A fresh slant on the 12 Days of Christmas perhaps? As the 12 Days were meant in the church calendar, if not in the song, to lead to Epiphany, maybe the something similar could be said about your post?
Yet I found on reading your post that I was taking your points, or many of them, in the exact opposite sense to your intention.
“Concrete social, political and religious transgressions” do bring the nation Israel to actual disaster, don’t they? Whatever king was being born, it rapidly became apparent that Israel was not simply on the brink of disaster, but was about to be overwhelmed by it in the sight of all the nations.
The virgin conception of Jesus might strike some as more than a prophetic sign. As to its meaning, the name Immanuel (which is never mentioned again, despite the instruction that he should be named thus) leads to a puzzle. By my reading of Isaiah 7 the naming of the boy in Isaiah seems to be a sign against Judah, since the associated warning about Assyria was of disaster for Judah as well as Israel. Judah became a vassal state of Assyria under Ahaz when he made an alliance with Assyria. The river which swept Israel away overflowed up to Judah’s neck. Matthew was doing what he did with four of the other five prophecies in the birth narrative: taking a verse from an OT context and giving it an entirely different meaning in the new context.
Luke’s king does not bring peace to a people under Roman occupation, but the opposite, as he later goes on to predict.
There is no restored Jerusalem for Luke to predict, again the very opposite which he himself goes on to predict.
I do agree though that Mary’s song was “inflammatory, revolutionary talk”, though the revolution was not about to be brought about in Israel through the violent actions of its king in the time honoured fashion of Israel.
According to the Jew Paul, the death of Jesus exposed sin which went deeper than the national apostacy of Israel (Romans 7). Paul wasn’t talking about corporate sins alone here, but his own sin, in the first person, which traced it’s origin to Adam and his primal sin.
I haven’t been able to see where you get the idea of a devastating judgment on a corrupt priesthood from Zechariah (the priest). The confirmatory verse from Malachi doesn’t seem to connect with Luke 1:76.
I agree with point 9, though. Like Mary’s song, the angelic announcement of good news to the shepherds points to a kingly birth, and hence programme, which was very different from that of Caesar Augustus, or any kind of idealised Davidic warrior king (Point 10).
At least we’re agreed that Jesus was (probably) born in a family home, where there was no room in the guest room (so the birth was probably in the main living area, above the animals). But the connection with Isaiah 1:3 is a 13th century invention, when the current “born in a stable” tradition really began. The connection of kataluma with the Jeremiah passage seems untenably far fetched.
If Simeon means what you say he means, then he was wrong. The nations saw the destruction of Israel, which was in plain sight, and also predicted by Luke later in his gospel - as something that Jesus himself predicted. It’s likely that Simeon meant something quite different, or at least that his words lent themselves to a very different meaning from what even he may have been thinking.
Maybe we should stick to the 12 Days of Christmas? Anyway, in the spirit of the season, a very happy Christmas to you and all the followers of this blog , and a prosperous exegetical New Year!