Which Nativity Stories *Really* Happened?

[patg]

I’ve reread all 26 paragraphs of Dei Verbum and have not discovered the ‘secret code’ which supports your assertion that Pope Paul VI does not believe in the literal Truthfulness of the Gospels (including the Nativity account).

Then you apparantly missed this one:

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.

Recognizing and understanding the literary forms is crucial to a full grasp of the truth. Seems clear to the Pontifical Biblical Commission - I suggest you read The Birth of The Messiah by one of its most famous members, Raymond Brown.

You seem to want to take this document and beat everyone on the head with it on the issue of “literalism.”

I just reference it as one of the definitive papal statements on Catholic scritpure study. Do you have something better? I also like the *Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels. *You certainly shouldn’t believe me (just as I don’t agree with you) - read what the church’s scholars have written. I haven’t come up with any of this on my own - everything I have referred to comes directly from the church and its scripture scholars.

That is not the issue. The issue is the Truthfulness of the accounts. If you do not believe them to be truthful then that is one thing we all can agree on: you and His Holiness Pope Paul VI are leagues apart…

If you do not understand or accept that there are different kinds of truth and different ways of teaching and that fiction can teach truth then you and His Holiness Pope Paul VI are leagues apart. The teaching of theological truth does not require the use of historic truth.

Oh, and can you reference those ‘nativity accounts’ of the caesars and pharoahs and whatnot??

Sure, I’ll see if I can find some online references for you. These accounts were very common in the ancient world.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

You keep using the words “literal” and “literalist” in a perjorative sense, but yet the events in the gospels did literally happen - so I don’t see your point.

This is about the tenth thread here where anti-catholics quote from The Instruction, or Dei Verbum, to support their assertions that the Church doesn’t believe her own traditions and history. I’ve read both those documents - they do not support any of your positions. Your quotations only underscore that point.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

How can you say that as history the nativity is of no interest? If the account is accurate, its a pretty amazing thing to have a virgin birth which fulfills prophecies and which draws kings from the east following a star. Could you explain better what you mean, when you say that the events are of little interest if they are purely historical?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Recognizing and understanding the literary forms is crucial to a full grasp of the truth. Seems clear to the Pontifical Biblical Commission - I suggest you read The Birth of The Messiah by one of its most famous members, Raymond Brown.

You keep repeating over and over that the vatican wants us to study literary forms, but when asked for real facts showing how you actually studied literary forms and applied them to the bible, you can’t answer.

It’s not enough to show that the Vatican encourages studying literary forms. If you’re going to call part of the gospel a fictional nativity narrative, you need provide facts to back up

that such a genre of writing existed

that this genre of writing was understood by the people at the time to be fictional

and hopefully, to show examples of early christians from that culture recognizing it as nativity narrative.

Otherwise your words are meaningless.

 

[zerocrossing]

I thought you were talking about the ‘out there’ stories about the Nativity, such as the Tabby cats being graced with M’s in honor of their service to Mary and Jesus that night

What do you mean, the story about the Tabby cats being “out there”? My Tabby upstairs has a distinct “M” on his forehead, and we ALL know where it came from!

 

[TOME]

First, Goggle of Geer I agree with you, and perhaps even more so, that we are in a golden age of Catholic Biblical Scholarship. I think if all those present in this particular thread would read the entire article provided to us by “Buffalo” by Peter D. Brown and not just the part presented many might see the reason for my enthusiasm and may come to appreciate the scholarship of many Catholic Biblical scholars, such as Raymond Brown and I would include Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer as well. These sincere Catholics are human but isn’t this why God has given us the Magisterium to allow we humans to use our intellect but always safeguard the Truth? Another reason for my belief that we are in a golden age is because with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict what now have two popes who are no longer defensive towards modern biblical scholarship but actually embrace it and use it extensively in their Petrine Ministry and with them we have such pastors of the Church such as the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna (whose name I cannot pronounce so I will not attemp to write it).

