Which Nativity Stories *Really* Happened?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Let’s see what Benedict says:

Benedict XVI has never wavered in his belief
that the Bible itself is
fundamentally one with the living tradition of the Church.
Catholic Biblical Scholarship

…But there is every reason to be optimistic for the future of Catholic biblical scholarship. Benedict has never wavered in his belief that the Bible itself is fundamentally one with the living tradition of the Church — both in her later theology and her worship in the liturgy. This oneness is an ontological fact rooted in the incarnation of Christ and an historical fact rooted in the very nature of revelation. It is, in short, not merely one of a chorus of scholarly hypotheses. Benedict is quite aware that it will take some time for scholarship to catch up so to speak with “faith’s hermeneutic.”** When this takes place the Church will have shown thather interpretive traditions are not only the oldest and the most venerable but also the only ones that can survive a thoroughgoing critical scrutiny. Catholic readings of Scripture will be at once most in keeping with true Christian teaching and living but also the most academically respectable**. When this occurs, the Church will have put to rest the historical challenge to the veracity of the Holy Scriptures and will have enriched her knowledge of the Bible immeasurably. Benedict’s corpus suggests many philosophical and exegetical avenues for how this might ultimately be done. As the ideas of Benedict begin to make their mark on the Church, we may well be on the cusp of a golden age in Catholic biblical study.
Click to expand...
Your source is not Benedict but someone’s interpretation of Benedict. Site your sources correctly please. We have Benedicts own words which have been recited endlessly here. He is not a literalist in the sense that a fundamentalist is a literalist. He’s been quoted so thoroughly that is quite clear.
 
What is so amusing here is that biblical scholars are vilified and called 'uncatholic" and stupid because they may offer an analysis that upsets the tidy little worlds some folks have built for themselves. The fact is that the methodology used by biblical scholars is the same methodology used by historians and literary critics in dissecting other writings. Some one who wishes to understand Plato and Aristotle learns koine Greek and translates from the originals, they compare word usage, literary styles, other writings of the era, and a plethora of other accepted historical critical methods to uncover the truth. Nobody argues about them being filthy perveyors of untruth because they don’t accept the “literal” appearance of the text. Yet when these same folks do it to the bible, a certain segment is made uncomfortable and so they claim its atheistic analysis.

The same thing occurs in science. It’s fine as long as it leads to cars, tv’s computers, medicines, airplanes, nuclear energy, etc…but the same exact processes of experimentation are decried as atheistic claptrap when its used in biology as it pertains to the study of how live evolved.

This split brain syndrome is ignored by the creationist, and fundamentalist interepretor of course. Just another example of the disingenuous argument that is put forth. There seems to be very little in the way of honest intellectual examination.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Your source is not Benedict but someone’s interpretation of Benedict. Site your sources correctly please. We have Benedicts own words which have been recited endlessly here. He is not a literalist in the sense that a fundamentalist is a literalist. He’s been quoted so thoroughly that is quite clear.
Click to expand...
SpiritMeadow, are you saying that the Virgin Birth isn’t really how Jesus was born? Did Jesus have a human biological father?

