Nativity narratives

[Little_Les]

Spirit Meadow says,

Matthew is trying to relate to his audience. You miss the point if you assume the Gospels were meant to be historical tracts about the events of that time.<<

But the Catholic Church has taught:

"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, " (Spiritus Paracletus)

 

[Little_Les]

We don’t really know the answer to that question. We do know that the stories were structured in a specific manner to teach who Jesus was to the intended audiences in a matter they would most clearly relate to.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for using the term “stories.”

 

[Little_Les]

Not to hijack - but I think this point is related. Why are the nativity narratives so different? Luke says he is gathering up all the stories passed down. His story has the most detail (and Luke is generally more complete than the other synoptics). But he doesn’t mention the flight to Egypt or Herod’s slaughter. Matthew has the flight, but he puts Jesus and Mary in a house, not a barn.

I realize these are not contradictions, per se, but I always found it odd that Luke did not pick up the Herod story.

Traditionally John is considered the last Gospel written. Does its lack of any nativity narrative say anything about the importance the early Church put on the story? Why isn’t it included, surely the evangelist was aware of it.

RESPONSE:

But they are contradictions, per se.

Recall that Luke claims Jesus was born ten years after the death of Herod, during the census conducted by Quirinius in 6 A.D.

Herod was long since dead, so no slaughter of the innocent. No slaughter of the innocent, no reason to flee into Egypt, etc.

 

[Little_Les]

Belief in the resurrection is a matter of faith. There were no witnesses, no stories about the actual resurrection, and there are only very conflicting third-party accounts of post-resurrection appearances.

Please note: I am not saying it didn’t happen - I am saying that there is very little real evidence for it and, as a supernatural event it is beyond human proof and beyond human understanding. This puts it squarely in the realm of faith.

RESPONSE:

But is it a historical fact? That is the essential question.

And what ever happened to all those other people who were raised from the dead right before Jesus?

Matt 27:51-53
“… The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (NAB)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Spirit Meadow says:

"See, read the second line FAITH and MORAL…that is where the church declares the bible is not in err. "

RESPONSE

But the Catholic Church has taught:

" 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).

and,

"He also teaches that Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text: “It would be wholly impious to limit inspiration to certain portions only of Scripture or to concede that the sacred authors themselves could have erred.” (Spiritus Paracletus)

You already cited that, I have responded. You cannot just resite it…You are reading stuff in the wrong context. I’ve given you a cite to what is being said now. There is nothing more to say about it.

 

[Little_Les]

You already cited that, I have responded. You cannot just resite it…You are reading stuff in the wrong context. I’ve given you a cite to what is being said now. There is nothing more to say about it.

RESPONSE:

I’m reading the plain meaning of words.

Are today’s Church teachings different from yesterday’s?

Will tomorrow’s be different still?

So much for “The Church has always taught…”

 

[Little_Les]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

You already cited that, I have responded. You cannot just resite it…You are reading stuff in the wrong context. I’ve given you a cite to what is being said now. There is nothing more to say about it.<<

RESPONSE:

Decrees of the Council of Trent, fourth Session:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with ALL their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema…”

Decrees of Vatican I, chapter 2: “that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.”

Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943 “ 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 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.”

If the Church was wrong then, you will will tell us the correct “contextt”?

 

[patg]

RESPONSE:

Thank you for using the term “stories.”

I’m not sure what you mean…

The word “story” does not imply or define whether the subject happened or not; whether it is fiction or reality; whether it is true or false. It is merely (according to Webster) “an account of incidents or events”.

 

[patg]

RESPONSE:

But is it a historical fact? That is the essential question.

It is as far as the Church and people of faith are concerned.

It is not, however, a historical fact which would be supported by a true historian. Think about it - the resurrection has to be the most significant event in human history - a man coming back after being dead 3 days! No historian would ever leave out such an event and yet there isn’t a single history book which states that a man rose from the dead in 30 AD.

