all I remember of those sermons was struggling to make my abstruse theological ideas understandable in a 15 minute monologue. 

The point I’m trying to make is that Christianity is not nearly so fragile as "outsiders" believe; and to introduce the idea of the infancy narratives of Jesus aren't so singular and simple as, especially at this time of year, we often think.  The following nativity gospels all post-date the canonical gospels; but they are interesting takes on the birth, and even childhood, of Jesus the Christ.  What interests me are not the similarities, but the variations, and the way the details change, and then get cemented into place.

Arabic infancy gospel:

1. We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

2. In the three hundred and ninth year of the era of Alexander, Augustus put forth an edict, that every man should be enrolled in his native place. Joseph therefore arose, and taking Mary his spouse, went away to Jerusalem, and came to Bethlehem, to be enrolled along with his family in his native city. And having come to a cave, Mary told Joseph that the time of the birth was at hand, and that she could not go into the city; but, said she, let us go into this cave. This took place at sunset. And Joseph went out in haste to go for a woman to be near her. When, therefore, he was busy about that, he saw an Hebrew old woman belonging to Jerusalem, and said: Come hither, my good woman, and go into this cave, in which there is a woman near her time.

3. Wherefore, after sunset, the old woman, and Joseph with her, came to the cave, and they both went in. And, behold, it was filled with lights more beautiful than the gleaming of lamps and candles, and more splendid than the light of the sun. The child, enwrapped in swaddling clothes, was sucking the breast of the Lady Mary His mother, being placed in a stall. And when both were wondering at this light, the old woman asks the Lady Mary: Are you the mother of this Child? And when the Lady Mary gave her assent, she says: You are not at all like the daughters of Eve. The Lady Mary said: As my son has no equal among children, so his mother has no equal among women. The old woman replied: My mistress, I came to get payment; I have been for a long time affected with palsy. Our mistress the Lady Mary said to her: Place your hands upon the child. And the old woman did so, and was immediately cured. Then she went forth, saying: Henceforth I will be the attendant and servant of this child all the days of my life.

4. Then came shepherds; and when they had lighted a fire, and were rejoicing greatly, there appeared to them the hosts of heaven praising and celebrating God Most High. And while the shepherds were doing the same, the cave was at that time made like a temple of the upper world, since both heavenly and earthly voices glorified and magnified God on account of the birth of the Lord Christ. And when that old Hebrew woman saw the manifestation of those miracles, she thanked God, saying: I give You thanks, O God, the God of Israel, because my eyes have seen the birth of the Saviour of the world.

....

7. And it came to pass, when the Lord Jesus was born at Bethlehem of Judæa, in the time of King Herod, behold, magi came from the east to Jerusalem, as Zeraduscht had predicted; and there were with them gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And they adored Him, and presented to Him their gifts. Then the Lady Mary took one of the swaddling-bands, and, on account of the smallness of her means, gave it to them; and they received it from her with the greatest marks of honour. And in the same hour there appeared to them an angel in the form of that star which had before guided them on their journey; and they went away, following the guidance of its light, until they arrived in their own country.

8. And their kings and chief men came together to them, asking what they had seen or done, how they had gone and come back, what they had brought with them. And they showed them that swathing-cloth which the Lady Mary had given them. Wherefore they celebrated a feast, and, according to their custom, lighted a fire and worshipped it, and threw that swathing-cloth into it; and the fire laid hold of it, and enveloped it. And when the fire had gone out, they took out the swathing-cloth exactly as it had been before, just as if the fire had not touched it. Wherefore they began to kiss it, and to put it on their heads and their eyes, saying: This verily is the truth without doubt. Assuredly it is a great thing that the fire was not able to burn or destroy it. Then they took it, and with the greatest honour laid it up among their treasures.

This apocryphal gospel goes on to describe Jesus' early life, where he performs various miracles, including making a dead boy speak and tell who pushed the dead boy from the roof (which is why he's dead; all the other boys accuse Jesus).  I mention this only because the story shows elements both from Matthew's infancy narrative, and from Luke's.  Luke is the only gospel that gives us a glimpse of Jesus as a young boy (in the Temple, teaching the elders).  The Arabic infancy gospel expands on those stories, echoing Luke to lend these stories authenticity.  It even echoes Luke’s Nunc Dimmitus. This should not be a surprise. Even today we have a "canon" which fictional characters must follow, be the character James Bond or Dr. Who or just in the comic books. The non-canonical part is the introduction of a cave as the birthplace. But that becomes “canonical” in the other nativity stories.

