Nativity narratives

[Little_Les]

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.

RESPONSE:

Yes. I have a wee acquaintance with Scholastic philosophy.

Ontology is the study of the nature of being. It forms the subject matter of metaphysics.

I’ve found that when obvious contradictions and errors are found in religious writings, apologists sometimes use the term “ontological” to avoid them rather than address the problem.

Regarding scripture, if an obvious contradiction is present, the passage is said to be “allegorical,” “ontological” or " only in a spiritual sense."

Or the older “It’s a mystery.”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with your argument. It seems to some apparently a great threat, that somehow all of faith dissolves if the text is not accepted in the fundamentalist way. I have noted this before and it is sad. Since those whose faith is this precarious cannot understand how anyone can have faith unless the bible is fundamentalist in nature, we ipso facto cannot have faith, but are imposters attempting to destroy their faith. That’s what I see going on here. Although the Church has spoken quite eloquently on its basic agreement with modern tools of biblical exegesis, and has stated quite clearly that we are not a fundamentalist Church it has no impact. I have seen even a few here actually argue that the Church is heretical having said things they find not nearly fundamentalist enough in nature to suit them.

 

[patg]

…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.

Nice post!.

What essentially we have here is the collision of two views of the Church. On the one hand is a literalistic fundamentalism which ranges on issues from Adam and Eve to Noah’s Ark to the resurrection of the dead. And the other is a group equally as devoted to the Truth but simultaneously recognizing the past mythological nature of so much which has been handed down, misunderstood and misappropriated as inerrant revelation.

Maybe it is as one scripture scholar stated (I’m sorry that I can’t find my reference as to who it was):

We used to think that the ancients believed dumb stuff, told silly stories, and that, at the enlightenment, we got smart and ceased to believe them. I think it more accurate to say that the ancients told powerful parables teaching great truths and that, at the Enlightenment, we were dumb enough to take them all literally.

 

[Little_Les]

I agree wholeheartedly with your argument. It seems to some apparently a great threat, that somehow all of faith dissolves if the text is not accepted in the fundamentalist way. I have noted this before and it is sad. Since those whose faith is this precarious cannot understand how anyone can have faith unless the bible is fundamentalist in nature, we ipso facto cannot have faith, but are imposters attempting to destroy their faith. That’s what I see going on here. Although the Church has spoken quite eloquently on its basic agreement with modern tools of biblical exegesis, and has stated quite clearly that we are not a fundamentalist Church it has no impact. I have seen even a few here actually argue that the Church is heretical having said things they find not nearly fundamentalist enough in nature to suit them.

RESPONSE:

Once again, I am not claiming to believe the Church’s teaching in this area but merely stating it for the record.

"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 co-exist 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. " (Provitentissiumus deus)

Note:

The claim of a “solumn definition” by three ecumenical councils, ie therefore infallible via the extraordinary magisterium.

Also “the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church” ie, infallible by way of the ordinary universal magisterium.

So if one admits that scripture contains any error at all, one shoots down both the Church’s claim of inspiration in scripture and the claim of its infallibility.

 

[Little_Les]

Patg posted,

And the other is a group equally as devoted to the Truth but simultaneously recognizing the past mythological nature of so much which has been handed down, misunderstood and misappropriated as inerrant revelation<<

RESPONSE:

Thank you for recognizing the "mythological nature’ of much of scripture.

Now that we’ve agreed on that, lets look at some other scriptural stories.

 

[LilyM]

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.

There WAS more than one King Herod y’know - Herod the Great had TWO sons named after himself, being Herod Antipas and Herod Phillip I. Possibly one of these, who took over as joint rulers of Israel’s territories after Herod the Great’s death, was the King Herod involved in the events of Jesus’ birth. And the Gospel writers, not being learned historians, got mixed up between father and sons in their accounts?

The other option is that Josephus or other historians simply got their dates wrong as regards either Herod’s death or the census - and much stranger things have certainly happened!

 

[Little_Les]

There WAS more than one King Herod y’know - Herod the Great had TWO sons named after himself, being Herod Antipas and Herod Phillip I. Possibly one of these, who took over as joint rulers of Israel’s territories after Herod the Great’s death, was the King Herod involved in the events of Jesus’ birth. And the Gospel writers, not being learned historians, got mixed up between father and sons in their accounts?