Is your name ‘spirit meadow’ new-age?
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Your source is not Benedict but someone’s interpretation of Benedict. Site your sources correctly please. We have Benedicts own words which have been recited endlessly here. He is not a literalist in the sense that a fundamentalist is a literalist. He’s been quoted so thoroughly that is quite clear.
Click to expand...
The footnotes seem to be pretty good to me.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
What is so amusing here is that biblical scholars are vilified and called 'uncatholic" and stupid because they may offer an analysis that upsets the tidy little worlds some folks have built for themselves. The fact is that the methodology used by biblical scholars is the same methodology used by historians and literary critics in dissecting other writings. Some one who wishes to understand Plato and Aristotle learns koine Greek and translates from the originals, they compare word usage, literary styles, other writings of the era, and a plethora of other accepted historical critical methods to uncover the truth. Nobody argues about them being filthy perveyors of untruth because they don’t accept the “literal” appearance of the text. Yet when these same folks do it to the bible, a certain segment is made uncomfortable and so they claim its atheistic analysis.
Click to expand...
What has happened with the Liberal “bible critics” is that they start off by making certain huge and unwarranted assumptions.
  1. The Apostles were liars and con-men, who made up and falsified stories in order to convince the gullible.
  2. The miraculous cannot occur, therefore all references to it are automatically presumed falsehoods.
  3. Propecy cannot be true. therefore all references to fulfilled prophecy must have been written later. (This is the source of the 2nd century dates such people often give for the gospels)
  4. Any other document that contradicts the bible account MUST be a better source and is to be preferred to the bible.
Anyone who makes such assumptions is not an unbiased analyst, but someone with a mind already made up that the faith is false
The same thing occurs in science. It’s fine as long as it leads to cars, tv’s computers, medicines, airplanes, nuclear energy, etc…but the same exact processes of experimentation are decried as atheistic claptrap when its used in biology as it pertains to the study of how live evolved.
Click to expand...
No. The claim that man evolved by random mutation is a THEORY held as an almost religious article of faith by many people. It is entirely unproven.
 
Axion said:
What has happened with the Liberal “bible critics” is that they start off by making certain huge and unwarranted assumptions.
  1. The Apostles were liars and con-men, who made up and falsified stories in order to convince the gullible.
  2. The miraculous cannot occur, therefore all references to it are automatically presumed falsehoods.
  3. Propecy cannot be true. therefore all references to fulfilled prophecy must have been written later. (This is the source of the 2nd century dates such people often give for the gospels)
  4. Any other document that contradicts the bible account MUST be a better source and is to be preferred to the bible.
Anyone who makes such assumptions is not an unbiased analyst, but someone with a mind already made up that the faith is false
No. The claim that man evolved by random mutation is a THEORY held as an almost religious article of faith by many people. It is entirely unproven.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission all disagree with your misinterpretation of scripture scholarship.
 
patg said:
It is interesting that Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission all disagree with your misinterpretation of scripture scholarship.
Click to expand...
Please post the document where any pope questions the historical truth of the nativity or any event in the life of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels.

I won’t hold my breath.
 
patg said:
I never said the gospels did not teach truth; the gospels teach deep profound truths. But, as the church states, those truths are often taught in stories which are not to be taken literalistically.
Click to expand...
And this is not one of those non-literal places. Duh. Duh again.

You: “Jesus was not born of a virgin or born in Bethlehem or born in a manger because the Bible always portrays false facts. Nothing is ever literally true in the Bible.”

Me and the entire Christian Church: “Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem in a manger because the Bible and the early generations of Christians said so and THAT is sufficient ‘scientific’ proof of the matter.”
 
Joel_Tunnah said:
Please post the document where any pope questions the historical truth of the nativity or any event in the life of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels.

I won’t hold my breath.
Click to expand...
No problem - hope you and Buffalo aren’t turning blue yet…(and I did already post the name of one of the major documents, but I’ll quote a few parts of it here for you):

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (1964) *contains the following statement:

"The Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, at the audience graciously granted to the undersigned secretary on April 21, 1964, approved this Instruction and ordered the publication of it."

Here are a few items from this document:

*…was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. **From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. ***

And:

…the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.

And:

Unless the exegete pays attention to all these things which pertain to the origin and composition of the Gospels and makes proper use of all the laudable achievements of recent research, he will not fulfil his task of probing into what the sacred writers intended and what they really said…He will diligently employ the new exegetical aids, above all those which the historical method, taken in its widest sense, offers to him–a method which carefully investigates sources and defines their nature and value, and makes use of such helps as textual criticism, literary criticism, and the study of languages.