The Arabic gospel also elaborates on the years the Holy Family spent in Egypt. Basically it mashes together the nativities of Matthew and Luke, then relates the adventures of the Family in Egypt as they pass through villages, a hospital, fall into the hands of robbers, and generally pass the time until they move back to Nazareth. I mean no disrespect, but this gospel clearly builds a narrative from oral traditions and other sources, like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (see below). Several of the stories about Jesus making clay birds fly and making kids drop dead appear in both gospels, but the Arabic gospel includes every version of a story that it can, and several not found anywhere else. While Jesus is still an infant, just his cleaned clothes exorcise demons from a boy who touches them, and water he is bathed in has healing powers. The gospel seems intent on establishing the divinity of the Christchild in ways that go far beyond the witness of Matthew or Luke, but clearly rely on those two gospels as the starting place. And then there’s that cave….

That's the other interesting bit, for our purposes, in this nativity story: the reference to a cave as the birthplace of the Christ child.  I can't tell you where this idea comes from, but it persists in the narratives that follow, which is a curious thing in itself. In fact, it’s so persistent the site of the nativity in Bethlehem today is taken to be a cave.

Picking up on this desire for stories about Jesus as a child, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (written around 140-170 CE) plunges right in. No birth, no cave, no adventures in Egypt; just Jesus among the children :

2. This child Jesus, when five years old, was playing in the ford of a mountain stream; and He collected the flowing waters into pools, and made them clear immediately, and by a word alone He made them obey Him. And having made some soft clay, He fashioned out of it twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when He did these things. And there were also many other children playing with Him. And a certain Jew, seeing what Jesus was doing, playing on the Sabbath, went off immediately, and said to his father Joseph: Behold, thy son is at the stream, and has taken clay, and made of it twelve birds, and has profaned the Sabbath. And Joseph, coming to the place and seeing, cried out to Him, saying: Wherefore doest thou on the Sabbath what it is not lawful to do? And Jesus clapped His hands, and cried out to the sparrows, and said to them: Off you go! And the sparrows flew, and went off crying. And the Jews seeing this were amazed, and went away and reported to their chief men what they had seen Jesus doing. 

3. And the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a willow branch, and let out the waters which Jesus bad collected. And Jesus, seeing what was done, was angry, and said to him: O wicked, impious, and foolish! what harm did the pools and the waters do to thee? Behold, even now thou shalt be dried up like a tree, and thou shalt not bring forth either leaves, or root, or fruit. And straightway that boy was quite dried up. And Jesus departed, and went to Joseph's house. But the parents of the boy that had been dried up took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and reproached him because, said they, thou hast such a child doing such things. 

4. After that He was again passing through the village; and a boy ran up against Him, and struck His shoulder. And Jesus was angry, and said to him: Thou shalt not go back the way thou camest. And immediately he fell down dead. And some who saw what had taken place, said: Whence was this child begotten, that every word of his is certainly accomplished? And the parents of the dead boy went away to Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Since thou hast such a child, it is impossible for thee to live with us in the village; or else teach him to bless, and not to curse: for he is killing our children.

 This Jesus does not play well with others:

8. And when the Jews were encouraging Zacchaeus, the child laughed aloud, and said: Now let thy learning bring forth fruit, and let the blind in heart see. I am here from above, that I may curse them, and call them to the things that are above, as He that sent me on your account has commanded me. And when the child ceased speaking, immediately all were made whole who had fallen under His curse. And no one after that dared to make Him angry, lest He should curse him, and he should be maimed.

But he gets better:

