Harmonization of the Nativity accounts

[GraceSofia]

Here is one: The Four Fold Gospel

Look to the left of your screen where it says*** Book Information, Table of Contents***. Click on The Period of Christ’s Life…
Note that the author is Protestant, but if you just want to see the verses harmonized, it doesn’t matter.

If you don’t like that one, do a search of “harmony of the gospels online” and you will get a lot of hits.

 

[patg]

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.

Saying that something is a mostly fictional “Infancy Narrative” defines the literary form, it does not comment on the truth of the writing at all. The infancy narratives are entirely true - they are also mostly fiction invented to teach that truth. I tried to explain this in my original post.

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

There is no dogma or doctrine requiring literalistic belief in the historicity of the Infancy Narratives. The idea that there is comes from a fundamentalistic misunderstanding of the literary form of the stories.

 

[patg]

Seven Words on the Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture…

Fiction is a perfectly valid vehicle for revelation and can certainly be inerrant (just as Jesus’ parables are both fiction and inerrant).

 

[GraceSofia]

Saint Augustine here: newadvent.org/fathers/1602.htm

 

[ab75]

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.

I thought the Church allowed us to believe that it is only inerrant in items that effect faith, for example, we don’t have to ascent to a 6 day creation, young earth, 1,000 year reign etc as literal.

 

[CathFaith1]

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

That may depends on the exegesis or eisegesis practiced,
Historical-Critical Scripture Studies and the Catholic Faith.

The historical-critical method can be a very useful tool yet as Joseph Ratzinger noted in Jesus of Nazareth it must be met with caution that it’s usefulness with Scripture is limited: one must also read Scripture theologically, and view each passage of the Bible as part of a larger canonical whole.

Let us look at this more precisely. The historical-critical method is an excellent instrument for reading historical sources and interpreting texts. But it contains its own philosophy, which in general—for example when I try to study the history of medieval emperors—is hardly important. And this is because in that case I want to know the past and nothing more. But even this cannot be done in a neutral way, and so there are also limits to the method.

RELATIVISM: THE CENTRAL PROBLEM FOR FAITH TODAY,

 

[patg]

I thought the Church allowed us to believe that it is only inerrant in items that effect faith, for example, we don’t have to ascent to a 6 day creation, young earth, 1,000 year reign etc as literal.

That is true - there are only a small number of stories which must be believed as literal historical accounts. Inerrancy applies to the truth being expressed and fictional genres are often the best way to express truths.

As Dei Verbum dogmatically states:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.

 

[ab75]

That is true - there are only a small number of stories which must be believed as literal historical accounts. Inerrancy applies to the truth being expressed and fictional genres are often the best way to express truths.

As Dei Verbum dogmatically states:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.

I’m not sure if the birth narratives are 100% literal or not, but if the creation isn’t 100% literal, I’m not sure why the birth narrative would be required to be.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I thought the Church allowed us to believe that it is only inerrant in items that effect faith, for example, we don’t have to ascent to a 6 day creation, young earth, 1,000 year reign etc as literal.

There are two levels of meaning to Scripture:

1. literal/figurative
2. spiritual

Some assertions by Scripture are figurative, such as using the term ‘day’ to refer to an unspecified period of time, or using the figure of a serpent in a garden to represent Satan. Other assertions by Scripture are literal, such as that God created heaven and earth, and that Adam and Eve fell from grace.

It is never possible for Scripture to make a false assertion on the literal/figurative level of meaning, in order to assert a truth on the spiritual level of meaning.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The parabolical [figurative] sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God’s arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.” (Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.)

The infancy narratives cannot be fiction, i.e. false on the literal/figurative level of meaning, in order to teach truths on the spiritual level of meaning, because then truth would be based on falsehoods.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Fiction is a perfectly valid vehicle for revelation and can certainly be inerrant (just as Jesus’ parables are both fiction and inerrant).

The Magisterium teaches that Scripture is entirely inspired and entirely inerrant.

Allowing that almost any passage in Scripture may be fictional nullifies inerrancy. The passage then takes on whatever meaning the interpreter gives to it, on the spiritual level of meaning; the literal/figurative level of meaning becomes null and void. This allows imposing any set of beliefs on Scripture – which is just what modernist interpreters do.

