Loading...Some years ago Sarah and I were in England celebrating Christmas with her brother in Saffron-Walden, a market town just south of Cambridge. After a lovely Christmas eve dinner, Sarah decided she wanted to go to the midnight service at the local Anglican Church. We, both of us agnostics, decided to go with her.
I had always had a soft spot for Christmas eve services. All the way through high school in Lawrence Kansas I had served as an acolyte in the Episcopal church, which held a very moving candlelight service that I always regarded as the most deeply profound service of the year. But I hadn’t been to a service in years and thought I would really like to go.
As we were walking through the streets to the service
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Amen, if I may say so!
I agree that the “values they endorsed” are laudable, yet often their actions are inconsistent with their words. That is one of the many challenges I face as I try to reconcile my past evangelical upbringing with my agnostic present.
Loved this.
I want all your Christmas posts in a book!
Honestly, you sound like a prophet. You’re walking the streets, seeing a generation that has forsaken the faith of their ancestors and traded hope for hedonism. Places that once pulsed with celebration now feel dim and lifeless. You look out at the suffering in the world and find yourself asking, “Why doesn’t the Creator intervene and make things right?” echoing the psalmist’s cry, “How long, O Lord?” And at the same time, you’re imagining a world where justice and joy overflow, something like a lost paradise. If only the Designer would step in and restore what’s broken.
O come, O Bright and Morning Star,
and bring us comfort from afar!
Dispel the shadows of the night
and turn our darkness into light.
Rejoice!
Beautifully said, and I agree.
Thanks for all you say and do, Professor. Merry Christmas!
Being a teetotaler, I’m a complete outsider when it comes to drink. What strikes me as odd is how a segment of the drinking population will use any excuse and any holiday to drink. I’m not necessarily condemning them for it. Perhaps what I’m noticing is the success of alcohol marketing campaigns. I’ve had co-workers who considered themselves connoisseurs of beer or some particular spiritous or vinous liquor. I’ve never understood it. Our vacation to the British Isles next Spring should be prove interesting.
Drink is not required. 🙂
I’m not sure what the reason is for the decline of organized religion in England. I just wonder if has something to do with having a state supported-tax supported church? Has it led to a negative impact on religion? Is it just the Anglican Church, or across the board when it comes to religion? It’s something we don’t relate to at all in this country.
It’s pretty much across the board. As is true for almost all of Europe.
On Sunday I went to a joint carol service (the local Methodists and Anglicans).
It was a lovely service – nine lessons and carols and additional items by the joint choirs. The Anglican church, itself beautiful, was very attractively decorated with perhaps twenty or so Christmas trees displayed as part of a tree festival. There was a real feeling of warmth and community and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience with friends.
However, one thing disturbed me which I cannot readily shake. Our fifth reading was Luke 2:1-7 with the wording published in our service sheets. Puzzling for me was the fact that the source of the scripture was set out as Luke 2:1,3-7 that is verse two was deliberately omitted. This tells of the census being carried out by Quirinius but as the reading unfolded it was evident that no mention of this was to be made because of the exclusion of this text.
(Continued in second post)
(Continued from first post)
I am well aware of the problems that this verse presents for establishing the historicity of the Nativity story and I have read copious attempts by apologists to rationalise the conflict that arises between the dates given for Herod and for Quirinius. However, no attempt was made either by a footnote or by an explanation via a sermon (there was none in this service) to explain why the verse was not read. Thus I am at a loss to understand what was achieved by the omission.
My only thought is that the mindset of the person who prepared the programme was one of somebody who deals with problems and contradictions in scripture by completely ignoring them and literally denying their existence.
I find this quite unsettling.
I should appreciate your comments
I’d be surprised if the person who put it together was closely up on biblical scholarship. It rarely happens. But surely it wasn’t simply to cut the passage down to save time (just one verse). Maybe they thought it was a bit too boring (naming names)? Very odd….disabledupes{0f817d65e1e4600629c87b443f914828}disabledupes
Do you worry that the contrast between “churchgoers” and “pubgoers” risks being a bit too general? I have met deeply unkind and deeply generous people in both places, and it is not always clear that the values voiced in church are consistently lived out beyond the service. At the same time, people enjoying themselves in a pub may still be thoughtful and morally serious in ways that are simply not visible in that moment. Wouldn’t judging values based on where someone happens to be on Christmas Eve risk missing that complexity?
I admire you, you are yourself someone who has helped raise millions of dollars for charity, and I wouldn’t like it if someone saw you having a good time in a pub and judged you without knowing you!
Yikes! That’s not what I meant and should have been clearer about it. I’m a pub guy and love going to pubs. IN my post I was speaking about something specific, not anything in general: I was trying to contrast the (mainly young) people simply interested in getting blasted on the occasion (and succeeding rather well) with the ones who were taking the occasoin itself seriously as a time to reflect on other things that in the long run are more important…
Ah, Got it!
Thank you for the response Dr Ehrman and wish you a happy new year.
