Bethlehem vs. Nazareth

[GandalfTheWhite]

I assume you include Pope Paul VI as one leading us down that slippery slope.

Did he believe that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethehem? Or that Jesus never actually multiplied the bread? etc.

The document on modernism was aimed at the excesses of interpretation that had accompanied some “modernist” exploration of the scriptures. Its language and ideas are caught up in the pre-scientific viewpoint and at that time the Church was not yet making the distinction between lack of error in scientific and historical teaching and the lack of error in moral and religious truth. Fortunately, most of those teachings have been laid to rest.

It’s one thing if you interpret some uncertain passages in a way that contradicts the scientific fact and then realize it later on (we can see this in the OT mainly). It’s something else using this argument agains events in Jesus’ life. First those events have nothing to do with science, second the Church firmply teaches that the gospels are historical and speak about real events in real life and third these parts fullfil the prophesies in the OT (so if you say that they were made up then you can just reject Jesus as the Messiah).

Having reached this point, Venerable Brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science, including history also under the name of science.

• Pope Pius X in PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS (ON THE DOCTRINES
  OF THE MODERNISTS)

Yes, anyone can and recognizing that fact is important when studying any document. It takes faith to believe, not words on paper.

Yes, and I believe it. Unlike you, who seems to suggest that both authors of the gospel made it up so that they can fulfill the prophecy “at least on the paper”.

 

[HelenMary]

I’m not going to put words in to the Pope’s mouth about why this is.

One of me PERSONAL opinions on why this might be is that the Holy Father has made several points this year concerning the importance of family. Perhaps this was intended to show that Jesus wasn’t just born in a manager and then grew up and started teaching, but that the three of them, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, lived as a family unit.

I agree. I am wondering if it is actually meant to be Nazareth or perhaps it is Bethlehem still. After all, didn’t the Holy Family live there for a while after the Birth? As a new mother myself, I am certain that I would have found it very difficult to travel. I don’t know if I could have remained upright on a donkey for any length of time after my son’s birth much less walked all the way from Bethlehem to Nazareth. Of course, I am not the Blessed Mother. Her stamina is beyond me.

I would think that the practical thing would have been for St Joseph to open his shop there in Bethlehem to support them until they could return to Nazareth. Of course, the Flight into Egypt would have meant that they took a detour for a few years, but perhaps I have misunderstood the readings. I think the Gospel accounts can be reconciled although I am not enough of a scholar to do so.

I was under the impression that St Luke was personal physician not only to St Paul but to Our Blessed Mother. I thought that that was how he was able to give such details in his account of Our Lord’s Birth. I don’t see the accounts as mutually exclusive, nor do I see them as fiction. Yes, there is symbolism but God “wrote the story.” He is the One Who orchestrated the entire thing. To my mind that does not mean fiction even if there were no corroborating accounts from other sources.

The Jewish Messiah was prophesied to be a powerful earthly king who would lead the Jews to glory, not exactly what they got.

I wonder if the Jewish people were interpreting the prophesies this way. After all, they are the Chosen People but they think as Man does not as God does. Even if Our Lord did not come to Earth as a powerful, warrior-king, it does not mean that He will not do so at the end of the world. Did the prophesies tell the Jewish People that God Himself would come as their Messiah?

God is teaching us about humility. Jesus was born under circumstances of the poorest of the poor. The World does not recognize nor does it recount the birth of the poorest of the poor. We are given the Gospels so that we may know and believe. We should be in tremendous awe of God’s power, humility, and devotion to us. I think we should all wait until the creche is unveiled at Christmas. The Holy Father will explain his decision. Then we may comment if we choose. In the meantime, we should be patient in our expectation and we should be patient with one another.

Peace.

 

[patg]

Did he believe that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethehem? Or that Jesus never actually multiplied the bread? etc.

I don’t know how he felt about specific stories but he certainly agreed that the gospels are not literal first person accounts. The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (1964) *contains the following statement:

“The Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, at the audience graciously granted to the undersigned secretary on April 21, 1964, approved this Instruction and ordered the publication of it.”

Here are a few items from this document:

*…was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. **From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. ***

And:

…the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.

