Academy of Ortodox Theology from Moldova

Theme : The Birth of Jesus

Verifier: Costin Ecaterina

Selectation and Presentation:Chirita-Hristos Robert

Yars I
Nativity of Jesus
For other uses, see Nativity of Jesus (disambiguation) and Nativity (disambiguation).

Adoration of the Shepherds by Dutch painter Matthias Stomer, 1632

The nativity of Jesus, nativity of Christ, birth of Jesus or birth of Christ is

described in the biblical gospels of Luke and Matthew. The two accounts agree
that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea, his mother Mary was engaged to a man
named Joseph, who was descended from King David and was not his biological father,
and that his birth was caused by divine intervention. Many modern scholars consider
the birth narratives unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two
different accounts which cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative, but also
many view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily
written as theological documents rather than chronological timelines.
The nativity is the basis for the Christian holiday of Christmas and plays a major
role in the Christian liturgical year. Many Christians traditionally display small manger
scenes depicting the nativity in their homes, or attend nativity plays or Christmas
pageants focusing on the nativity cycle in the Bible. Elaborate nativity displays called
"creche scenes", featuring life-sized statues, are a tradition in many continental
European countries during the Christmas season.
The artistic depiction of the nativity has been an important subject for Christian
artists since the 4th century. Artistic depictions of the nativity scene since the 13th
century have emphasized the humility of Jesus and promoted a more tender image of
him, a major change from the early "Lord and Master" image, mirroring changes in the
common approaches taken by Christian pastoral ministry during the same era.

Comparison of Gospel accounts

Only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke offer narratives regarding the birth of
Jesus.[1] Both rely heavily on the Hebrew scriptures, indicating that they both regard the
story as part of Israel's salvation history, and both present the God of Israel as
controlling events.] Both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the reign of King
Herod, that his mother was named Mary and that her husband Joseph was descended
from King David (although they disagree on details of the line of descent), and both
deny Joseph's biological parenthood while treating the birth, or rather the conception, as
divinely effected
 Beyond this, they agree on very little. Joseph dominates Matthew's gospel and
Mary dominates Luke's, although the suggestion that one derives from Joseph and the
other from Mary is no more than a pious deduction.[4] Matthew implies that Joseph
already has his home in Bethlehem, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth. [3] In
Matthew the angel speaks to Joseph, while Luke has one speaking to Mary.[4] Only
Luke has the stories surrounding the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Quirinius,
the adoration of the shepherds and the presentation in the Temple on the eighth day;
only Matthew has the wise men, the star of Bethlehem, Herod's plot, the massacre of
the innocents, and the flight into Egypt.[4] The two itineraries are quite different,
Matthew's Holy Family beginning in Bethlehem, moving to Egypt following the birth, and
settling in Nazareth, while in Luke they begin in Nazareth, journey to Bethlehem for the
birth, and an immediate return to Nazareth. The two accounts cannot be harmonised
into a single coherent narrative or traced to the same Q source, leading scholars to
classify them as "special Matthew" (or simply the M source) and "special Luke" (the L
source).[2]

Comparison between the Nativity narratives in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew 

This table: 

view
talk
edit
Luke Matthew

1. Annunciation to Mary in Nazareth 1. Annunciation to Joseph

2. Census of Quirinius (6–7 CE) –
 3. Joseph and Mary travel from Nazareth to
–
Bethlehem
4. Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem 2. Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem
5. Annunciation to the shepherds in the fields –
6. Adoration of the shepherds in Bethlehem –
3. Magi "follow the star" and visit Herod in
–
Jerusalem
– 4. Adoration of the Magi in Bethlehem
5. Joseph, Mary and Jesus flee to Egypt to escape
7. Jesus is presented at the temple in Jerusalem
Herod
– 6. Massacre of the Innocents in Bethlehem
– 7. Death of Herod (4 BCE)
8. Joseph, Mary and Jesus return home to Nazareth 8. Joseph, Mary and Jesus return from Egypt
– 9. Joseph, Mary and Jesus settle in Nazareth

