It is one of the delightful, if curious, characteristics of the New Testament that the four evangelists deal in so matter-of-fact a manner with an event that changed the world.

Look at the way they tackled the first 30 years of the God-Man. The most we know, or assume, is that Jesus spent his youth in prosaic employment as a carpenter's son and grew up in the Law.

I like to think that he gurgled with happiness when rocked in His mother's arms and bawled when put to bed. But what was said, what passed between the family during the 30 years before Jesus started on His mission, how the family passed the time of day when the sun set, what its forms of relaxation, we are not told.

He must have played with children his age, screamed with excitement when caught at hide-and-seek, yet not once did He give away His divine identity, no abracadabra moments to display truly extraterrestrial powers.

On this and much else the evangelists are tight-lipped, as if any intrusion into the family's privacy were lacking in taste.

Matthew is primarily interested in establishing the genealogy of Jesus and for the sake of historicity fixes the birth of Jesus 'during the reign of Herod'. He then fast forwards to the adult Jesus going into the desert to fast and pray - and to be tempted.

Mark kicks off with the baptism of Jesus and the arrest of John the Baptist before zooming in, so to speak, on Jesus 'walking by the Sea of Galilee'. There He sees Simon and Andrew, and addresses them with mesmeric directness: "Come with me, and I will make you fishers of men". And they went.

Luke's gospel narrative starts with the story of Zachariah and Elizabeth, she barren and 'both well on in years', but, Zachariah is told, soon to be parents.

Elizabeth's cousin Mary is told by an angel 'sent from God' that she would "conceive and bear a son", Jesus, whom Luke places in the historical context of 'a decree...issued by the Emperor Augustus... when Quirinius was governor of Syria'.

He is the only one who gives a detailed picture of the birth in Bethlehem, the angels and the shepherds, the purification that took place in accordance with the Law and the presentation of the child at the temple; the only evangelist to recount a pre-teens story about Jesus - his staying at Jerusalem after the Passover festival and Mary's and Joseph's three-day search for him; after which, again a fast-forward to his baptism by John.

John, the disciple Jesus loved, is something else again. In my day we learned the entire opening of his gospel, which was recited at the end of Mass (in Latin) - 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God' up to the final lines - 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."

Next we are informed that the Baptist sees Jesus coming towards him to be baptised and Jesus meeting with Andrew, first, then Simon Peter - and on to the wedding at Cana, where, as the poet remarked, the 'pale-faced water saw its Lord and blushed'.

Divine silence

What is striking are the silences; of Mary after the birth of her Son until He was 12 when she lost and found Him - only after a stomach-turning three-day search; even the dire warning that a sword would strike her heart elicits no response; nor indeed - apart from her fiat and magnificat and her single question and statement when she had tracked Him down - do we hear anything from Mary as Jesus grows in wisdom and they in understanding; of Joseph not a sentence is recorded in any of the accounts, nor of his death. Joseph and Mary lived in the presence of God and I imagine their Son preparing them quietly as to His mission, what it would lead to and how they were not to worry; the first stab of that sword?

Compare that with biographies recounting the birth, childhood and adolescence of their subject, the psychological effect on their lives left by a father's indolence, penury, waywardness, the mother's dotage. And as to stories of saints, no detail of demonstrations of saintliness at an early age is left out.

The total absence of hagiography in the story told by the evangelists is all the more arresting, the more telling. It is as if each of them is too intent on passing on the story that he knew; too absorbed by the life, ministry, death and resurrection of their subject to bother with detail; too absorbed in this 30-year-old man who spoke and acted like no other man in history had done, before and after His birth.

Their frugal treatment of his childhood is echoed by a similar parsimoniousness in their description of great things they saw. He healed a person? So? He healed a person, what else do you expect? He performed miracles? Naturally, but note; never any magic, never on demand, never for curiosity seekers, and certainly not for Herod; always for the deserving.

To the evangelists these were matters of fact to be recorded and passed on. What He said - more than anything else what He said - that was the thing.

People who treat the Bible as literature will tell you that the Gospels, quite apart from the astonishing life they deal with, are finely crafted stories.

In these you find no extraneous word, no adjectival clause or, for that matter, any adverbial ones: sentences short as briskness; and if we may descend to levity as we consider brevity, not one foul word, either; angry ones, yes, for example His treatment of retailers in the Temple; no description of sunsets, but a storm at sea, yes, because this one led to a miracle; and convulsions of the earth when Jesus died, yes, because something unnatural and supernatural had taken place on Calvary; and throughout an almost miraculous sparseness as if to colour up anything were to diminish the narrative.

There has to be meaning and reason in all that; perhaps Pope Benedict will shed some light on those silences when his second book on Jesus of Nazareth is published, next July.

Run, George, run

The President of the Republic seems to have a knack for pressing the right button at the right time when called upon to exercise some function as Head of State.

Thus, when he was invited to a seminar that had marriage and the family as its theme a few months ago, he put aside his notes and spoke from the heart; and his heart was good, what he had to say was good.

More recently he led from the front when he decided that a fun run in aid of the Community Chest Fund, a charity traditionally associated with the Head of State (something Eddie Fenech Adami could not physically have chosen to do even if he wanted) was just the ticket to draw attention to the CCF; and it was.

A sportsman of some moment - at some moment of his life - George Abela completed, I won't call it a dash, the jog with hundreds of participants hot on his trail and spectators cheering the runners on. Here again, this was a carefully selected button.

On Boxing Day he will, I think, be anxious to see whether his decision, a correct one, to change the format for the Big Charity Affair of the year so that the emphasis is on donations-without-perks-for-donations, will bring a million euros into the kitty. I hope he has also charmed those who put up prizes in the past to chip in with their equivalent in cash.

This was a dicier button; we must wait and see whether the public will put aside self-interest and replace it with a selfless, other-regarding contribution to help those who are in genuine need.

If this does not happen, it will not be because he pressed the wrong button; he pressed the right one in the certainty that these islands people will live up to their reputation as a generous people. So, what are you waiting for?

Out of the mouth of a liberal

'If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people.

Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate Bill accomplishes none of these.'

(From the PC of Howard Dean, a Democrat and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002; opening paragraph of his contribution to The Washington Post, December 17)