And:

So, just as Jesus Himself after His resurrection “interpreted to them” the words of the Old Testament as well as His own,they too interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners. "Devoting themselves to the ministry of the word,"they preached and made use of various modes of speaking which were suited to their own purpose and the mentality of their listeners.
 
scottm said:
And this is not one of those non-literal places. Duh. Duh again.
Click to expand...
What reason do you have for asserting that? It is clearly written in the well known classical literary form known as an* Infancy Narrative*. Any study of this form reveals the gospel accounts as exactly fitting this genre - a genre which was known to be a fictional account of a great person’s origins. The Church’s recent documents on scripture analysis require us to consider this concept. These same stories were written about the Caesars, Pharoahs, and any number of ancient leaders - I suppose you believe in the literal historicity of every one of those also?
You: “Jesus was not born of a virgin or born in Bethlehem or born in a manger because the Bible always portrays false facts. Nothing is ever literally true in the Bible.”
Click to expand...
I, of course, have never said anything like that.
Me and the entire Christian Church: “Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem in a manger because the Bible and the early generations of Christians said so and THAT is sufficient ‘scientific’ proof of the matter.”
Click to expand...
I would rephrase that slightly to place youir views with the fundamental listeralistic view of the bible which is not at all what the church’s scripture scholars promote.
 
patg said:
What reason do you have for asserting that? It is clearly written in the well known classical literary form known as an* Infancy Narrative*. Any study of this form reveals the gospel accounts as exactly fitting this genre - a genre which was known to be a fictional account of a great person’s origins. The Church’s recent documents on scripture analysis require us to consider this concept. These same stories were written about the Caesars, Pharoahs, and any number of ancient leaders - I suppose you believe in the literal historicity of every one of those also?
Click to expand...
Would you help us to understand this better, by providing some examples of nativity narratives of pharoahs and ceasars? Also some examples of how people of the time understood those nativity narratives as fiction? (please, I’d really like to understand).

The apostolic fathers lived around that time, is there any evidence that they recognized the beginnings of Matthew and Luke as fictional nativity narratives?
 
I think that the Magi arrived later on (days later), but I see no reason to think that the shepherds were not there after the birth.
 
I cannot comprehend how intelligent people can understand the Scriptures as an eyewitness account of everything that transpired over more than a thousand years of history with every sentence having the exactness of a direct quote from yesterdays speech by the president.

Why is it so offensive to believe that different parts of scripture are different literary forms including some myth, some allegory, and yes even some fiction? I have yet to read or hear from any respected Biblical scholar that every part of the OT is allegory. Where does that notion of all or none come from?
 
rwoehmke said:
Why is it so offensive to believe that different parts of scripture are different literary forms including some myth, some allegory, and yes even some fiction? I have yet to read or hear from any respected Biblical scholar that every part of the OT is allegory. Where does that notion of all or none come from?
Click to expand...
This thread is about the infancy narratives in the Gospels… not about Genesis. There are a lot of us who accept that there are different literary forms in the bible, but we understand the Gospels to be summaries of the real events of Jesus’ life and his real teachings. If parts of the gospels are fictional, that’s certainly news to me.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
This thread is about the infancy narratives in the Gospels… not about Genesis. There are a lot of us who accept that there are different literary forms in the bible, but we understand the Gospels to be summaries of the real events of Jesus’ life and his real teachings. If parts of the gospels are fictional, that’s certainly news to me.
Click to expand...
Read the posts from FCEGM in this thread. By the way Im not saying Im supporting what rwoehmke is saying.
 
buffalo said:
Let’s see what Benedict says:

Benedict XVI has never wavered in his belief
that the Bible itself is
fundamentally one with the living tradition of the Church.

[Catholic Biblical Scholarship (http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/brown.htm)

…But there is every reason to be optimistic for the future of Catholic biblical scholarship. Benedict has never wavered in his belief that the Bible itself is fundamentally one with the living tradition of the Church — both in her later theology and her worship in the liturgy. This oneness is an ontological fact rooted in the incarnation of Christ and an historical fact rooted in the very nature of revelation. It is, in short, not merely one of a chorus of scholarly hypotheses. Benedict is quite aware that it will take some time for scholarship to catch up so to speak with “faith’s hermeneutic.”** When this takes place the Church will have shown thather interpretive traditions are not only the oldest and the most venerable but also the only ones that can survive a thoroughgoing critical scrutiny. Catholic readings of Scripture will be at once most in keeping with true Christian teaching and living but also the most academically respectable**. When this occurs, the Church will have put to rest the historical challenge to the veracity of the Holy Scriptures and will have enriched her knowledge of the Bible immeasurably. Benedict’s corpus suggests many philosophical and exegetical avenues for how this might ultimately be done. As the ideas of Benedict begin to make their mark on the Church, we may well be on the cusp of a golden age in Catholic biblical study.
Click to expand...