Gospel of Matthew

A page from the 11th-century Bamberg Apocalypse showing Matthew 1:21

Annunciation to Joseph
Mary the mother of Jesus the messiah was betrothed to Joseph, but was found to
be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Joseph intended to divorce her quietly, but an
angel told him in a dream that he should take her as his wife and name the child Jesus,
"because it is he who will save his people from their sins". This would fulfil the prophecy
that a virgin would give birth to a son, who would be known as Emmanuel, meaning
"God is with us". Joseph awoke, took Mary for his wife, did not have intercourse with her
until she had given birth to a son, and gave him the name Jesus. (Matthew 1:18–25)
 These verses present a problem, for in the preceding Matthean genealogy of
Jesus, Joseph has been shown to be the descendant of David (the angel addresses
him as "son of David") and heir to the kingdom of Judah, but Matthew 1:16 has revealed
that Jesus is not Joseph's son, and Matthew is careful never to refer to him in this way.
[5] The role of Joseph in naming the child indicates that he is being legally adopted, and
thus becoming, like his now-legal father, "son of David."[6]
Adoration of the magi
The birth took place in Bethlehem of Judea in the time of King Herod (Herod the
Great). Wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking where they could find the
child born king of the Jews, for they had seen his star at its rising, and wished to pay
him homage. Herod and all Jerusalem were afraid when they heard this, but Herod,
learning from the chief priests and scribes that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem
according to prophecy, sent the Magi there with instructions to return and tell him when
they had found him. The magi worshipped the child in Bethlehem and gave him gifts of
gold, frankincense, and myrrh, but an angel warned them in a dream not to return to
Herod, and they returned home by another way.
Massacre of the innocents, flight into Egypt, and return to Israel
When Herod learned that the magi had tricked him he was infuriated, and killed
all the children in and around Bethlehem under the age of two (the Massacre of the
Innocents). This was in fulfilment of the prophet Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in
Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to
be consoled, because they are no more." But an angel had appeared to Joseph in a
dream and warned him to take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and the Holy
Family remained there until Herod died to fulfil the words of the prophet, "Out of Egypt I
have called my son." On the death of Herod an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream
and told him to return with the child and its mother to Israel, but Herod's son was now
ruler of Judea, and after being warned in a dream Joseph went instead to Galilee,
where he made his home in Nazareth "so that what had been spoken through the
prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.” Matthew 2
In this chapter Matthew needs to establish that "Jesus of Nazareth" was in fact
born in Bethlehem, the town where David was born, for the "son of David" born there
will be "King of the Jews" (a designation that will not reappear in Matthew until the
crucifixion).[7] Herod's fear and the visit of the magi underline the royal birth, as do the
various prophetic texts quoted or referenced in this chapter.[8]

Gospel of Luke
Angel Gabriel's  Annunciation  to Mary, by Murillo, c. 1660

When Herod was king of Judea, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth in
Galilee to announce to a virgin named Mary, who was betrothed to a man named
Joseph, that a child would be born to her and she was to name him Jesus, for he would
be the son of God and rule over Israel forever. When the time of the birth drew
near, Caesar Augustus commanded a census of Roman domains, and Joseph took
Mary to Bethlehem, the ancient city of David, as he was of the House of David. Jesus
was born in Bethlehem; since there was nowhere for them to stay in the town, the infant
was laid in a manger while angels announced his birth to a group of
shepherds who worshipped him as Messiah and Lord.
In accordance with the Jewish law, his parents presented the infant Jesus at the
Temple in Jerusalem, where two people in the temple, Simeon and Anna the
Prophetess, gave thanks to God who had sent his salvation. Joseph and Mary then
returned to Nazareth.

Date and place of birth

Altar in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem

Nativity of Jesus, by Botticelli, c. 1473–1475

Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the reign of
Herod the Great.[3] In Luke the newborn baby is placed in a manger "because there was
no place in the katalyma. "Katalyma" might mean a private home (this has little support
among scholars), or a room in a private home, or an inn, but it is impossible to be
certain which is meant
In the 2nd century, Justin Martyr stated that Jesus had been born in a cave
outside the town, while the Protoevangelium of James described a legendary birth in a
cave nearby. The Church of the Nativity inside the town, built by St. Helena, contains
the cave-manger site traditionally venerated as the birthplace of Jesus, which may have
originally been a site of the cult of the god Tammuz.[13] In Contra Celsum 1.51, Origen,
who travelled throughout Palestine beginning in around 215, wrote of the "manger of
Jesus".[14]
The date of birth for Jesus of Nazareth is not stated in the gospels or in any
secular text, but a majority of scholars assume a date between 6 BC and 4 BC.[15] The
historical evidence is too ambiguous to allow a definitive date to be determined,[16] but
the date has been estimated through known historical events mentioned in the Gospels
of Matthew chapter 2 and Luke chapter 2[17] or by working backwards from the
estimated start of the ministry of Jesus.