It is outside of human history and there is nowhere near enough historical evidence for it to be seriously considered by any true historian. It doesn’t meet any of the criteria for being a historically probable event.

And what ever happened to all those other people who were raised from the dead right before Jesus?

That’s a great symbolic story and if anyone wants to discuss that, we can. Its good you bring it up - how could hundreds of dead people arise and wander the streets and only one person take note of it? (As if we weren’t already many miles off the original topic.)

 

[patg]

But the Catholic Church has taught:

"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, " (Spiritus Paracletus)

Defining what the “historical portions of Scripture” are is a bit messy.

Try reading “Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels” by the **Pontifical Biblical Commission **(April 21, 1964) It is available online and specifically states (among many other things) that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is *not *the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists.

 

[scottm]

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.

Real lawyers know what a “concurring opinion” is. Real lawyers know how to dissect positions and arguments so as to distinguish one from another. Real lawyers know how and why opposing judges, justices, and counsel reach their conclusions. You’re not doing any of that. See, one needn’t be a “fundamentalist” to say that the Bible has true stories in it. A real lawyer would know that!

Here’s the situation: The moment the Bible contains only great stories of myth meant to convey something about God and mankind without being historically accurate, then the Bible is not different in kind from the myths about Marduk and Baal and Ashera and other gods from the Old Testament. Those religions too have great stories that convey truths about those gods and mankind without necessarily being historically accurate. That is exactly what you assert about the Bible.

Ditto Greek/Roman myths. The Greek & Roman myths are great stories that convey truths about the gods and mankind without necessarily being historically accurate – and that is exactly what you assert about the Bible.

Ditto Norse mythology. It too is not different in kind from the Bible. It too is great stories meant to truths about the gods and mankind without necessarily being historically accurate – and that is exactly what you assert about the Bible.

Ditto Buddhist mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Shinto mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Taoist mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Hindu mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Celtic mythology, wiccan mythology, voodoo mythology: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

Ditto Native American mythology from all across the North American continent: not different in kind from your assertions about the Bible.

And on and on around the entire planet. You have made the Bible not better than and not different in kind from the holy books of every religion in the world. With that done, we have no basis for claiming superiority.

We have no basis for saying that our religion is more right.

We have no basis for saying that our God is the true God.

We have no standing to assert that our version of cosmic truth is better than the alleged truth of any other religion.

We have no standing to assert that other people are worshipping God incorrectly – or even that their God or gods are fake.

None. We’ve completely leveled the playing field.

Maybe that is what you want to say. Maybe you want to equate your religion with every other religion in the world. Great. You’ve done it. But I want no part of that religion. I should instead be an atheist because atheism is more honest about God, in that it doesn’t teach that people hear messages from a conflicted deity!

The New Testament on its face claims to be historical truth. You see it in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 15. The Old Testament also on its face claims to be historical truth. You see it in the altars set up here and there so that descendants would ask, “Hey, dad, why’s this here?” You see it in the geneaology written in there. You see it in the First Commandment, and Passover. **If Bible history is wrong then God did not come down from heaven and mingle in the affairs of humans in real life, real time, real space. And if God didn’t do that then Christianity is fake. **Deal with that.

 

[TOME]

As I resumed reading the post of this thread it occured to me that there had developed two “schools” of thought regarding the “Nativity Narratives” and these two schools also permeate just about every thread in this forum.

One school of thought holds that since we as catholics believe the Bible is the Word of God and these documents written, “through human beings in human fashion” have , ultimately, God as their author. The truth revealed through them by God, for the sake of our salvation is without error. Therefore, if what is written in scripture is without error because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then the historicity of the Bible, the gospels and in this case the Nativity Narritives must necessarily be true i.e. factual accounts of what took place. To deny the historicity of any bible account, including the Nativity Narritives would in fact be proclaiming that the bible is nothing else than myths developed from the mythologies of the Hebrew-Israelite- Jewish culture(s).