9. And some days after, Jesus was playing in an upper room of a certain house, and one of the children that were playing with Him fell down from the house, and was killed. And, when the other children saw this, they ran away, and Jesus alone stood still. And the parents of the dead child coming, reproached...and they threatened Him. And Jesus leaped down from the roof, and stood beside the body of the child, and cried with a loud voice, and said: Zeno-for that was his name-stand up, and tell me; did I throw thee down? And he stood up immediately, and said: Certainly not, my lord; thou didst not throw me down, but hast raised me up. And those that saw this were struck with astonishment. And the child's parents glorified God on account of the miracle that had happened, and adored Jesus. 10. A few days after, a young man was splitting wood in the corner, and the axe came down and cut the sole of his foot in two, and he died from loss of blood. And there was a great commotion, and people ran together, and the child Jesus ran there too. And He pressed through the crowd, and laid hold of the young man's wounded foot, and he was cured immediately. And He said to the young man: Rise up now, split the wood, and remember me. And the crowd seeing what had happened, adored the child, saying: Truly the Spirit of God dwells in this child. 11. And when He was six years old, His mother gave Him a pitcher, and sent Him to draw water, and bring it into the house. But He struck against some one in the crowd, and the pitcher was broken. And Jesus unfolded the cloak which He had on, and filled it with water, and carried it to His mother. And His mother, seeing the miracle that had happened, kissed Him, and kept within herself the mysteries which she had seen Him doing. 12. And again in seed-time the child went out with His father to sow corn in their land. And while His father was sowing, the child Jesus also sowed one gain of corn. And when He had reaped it, and threshed it, He made a hundred kors; and calling all the poor of the village to the threshing-floor, He gave them the corn, and Joseph took away what was left of the corn. And He was eight years old when He did this miracle. 13. And His father was a carpenter, and at that time made ploughs and yokes. And a certain rich man ordered him to make him a couch. And one of what is called the cross pieces being too short, they did not know what to do. The child Jesus said to His father Joseph: Put down the two pieces of wood, and make them even in the middle. And Joseph did as the child said to him. And Jesus stood at the other end, and took hold of the shorter piece of wood, and stretched it, and made it equal to the other. And His father Joseph saw it, and wondered, and embraced the child, and blessed Him, saying: Blessed am I, because God has given me this child. 14. And Joseph, seeing that the child was vigorous in mind and body, again resolved that He should not remain ignorant of the letters, and took Him away, and handed Him over to another teacher. And the teacher said to Joseph: I shall first teach him the Greek letters, and then the Hebrew. For the teacher was aware of the trial that had been made of the child, and was afraid of Him. Nevertheless he wrote out the alphabet, and gave Him all his attention for a long time, and He made him no answer. And Jesus said to him: If thou art really a teacher, and art well acquainted with the letters, tell me the power of the Alpha, and I will tell thee the power of the Beta. And the teacher was enraged at this, and struck Him on the head. And the child, being in pain, cursed him; and immediately he swooned away, and fell to the ground on his face. And the child returned to Joseph's house; and Joseph was grieved, and gave orders to His mother, saying: Do not let him go outside of the door, because those that make him angry die. 15. And after some time, another master again, a genuine friend of Joseph, said to him: Bring the child to my school; perhaps I shall be able to flatter him into learning his letters. And Joseph said: If thou hast the courage, brother, take him with thee. And he took Him with him in fear and great agony; but the child went along pleasantly. And going boldly into the school, He found a book lying on the reading-desk; and taking it, He read not the letters that were in it, but opening His mouth, He spoke by the Holy Spirit, and taught the law to those that were standing round. And a great crowd having come together, stood by and heard Him, and wondered at the ripeness of His teaching, and the readiness of His words, and that He, child as He was, spoke in such a way. And Joseph hearing of it, was afraid, and ran to the school, in doubt lest his master too should be without experience. And the master said to Joseph: Know, brother, that I have taken the child as a scholar, and he is full of much grace and wisdom; but I beseech thee, brother, take him home. And when the child heard this, He laughed at him directly, and said: Since thou hast spoken aright, and witnessed aright, for thy sake he also that was struck down shall be cured. And immediately the other master was cured. And Joseph took the child, and went away home. 16. And Joseph sent his son James to tie up wood and bring it home, and the child Jesus also followed him. And when James was gathering the fagots, a viper bit James' hand. And when he was racked with pain, and at the point of death, Jesus came near and blew upon the bite; and the pain ceased directly, and the beast burst, and instantly James remained safe and sound. 17. And after this the infant of one of Joseph's neighbours fell sick and died, and its mother wept sore. And Jesus heard that there was great lamentation and commotion, and ran in haste, and found the child dead, and touched his breast, and said: I say to thee, child, be not dead, but live, and be with thy mother. And directly it looked up and laughed. And He said to the woman: Take it, and give it milk, and remember me. And seeing this, the crowd that was standing by wondered, and said: Truly this child was either God or an angel of God, for every word of his is a certain fact. And Jesus went out thence, playing with the other children. 18. And some time after there occurred a great commotion while a house was building, and Jesus stood up and went away to the place. And seeing a man lying dead, He took him by the hand, and said: Man, I say to thee, arise, and go on with thy work. And directly he rose up, and adored Him. And seeing this, the crowd wondered, and said: This child is from heaven, for he has saved many souls from death, and he continues to save during all his life. 19. And when He was twelve years old His parents went as usual to Jerusalem to the feast of the passover with their fellow-travellers. And after the passover they were coming home again. And while they were coming home, the child Jesus went back to Jerusalem. And His parents thought that He was in the company. And having gone one day's journey, they sought for Him among their relations; and not finding Him, they were in great grief, and turned back to the city seeking for Him. And after the third day they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing the law and asking them questions. And they were all attending to Him, and wondering that He, being a child, was shutting the mouths of the elders and teachers of the people, explaining the main points of the law and the parables of the prophets. And His mother Mary coming up, said to Him: Why hast thou done this to us, child? Behold, we have been seeking for thee in great trouble. And Jesus said to them: Why do you seek me? Do you not know that I must be about my Father's business? And the scribes and the Pharisees said: Art thou the mother of this child? And she said: I am. And they said to her: Blessed art thou among women, for God hath blessed the fruit of thy womb; for such glory, and such virtue and wisdom, we have neither seen nor heard ever. And Jesus rose up, and followed His mother, and was subject to His parents. And His mother observed all these things that had happened. And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and stature, and grace. To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Infancy Thomas connects up with Luke in the end, meaning largely to fill the gap between the story of Simeon and the child teaching the elders. With some miracle stories that can’t exactly be called “miraculous” thrown in. 

