Which Nativity Stories *Really* Happened?

[SpiritMeadow]

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.”

**Yes, this was a general statement of fundamentalism…not tied to a particular text of scripture. **

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???

**Because of what I said above. I’ve never stated that i believe or disbelieve the nativity narratives in general or as to any specifics. In general i believe in them just fine, In a few specifics, I’m more doubtful. I have not taken a stand because I have not done much work on Matthew or Luke. People here tend to make everything historically true or else. I believe a great deal is historically true, but not all. Thus when I have no especial knowledge about some text, I cannot have but a general opinion. **

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

**LOL…I always enjoy the fact that conservatives always label anything they don’t like as “predictable liberal behavior” Since you’re wrong in your assumption, I guess you would be the namecaller? **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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’

I am not required to take a position to see the fallacy in an argument that claims that literary forms must be proven to him. They are well known to anyone who bothers to look it up. The Vatican has spoken on the issue, see my blog and on the right column under Church Documents see the pontifical Biblical Commission 1994…all methods of biblical analysis are discussed there. Since you apparently have a position that the nativity narratives are historically correct, I could only assume that as part of your research you were aware of what the Church has said.

As I said to another poster, I have no particular conclusion so far. I believe the core of the narratives is true, some aspects I suspect are not, but I have not researched it yet myself. I will use the same hermeneutical tools on both Matthew and Luke as I have learned to use on Mark. So you may save the rolling eyes for someone else.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

**What it means is that the type of genre writing may be used to convey a particular IDEA via the mode of a common type of story. If people in your culture are exposed to extraordinary claims regarding the “birth” of some pagan deity, then when you write about a real deity (Jesus) you might frame it in a manner that would impress your readers that indeed Jesus fits the “pattern” we (the audience) see as deity. **

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

**They probably did. But you don’t certainly, I assume. **

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.

**I would not say so. History was for a very long time as much myth and bravado as real fact. Literature often doesnt reflect actual reality, many genres are used. **

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…

I’m not sure what you are attempting to say here. You’re first sentence is fine. You’re second goes off in another direction.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

"Neil_Anthony:

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”.

I’m not sure what you are attempting to say here. You’re first sentence is fine. You’re second goes off in another direction.

We should identify parts of scripture as belonging to literary genres which were commonly used in the time that the scripture was written. The goal should be to recognize which genre was used, rather than to define new genres of religious writing.

Whatever genre the infancy narratives are, is it fair to say that the author and readers of the time would have understood whether it was historically accurate or not? Would it still be acceptable for Matthew or Luke to have written fiction and passed it off as history?

 

[TOME]

,Joel Tunnah,
I apologize to you because it seems I did not express completely or as clearly what I had hope to convey in regards to the nativity narratives. Perhaps my message was obscured by too many words or perhaps I didn’t present my opinions in a logical way so that you would be able to understand my position. I guess I violated a fundamental principle of communication and for this again I apologize.

I write this because reading your response I was somewhat amazed that you would come to the conclusion that I held that the belief in the historicity of the nativity narratives precludes “an understanding of the Incarnation”. I thought that I had expressed myself clearly in this regards, namely, there is a historical basis for the infancy narratives however the historical reality is that the Incarnation actually happened. God did enter into human history assuming human nature in the person Jesus of Nazareth being born of the Virgin Mary.

For me, that is the historical reality. Maybe part of the weakness of my communication was I was (am) proceeding from various assumptions that I thought were implied but not articulated. One of these assumption, my basic assumption, was that those biblical scholars, under the influence of earlier scholars such as R. Bultmann were wrong. Jesus really did exist and God did enter into human history in his person. But more importantly, that Jesus not only existed but he did have an earthly ministry, did suffer, did die on the cross and most importantly did rise! His ministry, passion, death and Resurrection were historical events and not myths created by the early Church.

