The Nativity

[Michael_C]

I invited a friend to a bible meeting. He said his priest has one monthly that he attends. They recently studied Mathew. He told me he was taught at one of these meetings that the birth of Christ is a myth. The whole 3 magi and manger scene is made up. He did say it is inspired and it is what is being said that’s important not wether it happened or not. I have a problem with this. Is there anything official I can provide from the Church that the nativity is not myth??? Thanks for any comments…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Michael C:

I invited a friend to a bible meeting. He said his priest has one monthly that he attends. They recently studied Mathew. He told me he was taught at one of these meetings that the birth of Christ is a myth. The whole 3 magi and manger scene is made up.

The Incarnation is a fact: whether the earliest chapters of Matthew and Luke are meant to be accounts of facts, is less certain. So there is a spectrum of opinion on whether they are to be taken as describing real events, or whether they are narratives which are intended to show who Jesus is, without being taken as history.​

St. Matthew’s account is rather difficult to take as historical - hence the debate. This difference of opinion is perfectly OK though - it’s not unCatholic.

The inspiration of these chapters is not in doubt. ##

He did say it is inspired and it is what is being said that’s important not wether it happened or not. I have a problem with this. Is there anything official I can provide from the Church that the nativity is not myth??? Thanks for any comments…

Try this: myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/ChurchDocs.htm​

and, for the historical character of the Gospels in general, this: myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Docs/PBC_HistTruthFitzmyer.htm

and this: myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Docs/PBC_Interp.htm

 

[patg]

The infancy stories in Matthew and Luke are composed in the literary form known as an “infancy narrative” - a form of writing common in the ancient world and used frequently to add status to the story of a famous or powerful person. This form of writing is not intended to be history and readers of the time were well aware of that. The biographies of most rulers and great warriors contained very similar stories.

There are also numerous symbolic passages added to the narratives to indicate other aspects of Jesus’ personality. For example, the slaughter of the innocents by Herod and the flight into Egypt are included to demonstrate the belief that Jesus was the new Moses.

While very little, if anything, is historically accurate, there are great truths being taught. The Church allows for these interpretations as is evidenced in Dei Verbum.

Pat

 

[tom.wineman]

Time for him to find a new parish being pastored by a bible believing priest. Also write a letter to his bishop documenting that the "priest " is teaching heresy.

 

[patg]

Time for him to find a new parish being pastored by a bible believing priest. Also write a letter to his bishop documenting that the "priest " is teaching heresy.

This is much farther from Church teaching that what the priest said - I’d suggest a few adult ed classes.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Sola Scriptura ALERT!!

 

[carol_marie]

patg:

The infancy stories in Matthew and Luke are composed in the literary form known as an “infancy narrative” - a form of writing common in the ancient world and used frequently to add status to the story of a famous or powerful person. This form of writing is not intended to be history and readers of the time were well aware of that. The biographies of most rulers and great warriors contained very similar stories.

There are also numerous symbolic passages added to the narratives to indicate other aspects of Jesus’ personality. For example, the slaughter of the innocents by Herod and the flight into Egypt are included to demonstrate the belief that Jesus was the new Moses.

While very little, if anything, is historically accurate, there are great truths being taught. The Church allows for these interpretations as is evidenced in Dei Verbum.

Pat

“Very little if anything is historically accurate?” Are you serious? First I find out that very few Catholics believe that the Book of Genesis is true, and now I find out that you don’t believe parts of the Gospels actually happened either?! I’m beginning to wonder why Catholics bother with the Bible at all. It truly seems like you hold it with such little regard.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“Very little if anything is historically accurate?” Are you serious? First I find out that very few Catholics believe that the Book of Genesis is true, and now I find out that you don’t believe parts of the Gospels actually happened either?! I’m beginning to wonder why Catholics bother with the Bible at all. It truly seems like you hold it with such little regard.

Genesis is not all of a piece - chapters 1 to 11 are “primeval history”, the remainder of the book is probably fairly described as “saga”.​

Pat did an excellent job of explaining things - all one would add, is that not all truth is historical (a fable expresses truth - yet it is not a history); and that not all texts that may seem to be historical, are. Just as not eveything that looks like prophecy (say) is; some books that resemble prophecy, are in fact apocalyptic.

I hope I for one do respect and honour Scripture - it’s immensely important, and I would hate to be without it. But wanting to honour it, involves trying to avoid thinking that one kind of writing is another kind; it involves learning to sort out apocalyptic from prophecy and wisdom, history from saga and myth, hymns from love-songs and proverbs, and so on. It certainly does not imply disrespect for it, at all. I want to understand it: and this involves not miscategorising the various types of writing in it

 

[Todd_Easton]

With regard to the Gospel accounts, in Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), the Fathers of the the Second Vatican Council say:
18. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.
The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)
19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that 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 until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

Some Catholics deny the historical character of the Gospels but this is clearly contrary to official teaching of the Magisterium, as expressed in the above statements.