The other infancy gospel is generally dated again around 140-170 CE, is the Infancy Gospel of James (a/k/a Protevangelium of James). This work also betrays familiarity with the canonical gospel accounts. But it does some interesting things with point of view, while shifting the location of the birth from Bethlehem to the desert. Like Matthew’s version, it centers on Joseph, not Mary. It even tries to combine the two: there is a census, but Joseph is ashamed of his pregnant wife. And in that desert there is again a cave.

Chapter 17

(1) Then, there was an order from the Emperor Augustus to register how many people were in Bethlehem of Judea. (2) And Joseph said, "I will register my sons. But this child? What will I do about him? How will I register him? (3) And my wife? Oh, I am ashamed. Should I register her as my daughter? The children of Israel know that she is not my daughter. (4) This day, I will do as the Lord wants."

(5) And he saddled his donkey and sat her on it and his son led and Samuel followed. (6) And they arrived at the third mile and Joseph turned and saw that she was sad. (7) And he said to himself, "Perhaps the child within her is troubling her." (8) And again Joseph turned around and saw her laughing and said to her, "Mary, what is with you? First your face appears happy and then sad?"

(9) And she said, "Joseph, it is because I see two people with my eyes, one crying and being afflicted, one rejoicing and being extremely happy."

(10) When they came to the middle of the journey, Mary said to him, "Joseph, take me off the donkey, the child pushing from within me to let him come out."

(11) So he took her off the donkey and said to her, "Where will I take you and shelter you in your awkwardness? This area is a desert."

Chapter 18

(1) And he found a cave and led her there and stationed his sons to watch her, (2) while he went to a find a Hebrew midwife in the land of Bethlehem.

(3) Then, Joseph wandered, but he did not wander. (4) And I looked up to the peak of the sky and saw it standing still and I looked up into the air. With utter astonishment I saw it, even the birds of the sky were not moving. (5) And I looked at the ground and saw a bowl lying there and workers reclining. And their hands were in the bowl. (6) And chewing, they were not chewing. And picking food up, they were not picking it up. And putting food in their mouths, they were not putting it in their mouths. (7) Rather, all their faces were looking up.

(8) And I saw sheep being driven, but the sheep were standing still. (9) And the shepherd lifted up his hand to strike them, but his hand remained above them. (10) And I saw the rushing current of the river and I saw goats and their mouths resting in the water, but they were not drinking. (11) And suddenly everything was replaced by the ordinary course of events.

....

Chapter 20

(1) And the midwife went in and said, "Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place."

(2) When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself. And Salome inserted her finger into her body. (3) And Salome cried out and said, "Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed in fire."

(5) And Salome dropped to her knees before the Lord, saying, "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, (6) do not expose me to the children of Israel, but give me back to the poor. (7) For you know, Lord, that I have performed service and received my wage from you."

(8) Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying to her, "Salome, Salome, the Lord of all has heard your entreaty. (9) Stretch out your hand to the child and lift him up and he will be salvation and joy for you."

(10) And Salome went to the child and lifted him up, saying, "I worship him because he has been born a king to Israel." (11) And at once Salome was healed and left the cave justified.

(12) Suddenly, there was a voice saying, "Salome, Salome, do not proclaim what a miracle you have seen until the child comes to Jerusalem."

