I think we sometimes shoot our own eye out while reading the Christmas story. The events surely need looking at intently before they start to become visible as anything more than "trees, walking". Nativity plays are often quite inaccurate, but imprint themselves on the young, like the first visible animate object imprints itself on baby ducklings. The Curt Jester has commented on a old news story: an Anglican bishop, wanting to emphasize how much the Christmas story gets mangled, misspoke himself — in part at least — by saying that the wise men were on an assassination mission. They surely were, but not knowingly, as the bishop well knew. The bishop swiftly corrected his wording, but even a minute is too long in internet time. Yet the bishop's warnings were highly worthwhile.

What other details of the Christmas story have been circumstantially imprinted on us? Here's what I think are two:

• the idea that at the time of the Christmas census everyone in Israel had to report back to their ancestor's town. Scripture does not say that. It says that each had to report "to his own city". Since the census surely had tax purposes, it would make sense for each person to be registered in their own city of residence. Many people would not be living at home, and would be temporarily working somewhere else. So, to be sure to get everyone registered for tax, and traceable, the registration would be tied to each person's city of residence. Scripture then goes on to explain why Joseph's city of residence was Bethlehem — he lived there because he was descended from David. But to go ahead and tie the two things together, by claiming that everyone had to report to some ancestor's town, is to go beyond what Scripture says.
• the inn was unluckily full when Joseph and Mary arrived, and thus they had, at short notice, to find very primitive alternative accommodation. Again, Scripture doesn't say that. First, it says that while they were in Bethlehem (and it doesn't say how long they had been there, whether for short or long) the time came for the child to be delivered. Then it says that the child had to be laid in a manger (i.e. outside the inn's living accommodation for humans), because "there was no place for them in the inn". While that may indicate that the inn was full, there is an additional more fitting reason why they could not be in the inn. All that blood. Given the blood that is a natural part of birth, and given the fact that blood would religiously contaminate anyone coming into contact with it, no Jewish inn would want to have a birth occur within their rooms. People would be extremely reluctant to stay in that particular room, or be in a shared area with someone around the time of giving birth. And so the inn would lose money. There was no place for them in the inn for reasons of money and inconvenience. And that's a more profound way in which we fallen humans keep out the arrival of God — we falsely see it as a loss.