Harmonization of the Nativity accounts

[WJL]

Could anyone recommend any apologetics resources which deal with the harmonization of Nativity accounts recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[WJL]

Anyone?

 

[WJL]

Could anyone help me with this issue?

 

[JonathanG]

I can recommend a resource, but unfortunately it’s not free:

nowyouknowmedia.com/The_Bible_Says_What_p/0021.htm
Author is Professor at St. John’s Seminary

It contains a lecture on the seeming historical contradictions between the infancy narratives and how the apparent contradictions can be resolved by interpreting within the biblical framework laid out in Dei Verbum. The other lectures are quite good as well.

I am sure there are many online free discussions about the infancy narratives, but I haven’t stumbled on one. Good luck!

 

[diggerdomer]

Could anyone recommend any apologetics resources which deal with the harmonization of Nativity accounts recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

What do you mean, and why do you care about, such harmonization?

 

[patg]

Could anyone recommend any apologetics resources which deal with the harmonization of Nativity accounts recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

There isn’t much point in trying to harmonize two stories which were not written with the purpose of telling the reader what literally happened. Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives employ a teaching technique common in Jesus’ culture known as midrash and the author is trying to describe events so that the listeners (or readers) understand the significance of events within the context of their lives.

The author of an infancy narrative is not responding to the question “How can I tell the story of this person’s birth exactly as it occurred?” but to the question “How can I tell this story so that the reader understands just how great this person became?” An infancy narrative is not written from a point of view contemporary with its subject’s birth; it is written in hindsight in the light of subsequent events to teach what came to be known about the person over time. The birth narratives of Jesus were written after the resurrection, after the disciples had come to understand Jesus’ true identity.

Matthew and Luke’s contemporaries would have been familiar with the technique of using an Old Testament text to cast light on a contemporary situation. This is what is happening in the infancy narratives. Images from scripture are woven around the accounts of events in order to teach the significance of those events in the lives of the audience.

The knowledge of the infancy narrative form and a knowledge of how the infancy narratives use the midrash teaching device help us understand the depth of meaning found in Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narratives. Without this knowledge we might miss Matthew’s keen perception of Jesus as the embodiment of the history of his people, especially as the new Moses, and we might miss Luke’s perception of Jesus as the God-man who has come to pasture his people. With an understanding of literary form, we are able to understand the deep meaning that is so simply and beautifully woven into Mathew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth.

 

[NotWorthy]

patg,

That is very well put.

 

[simspt]

There isn’t much point in trying to harmonize two stories which were not written with the purpose of telling the reader what literally happened. Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives employ a teaching technique common in Jesus’ culture known as midrash and the author is trying to describe events so that the listeners (or readers) understand the significance of events within the context of their lives.

The author of an infancy narrative is not responding to the question “How can I tell the story of this person’s birth exactly as it occurred?” but to the question “How can I tell this story so that the reader understands just how great this person became?” An infancy narrative is not written from a point of view contemporary with its subject’s birth; it is written in hindsight in the light of subsequent events to teach what came to be known about the person over time. The birth narratives of Jesus were written after the resurrection, after the disciples had come to understand Jesus’ true identity.

Matthew and Luke’s contemporaries would have been familiar with the technique of using an Old Testament text to cast light on a contemporary situation. This is what is happening in the infancy narratives. Images from scripture are woven around the accounts of events in order to teach the significance of those events in the lives of the audience.

The knowledge of the infancy narrative form and a knowledge of how the infancy narratives use the midrash teaching device help us understand the depth of meaning found in Matthew’s and Luke’s infancy narratives. Without this knowledge we might miss Matthew’s keen perception of Jesus as the embodiment of the history of his people, especially as the new Moses, and we might miss Luke’s perception of Jesus as the God-man who has come to pasture his people. With an understanding of literary form, we are able to understand the deep meaning that is so simply and beautifully woven into Mathew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth.

Some elements within these accounts seem to be historical while others as you mention above arent. The deep meaning seems to be the desire by the authors to retroject the uniqueness of Jesus and death/resurrection accounts attributed to him.