Anyone who has at least a cursory knowledge of the writings of Pope Benedict XVI should know that among his strong criticisms of modern scriptural scholarship are of those who, using the historical-critical method often get so caught up in seing the scriptures as just documents of past history they fail to see the Bible as the Living Word of God and that the Bible must be understood as an organic whole. But rooted in this is also the criticism is these scholars fail to perceive the limitations of any historical study - namely we just cannot know the whole truth of what actually happened partly because they are confined to study only what is available - what can be seen and touched and thus believed.

I think from what I have seen in this thread and others like this, many who insist that the Infancy Naratives must be accepted as the literal account of what happened fall into this same mistake whose root is they miss the ontological truth for the mere phenomena.

In Chapter II, part 1 of his work, “Introduction to Christianity” Pope Benedict (Joseph Ratzinger) writes in paragraph 2, " This descent of Jesus from the mystery of God, “Which no one knows”, is dipicted in the so-called “infancy narratives” in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St Luke, not with the object of eliminating that mystery, but precisely to confirm it". As our Holy Father continues to explain the infancy narratives is a proclamation of the ontological truth of the Incarnation with his focus on the “physical” Divine Sonship. This, according to Benedict is the truth of the infancy narratives as well as the prologue and first chapter of John’s gospel. All three must then be seen as an organic whole (my words not Pope Benedict’s).

However, Benedict continues to explain that when he uses the term “Physic” it must not be understood in the sense of biology, rather, "Physical is meant here in the sense of the ancient concept of physics, that is, nature, or better, “inate character” and that “Jesus’ human nature was assumed by him who from eternity belongs “physically” (= really, by his being) to the triune relationship of divine love” (pg 275).

 

[TOME]

(#46 continued) As our Holy Father continues to point out all to often the metaphysical Divine Sonship is misinterperted as biological descent, “The Church’s teaching about Divine Sonship of Jesus is based, not on the story of the Virgin Birth but on the Abba-Son dialogue and on the relationship of Word and love that we find revealed in it.” (pg 276).

Still, Pope Benedict, I believe, puts things into the proper historical perspective that the fact of the Incarnation, as related in the infancy narratives, is rooted in an historical event (The Historical Event - my words) but these narratives are “the interpertations” of an event whose happening really took place.

However, as I see it, it is the ontological truth of the Incarnation that is the inerrant truth of the infancy narratives and as such this truth goes beyond the mere phenomena of what any historical narrative (in the modern sense of the word) could ever hope to relate so that the historical accuracy of the narratives is secondary at best (given the apparent contradictions and lack of creditable concuring non-scriptural evidence) in importance.

The necessary historical fact of the infancy narratives is The Incarnation - God became man in the person of Jesus and was born of the Virgin Mary.

Again, based on the writings of Pope Benedict XVI the infancy narratives proclaim the ontological truth of the Incarnation but do not and never were meant to explain them.

I realize that I have used the same response, or something similar, to this question in other post but it seems the same question is always being asked so my answer remains the same.
However, I do acknowledge that others such as patg or Goggle of Geer do a much better job than I can of expressing what I wish to express so I do thank them and others of the same theological understanding. Also, I hope all will read Pope Benedict’s works in regards to the Incarnation so that if what I wrote is wrong I could be corrected.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

I think from what I have seen in this thread and others like this, many who insist that the Infancy Naratives must be accepted as the literal account of what happened fall into this same mistake whose root is they miss the ontological truth for the mere phenomena.

It does not follow that belief in the historical reality of the Nativity precludes an understanding of the Incarnation.

What you call “mere phenomena” is the historical basis of our belief.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It does not follow that belief in the historical reality of the Nativity precludes an understanding of the Incarnation.

What you call “mere phenomena” is the historical basis of our belief.

I agree with you. The quotes from the pope don’t say whether the nativity narratives are historical or not.

If none of the miracles or signs reported in the Gospels are true, why would the disciples have decided to start worshipping Jesus as the Son of God? If not for the transfiguration and the miracles and signs, and the resurrection, I don’t see how they could justify worshipping a human being.

