The Nativity

[patg]

carol marie:
So let me get this straight… the story of the Birth of Christ didn’t happen the way it was written…

Correct. Your relationship with God is not dependent on whether there were Magi or sheep in a stable, etc. To determine if something is history, you have to understand history and you have to allow writers to express the truth they are trying to convey in a way appropriate to their time and place.

I am not making up some new heretical theory here – the words I have been using are standard explanations given by most all Catholic bible scholars and are presented in most all bible related adult religious education classes. The infancy narratives are usually the prime example used for non-historical biblical analysis in adult education. Please don’t get me wrong - there are a boatload of essential truths being presented here but it is being done through rich symbolism and creative fiction.

the letting go of Barabbas didn’t happen the way it was written…

Correct – historians agree this was never a practice among Jews or Romans. BUT you are missing the point of the story if you only focus on that – this is a very rich symbolic passage included by the author to make an important point about the Jews and God the Father. The contemporary audience would have been well aware of that and we need to be willing to understand it correctly.

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.

And the authors presented the word of God in many different forms of writing! The goal is to believe in the truths presented by the words, not to make an idol of the words and stories themselves. For a good Catholic introduction to this subject, I suggest “And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms” By Margaret Ralph (director of religious education for the diocese of Lexington) published by the Paulist Press.

 

[Melito]

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.

The classic patristic approach is that the literal sense of Scripture is primary – the allegorical sense is founded on the literal sense. Therefore if the story of the Magi is not true in the literal sense, there can be no allegory in the story at all (and BTW, the Bible doesn’t say “three” Magi). The classic patristic approach is that both the story and the allegories that are derived from it are true, not just the allegories.

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 haven’t taken a poll of “bible-believing Christians,” but I suspect that a very large number believe God really did give Balaam’s *** the ability to speak. I’ve never seen any reason to believe that story is purely a divinely-inspired tale or a legend, so unless God tells us otherwise, I’ll just assume it really happened.

 

[pnewton]

carol

One should not believe everything any Catholic theologian says, much less someone posting what they say Catholic theologians say. Remember that the Church has only officially spoken on a handful of verses. The idea that the magi did not exist is not Church teaching. We do, after all have a Feast of the Epiphany. That is fact, as opposed to theory, which is being presented here.

 

[patg]

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!

The Help: We are celebrating the truths revealed in the story. It is vitally important to recognize the message and not make an idol of the messenger (in this case, the story). That is why biblical education and exposure to biblical scholarship and theology are important in Catholic adult education. One of my favorite Catholic authors for introductions to this subject is Margaret Ralph. Paulist Press publishes a number of her books (also on Amazon). Doscovering her books is probably what kept me a Catholic.

Pat

 

[Melito]

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.

Exactly. That’s the big problem of the new biblical theories – in breaking with the previous understanding of Holy Scripture, they open the door to questioning whether or not the Incarnation and the Atonement even happened at all. Why believe that the story that Barabbas was released was a falsehood but not also believe that the story that Jesus died for our sins isn’t also a falsehood?

For some good critiques of modernist biblical theories, look up “Living Tradition” or “Roman Theological Forum” on the internet. You’ll find that “the standard explanations given by most all Catholic bible scholars” that “are presented in most all bible related adult religious education classes” are not the only explanations given by Catholic Bible scholars.

 

[Melito]

One should not believe everything any Catholic theologian says, much less someone posting what they say Catholic theologians say.

Amen! To understand how the Church wishes us to read and understand Holy Scripture, you need to look up Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino afflante spiritu, and Humani generis. Then look up and read Dei Verbum. All these are readily available on the internet, I believe. They are all magisterial, they are all binding on the conscience of Catholics.

Theologians are theologians. They are not the Magisterium. Catholics need to listen to the Magisterium – Catholic theologians, however, do not have the last word.

 

[Della]

A friend who has a set of the teachings of the Church Fathers on CD-ROM did a quick search for me for Ante-Nicene Fathers (100-325) only. There’s a lot afterward, but this is early and from reliable sources, so it makes the point that these things were known and believed in the Church very early on.

Note: these are small exerpts…some from the middle of long paragraphs.

Source: “Church History Collection”, Galaxie Software.

---

The first apology of Justin Martyr, Chapter 34 - “Place Of Christ’s Birth Foretold”

And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: “And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people.” Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea.

