Nativity narratives

[Neil_Anthony]

Hi Little Les,

A fable can be a legitimate type of literature used in scripture. The important thing is to first determine what type of literature the author was writing. If he was writing history, and made a mistake, we can’t then just say that it was a fable, and that is ok. No, for us to interpret a peice of scripture as a fable, it must have been the author’s intent for it to be taken that way.

When the church talks about the literal meaning, that meaning depends on the type of writing. It is what the author intended. If the author intended to write a fiction, such as the book of Judith for example, then the literal meaning is understood in the context of fiction. If it was written as history, like Chronicles, then we need to take it as history, and in that case, a historical innacuracy would indeed be error.

But you can’t generalize about all scripture that it has to be historical. That only applies to historical writing. Regarding the infancy narratives, I think most of us believe it is biographical, but there is some disagreement, and some people think it is some other genre.

After all is said and done and the rationalizations have been attempted, what remains is:

It happened and it’s history.

or

It didn’t happen and it’s not history. (It may be legend, folklore, parable, midrush, or fiction of some other type).

But if it is suppose to be divinely inspired, it can’t contain the slightest error, or God becomes the author of error.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

RESPONSE:

The word" governor" was developed from the French via Old Latin in 1257. The word didn’t even exist when the Gospels were written. However, modern translators realized that it would be accurate in current usage and better understood than “procurator.”

Thus your argument falls flat. Quirinius was the “boss” of Syria and Judea when he took the census in 6. A.D.whatever you want to call him.

Would you like a longer list than Luke and Josephus of early mostly Roman historians attesting to that fact?

No, the argument doesn’t fall flat. I don’t think you are folowing it.

What I am saying is that according to Justin Martyr, Quirinius was the Procurator, and NOT the Governor of Syria (the procurator was a sort of second-in-command, if you will, in charge of matters which were delegated to him either by the governor or by Rome directly) at the time the census Luke refers to was undertaken.

Quirinius was the GOVERNOR of Syria in 6 AD, therefore the census Luke is referring to is NOT the one of 6 AD.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Once again I read that “legend, folklore, parable, midrash, or fiction of some other type” can’t teach innerrant truth. None of those terms are synonyms for untruth - they define the literary form, NOT the quality of truth in the writing.

So where else can we go on this topic? We have all posted our favorite quotes from popes, encyclicals, papal commissions, etc. which absolutely prove that our side is the correct one. No one has given an inch either way (except that those who are new to this subject have probably run far away by now). And no one on either side has been condemned by our church.

Agree with all you say. It’s why I’m spending most of my time on my blog and doing research. This circling gets boring…lol…

 

[Little_Les]

Fortunately these are not the only choices. Another choice is that it is revelation from God presented in a non-literalistic way.

If you claim such can be the case, how about an example.

 

[Little_Les]

Once again I read that “legend, folklore, parable, midrash, or fiction of some other type” can’t teach innerrant truth. None of those terms are synonyms for untruth - they define the literary form, NOT the quality of truth in the writing.

So where else can we go on this topic? We have all posted our favorite quotes from popes, encyclicals, papal commissions, etc. which absolutely prove that our side is the correct one. No one has given an inch either way (except that those who are new to this subject have probably run far away by now). And no one on either side has been condemned by our church.

You’ve created the quote yourself by combining two unrelated statements .

Read the original post. Please see that it does not say what you quoted by combining two different statements.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Getting back to the Nativity Narratives, we find much contradiction in these supposedly divinely inspired writings.

1.Observe that Matthew is absolutely explicit that he is listing “the total number of generations” (Matt 1:7) and that he is giving the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Do you think he told the truth?

1. Matthew omits three kings of Israe (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah)l so he is not giving the “total number” And his three sets of 14 would be 42 persons. Matthew lists only 41 names.

3 Matthew includes Jeconaih in his geneaology. But In punishment for Jeconiah’s sin, God ordained that none of Jeconiah’s seed would reign over Israel.