Happy birthday Jesus…whoever you are.
1 Jesus of the Synoptics
2 Jesus of Gos. of John
3 Jesus of Acts – The Ascension – not historical
4 Jesus of Paul – cannot be historical because Jesus is a vision from one person
5 Jesus of Revelation – cannot be historical
6 Jesus of Gos. of Thomas – TBD
7 Jesus of Gos. of Judas – TBD
Dr. Ehrman,
When you scholars talk about the Quest for the Historical Jesus, is that mainly Jesus of the Synoptics?
Can the Gnostic Jesus, the Jesus of Revelation, the Jesus of Paul and Jesus of Acts’ Ascension be ruled out as historical?
Thank you,
Steefen
No, the Quest of the historical Jesus is the investigation into what we can say Jesus really said and did, based on all the surviving sources. ALL of them. Using the same criteria for each one, without prejudice.
Paul’s Jesus was his vision of Jesus after Jesus’ ascension. Second, the Gospel of Judas seems to have been written between 130-170AD (Coptic translation dates to 300 AD). Gospel of John is known to be more theological than historical. So, you’re saying A singular vision of Jesus after the lifespan of an historical Jesus gives us an historical Jesus. I disagree. And you are saying a Gospel of Judas written 100 years or more after the biblical Jesus gives us an historical Jesus. I disagree. And you are saying Gospel of John which gives us on the only theological claim that Jesus was the Logos; and the only attestation that Jesus resurrected Lazarus is giving us historical accounts. I disagree. Even if you found an historical Jesus that does not mean the accounts of Paul, Gospel of John, Gospel of Judas, Book of Revelation, and the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are factual.
I’m torn in my reaction to this.
On the one hand, I have found it hard (being a former Christian) to find secular people who share my general, still generally traditional Christian, sensibilities (aesthetic and otherwise), so I absolutely sympathize with the feeling that you are closer to that handful of faithful who show up for the evening service in a gorgeous medieval chapel with beautiful Anglican choral music than to hoi polloi getting pints.
But on the other hand, I’ve come to realize that a lot of people I would once have written off as unserious and uninterested in the big questions are not actually unserious or uninterested at all. But their very serious reflection on the big questions has led them to a place where showing much interest in religion doesn’t make too much sense to them.
Yup, me too.
Last night (Christmas Eve) my partner (Christian) and I (agnostic) went to this amazing monastery in Skiathos. She attended the service and I stayed in a little place that has books, a fireplace and a big Christmas tree. I found a New Testament (2005 edition) and I started reading horizontally the synoptic Gospels from the start through maybe chapters 6-7. It was really beautiful!
And I actually had a thought that I thought (English is a funny language sometimes) was worth asking you about.
I noticed that Mark and Luke have some identical stuff, and sometimes more similar than what Mark has in common with Matthew. For example, the first miracle in Mark and Luke is the exorcism of the possessed man in Capernaum, though in Matthew it’s the healing of the leper. Also, in Mark and Luke the tax collector is mentioned as Levi while in Matthew it’s Matthew.
And I thought maybe Marc Goodacre is on to something, but it’s the other way around: maybe Luke copied Mark and then Matthew copied Luke.
I know it probably doesn’t hold water, but I would like to read your view on this.
Sounds like a lovely Christmas eve! Yes, some scholars have argued this, but not too many; in part it’s because when matthew and luke have material in common not in Mark the differences between the two often appear to reflect specific editorial tendencies known elsewhere from Luke, so that it looks like he’s putting his stamp on the material (from Matthew) (if one copied the other) (which I don’t think happened!!)
The church sold the world a lie, and me for too many years .
All the songs on the radio being played about little boy Jesus ,most not knowing the origin of the Christmas story or about the god of the Old Testament.
I cannot get into Christmas these days knowing what I now know , also every advertisement on tv trying to sell something we most probably don’t want .
If we could just drop the Christmas message and call it something else that would be great .
Bart you should write a New Testament but highlight in red every thing probably not true, or historically in accurate.
I wonder how many chapters and verses would be in red.
A happy 2026 to everyone
Hey Thomas Jefferson tried that!
Okay but I think you know more than anyone else on the subject,
All the very best for 2026 and your new book .
I kept waiting for affirmation that you stopped by one of the pubs on the way home! Well; did you? Perhaps it’s not an either/or, but an opportunity for a both/and? I, rather unfortunately, never developed a taste for beer, though I am not a teetotaler by any means. Montana, with ubiquitous brew pubs, is a beer drinker’s paradise, and there is much I wish I could join and experience. Maybe they’d serve a glass of wine, or a gin and tonic to me. Otherwise, I’d be a lot like you during the service (as indeed I have been when joining friends after work for social time). So: how was the late night pub, early Christmas morning?
Nope, there is a mandatory closure time in England. Plus, I was already three hours past my bedtime! But I imagine we did drink some bubbly when we got home.disabledupes{32a92a454760b087d6f4f47f9437e0da}disabledupes
Well said. Thank you and Happy Christmas (as the Brits say it)!