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter 78 - “He Proves That This Prophecy Harmonizes With Christ Alone, From What Is Afterwards Written”

“Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him, learned from the elders of your people that it was thus written regarding Bethlehem in the prophet: ‘And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth the leader who shall feed my people.’ Accordingly the Magi from Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the Child, and presented Him with gifts, gold and frankincense, and myrrh; but returned not to Herod, being warned in a revelation after worshipping the Child in Bethlehem. … (lots on Bethlehem here…a dozen or so ‘hits’ in this chapter alone)

Chapter 102 - “The Prediction Of The Events Which Happened To Christ When He Was Born. Why God Permitted It”

“And what follows -‘My hope from the breasts of my mother. On Thee have I been cast from the womb; from my mother’s belly Thou art my God: for there is no helper. Many calves have compassed me; fat bulls have beset me round. They opened their mouth upon me, as a ravening and a roaring lion. All my bones are poured out and dispersed like water. My heart has become like wax melting in the midst of my belly. My strength is become dry like a potsherd; and my tongue has cleaved to my throat’ - foretold what would come to pass; for the statement, ‘My hope from the breasts of my mother,’ [is thus explained]. As soon as He was born in Bethlehem, as I previously remarked, king Herod, having learned from the Arabian Magi about Him, made a plot to put Him to death and by God’s command Joseph took Him with Mary and departed into Egypt.

Chapter 103 - “The Pharisees Are The Bulls: The Roaring Lion Is Herod Or The Devil”

And the expression, ‘They opened their mouth upon me like a roaring lion,’ designates him who was then king of the Jews, and was called Herod, a successor of the Herod who, when Christ was born, slew all the infants in Bethlehem born about the same time, because he imagined that amongst them He would assuredly be of whom the Magi from Arabia had spoken; for he was ignorant of the will of Him that is stronger than all, how He had commanded Joseph and Mary to take the Child and depart into Egypt, and there to remain until a revelation should again be made to them to return into their own country. And there they did remain until Herod, who slew the infants in Bethlehem, was dead, and Archelaus had succeeded him.

 

[Della]

more…

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 16 - “Proofs From the Apostolic Writings…”

Section 4:
He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David.

Ibid., Chapter 20 - “God Showed Himself…”

Section 4:
And again, specifying the place of His advent, he says: “The Lord hath spoken from Zion, and He has uttered His voice from Jerusalem.” And that it is from that region which is towards the south of the inheritance of Judah that the Son of God shall come, who is God, and who was from Bethlehem, where the Lord was born [and] will send out His praise through all the earth, thus says the prophet Habakkuk: “God shall come from the south, and the Holy One from Mount, Effrem. His power covered the heavens over, and the earth is full of His praise. Before His face shall go forth the Word, and His feet shall advance in the plains.” Thus he indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was [to take place] in Bethlehem, and from Mount Effrem, which is towards the south of the inheritance, and that [He is] man. For he says, “His feet shall advance in the plains:” and this is an indication proper to man.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chap. 33

Section 11:
And there are also some of them who say, “The Lord hath spoken in Zion, and uttered His voice from Jerusalem;” and, “In Judah is God known;” - these indicated His advent which took place in Judea. Those, again, who declare that “God comes from the south, and from a mountain thick with foliage,” announced His advent at Bethlehem, as I have pointed out in the preceding book

Fragments from the lost writings of Irenaeus, no. 54

He preached in the prophets; was incarnate of a virgin; born in Bethlehem; received by John, and baptized in Jordan; was tempted in the desert, and proved to be the Lord.

 

[Michael_C]

One of the reasons I believe what I believe is evidence. If a profit predicts something years and years before Christ arrived, that’s powerful. But if a profit predicts something and then a writer decides to document this because he wants to make a point to his audience it’s different. When I get home tonight I’ll look into the links listed on this post. I hope I’m correct in believing the the circumstances surrounding the brith of Christ my Lord.

 

[Ter]

I did a bible study course on the Gospel of Mark and our lecturer was like that. The events portrayed in the Gospel didn’t really happen. What really bugged me was that he said that the miracle of the loaves & fishes wasn’t a multipication by Jesus, but the boy’s generousity inspired others to share. He then went on to say that it was ‘debatable’ whether Jesus rose from the dead.

To me this whole attitude is completely illogical. If we believe in a God capable of creating the world, why would we not believe that He can make a donkey talk, multiply bread, heal sick etc. In addition there are a number of documented cases of multipication of food in the lives of the Saints (St. John Bosco & St. John Vianney that I’m aware of). So why would God grant this to his saints & not do it Himself.

 

[Michael_C]

Ter:

What really bugged me was that he said that the miracle of the loaves & fishes wasn’t a multipication by Jesus, but the boy’s generousity inspired others to share. He then went on to say that it was ‘debatable’ whether Jesus rose from the dead.

The two fish and 5 barley loaves were multiplied and Jesus Christ the second person of the trinity definately rose fro te dead. Why be a Christian if these are so hard to believe?

 

[Todd_Easton]

patg:

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

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.

Although non-historical interpretations of other books of the Bible are permitted, with regard to the Gospel accounts, Dei Verbum says, their “historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts.”

 

[JimG]

An article in the latest issue of Crisis magazine addresses some issues of biblical scholarship, although it doesn’t specifically address literary forms.

Unfortunately much of modern bible scholarship rests on these assumptions:

–miracles are iimpossible.
–faith is an impediment to correct exegesis.
–if science and history can’t corroborate it, it didn’t happen.

Consequently, miracles are thrown out (e.g. the multiplication of the loaves and fishes) and the text is then examined to try to determine what really happened.

While spurious outside sources (such as the Gnostics) might be regarded as historically reliable, the gospels never are.

 

[mercygate]

JimG:

Unfortunately much of modern bible scholarship rests on these assumptions:

–miracles are iimpossible.
–faith is an impediment to correct exegesis.
–if science and history can’t corroborate it, it didn’t happen.

Don’t these people ever consider that if you are writing down the essential ingredients of an experience, you will make a point of writing those things which make that experience exceptional or extraordinary? Why would anybody write a “gospel” about a really interesting and controversial Jewish teacher who said people should be nice to each other and wound up on a cross? Why should anybody care?

 

[Della]

Michael C:

One of the reasons I believe what I believe is evidence. If a profit predicts something years and years before Christ arrived, that’s powerful. But if a profit predicts something and then a writer decides to document this because he wants to make a point to his audience it’s different. When I get home tonight I’ll look into the links listed on this post. I hope I’m correct in believing the the circumstances surrounding the brith of Christ my Lord.

I once read a very good article on what the Gospel writers were doing by quoting the OT in regards to Jesus’ fulfilling certain prophecies. The author of the article wrote that they were using the OT as a witness to the fulfillment of those prophecies in the life of Christ, not as “proofs” as we think of today with our use of scientific methods, etc.

The same holds for the teachings of the Church, the Bible is a witness to them not just the source for them (and not the only source for them). At one time people understood this principle until the “reformers” took it upon themselves to use the Bible as proof texts for their own theologies instead of the witness to the veracity of Christ’s life, the Church, and the Church’s teachings.

This opened a Pandora’s box of every man deciding for himself what this verse meant or what the sacred author intended or if this doctrine/dogma could be explicitly proven by a ready made passage declaring it. But, the Bible was never intended by the Church (which compiled it) to be used in these ways. It is no wonder there is so much confusion. And add to that modern scholarship, that is often too dismissive of the role of faith in interpretation, and you have a real mess.

So, for the average Catholic it is better to simply believe the Church, which was around in the first century, after all, and say along with it: “I believe” instead of “Prove it to me historically and critically and then I’ll believe”.

 

[JimG]

mercygate:

Don’t these people ever consider that if you are writing down the essential ingredients of an experience, you will make a point of writing those things which make that experience exceptional or extraordinary?

Exactly. In fact, the New Testament scriptures (as well as the Old Testament) constitute in themselves some of our primary historical resources for the times in question. But, because they are also Jewish and Christian scriptures, they are treated as suspect documents.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

. 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…

I have a problem with this too. Here …

Paul VI, Allocution of Dec 18, 1966 (Insegnamenti di Paolo VI). He complained that some “try to diminish the historical value of the Gospels themselves, especially those that refer to the birth of Jesus and His infancy. We mention this devaluation briefly so that you may know how to defend with study and faith the consoling certainty that these pages are not inventions of people’s fancy, but that they speak the truth… . The authority of the Council has not pronounced differently on this: ‘The Sacred Authors wrote… always in such a way that they reported on Jesus with sincerity and truth’ (Constitution on Divine Revelation n. 19).”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Vatican II clearly speaks of the nativity as a historical occurence…

Vatican II LG §57: “This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is evident from the time of the virginal conception of Christ even to His death. In the first place, it is evident when Mary, arising in haste to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her faith… . [it is evident] at His birth, when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son—who did not diminish, but consecrated her virginal integrity—to the shepherds and the Magi.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope John Paul II asserts the source of the infancy narratives is Mary, not myth:

**Pope John Paul II, General Audience of January 28, 1988: **

"To identify the source of the infancy narrative one must go back to St. Luke’s remark: ‘Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart’… Mary ‘who kept these things in her heart’… could bear witness, after Christ’s death and resurrection, in regard to what concerned herself and her role as Mother, precisely in the apostolic period when the New Testament texts were being written, and when the early Christian tradition had its origin."

This is Catholic doctine, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[carol_marie]

Well I for one am feeling much better, thanks to all who posted. You are all correct when you say that I need to seperate the Official Teachings of the Catholic Church from some self appointed Catholic “experts” - who certainly have a right to their own personal opinion but they should qualify that it’s just that. I feel much better knowing that the Gospels did actually happen, just as they were recorded and that the Church agrees. God Bless, CM