Allowing that any genre may be used by Scripture, in any manner, nullifies inerrancy. Therefore, there must be limits to the use of literary genres by Scripture. The claim that a passage is a particular genre cannot be used to make the literal/figurative level of meaning false or fictional or irrelevant. Otherwise inerrancy would be meaningless.

Since a definitive magisterial teaching cannot be meaningless, or null and void, the idea that Scripture can be fictional must be false.

Jesus’ parables are not fiction. They express truths by means of figures on the literal/figurative level of meaning, and then those truths express further truths on the spiritual level of meaning.

But the infancy narratives are not figurative; they are not parables.

Sacred infallible Tradition has always held that the infancy narratives are factual history.

 

[ab75]

There are two levels of meaning to Scripture:

1. literal/figurative
2. spiritual

Some assertions by Scripture are figurative, such as using the term ‘day’ to refer to an unspecified period of time, or using the figure of a serpent in a garden to represent Satan. Other assertions by Scripture are literal, such as that God created heaven and earth, and that Adam and Eve fell from grace.

It is never possible for Scripture to make a false assertion on the literal/figurative level of meaning, in order to assert a truth on the spiritual level of meaning.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The parabolical [figurative] sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God’s arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.” (Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.)

The infancy narratives cannot be fiction, i.e. false on the literal/figurative level of meaning, in order to teach truths on the spiritual level of meaning, because then truth would be based on falsehoods.

I believe our last two Popes have not only allowed, but in some level believed that God used a form of evolution to “create” Adam and Eve, and indicate that doesn’t change that God created man, or the soul, or our relationship with God that Genesis brings out.

If this is an accepted position, I have a hard time declaring that there couldn’t be elements of the birth narratives that aren’t 100% literal. I certainly could be wrong, and neither position effects my faith, I’m just saying if someone can prove difinitively that something in the narratives aren’t 100% literal, it wouldn’t shake my faith.

 

[patg]

The infancy narratives cannot be fiction, i.e. false on the literal/figurative level of meaning, in order to teach truths on the spiritual level of meaning, because then truth would be based on falsehoods.

So Jesus’ parables cannot be fiction? - false stories in order to teach truths? Your whole statement is illogical and an insult to every author who’s ever written. From the first stories we read our children to the historical novelists who teach us what the world was really like through fictional characters to many of the accounts in the bible, we are surrounded by authors who use fictional accounts to teach truths. The bible doesn’t stop being literature because the church claims it is inspired or inerrant.

The word “inerrant” says nothing about the literary form of the writing. Do you not understand “midrash” as I have used it or do you deny that it exists?

Alexander the Great has almost the same infancy narratives as Jesus - are we to believe that these must be history also? or do we acknowledge that the Infancy narratives of both of them represent a common ancient literary form which was known to be fictional? Dei Verbum dogmatically instructs us to do the latter.

 

[Axion]

Fiction is a perfectly valid vehicle for revelation and can certainly be inerrant (just as Jesus’ parables are both fiction and inerrant).

There is a HUGE difference between a parable - which is presented clearly in scripture as a fictional tale, told to illustrate a point - and an account, like the infancy narratives or the healings of Jesus, reported as history.

In a parable, the fictional nature of the story is made clear. In an account of the infancy of Jesus, the material is presented as historic (see first verses of Luke) with nothing to indicate that it is in any way fictional or allegorical. If this material were fiction, the Gospel writer would be duty bound to tell us so, or be convicted of charlatanry.

 

[Axion]

So Jesus’ parables cannot be fiction? - false stories in order to teach truths? Your whole statement is illogical and an insult to every author who’s ever written. From the first stories we read our children to the historical novelists who teach us what the world was really like through fictional characters to many of the accounts in the bible, we are surrounded by authors who use fictional accounts to teach truths. The bible doesn’t stop being literature because the church claims it is inspired or inerrant.

Nonsense. Jesus’s parables are clearly presented as allegories and fictions. They are introduced as tales old by Jesus. The infancy narratives are presented as FACTUAL., as is the rest of the gospel account. This is stated by the author of Luke at the start. A historical novel too is presented clearly a fiction. A book about Churchill claiming to be a true account that said that angels attended his birth would be excoriated, no matter what “truth” the author claimed to be revealing.