And:

Unless the exegete pays attention to all these things which pertain to the origin and composition of the Gospels and makes proper use of all the laudable achievements of recent research, he will not fulfil his task of probing into what the sacred writers intended and what they really said…He will diligently employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which the historical method, taken in its widest sense, offers to him–a method which carefully investigates sources and defines their nature and value, and makes use of such helps as textual criticism, literary criticism, and the study of languages.

(Wait Pope, what about modernism???)

And:

So, just as Jesus Himself after His resurrection “interpreted to them” the words of the Old Testament as well as His own,they too interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners. "Devoting themselves to the ministry of the word,"they preached and made use of various modes of speaking which were suited to their own purpose and the mentality of their listeners.

Yes, and I believe it. Unlike you, who seems to suggest that both authors of the gospel made it up so that they can fulfill the prophecy “at least on the paper”.

That may have been the best way they could think of to achieve their goal of describing who Jesus was to them. They may have even been inspired to do that - we certainly don’t know…

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I don’t know how he felt about specific stories but he certainly agreed that the gospels are not literal first person accounts. The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (1964) *contains the following statement:

“The Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, at the audience graciously granted to the undersigned secretary on April 21, 1964, approved this Instruction and ordered the publication of it.”

Here are a few items from this document:

…was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. **From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. **

And:

…the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.

And:

Unless the exegete pays attention to all these things which pertain to the origin and composition of the Gospels and makes proper use of all the laudable achievements of recent research, he will not fulfil his task of probing into what the sacred writers intended and what they really said…He will diligently employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which the historical method, taken in its widest sense, offers to him–a method which carefully investigates sources and defines their nature and value, and makes use of such helps as textual criticism, literary criticism, and the study of languages.

(Wait Pope, what about modernism???)

And:

So, just as Jesus Himself after His resurrection “interpreted to them” the words of the Old Testament as well as His own,they too interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners. "Devoting themselves to the ministry of the word,"they preached and made use of various modes of speaking which were suited to their own purpose and the mentality of their listeners.

You are interpreting the document by twisting it to your agenda. No one is saying that everything written in the Gospel is totally literal, that different events are not explained from different points of view, that not everything is completelly chronological or that everything Jesus said is put down exactly word to word. Church never taught that. But you are taking it just TOO far. You have to interpret the document the way Church interprets it and I see nothing that would suggest that Church ever taught the things you just said said (I don’t even see it in the documments you quote). All I see is the exact opposite, such as that the Gospels are historical. What you are saying is contrary to our faith, it smells of Modernism, leads to heresies and diminishes our precious Faith. Sorry, but I find it deeply disturbing and I need to say it.

That may have been the best way they could think of to achieve their goal of describing who Jesus was to them.

Like to make him into the Messiah by making him fullill the prophesies which he didn’t fullfil? You usually hear these things from non-christians, but I guess the time has changed…

They may have even been inspired to do that - we certainly don’t know…

Like inspired to fill the gabs which which Jesus (according to you) missed?

God bless.

 

[IrishBrigade]

Chapter III, paragraph 12:

The infancy stories are a standard ancient “literary form” frequently used to describe the birth of significant leaders. This form was aways known to be fictional.

…‘Form criticism’ has always been, and always will be, a critical tool in the hands of the exegete, as you say…for instance, the influence on Mark as he produced a textual form we call a ‘gospel’ vis a vis biographies and other such works by contemporaneous authors, both secular and religious…an example or two of the birth form you describe would illustrate your point more efficiently…that many people of unwavering faith have at some time or other found themselves interpreting Sacred Scripture is not the least bit new nor is it surprising…it would be more unusual had they not done so…however, I find it not only unseemly, but bordering on blasphemous for a priest or any person of the cloth to suggest altering the Bible to conform to modern sensibilities…

 

[patg]

You are interpreting the document by twisting it to your agenda. No one is saying that everything written in the Gospel is totally literal, that different events are not explained from different points of view, that not everything is completelly chronological or that everything Jesus said is put down exactly word to word. Church never taught that. But you are taking it just TOO far.

Once again I hear this “you, you, you” - I am not presenting personal pet theories from the fringes of hersey. I am talking about the things taught every week in Catholic adult ed classes throughout the country, many from the textbook "And God Said What?" which is used in many of them. If you think “I” am going too far, you should read The Birth of the Messiah by Raymond Brown or Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John Meier (with their imprimatur and nihil obstat).

