Nativity narratives

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes indeed. Church apologists have developed a number of explanations, no matter how far fetched, to try to explain away the obvious errors in scripture.

But common sense and the plain meaning of words defeats these attempts.

Doesn’t seem very obvious to me. The only obvious thing here is that you’re at a loss for words

 

[Little_Les]

To sum up, the Greek term that is translated “Governor” in the version you quoted is “hegemon”, which covers various types of rulers. The Greek term “legatus” would be the proper word to use specifically for governor. If the census being referred to was the one around 6 BC or so, Quirinius could well have been put in charge of the census, with Varus actually being the governor.

Once again, the census refered to by Luke was the census conducted when Judea came under direct Roman control after the son of Herod - it ruler - was banished in 6 A.D., not 6 B.C. King Herod was still alive in 6 B.C.

And the term “legatus” isn’t Greek at all but Latin. It means lieutenant or ambassador. I’d agree that the translators of Luke could have used a more accurate term, but governor seemed to cover it.

 

[Little_Les]

Other errors in the nativity narratives include conflicting and incomplete geneologies of Matthew and Luke.

Mathew proclaims (Matt chapter 1) “Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

He specifically says it is the “total number of generations” yet Matthew omits Ahaziah Joash and Amaziah listed in this genealogy in 1 Chron 3 so that his use of the number 14 – the number of Hebrew letters in King David’s name - can remain the same.

 

[Little_Les]

Doesn’t seem very obvious to me. The only obvious thing here is that you’re at a loss for words

I have evidenced my assertion. That is sufficient. Rambling on is pointless.

 

[buffalo]

Other errors in the nativity narratives include conflicting and incomplete geneologies of Matthew and Luke.

Mathew proclaims (Matt chapter 1) “Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

He specifically says it is the “total number of generations” yet Matthew omits Ahaziah Joash and Amaziah listed in this genealogy in 1 Chron 3 so that his use of the number 14 – the number of Hebrew letters in King David’s name - can remain the same.

One traces geneology through Joseph (legal) and one through Mary.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

He specifically says it is the “total number of generations” yet Matthew omits Ahaziah Joash and Amaziah listed in this genealogy in 1 Chron 3 so that his use of the number 14 – the number of Hebrew letters in King David’s name - can remain the same.

Well at least he had a good reason, and since everyone knows 1 Chronicles, it obviously was meant symbolically. If it was meant symbolically, there is no error.

 

[Little_Les]

Translation: Yeah, you have answered me soundly but I refuse to listen because my interpretation is infallible.

Thin, Les. Very thin.

God Bless,
RyanL

Not mine. The Church’s. I merely quote the official teachings and point out the contradictions.

 

[Little_Les]

Well at least he had a good reason, and since everyone knows 1 Chronicles, it obviously was meant symbolically. If it was meant symbolically, there is no error.

Really? The whole purpose of Jesus’ genealogy is to prove Messianic descent from King David. If it’s only symbolic, than, of course, Jesus isn’t the Messiah after all.

Tell me, that second animal that Matthew has Jesus riding on entering Jerusalem, was it only symbolic too?

 

[patg]

Please provide the exact or as you call it “explicit” statement that scripture is no to be interpreted “literally” and also the date of that statement.

Sure thing…

From The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (1964):

*…was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. **From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. ***

And:

…the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.

And:

Unless the exegete pays attention to all these things which pertain to the origin and composition of the Gospels and makes proper use of all the laudable achievements of recent research, he will not fulfil his task of probing into what the sacred writers intended and what they really said…He will diligently employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which the historical method, taken in its widest sense, offers to him–a method which carefully investigates sources and defines their nature and value, and makes use of such helps as textual criticism, literary criticism, and the study of languages.

And:

So, just as Jesus Himself after His resurrection “interpreted to them” the words of the Old Testament as well as His own,they too interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners. "Devoting themselves to the ministry of the word,"they preached and made use of various modes of speaking which were suited to their own purpose and the mentality of their listeners.

And From Dei Verbum (1965):

*…the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught **for their eternal salvation ***(not to teach us history, science, etc…)

And one of my favorites:

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. (Note that this specifically states that it’s not all history)* 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. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.*

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Really? The whole purpose of Jesus’ genealogy is to prove Messianic descent from King David. If it’s only symbolic, than, of course, Jesus isn’t the Messiah after all.

Tell me, that second animal that Matthew has Jesus riding on entering Jerusalem, was it only symbolic too?

I suspect the colt was there, but I doubt Jesus actually rode on it. It was in the procession, would be my guess.

Sure, Jesus was descended from David, Matthew just left out two generations to show how it added up to 14… a bizarre thing to do in today’s world but apparently he thought it was nicer that way. It wasn’t an error or a lie since everyone understood he had left them out for the sake of evenness.