My husband and I spend at least a month in Oxford every year, doing research in the Bodleian Library. While we are there, we attend Evensong very frequently, in Christ Church Cathedral or in Magdalen College chapel. He is a hard-line atheist. I’m an agnostic. But we both find those services powerful and resonant.
I considered myself a Christian for about 8 years, in my 30s. I found Evensong meaningful then, but I find it equally meaningful now.
Partly, it’s the beauty of the architecture. Partly, it’s the beauty of the language from Cranmer’s prayerbook–
“Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord, and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night, for the love of thy only son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ”
–and largely it is the beauty of the music, sung by two of the best choral groups in the world.
But also, I think it attests to the strong human need for ritual and for patterns in daily life. Going to Evensong at the end of the day and then home to dinner gives a shape, a rhythm, to my life that I find very appealing and comforting, despite my unbelief.
Ah, lovely. Thanks.
I attended the Christmas Eve service at my local Episcopal church a couple of nights ago. It was very nice. Of course, having been a member of the blog for a few years, and having read several of your books and taken many of the courses, questions and doubts popped up in my mind one after another during the liturgy and sermon. But that’s okay. I can still enjoy the traditions and the music while reflecting on the life and sayings of that extraordinary figure, Jesus of Nazareth. This despite having serious doubts about much of the dogma. Some years ago, an Episcopal clergyman advised me to ”just let it flow.” Good advice. Beats hanging out in the pub, although that can be enjoyable too at times.
In spite of all the suffering in the world, it is still a wonderful life. Dr. Ehrman, thanks for the interesting contrast between people in pubs versus people in churches. I don’t think people in pubs are more superficial than those in churches; many people today classify themselves as spiritual but not religious. One question I do have for you about this: were there more bells rang in the pubs than in the churches or more bells rang in the churches than in the pubs? (Warning: I ask this question somewhat non-seriously as I hope you would suspect that a joke is coming.) It may be that the place that has the most bells rang is the more spiritual place because, as you know, every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings. As Clarence knows, the world would be a much more unpleasant place if you had never lived.
I think there was a lot more ringing in the ears in the pubs….
And I rewatched It’s a Wonderuful Life on Christmas Eve!
At last, something I disagree with Bart on! I have a dislike for cathedrals and beautiful (especially the huge ones) churches. I think they represent a very clear POWER decision: The flaunting of wealth – often using money taken from the poor to build huge churches while being “unable” to build housing. I was the only person I know who was saddened by the huge flood of money donated to restore the Notre-Dame de Paris. Including as always, taxpayers money. The good work you have done over many years has raised less than was raised in a week there. I don’t understand it. I regard it – in a way – as hatred, and certainly as a POWER flex. People I spoke to – good people – disagreed and suggested culture, architecture, beauty, tradition, etc as reasons the building MUST be saved, but, sorry I just don’t see it as anything good when viewed in parallel with our “inability” to provide basic welfare for all. I speak as a choirboy who still has to admit to being moved by those spectacles, the songs, the buildings – I just can’t justify it, nor pretend that it is anything “good.”
“Gratitude can transform common days into thanksgiving, turn routine jobs into joy, and change ordinary opportunities into blessings.”
– Proverb
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you believe that when Paul is speaking about his experience with Jesus in 1 Cor. 15., that demonstrates that his “vision” mirrored that of the witnesses who “saw” Jesus? That is, more of a vision? In other words, do you believe that the resurrection belief did not originate in perceived physical encounters ( just visionary encounters), and that the physical narratives in the Gospels and Acts came later?
He indicates that his vision was just like theirs, only later.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you believe this demonstrates that since Paul’s was a “vision,” then the other disciples (or at least Peter and whoever else) claimed to just have a vision (and that they didn’t even claim to have the physical apperances like in the gospels?)
If you define “vision” the way I do (“something that is ‘seen,’ from the Latin verb video), then yes. I think Paul thought he saw something. It was either veridical (something really there that he correctly identified) or non-veridical. But I do think he saw something. I don’t, however, think it can be “demonstrated.”
I treat my regular church attendance and devotion as something like cos-play. A Star Trek cos-player adheres to the canon of the made up Star Trek universe. They don’t mix in Star Wars canon if they’re trying to be true to form. The vast majority of Star Trek cos-players know that this is all a fiction but they find a kind of meaning and purpose to it all plus the benefits of being part of a community of people sharing interests. I adhere to the doctrines of my Church for pretty much the same reason the Star Trek cos-players adhere to Star Trek canon. I also recognize the big difference between cos-play and religion: most of my coreligionists think this is all real whereas I am an atheist in my heart. But I have no desire to dissuade them (at least publicly). They’re not ready. But I long for a day when a Christianity loving atheist (or a muslim, mormon, etc. atheist) and a true believer can openly worship together in the same community if they choose to.