Which Nativity Stories *Really* Happened?

[patg]

From the Catechism

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

Nor is there the slightest independent historical evidence that it did. But, the symbolism and teaching is evident regardless of which way one believes and the church does not dogmatically specify either.

 

[patg]

It’s not enough to show that the Vatican encourages studying literary forms…

Another good reference (with an imprimatur and nihil obstat) which discusses the Catholic position on inspiration and inerrancy is Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald Witherup, S.S.

 

[pmoo]

What method do you suggest we use to determine "what really happened"? Belief in any of these things is purely a matter of faith - regardless of whether it is Santa Claus or the Magi.

Amen! It’s called FAITH! You have it or you don’t.

 

[adrift]

Nor is there the slightest independent historical evidence that it did.

Why would this be needed?

The Bible says it happened. I don’t need another source. The Catechism says it happened. Obviously they did not need another source. Tradition says is happened. There is some license in telling the events but essentially this is what happened.Jesus was born in Bethlehem There were shepherds. There were wise men. There were deaths of the innocents. Joseph Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt and returned to Nazareth. Those are facts not inventions to bolster a claim of Messiah. I disagree that the Church allows another view.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

**I;m not sure there are “new genres of religious writing” as you declare. What do you consider confined only to 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?

Yes it would have but before you hit the computer listen to me.

Matthew and Luke i believe were attempting to convey a truth…that Jesus was a very special individual, the most special the world has ever seen in human form. He was indeed God. Is it unreasonable for them to have told the story of Jesus’ birth in a manner than their readers would automatically identify with from past experience, because they had heard other tales of hero’s in which elaborate supernatural events were said to accur at the birth? I say they would. Whether they actually did or not is of course an entirely different story. They may well have told the story exactly as they were told of it. They may have embellished it in parts. That’s what we attempt to learn. We must never forget the Gospels were intent on convincing people, they were not intended to be historical statements of events wherein one would attempt to get every fact as nearly right as possible.

The methodology as far as I’ve seen in my research is the same used in the discernment of “historical” documents in other pursuits. In other words, as far as I can tell, when someone wants to tell me about athenian history and is dissecting for instance Herotodus, they use the same tools as when they are dissecting Matthew.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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?

I suspect it would be fruitful to understand how 1st century and earlier folks thought of folk stories. I suggest that most story telling is not used to convey historical facts so much as a particular truth, the author uses the story to convey the underlying truth. I don’t know whether Matthew’s readers or Luke’s believed the thing about the bright star, or the magi, or the angels, but they surely got the point, that this Jesus was a hugely important person. That was the primary concern.

I see nothing whatever dishonest about it, if indeed it happened that way. There was no intent to disceive. There is nothing of great importance to me at least about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. Its very very important to me that he is God. Matthew and Luke make that quite clear. You I think are attaching 21century beliefs onto a 1st century writer.

I am just unable to grasp why some people get so tied up on the individual events, rather than the lessons to be learned. I mean for goodness sake, isn’t that what Father does every Sunday? Try to inform us of the message behind the words?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Why would this be needed?

The Bible says it happened. I don’t need another source. The Catechism says it happened. Obviously they did not need another source. Tradition says is happened. There is some license in telling the events but essentially this is what happened.Jesus was born in Bethlehem There were shepherds. There were wise men. There were deaths of the innocents. Joseph Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt and returned to Nazareth. Those are facts not inventions to bolster a claim of Messiah. I disagree that the Church allows another view.

I think your use of the word “bolster” says it all.

The bible is not self autheticating. And I think you are quite wrong in suggesting that the Church teaches this fundamentalist interpretation. But of course, those who desire to believe in a literalist interpretation are more than free to do so. The Church warns against such interpretations but of course we know that millions of folks often disregard the Church on many things.

 

[rwoehmke]

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?

No, I don’t. In my opinion the writers of the infancy narratives knew and were convinced of who and what Jesus Christ was. They would want to use whatever tools were at hand to convince others of that belief. One of those tools was the genre of “infancy narrative” which most of us would agree that when applied to folks like Caesar and Alexander the Great were pure fiction. They were not gods or the progeny of gods. Now you have Gospel writers who have no intent of deceiving people because they know the truth about this birth that in its obvious-to-the-beholder facts was nothing outstanding. So the intent of using fiction is not to deceive, but to provide a pathway to the truth for those who would not be eye witnesses to Jesus’ life and deeds over the three years of his public life. Not a deception, but a case of using fiction to highlight the truth.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m going to do some reading offline before responding to the rest of your post, but I thought I’d respond to this now:

I am just unable to grasp why some people get so tied up on the individual events, rather than the lessons to be learned. I mean for goodness sake, isn’t that what Father does every Sunday? Try to inform us of the message behind the words?