 

[buffalo]

The Gospels as history

…
Some biblical commentators have tried to make a case to show that Dei Verbum teaches a restricted doctrine of scriptural inerrancy by comparison with previous documents of the Magisterium. However, a careful study of the redaction of the conciliar text, together with a detailed analysis of the documents referred to at this point, provide no basis for attenuating the scope of the traditional concept of biblical inerrancy.[31] Gospel historicity and inerrancy are correlative and coextensive concepts. They either stand or fall together. From what we have seen, there can be no doubt that, in Dei Verbum, they mutually reinforce one another, while making due allowances for the use of different literary genres by the inspired writers.

…
Twenty years after the Council, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical on the Holy Spirit (Dominum et Vivificantem),[32] reaffirms the historicity of the gospels and situates it in a wider theological perspective. He reminds us that the Holy Spirit is always present in the Church as “teacher of the same good news that Christ proclaimed.” The Holy Father gives us an authoritative interpretation of John 14:26 ("he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you"),[33] which has profound implications for the historical authenticity of the gospel texts. He says:
"the words ‘he will teach’ and ‘bring to your remembrance’ mean not only that he, in his own particular way, will continue to inspire the spreading of the Gospel of salvation but also that he will help people to understand the correct meaning of the content of Christ’s message; they mean that he will ensure continuity and identity of understanding in the midst of changing conditions and circumstances. The Holy Spirit, then, will ensure that in the Church there will always continue the same truth which the apostles heard from the Master."[34]

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

Its not possible for certain people to accept the Church’s teaching on this because it theatens their entire faith. They have fallen into teh fundamentalist trap of regarding the bible as literal word for word statements by God. They differ with other fundamentalists in that they would include the magisterium in the mix as another source. Every topic is first addressed as: what does the scripture say (this literal meaning is sacro sanct) and what does the Magisterium say? They would disallow any further discourse.

That the Church takes no such stance is immaterial to them. They intend that the Church comes to their position. Much like the ultra liberals they so abhor.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Its not possible for certain people to accept the Church’s teaching on this because it theatens their entire faith. They have fallen into teh fundamentalist trap of regarding the bible as literal word for word statements by God. They differ with other fundamentalists in that they would include the magisterium in the mix as another source. Every topic is first addressed as: what does the scripture say (this literal meaning is sacro sanct) and what does the Magisterium say? They would disallow any further discourse.

That the Church takes no such stance is immaterial to them. They intend that the Church comes to their position. Much like the ultra liberals they so abhor.

It’s not enough to show that the Vatican encourages studying literary forms. If you’re going to call part of the gospel a fictional nativity narrative, you need provide facts to show:

1. 
   *]that such a genre of writing existed
   *]that this genre of writing was understood by the people at the time to be fictional
   *]examples of early christians from that culture interpreting it as not literal
   
   For all your posts complaining about people taking things too literally, you haven’t posted a single peice of information that can show WHY you believe that these stories are fictional infancy narratives. Let’s see some evidence.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s not enough to show that the Vatican encourages studying literary forms. If you’re going to call part of the gospel a fictional nativity narrative, you need provide facts to show:

1. 
   *]that such a genre of writing existed
   *]that this genre of writing was understood by the people at the time to be fictional
   *]examples of early christians from that culture interpreting it as not literal
   
   For all your posts complaining about people taking things too literally, you haven’t posted a single peice of information that can show WHY you believe that these stories are fictional infancy narratives. Let’s see some evidence.

1. 
   Actually, I’ve taken no position at all about whether these particular stories reflect historical facts or not. That such a genre of writing existed refers I assume to “fictional nativity” narrative? since I’ve made no such claim I can’t see why I am called upon to refute this. I would refer you generally to those who do propose various literary genre within the bible. I’m not doing your research.

