Nativity narratives

[Little_Les]

Well there are independent sources for Jesus having lived so I would assume that meant he was born. And as usual, given your fundamentalist desires, you wish to throw out the entire bible because of some possible disagreement between Luke and Matthew or that some dating may be incorrect? You wanted to throw out the bible because of Evolution too…Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not particularly smart thinking.

RESPONSE:

Who said anything about “throwing out the entire Bible.” That conclusion is based on the logical fallacy termed the “either-or” reasoning. “You have to accept the entire Bible as accurate or throw it all out”… or something like that.

I’d just propose that we recognize what happened and is history, and what didn’t happen and is folklore.

We should also recognize that divine inspiration is not compatible with error. If error is present, it’s men’s not God’s.

 

[patg]

Originally Posted by patg;2917569>>
It’s interesting to note that when we read of the origins of Alexander the Great or the Caesars or the Pharoahs, we casually pass over, with a knowing smile, the stories of divine origins, celestial events that accompanied their births, geologic upheavels, omens and portents because we know these were fiction meant to dramatize the importance of these individuals. We know that these “infancy narratives” were common then and mostly unused in our enlightened time. That people then and now recognize them as fiction even though the fiction was teaching something very important. Then we read nearly identical stories written during the same era by similar Greek oriented writers and the literary form screams “Infancy Narrative”. However, the name “Jesus” is in there so we mysteriously forget everything we know and say that this must be literal history! And if that’s not bad enough, we also ignore the impossible to reconcile date conflicts, the significant “historical” events for which there is no record, and the references to Jewish rituals which did not exist.

RESPONSE:

But the distincion is that the nativity narratives are claimed to be “inspired” and have God as their author. Do they?

Yes, they do. Saying something is inspired does not define the literary form of the writing in any way. “Inspired truth” can be and is taught in many forms - fiction, parable, allegory, poetry, song, etc.

An infancy narrative is a kind of story that we find in scripture, both in the old and new testaments, as well as in the culture in which our biblical ancestors lived, but not in our own culture. Because the literary form infancy narrative is unfamiliar to us we might inadvertently misunderstand what we are reading. As is true of every story in the bible, we must correctly understand the literary form we are reading in order to understand what the author intends to say.

RESPONSE:

Are you prepared to admit that much of “inspired” scripture is simply a story?

As I said, the fact of inspiration does not define the form of inspiration. The authors wrote what they did to express the inspired truth in the manner they chose.

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.

Are you sayiing its OK if a belief system is built on what, in the final analysis, is only fiction?

No, it is built on the truth expressed in the writings. It is of no matter that some of the truth is expressed in fictional accounts. Just like the stories of creation in Genesis are myths, written to express the truth that God created everything.

Once we understand the point of view of the author of an infancy narrative, we can’t help but ask, “Are infancy narratives historically accurate?” The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke have a historical core. However, the author is not trying to describe events exactly as they occurred, as would a historian. Rather, the author is trying to describe events so that the listeners, or readers, understand the significance of events within the context of their lives.

RESPONSE:

In other words, the writer is creating a fiction and pretending that it all really happened in order to convince the reader to adopt a particular belief system?

The authors described truths about who Jesus was in a standard and well-understood (for the time) literary form. They are not pretending anything and the Church does not require belief in the literal history of the infancy narratives. You are free to believe and I am free not to.

 

[patg]

Patg posted:

An infancy narrative is a kind of story that we find in scripture, both in the old and new testaments, as well as in the culture in which our biblical ancestors lived, but not in our own culture. Because the literary form infancy narrative is unfamiliar to us we might inadvertently misunderstand what we are reading. As is true of every story in the bible, we must correctly understand the literary form we are reading in order to understand what the author intends to say.

RESPONSE:

Does this mean we can discount the first four “prophecy fulfillments” (starting with the virginal conception of Jesus) presented by Matthew chapaters 1-3 as just a "literary form " and not consider them actual events?

The literary form of a writing does not in any way comment on its truth or falsehood. Matthew chose to write about the truths of who Jesus was in this manner. The “infancy narrative” was a standard, accepted form of classical writing and Matthew followed that form almost exactly. None of the gospel writings rate high on the scale of historical probability - that is why it is called the Catholic Faith.

 

[Little_Les]

Another conflict in the nativity narratives is Matthew chapter 2’s account of the flight into Egypt to avoid the slaughter of the innocents, fulfilment of a prophecy of Rachael weaping for her children, and a calling his son out of Egypt. The Holy Family settles in Nazareth (apparently for the first time) after the death of King Herod.