You’ll find some similarities there, and in the section from the Apocalypse to John (below), to the Ted Hughes poem “Minstrel’s Song.” I’m pretty sure Hughes knew the scriptural passage; I can’t say he also knew the Protevangelium. But describing dreams in the voice of the character is an old narrative technique, and it’s interesting how effective it is in both works.

The striking part of this account is the focus on Mary. Luke’s gospel starts with Gabriel announcing the conception of John the Baptizer. This gospel isn’t interested in filling in the story of the young Jesus; it backs all the way up to the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Infancy Gospel of James starts with the lament of Anna that she is childless. This is answered by the announcement that she will have a child: Marry, who is no longer just a young girl (Isaiah’s promise), but born to be the Holy mother. This never became canon, but it did eventually become Christian doctrine. Maybe because, again, this gospel repeats parts of Matthew and Luke:

And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran. 

9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received thee from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave thee in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to thee. The Lord will protect thee. 

10. And there was a council of the priests, saying: Let us make a veil for the temple of the Lord. And the priest said: Call to me the undefiled virgins of the family of David. And the officers went away, and sought, and found seven virgins. And the priest remembered the child Mary, that she was of the family of David, and undefiled before God. And the officers went away and brought her. And they brought them into the temple of the Lord. And the priest said: Choose for me by lot who shall spin the gold, and the white, and the fine linen, and the silk, and the blue, and the scarlet, and the true purple. And the true purple and the scarlet fell to the lot of Mary, and she took them, and went away to her house. And at that time Zacharias was dumb, and Samuel was in his place until the time that Zacharias spake. And Mary took the scarlet, and span it. 

11. And she took the pitcher, and went out to fill it with water. And, behold, a voice saying: Hail, thou who hast received grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women! And she looked round, on the right hand and on the left, to see whence this voice came. And she went away, trembling, to her house, and put down the pitcher; and taking the purple, she sat down on her seat, and drew it out. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood before her, saying: Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found grace before the Lord of all, and thou shalt conceive, according to His word. And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? and shall I bring forth as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold, the servant of the Lord before His face: let it be unto me according to thy word. 

12. And she made the purple and the scarlet, and took them to the priest. And the priest blessed her, and said: Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name, and thou shall be blessed in all the generations of the earth. And Mary, with great joy, went away to Elizabeth her kinswoman, and knocked at the door. And when Elizabeth heard her, she threw away the scarlet, and ran to the door, and opened it; and seeing Mary, she blessed her, and said: Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? for, behold, that which is in me leaped and blessed thee. But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me? And she remained three months with Elizabeth; and day by day she grew bigger. And Mary being afraid, went away to her own house, and hid herself from the sons of Israel. And she was sixteen years old when these mysteries happened. 

13. And she was in her sixth month; and, behold, Joseph came back from his building, and, entering into his house, he discovered that she was big with child. And he smote his face, and threw himself on the ground upon the sackcloth, and wept bitterly, saying: With what face shall I look upon the Lord my God? and what prayer shall I make about this maiden? because I received her a virgin out of the temple of the Lord, and I have not watched over her. Who is it that has hunted me down? Who has done this evil thing in my house, and defiled the virgin? Has not the history of Adam been repeated in me? For just as Adam was in the hour of his singing praise, and the serpent came, and found Eve alone, and completely deceived her, so it has happened to me also. And Joseph stood up from the sackcloth, and called Mary, and said to her: O thou who hast been cared for by God, why hast thou done this and forgotten the Lord thy God? Why hast thou brought low thy soul, thou that wast brought up in the holy of holies, and that didst receive food from the hand of an angel? And she wept bitterly, saying: I am innocent, and have known no man. And Joseph said to her: Whence then is that which is in thy womb? And she said: As the Lord my God liveth, I do not know whence it is to me.

14. And Joseph was greatly afraid, and retired from her, and considered what he should do in regard to her. And Joseph said: If I conceal her sin, I find myself fighting against the law of the Lord; and if I expose her to the sons of Israel, I am afraid lest that which is in her be from an angel, and I shall be found giving up innocent blood to the doom of death. What then shall I do with her? I will put her away from me secretly. And night came upon him; and, behold, an angel of the Lord appears to him in a dream, saying: Be not afraid for this maiden, for that which is in her is of the Holy Spirit; and she will bring forth a Son, and thou shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins. And Joseph arose from sleep, and glorified the God of Israel, who had given him this grace; and he kept her. 