I’ll only speak for myself. A big part of why I believe in Jesus is that I believe there were signs from God that showed the apostles that Jesus was His Son. They saw proof from heaven. For me to worship a human being, I’m going to need some proof, because if it’s a mistake, it’s a serious violation of the first commandment. I don’t really care if Matthew or Luke thought or felt or believed that Jesus was the Son of God, what I care about is their account of the facts.

Now, if its only the infancy narratives in question, there are still many other miracles and signs, like the transfiguration and the resurrection, and those are still enough for me. But now the credibility of Matthew and Luke are in question. So if they fictionalized the story, it’s very important to me to understand this in a way that they didn’t intend to decieve. If they intended to deceive to convince their audience… well that doesn’t seem very Saintly to me, and it makes it hard to accept anything in their gospel. If like you said, it wasn’t deception, I can accept that… but it’s just really hard to understand how someone can mix fiction and history without intending to deceive. But I hope the books that patg recommended can help.

 

[adrift]

I think your use of the word “bolster” says it all.

The bible is not self autheticating. And I think you are quite wrong in suggesting that the Church teaches this fundamentalist interpretation. But of course, those who desire to believe in a literalist interpretation are more than free to do so. The Church warns against such interpretations but of course we know that millions of folks often disregard the Church on many things.

I took it straight from the Catechism.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m going to do some reading offline before responding to the rest of your post, but I thought I’d respond to this now:

I’ll only speak for myself. A big part of why I believe in Jesus is that I believe there were signs from God that showed the apostles that Jesus was His Son. They saw proof from heaven. For me to worship a human being, I’m going to need some proof, because if it’s a mistake, it’s a serious violation of the first commandment. I don’t really care if Matthew or Luke thought or felt or believed that Jesus was the Son of God, what I care about is their account of the facts.

I see what you mean. I really do. I didn’t come to my faith that way. Perhaps that is why it doesn’t shake me. I came to faith largely on the sheer numbers of believers, the fact that I considered a rather large number of them as brilliant people, and that there were eyewitnesses who claimed they saw these things and ultimately died for that belief. I could conceive of no reason why people smarter than me would be willing to die for what they claimed to have seen with their own eyes unless it was true. No one speaks of course in the nativity narratives as being an eyewitness.

Now, if its only the infancy narratives in question, there are still many other miracles and signs, like the transfiguration and the resurrection, and those are still enough for me. But now the credibility of Matthew and Luke are in question. So if they fictionalized the story, it’s very important to me to understand this in a way that they didn’t intend to decieve. If they intended to deceive to convince their audience… well that doesn’t seem very Saintly to me, and it makes it hard to accept anything in their gospel. If like you said, it wasn’t deception, I can accept that… but it’s just really hard to understand how someone can mix fiction and history without intending to deceive. But I hope the books that patg recommended can help.

**Perhaps deception is not the right word. And the Maier books are tremendous…I used them in school. and have 2 of the 3. **

I took it straight from the Catechism.

Originally Posted by adrift
Why would this be needed?

The Bible says it happened. I don’t need another source. The Catechism says it happened. Obviously they did not need another source. Tradition says is happened. There is some license in telling the events but essentially this is what happened.Jesus was born in Bethlehem There were shepherds. There were wise men. There were deaths of the innocents. Joseph Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt and returned to Nazareth. Those are facts not inventions to bolster a claim of Messiah. I disagree that the Church allows another view.

This is from the catechism? I would have sworn it was your own words. please give the citation. “Those are facts not inventions to bolster a claim of Messiah” I’m not sure but I don’t think the Catechism is the final word on what the Church teaches is it?

Can you show where the catechism explains when and why “there is some license in telling the events?” do they give examples? and how are we to know when we can or cannot?

Does the Catechism set out from whence either Matthew or Luke got their information?

 

[adrift]

This is from the catechism?

Aren’t you the one who said you should do you own research?

I already gave the citation just go back to my previous post.

The word fundamentalist is thrown around a lot without consideration to what it means.
It seems that those who use this word mean that those who take literally what the bible says is a fundamentalist. So if you believe that there were shepherd or wise men than you are a fundamentalist.
I take my definition form THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994

It is much to long to quote from here but briefly: I believe that the narratives are the inspired word of God that is expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources but what they write is essentially true.

Fundamentalists believe in “Scripture alone”. There are those on the forum who believe this way but I have yet to see a Catholic one.

 

[patg]

Why would this be needed?

The Bible says it happened. I don’t need another source. The Catechism says it happened. Obviously they did not need another source. Tradition says is happened. There is some license in telling the events but essentially this is what happened.Jesus was born in Bethlehem There were shepherds. There were wise men. There were deaths of the innocents. Joseph Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt and returned to Nazareth. Those are facts not inventions to bolster a claim of Messiah. I disagree that the Church allows another view.

Then how do you deal with the large number of Catholic scripture scholars whose lives are devoted to these studies, who speak with the authority of the magesterium, and who express this other view? You are free to disagree with their view but it is certainly not true that the Church requires belief in your view.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Then how do you deal with the large number of Catholic scripture scholars whose lives are devoted to these studies, who speak with the authority of the magesterium, and who express this other view? You are free to disagree with their view but it is certainly not true that the Church requires belief in your view.