Themes and analogies

Gospel of Matthew from an Ethiopian Bible, 1700

Helmut Koester writes that while Matthew's narrative was formed in a Jewish

environment, Luke's was modeled to appeal to the Greco-Roman world.[20] In particular,
according to Koester, while shepherds were regarded negatively by Jews in Jesus's
time, they were seen in Greco-Roman culture as "symbols of a golden age when gods
and humans lived in peace and nature was at harmony".[20] C. T. Ruddick Jr. writes that
Luke's birth narratives of Jesus and John were modeled on passages from Genesis,
chapters 27-43. Regardless, Luke's nativity depicts Jesus as a savior for all people,
tracing a genealogy all the way back to Adam, demonstrating his common humanity,
and likewise for the lowly circumstances of his birth. Luke, writing for a gentile audience,
portrays the infant Jesus as a savior for gentiles as well as Jews.[23] Matthew uses
quotations from Jewish scripture, scenes reminiscent of Moses' life, and a numerical
pattern in his genealogy to identify Jesus as a son of David, of Abraham, and of God.
Luke's prelude is much longer, emphasizing the age of the Holy Spirit and the arrival of
a savior for all people, both Jew and Gentile.
Mainstream scholars interpret Matthew's nativity as depicting Jesus as a new
Moses with a genealogy going back to Abraham, while Ulrich Luz views Matthew's
depiction of Jesus at once as the new Moses and the inverse of Moses, and not simply
a retelling of the Moses story.[27] Luz also points out that in the massacre narrative,
once again, a fulfilment quotation is given: Rachel, the ancestral mother of Israel,
weeping for her dead children (Matthew 2:18).
Scholars who interpret Matthew as casting Jesus in the role of being a
second Moses argue that, like Moses, the infant Jesus is saved from a murderous
tyrant; and he flees the country of his birth until his persecutor is dead and it is safe to
return as the savior of his people.[30] In this view, the account in Matthew is based on an
earlier narrative patterned on traditions about the birth of Moses. Moses's birth is
announced to Pharaoh by Magi; the child is threatened and rescued; the male Israelite
children are similarly put to death by an evil king.
According to Ulrich Luz, the beginning of the narrative of Matthew is similar to
earlier biblical stories, e.g., the Annunciation of Jesus' birth (Matthew 1:18-25)[31] is
reminiscent of the biblical accounts of the births of Ishmael (Genesis 16:11, Genesis
17),[32] Isaac (Genesis 21:1),[33] Samson (Judges 13:3, 13:5),[34] and recalls
the Haggadic traditions of the birth of Moses. Yet in Luz's view, the contours appear, in
part, strangely overlapped and inverted: "Egypt, formerly the land of suppression
becomes a place of refuge and it is the King of Israel who now takes on the role
of Pharaoh. Yet Matthew is not simply retelling the Moses story. Instead, the story of
Jesus really is a new story: Jesus is at once the new Moses and the inverse of
Moses."[27]
Old Testament parallels

A page from the Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century

Scholars have debated whether Matthew 1:22 and Matthew 2:23 refer to

specific Old Testament passages. Fourth century documents such as the Codex
Sinaiticus do not mention the prophet Isaiah in the statement in Matthew 1:22: "All this
happened to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet", but some copies of
Matthew from the 5th–6th centuries, such as the Codex Bezae, read "Isaiah the
prophet".[35] The statement in Matthew 1:23 "Behold the virgin shall be with child" uses
the Greek term parthenos ("virgin") as in the Septuagint Isaiah, while the Book of
Isaiah 7:14 uses the Hebrew almah, which may mean "maiden," "young woman," or
"virgin."[36] Raymond E. Brown states that the 3rd century BCE translators of the
Septuagint may have understood the Hebrew word almah to mean virgin in this context.
[36]

The statement in Matthew 2:23 that "he will be called a Nazarene" does not
mention a specific passage in the Old Testament, and there are multiple scholarly
interpretations as to what it may refer to.[37] Barbara Aland and other scholars consider
the Greek "Ναζωραίος" (Nazoréos) used for Nazarene of uncertain etymology and
meaning,[38] but M. J. J. Menken states that it is a demonym that refers to an "inhabitant
of Nazareth".[39] Menken also states that it may be referring to Judges 13:5, 7.[40] Gary
Smith states that Nazirite may mean one consecrated to God, i.e. an ascetic; or may
refer to Isaiah 11:1.[41] The Oxford Bible Commentary states that it may be word-play on
the use of "nazirite," "Holy One of God," in Isaiah 4:3,[42] meant to identify Jesus with
the Nazarenes, a Jewish sect who differed from the Pharisees only in that they
regarded Jesus as the Messiah.[30] The Swiss theologian Ulrich Luz, who locates the
Matthean community in Syria, has noted that Syrian Christians also called themselves
Nazarenes.[43]

Christian theology
 The theological significance of the Nativity of Jesus has been a key element in
Christian teachings, from the early Church Fathers to 20th century theologians. The
theological issues were addressed as early as Apostle Paul, but continued to be
debated and eventually lead to both Christological and Mariological differences among
Christians that resulted in early schisms within the Church by the 5th century.
Birth of the new man

Nativity at Night, by Geertgen tot Sint Jans, c. 1490

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all
things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.