You have to interpret the document the way Church interprets it and I see nothing that would suggest that Church ever taught the things you just said said (I don’t even see it in the documments you quote). All I see is the exact opposite, such as that the Gospels are historical. What you are saying is contrary to our faith, it smells of Modernism, leads to heresies and diminishes our precious Faith. Sorry, but I find it deeply disturbing and I need to say it.

I would only suggest that you read something which addresses these issues such as “Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald Witherup. I am not concerned about modernism at all, I am concerned about understanding the truth.

Like to make him into the Messiah by making him fullill the prophesies which he didn’t fullfil? You usually hear these things from non-christians, but I guess the time has changed…

I think you should remember what you said before - anyone can write a compelling story about someone fulfilling a prophecy when they are writing long after the events and when it is impossible to verify their story because there is no independent evidence.

The birth in Bethlehem along with the celestial omens, the singing angels, the unknown number of Magi, the slaughter of the innocents, etc. are symbols teaching the truth whether one believes they actually occured or not. Fortunately for ***my ***faith, the Church does not require dogmatic assent to their historicity.

Have a good Christmas!

 

[patg]

however, I find it not only unseemly, but bordering on blasphemous for a priest or any person of the cloth to suggest altering the Bible to conform to modern sensibilities…

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

And as was said earlier, what else could be symbolic if the nativity, one of the most important events in the Gospels, why not the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, or the Ascencion? We would have no scholarly way of knowing what is inspired and what isn’t.

Scholarship is not so primitive.
We can show beyond reasonable doubt that there was a man names Jesus who was a preacher in 1st century Galilee, and who was executed by the Roman authorities. The gospels just don’t have the narrative structure of fiction. We could be sure of the Resurrection except for one thing. Things like that don’t happen. We know that the breaking of bread was a very early Christian tradition, we know that theories of a pagan origin are largely discredited - the bread is the unleavened bread of the Passover or the manna that the Children of Israel ate in the wilderness - there is no need to go outside the Jewish tradition. There is thus no real reason to doubt the account that the practise dates back to Jesus.

The infancy narratives, however, occured about thiry years before the rest of the events of the gospel. They also have a rather far-fetched, splendid character. And there is only one source for each tradition.

Thus it is sensible to support the general historicity of the gospels, whilst having some doubts about the infancy narratives. Doubts, I must stress, are not a polite way of saying “it didn’t happen”. They mean, “there is some doubt as to what exactly happened”.

 

[KephasAugustine]

IrishBrigade;3104893:

Well, as I noted before, we don’t have a direct statement from this priest so it is hard to say what exactly was presented. In any case, it is not the bible which should be altered based on advances in knowledge. Rather, it is our understanding of it. And if someone were to suggest that our understanding should never change, then there are a lot of scripture scholars we can cut from the payroll.

I think that the problem we have with the priest (or our perception of the priest based on the OP’s information) is that he (may have) said that the Nativity story should be “burned” or “pulled out of the Bible” or “disregarded” …and that’s not okay.

 

[Conservative]

How can a Catholic answer claims that the Vatican’s decision to display Joseph’s workshop in Nazareth rather than a traditional manger scene in Bethlehem means that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and the Bible is wrong?

This is being preached by one of our priests, who also claims that manger scenes should be burned and Luke’s Infancy Narratives should be disregarded (if not pulled out of your Bible). He claims that the Infancy Narratives of Luke were made up, written later, and added in order to harmonize the coming of Jesus with the Messianic prophecies.

Any guidance would be much appreciated!

Thank you and God bless you.

Henrietta K.

Where is this to happen? Is the Vatican doing this at Christmas time? During Midnight Mass? Nothing wrong with showing St. Joseph’s workshop in Nazareth since, as everyone has pointed out, that’s where the Holy Family returned and where Joseph worked. (There’s a church built over the believed site in Nazareth…The house itself is in Loreto, Italy.)

But the manger? I hadn’t heard about this - Has the Vatican made a statement as to why they are doing this? But, it makes sense to just research historical records of the time (was there a census being taken, etc.?) - and if Joseph was of the House of David (i.e. Bethlehem) - be it manger, cave or the innkeeper’s finest room - it was still Bethlehem!