4 Luke also claims to be listing the genealogy of Joseph (Luke 3:23) . Do you think he is telling the truth?

5 While Matthew’s genealogy continues with Solomon after David, Luke’s begins with Nathan who was never a King of Israel. According to 1Chron 22:9, it is Solomon’s, not Nathan’s, whose kingdom will last forever.

6 Curiously, both Salathiel and Zorobabel are in both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies even though Luke’s is suppose to be of Nathan’s progeny, not Solomon’s .

7 Matthew lists Jacob as the father of Joseph. Luke lists Heli as Joseph’s father.

1. Luke list a remarkable larger number of generations than does Matthew. Luke lists 40 generations between David and Joseph while Matthew lists only 25.

Are the writers both divinely inspired? Hardly.

There are answers to all of these, but I tire of this. In order to prove the Scriptures not inspired, you need to PROVE an error.

A different description of events from Gospel to Gospel is not an error. A condensation of the genealogy in order to fit a certain numerical arrangement is not an error. You can’t PROVE an error by the methods you are using.

For example, take #7. Perhaps Joseph’s father was known as both Jacob and Heli. It’s as simple as that - that is a possible explanation, so it can’t be PROVED that there is a contradiction. It can also be explained by the concept of Levirate marriage, which I won’t go into here. The point is, you have a very difficult burden to PROVE these things.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If you claim such can be the case, how about an example.

Hi Little Les,

Here are a few examples of writing styles in the bible not meant to be taken literally like a history:

Book of Revelation - in a sense this is a literal account of John’s visions, but the content of the visions is very mysterious and symbolic.

Book of Judith - this story is fiction, yet has religious themes and messages. The genre of writing is something like a novel or short story.

Genesis creation accounts - not historical. Theologians often call this genre of writing “myth” or “mytho-poetic”. The Garden of Eden story is full of obvious symbolism.

 

[buffalo]

After all is said and done and the rationalizations have been attempted, what remains is:

It happened and it’s history.

or

It didn’t happen and it’s not history. (It may be legend, folklore, parable, midrush, or fiction of some other type).

But if it is suppose to be divinely inspired, it can’t contain the slightest error, or God becomes the author of error.

God cannot deceive or be deceived, so God cannot be the author of error. God has communicated through Scripture without error. Sometimes our receiving can be faulty. This is the area that we should concentrate.

 

[Little_Les]

No, the argument doesn’t fall flat. I don’t think you are folowing it.

What I am saying is that according to Justin Martyr, Quirinius was the Procurator, and NOT the Governor of Syria (the procurator was a sort of second-in-command, if you will, in charge of matters which were delegated to him either by the governor or by Rome directly) at the time the census Luke refers to was undertaken.

Quirinius was the GOVERNOR of Syria in 6 AD, therefore the census Luke is referring to is NOT the one of 6 AD.

No. The procurator wasn’t a second in command to anyone other than the Emperor. He did not have a governor over him.

Once again, the term “governor” didn’t exist in 6 A.D.It developed about 1200 A.D.

“Later the name was applied especially to certain imperial officials in the provinces of the Roman Empire. With the establishment of the imperial power under Augustus, the emperor took under his direct government those of which the condition or situation rendered a large military force necessary. Here certain officials, known as the procuratores Caesaris, took the place occupied by the quaestor in the senatorial provinces.”
1911encyclopedia.org/Procurator

A procurator was the representative of Caesar. Quirinius fulfilled that role for Syria and Judea in 6 A.D. when he conduced a census and, according to Luke, Christ was born.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

…
The constant and unchanging faith of the Catholic Church is that “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum 11) and is therefore free from all error.

Thanks, Pete! I was just about to undertake this myself, since many here are interpreting the writings of Vatican II, and the PBC, as well as other recent authoritative and semi-authoritative sources as being in DISCONTINUITY with previous solemn definitions of the Church (i.e. that of Vatican I).

