S
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
To get upset or concerned about this is wasting energy for a number of reasons.
Since Jesus had no children and no nieces and nephews, the only relatives of Jesus that MAY be alive today would be extended family who would have had no reason to pass down these dates from one generation to another. That is, if there are any family members alive. There may not be. Many families became extinct through wars, plagues, or simply the lack of males to pass on the family name.
There is no reason to believe that we can possibly know the exact date of his birth. We can estimate using the information that Luke gives us, events at the time, and other names and places that appear in the narratives.
None of these had any effect on Christology. For this reason, it’s only taught to seminarians and to religious males. Why would the layman even need this information? It serves no purpose unless you’re going to be another Scott Hahn who is a biblical scholar and teaches this stuff. The average person does not teach Scripture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- The Franciscans have been teaching that there never was a stable, nor an ox and other farm animals at Christ’s birth since the 13th century. St. Francis created the manger sometime between 1219 and 1221 as a means of creating a visual aid for the peasants of his time who could not read and could not understand Latin. These poor folks did not understand the Gospel at Midnight Mass. Francis had read in the scriptures that Christ was born in a cave and that these caves were normally used to house animals to protect them from the cold. It gets very cold in the desert. Not having the right kind of animals, because his nativity took place in Greccio in the mountains of Northern Italy, Francis used the animals at his disposal. These have been enshrined in the minds of European Catholics as the Nativity scene. It’s been done for so long that most Catholics don’t remember or don’t know that this tradition started 1300 years after the birth of Christ and that it was created by St. Francis. Just as he created the stations of the cross. No one knows if any of those things actually happened the way that Francis depicted them.
- The Holy Father’s point is not new. This has been taught in Christology for more than 100 years. There were no angels, nor oxen, nor a stable as we know it, nor did the Wise Men visit that night. Any Catholic priest, brother, deacon, any Lutheran or Anglican clergyman who studied Christology from about 1875 to today knew this. This has been researched by scripture scholars for more than a century.
- The Church has never taught that this was the way things happened the night that Christ was born. In fact, if we look carefully at Luke’s infancy narrative, he has a mistake. He has the wrong emperor. Now, people are going to jump up and down and yell that the Bible is without error. When we say that it is without error, we’re speaking about doctrinal and moral error. There certainly are mistakes with names, dates and there are multiple stories about a single event. For example, there are two creation narratives. In one, God creates in 6 days and in the other God creates in one day. There are two narratives on the Beatitudes. In one they were taught on a mount and in another Christ was on a plane and so it goes. The concrete details are not as important as what the author is trying to convey. Luke is writing for a very particular audience. He uses language and images that convey his message.
- As to the date, that’s not so difficult to understand. First of all, the Jewish calendar of the time was very different from the Jewish calendar of today. The Roman calendar of the time was a lunar calendar and it had 10 months. Then there were revisions to the calendar where entire months were added and days were moved around. For example, look at the celebration of Easter. The East and West are off by one week. Look at certain liturgical feasts. St. Francis of Assisi died October 3. We celebrate his feast October 4. What was October 3rd in 1226, became October 4th when the calendar was revised. Theresa of Avila died on October 4th. We celebrate her feast on October 15th. October was played around again and October 4th became October 15, there were 12 days inserted into the calender between October 3 and October 4. We have never claimed that Jesus Christ was born December 25th. December 25th is the liturgical commemoration of his birth, not his birthday. There is a difference between commemorating someone’s birth and celebrating someone’s birthday.
Since Jesus had no children and no nieces and nephews, the only relatives of Jesus that MAY be alive today would be extended family who would have had no reason to pass down these dates from one generation to another. That is, if there are any family members alive. There may not be. Many families became extinct through wars, plagues, or simply the lack of males to pass on the family name.
There is no reason to believe that we can possibly know the exact date of his birth. We can estimate using the information that Luke gives us, events at the time, and other names and places that appear in the narratives.
None of these had any effect on Christology. For this reason, it’s only taught to seminarians and to religious males. Why would the layman even need this information? It serves no purpose unless you’re going to be another Scott Hahn who is a biblical scholar and teaches this stuff. The average person does not teach Scripture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
superamazingman
Guest
You can say that again. I just don’t see what the big deal is! This is really getting unneededly hyped.