The other option is that Josephus or other historians simply got their dates wrong as regards either Herod’s death or the census - and much stranger things have certainly happened!

RESPONSE:

Not strange at all. A fact of history.

In earlier posts we’ve accounted for all the Herods, ie, King Herod the Great of Judea and this three sons. Since Archalas (Herod’s son who suceeded him as ruler of Judea) had just been exiled and Judea placed under Syria, we know the date.

The simple fact is that Matthew’s DOB for Jesus ( 4 B.C. or earlier)is ten years earlier than Luke’s 6 A.D. or later). Hence Luke doesn’t do that Holy Innocent story since Herod was long since dead.

 

[LilyM]

RESPONSE:

Not strange at all. A fact of history.

In earlier posts we’ve accounted for all the Herods, ie, King Herod the Great of Judea and this three sons. Since Archalas (Herod’s son who suceeded him as ruler of Judea) had just been exiled and Judea placed under Syria, we know the date.

The simple fact is that Matthew’s DOB for Jesus ( 4 B.C. or earlier)is ten years earlier than Luke’s 6 A.D. or later). Hence Luke doesn’t do that Holy Innocent story since Herod was long since dead.

I’ve done a university degree in history - I know all about historical ‘facts’, especially when it comes to ancient historians who are notoriously sketchy.

Then again, all you need to do is watch the History Channel to see how even modern and well-recorded events, for example aspects of WW2, can be argued over and disputed endlessly.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Nice post!.

What essentially we have here is the collision of two views of the Church. On the one hand is a literalistic fundamentalism which ranges on issues from Adam and Eve to Noah’s Ark to the resurrection of the dead. And the other is a group equally as devoted to the Truth but simultaneously recognizing the past mythological nature of so much which has been handed down, misunderstood and misappropriated as inerrant revelation.

Maybe it is as one scripture scholar stated (I’m sorry that I can’t find my reference as to who it was):

We used to think that the ancients believed dumb stuff, told silly stories, and that, at the enlightenment, we got smart and ceased to believe them. I think it more accurate to say that the ancients told powerful parables teaching great truths and that, at the Enlightenment, we were dumb enough to take them all literally.

Well said indeed!

 

[Little_Les]

Lily M posted,

I’ve done a university degree in history - I know all about historical ‘facts’, especially when it comes to ancient historians who are notoriously sketchy. <<

RESPONSE:

Then you should be familiar with the Roman history of the period. While it is true that some histories are “sketchy,” the ruler’s in Syria and Israel during this period are pretty well recognized by historians.

From the New American Bible footnotes to Luke:

“Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. 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. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry…”

If you believe this is in error, you might want to dialogue on this point with the Catholic Biblical Society or Catholic University of America’ s scripture department. They both have websites, and, in my experiences, promptly answer their e-mails.

Then again, all you need to do is watch the History Channel to see how even modern and well-recorded events, for example aspects of WW2, can be argued over and disputed endlessly.<<

RESPONSE:

I generally don’t get my historical information from the History Channel. I prefer reference books.

I’m sorry if you belief system doesn’t allow you to accept some facts of history.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

RESPONSE:

Once again, I am not claiming to believe the Church’s teaching in this area but merely stating it for the record.

**I was not speaking to you firstly, and secondly I find your unclear position to be unhelpful in this discussion, so basically I just talking to others right now. Nobody cares to construct an argument just to be told…I didn’t say I believed it…I just said it. You need to make it clear you are stating someone else’s position when it is not your own. Until you do, it makes answering fairly meaningless. **

"

 

[Pete_Holter]

Little Les,

I agree with all of the encyclical quotes you have brought forward. Thank you for sharing them with all of us.

It was said in this thread that the Church has declared that the inerrancy of Scripture is restricted to faith and morals. Actually, it is the Church itself whose infallibility is limited to faith and morals, not the Bible.

Let me again bring forward Leo XIII’s testimony concerning the complete inerrancy of Scripture:

“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” (PD, 20).

Benedict XV concurs:

“19. Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest - things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science!” (SP)

Pius XII concurs:

“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.”[3] 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 morals, 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” (DAS, 1).

