Nativity narratives

[Pillar_of_truth]

Ah, interesting comment. But, you see, the word “inspired” does not contain any hidden meaning as to how the inspiration is accomplished. Nor does it resolve the “what” or the object of the inspiration. Is it the oral or the written word? the translations? the copies of copies? The expression merely asserts that God is the source of the overall message.

I would hope that some here are not naive about the transmission of the biblical text. Certain copies of the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew bible could contain clerical errors that crept in when an inatttentive or less skilled scribe was copying form an earlier text. There are several thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, for instance, and none is an original. They are all copies of copies written over many centuries. There is no way of determining what the originals of any of them looked like. So just exactly what is the real object of this inspiration that some here are so adamantly claiming to be error free in every aspect? We don’t have anything close to an original so just where is this “error free” object?

I’m still waiting for someone on the literalist side to affirm that the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI openly commited heresy by publishing the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. I don’t see how you can avoid stating this based on the arguments I have been reading.

I actually agree with most of what you say. I guess I am slightly more “literalist” than you, but I didn’t disagree with anything in the quotes from the PBC and Pope Paul VI earlier in the thread. What I didn’t agree with is that the quotes necessarily supported your position, or ruled out the Church’s previous position as of Vatican I, for example.

On your other point, there could indeed be clerical errors introduced, which could explain something like a name being omitted from a geneology, etc. But in most cases there are enough manuscripts to make it relatively certain that we have a reliable text.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Let me ask one more question to those who supppor the innerrant in every aspect approach - if the author intentionally fictionalized an account of the nativity (say the Egypt related stuff), then you may accept that it is fiction because it is not an “error”, it is an intentional literary constuct. An error would be something like getting the dates wrong or stating the earth was flat, etc. - an error would not be using a fictionalized account to teach the truth?

Assuming this is directed towards me…I’m not entirely clear on what you’re asking. Of course, if the literary genre is fiction, then most claims of error would be ruled out simply because of that fact.

Even stating that the earth was flat would not be an error, because they are probably speaking to appearances, such as saying that the sun rises…it does not really rise, but from our perspective, it does. The Biblical author is not asserting that, scientifically, the sun rises, while the Earth remains stationary; therefore it would not be an error.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Perhaps if you compare the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke you’ll be on the right wavelength and recognize that they contradict each other badly.

I’m going to assume that I’ve been doing a bad job of explaining my position.

What I am saying is that the census Luke is referring to in his Gospel is NOT the one that took place in 6 AD…it is the same one described by Matthew, and took place somewhere between 6 and 3 BC. If it WERE the one in 6 AD, that would indeed be a contradiction.

There is no contradiction because:
a) the Greek term in Luke 2 (“hegemon”) which is translated “governor” is, in the Greek, a more general term, equating more to our English “ruler”.
b) Justin Martyr said that Quirinius was procurator, NOT governor, at the time Luke’s census was undertaken.
c) If Quirinius were procurator, that would still fit the Greek term “hegemon” which is a generalized term for “ruler”.
d) We know from the Encarta encyclopedia I quoted earlier, and elsewhere, that procurators were assistants to the governors, in charge of financial matters.
e) We know that in 6 AD, Quirinius was GOVERNOR of Syria, not PROCURATOR, so therefore, according to Justin, the census of 6 AD must not be the one Luke is referring to.
f) Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that at some earlier time, Quirinius was procurator of Syria, while Varus or Saturninus were governor, and the census being referred to must have taken place at that time.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

I agree with you that some of the explanations provided are pretty hard to believe. As an otherwise reasonably educated and intelligent person, I can’t really take them seriously, so you have a good point.

If they are hard for you to believe, then I must be doing a bad job explaining them. They make perfect sense. I would recommend reading “Catholic Apologetics Today” by Fr. William Most, or “The Birth of Christ Recalculated” by Ernest Martin, or do a Google search on “Birth of Christ Recalculated” to get the full argument.

You think this explanation is far fetched?:

Estha married Mathan, a descendant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan’s death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendent of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David’s descendants.

It’s not far-fetched - lots of people died young back then, and Levirate marriage was not just common, it was a DUTY, as can be seen from passages of the Old Testament. Julianus (quoted by Eusebius, though we no longer have the original) recorded this as fact, and this was accepted by St. Augustine. I don’t see why it is far-fetched in any way.