Signing off with four Nativity scenes in my house,

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just today on the forums at EWTN I found the following, extremely interesting notation regarding how some may be using a ‘defective’ translation of “Dei Verbum” and giving the ‘correct’ translation as below:

It will need to be in two parts, and I have bolded the relevant passages.

The Church formally teaches that the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely without error. This teaching is not arrived at inductively–namely, that a careful study of the entire Bible has revealed no discrepancies or difficulties–but follows from the fact that God is the ultimate Author of the Bible and falsehood is incompatible with Truth Itself. As taught by the Second Vatican Council:

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”[72]

Furthermore, popes of the twentieth century explicitly condemned the false position that inerrancy only applies to God and not to the human author. One example of this condemnation may be found in “Spiritus Paraclitus” of Pope Benedict XV:

1. Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican, Pope Leo continues:

Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing, and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.(42)

1. But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church–nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning–who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Part 2–noted bolded parts

We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.

1. **Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase–and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture–yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration-- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error --are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest–things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented–God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science!
2. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since–so they claim–he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external-- and thus deceptive–appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff’s own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things–of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo Xlll, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks–we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture.
3. Moreover, our predecessor, sweeping aside all such distinctions between what these critics are pleased to call primary and secondary elements, says in no ambiguous fashion that “those who fancy that when it is a question of the truth of certain expressions we have not got to consider so much what God said as why He said it,” are very far indeed from the truth. He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text: “It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to certain portions only of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred.”(43)**
4. **Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are–no less than are the aforementioned critics–out of harmony with the Church’s teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. Yet they are not afraid to deduce such views from the words of Leo Xlll on the ground that he allowed that the principles he had laid down touching the things of nature could be applied to historical things as well. Hence they maintain that precisely as the sacred writers spoke of physical things according to appearance, so, too, while ignorant of the facts, they narrated them in accordance with general opinion or even on baseless evidence; neither do they tell us the sources whence they derived their knowledge, nor do they make other peoples’ narrative their own. Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. After all, what analogy is there between physics and history? For whereas physics is concerned with “sensible appearances” and must consequently square with phenomena, history on the contrary, must square with the facts, since history is the written account of events as they actually occurred. If we were to accept such views, how could we maintain the truth insisted on throughout Leo Xlll’s Encyclical --viz. that the sacred narrative is absolutely free from error?

In light of several definitive papal statements precluding any error and the summary statement of Vatican II, we must hold the inerrancy (free from all error) of Sacred Scripture as a formal teaching of the Church.**
“Providentissimus Deus” by Pope Leo XIII (listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/papal/leo.xiii/providen.asc)

“Spiritus Paraclitus” by Pope Benedict XV (listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/papal/benedict.xv/b15spiri.txt)

“Divino Afflante Spiritu” by Pope Pius XII (newadvent.org/docs/pi12da.htm)

 

[patg]

Just today on the forums at EWTN I found the following, extremely interesting notation regarding how some may be using a ‘defective’ translation of “Dei Verbum” and giving the ‘correct’ translation as below:…

Where is this from, who wrote it, why should we believe them, why is it more important than existing documents, exactly what does it clear up, where does it say we have a defective translation of Dei Verbum, why do so many Catholic experts seem to disagree (surely they can read the original instead of the pesky translation)…?

It also skips over the issue of exactly what it is that is innerrantly inspired - the oral or the written word, the Hebrew or Greek words, the originals (which we don’t have), the copies, the translated copies, which translated copies???

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Pat, if you had read my post (let me reproduce the opening here again

Just today on the forums at EWTN I found the following, extremely interesting notation regarding how some may be using a ‘defective’ translation of “Dei Verbum” and giving the ‘correct’ translation as below:

you would have seen I found this:
A. On the EWTN forum (ask the experts).
B. Today.
C. From the experts there.
D. I gave the link to the entire text of those documents at the end of the second post. All three documents.
E. Why don’t you read the documents links etc. before asking what I had already answered.

God bless.

 

[patg]

Pat, if you had read my post (let me reproduce the opening here again
you would have seen I found this:
A. On the EWTN forum (ask the experts).
B. Today.
C. From the experts there.
D. I gave the link to the entire text of those documents at the end of the second post. All three documents.
E. Why don’t you read the documents links etc. before asking what I had already answered.