But having said that I again stress that what we are dealing with in the gospels are ontologial truths that transend mere historical narratives and because these are ontological or metaphysical truths there total historical accuracy of every word of each of the gospels become secondary to the inerrant truth of God’s activity, in the person of Jesus in Salvation History.

Part of my objection to what some have written here (on in other threads) is what I precieve to be the insistance that the ontological truth of the gospels in general and specifically the infancy narratives can only be insured by that acceptance that every word of the gospels is historical fact - historical in the modern sense of the word that is if we only had the technology of today back then, then we could prove everything presented in the gospels was exactly as it happened.

I just cannot accept this opinion, but I understand others do - I just disagree with them. But in no way am I saying that there in no historical basis for the gospels - there is. I think as Pope Benedict XVI has written in many works of his it is the task of the biblical scholars to provide possible answers to what are the historical truths (events that actually occured) or if there are other literary forms being employed to proclaim the ontological truth, and as was presented in the passage from Pope Benedict Cardinal Ratzinger) by Buffalo through"… a better synthesis between historical and theological methods…".

So again I regret that having read my post you came to the conclusion that I hold the, “belief in historical reality of the Nativity precludes an understanding of the Incarnation”. The Incarnation is a historical reality however it is a reality that transcends the phenomena of mere history into Salvation History.

Hopefully what I have written is clear enough for you to understand what I really believe.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I am not required to take a position to see the fallacy in an argument that claims that literary forms must be proven to him. They are well known to anyone who bothers to look it up. The Vatican has spoken on the issue, see my blog and on the right column under Church Documents see the pontifical Biblical Commission 1994…all methods of biblical analysis are discussed there.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1994 presents some guidelines for studying scripture. It discusses looking at the literary forms… but people are jumping straight from those guidelines to conclusions without explaining the intermediate steps.

There’s a huge leap in logic from “the bible can have different literary forms and we should find out what they are” to “The infancy narratives are not histories”. References to other religious figures who had similar stories about their births might be useful in such an argument, but that argument hasn’t been referred to or presented.

 

[rwoehmke]

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?

No I cannot say that, because I don’t know. I am thinking for most people probably not. For the authors, probably yes.

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.

Why would that have to be the case?

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

That is quite correct. And not a few Christians take the infancy narratives in that way. But there is a lot more to them than the story line.

It sounds 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.

No what I am saying is that “infancy narratives” were themselves a genre of writing; one with which most modern day folks are unfamiliar with.

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…

Correct that is a part of critical analysis. It does not say that the lesson or message the author is trying to teach is false. All it is doing is identifying the literary “medium” by which the lesson is conveyed.

The infancy narratives about Jesus certainly convey in a very beautiful and touching way, that God became incarnate as a helpless babe, that he was humble and born to poor parents and not to royalty, that some would spurn him (no room at the inn), that he never the less was of royal lineage, (the Gifts of the Magi), that the world would come to see him as having come to save not only the poor(shepherds) but also the more well to do including non-Jews (The Three Magi), that the peoples of the world would be filled with Joy because they would no longer be slaves to sin( the singing of the angels), etc/ etc.

It was and still is a beautiful and touching way of proclaiming God’s love for his people. The story still impacts even the hard hearted.

 

[rwoehmke]

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?

No I cannot say that, because I don’t know. I am thinking for most people probably not. For the authors, probably yes.

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.

Why would that have to be the case?

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

That is quite correct. And not a few Christians take the infancy narratives in that way. But there is a lot more to them than the story line.

It sounds 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.

No, what I am saying is that “infancy narratives” were themselves a genre of writing; one with which most modern day folks are unfamiliar with.

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…

Correct that is a part of critical analysis. It does not say that the lesson or message the author is trying to teach is false. All it is doing is identifying the literary “medium” by which the lesson is conveyed.