Sure, the one about Jacob/Heli being the same person was far fetched. My only point there was that if anyone can even advance a logically possible explanation for an apparent contradiction, then the contradiction cannot be proven. That is why the burden of proof is so difficult for Little Les.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

“The Birth of Christ Recalculated” by Ernest Martin, or do a Google search on “Birth of Christ Recalculated” to get the full argument.

I really recommend that everyone read “The Birth Of Christ Recalculated”. It’s one of the most interesting things I’ve read.

Or you can at least get the outline of it at:

versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Your criteria is what is wrong. Here is the answer to this assertion from an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the topic:

The Gospel writers believed their histories to be true. If they made errors in the time of historical events, it was unintentional and no bearing on the truths they were conveying as being uninspired.

As an OP said in post 208:​

buffalo:

God cannot deceive or be deceived, so God cannot be the author of error. God has communicated through Scripture without error. Sometimes our receiving can be faulty. This is the area that we should concentrate.

The OP’s post is fully in agreement with Providentissimus Deus & later assertions of the total inerrancy of the Bible - none of these assertions allow the slightest room for any error whatever in the Bible, of any kind, in any form: whatever is in the Bible is ipso facto all, without any exception, totally & utterly & completely free of all error, on the ground of its inspiration.​

This is a *very *exacting doctrine - which is why some of us cannot accept it: because it twists the Bible out of shape, by making it inerrant where it cannot, if its own words mean anything, possibly be anything of the kind The doctrine has been universalised, from the bits where it might apply, to bits to which it cannot apply. The very exacting doctrine of total inerrancy taught by Leo XIII seems to be what the Church believes - at any rate, it does not allow for the slightest error, but rebukes those who think otherwise (as Pius XII does, in Humani Generis)

The Gospels are not primarily history books. They weren’t written with that idea in mind. They were written to tell us about the Christ, his life, his teachings, and his mission. They were not biographies in the modern sense of the word and no one expected them to be at the time. I made this point I believe (it’s been so many posts ago) at the beginning of this thread. There are no falsities being palmed off on unsuspecting souls here, only a misunderstanding of what is meant by biblical inerrancy and divine inspiration on your part.

 

[TOME]

As I have been reading the most recent post a thought struck me about the use of the encyclical letters of the popes from the 19th through the 20th centuries concerning Catholic scriptural sutudies and the thought is I think some may be studying these important letter in isolation of each other. But if we look on them as an organic whole , atleast from my perception, we find a growth in understanding not only in the merits of modern biblical scholarship but in the Church’s understanding of the scriptures themselves. Again, I think Pope Benedict XVI in the preface of “Jesus of Nazerath” alludes to this. (I just gave my copy of the book to a friend so I have to go from memory here) Still I find a real development, (can I use the term growth?) with each new encyclical and these cannot be isolated from the other documents mentioned such as the letters to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and ultimately Dei Verbum.

In the past I have made references to the use of modern biblical scholarship by popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. All anyone has to do is make even a currsory glance of Pope John Paul II addresses on the "Theology of the Body’ given in 1979 to see he did not consider what was proclaimed in Providentissimus Deus as restricting him a literal interpretation of the scriptures. (I like to use these particular addresses as examples because there are such good examples!)

Again, if we are going to use papal encyclicals I think there are best use in communion with each other and not as isolated teachings.

One more thing, Thank You Michael (Goggle of Geer) for the links you provided earlier especially the onr to the address given by Henry Wansbrough, I hope, and even pray, all here take a look at them.

 

[Little_Les]

I’m going to assume that I’ve been doing a bad job of explaining my position.

What I am saying is that the census Luke is referring to in his Gospel is NOT the one that took place in 6 AD…it is the same one described by Matthew, and took place somewhere between 6 and 3 BC. If it WERE the one in 6 AD, that would indeed be a contradiction.