— Colossians 1:15–16 regards the birth of Jesus as the model for all creation.
Paul the Apostle viewed the birth of Jesus as an event of cosmic significance
which brought forth a "new man" who undid the damage caused by the fall of the first
man, Adam. Just as the Johannine view of Jesus as the incarnate Logos proclaims the
universal relevance of his birth, the Pauline perspective emphasizes the birth of a new
man and a new world in the birth of Jesus. [51] Paul's eschatological view of Jesus
counter-positions him as a new man of morality and obedience, in contrast to Adam.
Unlike Adam, the new man born in Jesus obeys God and ushers in a world of morality
and salvation.[51]
In the Pauline view, Adam is positioned as the first man and Jesus as the
second: Adam, having corrupted himself by his disobedience, also infected humanity
and left it with a curse as inheritance. The birth of Jesus, on the other hand,
counterbalanced the fall of Adam, bringing forth redemption and repairing the damage
done by Adam.[52]
In patristic theology, Paul's contrasting of Jesus as the new man versus Adam
provided a framework for discussing the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus and the
ensuing events of his life. The Nativity of Jesus thus began to serve as the starting point
for "cosmic Christology" in which the birth, life and Resurrection of Jesus have universal
implications. The concept of Jesus as the "new man" repeats in the cycle of birth and
rebirth of Jesus from his Nativity to his Resurrection: following his birth, through his
morality and obedience to the Father, Jesus began a new harmony in the relationship
between God the Father and man. The Nativity and Resurrection of Jesus thus created
the author and exemplar of a new humanity.[55]
In the 2nd century Church Father Irenaeus writes:
"When He became incarnate and was made man, He commenced afresh the
long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with
salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam – namely to be according to the image and
likeness of God – that we might recover in Christ Jesus."
Irenaeus was also one of the early theologians to use the analogy of "second
Adam and second Eve". He suggested the Virgin Mary as the "second Eve" and wrote
that the Virgin Mary had "untied the knot of sin bound up by the virgin Eve" and that just
as Eve had tempted Adam to disobey God, Mary had set a path of obedience for the
second Adam (i.e. Jesus) from the Annunciation to Calvary so that Jesus could bring
about salvation, undoing the damage of Adam.[56]
In the 4th century, this uniqueness of the circumstances related to the Nativity of
Jesus, and their interplay with the mystery of the incarnation, became a central element
in both the theology and hymnody of Saint Ephrem the Syrian. For him, the uniqueness
of the Nativity of Jesus was supplemented with the sign of the Majesty of the Creator
through the ability of a powerful God to enter the world as a small newborn.[57]
In the Middle Ages the birth of Jesus as the second Adam came to be seen in the
context of Saint Augustine's Felix culpa (i.e. happy fall) and was intertwined with the
popular teachings on the fall from grace of Adam and Eve.[58] Augustine was fond of a
statement on Nativity by Saint Gregory of Nyssa and he quoted it five times: "Venerate
the Nativity, through which you are freed from the bonds of an earthly nativity".[59] And
he liked to quote: "Just as in Adam all of us died, so too in Christ all of us will be brought
to life".
The theology persisted into the Protestant Reformation, and second Adam was
one of the six modes of atonement discussed by John Calvin.[61] In the 20th century,
leading theologian Karl Barth continued the same line of reasoning and viewed the
Nativity of Jesus as the birth of a new man who succeeded Adam. In Barth's theology,
in contrast to Adam, Jesus acted as an obedient Son in the fulfilment of the divine will
and was therefore free from sin and could hence reveal the righteousness of God the
Father and bring about salvation.[44]
Christology
In Summa Theologiæ, (1471 copy shown here) Thomas Aquinas addressed many of the open Christological
questions regarding the Nativity of Jesus.

The nativity of Jesus impacted the Christological issues about the Person of

Christ from the earliest days of Christianity. Luke's Christology centers on the dialectics
of the dual natures of the earthly and heavenly manifestations of existence of the Christ,
while Matthew's Christology focuses on the mission of Jesus and his role as the savior.
[62][63]