The infancy narratives about Jesus certainly convey in a very beautiful and touching way, that God became incarnate as a helpless babe, that he was humble and born to poor parents and not to royalty, that some would spurn him (no room at the inn), that he never the less was of royal lineage, (the Gifts of the Magi), that the world would come to see him as having come to save not only the poor(shepherds) but also the more well to do including non-Jews (The Three Magi), that the peoples of the world would be filled with Joy because they would no longer be slaves to sin( the singing of the angels), etc/ etc.

It was and still is a beautiful and touching way of proclaiming God’s love for his people. The story still impacts even the hard hearted.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

"Neil_Anthony:

Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony
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.

Why would that have to be the case?

I can understand using fiction to convey a message. But if that fiction is presented as history, then it seems dishonest. How could Matthew and Luke put fiction into the infancy narratives if they knew that most of the readers would take it as history? How could that be anything but dishonest?

If there was an understanding between author and the readers that the story of Jesus life had some fictional elements added to it, then fine. But if it the authors knew that most people would take it literally, don’t you see something wrong with that?

 

[Ignatius]

What method do you suggest we use to determine "what really happened"? Belief in any of these things is purely a matter of faith.

Those who were there at the time have testified to the truthfulness of those events mentioned in the Bible. I hope you have not fallen into the trap of thinking that litt in Scripture is to be taken literally. In fact, nearly everything is, and the parts that are not, such as the allegories, etc. are quite obvious.

Furthermore the Authority of the Catholic Church, given it by Jesus Christ, has vouched safe the Truth of these things.

 

[adrift]

Has anyone checked out the Catechism?

I don’t see anything there that indicates that the Nativity stories are fiction.

LINK

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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.

It’s been a few days since you were challenged on this. C’mon, ante up or fold.

Robert

 

[TOME]

As I continue to read the post of this thread I see that the underlying question as to “What “Really” Happened” remains what are the historical truths found in these narratives and I would extend this question to the gospels themselves.

I tried to expressed myself earlier on what I believed are the truths revealed here but I would like to state clearly what I belive are the basic truths of the gospels which form the historical basis of our Faith. I see four basic historical truths.

First, God entered into human history at a specific time and place in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who was born of the Virgin Mary (The Incarnation).

Second, Christ Jesus performed a public ministry in 1st Century Palestine during which he proclaimed that the Kingdom of God was present and uniquely present in his person. From this he taught, especially through the use of parables, performed mircles, and gathered followers.

Third, his ministry put him in direct conflict with the religious leaders of his time and place who conspired against him and eventually this lead to his passion and death on the cross (but he was executed as an enemy of the Roman State).

Four, and MOST IMPORTANT he rose from the dead - The Resurrection. (The fact that “The Twelve”, St Paul and many Christ followers went to their deaths proclaiming the Resurrection, I believe - along with many others - provides creditable historical evidence for the historical fact of the Resurrection).

These, I believe are the four principle historical facts upon which our Faith is based.

But this leads me to write more. Earlier, I used the term “Phenomena” and from the reaction I received it seems to me one or two do not understand what this term means. “Phenomena” refers to that which can be seen, touched, measured and verified though our senses. Revelant to our discussion this phenomena points towards the historical evidence we have - using both scriptural and non-scriptural sources (such as the writings of Josephus and the letters of Pliny to Trajan). However, it seems to me that some inferred that my use of the term phenomena was some how equivalent to the term “Myth”. Perhaps I am wrong but I want to point out I was not equating the two.

I also used the term “Ontological” in regards to truth. I did so in order to differentiate between truth that is contingent on the phenomena of our senses (historical truth in the modern sense of the term) and the truth that is the “Really-Real” that transends all sensory perception.

Let me give an example of what I mean. In regards to the nativity narratives the truth base on phenomena is a baby was born. His birth could have been witnessed and recorded by those present at the time - such as the local authorities and these documents if they were preserved could be verified through this historical documentation. However, the “Ontological” truth of this child’s birth could not be verified by historical documentation alone because the truth transcends the historical reality because now we are proclaiming the Incarnation - in the person of this baby God has assumed human nature. The ontological truth superceeds, it transends the phenomena of the historical event.