There is no contradiction because:
a) the Greek term in Luke 2 (“hegemon”) which is translated “governor” is, in the Greek, a more general term, equating more to our English “ruler”.
b) Justin Martyr said that Quirinius was procurator, NOT governor, at the time Luke’s census was undertaken.
c) If Quirinius were procurator, that would still fit the Greek term “hegemon” which is a generalized term for “ruler”.
d) We know from the Encarta encyclopedia I quoted earlier, and elsewhere, that procurators were assistants to the governors, in charge of financial matters.
e) We know that in 6 AD, Quirinius was GOVERNOR of Syria, not PROCURATOR, so therefore, according to Justin, the census of 6 AD must not be the one Luke is referring to.
f) Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that at some earlier time, Quirinius was procurator of Syria, while Varus or Saturninus were governor, and the census being referred to must have taken place at that time.

I’m afraid you still have to explain why Judea was included in Quirinius’s census if it was not the census conducted in 6 A.D.

 

[Little_Les]

If they are hard for you to believe, then I must be doing a bad job explaining them. They make perfect sense. I would recommend reading “Catholic Apologetics Today” by Fr. William Most, or “The Birth of Christ Recalculated” by Ernest Martin, or do a Google search on “Birth of Christ Recalculated” to get the full argument.

You think this explanation is far fetched?:

Estha married Mathan, a descendant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan’s death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendent of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David’s descendants.

It’s not far-fetched - lots of people died young back then, and Levirate marriage was not just common, it was a DUTY, as can be seen from passages of the Old Testament. Julianus (quoted by Eusebius, though we no longer have the original) recorded this as fact, and this was accepted by St. Augustine. I don’t see why it is far-fetched in any way.

Sure, the one about Jacob/Heli being the same person was far fetched. My only point there was that if anyone can even advance a logically possible explanation for an apparent contradiction, then the contradiction cannot be proven. That is why the burden of proof is so difficult for Little Les.

This is interesting but strainted conjecture. Of course, two questions need to be answered before it can be seriously considered.

(1) Matthew lists twenty-six progenitors between David and Jesus, compared with Luke’s forty, How is this possible?

(2) How can the names Shealtiel and his son Zerabbabel occur in both genealogies?

 

[buffalo]

Any evidence this time or is this an assertion without evidence?

(Anybody can make those).

Sure, it is evident that the year is 2007.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not calling him anything. We only have Eusebius’ accounts of his writings, not his originals.

“Noe was 600 years old when the flood came on. From Adam, therefore, to Noe and the flood, are 2262 years”
Do you think that’s true?

And I’d be curious to have the source of quotation attributed to him cited. For some reason we were not told that.

Addressed here:

Good News and Bad News Regarding Scriptural Chronologies

 

[LilyM]

Sure, it is evident that the year is 2007.

2007 is an arbitrary designation, based on a year of birth for Christ which was calculated incorrectly - so no it isn’t evident at all, or at least not self-evidenty true. And certainly it is many other dates in other parts of the world which don’t use our calendar.

 

[Little_Les]

Which of these is inspired?

Matt 2:13-15:

"When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt,and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.” Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt. He stayed there until the death of Herod. " (NAB)

Or

Luke 2:39:

"When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, **they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.(NAB)

** Forty days after the birth of a male child.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Which of these is inspired?

Matt 2:13-15:

"When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt,and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.” Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt. He stayed there until the death of Herod. " (NAB)

Or

Luke 2:39:

"When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, **they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.(NAB)

** Forty days after the birth of a male child.

Both.

After Jesus was born in the stable, they probably stayed in Bethlehem for a while, until after the presentation in the Temple, then returned to Nazareth, which was their home at the time.

Some time passed between that and the Magi’s visit/Herod’s slaying of the innocents. If you read the Birth of Christ Recalculated link that I posted a couple of times now, you’ll see that there was probably about 15 months intervening between Christ’s birth and the Magi’s visit.

By that time, the Holy Family had moved to Bethlehem. This also explains why Herod would want to have all babies in Bethlehem under 2 years of age killed. After the Magi’s visit, they fled to Egypt, but understandably did not want to return to Bethlehem, so went back to Nazareth. It seems according to this chronology that they may have only spent a month or two in Egypt, as Herod died very shortly after the slaying of the innocents.

The link also explains the astronomical phenomena associated with Christ’s birth in great detail.

 

[buffalo]

2007 is an arbitrary designation, based on a year of birth for Christ which was calculated incorrectly - so no it isn’t evident at all, or at least not self-evidenty true. And certainly it is many other dates in other parts of the world which don’t use our calendar.

I say its 2007 you say it could be something else. Can we both be right and still be true?

 

[Little_Les]

Both.