This simply cannot be. We need to interpret Church statements in continuity with previous statements, as authoritative Church statements cannot contradict each other. The Church cannot, at one time believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, and later admit they do err. Church teaching can and certainly does develop, but not be the opposite of what it was before.

 

[buffalo]

Let’s conduct a little experiment.

Step 1.

Everyone go outside and look up and describe what you see.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

No. The procurator wasn’t a second in command to anyone other than the Emperor. He did not have a governor over him.

Once again, the term “governor” didn’t exist in 6 A.D.It developed about 1200 A.D.

A procurator was the representative of Caesar. Quirinius fulfilled that role for Syria and Judea in 6 A.D. when he conduced a census and, according to Luke, Christ was born.

I don’t want to quibble with you, and I’ve about exhausted my lunch hour. The only thing I know is that when researching this matter initially, I found the following quote in the Encarta Encyclopedia:

“Aided by a procurator, who was charged with financial affairs, the governor was responsible for the running of the province”

 

[Della]

Since we are told that divine inspiration is incompatible with even the slightest error, using that criterion, none of the gospels are inspired.

Your criteria is what is wrong. Here is the answer to this assertion from an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the topic:

Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ.

The Gospel writers believed their histories to be true. If they made errors in the time of historical events, it was unintentional and no bearing on the truths they were conveying as being uninspired. The Gospels are not primarily history books. They weren’t written with that idea in mind. They were written to tell us about the Christ, his life, his teachings, and his mission. They were not biographies in the modern sense of the word and no one expected them to be at the time. I made this point I believe (it’s been so many posts ago) at the beginning of this thread. There are no falsities being palmed off on unsuspecting souls here, only a misunderstanding of what is meant by biblical inerrancy and divine inspiration on your part.

 

[Little_Les]

There are answers to all of these, but I tire of this. In order to prove the Scriptures not inspired, you need to PROVE an error.

A different description of events from Gospel to Gospel is not an error. A condensation of the genealogy in order to fit a certain numerical arrangement is not an error. You can’t PROVE an error by the methods you are using.

For example, take #7. Perhaps Joseph’s father was known as both Jacob and Heli. It’s as simple as that - that is a possible explanation, so it can’t be PROVED that there is a contradiction. It can also be explained by the concept of Levirate marriage, which I won’t go into here. The point is, you have a very difficult burden to PROVE these things.

I have proven a number of contradictions in scripture. In a contradiction, one claim (or sometime both) are in error.

If Matthew claims to list all the generations but then doesn’t that is an error. That was PROVEN

If Matthew states Jesus was a descendant of Solomon and Luke claims that Jesus was a descentant of Nathan, one is clearly in error. That was PROVEN.

Your Jacob-Heli argument lacks rationality. If Jacob was but another name for Heli, then they both would have the same genealogy. Did they?

Matthew’s version: Azor the father of Zadok. Zadok became the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Luke’s version "He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

If they didn’t, then the fact that Jacob and Heli are different people is PROVEN.

“A different description of events from Gospel to Gospel” as you put it only evidences that they were not inspired.

 

[buffalo]

I have proven a number of contradictions in scripture. In a contradiction, one claim (or sometime both) are in error.

If Matthew claims to list all the generations but then doesn’t that is an error. That was PROVEN

If Matthew states Jesus was a descendant of Solomon and Luke claims that Jesus was a descentant of Nathan, one is clearly in error. That was PROVEN.

Your Jacob-Heli argument lacks rationality. If Jacob was but another name for Heli, then they both would have the same genealogy. Did they?

Matthew’s version: Azor the father of Zadok. Zadok became the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Luke’s version "He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

If they didn’t, then the fact that Jacob and Heli are different people is PROVEN.

“A different description of events from Gospel to Gospel” as you put it only evidences that they were not inspired.

All of your claims look back through a modern lens which is faulty.