The second school of thought, as I see it, contends that the Bible, thus the gospels, while containing history cannot be considered to be “historical documents” in the modern sense of the word. There is not enough evidence from either within the Bible nor collaborating non-canonical documents or other evidence (e.x. archaeological findings) to give the the books of the Bible (thus gospels) credibility as history - there is to great of a credibility gap between what the Bible says and what the present facts of history are.

Still, if we as catholics are true to out faith, we must believe in the truth of Divine Revelation as revealed by God through Scripture and Tradition. This raises the question ( and I think the actual basis of much disagreement) how can we believe the truth of the scriptures to be inerrant when modern science either calls into question or simply denies its historical validity? Especially when for many sincere catholics find it reasonable to concur with modern science? (Take Noah’s Ark as an example)

I think these two schools of thought can be reconciled but to do this I have to ask the very same question Pilate asked, “What is truth?”

 

[Little_Les]

I’m not sure what you mean…

The word “story” does not imply or define whether the subject happened or not; whether it is fiction or reality; whether it is true or false. It is merely (according to Webster) “an account of incidents or events”.

RESPONSE:

Exactly!

 

[Little_Les]

patg
Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,064

Re: Nativity narratives

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Les
RESPONSE:

“But is it a historical fact? That is the essential question.”

It is as far as the Church and people of faith are concerned.

It is not, however, a historical fact which would be supported by a true historian. Think about it - the resurrection has to be the most significant event in human history - a man coming back after being dead 3 days! No historian would ever leave out such an event and yet there isn’t a single history book which states that a man rose from the dead in 30 AD.<<

RESPONSE:

So you reject the Bible as a historical reference? In short, it isn’t really a recod of what actually happened?

What is it then? Folklore? Legend? Allegory? Fiction?

It is outside of human history and there is nowhere near enough historical evidence for it to be seriously considered by any true historian. It doesn’t meet any of the criteria for being a historically probable event.<<

RESPONSE:

Now you understand. Still, there are some historical elements. But they have to be separated from the purely legendary.

A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Revised and Expanded Edition (3rd) Thomas Bokenkotter, Image Books (Doubleday), NY, 1990, pg. 8-9

“They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities’ experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.”

Quote:
"And what ever happened to all those other people who were raised from the dead right before Jesus? "

That’s a great symbolic story and if anyone wants to discuss that, we can. Its good you bring it up - how could hundreds of dead people arise and wander the streets and only one person take note of it? (As if we weren’t already many miles off the original topic.)<<

Is the story of Jesus’ Resurrection “a great symbolic story” too?

 

[Little_Les]

Defining what the “historical portions of Scripture” are is a bit messy.

Try reading “Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels” by the **Pontifical Biblical Commission **(April 21, 1964) It is available online and specifically states (among many other things) that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is *not *the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists.

RESPONSE:

See above. The Christ of Faith (not what really happened) verses The Historical Jesus (what actually happened).

I tend to prefer the real not the legendary,

 

[Little_Les]

Scottm says,

The New Testament on its face claims to be historical truth. You see it in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 15. The Old Testament also on its face claims to be historical truth. You see it in the altars set up here and there so that descendants would ask, “Hey, dad, why’s this here?” You see it in the geneaology written in there. You see it in the First Commandment, and Passover. If Bible history is wrong then God did not come down from heaven and mingle in the affairs of humans in real life, real time, real space. And if God didn’t do that then Christianity is fake. Deal with that.<<

RESPONSE:

I already have. Have you?

You should realize that while I post accurately the past teachings of the Catholic Church, that doesn’t mean I believe all of them.

 

[Little_Les]

TOME posted:

Still, if we as catholics are true to out faith, we must believe in the truth of Divine Revelation as revealed by God through Scripture and Tradition. This raises the question ( and I think the actual basis of much disagreement) how can we believe the truth of the scriptures to be inerrant when modern science either calls into question or simply denies its historical validity? Especially when for many sincere catholics find it reasonable to concur with modern science? (Take Noah’s Ark as an example)

I think these two schools of thought can be reconciled but to do this I have to ask the very same question Pilate asked, “What is truth?”<<

RESPONSE:

One “tests everything and hold fast to that which is true” (Paul).