 

[patg]

“Very little if anything is historically accurate?” Are you serious?

Absolutely! It is a trivial exercise to point out numerous inaccuracies in the infancy narratives. BUT, the immediate audience of the writers knew what an “infancy narrative” was and never expected accurate history - there is certainly no reason for us to either.

The intent of the authors was to present the truth, as they saw it, about Jesus. Using fiction to do that is a perfectly acceptable mechanism.

First I find out that very few Catholics believe that the Book of Genesis is true, and now I find out that you don’t believe parts of the Gospels actually happened either?! I’m beginning to wonder why Catholics bother with the Bible at all. It truly seems like you hold it with such little regard.

We hold the science, biology, and history in VERY low regard because we know that those areas are almost never the subject of the writings. The authors must be allowed to write using the tools every author who has ever written has used - poetry, fable, myuth, fiction, allegory, etc. and for us to think every story is absolute history is like opening a newspaper to the editorial page and assume we are reading unbiased fact or to turn to the comics and think we are reading about the weather. The bible is exactly like the newspaper - you better know what literary form you are reading before you start making assumptions.

 

[patg]

Todd Easton:

Some Catholics deny the historical character of the Gospels but this is clearly contrary to official teaching of the Magisterium, as expressed in the above statements.

Actually, Dei Verbum makes a strong statement for non-historical interpretation:

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. 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. (8)

This applies perfectly to such areas as the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke which are filled with historical errors/inaccuracies but which are clearly teaching the truth about Jesus as experienced by the authors. Such interpretations go all the way through the gospels, even to the passion stories where, for example, the freeing of Barabbas is pure fiction since this practice is totally unknown in both Jewish and Roman history.

 

[carol_marie]

So let me get this straight… the story of the Birth of Christ didn’t happen the way it was written… the letting go of Barabbas didn’t happen the way it was written… how then, are we to be sure that Mary was a virgin? That she was visited by the Holy Spirit? Maybe THAT didn’t happen? Jesus raising people from the dead? Maybe all of those accounts were some “literary form” but not historical accounts? Jesus walking on water? Impossible! We’d have to throw out all we know about science to say that could happen… must be some sort of allegory? And the feeding of the four thousand? Ditto. See the problem… when you start to pitch some of the Bible it’s so easy to pitch the rest! Which isn’t a problem I suppose, you are free to make up whatever you want… believe whatever you want. But as for me, by beliefs are based on the Word of God.

 

[Michael_C]

I’m a Roman Catholic and I’m having a little bit of a problem with this and want to understand… On Christmas I always get this very holy feeling because we are celebrating the birth of our Lord in a manger. To me it all makes sense the magi, The star in the sky, The virgin birth. Now I should maybe believe we are celebrating the jist of a story?..Help!

 

[theMutant]

carol marie:

So let me get this straight… the story of the Birth of Christ didn’t happen the way it was written … But as for me, by beliefs are based on the Word of God.

Carol Marie,

Read post #9. The Gospel narratives are true and historical. This is from the Second Vatican Council - an ecumenical council of the Church which means that everything it teaches regarding the faith is infallible.

As I posted in the other thread you started, narratives are historical documents even when they summarize or use figurative speach. Did Jesus actually say, “Blessed are the poor,” or, “Blessed are the poor in spirit”? Both are in Scripture, both are true and both are historical. However, one is slightly different than the other so one is clearly a summarized version. Is it possible that both are? Yes. However, saying so does not reduce the truth of both nor the historical nature of either.

As I said in the other thread, the idea that historical accounts can only be considered historical is if they are 100% literal is a modern one. Also, what we view as the literal meaning of a word or expression might not have been the case 2000-4000 years ago!

In order to fully understand the truth conveyed in the Scriptures, we need to learn about the culture in which the Scriptures were written and the types of expressions that they used. Was the world created in six twenty-four hour days? Maybe. This could be literal and it could be figurative. What did the expression “the evening came and the morning followed, the # day” mean to contemporaries of Moses? The real question is what is being taught here. This has always been the teachig of the Church.

Dei Verbum not only references the councils of Vatican I and Trent, it declares that Vatican II is following in the steps of those councils. Therefore Dei Verbum does not deviate from the declarations of those councils. It reaffirms and reinforces them. The interpretation of the Scriptures by theologians is subject to the final authority of the Church. The method of discovering the meaning of the Scriptures described in Dei Verbum is the same as that described by Divino afflante Spiritu. Divino afflante Spiritu states clearly that it is reasserting the methods set forth in Providentissimus Deus. Providentissimus Deus states clearly that it is reasserting the methods of biblical criticism put forth by those in the early Church, such as St. Augustine. What did St. Augustine teach about interpreting the Bible?

St. Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists, II. xii. 28-29. (from “The Faith of the Early Fathers,” edited by William Jurgens)

And as much as it pertains to the highest morality to avoid falsehood, so much the more ought we be guided by so eminent an authority as that of the Evangelists; and we ought not suppose that they are falsehoods when we come upon varied accounts in the Evangelists, the variations of which narrative are only such as we might find in any authors. And at the same time we should understand that in what pertains more closely to the teachings of the faith, it is not so much the truth of words as the truth of facts that is to be sought and embraced; for when authors do not use the same manner of expression, so long as there is no discrepancy in their facts and opinions, we accept them as abiding in the same truth.

There is a useful principle and one especially worthy of being kept in mind, when we are speaking of the agreement of the Evangelists: It is no falsehood when one of them says something different from what was really said by the person about whom he is writing, so long as he makes explicit the meaning intended by that person, even as is done by the one who reports his words precisely. By this principle we learn the salutary lesson that what we are to seek is nothing other than the meaning intended by the person speaking.

 

[tom.wineman]

You can no more become a Christian by going to church than you can become a car by sleeping in your garage…Garrison Keillor

You know Billy Graham said that years ago. Keillor just now picked that up.

“I was born in a Christian home but that doesn’t make me a Christian. I could be born in a garage but that doesn’t make me an automobile."

**See Excerpts from the Rev. Billy Graham’s sermon **

enquirer.com/editions/2002/06/28/loc_excerpts_from_rev.html

 

[PaulDupre]

Michael C:

I’m a Roman Catholic and I’m having a little bit of a problem with this and want to understand… On Christmas I always get this very holy feeling because we are celebrating the birth of our Lord in a manger. To me it all makes sense the magi, The star in the sky, The virgin birth. Now I should maybe believe we are celebrating the jist of a story?..Help!

Whoa, Michael. Just because the 3 magi may have been an allegory to illustrate who Jesus is, that doesn’t mean that essential truths like the Virgin Birth are allegorical. You have to separate the allegory from the essential truth that it illuminates.

After all, very few bible-believing Christians (Catholic or Protestant) would go so far as to say that Balaam really had a talking donkey (cf: Numbers 22:21-35).

I agree with earlier posters that it is very strange that many non-Catholics dismiss Jesus’ clear and unequivocal declaration that “This is my body” as merely figurative, then insist on a literal 6-day creation.

Remember that the story of the magi (which I personally believe to be factual), illustrates important truths about Jesus - that He would be a light to the gentiles, He is the King (gold), He is the high priest and messiah (frankincense), and he would die and rise to conquer death (myrrh). That is what the Holy Spirit wanted us to know, not necessarily the story itself.

The Catholic Church believes the bible to be inerrant in that everything it teaches for our salvation is God-breathed and therefore perfectly true. That doesn’t mean that every bit of the science and history must be accurate by 20th century American standards. After all, it was written for all people in all ages, many of whom communicated via allegory.

We should start a thread about high-context vs low-context culture. That might go a long way toward relieving the anxiety about this issue.
God bless,
Paul

 

[pnewton]

The idea of that Matthew is just an “infancy narrative” is a theory and not official Church teaching, just like the JEPD theory of Genesis is just a theory. Thankfully the church has stated that Adam and Eve were real people and started mankind. It may be neccesary for them to step in on the authenticity of the Gospels if any of these other theories cross the line.

 

[Melito]

This applies perfectly to such areas as the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke which are filled with historical errors/inaccuracies but which are clearly teaching the truth about Jesus as experienced by the authors. Such interpretations go all the way through the gospels, even to the passion stories where, for example, the freeing of Barabbas is pure fiction since this practice is totally unknown in both Jewish and Roman history.

Sorry, but I haven’t found a single historical inaccuracy in the nativity narratives of Saints Matthew and Luke, nor has anyone else. Several of them have been alleged, but none of them stand up to scrutiny.

As for the freeing of Barabbas being “pure fiction since this practice is totally unknown in both Jewish and Roman history,” this is nothing but argumentum ex silentio. Put another way, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” The practice of freeing a prisoner at Passover is attested in four contemporary historical primary sources of the first century A.D. – that is, the four canonical Gospels. Non-Christian sources do not mention the custom, but neither do they deny it. And if ancient Jews and pagans who opposed Christianity knew the Gospels were in error on this point, they would have pointed it out.

Fact is, the Catholic Church’s doctrine is that the Bible contains no historical error whatsoever. When you are dealing with a biblical passage that makes a historical affirmation, you can be sure it is true. And there is simply no good reason to believe that the Church’s 2,000-year record of believing the Gospels to be historical documents that make historical affirmations was actually a horrible misunderstanding. I prefer the consistent magisterial and patristic witness to the Gospel’s historical reliability to modern(istic) notions that have no grounding in the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Michael_C]

I’d like to thank all posters so far. I am a Catholic revert because I ask alot of questions. I don’t take everything in the bible literally but I didn’t think the story of Jesus’ birth was in question.

 

[Melito]

Correction: Barabbas’ release is mentioned in FIVE contemporary historical primary sources of the first century A.D. – not just the four Gospels, but Acts also mentions it.