15. And Annas the scribe came to him, and said: Why hast thou not appeared in our assembly? And Joseph said to him: Because I was weary from my journey, and rested the first day. And he turned, and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest? and said to him: Joseph, whom thou didst vouch for, has committed a grievous crime. And the priest said: How so? And he said: He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord, and has married her by stealth, and has not revealed it to the sons of Israel. And the priest answering, said: Has Joseph done this? Then said Annas the scribe: Send officers, and thou wilt find the virgin with child. And the officers went away, and found it as he had said; and they brought her along with Joseph to the tribunal. And the priest said: Mary, why hast thou done this? and why hast thou brought thy soul low, and forgotten the Lord thy God? Thou that wast reared in the holy of holies, and that didst receive food from the hand of an angel, and didst hear the hymns, and didst dance before Him, why hast thou done this? And she wept bitterly, saying: As the Lord my God liveth, I am pure before Him, and know not a man. And the priest said to Joseph: Why hast thou done this? And Joseph said: As the Lord liveth, I am pure concerning her. Then said the priest: Bear not false witness, but speak the truth. Thou hast married her by stealth, and hast not revealed it to the sons of Israel, and hast not bowed thy head under the strong hand, that thy seed might be blessed. And Joseph was silent. 16. And the priest said: Give up the virgin whom thou didst receive out of the temple of the Lord. And Joseph burst into tears. And the priest said: I will give you to drink of the water of the ordeal of the Lord, and He shall make manifest your sins in your eyes. And the priest took the water, and gave Joseph to drink and sent him away to the hill-country; and he returned unhurt. And he gave to Mary also to drink, and sent her away to the hill-country; and she returned unhurt. And all the people wondered that sin did not appear in them. And the priest said: If the Lord God has not made manifest your sins, neither do I judge you. And he sent them away. And Joseph took Mary, and went away to his own house, rejoicing and glorifying the God of Israel

Here the elaboration is mostly on Matthew’s story, this time with an emphasis on Mary’s perpetual virginity. 

There are also characters here, and a conversation between Joseph and Mary. This version probably gave license and material for the mystery plays in medieval England, which added characters to the nativity and made the shepherds comic figures. We’ve continued this, too: Amahl and the night visitors; La Befana, in Italy; the 3 Magi who became men of different ethnicities (the original DEI?). Even the little drummer 🥁 boy.

And there’s always the cave. Several retellings of the nativity story from the medieval era on often place the birth of Christ in a cave.  I have memories of nativity scenes set in a grotto rather than a barn or a stall.  I think there were even sets for household use sold with a cave as the backdrop, rather than a stable.  (In fact I know of one from a pottery company in Louisville, Kentucky.) We've lost the source of that echo, but we still hear the echo.  The earliest reference seems to be from Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, a very early work of Christian apologetics:

"Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was thus written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet: 'And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall feed my people.' Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the Child, and presented Him with gifts, gold and frankincense, and myrrh; but returned not to Herod, being warned in a revelation after worshipping the Child in Bethlehem. And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Judah. But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him. I have repeated to you," I continued, "what Isaiah foretold about the sign which foreshadowed the cave; but for the sake of those who have come with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage." Then I repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written, adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. "[Chapter 78]

A mix, again, of Luke and Matthew, but with the birth relocated to a cave. A cave with a feeding trough. But now the Magi come from Arabia, which is interesting specificity. It was popular once to connect Christianity and Mithraism. It seems that supposed connection is quite old (this dialogue is an apologetic), which may explain the origins of the cave in the nativity stories.

It’s also interesting how the Matthean nativity dominates in these versions. Joseph is prominent, Mary much less so; there are references to Egypt, if not the flight there; and the Magi. Except for them, we tend to favor Luke’s version now. Tastes change.

 Origen also puts the birth in a cave, and notes the location is still known, which he offers as proof of the veracity of the story.

CHAP. LI.

Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour's birth--that the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem--in the following manner: "And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among the thousands of Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me who is to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from everlasting." Now this prophecy could not suit any one of those who, as Celsus' Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who gave out that they had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He had been born in Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth from Bethlehem to be the leader of the people. With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians. Moreover, I am of opinion that, before the advent of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of the people, on account of the distinctness and clearness of this prophecy, taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to be born. And this opinion had prevailed also extensively among the Jews; for which reason it is related that Herod, on inquiring at the chief priests and scribes of the people, heard from them that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, "whence David was." It is stated also in the Gospel according to John, that the Jews declared that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, "whence David was." But after our Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief that the place of His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld such teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these eye-witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And if this come to the governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you."