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem is not the Holy Father’s books on Jesus. The real problem is the layman and the reporter who read segments without reading the entire context and without having read other works by other credible scripture scholars. The Holy Father is not pulling this stuff out of his mitre. Much of it is old news. It’s just news that is scattered in different works of Christology or biblical studies. He’s pulling it together to write a cohesive “Summa of Christology” just as Aquinas and Bonaventure wrote summas on doctrine and philosophy.
Some very good resources for the serious student of the Pope’s work are:
Dermott Lane
Albert Schweitzer
Avery Dulles
Scott Hahn
These are good starting points. There are other more complicated works. You’ll find the same things said in their works, but without the theological component that the Holy Father brings to the table. They provide strictly historical information. The Holy Father takes this information and sheds light on it using theology. The faith message has to be the focus when reading his work, not the smaller details that have already been studied by scholars for more than 100 years.
Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II will probably go down in history as the two most intellectual popes of the 20th century and the two popes who made the greatest contribution to Catholic theology and pastoral care during this century.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
According to Fr. Z, also, the pope’s book is being misquoted in places in the press, so make sure you read what he actually wrote.
SanctusPeccator
Member
While you are correct Luke 2:1 does list Caesar Augustus as the reigning Roman Emperor in his recounting of the infancy narrative, it is difficult to recognize where Luke made a chronological mistake as Caesar Augustus officially ruled from 16 January 27 B.C. to 19 August A.D. 14?
SanctusPeccator
Member
While you are correct Luke 2:1 does list Caesar Augustus as the reigning Roman Emperor in his recounting of the infancy narrative, it is difficult to recognize where Luke made a chronological mistake as Caesar Augustus officially ruled from 16 January 27 B.C. to 19 August A.D. 14?
P
patrick457
Guest
I think Brother meant the census of Quirinius.While you are correct Luke 2:1 does list Caesar Augustus as the emperor of the Roman Empire in his recounting of the infancy narrative, it is difficult to recognize where Luke made a chronological mistake as Caesar Augustus officially ruled from 16 January 27 B.C. to 19 August A.D. 14?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
I feel blessed to be living in these times (in spite of the train wreck that is the general culture).Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II will probably go down in history as the two most intellectual popes of the 20th century and the two popes who made the greatest contribution to Catholic theology and pastoral care during this century.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
There is a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, because the dates of the Census of Quirinius, the reign of Caesar Augustus and the reign of Herod the Great doen’t coincide in the two Gospels. Scholars believe that Matthew has the more accurate chronology, while Luke certainly presents God’s entrance into human history much better than Matthew.
In any case, making all of these dates and names coincide or agree is not essential to Christology. Christology is the study of Christ, not the study of history. The history is the backdrop to the mystery of the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection.
If we read the Holy Father’s writing, he ties them in very well. That’s where his focus is. He’s pointing out that God’s plan was fulfilled in history, without regard for specific dates. The implications that this plan was fulfilled are incredible.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Another is Jesus getting the name of the high priest “wrong”
Fascinating. Grazie!Br. JR, FFV
P
patrick457
Guest
Brother, I’m just an amateur layman compared to you or the Holy Father, but if I’m getting this right: Matthew and Luke both agree that Jesus was born late in Herod the Great’s reign (37-4 BC), but Luke’s further mention of a census undertaken while Quirinius was legate of Syria complicates matters, since while we do have a record of such a census, that one was held after Archelaus was banished in AD 6. (Augustus’ reign began in 27 BC so IMHO Luke still got that detail correct.) I was just wondering what your opinion is about attempts to harmonize Matthew with Luke and Luke with surviving attestations, ones which propose retranslating the verse in question or suggesting that this was a different census from the one held at AD 6.There is a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, because the dates of the Census of Quirinius, the reign of Caesar Augustus and the reign of Herod the Great doen’t coincide in the two Gospels. Scholars believe that Matthew has the more accurate chronology, while Luke certainly presents God’s entrance into human history much better than Matthew.
In any case, making all of these dates and names coincide or agree is not essential to Christology. Christology is the study of Christ, not the study of history. The history is the backdrop to the mystery of the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection.
