Nativity narratives

[Little_Les]

Is a Catholic to regard Matthew’s and Luke’s nativity narratives as historical accounts of actual events, or as an allegory or story about the legendary events surrounding Jesus’ birth?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

That’s an interesting question – one I’ve never really thought about. I think the nativity story has always had a kind of magical, wondrous quality to me. Angels singing, stars shining, Eastern kings mixing with shepherds. Did it all happen exactly that way? Probably not – especially since Matthew and Luke don’t agree on the details themselves.

What I know – with absolutely no doubt – is that Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. He was fully human, born as a completely vulnerable baby. And in his birth, God broke into the world in a special way, confirming his love for us and his desire to reach out to us. And through the birth of that tiny baby, the world was changed forever.

 

[Little_Les]

That’s an interesting question – one I’ve never really thought about. I think the nativity story has always had a kind of magical, wondrous quality to me. Angels singing, stars shining, Eastern kings mixing with shepherds. Did it all happen exactly that way? Probably not – especially since Matthew and Luke don’t agree on the details themselves.

What I know – with absolutely no doubt – is that Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. He was fully human, born as a completely vulnerable baby. And in his birth, God broke into the world in a special way, confirming his love for us and his desire to reach out to us. And through the birth of that tiny baby, the world was changed forever.

RESPONSE:

How do you reconcile that view with Spiritus Paracletus , art 22?

1. 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.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I’m sorry I responded to your question. In thinking about the wonder of the Incarnation I certainly wasn’t looking for an argument or to be told that I am out of harmony with church teaching.

 

[Della]

Is a Catholic to regard Matthew’s and Luke’s nativity narratives as historical accounts of actual events, or as an allegory or story about the legendary events surrounding Jesus’ birth?

The Nativity stories in the NT are true accounts. Having said that, they are not meant to be read as bald histories, or as a part of a biography, as we think of such accounts today. Even today, though authors pick and choose what they feel needs to be included according to what they are trying to convey to their readers.

Matthew wished to emphasis how Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, so he chose to relate those incidents that supported his purpose. Luke wished to make Jesus’ life and mission understandable to its pagan recipient, Theophilus (Lk 1:3).

We live in an age that wants/needs to explain everything in scientific terms, but even science does not claim to explain everything–that is not its purpose.

It is therefore unrealistic and unfair to demand (not that you are but many do) that the narratives of a culture far removed from us in time and in assumed beliefs should fit into our less than faith-filled mind sets. Yes?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m sorry I responded to your question. In thinking about the wonder of the Incarnation I certainly wasn’t looking for an argument or to be told that I am out of harmony with church teaching.

The Magisterium police are always ready to pounce it seems. I thought your points were quite accurate. Obviously neither Matthew nor Luke claim to have been witnesses to these events. They obviously learned them either as oral traditions or in other writings material they had to construct their respective Gospels. I assume that at least in part, that answers they somwhat different accounts. But the IMPORTANT facts are as you stated, God incarnated in flesh to redeem us.

 

[buffalo]

The Magisterium police are always ready to pounce it seems. I thought your points were quite accurate. Obviously neither Matthew nor Luke claim to have been witnesses to these events. They obviously learned them either as oral traditions or in other writings material they had to construct their respective Gospels. I assume that at least in part, that answers they somwhat different accounts. But the IMPORTANT facts are as you stated, God incarnated in flesh to redeem us.

Let’s see - who might know about the infancy - could it be Mary herself?


The Infancy **narratives - **
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

 

[buffalo]

** REGARDING THE BACKGROUND OF MATTHEW 2
In answer to the form-critical analysis of Raymond Brown**

…14. From the viewpoint of historical science. Raymond Brown’s conclusion that the writer of Matthew 2:22-23 invented the journey of Mary, Joseph, and the Infant Jesus to Nazareth after a non-existent return from Egypt to Judea does not stand up under critical analysis. Brown’s refusal to accord historical fact to this report of Matthew is based upon unproved assumptions, faulty reasoning, and anachronism. The “internal tensions” within Matthew’s account and the conflicting affirmations that Brown espies between the first two chapters of Matthew and the first two chapters of Luke can be satisfactorily resolved with a little study. Historical scientists do make use of conflicting testimony to help them to ascertain the historical facts, but they first use their ingenuity and resourcefulness to see if the conflicts are really there. Form-critics often use what are only apparent conflicts or contradictions to build their system of conclusions. In this respect form-critics are not historical scientists.

 

[Little_Les]

The Magisterium police are always ready to pounce it seems. I thought your points were quite accurate. Obviously neither Matthew nor Luke claim to have been witnesses to these events. They obviously learned them either as oral traditions or in other writings material they had to construct their respective Gospels. I assume that at least in part, that answers they somwhat different accounts. But the IMPORTANT facts are as you stated, God incarnated in flesh to redeem us.

RESPONSE:

“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 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.”(Providentissimus deus)

Contradictory accounts can’t both claim inspiration. One must be in error.

For example, King Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. When Judea came under his control, Quirinius conducted as census (6 A.D.)

Jesus could not have been born both before 4 B.C. and after 6 A.D. Either Matthew or Luke are in error.

 

[scottm]

What I know – with absolutely no doubt – is that Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. He was fully human, born as a completely vulnerable baby.

How do you know this? Were you there?
See, the only people I know of who wrote about happening are Matthew and Luke, and you just said that they got the story wrong. You’re not making sense to me.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Let’s see - who might know about the infancy - could it be Mary herself?