 

[NotWorthy]

Some elements within these accounts seem to be historical while others as you mention above arent. The deep meaning seems to be the desire by the authors to retroject the uniqueness of Jesus and death/resurrection accounts attributed to him.

Are you saying, the authors wrote the Gospel accounts after they knew “the ending”. So they included in their infancy accounts that will help “point to” key lessons in Jesus death and Resurrection.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The infancy narratives are an historical account of the conception, birth, and infancy of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are factual accounts, not parables, and not fictional stories told to make some philosophical point.

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

Luke was aware of Matthew’s infancy narrative, and so he offers additional information not found in Matthew. It is said that Luke met the Virgin Mary at some point in time (after our Lord’s Ascension), and perhaps at that time she related to him the details given in his infancy narrative. But there is no real conflict between the two accounts.

 

[Axion]

I strongly disagree with the Historical-critical view that the Gospel writers just made things up to fool people. The whole idea has no proof behind it at all, but is based on a rationalist world-view that refuses to recognise the possibility of the Divine and the Miraculous.

Once we start cutting out parts of the bible as lies or fantasy, which bits are secure? Do all the miracles go? Angels, were they made up by these lying Apostles too? Did Jesus heal anyone - let alone walk on water? Did the Last Supper actually happen? The resurrection?

See how this destructive system removes everything solid, and destroys faith. We get left with this Jewish hippy, who didn’t really know what he was saying, and who the Apostles didn’t understand anyway - if he even existed. Bring on Dan brown.

 

[simspt]

I strongly disagree with the Historical-critical view that the Gospel writers just made things up to fool people. The whole idea has no proof behind it at all, but is based on a rationalist world-view that refuses to recognise the possibility of the Divine and the Miraculous.

Once we start cutting out parts of the bible as lies or fantasy, which bits are secure? Do all the miracles go? Angels, were they made up by these lying Apostles too? Did Jesus heal anyone - let alone walk on water? Did the Last Supper actually happen? The resurrection?

See how this destructive system removes everything solid, and destroys faith. We get left with this Jewish hippy, who didn’t really know what he was saying, and who the Apostles didn’t understand anyway - if he even existed. Bring on Dan brown.

scholars change their mind therefore there will always be some degree of uncertainty. However this is true not only for modern scholars but also for those older views put forth thousands of years ago within the church. One can only do the best they can with the available information at the time. Those who try to harmonize the infancy narratives are themselves basing their views on scholarly opinions of previous centuries. Nobody is claiming the authors intent was to “fool their intended audience”

 

[simspt]

Are you saying, the authors wrote the Gospel accounts after they knew “the ending”. So they included in their infancy accounts that will help “point to” key lessons in Jesus death and Resurrection.

Yes, each narrative anticipates the Gospel proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah and has Christilogical importance that as PATG noted should be put in perspective with the OT.

 

[diggerdomer]

The infancy narratives are an historical account of the conception, birth, and infancy of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are factual accounts, not parables, and not fictional stories told to make some philosophical point.

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

Luke was aware of Matthew’s infancy narrative, and so he offers additional information not found in Matthew. It is said that Luke met the Virgin Mary at some point in time (after our Lord’s Ascension), and perhaps at that time she related to him the details given in his infancy narrative. But there is no real conflict between the two accounts.

How or if they are factual is open to interpretation according to Catholic teaching.

 

[diggerdomer]

I strongly disagree with the Historical-critical view that the Gospel writers just made things up to fool people. The whole idea has no proof behind it at all, but is based on a rationalist world-view that refuses to recognise the possibility of the Divine and the Miraculous.

Once we start cutting out parts of the bible as lies or fantasy, which bits are secure? Do all the miracles go? Angels, were they made up by these lying Apostles too? Did Jesus heal anyone - let alone walk on water? Did the Last Supper actually happen? The resurrection?

See how this destructive system removes everything solid, and destroys faith. We get left with this Jewish hippy, who didn’t really know what he was saying, and who the Apostles didn’t understand anyway - if he even existed. Bring on Dan brown.

The historical-critical approach to Scripture scholarship does not consider Gospels (or any Scripture) as “made up to fool people.”