If we read the Holy Father’s writing, he ties them in very well. That’s where his focus is. He’s pointing out that God’s plan was fulfilled in history, without regard for specific dates. The implications that this plan was fulfilled are incredible.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
The thinking is that this is not the same census. Some scholars hold that there is no evidence that the census of Quirinius required people return to their home town. On the other hand, Luke speaks of a census that requires them to return Bethlehem. Matthew does not pay attention to the Census of Quirinius. There are two possible answers to this. Either Luke has the wrong census or he makes reference to the Census of Quirinius because it’s a census that his audience knew well, whereas this other census seems to have been a very insignificant one. Luke is trying to drive home the point that Jesus is of the House of David. The census is a mechanism to draw attention to the fact that the prophecy is fulfilled.
This last point is brought home by the fact that Luke scarcely uses the title, Jesus of Nazareth. Luke wants his audience to focus on the fact that Jesus is called a Nazarene, as the prophecy said, but he is not from Galilee. Jesus is from Judea, which makes him of the Tribe of Judah as prophesied. Luke is using many tools to get capture his audience’s attention to help his audience see the significance of the birth of Christ.
The Holy Father goes on to explain this significance in the same chapter where he tells us that things did not happen as we have imagined them to happen or as we have protrayed them. Had they happened that as we imagine them or portray them, much of the deeper theology would be lost to us, because our attention is drawn to choirs of angels and stables with animals, etc. The writers want us to see the moment in which God breaks into human history and its implications not only for salvation, but for human history. This is the Theology of History of which Pope Benedict is doctor and is very good at.
If anyone really wants to see the development of Christology through history, Pope Benedict is one of the best writers on the subject. He has the scientific data provided by biologists, the historical information provided by archaeologists and historians, the linguistic knowledge provided by linguists and anthropologists, and the social organization provided by social sciences. These tools were not available to earlier Christologists. While they could write about Christological doctrines, they could not give us what is behind the doctrine. They didn’t have that information. They worked out of logic and philosophy. This information is important, because it proves that what the Fathers at the Councils of Nicea, Alexandria and Chalcedon concluded using logic, scripture and tradition, is true. We have many disciplines that provide us with enough information to help us shed light on these dogmas and traditions.
I’m only halfway through the book, but I’m finding it very interesting. I don’t see what people find so upsetting. What I find upsetting is how reporters are lifting pieces and making statements that are not in the book. I saw somewhere a headline that said, “Pope denies Christmas”. That’s totally absurd. That’s not what he says at all. On the contrary, he says that Christmas is much more than we have imagined and have been taught. He also points out the use of the symbols of Christmas, as well as how they became distractions for some people. For some they are helpful and for others they distract. I guess that’s very human. If I’m watching a Christmas play the choir of five-year old angels is going to attract my attention more than a dolly in a manger. The person next to me may be so focused on the baby in the manger that he does pay much attention to the angels.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
superamazingman
Guest
Methinks one of Br. JR’s posts got accidentally modified by Mr. Casey.
D
Dara
Guest
The actual creed did not change, but the translation did change. Translations can change and be updated as long as the MEANING is not changed. They realized that stating “I Believe” is what latin “creo” means, and that saying we believe was not perfectly correct.
Thus the correction. Ours is a faith that is not afraid to correct errors.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is true. Yet, the correction made to the translation was not on a point of faith. What was corrected was the subject of the sentence, from the first person plural to the first person singular, because the Latin edition is written in the first person singular.The actual creed did not change, but the translation did change. Translations can change and be updated as long as the MEANING is not changed. They realized that stating “I Believe” is what latin “creo” means, and that saying we believe was not perfectly correct.
Thus the correction. Ours is a faith that is not afraid to correct errors.
That which we believe remained intact. We or I believe in God, etc.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Giuseppe Ricciotti’s Life Of Christ (1947) is a very scholarly work, definitely worth consulting on this topic.
J
JReducation
Guest
We read him in the seminary. He’s good. But some of his “facts” are no longer facts, given new academic findings in the areas of history, archaeology, linguistics and biblical studies. Avery Dulles, Scott Hahn and Benedict XVI are more up to date with current biblical studies. We have to remember that Ricciotti was writing 65-years ago. That’s two generations ago. I wasn’t even born and I have a daughter age 28. During the past 65 years, research has uncovered many small details that alter what we thought were a given, especially research in anthropology, history, language, and literature of the time. Research on the Dead Sea scrolls has shed a lot of light on some things and raised many questions about other details.
The good news is that the changes have nothing to do with dogma or morals, but with dates, sequences of events, details about events, the use of imagery and sayings in the Gospels and names of certain people. Nothing to write home about, unless you’re a historian.