God bless.

Thanks…but you didn’t provide any links to the EWTN site and I had never heard of it before this.

I’ll see if Fr. Echert says anything significant but if you are going to be serious about this subject, you should also read something from a real scholar such as Fr Ronald Witherup in *Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know. *

And I wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

I see that we have gone through this once again, as we do every year since I’ve joined, and, once again, we can all quote great documents which “prove” we are correct and, once again, no one is convinced of the validity of any opposing opinion!

Anyway, I understand how it can feel to doubt the historicity - the story is a magical one and brings a warm glow to even the hardest heart when read it each year in the glow of candles, decorated trees, bourbon, and colored lights. We all have vast deposits of childhood Christmas memories which we cherish as adults and we are* very* reluctant to question anything related to them.

But then again, doubting the history does not discredit the truth.

 

[JMMK]

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on one priest’s book.

 

[patg]

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on one priest’s book.

There are plenty more - but this is a quick, easy, and cheap read, with an imprimatur and nihil obstat and by a recognized expert. I’m just trying to be efficient!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How can a Catholic answer claims that the Vatican’s decision to display Joseph’s workshop in Nazareth rather than a traditional manger scene in Bethlehem means that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and the Bible is wrong?

Because it is not, & does not imply, an act of the teaching Church. It has no more doctrinal weight than the Pope’s decisions on where to spend his summer break ​

Not everything that popes or other bishops do, is an act of teaching; any more than all they do is the conferring of a sacrament.

Besides, “the Vatican” is not a teacher - it’s an abstraction standing for the various Curial offices (which are not abstractions). And very few of those offices have anything to do with the work of teaching.

This is being preached by one of our priests, who also claims that manger scenes should be burned and Luke’s Infancy Narratives should be disregarded (if not pulled out of your Bible). He claims that the Infancy Narratives of Luke were made up, written later, and added in order to harmonize the coming of Jesus with the Messianic prophecies.

He may be right about that last point - but it’s hard to see how the Lucan Infancy Narratives could be dis-canonised. As for his first point, about burning manger scenes: there is something to be said for that - they can give very misleading ideas about what the texts say & mean - but they can also be useful.​

I don’t see anything here to be worried about: to judge from your post, he’s not said anything doctrinally objectionable. When someone is quoted at second-hand, it can be very easy to mistake his or her meaning.

Hope that helps

Any guidance would be much appreciated!

Thank you and God bless you.

Henrietta K.

You too ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I thought this was about a Soccer Match!

The question is - by which rules:​

• American ?
• Australian ?
• • or English ?
    Cricket it ain’t

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First, there is no doubt that different parts of the Bible use different literary styles. The OT is for example full of poems and allegories. But you should again look what the Church says about the historic character of the Gospels describing Jesus’ life.

Why would the Gospels say that he was born in Bethlehem if he actually was born somewhere else?

Because the choice of Beth-lehem (a possible Eucharistic reference ? Cf. Matt. 6) reflects the themes in Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as:​

• son of David
• Davidic King
• Messiah
• Full-fillment of a lot of OT passages
  IOW, this particular passage is typically Matthean in its ideas. It is of a piece with the rest. It foreshadows something else made of wood - but for that, we have to wait until chapter 27. (See John Saward’s book)

Because Jesus is born in obscurity, the account of the Magi is particularly interesting - it is a Christian application to this infant of Psalm 72: so it implies (without heavy-handedly saying so) that this obscure infant is:

• greater than Solomon (cf. 6.28)
• ruler of a greater kingdom than Solomon’s
• ruler of an everlasting kingdom

• and that all lesser rulers shall pay Him tribute. In the meantime, His obscurity & unimportance is part of His identity as Messiah (a common idea at the time). He is a nobody:just like the nobodies whose like He shares.

There is far too much significance & depth of meaning in this one scene for a few posts to mention And all four gospels are like this.

There is no “slippery slope”, because study of the gospels can show us what the ideas & motifs are, & why. So they are not just strings of words - they are highly sophisticated, theologically & artistically. And they are full of surprises. What they are not, is Lives of Yeshu-bar-Yosheph in four volumes with engravings - the Word of God is not a tame lion, but something much more dynamic.

What do you have in mind ?​