No authoritative Church document has taught otherwise. Everything asserted in Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit (cf. DV 11). Let us humble ourselves before the very words of God! What a gift!

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les;2926029:

RESPONSE:

“Once again, I am not claiming to believe the Church’s teaching in this area but merely stating it for the record”.

**I was not speaking to you firstly, and secondly I find your unclear position to be unhelpful in this discussion, so basically I just talking to others right now. Nobody cares to construct an argument just to be told…I didn’t say I believed it…I just said it. You need to make it clear you are stating someone else’s position when it is not your own. Until you do, it makes answering fairly meaningless. **

"<<

RESPONSE:

(1) If you stick with the plain meaning of words, my position should be clear to you.

(2) When I quote an encyclical which I name or a Church council which I identify, most readers can infer that it is not my original writing.

I’m sorry if I confused you.

 

[Little_Les]

Peter Holter posted:

No authoritative Church document has taught otherwise. Everything asserted in Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit (cf. DV 11). Let us humble ourselves before the very words of God! What a gift!<<

RESPONSE:

Thank you for summarizing the Catholic Church’s teaching on scripture.

However, the problem then is what is the status of scripture that contains error. The conclusion is that it can’t be inspired.

For example, the earliest written document (c. 51 B.C.) of the New Testament, Paul’s 1 Thessolonians, contains the following passage:

1 Thes 4:15 “Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep.”

As Jesus himself, Paul believed that the Second Coming was imminent, within his generation. But this did not occur.

Apparently Paul and Jesus were in error, so might we not conclude that since inspired scripture cannot contain even the slightest error, 1 Thessolonians wasn’t inspired?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Apparently Paul and Jesus were in error

“And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error” (Augustine - On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 9).

Concerning the apparent discrepancies between the accounts of the Nativity, Leo XIII admonishes us:

“If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being” (PD, 23).

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit!

 

[Little_Les]

Peter Holter posted:

truth cannot contradict truth,<<

RESPONSE:

But it clearly does. So both can’t be “true” or “inspired.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

patg:

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.

So did Jesus actually fulfill any of the OT prophecies, or did they just write the NT to make it look like Jesus fulfilled them?

(My faith is partly based on things in scripture that seem to prove that Jesus is the messiah. I believe he did the miracles and fulfilled prophecies to prove to his followers who He was. He didn’t expect people to worship Him as the Son of God without giving signs.)

 

[TMC]

<<

RESPONSE:

(1) If you stick with the plain meaning of words, my position should be clear to you.

(2) When I quote an encyclical which I name or a Church council which I identify, most readers can infer that it is not my original writing.

I’m sorry if I confused you.

I don’t know, Les, I have been following this thread right along, and it seemed to me you were pushing the fundamentalist, factual inerrency position. Now it seems obvious that your intention was to demonstrate that factual inerrency is unrealistic or impossible, while simultaneously pointing out that the older Church teacings on this topic are difficult to harmonize with today’s.

I’m not sure where you are going, unless you are laying a very long foundation to refute infallibility. Is that your point? Don’t get me wrong, I’m enjoying the exchange, but your position is not perfectly clear.

 

[TMC]

Matthew wrote for a largely Jewish audience and Luke for a largely gentile one.

patg, this post was very helpful, as were the many response by others.

I have always thought the the Gospels were each meant to be complete and sufficient for the community for which they were written. If that is true, then its seems like the Johannine community (if there really was such a thing) did not find the details of the incaration important, only the fact that it happened.

Or did the fourth evangelist know that his readers would be familiar with the Matthew and Luke narratives and not want to repeat them? Seems more likely to me that at least some early Christians were unconcerned with these details.

 

[Little_Les]

So did Jesus actually fulfill any of the OT prophecies, or did they just write the NT to make it look like Jesus fulfilled them?

(My faith is partly based on things in scripture that seem to prove that Jesus is the messiah. I believe he did the miracles and fulfilled prophecies to prove to his followers who He was. He didn’t expect people to worship Him as the Son of God without giving signs.)

RESPONSE:

Two of the major prophecies of the Messiah were that he would “sit on the throne of David” and would return the rule to Israel. Also that his coming would be preceeded by the return of Elijah.

Did Jesus fulfill these?