 

[buffalo]

Pontifical Biblical Commission: Yesterday And Today

…Cardinal Ratzinger had called for “a better synthesis between historical and theological methods, between criticism and dogma” and for self-criticism by exegetes of the historical-critical method. He said that errors made in biblical exegesis over the preceding century "have virtually become academic dogmas," especially due to the influence of Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann, whose "basic methodological approaches continue even today to determine the methods and procedures of modern exegesis,"10 and he saw the urgent need to challenge the fundamental ideas of this method.11 The Cardinal pointed out that Bultmann the exegete “represents a background consensus of the scientific exegesis dominant today,” even though Bultmann’s exegetical conclusions “are not the result of historical findings, but emerge from a framework of systematic presuppositions.” And so the Cardinal called for “a new and thorough reflection on exegetical method,” for which task "(t)he great outlines of patristic and medieval thought must also be brought into the discussion."12

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Actually, I’ve taken no position at all about whether these particular stories reflect historical facts or not.

You say that anyone who believes the Nativity account in the gospels reflects a historical reality,

“…have fallen into teh fundamentalist trap of regarding the bible as literal word for word statements by God.”

And then you say you cannot comment on whether the accounts are historically accurate. How can you claim that the account is not literaly true, and simultaneously claim to not take a position on whether it happened or not???

So, basically you’re just calling people names (“fundie”, etc) simply because you don’t like their position. Sadly, this is predictable liberal behavior.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

… I can’t see why I am called upon to refute this. I would refer you generally to those who do propose various literary genre within the bible. I’m not doing your research.

Apparently you aren’t doing your own research either Just a bunch of assumptions that it’s not historical without any facts to backup the ‘modern research’

 

[rwoehmke]

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.

Are we to assume than that the content of many if not all of the parables are not fiction.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are we to assume than that the content of many if not all of the parables are not fiction.

Good point. Parable is a genre of writing that I’m familiar with. Outside the bible I’d say Aesop’s Fables are a similar genre. So I can understand what a parable is.

But a nativity narrative, of a real historical person but with fictional elements that the author and the readers understand are not literal events… now that’s something new to me. Where is the evidence that such a genre of writing ever existed, other than in the two gospels?

 

[rwoehmke]

As I recall a number of religious figures in the ancient past were said to have had virgin births, Budda, perhaps Mithras, Gilgamesh. etc. It would also seem that the conception of many important biblical figures was unusual in that many of the mothers were “beyond child bearing years.” There is also apocryphal stories in books contemporary with but not accepted as scripture that contain wonderous stories of conception and birth. So yes the people of Jesus’ times would have been familiar with such stories. Also many stories were in circulation about persons conceived by the dalliance of human women with a god including Caesar Augustus and others.

It would also seem strange that with all the angels singing and shepherds and magi showing up along with the star that Jesus’s relatives and townspeople would not have been so doubtful about who he claimed to be. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?”

All that being said, the Nativity Narratives do a fabulous job of helping to show who Jesus truly was.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

As I recall a number of religious figures in the ancient past were said to have had virgin births, Budda, perhaps Mithras, Gilgamesh. etc. It would also seem that the conception of many important biblical figures was unusual in that many of the mothers were “beyond child bearing years.” There is also apocryphal stories in books contemporary with but not accepted as scripture that contain wonderous stories of conception and birth. So yes the people of Jesus’ times would have been familiar with such stories.

But those are supposed to be actual stories about real events. At least to the believers. Are you saying there was an understanding among other religions that the special events around the births of their religious figures were fictional?

It’s not enough to just say that there were unusual stories about the infancies of great people. You need to show that this was a genre of writing which was undertood to be fictional within that culture.

Also many stories were in circulation about persons conceived by the dalliance of human women with a god including Caesar Augustus and others.

But the people who worshipped Caesar actually believed those stories were accurate.

It shounds like what you’re saying is that there is a genre of writing called ‘religious writing’ which has the general characteristic of making things up to show that the subject was divine.

Critical analysis is about identifying actual literary genres like history, poetry, fiction, songs, fables, myths, etc. It’s not about saying “religious writing is full of falsehoods, and the bible is an example of religious writing”. Although I haven’t studied theology formally…