 

[TOME]

(#72 continued) This is why I wrote in another post that the phenomena of historical events as presented in the infancy narratives is secondary and I would add not necessary in our belief in the Incarnation.

We are all aware that in Dei Verbum the Church acknowledge that God is the authorof scripture however God uses human instruments in the actual writing of the text. At the root of this teaching of the Church is the realization that the people of the ancient world at the time of Jesus and the Apostles expressed their ideas in ways different from our own modes of expression. Through the archaeological discovers of the past hundred years or so we have a better understanding of how the ancients thought and expressed themselves in all aspects of life from law to poetry and even in the way they expressed historical facts and events. They used their own idioms and expressed their thoughts using such literary divices aimed to help impress ideas more deeply on the minds of their readers and listeners.

The Church understands this and She also realizes that in using these ways of speaking does not contridict the truth of God. The Church in her teaching on scripture also realizes that historical errors or inaccuracies in recording facts often turn out to be nothing else than the modes of expression and narration typical to the way ancient writers wrote.

So based on the teachings of the Church, I see no real contradiction in saying that all the events contained in the nativity narratives were not historical in the modern sense of the word but the nativity narrative are inerrant. The one and essential truth of the nativity narratives is the Incarnation and again borrowing from Pope Benedict XVI the infancy narrative are there to proclaim the Incarnation not explain it.

 

[patrick457]

How interesting!! First we have to buy all this junk from Catholic theologians that the OT is just an “allegory” or a “story” God is using to explain His divine plan. Now we have these same theologians questioning NT–starting with the birth of Jesus. Well, what’s coming next? I guess the Resurrection is just a parable or something.
Maybe these Catholic theologians need to put aside their pride and arrogance and realize they aren’t smarter than God.

Don’t we already have people saying the Resurrection "*is based on the ‘visionary experiences’ *(which perhaps in the context is quite synonymous with ‘grief-induced hallucinations’) of Paul, Mary and the other Apostles’?

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Let’s summarize:

One side in this thread is saying that the gospel Nativity stories are truthful accounts of actual events.

The other side seems to be saying that, yes, the underlying event of the Incarnation really happened - but the whole story of the shepherds, magi, star, myrrh, etc, is fiction, tacked on, just like other historical figures have fictionalized “infancy narratives”.

Problem 1: why would the gospel writers, giving the account of a real event - the Incarnation - of such grand proportions (God become man), that they knew to be true, then feel the need to add fictional stories onto it? So yes, I saw the empty tomb, but no one will believe that unless I make up a story about there being no room in an inn? Ok…

Problem 2: If the writers were willing to play fast and loose with the facts, why believe anything they have to say? You believe that God became man in a small town in Judea in the first century, but you don’t believe three astronomers and some shepherds came to adore him in a manger? Doesn’t this show a lack of consistancy?

 

[patg]

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.

As I said before, these aren’t my words, they are the words of those the Catholic Church has recognized as the greatest scripture scholars and those the Church has appointed as the authorities in the interpretation of scripture. So, you are actually calling the words of the Church’s scripture scholars “meaningless”.

I don’t expect you to believe anything I say personally BUT you could at least acknowledge that the Church does have scripture scholars and that these scholars do publish and that what they publish is authorized by the magesterium and, if you studied any of it, you would understand that what I have said does not need further explanation from me when you can get it directly from the authorities (as I have).

You want answers to your three questions? Read The Birth of the Messiah by Raymond Brown S.S., read the 3 volumes of *A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus *by John Meier, read the The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels.