 

[Little_Les]

Your criteria is what is wrong. Here is the answer to this assertion from an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the topic:

The Gospel writers believed their histories to be true. If they made errors in the time of historical events, it was unintentional and no bearing on the truths they were conveying as being uninspired. The Gospels are not primarily history books. They weren’t written with that idea in mind. They were written to tell us about the Christ, his life, his teachings, and his mission. They were not biographies in the modern sense of the word and no one expected them to be at the time. I made this point I believe (it’s been so many posts ago) at the beginning of this thread. There are no falsities being palmed off on unsuspecting souls here, only a misunderstanding of what is meant by biblical inerrancy and divine inspiration on your part.

If they made any errors at all, then, according to papal teachings, their writings were not inspired.

Providentissimus deus #20

" For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated."

“Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write – He was so present to them – that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.”

Spiritus Paracletus

“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.”

 

[RyanL]

I have proven a number of contradictions in scripture. In a contradiction, one claim (or sometime both) are in error.

Not so fast, high speed.
Little Les:

If Matthew claims to list all the generations but then doesn’t that is an error. That was PROVEN

If Matthew states Jesus was a descendant of Solomon and Luke claims that Jesus was a descentant of Nathan, one is clearly in error. That was PROVEN.
…

Matthew’s version: Azor the father of Zadok. Zadok became the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Luke’s version "He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

If they didn’t, then the fact that Jacob and Heli are different people is PROVEN.

“A different description of events from Gospel to Gospel” as you put it only evidences that they were not inspired.

Riddle me this…

If a Torah-abiding Jewish man dies leaving a wife and kids, what’s his brother to do? Who is the father of the kids? Are any of the men in the geneologies brothers? Did any of these brothers die? Can you assure us that this is definitley not, at least in part, responsible for the variances?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Della]

If they made any errors at all, then, according to papal teachings, their writings were not inspired.

Providentissimus deus #20

" For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated."

“Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write – He was so present to them – that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.”

Spiritus Paracletus

“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.”

I didn’t make the claim that what the Gospel writers wrote was based on what was commonly believed true, but on the facts as they knew them. That is very different.

The point is there was and is no attempt being made by the Church to deceive anyone. And the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not limited to your or my definitions nor your or my inaccurate criteria for inerrancy.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

If they made any errors at all, then, according to papal teachings, their writings were not inspired.

Providentissimus deus #20

…

Little Les, while Papal encyclicals are AUTHORITATIVE, and the faithful are expected to follow them, they are not, by themselves, considered INFALLIBLE.

The quote you have given earlier from Vatican I, however, would be considered infallible.

Scripture is inerrant. It is only necessary to determine what the writer was actually asserting. Again, as Neil has pointed out, Matthew and Luke had access to each others writings. Matthew almost certainly came first, but it could go either way. Anyway, do you think that they were so stupid that they did not notice the obvious contradictions, say, in the geneologies? Or do you suppose that there IS no contradiction, and it is the case that the reasons for the discrepancies are lost to history, although we can piece together some of the reasons?

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

I have proven a number of contradictions in scripture. In a contradiction, one claim (or sometime both) are in error.

If Matthew claims to list all the generations but then doesn’t that is an error. That was PROVEN

If Matthew states Jesus was a descendant of Solomon and Luke claims that Jesus was a descentant of Nathan, one is clearly in error. That was PROVEN.

Your Jacob-Heli argument lacks rationality. If Jacob was but another name for Heli, then they both would have the same genealogy. Did they?

I am not saying that Jacob and Heli are likely to be the same person. What I am saying is that you can’t PROVE that all of the discrepancies can’t be explained by alternate naming. It is quite unlikely, to be sure, but not impossible.

The more likely explanations by far are that one geneology (Luke’s) is actually a geneology proceeding back from Mary, or that Levirate marriages are responsible for the differences. Levirate marriages were quite common at the time, so this is the most probable explanation.