Luke chapter 2, on the other hand, has the Holy Family returing to their home in Nazareth following the fulfilling of the prescriptions of the law (40 days after the birth of a son) and remaining there.

Of course, in Luke’s account, Jesus was born ten years after the death of King Herod making the Slaughter of the Holy Innocents story chronologically impossible.

Neither Luke nor Josephus, a meticulous chronicler of King Herod, report anything about Matthew’s story.

Once again we have a clear contradiction in supposedly inspired scripture.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

RESPONSE:

Who said anything about “throwing out the entire Bible.” That conclusion is based on the logical fallacy termed the “either-or” reasoning. “You have to accept the entire Bible as accurate or throw it all out”… or something like that.

I’d just propose that we recognize what happened and is history, and what didn’t happen and is folklore.

We should also recognize that divine inspiration is not compatible with error. If error is present, it’s men’s not God’s.

**Try rereading the post. I was responding to someone else who constantly throws this out as his argument. He believes that the entire bible is factually correct and that if we allow anything to be incorrect then it ruins the entire book. I was if you read it, arguing against such a simplistic and illogical argument. **

 

[Little_Les]

**Try rereading the post. I was responding to someone else who constantly throws this out as his argument. He believes that the entire bible is factually correct and that if we allow anything to be incorrect then it ruins the entire book. I was if you read it, arguing against such a simplistic and illogical argument. **

RESPONSE:

I apologize. I thought you were making a general statement approving that approach.

 

[Little_Les]

The literary form of a writing does not in any way comment on its truth or falsehood. Matthew chose to write about the truths of who Jesus was in this manner. The “infancy narrative” was a standard, accepted form of classical writing and Matthew followed that form almost exactly. None of the gospel writings rate high on the scale of historical probability - that is why it is called the Catholic Faith.

RESPONSE:

If the attempt is to create faith in Jesus because of his fulfillment of prophecies, clearly this scripture is meant to be taking “literally” not as a “literary form.”

Would you consider Matthew’s passages about the Resurrection to be only a literary form also? No comment on its truth or falsehood?

 

[buffalo]

They are not pretending anything and the Church does not require belief in the literal history of the infancy narratives. You are free to believe and I am free not to.

I would like to review the official Church documents on this claim.

 

[Little_Les]

buffalo Quote:
Originally Posted by patg

They are not pretending anything and the Church does not require belief in the literal history of the infancy narratives. You are free to believe and I am free not to.<<

I would like to review the official Church documents on this claim.

RESPONSE:

Like buffalo, I too am anxiously awaiting Patg’s reference to the Church’s teaching that it does not require belief in the literal history of the nativity narratives.

I am particularly interested in whether a Catholic is free to believe in or not believe in Jesus’ virgin birth as described by both Matthew and Luke.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo Quote:
Originally Posted by patg

They are not pretending anything and the Church does not require belief in the literal history of the infancy narratives. You are free to believe and I am free not to.<<

Catholic Dogma:

1. 
   *] Mary is truly the Mother of God. (De fide.)
   
   ** The Privileges of the Mother of God **
   

         [LIST=1]

   *] Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin. (De fide.)
   *] From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence. (Sent. communis.)
   *] In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.) She was immune from all sin mortal and venial.
   *] Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.
   *] Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man. (De fide.)
   *] Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)
   *] Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)
   *] Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)
   *] Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)

 

[zerocrossing]

I am particularly interested in whether a Catholic is free to believe in or not believe in Jesus’ virgin birth as described by both Matthew and Luke.

The Creeds answer the question of whether or not Catholics are required to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

 

[patg]

I would like to review the official Church documents on this claim.

Haven’t we done this before?

You know that I don’t have an official document which states “you don’t have to believe the infancy narratives are literal history as a matter of dogma.” and I know that you don’t have one which states the opposite. We are generally free to believe as we wish in such scriptural matters.

My interpretation is certainly not original with me as it is made by numerous Catholic scripture scholars, members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in books written under the *imprimatur, *and is taught in many Catholic Adult Education Classes. I am not aware of any Catholic adult scripture classes which teach the opposite.

One primary basis for my claim, of course, are the paragraphs in Dei Verbum which emphasize considerations of the literary form in analyzing scripture. In case you’ve forgotten:

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. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

An analysis of the infancy narratives shows that they follow almost exactly the classical formula for this literary form and we know from classical studies that while such narratives had a definite purpose and taught truths, they were not meant to be history and were not interpreted literally.