 

[buffalo]

**Genealogy of Christ

** The Genealogy from Adam to Jesus Christ

 

[buffalo]

Graphically

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Graphically

http://ecclesia.org/truth/geneology.gif

According to this chart, Shealtiel had two male parents. I thought that went against Mosaic law.

 

[buffalo]

According to this chart, Shealtiel had two male parents. I thought that went against Mosaic law.

The Jews didn’t use women in direct geneological links.

 

[Little_Les]

I suspect the colt was there, but I doubt Jesus actually rode on it. It was in the procession, would be my guess.

Sure, Jesus was descended from David, Matthew just left out two generations to show how it added up to 14… a bizarre thing to do in today’s world but apparently he thought it was nicer that way. It wasn’t an error or a lie since everyone understood he had left them out for the sake of evenness.

No. Jesus sent for two animals and rode on two animals so he could fulfill a prophecy for Zec 9:9. Of course, Mark, Luke, and John say only one animal. Riding two animals of different sizes would be stuntriding and memorable.

No. A genealogy, to be valid, must include ALL male generations. And, of course, Luke has a different geneology entirely.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No. Jesus sent for two animals and rode on two animals so he could fulfill a prophecy for Zec 9:9. Of course, Mark, Luke, and John say only one animal. Riding two animals of different sizes would be stuntriding and memorable.

No. A genealogy, to be valid, must include ALL male generations. And, of course, Luke has a different geneology entirely.

So you think there is a contradiction. I’m sorry this hurt your faith. I don’t see the contradictions, and most people don’t. Would you like me to pray for you?

 

[buffalo]

No. Jesus sent for two animals and rode on two animals so he could fulfill a prophecy for Zec 9:9. Of course, Mark, Luke, and John say only one animal. Riding two animals of different sizes would be stuntriding and memorable.

No. A genealogy, to be valid, must include ALL male generations. And, of course, Luke has a different geneology entirely.

Matthew 21 says:

Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. 3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ***, and a colt the foal of an ***.

And brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. 8 And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.

Now it follows that a colt would follow its mother and they would travel together.

 

[Little_Les]

Sure thing…

From The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (1964):

*…was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. **From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. ***

And:

…the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.

And:

Unless the exegete pays attention to all these things which pertain to the origin and composition of the Gospels and makes proper use of all the laudable achievements of recent research, he will not fulfil his task of probing into what the sacred writers intended and what they really said…He will diligently employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which the historical method, taken in its widest sense, offers to him–a method which carefully investigates sources and defines their nature and value, and makes use of such helps as textual criticism, literary criticism, and the study of languages.

And:

So, just as Jesus Himself after His resurrection “interpreted to them” the words of the Old Testament as well as His own,they too interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners. "Devoting themselves to the ministry of the word,"they preached and made use of various modes of speaking which were suited to their own purpose and the mentality of their listeners.

And From Dei Verbum (1965):

*…the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught **for their eternal salvation ***(not to teach us history, science, etc…)

And one of my favorites:

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. (Note that this specifically states that it’s not all history)* 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. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.*

Note two things,

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is only an advisory group. Their authority is not be compared with, nor can they overrule, an ecumenical council or even a papal encyclical. Nor do they speak for the Church.

But what they say certainly has merit even if it contradicts earlier teachings. But don’t let that get back to the curia.

Please note that the year was 1964. About 1950, as I mentioned in a earlier post and I think someone else did likewise, the Church’s " constant" traditional teaching on the inerrrancy of scripture started to unravel.

 

[Little_Les]

Matthew 21 says:

Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. 3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ***, and a colt the foal of an ***.

And brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. 8 And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.

Now it follows that a colt would follow its mother and they would travel together.

I think you overlooked part of the passage. Matt 21: 7 “… and he sat upon them.”(New American Bible)

“Them” is plural (ie. two or more). Not singular. He rode on it in Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew misunderstod the word “and” in Zec 9.9 and so claimed Jesus rode on two animals.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Once again, the census refered to by Luke was the census conducted when Judea came under direct Roman control after the son of Herod - it ruler - was banished in 6 A.D., not 6 B.C. King Herod was still alive in 6 B.C.

You assert this, but this is not what Christians believe. There certainly was A census conducted by Quirinius in 6 A.D., but it is our contention that this is not the census that Luke is referring to. If you had been following the argument at all, I’m surprised you didn’t pick that up.

And the term “legatus” isn’t Greek at all but Latin. It means lieutenant or ambassador. I’d agree that the translators of Luke could have used a more accurate term, but governor seemed to cover it.

The important thing is that “hegemon” is not a term specifically linked to “governor” but is a more generalized term for “leader” or “ruler”. Justin Martyr specifically states in the early 2nd century that Quirinius was the procurator of Syria, not the governor, at the time this census was undertaken.