I think we are are in one already, thanks to Father Raymond Brown (& many, many others) - “golden age in…**iblical study” don’t come for the asking, nor are they the monopoly of a single form of religion; not even of Christians. Catholic Biblical scholarship owes a vast debt to non-Catholic scholars; but those for whom all things non-Catholic are foul & hateful will never understand this.​


The veracity of the texts is not the issue, nor is their historicity;
  • the literary genre of the Nativity-texts
  • & how they narrate what happened
  • & what the composers of them (as entities produced by a tradition; not necessarily by a solitary inspired author) meant
  • is. There is nothing to stop the resultant texts canonised by the Church being at once:
  • true
  • historical in what they proclaim
  • non-historical in how they proclaim it - in two different senses of the word BTW: the form of linguistic discourse is one of these senses, & the non-historical literary genre is the other.
    What these texts are not, by any means, is historical inall aspects. If they are nothing but history, then they are of no more interest, importantance or value than any other record of the borth of a baby, & Jesus becomes nothing but another crucified Jew, of no more importance than any other crucified unfortunate. Why bother with someone so insignificant ? Crucified Jews,unlike babies, all but grew on trees - if He is just one more, He is not worth bothering with.
That is what happpens, if the particularly Christian significance of the texts is sacrificed to mere historicity, to mere “happening”: the Nativity ceases to be of any importance - instead, one lis left with the assertion of the birth of some baby or other. There is no salvation, but only despair, to be gained from from mere “happenings”. The Nativity happened, but it is far more than a mere happening - it is event of salvation-history, of Heilsgeshichte.

IOW, it is a mighty work of God - but anybody can “make history”, Historie; yet what has that to do with faith in Christ ? Nothing, nothing whatever. What fundamentalists want is Historie; what Biblical scholars are concerned with is not so much Historie, as Heilsgeschichte.

BTW, Biblical scholars nowadays are most unlikely to be liberals - Biblical liberalism died about 1920, after WW1. Most Biblical scholarship since has been rather conservative, if anything. But AFA Fundamentalists are concerned, anything that is not absolutely conservative by their standards, is liberal. That is the only sense I can make of the indiscriminate vilification of non-consevative Biblical scholarship. Fundamentalists know nothing about it, don’t want to understand it, & know only that they can’t abide it.

bible.gen.nz/amos/glossary/Heilsgeschichte.htm

centerce.org/GlossaryLink.htm**
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
…Biblical liberalism died about 1920, after WW1. Most Biblical scholarship since has been rather conservative, if anything.
Click to expand...
You must be joking.

About once a week there is an article or TV show proclaiming that “biblical scholars” have “discovered” that the crucifixion didn’t happen, Mary was a whore, Pilate was a cool guy, etc.

PATG:
Your Vatican quotations do not say in any way, shape, or form that the Nativity didn’t happen, or that the Gospels are not truthful accounts of events in the life of Christ. Do you seriously think any pope believes that the nativity is fiction??? Get a grip!
 
Joel_Tunnah said:
Your Vatican quotations do not say in any way, shape, or form that the Nativity didn’t happen, or that the Gospels are not truthful accounts of events in the life of Christ.
Click to expand...
I believe you said: " or any event in the life of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels." Now how can you read any of the quotes I provided and assert that the gospels are literally and historically accurate eyewitness accounts?
Do you seriously think any pope believes that the nativity is fiction???
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I believe most popes are intelligent men who listen to the scholars they appoint to guide the church.
Get a grip!
Click to expand...
I think you need to get a grip and seriously investigate and understand what the church actually teaches in this matter. We are doctrinally free to believe either side of this story . There is no doctrinal or dogmatic statement concerning literalistic belief in the nativity narratives. And actually, there are only a small handful of belief requirements for the entire set of gospels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top