I know you can find statements that contradict this (in very general terms) but since there is no independent proof of the events and descriptions being literal and there is a perfectly solid explanation for interpreting them as I have indicated, I don’t see a reason to believe other than I do.

 

[buffalo]

Haven’t we done this before?

You know that I don’t have an official document which states “you don’t have to believe the infancy narratives are literal history as a matter of dogma.” and I know that you don’t have one which states the opposite. We are generally free to believe as we wish in such scriptural matters.

My interpretation is certainly not original with me as it is made by numerous Catholic scripture scholars, members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in books written under the *imprimatur, *and is taught in many Catholic Adult Education Classes. I am not aware of any Catholic adult scripture classes which teach the opposite.

One primary basis for my claim, of course, are the paragraphs in Dei Verbum which emphasize considerations of the literary form in analyzing scripture. In case you’ve forgotten:

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. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

An analysis of the infancy narratives shows that they follow almost exactly the classical formula for this literary form and we know from classical studies that while such narratives had a definite purpose and taught truths, they were not meant to be history and were not interpreted literally.

I know you can find statements that contradict this (in very general terms) but since there is no independent proof of the events and descriptions being literal and there is a perfectly solid explanation for interpreting them as I have indicated, I don’t see a reason to believe other than I do.

Case closed. Since we have free-will we can choose to believe anything about anything we want. To be a faithful orthodox Catholic we must believe what has been revealed and the constant teching of the Catholic Church… Remember, there are consequences to heresy and personal interpretation.

 

[patg]

The Creeds answer the question of whether or not Catholics are required to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I want to emphasize that I have not stated that Catholics are not required to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. One is not, however, required to believe in celestial events that accompanied the birth, geologic upheavels, omens, portents, magi, trips to Egypt, the slaughter of innocents, mangers, angels singing to shepherds, etc.

 

[buffalo]

I want to emphasize that I have not stated that Catholics are not required to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. One is not, however, required to believe in celestial events that accompanied the birth, geologic upheavels, omens, portents, magi, trips to Egypt, the slaughter of innocents, mangers, angels singing to shepherds, etc.

Do you believe that when Christ died the sky turned dark for three hours and the Temple curtain was torn in two and that the earth quaked?

 

[Little_Les]

I want to emphasize that I have not stated that Catholics are not required to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. One is not, however, required to believe in celestial events that accompanied the birth, geologic upheavels, omens, portents, magi, trips to Egypt, the slaughter of innocents, mangers, angels singing to shepherds, etc.

RESPONSE:

Really? How come Catholics have to believe in one but not the others. Once again, we anxiously await you reference to catholic teachings.

Or is this only your opinion?

 

[patg]

Case closed. Since we have free-will we can choose to believe anything about anything we want. To be a faithful orthodox Catholic we must believe what has been revealed and the constant teching of the Catholic Church… Remember, there are consequences to heresy and personal interpretation.

So your personal interpretation is that Church scripture scholars, members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, members of the magesterium who officially granted imprimaturs, Dei Verbum, and even the adult education offices of numerous dioceses are actively teaching heresy?

To be a faithful orthodox Catholic we must believe what has been revealed and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church - I don’t see any conflict between this statement and what I have said about the infancy narratives. If you choose to ignore the results of most recent scripture analysis and teaching as being heresy, that is your personal prerogative.

Remember, failing to properly interpret the literary form of scripture has some pretty serious consequences (you may even miss the whole point).

 

[patg]

RESPONSE:

Really? How come Catholics have to believe in one but not the others. Once again, we anxiously await you reference to catholic teachings.

Or is this only your opinion?

No, none of this is original with me - see the previous post.

 

[patg]

Do you believe that when Christ died the sky turned dark for three hours and the Temple curtain was torn in two and that the earth quaked?

No, I see no basis for believing this was a literal event and there is certainly no historical reason for believing it. If you choose to believe it as a matter of faith, I understand but the Church does not require belief in it as a matter of doctrine or dogma.

Interpreting its symbolism and meaning is what is important, NOT arguing over whether it happened or not.

 

[davidv]

No, I see no basis for believing this was a literal event and there is certainly no historical reason for believing it. If you choose to believe it as a matter of faith, I understand but the Church does not require belief in it as a matter of doctrine or dogma.

Interpreting its symbolism and meaning is what is important, NOT arguing over whether it happened or not.

This is only partially true. This meaning must be based on the “literal sense”. From the CCC:

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”