The belief in the divinity of Jesus leads to the question: "was Jesus a man to be
born of a woman or was he God born of a woman?" A wide range of hypotheses and
beliefs regarding the nature of the nativity of Jesus were presented in the first four
centuries of Christianity. Some of the debates involved the title Theotokos (God bearer)
for the Virgin Mary and began to illustrate the impact of Mariology on Christology. Some
of these viewpoints were eventually declared as heresies, others led to schisms and the
formation of new branches of the Church.
The salvific emphasis of Matthew 1:21 later impacted the theological issues and
the devotions to the Holy Name of Jesus. Matthew 1:23 provides the only key to
the Emmanuel Christology in the New Testament. Beginning with 1:23, Matthew shows
a clear interest in identifying Jesus as "God with us" and in later developing the
Emmanuel characterization of Jesus at key points throughout the rest of his Gospel.
[71] The name Emmanuel does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament, but
Matthew builds on it in Matthew 28:20 ("I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world") to indicate that Jesus will be with the faithful to the end of the age. According
to Ulrich Luz, the Emmanuel motif brackets the entire Gospel of Matthew between 1:23
and 28:20, appearing explicitly and implicitly in several other passages.[73]
A number of ecumenical councils were convened in the 4th and 5th centuries to
deal with these issues. The Council of Ephesus debated hypostasis (co-existing
natures) versus Monophysitism (only one nature) versus Miaphysitism (two natures
united as one) versus Nestorianism (disunion of two natures). The 451 Council of
Chalcedon was highly influential and marked a key turning point in the Christological
debates that divided the church of the Eastern Roman Empire in the 5th century. In
Chalcedon the hypostatic union was decreed, namely that Jesus is both fully divine and
fully human, making this part of the creed of orthodox Christianity.[76][77][78][79]
In the 5th century, leading Church Father Pope Leo I used the nativity as a key
element of his theology. Leo gave 10 sermons on the nativity and 7 have survived. The
one on December 25, 451, demonstrates his concern to increase the importance of the
feast of nativity and along with it emphasize the two natures of Christ in defense of the
Christological doctrine of hypostatic union.[80] Leo often used his nativity sermons as an
occasion to attack opposing viewpoints, without naming the opposition. Thus Leo used
the occasion of the Nativity feast to establish boundaries for what could be considered a
heresy regarding the birth and nature of Christ.[64]
In the 13th century Saint Thomas Aquinas addressed the Christologocal
attribution of the nativity: Should it be attributed to the person (the Word) or only to the
assumed human nature of that person. Aquinas treated nativity in 8 separate articles
in Summa Theologica each posing a separate question. "Does Nativity regard the
nature rather than the Person?" "Should a temporal Nativity be attributed to Christ?"
"Should the Blessed Virgin be called Christ's Mother?" "Should the Blessed Virgin be
called the Mother of God?" "Are there two filiations in Christ?", etc.[81] To deal with this
issue, Aquinas distinguishes between the person born and the nature in which the birth
takes place.[82] Aquinas thus resolved the question by arguing that in the hypostatic
union Christ has two natures, one received from the Father from eternity, the other from
his mother in time. This approach also resolved the Mariological problem of Mary
receiving the title of Theotokos for under this scenario she is the "Mother of God".[82]
During the Reformation, John Calvin argued that Jesus was not sanctified to be
"God manifested as Incarnate" (Deus manifestatus in carne) only due to his Virgin Birth,
but through the action of the Holy Spirit at the instant of his birth. Thus Calvin argued
that Jesus was exempt from original sin because he was sanctified at the moment of
birth so that his generation was without blemish; as generation was blemishless before
the fall of Adam.[83]

Impact on Christianity
Christmas, the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord

On Christmas, the Christ Candle in the center of the Advent wreath is traditionally lit in many church services.

Christian Churches celebrate the Nativity of Jesus on Christmas, which is marked

on December 25 by the Western Christian Churches, while many Eastern Christian
Churches celebrate the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord on January 7.[84] This is not a
disagreement over the date of Christmas as such, but rather a preference of which
calendar should be used to determine the day that is December 25. In the Council of
Tours of 567, the Church, with its desire to be universal, "declared the twelve
days between Christmas and Epiphany to be one unified festal cycle", thus giving
significance to both the Western and Eastern dates of Christmas. The liturgical season
of Advent precedes, and is used to prepare for the celebration of Christmas.
[90] Customs of the Christmas season include completing an Advent daily
devotional and Advent wreath,[91] carol singing,[92] gift giving,[93] seeing Nativity plays,
[94] attending church services,[95] and eating special food, such as Christmas cake.[96] In
many countries, such as Sweden, people start to set up their Advent and Christmas
decorations on the first day of Advent.[97][98] Liturgically, this is done in
some parishes through a hanging of the greens ceremony.[99]
History of feasts and liturgical elements
Nativity scene in Baumkirchen, Austria

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the Lord's Day (Sunday) was the earliest Christian
celebration and included a number of theological themes. In the 2nd century,
the Resurrection of Jesus became a separate feast as Easter and in the same
century Epiphany began to be celebrated in the Churches of the East on January 6.
[100] The celebration of the feast of the Magi on January 6 may relate to a pre-Christian
celebration for the blessing of the Nile in Egypt on January 5, but this is not historically
certain.[101] The festival of the Nativity which later turned into Christmas was a 4th-
century feast in the Western Church notably in Rome and North Africa, although it is
uncertain exactly where and when it was first celebrated.[102]
The earliest source stating December 25 as the date of birth
of Jesus was Hippolytus of Rome (170–236), written very early in the 3rd century,
based on the assumption that the conception of Jesus took place at the Spring
equinox which he placed on March 25, and then added nine months.[103] There is
historical evidence that by the middle of the 4th century the Christian churches of the
East celebrated the birth and Baptism of Jesus on the same day, on January 6, while
those in the West celebrated a Nativity feast on December 25 (perhaps influenced by
the Winter solstice); and that by the last quarter of the 4th century, the calendars of both
churches included both feasts.[104] The earliest suggestions of a feast of the Baptism of
Jesus on January 6 during the 2nd century comes from Clement of Alexandria, but
there is no further mention of such a feast until 361 when Emperor Julian attended a
feast on January 6 in the year 361.[104]
Christmas Eve Nativity at Resurrection Lutheran Church, Fredericksburg, Virginia