No Mithra this time, but a cave and a great deal more interest in establishing authorities in order to establish the authority and veracity of the infancy narrative. A very Matthean take, in other words. But there is one other nativity story in the canon, one that captures not what happened, but what it meant. From the Revelation to John:

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.

Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.

She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back,

but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.

They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death.

Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."

When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.

But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.

The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.

But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

It took its position on the sand of the sea.

John’s vision and version have the virtue of capturing the truly revolutionary, truly apocalyptic (in terms of revelation) aspect of the nativity stories. Rather like a modern day CGI laden movie, he makes vivid and visual what the other stories merely suggest. Sometimes subtlety is nice; but sometimes, you want the spectacle.

I have to add here a brief review of The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Curiosly, this recapitulates much of the Protevangelium, as both concern “The Birth of Mary the Holy Mother of God, and Very Glorious Mother of Jesus Christ." It also takes many of the infancy stories from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It ends up basically being the Arabic gospel along with the Protevangelium. The interesting distinctions are the stories of Jesus’ childhood, some of which follow the accounts of the Arabic Infancy Gospel; but some of which are quite original and have made their way into our Christmas traditions. This will give you an idea of how it mixes Matthew, Luke, and the folk tales of the cave:

And when he had thus said, the angel ordered the beast to stand, for the time when she should bring forth was at hand; and he commanded the blessed Mary to come down off the animal, and go into a recess under a cavern, in which there never was light, but always darkness, because the light of day could not reach it. And when the blessed Mary had gone into it, it began to shine with as much brightness as if it were the sixth hour of the day. The light from God so shone in the cave, that neither by day nor night was light wanting as long as the blessed Mary was there. And there she brought forth a son, and the angels surrounded Him when He was being born. And as soon as He was born, He stood upon His feet, and the angels adored Him, saying: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good pleasure. Now, when the birth of the Lord was at hand, Joseph had gone away to seek midwives. And when he had found them, he returned to the cave, and found with Mary the infant which she had brought forth. And Joseph said to the blessed Mary: I have brought thee two midwives--Zelomi and Salome; and they are standing outside before the entrance to the cave, not daring to come in hither, because of the exceeding brightness. And when the blessed Mary heard this, she smiled; and Joseph said to her: Do not smile; but prudently allow them to visit thee, in case thou shouldst require them for thy cure. Then she ordered them to enter. And when Zelomi had come in, Salome having stayed without, Zelomi said to Mary: Allow me to touch thee. And when she had permitted her to make an examination, the midwife cried out with a loud voice, and said: Lord, Lord Almighty, mercy on us! It has never been heard or thought of, that any one should have her breasts full of milk, and that the birth of a son should show his mother to be a virgin. But there has been no spilling of blood in his birth, no pain in bringing him forth. A virgin has conceived, a virgin has brought forth, and a virgin she remains. And hearing these words, Salome said: Allow me to handle thee, and prove whether Zelomi have spoken the truth. And the blessed Mary allowed her to handle her. And when she had withdrawn her hand from handling her, it dried up, and through excess of pain she began to weep bitterly, and to be in great distress, crying out, and saying: O Lord God, Thou knowest that I have always feared Thee, and that without recompense I have cared for all the poor; I have taken nothing from the widow and the orphan, and the needy have I not sent empty away. And, behold, I am made wretched because of mine unbelief, since without a cause I wished to try Thy virgin. 

And while she was thus speaking, there stood by her a young man in shining garments, saying: Go to the child, and adore Him, and touch Him with thy hand, and He will heal thee, because He is the Saviour of the world, and of all that hope in Him. And she went to the child with haste, and adored Him, and touched the fringe of the cloths in which He was wrapped, and instantly her hand was cured. And going forth, she began to cry aloud, and to tell the wonderful things which she had seen, and which she had suffered, and how she had been cured; so that many through her statements believed. 

And some shepherds also affirmed that they had seen angels singing a hymn at midnight, praising and blessing the God of heaven, and saying: There has been born the Saviour of all, who is Christ the Lord, in whom salvation shall be brought back to Israel. Moreover, a great star, larger than any that had been seen since the beginning of the world, shone over the cave from the evening till the morning. And the prophets who were in Jerusalem said that this star pointed out the birth of Christ, who should restore the promise not only to Israel, but to all nations. 