The word “inerrant” says nothing about the literary form of the writing. Do you not understand “midrash” as I have used it or do you deny that it exists?

In an account which decribes itself as factual, any other literary form must be clearly signalled and marked-off to the reader - as are Jesus’s parables or the visions of Peter.

Alexander the Great has almost the same infancy narratives as Jesus - are we to believe that these must be history also? or do we acknowledge that the Infancy narratives of both of them represent a common ancient literary form which was known to be fictional? Dei Verbum dogmatically instructs us to do the latter.

Again, nonsense. The infancy of Alexander the Great is not a subject of scripture. Anyway, as far as I can see Alexander was born quite normally, although his parents had dreams of lightning and other things.Alexander tamed a horse at age 12. Maybe he did, I couldn’t swear either way, but these histories are not of the charater of Divine scripture, so totally irrelevant.

 

[ab75]

In an account which decribes itself as factual, any other literary form must be clearly signalled and marked-off to the reader - as are Jesus’s parables or the visions of Peter.

So Genesis must be factual and literal?

 

[Axion]

I thought the Church allowed us to believe that it is only inerrant in items that effect faith, for example, we don’t have to ascent to a 6 day creation, young earth, 1,000 year reign etc as literal.

The church teaches that the bible is truth, and that any limitation of this to the “moral” truth or the truth only as much as it applies to salvation, is condemned…

Certain parts of the Bible are clearly indicated by the writers to be parable or allegory, and have always been interpreted in this manner. Jesus’s parables, and the visions of Peter and John, are this sort of writing. The 1000 year reign is part of such a vision and can therefore be interpreted allegorically. The 6 day creation can clearly not be confined to six 24 hour days, since the sun does not appear until, I think, the third “day”. The days can thus be interpreted as epochs. I don’t see anything hard to accept about “Let there be light”, or about God creating all creatures (by whatever method).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Greetings in the Lord, Everyone!

Here is what some recent Popes have written on the historical nature of the infancy narratives:

Pope Paul VI (translated using Google Translate, and by borrowing from and consulting with the excerpted material found in , Chapter 6Outline of Christology.):
“THE NECESSARY AND CONSTANT SEARCH FOR JESUS

“So, dear sons, we must seek out Jesus, by making a study of what we know about him; and this brings us back to the image of the crib, to the record of the Gospel story. The premier knowledge that we have of Christ is documented in the Gospels. If we have not had the fortune of immediate knowledge and experience of the Lord, we must seek to have a historical knowledge, a reliable memory of him, giving due attention to the human form of writing, in which the Word of God is revealed.

“And here, straightaway, there are grand discussions, grand difficulties, and grand incantations of studies and interpretations, which attempt to diminish the historical value of the Gospels themselves, especially those relating to the birth of Jesus and His infancy. We briefly mention this devaluation of the historical content of the wonderful pages of the Gospel, so that you may know how to defend, with study and with faith, the comforting assurance that those pages are not inventions of the popular imagination, but that they speak the truth. ‘The apostles’ – writes one in the know, Cardinal Bea – ‘have a genuine historical interest. It is clearly not a historical interest in the sense of Greco-Latin history, an annotated and chronologically ordered history, which is an end in itself; but it is an interest in past events just the same with the intention to report and hand down faithfully what was done and said in the past.’”

“FEEDING THE FAITH WITH THE READING OF THE GOSPEL

“The self-same is proved by the concept expressed by the words, ‘testimone’, ‘testimonianza’, and ‘testimoniare’, which in its various forms is used in the New Testament over 150 times (La storicità dei Vang. sin., in Civ. Catt., 1964; II, 417-436 and 526-545). The authority of the Council has not pronounced differently on this: ‘The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us about Jesus with sincerity and truth’ (Dei Verbum, 19)” (General Audience, December 28, 1966).