The Chronography of 354 illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome includes an

early reference to the celebration of a Nativity feast. In a sermon delivered in Antioch on
December 25, c. 386, Saint John Chrysostom provides specific information about the
feast there, stating that the feast had existed for about 10 years.[104] By around 385 the
feast for the birth of Jesus was distinct from that of the Baptism and was held on
December 25 in Constantinople, Nyssa and Amaseia. In a sermon in 386, Gregory of
Nyssa specifically related the feast of Nativity with that of the martyrdom of Saint
Stephen, celebrated a day later. By 390 the feast was also held in Iconium on that day.
[104]

Pope Leo I established a feast of the "Mystery of Incarnation" in the 5th century,
in effect as the first formal feast for the Nativity of Jesus. Pope Sixtus III then instituted
the practice of Midnight Mass just before that feast. [105] In the 6th century,
Emperor Justinian declared Christmas to be a legal holiday.[106]
In the 14th and 15th centuries, the theological importance of the Nativity of
Jesus, was coupled with an emphasis on the loving nature of the child Jesus in sermons
by figures such as Jean Gerson. In his sermons Gerson emphasized the loving nature
of Jesus at his Nativity, as well as his cosmic plan for the salvation of mankind.[107]
By the early part of the 20th century, Christmas had become a "cultural
signature" of Christianity and indeed of the Western culture even in countries such as
the United States which are officially non-religious. By the beginning of the 21st century
these countries began to pay more attention to the sensitivities of non-Christians during
the festivities at the end of the calendar year.[108]
Transforming the image of Jesus
A Nativity scene inside an American home.

Paper on wood Nativity scene from 1750, Milan, presenting a tender image of Jesus

Early Christians viewed Jesus as "the Lord" and the word Kyrios appears over
700 times in the New Testament, referring to him.[109] The use of the word Kyrios in
the Septuagint Bible also assigned to Jesus the Old Testament attributes of an
omnipotent God.[109] The use of the term Kyrios, and hence the Lordship of Jesus, pre-
dated the Pauline epistles, but Saint Paul expanded and elaborated on that topic.[109]
Pauline writings established among early Christians the Kyrios image, and
attributes of Jesus as not only referring to his eschatological victory, but to him as the
"divine image" (Greek εἰκών eikōn) in whose face the glory of God shines forth. This
image persisted among Christians as the predominant perception of Jesus for a number
of centuries.[110] More than any other title, Kyrios defined the relationship between
Jesus and those who believed in him as Christ: Jesus was their Lord and Master who
was to be served with all their hearts and who would one day judge their actions
throughout their lives.[111]
The lordship attributes associated with the Kyrios image of Jesus also implied his
power over all creation. Paul then looked back and reasoned that the final lordship of
Jesus was prepared from the very beginning, starting with pre-existence and the
Nativity, based on his obedience as the image of God.[114] Over time, based on the
influence of Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux and others, the Kyrios image of
Jesus began to be supplemented with a more "tender image of Jesus", and
the Franciscan approach to popular piety was instrumental in establishing this image.
[113]

The 13th century witnessed a major turning point in the development of a new
"tender image of Jesus" within Christianity, as the Franciscans began to emphasize the
humility of Jesus both at his birth and his death. The construction of the Nativity scene
by Saint Francis of Assisi was instrumental in portraying a softer image of Jesus that
contrasted with the powerful and radiant image at the Transfiguration, and emphasized
how God had taken a humble path to his own birth. [115] As the Black Death raged in
Medieval Europe, the two mendicant orders of Franciscans and Dominicans helped the
faithful cope with tragedies. One element of the Franciscan approach was the emphasis
on the humility of Jesus and the poverty of his birth: the image of God was the image of
Jesus, not a severe and punishing God, but himself humble at birth and sacrificed at
death.[116] The concept that the omnipotent Creator would set aside all power in order to
conquer the hearts of men by love and that he would have been helplessly placed in a
manger was as marvelous and as touching to the believers as the sacrifice of dying on
the cross in Calvary.[117]
Thus by the 13th century the tender joys of the Nativity of Jesus were added to
the agony of his Crucifixion and a whole new range of approved religious emotions was
ushered in, with wide-ranging cultural impacts for centuries thereafter.[117] The
Franciscans approached both ends of this spectrum of emotions. On one hand the
introduction of the Nativity scene encouraged the tender image of Jesus, while on the
other hand Francis of Assisi himself had a deep attachment to the sufferings of Jesus
on the Cross and was said to have received the Stigmata as an expression of that love.
The dual nature of Franciscan piety based both on joy of Nativity and the sacrifice
at Calvary had a deep appeal among city dwellers and as the Franciscan Friars
travelled these emotions spread across the world, transforming the Kyrios image of
Jesus to a more tender, loving, and compassionate image.[117] These traditions did not
remain limited to Europe and soon spread to the other parts of the world such as Latin
America, the Philippines and the United States.
According to Archbishop Rowan Williams this transformation, accompanied by
the proliferation of the tender image of Jesus in Madonna and Child paintings, made an
important impact within the Christian Ministry by allowing Christians to feel the living
presence of Jesus as a loving figure "who is always there to harbor and nurture those
who turn to him for help.