I would assume her to be the prime source indeed.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

** REGARDING THE BACKGROUND OF MATTHEW 2
In answer to the form-critical analysis of Raymond Brown**

…14. From the viewpoint of historical science. Raymond Brown’s conclusion that the writer of Matthew 2:22-23 invented the journey of Mary, Joseph, and the Infant Jesus to Nazareth after a non-existent return from Egypt to Judea does not stand up under critical analysis. Brown’s refusal to accord historical fact to this report of Matthew is based upon unproved assumptions, faulty reasoning, and anachronism. The “internal tensions” within Matthew’s account and the conflicting affirmations that Brown espies between the first two chapters of Matthew and the first two chapters of Luke can be satisfactorily resolved with a little study. Historical scientists do make use of conflicting testimony to help them to ascertain the historical facts, but they first use their ingenuity and resourcefulness to see if the conflicts are really there. Form-critics often use what are only apparent conflicts or contradictions to build their system of conclusions. In this respect form-critics are not historical scientists.

It would be nice to have the source of this buffalo…I’d like it for sure. I’m always reading these arguments.

RESPONSE:

“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 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.”(Providentissimus deus)

“I don’t think that’s a correct statement. I believe that the Church teaches that scripture is inerrent as it pertains to faith and salvtation. That does not mean that all historical, scientific, cosmological statements are inerrent, as long as the qualifier is met.”

Contradictory accounts can’t both claim inspiration. One must be in error.

For example, King Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. When Judea came under his control, Quirinius conducted as census (6 A.D.)

Jesus could not have been born both before 4 B.C. and after 6 A.D. Either Matthew or Luke are in error.

So what is your explanation?

 

[Little_Les]

It would be nice to have the source of this buffalo…I’d like it for sure. I’m always reading these arguments.

So what is your explanation?

RESPONSE:

Only one of the nativity narratives can be historical and thus claim divine inspiration. The other one is fiction. Or both are fiction.

Thus this statement in Providentissimus deus #20 is in error too:

" 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 Ghost; 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 of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican"

NOTE: Solemn definitions of ecumenical councils are supposedly nfallible by way of the extraordinary magisterium. Constant and unchanging teachings of the Church are infallible by way of the universal ordinary magisterium. But aren’t they both wrong in this case?

 

[Della]

RESPONSE:
Contradictory accounts can’t both claim inspiration. One must be in error.

For example, King Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. When Judea came under his control, Quirinius conducted as census (6 A.D.)

Jesus could not have been born both before 4 B.C. and after 6 A.D. Either Matthew or Luke are in error.

But neither Matthew nor Luke give us any dates for Jesus’ birth only the circumstances surrounding it. Where are you getting these dates? And the Church has never defined the year, either. I have to conclude that one of your dates is probably inaccurate, if not both.

 

[Little_Les]

But neither Matthew nor Luke give us any dates for Jesus’ birth only the circumstances surrounding it. Where are you getting these dates? And the Church has never defined the year, either. I have to conclude that one of your dates is probably inaccurate, if not both.

RESPONSE:

Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census Quirinius directed.

It is known that Herod died in 4 B.C., and that the census was conducted by Quirinius when Judea came under the control of the governor of Syria in 6 A.D. Check Josephus and other historians of this period.

We don’t need a Church “definition” to know the prominant dates of history.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

How do you know this? Were you there?
See, the only people I know of who wrote about happening are Matthew and Luke, and you just said that they got the story wrong. You’re not making sense to me.

I didn’t say they got the story wrong, I said they disagreed on details. Angels or no angels? Shepherds or no shepherds? Manger or no manger? If there was a census requiring them to travel to Bethlehem, don’t you think Matthew might have mentioned it as well? If three kings from the East came to pay homage, shouldn’t Luke have known about them?

We tend to meld the two stories together and put up creches that include shepherds and kings, but they don’t appear that way in Scripture.

But I think you can discern Truth – that Jesus is the Word made flesh – without worrying about the details.

You know what? I don’t take the creation stories in Genesis as fact either, though I do think they express the Truth about all creation ultimately coming from God.

RESPONSE:Only one of the nativity narratives can be historical and thus claim divine inspiration. The other one is fiction. Or both are fiction.

Or they are both inspired and the differences come from the fact that God didn’t dictate the Scriptures but relied on humans to write them down.

 

[Little_Les]

RESPONSE:

I’m afraid that what you are implying is contrary to Church teaching:

Providentissimus:
“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.”

"Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated."And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: “Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things – we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution.”

Do you disagree?

 

[pete_29]

RESPONSE:

I’m afraid that what you are implying is contrary to Church teaching:

Providentissimus:
“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.”

"Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. “Therefore,” says St. Augustine, “since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated.”[And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: “Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things – we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution.”

Do you disagree?

You don’t want answers, You just want a stupid argument. I hope all this diatribe makes you feel better about yourself.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Little_Les]

But neither Matthew nor Luke give us any dates for Jesus’ birth only the circumstances surrounding it. Where are you getting these dates? And the Church has never defined the year, either. I have to conclude that one of your dates is probably inaccurate, if not both.

RESPONSE:

Would you accept the footnotes of the American bishop approved Catholic New American Bible?

Matt 2:1 When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, (NAB)

2 [1] In the days of King Herod: Herod reigned from 37 to 4 B.C.

Luke 2:1-3 1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus 2 that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town. (NAB)

[1-2] . P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up.

There are your dates. Herod died in 4 B.C. and the census was in 6-7 A.D. a difference of ten years.

 

[pete_29]

How do you know this? Were you there?
See, the only people I know of who wrote about happening are Matthew and Luke, and you just said that they got the story wrong. You’re not making sense to me.

How do you know that the people that love you actually love you. I’m sure you would say that you know that they do. Faith is the same way. You don’t have to be there to know otherwise you could say that Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist.