The Nativity

[mayra_hart]

Objection 3. Further, the time of Christ’s presence on earth is compared to the day, because He is the “Light of the world”; wherefore He says Himself (John 9:4): “I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it is day.” But in summer the days are longer than in winter. Therefore, since He was born in the depth of winter, eight days before the Kalends of January, it seems that He was not born at a fitting time. On the contrary, It is written (Gal. 4:4): “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” says the author of the book De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., “Christ wished to be born, when the light of day begins to increase in length,” so as to show that He came in order that man might come nearer to the Divine Light, according to Lk. 1:79: “To enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.”

In like manner He chose to be born in the rough winter season, that He might begin from then to suffer in body for us.

 

[patg]

Melito:

Even though the Church says they are history, .

And Dei Verbum clearly says we must consider the leiterary form which is clearly not a historical context.

and even though there is no evidence that they are not history,.

There is every evidence that they are not history. If their obvious “infancy narrative” format isn’t enough, entire books have been written listing the contradictions, inaccuracies, and errors.

and even though the earliest Christians treated them as history . . . .

No they didn’t:

• They especially would have recognized and corrected the errors if they thought they were supposed to be history
• They also were well aware of the purpose of an “infancy narrative”. Just because modern biographies don’t use them anymore doesn’t mean we can’t accept their use in the ancient world. Such writing was totally accepted in then and was never expected to be history.

Whether or not Jesus is the Messiah does have the greatest bearing on our relationship with God. If Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem as St. Matthew said, then the Bible has related a falsehood, and Jesus didn’t fulfill Micah’s prophecy, meaning He is not the Messiah.

So maybe he was born in Bethlehem - Matthew certainly went to a lot of trouble to get him there. No one has denied his place of birth.

Why don’t certain Catholics just accept what the Church teaches about the nativity accounts?

The Church doesn’t require you to believe them and it published Dei Verbum to show that you may freely not believe them. It takes a lot of time, energy, and education to open the general population up to a deeper understanding of the bible. It is also nearly impossible to get people to give up their cherished childhood memories. It is MUCH easier to not rock the Christmas boat and pretend the stories are literal.

What is gained by denying their historicity? We know what is lost by denying their historicity, but what could be gained?

If we understand the stories as the initial audience did, we can’t help but reach a better understanding of who they thought Jesus was.

 

[tom.wineman]

otm:

And the heresy is…?

The Catholic Church is not an absolute literalist church. You can be a “bible believing” priest and not believe that every last statement in the bible is literally true.

**The heresy is when you get so “creative” you can rationalize almost anything.

Also when you do not issue a disclaimer that it is your private interpretation and not official church teaching.
**

 

[asteroid]

Lots of people in this thread have talked of the many errors in the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus and how easy it is to find them.

Nobody in this thread has yet said what these “errors” are.

I think a lot of myth has built up - having 3 named magi round a manger is one example Having the manger scene in what looks suspiciously like an 18th/19th century West European/American stable is another. Carols such as “In the bleak midwinter” and even Jesus being born in December are more myths. But all of these things are myths in that they don’t fit in with the Biblical account.

I also think that the gospel writers probably discussed the birth of Jesus with Mary - who was obviously an eyewitness to the events. Don’t you think she, who Catholics believe to be sinless, might have had something to say if people started inventing stories about her son?

Question - what is this belief that Jesus was the “new Moses”. One writer here says that certain things in the gospel accounts are there just to prove that point. I haven’t read of Jesus being the “new Moses” anywhere in scripture - only that he is the fulfillment of the Law - so I am decidedly suspicious of this writer’s viewpoint.

I don’t think that these are just invented stories to prove a point or to show, in error, that Jesus’ life fulfils Old Testament prophecy. I firmly believe that these events happened.

Or maybe I should believe these events didn’t happen, that the early church invented these “infancy narratives”, the prophecies weren’t fulfilled, there was no virgin birth, no census, no birth in Bethlehem, Mary never went to see Elizabeth, no angels had anything to say about the births of John and Jesus, magi didn’t come, the shepherds remained blissfully aware, Herod didn’t have anyone killed, Mary isn’t “full of grace”, that the events didn’t happen as written and so I shouldn’t base any doctrines on them.

I think I’ll stick to my present beliefs. But what do I know? I’m only doing RCIA at the moment so I’m only ignorant and therefore prefer to buck the trend of many of the so-called higher critics by believing in prophecy, the miraculous, that God is God.

Blessings

Asteroid

 

[pnewton]

asteroid:

But what do I know? I’m only doing RCIA at the moment so I’m only ignorant and therefore prefer to buck the trend of many of the so-called higher critics by believing in prophecy, the miraculous, that God is God.

Herein lies the difference between intelligence, wisdom and intellectualism.

I think that a lot of professors and doctors are confounded by anything divine.

 

[Melito]

And Dei Verbum clearly says we must consider the literary form which is clearly not a historical context.

Most Christians throughout history and even today do not seem to have noticed what you claim is so clear.

There is every evidence that they are not history. If their obvious “infancy narrative” format isn’t enough, entire books have been written listing the contradictions, inaccuracies, and errors.

Yes, I’ve read many of those books. As I said above, their claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. They really all boil down to one huge argumentum ex silentio, which leaves me majorly unimpressed.

and even though the earliest Christians treated them as history . . . .

No they didn’t

Um, yes they did. In this very thread there are quotes from the early Fathers that treat the nativity accounts as historical.

** They especially would have recognized and corrected the errors if they thought they were supposed to be history*

Another explanation for their not recognising and correcting the alleged errors is that the alleged errors are purely imaginary. . . .

** They also were well aware of the purpose of an “infancy narrative”. Just because modern biographies don’t use them anymore doesn’t mean we can’t accept their use in the ancient world. Such writing was totally accepted in then and was never expected to be history.*

So you and others claim, but in all my studies I haven’t found a shred of evidence that the ancients viewed literature the way late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century scholars viewed literature.

So maybe he was born in Bethlehem - Matthew certainly went to a lot of trouble to get him there. No one has denied his place of birth.

If only it were true that no one has denied His place of birth. Some assert He was really born in Nazareth, deliberately mistranslating the Greek word for “hometown” as “place of birth,” claiming the story of His birth in Bethlehem was invented to bolster the early Church’s claim that He was the Messiah.

By the way, if you’re looking for extrabiblical evidence of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, you can consider Julian the Apostate, who said he could prove Jesus was not God but just a man conceived naturally by Joseph – his proof was the census records, which he said were still extant in his day, which listed Jesus as born in Bethlehem, son of Joseph and Mary. Many early Christian writers, not just a pagan emperor, refer to those census records as proof of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ birth. No one ever said, “Those records don’t exist, and never existed,” until modern times – not even opponents of Christianity made that claim. I wonder why. . . .

So, all in all, I think the case for Jesus really being born in Bethlehem is unassailable. The burden of proof is on those who claim He was born somewhere else.

The Church doesn’t require you to believe them and it published Dei Verbum to show that you may freely not believe them.

I’ve read DV, and plenty of other Church documents on this subject, including the 1964 Pontifical Biblical Commission document on the Gospels. Some of those documents have been quoted in this thread. None of them are reconcilable with your claim that the Church doesn’t require Catholics to believe in the historicity of the nativity accounts.

What is gained by denying their historicity? We know what is lost by denying their historicity, but what could be gained?

If we understand the stories as the initial audience did, we can’t help but reach a better understanding of who they thought Jesus was.

I agree. That’s why I believe the nativity accounts are accurate historical accounts.

 

[otm]

And Dei Verbum clearly says we must consider the literary form which is clearly not a historical context.

Most Christians throughout history and even today do not seem to have noticed what you claim is so clear.

Didn’t notice, or didn’t discuss? There is a difference. When a pattern of speech is used and understood by everyone, why would we presume that it would be discussed? After all, College and graduate programs and degrees are relaitvely new on the time line of the written word.

Melito:

** They also were well aware of the purpose of an “infancy narrative”. Just because modern biographies don’t use them anymore doesn’t mean we can’t accept their use in the ancient world. Such writing was totally accepted in then and was never expected to be history.*

So you and others claim, but in all my studies I haven’t found a shred of evidence that the ancients viewed literature the way late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century scholars viewed literature.

Have you found any evidence that the ancients even viewed literature; that is, that they had any form of critique of literary formats? That is of recent origin. The fact that literature was not critiqued 2000 years ago does not show that a critique is invalid.

 

[Melito]

Didn’t notice, or didn’t discuss? There is a difference. When a pattern of speech is used and understood by everyone, why would we presume that it would be discussed?

Didn’t notice.

Find just ONE Christian writer from the early centuries of Christianity who believed the nativity accounts did not relate things that had actually happened.

Just one.

Have you found any evidence that the ancients even viewed literature; that is, that they had any form of critique of literary formats? That is of recent origin. The fact that literature was not critiqued 2000 years ago does not show that a critique is invalid.

Yes, I have found plenty of evidence that the ancients understood the difference between fact and fiction – and judging (“critiquing”) between fact and fiction is an elementary form of critique of literary format. The ancient Christians believed that the nativity accounts are fact, not fiction. Deal with it. Deal with the fact that the Church claims today and has always claimed that the nativity accounts relate things that really happened, that the nativity accounts are historical documents.

 

[patg]

Melito:

The ancient Christians believed that the nativity accounts are fact, not fiction. Deal with it. Deal with the fact that the Church claims today and has always claimed that the nativity accounts relate things that really happened, that the nativity accounts are historical documents.

No thanks.

I suppose then that it is a fact that Herod was alive in the year 6 when Quirinius was governor of Syria even though he died in 4 B.C. Wow another resurrection! How did they miss that?

or that the custom of presenting a first-born to God in the temple is an unknown Jewish tradition

or that there is no known ritual which involves the purification of both parents.

or that their was only one high priest at a time…

Of course, since an infancy narrative isn’t supposed to be history why would they correct or even discuss such things? Did any Roman writer correct the statements about which god Augustus was conceived from? I don’t think so…

 

[otm]

Melito:

Have you found any evidence that the ancients even viewed literature; that is, that they had any form of critique of literary formats? That is of recent origin. The fact that literature was not critiqued 2000 years ago does not show that a critique is invalid.

Yes, I have found plenty of evidence that the ancients understood the difference between fact and fiction – and judging (“critiquing”) between fact and fiction is an elementary form of critique of literary format. The ancient Christians believed that the nativity accounts are fact, not fiction. Deal with it. Deal with the fact that the Church claims today and has always claimed that the nativity accounts relate things that really happened, that the nativity accounts are historical documents.

Again, you are arguing from silence. You are presuming that a literary device would be critiqued as fiction (that someone would have remarked about the “falsity” of the infancy narratives), and you thereby miss the point. If an infancy narrative was used as an imbellishment (and I don’t argue that it was), and everyone understood that the infancy narrative was not put forth to either report a fact as we understand it, nor put forth to create a lie (purposely state a falsehood to deceive), but was used as an embellishment, why would anyone discuss that? You are presuming a level of analysis that did’t start to develope for centuries later.

Are they historical documents? I don’t doubt that. But are they historical documents as we in the 21st century understand historical documents to be? That, I do doubt; people use the idioms, speech patterns and thought patterns of the time to convey truth. I have no problem with the possibility that every last detail in the infancy narratives may not have occured just exactly as reported, or some may have, and some may not have. My faith doesn’t rest on how many magi came, or when they showed up, or whether or not a specific star, or planet, or conjunction of stars and/or planets were in the sky, and/or whether or not they “moved” in such a way as to come to rest on or about the house where Jesus was. I do believe in miracles and God’s ability to convey knowledge to us in ways we don’t understand, and Amahl and the Night Visitors is a wonderful operetta by Minotti. But were the wise men kings, or prophets, or fortune tellers, or have operatic voices ? I don’t really care; nor do I care if they all came together, or in several bunches, nor does it make a lot of difference how many children Herod slew; a village’s worth (which would be, perhaps, 10 or 20), or a much larger number.

The Church is based of Scripture and Tradition, working together, to convey our faith. Too many people seem to want scripture scholars to stay out of the Bible; and not a few people want to take whatever some scholar may say and run to places fools dare not go. As usual, the truth lies in between the two extremes.

 

[mtr01]

One interesting thing I’ve noticed in this thread is that no one has mentioned Luke’s introduction to his Gospel. He clearly states:

Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

The Greek word used here is akribos, which means carefully/accurately. Knowing that Luke had renounced Paganism and all that it entailed, it would stand to reason that he would have been reluctant to idly relay accounts of “messengers of God” revealing information to people. Yet after a careful/accurate (akribos) investigation of the events, this is exactly what he writes.

There is also the fact that the first two chapters show a much more “Jewish” character than the rest of Luke’s Gospel. I find it more than reasonable, as others have postulated, that these events were directly related to him by Mary, or at least by the apostle John. If he indeed did investigate the events carefully/accurately then it wouldn’t be a stretch to believe that he got the information at least from St John (to whom Christ committed his Mother). As Frank Sheed reminds us, Luke would have had plenty of opportunities to do so during the 2 years or so he was in Caesarea while Paul was imprisoned there.

I find the above a great deal easier to believe than to think Luke wasn’t really serious about the accurate/careful investigation of the events surrounding the Nativity, and decided to use a “literary form” instead. To my way of thinking, the latter would then contradict his statement…and we all know Scripture does not contradict itself…not to mention the Holy Spirit wouldn’t inspire an author to mislead or write was wasn’t true.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

patg:

No thanks.

I suppose then that it is a fact that Herod was alive in the year 6 when Quirinius was governor of Syria even though he died in 4 B.C. Wow another resurrection! How did they miss that?

or that the custom of presenting a first-born to God in the temple is an unknown Jewish tradition

or that there is no known ritual which involves the purification of both parents.

or that their was only one high priest at a time…

Of course, since an infancy narrative isn’t supposed to be history why would they correct or even discuss such things? Did any Roman writer correct the statements about which god Augustus was conceived from? I don’t think so…

I see problems.​

OTOH, the nativity accounts are not history

Jesus was born, certainly - but the three *magoi *look remarkably like figures from Psalm 72. There may be an historical core to the Matthean narrative - but how far it extends, is debatable. IMO, one of the functions of the unit is to present Jesus as being Messianic King, and Universal king. Hence the *magoi. *And to present Him as the Incarnate Wisdom - hence the magoi. Kingship and Wisdom are both Matthean themes - and because they are found in other Gospels, ISTM that it would be a mistake to overlook the unity of the one Gospel, which was preached before it was written: it is not primarily a written message, but a kerygma, a “heralding”, of the Good News of the Parousia: the Coming of the King’s Son.

The Matthean narrative is an example of “universalist Judaism” - the sort that did not reject the Gentiles - as some strands of Judaism did - but kept a place in the Kingdom of God for them.

Another striking feature of the Infancy Narrative in Matthew, is its use of the folk-tale motif of the foundling who becomes a king despite the efforts of his enemies to destroy him. This is also found in the narrative of the finding of Moses; which is almost certainly re-used and adapted in the Matthean narrative.

One of the difficulties with accepting the Matthean narrative as historical and full of theological meaning, is the star. The problem is less that it recalls Numbers 24.17, than what would happen if a star acted as the star in Matthew 2 does - it would burn up the countryside for hundreds of miles around. So, while it would be a fine thing if the significance of the narrative went hand in hand with historical fact, IMO the text is concerned with significance, but not with historical fact. This or a similar view would resolve may problems and save a lot of harmonising; as that would not be needed.

Disappointing as this may be to some, perhaps we can treat this artificial history in Matthew as the counterpart of the primaeval history in Genesis 1 to 11 - a book echoed in Matthew 1.1. Neither is historical in the ordinary sense: but both tell of a genesis - the genesis of creation, and, the genesis of Christ in time and space, to redeem the world born in Genesis 1.1-31. IOW, the Matthean nativity is to that gospel what “primeval history” is to Genesis. That’s my guess anyway.

The Matthean infancy narrative is a work of outstanding literary skill - perhaps because it is written as a result of the new age ushered in by the Incarnation. “All things” are being “made new” - even literature. It’s very hard to compare the Gospels with any other writing - there are few parallels to them, if any, AFAIK. Which makes discussing their historicality or lack of it even more difficult ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Michael C:

Dave, Thank you. This is the type of evidence I’m looking for. I also plan to read Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino afflante spiritu, and Humani generis which may take some time for me. I understand the importance of being on the “same page” as the Church that Christ founded. I’ve always been firm in my faith but like Carol Marie I was a bit shaken.

While you’re about it, don’t forget the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”​

• At that time it was easier for a dogmatic theologian to be overwhelmed by the mass of exegetical detail that claimed attention, even when it did not yield mere hypotheses. Since then, the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church describes the progress made in biblical studies. It also surveyed (not without adding some cautions) the new approaches coming from sociology, anthropology, psychology, and the current interests in liberation and feminist theology. Moreover, the playing field has been changed in the radical postmodern hermeneutic by the denial of an objective text, and by deconstruction and the hermeneutics of suspicion. The 1993 document rightly held the historical critical methodology to be “indispensable,” but it did not examine its bearing on dogmatic theology.

The 1993 document is preceded by a Papal address and a preface by Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s not on the Web, but that quotation gives an idea of its contents.

For the page quoted, go to: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_1_33/ai_98922800

This (Catholic) site has many documents which may be helpful ##

 

[Michael_C]

## While you’re about it, don’t forget the 1993 document of the International Theological Commission on “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”

• At that time it was easier for a dogmatic theologian to be overwhelmed by the mass of exegetical detail that claimed attention, even when it did not yield mere hypotheses. Since then, the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church describes the progress made in biblical studies. It also surveyed (not without adding some cautions) the new approaches coming from sociology, anthropology, psychology, and the current interests in liberation and feminist theology. Moreover, the playing field has been changed in the radical postmodern hermeneutic by the denial of an objective text, and by deconstruction and the hermeneutics of suspicion. The 1993 document rightly held the historical critical methodology to be “indispensable,” but it did not examine its bearing on dogmatic theology.

It’s not on the Web, but that quotation gives an idea of its contents, For the page, go to: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_1_33/ai_98922800

This (Catholic) site has many documents which may be helpful ##

Thanks Gottle of Gear, I have to figure out how to get all this reading in and still mow the lawn this weekend…I appreciate it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I gave you the wrong Commission - I’ve just corrected that.​

Enjoy your reading ##

 

[Michael_C]

Ok, I read two encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus (Pope Benedict 1920) and Providentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII 1893). #1 Spiritus Paraclitus I felt was an easier read. #2 Reading encyclicals is difficult in a house full of children. From reading these I find it very Catholic to believe the nativity stories actually happened, the same way the virgin birth happened. But now I have another question. How much authority does an encyclical have in our faith? Is this “written in stone”?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Michael C:

Ok, I read two encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus (Pope Benedict 1920) and Providentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII 1893). #1 Spiritus Paraclitus I felt was an easier read. #2 Reading encyclicals is difficult in a house full of children. From reading these I find it very Catholic to believe the nativity stories actually happened, the same way the virgin birth happened. But now I have another question. How much authority does an encyclical have in our faith? Is this “written in stone”?

They are of high authority - this passage from Humani Generis in 1950 may help:​

• 1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This is just a snippet, of course - go to [www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM)

for the entire thing. It’s a good site for Encylicals.

Hope that helps. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Michael C,

I have another question. How much authority does an encyclical have in our faith? Is this “written in stone”?

See here … Personal conscience vs. encyclical instruction

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Michael C,

See also…

Pope Pius XII:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, … **these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” **(Humani Generis, 20)

Pope Pius IX:

we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how** opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.**

(Pius IX, Encyclical *Quanta Cura *(1864), Denzinger 1698)

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium :

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (LG, 25)

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they ***avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

---

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

What is an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium?

MAGISTERIUM, ORDINARY. The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, ***through the regular means of instructing the faithful. ***These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magisterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible. (Fr. John Hardon, *Pocket Catholic Dictionary, *“Magisterium, Ordinary”)