Hymns, art and music

Canticles appearing in Luke
Luke's Nativity text has given rise to four well-known canticles:
the Benedictus and the Magnificat in the first chapter, and the Gloria in Excelsis and
the Nunc dimittis in the second chapter.[122] These "Gospel canticles" are now an
integral part of the liturgical tradition.[123] The parallel structure in Luke regarding the
births of John the Baptist and Jesus, extends to the three canticles Benedictus (Song of
Zechariah), the Nunc dimittis and the Magnificat.[124]
The Magnificat, in Luke 1:46–55, is spoken by Mary and is one of the eight most
ancient Christian hymns, perhaps the earliest Marian hymn.[125] The Benedictus, in Luke
1:68–79, is spoken by Zechariah, while the Nunc dimittis, in Luke 2:29–32, is spoken
by Simeon.[126] The traditional Gloria in Excelsis is longer than the opening line
presented in Luke 2:14, and is often called the "Song of the Angels" given that it was
uttered by the angels in the Annunciation to the Shepherds.[127]
The three canticles Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis and the Magnificat, if not
originating with Luke himself, may have their roots in the earliest Christian liturgical
services in Jerusalem, but their exact origins remain unknown.[128]
Visual arts
Medieval miniature of the Nativity, c. 1350

Annunciation by Nesterov, 19th century, Russia

One of the most visible traditions during the Christmas season is the display of
manger scenes depicting the nativity, usually in the form of statues or figurines, in
private homes, businesses and churches, either inside or outside the building. This
tradition is usually attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi[129] who was described as
creating such a display at Greccio, Italy, in 1223 as related by St. Bonaventure in
his Life of Saint Francis of Assisi written around 1260.[132]
Before the manger scene tradition developed, there were paintings depicting the
subject. The earliest artistic depictions of the nativity were in the catacombs and
on sarcophagi in Rome. As Gentile visitors, the Magi were popular in these scenes,
representing the significance of the arrival of the Messiah to all peoples. The ox and ass
were also taken to symbolize the Jews and the Gentiles, and have remained a constant
since the earliest depictions. Mary was soon seated on a throne as the Magi visited.[133]
Depictions of the Nativity soon became a normal component of cycles in art
illustrating both the Life of Christ and the Life of the Virgin. Nativity images also carry
the message of redemption: God's unification with matter forms the mystery of the
Incarnation, a turning point in the Christian perspective on Salvation.[134]
 In the Eastern Church painted icons of the Nativity often correspond to
specific hymns to Mary, e.g. to the Kontakion: "The Virgin today bringeth forth the
Transubstantial, and the eart offereth a cave to the Unapproachable." [135] In many
Eastern icons of Nativity (often accompanied by matching hymnody) two basic elements
are emphasized. First the event portrays the mystery of incarnation as a foundation for
the Christian faith, and the combined nature of Christ as divine and human. Secondly, it
relates the event to the natural life of the world, and its consequences for humanity.[135]
Hymns, music and performances