Fraternally,
Br. JR :christmastree1:
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Or unless your faith is based on believing everything that has ever issued from what you considered the Church must be precisely correct. It upsets many people when these changes come about because they then wonder what the next brink in the wall of their faith will be pulled out.
J
JReducation
Guest
But these are not matters of faith. The Church has never taught that the details in the bible are in the correct order, are correct to the last detail, that every name is correct or that every word is even spelled correctly. We have always taught that the Gospels and the letters were compiled by the early Church, because they truly represent the faith of the Church. The key word is faith. The faith of the early Church was about the content of revelation, not the background details. They were aware that many of the writings of the Evangelists were handed down by word of mouth, because there were no eye witnesses to some of these events. The Evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they tried to make sense of the oral tradition.
For example, we have always heard the Beatitudes referred to as the Sermon on the Mount. However, in one of the Gospels they are called the Sermon on the Plain. There are two genealogies in the Gospels. It was not until the 20th century that we figured out that one is Joseph’s and the other is Mary’s. Genesis has two stories of creation. The first story has a period of six days and the second story has one day. There are three resurrection narratives. What is consistent about them is the empty tomb. The number of angels, who saw Jesus first is not the same in the synoptic Gospels and John.
The Gospel of John has two introductions that we know were not written by the same person. The Prologue is filled with Greek terminology and Greek logic. It’s also written in perfect Greek and coincides with the Creation Narrative. The rest of the Gospel of John does not target the Greek Christians at all. It targets a Jewish Christian audience. John leaves out most of the miracles and parables that appear in the other Gospels. The Gospel of Mark was written by a man named John, not Mark. One theory says that his name may have been John Marc.
Paul goes to great lengths to write about the weakness in fulfilling the Law and the need for faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. James says that faith must be proven by works. For Protestants, these are conflicting messages.
Today, we know that the Book of Revelation is not about the end of the world. It’s a book of prophecies and messages from God. John wrote it it as he received these revelations, hence the Greek term Apocalypse, which does not mean “End Times”. Apocalypse means revelation.
Now, as to the animals in the stable at Jesus’ birth, if you have ever been in contact with Franciscans or had been taught by Franciscans, you would have been told that St. Francis created this image sometime between 1219 and 1221 in the town of Greccio. He knew that caves were used as stables. Not being from the Middle East, he had no idea that the domesticated animals of Europe and of the Middle East were not the same. Nor did he have any idea if there were animals at all in the cave. He simply assumed there were. When he created the first creche, he put them in there and they have become part of the creche and no one remembers (except Franciscans) that this was a teaching tool that Francis used 1200 years after the birth of Christ.
We have long known that Christ was not born in the year zero. I don’t see how that comes as a surprise. The world has had many calendars and none of them are accurate. Even our own calendar today has to be adjusted every so many years. We add here and cut there. A few years ago, the new year began at 11:59 PM, not at 12:00 AM. We were off by a minute. This year, we’re off by a second. Today, we have the technology to compensate. One hundred fifty years ago, such technology did not exist. As minutes went by, they turned into hours, hours turned into days and days turned into months. Over a period of 2,000 years you end up being off by several years.
I’m 62 years old. I remember the friars teaching us that Jesus was not born in the year zero back in primary school during the 1950s and that there were no such animals, but Francis has used local animals from the town of Greccio.
If one reads the Holy Father’s book and sees these passages in context, one’s memory is shaken and one remembers hearing bits and pieces of these details through our school years in different classes: history, literature, theology and even art. The key is to read the entire book, not take a paragraph out of the text. It’s also good to look at his sources. They’re very credible sources. The Holy Father did his homework.
He’s wanted to complete the series for years. He had even cut his day in his office down to about four hours to work on this series for fear that he would not finish it, given his advanced age. But by jove, he pulled it off. In this trilogy, the Holy Father shows us that as time moves forward, our knowledge of Christology does not change, it increases.
Let’s see what’s his next academic project. He never ceases to amaze me. He’s brilliant. I was privileged to have him as a professor when I was a student in Europe shortly after Vatican II, during the 70s. I had him for Theology of History. Most of his concepts in this trilogy are based on Theology of History. Theology of History comes to us from the Augustinians and Franciscans. They gathered the works of Augustine and Bonaventure and put the pieces together and realized that they two of them had been working on the same concept, the development of Christian doctrine through history.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
- Status