After Jesus was born in the stable, they probably stayed in Bethlehem for a while, until after the presentation in the Temple, then returned to Nazareth, which was their home at the time.

Some time passed between that and the Magi’s visit/Herod’s slaying of the innocents. If you read the Birth of Christ Recalculated link that I posted a couple of times now, you’ll see that there was probably about 15 months intervening between Christ’s birth and the Magi’s visit.

By that time, the Holy Family had moved to Bethlehem. This also explains why Herod would want to have all babies in Bethlehem under 2 years of age killed. After the Magi’s visit, they fled to Egypt, but understandably did not want to return to Bethlehem, so went back to Nazareth. It seems according to this chronology that they may have only spent a month or two in Egypt, as Herod died very shortly after the slaying of the innocents.

The link also explains the astronomical phenomena associated with Christ’s birth in great detail.

I’m afraid the Gospel of Luke says otherwise.

Luke 2:39 - 42

"When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

Each year his parents went to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover,

and when he was twelve years old, they went up according to festival custom."(NAB)

Forty days after Jesus’ birth, the Holy Family "returned’ to Nazareth and there remained visiting Jerusalem each year.

No Egypt trip in Luke, nor need there be, because according to Luke, King Herod was long since dead when Jesus was born, so no Magi, no Slaughter of the Innocents, and no trip to Egypt.

Again, a contradiction between the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke

 

[buffalo]

It is probably a waste of time to deal with littleles. These so called contradictions have been thoroughly dealt with so many times. It seems this is a trial run for him. Perhaps he is a newbie.

He will wear you out with the vast list he is using. If you want to continue to engage deal with only one at a time.

Perhaps we can help him by pointing to some resources he can truly learn from.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

I’m afraid the Gospel of Luke says otherwise.

Luke 2:39 - 42

"When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.

Each year his parents went to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover,

and when he was twelve years old, they went up according to festival custom."(NAB)

Forty days after Jesus’ birth, the Holy Family "returned’ to Nazareth and there remained visiting Jerusalem each year.

No Egypt trip in Luke, nor need there be, because according to Luke, King Herod was long since dead when Jesus was born, so no Magi, no Slaughter of the Innocents, and no trip to Egypt.

Again, a contradiction between the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke

Please explain how that contradicts my timeline. Remember that an omission of details does not necessarily imply an absence of details.

For example, if (admittedly a very unlikely scenario) someone writes a brief history of my life, they may say that I “grew up in Minnesota.” This is true; however, I did spend a year or so in Michigan. Would it then be a contradiction if that detail was omitted in one biography, but specified in another? No.

 

[Little_Les]

Please explain how that contradicts my timeline. Remember that an omission of details does not necessarily imply an absence of details.

For example, if (admittedly a very unlikely scenario) someone writes a brief history of my life, they may say that I “grew up in Minnesota.” This is true; however, I did spend a year or so in Michigan. Would it then be a contradiction if that detail was omitted in one biography, but specified in another? No.

The details are given.

1. Forty days after Jesus’s birth they return to Nazareth.
2. Every year they go to Jerusalem for the Passover. They do not omit a year to flee to Egypt.
3. Omission of significant details strongly suggests that there are no such details, or they’d be mentioned. Luke doesn’t mention anything about the Slaughter of the Innocent or traveling to Egypt.

Nor does Josephus, the meticulous chronicler of King Herod’s misdeeds, say anything about a slaughter of the innocent.

 

[Little_Les]

Perhaps the biggest contradiction in the nativity narratives is trying to combine a virgin birth while maintaining that Jesus was of the “seed” of David.

Paul, writings 25 years earlier than Matthew, says that Jesus had a normal birth. Romans 1: 3 " Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh," (NAB) ie a natural birth.

The embryology at that time (and in fact up until the 1800’s when the ova was discovered) maintained that the entire offspring was contained in miniture form in the male seed. (Later called the homunculus or little man). The women supplied the nutrients if she was “fertile” or not if she was “barren” but never the “seed.”

So there are two alternatives: a virginal conception with Joseph not the biological father, or a natural conception with Joseph providing the “seed of David.”

It would seem that Matthew and Luke, after constructing a genealogy to prove that Jesus was indeed of the seed of David, would not have then had Jesus not be of the seed of David.(This suggests later interpolations).