If you think that, you have a gross misunderstanding of Scripture scholarship. If such is true, you might benefit from reading what the Pontifical Biblical Commission taught about the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

The infancy narratives are an historical account of the conception, birth, and infancy of our Lord Jesus Christ. These are factual accounts, not parables, and not fictional stories told to make some philosophical point.

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

Luke was aware of Matthew’s infancy narrative, and so he offers additional information not found in Matthew. It is said that Luke met the Virgin Mary at some point in time (after our Lord’s Ascension), and perhaps at that time she related to him the details given in his infancy narrative. But there is no real conflict between the two accounts.

Where does the Catholic Church teach that these are historical accounts? Thanks for any (current, relevant) reference.

 

[Axion]

How or if they are factual is open to interpretation according to Catholic teaching.

Not at all.

**For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and Trent, and finally and more expressly formulated by the [First] Council of the Vatican *(*Pope Leo XIII encyclical Providentissimus Deus EB 124-125).

The historical-critical approach to Scripture scholarship does not consider Gospels (or any Scripture) as “made up to fool people.”

That is precisely what some of its adherents say (if in less honest terms). They say that the infancy accounts, the miracles and other significant accounts in the Old and New Testaments were basically invented by authors to make a point, or to provide Jesus with miracles and an origin to befit his status as Messiah. That is making things up to fool people. There is no getting round it.

If you think that, you have a gross misunderstanding of Scripture scholarship. If such is true, you might benefit from reading what the Pontifical Biblical Commission taught about the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

Nothing in that document allows one to argue that the Apostles invented the infancy narratives, the miracles or teachings of Jesus. Nor does it attempt to contradict Providentissimus Deus or any of the statements of the Councils of the Church.

In fact the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1964 declared

"After Jesus rose from the dead and his divinity was clearly perceived, faith, far from destroying the memory of what had transpired, rather confirmed it, because their faith rested on the things which Jesus did and taught. Nor was he changed into a ‘mythical’ person and his teaching deformed in consequence of the worship which the disciples from that time on paid Jesus as the Lord and Son of God. On the other hand, there is no reason to deny that the apostles passed on to their listeners what was really said and done by the Lord with that fuller understanding which they enjoyed, having been instructed by the glorious events of the Christ and taught by the light of the Spirit of Truth."

Where does the Catholic Church teach that these are historical accounts? Thanks for any (current, relevant) reference.

How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

**106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71 **
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 that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

**126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels: **
1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.” 2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100
3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101
A good Catholic Answers article on this subject:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407fea3.asp

 

[Ron_Conte]

Several Popes and Councils have definitively and infallibly taught that Scripture is entirely inspired and therefore entirely inerrant. This teaching requires the full assent of faith. It is not an open question as to whether or not Scripture makes false assertions on any matter, whether faith or morals or history or other matters.

The teachings of the PBC is not infallible, and so its teaching cannot be cited to overrule or contradict the teaching of Popes and Councils.

Sacred Tradition has always held that the infancy narratives are factual descriptions of the beginning of the human life of Jesus Christ.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Where does the Catholic Church teach that these are historical accounts? Thanks for any (current, relevant) reference.

Why does the reference have to be ‘current’ ? The teaching of the Church does not have an expiration date.

There is no teaching of the Magisterium stating that the infancy narratives are fictional.

The inerrancy of Scripture on matters of history was taught by the Magisterium in the quote that I cited above. Also, Sacred Tradition has always held the infancy narratives to be true accounts. None of the Fathers, Doctors, or Saints ever held that these are stories invented to make a point. They all have treated these stories as historical descriptions.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Seven Words on the Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture

1. Pope St. Clement I: “Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.” (Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 45).
2. Pope Leo XIII: “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).
3. Pope St. Pius X condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, ‘Syllabus of Errors,’ n. 11).
4. Pope Benedict XV: “St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error…. 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…. Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text….” (Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16, 18, 21).
5. Pope Pius XII: “they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Humani Generis, n. 22).
6. Pope Pius XII: “The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that ‘the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.’ In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical ‘not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.’ When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as ‘obiter dicta’ and – as they contended – in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).
7. Second Vatican Council: “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit….” (Dei Verbum, n. 11).