But one rejects what is untrue.

And following the dictum of Aristotle and Aquinas, one “Seeks such certitude as the nature of the thing allows.”

 

[TOME]

My own way of thinking places me with the second school of thought. The Bible (thus the gospels) is the written Word of God (this I believe to be true) and the truth revealed in scripture is inerrant, however, the truth revealed goes beyond historical data, rather, it is the ontological truth we find in scripture - a truth not limited to an event in time but a truth that is eternal. It is the truth that exist beyond the phenomenon of an event in human history, it is the metaphysical reality that is revealed to us through the written word - of God acting in and through our human events to bring us salvation. The historical reality of the history of the Bible is Salvation History. The ontological truth is rooted in but transends human history. Didn’t Jesus himself revealed how all of scripture must be understood as something transcending time when on the road the Emmaus He taught his two disciples how all scripture pointed to Him. The events of Israel’s history and all the teachings of the prophets, although important for the people at the time still transcended their time pointing to the Christ event. The event in itself looses meaning without its Christological center of gravity.

I believe, is a major part of the tension between the two school of thought, namely how can we understand the metaphysical reality of the truth revealed in scripture when it is both rooted in yet often times masked by our understanding of what is historical?

We cannot deny the intrinsic communion of history and revelation to do so would be to deny the basis of truth of the principles of our faith; the Incarnation, the public ministry of Jesus, of His Passion and Death and His Resurrection. If these were not actual historical events then all we would be doing is discussing myths and calling it truth and worse we would be basing our catholic faith on a lie making us, as St. Paul wrote, “The most pitible of people”.

So I agree with those who hold that the gospels, and therefore the Nativity Narratives, have their roots in historical events. Jesus was born (atleast that is something I hope we all agree on). Also, today there are scripture scholars, using the historical-critical method and other modern tools of scripture scholarship, who contend that the Nativity Narratives have at their core an oral tradition originating from Palestine (here I have neither the time or inclination to go into this). We know, from both Acts, letters of Paul and the histories of Josephus the Church in Palestine and in particular Jerusalem was under the leadership of actual members of Jesus’ family (James), if this is true then it is not unreasonable to hold that at the core of the Nativity Narratives lies an oral tradition which could be traced to Jesus’ own family members - Our Blessed Mother?

However, if you study the narratives themselves, as historical documents then there are just too many contradictions and inconstancies between the two narritives themselves and no outside sources (i.e. extra-canonical sources such as the writings of Josephus or any Roman historian nor comtemporay Jewish writings predatings the gospels) to give these two narratives either separately or fused together any real credibility as history in our modern sense of history.

Again this raises the question, if they are not myths yet atleast on their outward apparence cannot be considered accurate historical documents then what are these narratives and what truths do they reveal? Again, my answer is these are writings, though rooted in an historical event must be understood first and formost as Divine Revelation of the nature of the Incarnation. Failure to see this, in my opinion, not only obscures the beauty of the stories but the truth revealed through these narratives.

In summary, the Nativity Narritives were never meant to be an explanation of an historical event but the proclamation of the ontological reality (truth) of the Incarnation.

 

[Little_Les]

TOME posted:

In summary, the Nativity Narritives were never meant to be an explanation of an historical event but the proclamation of the ontological reality (truth) of the Incarnation.<<

RESPONSE:

(1) And yet they contain four “prophecies” which attempt to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Aren’t you agreeing that these aren’t really historical, ie., didn’t actually happen?

(2) I like the admission that these aren’t historical, but instead are
“ontological.” That way we can perhaps avoid the obvious contradictions the nativity narratives contain.

(3) But one can do that too by admitting that the accounts are largely fictional.

 

[TOME]

Little Les,
Do you understand what is meant by ontological? I am not asking this to be wise in my own eyes rather it is important so that I understand that what I hope to express I am expressing.

In other words I am trying to avoid being clear as mud.