If you’d like to see how John Paul II reads the Infancy Narratives, you can read his apostolic exhortation, Redemptoris Custos. It is easy to see that he reads them as straightforward historical narratives. In his General Audience of January 28, 1987, he says that “both texts of the ‘infancy Gospel’ agree on the fundamental facts. Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary. They are complementary in clarifying the circumstances of this extraordinary happening; Luke in reference to Mary, Matthew in reference to Joseph.” Complementary in the circumstances, not contradictory. He also identifies Mary as “one of the sources of the information used by [Luke] in writing ‘the infancy Gospel.’” For more on Mary as source, see Chapter 4 of Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?.

Klemens Stock, Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (I’m not sure if he still holds this appointment or not), writes:

“Nowadays the credibility of the infancy narratives is called into question from many points of view. What is related in them is difficult to verify from other sources, and many elements have a rather unusual character… [The different events relayed by Matthew and Luke] are not contradictory, but can be linked, though not always easily… Due to [the presence of extraordinary elements], often the infancy narratives are not accorded any historical value… We must therefore examine the character and the historical value of the infancy narratives… The points on which the different infancy narratives agree, suggest that in their essence they are historically correct… We can therefore count on the fundamental historical credibility of the infancy narratives… The infancy narratives are a part of the truth proclaimed by the Gospels and can only be put in doubt by challenging the truth of the entire Gospel” (, pp. 11, 12, 15, 17Mary the Mother of the Lord in the New Testament).

 

[Pete_Holter]

In terms of chronological harmonization, here is how I think things may have happened:

1. Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth. (Luke 1:26)
2. They travel to Bethlehem for the census. (Luke 2:4)
3. While in Bethlehem, Joseph finds work there or perhaps strengthens a network of friends and family that he decides to maintain closer bonds with. (A conjecture carrying no authority, but which serves to explain all of the Biblical data. )
4. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, and, as said, Mary and Joseph decide that they want to live here. (Matt 2:1 and Luke 2:6-7)
5. After 40 days they go to Jerusalem for the purification. (Luke 2:22)
6. They return to Nazareth to say their goodbyes and to collect other belongings for their more permanent stay in Bethlehem. (returning to Nazareth: Luke 2:39; to say their goodbyes: another conjecture carrying no authority.)
7. They return to Bethlehem and the magi pay a visit to them in their new home. (returning to Bethlehem: yet another conjecture carrying no authority; the visit of the magi: Matt 2:1-12; the house: Matt 2:11; the newness of the house: derived from the conjectures lacking authority. )
8. They flee to Egypt. (Matt 2:13-15)
9. Herod seeks to kill Jesus. (Matt 2:16-18)
10. They want to return to Bethlehem but are unable, and they end up back in Nazareth. (Matt 2:19-23)

“Those sacred chariots of the Lord (the four Gospels), however, in which He is borne throughout the earth and brings the peoples under His easy yoke and His light burden, are assailed with calumnious charges by certain persons who, in impious vanity or in ignorant temerity, think to rob of their credit as veracious historians those teachers by whose instrumentality the Christian religion has been disseminated all the world over, and through whose efforts it has yielded fruits so plentiful that unbelievers now scarcely dare so much as to mutter their slanders in private among themselves, kept in check by the faith of the Gentiles and by the devotion of all the peoples. Nevertheless, inasmuch as they still strive by their calumnious disputations to keep some from making themselves acquainted with the faith, and thus prevent them from becoming believers, while they also endeavour to the utmost of their power to excite agitations among others who have already attained to belief, and thereby give them trouble; and further, as there are some brethren who, without detriment to their own faith, have a desire to ascertain what answer can be given to such questions, either for the advantage of their own knowledge or for the purpose of refuting the vain utterances of their enemies, with the inspiration and help of the Lord our God (and would that it might prove profitable for the salvation of such men), we have undertaken in this work to demonstrate the errors or the rashness of those who deem themselves able to prefer charges, the subtlety of which is at least sufficiently observable, against those four different books of the gospel which have been written by these four several evangelists. And in order to carry out this design to a successful conclusion, we must prove that the writers in question do not stand in any antagonism to each other. For those adversaries are in the habit of adducing this as the palmary allegation in all their vain objections, namely, that the evangelists are not in harmony with each other” (Saint Augustine, , Bk 1, Ch 7, 10The Harmony of the Gospels).