The Nativity depicted in an English liturgical manuscript, c. 1310–1320

A Christmas carol card, Boston, 1880

Like 1st century Jews, early Christians rejected the use of musical instruments in
religious ceremonies and instead relied on chants and plainsong leading to the use of
the term a cappella (in the chapel) for these chants.
One of the earliest Nativity hymns was Veni redemptor gentium composed by
Saint Ambrose in Milan in the 4th century. By the beginning of the 5th century, the
Spanish poet Prudentius had written "From the Heart of the Father" where the
ninth stanza focused on the Nativity and portrayed Jesus as the creator of the universe.
In the 5th century the Gallic poet Sedulius composed "From the lands that see the Sun
arise" in which the humility of the birth of Jesus was portrayed.[133] The Magnificat, one
of the eight most ancient Christian hymns and perhaps the earliest Marian hymn, is
based on the Annunciation.
 Saint Romanus the Melodist had a dream of the Virgin Mary the night before the
feast of the Nativity, and when he woke up the next morning, composed his first hymn
"On the Nativity" and continued composing hymns (perhaps several hundred) to the end
of his life.[136] Re-enactments of Nativity which are now called Nativity plays were part of
the troparion hymns in the liturgy of Byzantine Rite Churches, from St. Sophronius in
the 7th century.[137] By the 13th century, the Franciscans had encouraged a strong
tradition of popular Christmas songs in the native languages.[138] Christmas carols in
English first appear in a 1426 work of John Awdlay, a Shropshire chaplain, who lists
twenty-five "caroles of Cristemas".[139]
The largest body of musical works about Christ in which he does not speak are
about the Nativity. A large body of liturgical music, as well as a great deal of para-
liturgical texts, carols and folk music exist about the Nativity of Jesus. The Christmas
carols have come to be viewed as a cultural-signature of the Nativity of Jesus.[140]
Most musical Nativity narrations are not biblical and did not come about until
church music assimilated opera in the 17th century. But thereafter there was a torrent of
new music, e.g., Heinrich Schütz's 1660, Marc-Antoine Charpentier (Midnight Mass,
Pastorals, Oratorio, instrumental music, 11 settings), The Christmas
Story and Bach's Christmas Oratorio in the 18th century. And Lisz's
Christus, Berlioz’s L’Enfance du Christ (1850), Camille Saint-Saëns's Christmas
Oratorio (1858), etc.[140] John Milton's classic 1629 poem Ode on the Morning of
Christ's Nativity was used by John McEwan in 1901.[140]

Historical analysis
Traditional views

Beginning of a Byzantine copy of the Gospel of Luke, 1020

According to some scholars, the two accounts are historically accurate and do
not contradict each other,[141] with similarities such as the birthplace of Bethlehem and
the virgin birth. George Kilpatrick and Michael Patella state that a comparison of the
nativity accounts of Luke and Matthew show common elements in terms of the virgin
birth, the birth at Bethlehem, and the upbringing at Nazareth, and that although there
are differences in the accounts of the nativity in Luke and Matthew, a general narrative
may be constructed by combining the two. A number of biblical scholars have attempted
to show how the text from both narratives can be interwoven as a gospel harmony to
create one account that begins with a trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is
born, followed by the flight to Egypt, and ending with a return to Nazareth.
Neither Luke nor Matthew claims their birth narratives are based on direct
testimony.[149] Raymond E. Brown suggested in 1973 that Joseph was the source of
Matthew's account and Mary of Luke's, but modern scholars consider this "highly
unlikely", given that the story emerged so late.[150]
Roman Catholic scholars, such as John L. McKenzie, Raymond E. Brown,
and Daniel J. Harrington express the view that due to the scarcity of ancient records, a
number of issues regarding the historicity of some nativity episodes can never be fully
determined, and that the more important task is deciding what the nativity narratives
meant to the early Christian communities.
Critical analysis
Many scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically
factual, regarding them as laced with theology and presenting two different accounts
and genealogies. For instance, they point to Matthew's account of the appearance of an
angel to Joseph in a dream; the wise men from the East; the massacre of the innocents;
and the flight to Egypt, which do not appear in Luke, which instead describes the
appearance of an angel to Mary; the Roman census; the birth in a manger; and the
choir of angels appearing to the shepherds in the fields. Sanders considers Luke's
census, for which everyone returned to their ancestral home, not historically credible, as
this was contrary to Roman practice; they would not have uprooted everyone from their
homes and farms in the Empire by forcing them to return to their ancestral cities.
Moreover, people were not able to trace their own lineages back 42 generations.
[155] More generally, according to Karl Rahner the evangelists show little interest in
synchronizing the episodes of the birth or subsequent life of Jesus with the secular
history of the age.[162] As a result, modern scholars do not use much of the birth
narratives for historical information. Nevertheless, they are considered to contain some
useful biographical information: Jesus being born near the end of the reign of Herod,
during the reign of Emperor Augustus and his father being named Joseph are
considered historically plausible.
Most modern scholars accept the Marcan priority hypothesis, that the Luke and
Matthew accounts are based on the Gospel of Mark, but that the birth narratives come
from the evangelists' independent sources, known as M source for Matthew and L
source for Luke, which were added later.[164]
While Géza Vermes and E. P. Sanders dismiss the accounts as pious
fiction, Raymond E. Brown sees them as having been constructed from historical
traditions which predate the Gospels. According to Brown, there is no uniform
agreement among scholars on the historicity of the accounts, e.g., most of those
scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth,
a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away
as Chorazin.[168] Bruce Chilton and archaeologist Aviram Oshri have proposed a birth
at Bethlehem of Galilee, a site located 7 mi (11 km) from Nazareth at which remains
dating to the time of Herod the Great have been excavated. Armand P. Tarrech states
that Chilton's hypothesis has no support in either the Jewish or Christian sources,
although Chilton seems to take seriously the statement in Luke 2:4 that Joseph also
went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which
is called Bethlehem.[171]
Many view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were
primarily written as theological documents rather than chronological timelines. For
instance, Matthew pays far more attention to the name of the child and its theological
implications than the actual birth event itself.[176]