The authority of the magisterium is exercised only by bishops teaching in union with the pope. Scholars may advise them and suggest answers, but they speak with no magisterial authority. It is certainly not true that the Church requires belief in their view.

 

[adrift]

Then how do you deal with the large number of Catholic scripture scholars whose lives are devoted to these studies, who speak with the authority of the magesterium, and who express this other view? You are free to disagree with their view but it is certainly not true that the Church requires belief in your view.

My view is the Church’s view as expressed in the Catechism. I am not sure there are a large amount of scripture scholars who hold that the Nativity stories are fiction. Please site these scholars with the authority of the magesterium that do. Why aren’t they mentioned in the Catechism?

 

[TOME]

Again as I have been following the post for this thread I have come to a feeling many who take a literalist (please note I wrote literalist and not fundamentalist)interpertation of the nativity narritives (and the gospels in general) believe that someone like me, who is not a literalist, views the infancy narratives as fiction and nothing more. From this there is the assumption that I believe the gospels writers, when it comes down to it were, wrote fiction, knew they were writing fictious stories therefore were, in the end liars, and what they wrote was a pact of lies.

I can understand this reasoning especially in light of a long history of biblical scholarship influnced by R. Bultmann and is expressed today by such scholars as we find with the “Jesus Seminar”. I cannot speak for anyone else (although my gut feeling is many of us “Liberals” active in this discussion share my opinion) however, this is not the case.

I believe the gospels are Divine Revelation, however, to draw an anology I see the gospels as portraits rather than photographs -which continuing my anology - is how I think those of us who are literalist when it comes to the gospels, view the gospels. (here my more conservative side thinks of a protrait from one of the “Great Master” maybe even the “Impressionist” but not anything abstract).

We may have a photo that is correct in almost every detail but a portrait of the same subject gives us so much more. Those of you who have a greater appreciation of the arts and can express it better than I hopefully know what I am trying to convey). But a photo and painting deal with a historical fact and subject(s) but true art helps provide a deeper and richer understanding. In a way, this hold true for sacred music of the great master as Pope Benedict has written about. Music and art just has the ability to provide a greater depth of understanding.

Here I am not trying to get into the question of verifiabilty of the the gospels as historical record in the modern sense of the word. Rather, it is to explain that I don’t believe the gospels are fiction but whose depths are far richer if we approach them as portraits of what historically took place than if we approach them as historical documents - photographs if you will.

And studying the little I have I think this is closer to the way the ancients wrote their histories and biographies and we must aviod projecting our 20th/21st mentality of how history and biographies are written into ancient times.

I ask, isn’t this the goal given by the Church to scripture scholars to study the Bible and discover how the people who wrote the Bible wrote and through their writting style God worked?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The word fundamentalist is thrown around a lot without consideration to what it means.
It seems that those who use this word mean that those who take literally what the bible says is a fundamentalist. So if you believe that there were shepherd or wise men than you are a fundamentalist.
I take my definition form THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994

It is much to long to quote from here but briefly: I believe that the narratives are the inspired word of God that is expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources but what they write is essentially true.

Fundamentalists believe in “Scripture alone”. There are those on the forum who believe this way but I have yet to see a Catholic one.

You might try reading a bit further friend. Your definition of fundamentalism is incorrect.

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

con’t next

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the “re-readings” () of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle “Scripture alone,” fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.

That’s in the same document…you just didn’t look it over very far.
Have a good one.

 

[adrift]

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow;You might try reading a bit further friend. Your definition of fundamentalism is incorrect.

Originally Posted by adrift I believe that the narratives are the inspired word of God that is expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited

You might consider it incomplete but as can be seen is correct.

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.

Originally Posted by adrift Fundamentalists believe in “Scripture alone”. There are those on the forum who believe this way but I have yet to see a Catholic one.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle “Scripture alone,” fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith.

How come you omitted

F. Fundamentalist Interpretation

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.

The actual term is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined “five points of fundamentalism”: the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation, equally “literalist,” in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

There is nothing here that says the Bible is not EVER to be literal. If that were true, Jesus’ resurrection would be denied which in some quarters this type of thinking does exist.
Not all who believe that something really took place is a fundamentalist. That is a misreading of the Bible Commission. There are a few fundamentalist that post here and none are Catholic.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

SpiritMao,

Your diatribe against a mythical liberal boogeyman, “Catholic Fundementalists”, won’t obscure the facts here:

1. You have no evidence that the Nativity is historically inaccurate, as written.
2. You have no evidence that the Nativity accounts were written as fiction, or understood as fiction when they were written.
3. You have no evidence that the Vatican views the Nativity specifically as fiction, or even as an elaborated on otherwise truthful account.

Please stick to the topic at hand, and the facts.