CHAP. 14.--And on the third day after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the most blessed Mary went forth out of the cave, and entering a stable, placed the child in the stall, and the ox and the ass adored Him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by Isaiah the prophet, saying: The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib. The very animals, therefore, the ox and the ass, having Him in their midst, incessantly adored Him. Then was fulfilled that which was said by Abacuc the prophet, saying: Between two animals thou art made manifest. In the same place Joseph remained with Mary three days.

Pseudo-Matthew makes sure to include the ox and the ass, too, which to this day figure prominently in several Christmas carols.

Chapters 18 and 19 have the infant Jesus taming wild animals because he is, he says, “perfect.” But Chapter 20 is one that’s gotten into our traditions in song:

CHAP. 20.-- And it came to pass on the third day of their journey, while they were walking, that the blessed Mary was fatigued by the excessive heat of the sun in the desert; and seeing a palm tree, she said to Joseph: Let me rest a little under the shade of this tree. Joseph therefore made haste, and led her to the palm, and made her come down from her beast. And as the blessed Mary was sitting there, she looked up to the foliage of the palm, and saw it full of fruit, and said to Joseph: I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm. And Joseph said to her: I wonder that thou sayest this, when thou seest how high the palm tree is; and that thou thinkest of eating of its fruit. I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle. Then the child Jesus, with a joyful countenance, reposing in the bosom of His mother, said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed. And after they had gathered all its fruit, it remained bent down, waiting the order to rise from Him who bad commanded it to stoop. Then Jesus said to it: Raise thyself, O palm tree, and be strong, and be the companion of my trees, which are in the paradise of my Father; and open from thy roots a vein of water which has been hid in the earth, and let the waters flow, so that we may be satisfied from thee. And it rose up immediately, and at its root there began to come forth a spring of water exceedingly clear and cool and sparkling. And when they saw the spring of water, they rejoiced with great joy, and were satisfied, themselves and all their cattle and their beasts. Wherefore they gave thanks to God.

However, we changed the palm tree to a cherry tree.

The bulk of the stories after that echo the Arabic Infancy Gospel. So, for authority, Pseudo-Matthew recalls Luke, Matthew, the infancy Gospel of James, and the Arabic infancy gospel. Pseudo-Matthew is dated to the fourth or fifth century, with false attribution to having been translated by St. Jerome. So it reaches for authority in every direction  The Arabic Infancy Gospel is also dated to the 4th century, which means they both postdate the Protevangelium and Thomas by about 200 years.  Long enough to make those two the authorities in the infancy of Jesus, and explain why Pseudo-Matthew and the Arabic gospel are so similar. But these virtually unknown accounts continue to show up in our Christmas traditions.

What do all these versions tell us?  That we've been creating an infancy narrative to suit our purposes almost since the original birth. Our current popular  narrative is largely a blend of Luke and Matthew, heavy on the Luke:  magi and shepherds coming to a manger, angels and a star shining down over the holy family and the first worshippers as they mingle with animals and offer rich gifts to the baby, in a manger (a word we’ve somehow turned into a special barn for all the characters in our nativity sets). That’s pretty much what we’ve been doing since Matthew and Luke gave us their nativity stories. The apocryphal gospels can be said to have started it; and they contributed stories we still tell in song.

Luke’s version provided us with the idea of Xmas songs, and the opportunity to add characters, via the Shepherds plays of medieval England (at least). The favoritism shifted early as the story moved away from apologetics to people the people in the nave (pews didn’t come along for centuries) could identify with. 

We never lost characters, of course. Sometimes we even name the magi, but always we think there were three of them (Matthew only identifies three gifts.  We've lost the significance of those, though Matthew couldn't be any clearer about it.)  Are we closer, or further away, from the truth, then? 

That depends on what you mean by "truth."  Is the actual birthdate and birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth that important?  Should we clean up our manger oriented nativities; remove the camels and the rich visitors and their gifts, maybe even put the whole thing inside a 1st century Palestine peasant's dwelling, rather than some imagined European-style stall, complete with hay and oak beams? Should we erase the "innkeeper" from all the Christmas pageants, because there was no such industry in first century Bethlehem?  Call an immediate halt to all those Las Posadas observations? And shouldn't we make all the characters at the manger scenes look Middle Eastern?

Or is that really what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown?

*Even the Greek histories aren’t history as we think of it. The historian Josephus wrote of the Roman assault on Jerusalem that the blood in the streets came up to the horses’ knees. Everyone pretty much understands that as his attempt to convey the brutality and horror of the attack,  History and literature often overlap like that.