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[kwortham]

If it is fit for your discussion, I thought that I would post something that I posted to Usenet ten years ago. Several people mentioned that it helped them. Yes, I am new here and ask for forgiveness if this is a bit too long.

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for fundamentalist Christians. My challenge
is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for
proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me
exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was
born.

Your goal is to cause the weak of faith to stumble. Your method is the
classic “bird in hand” ploy.

A Bird in Hand—

A young man, full of himself, heard about a wise old man that lived on a
mountain. It was said that this man could answer the challenge of any
man.

Seeking to make a name for himself, the young man reasoned within himself
to outwit the wise man. Before he set out for his journey, to the
mountain of the old man, the young man bought a bird. Whereupon, he said
to himself, “I will hide the bird in my hands and behind my back. I will
then ask the old man whether, or not, the bird is alive or dead. If he
says that the bird is dead, then I will open my hands and allow the bird
to fly free. On the other hand, if he answers that the bird is alive,
then I will crush the bird within my hands and then show him the body of
the dead bird.”

You challenge Christians to harmonize the Resurrection accounts down to
the smallest detail. Your presuppostion is that a failure to do so will
negate the validity of the gospel accounts, and more specifically the
validity of Christ. On the surface, your challenge appeares reasonable.
Upon deeper investigation, your trap is revealed.

What is the nature of your trap? It is revealed using the following
supposition. Suppose that all of our Resurrection accounts matched detail
for detail. You would be in this newsgroup challenging Christians to
prove the Resurrection!!! How so? Your logic would be this. “Since all of
the gospel accounts of the resurrection match detail for detail, then the
gospel writers conspired together to lie, and carefully rehearsed
together what they wrote. Therefore, the gospel is nothing more than a
conspiracy of men.”

The above supposition demonstrates the Win-Win nature of this game for
you. If the accounts match, then you cry “CONSPIRACY!” If the accounts
seem to show variations, then you cry “THE WITNESSES ARE NOT CREDIBLE
AND, THEREFORE, THE STORY IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED!”

Which account of a car wreck will a courtroom judge believe? The
plaintiff has two witnesses that agree in general with the testimony of
the plaintiff. However, one of the witnesses says that it was cloudy. The
other witness says that it was beginning to rain. However, they both
agree that the defendent ran a red light and crashed into the car of the
plaintiff. On the other side of this court case, we have the defendent.

The defendent, also, has two witnesses. Both of these witnesses agree
with the defendent in every detail. As a matter of fact, they even
testify using the same order in rendering their accounts. Furthermore,
they even use similar, or the same, choice of words and phrases.

Which set of witnesses, above, is to be believed?

Of course, a judge will believe the witnesses for the plaintiff, because
it is normal for truthful witnesses to superficially disagree in trivial
details. However, it takes much conspiring together to make each
witnesses accounts match perfectly. This is a sure sign of rehearsal and
the extreme likelihood of fabrication. To be sure, produce for this
newsgroup two, or more, eyewitness accounts of the Pearl Harbor attack in
which the witnesses agree on every detail and in the exact order. One old
sailor will say 170 planes attacked. Another will say that it was over
200. Does the fact that they disagree disprove the attack on Pearl
Harbor. NOT HARDLY!

The gospel accounts of the Resurrection at first seem to conflict.
However, on the major point that the Resurrection did occur, there is no
disagreement.

[Back to the story of the Bird in Hand]… What was the reply of the wise
old man to the arrogant young man??? It was this:

    "It is as you wish it to be, my son. It is as you wish it."

Are the gospel Resurrection accounts “false” because (a) They have minor
variations or (b) They match each other in detail so close that they show
a conspiracy of the writers, together, to lie to us the readers?

    "It is as you wish it to be, my son. It is as you wish it."

Your heart wishes for Christ to be a “fairy tale.” Hence, it would be a
“fairy tale” for you whether the accounts matched exactly, or they had
simple variations.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Where does the Catholic Church teach today that the Scripture is entirely inerrant a you claim? Thanks for the reference. I know it’s not in the Catechism, not in Vatican II, not in anything from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, so I’m looking forward to learning where the Church teaches such. Thank you again.