And if you want to read the answers to your questions in the form frequently taught to the average Catholic, read the book used in many adult scripture classes, And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Formsby Margaret Ralph. This would be especially helpful to the many here who think I am just making up all this “literary form” stuff independent of the Church.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

As I said before, these aren’t my words, they are the words of those the Catholic Church has recognized as the greatest scripture scholars and those the Church has appointed as the authorities in the interpretation of scripture. So, you are actually calling the words of the Church’s scripture scholars “meaningless”.

I don’t expect you to believe anything I say personally BUT you could at least acknowledge that the Church does have scripture scholars and that these scholars do publish and that what they publish is authorized by the magesterium and, if you studied any of it, you would understand that what I have said does not need further explanation from me when you can get it directly from the authorities (as I have).

You want answers to your three questions? Read The Birth of the Messiah by Raymond Brown S.S., read the 3 volumes of *A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus *by John Meier, read the The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels.

And if you want to read the answers to your questions in the form frequently taught to the average Catholic, read the book used in many adult scripture classes, And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Formsby Margaret Ralph. This would be especially helpful to the many here who think I am just making up all this “literary form” stuff independent of the Church.

I’ll check those out, thanks. Often these debate threads are a good place to learn the arguments on each side, but in this case I guess it’s too complicated to cover it all in a forum. I get it now.

 

[adrift]

From the Catechism

525
Jesus was born in a humble stable, into a poor family.202 Simple shepherds were the first witnesses to this event. In this poverty heaven’s glory was made manifest.203 The Church never tires of singing the glory of this night:

527
Jesus’ circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth,209 is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham’s descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the Law210 and his deputation to Israel’s worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that “circumcision of Christ” which is Baptism.211

528
The Epiphany is the manifestation of Jesus as Messiah of Israel, Son of God and Savior of the world. The great feast of Epiphany celebrates the adoration of Jesus by the wise men (magi) from the East, together with his baptism in the Jordan and the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee.212 In the magi, representatives of the neighboring pagan religions, the Gospel sees the first-fruits of the nations, who welcome the good news of salvation through the Incarnation. The magi’s coming to Jerusalem in order to pay homage to the king of the Jews shows that they seek in Israel, in the messianic light of the star of David, the one who will be king of the nations.213 Their coming means that pagans can discover Jesus and worship him as Son of God and Savior of the world only by turning toward the Jews and receiving from them the messianic promise as contained in the Old Testament.214 The Epiphany shows that “the full number of the nations” now takes its “place in the family of the patriarchs,” and acquires Israelitica dignitas215 (are made “worthy of the heritage of Israel”).

529
The presentation of Jesus in the temple shows him to be the firstborn Son who belongs to the Lord.216 With Simeon and Anna, all Israel awaits its encounter with the Savior—the name given to this event in the Byzantine tradition. Jesus is recognized as the long-expected Messiah, the “light to the nations” and the “glory of Israel,” but also “a sign that is spoken against.” The sword of sorrow predicted for Mary announces Christ’s perfect and unique oblation on the cross that will impart the salvation God had “prepared in the presence of all peoples.”

530
The flight into Egypt and the massacre of the innocents217 make manifest the opposition of darkness to the light: "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not."218 Christ’s whole life was lived under the sign of persecution. His own share it with him.219 Jesus’ departure from Egypt recalls the exodus and presents him as the definitive liberator of God’s people.220

Nowhere is there an indication that this did not really happen.

 

[patg]

I’ll check those out, thanks. Often these debate threads are a good place to learn the arguments on each side, but in this case I guess it’s too complicated to cover it all in a forum. I get it now.

It is complicated and scholars far beyond any of us (well, me anyway) have wrestled with these issues for centuries and will continue to do so. Many of the high level papal douments, such as Dei Verbum, are primarily instructions to the scholars and not to the average person in the pew. That is why it is important to read other works such as the ones I mentioned above.

The really important thing to remember throughout this thread is that we are all searching for the truth and that we pretty much all agree on the Truth. What we are discussing are non-dogmatic differences of opinion concerning the vehicle which conveys that Truth.