Which Nativity Stories *Really* Happened?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be - I tried to explain in that post, by distinguishing between Historie & Heilsgeshichte, at some length ​

Historie is history as mere “happening”

Heilsgeshichte is salvation history - historical events that are taken up into God’s activity to become His saving acts.

Historie is not Heilsgeshichte - happenings as such are not salvation history; they are mere history, & as such, utterly irrelevant to our salvation.

That is the sense in which that particular birth is irrelevant; it’s of no importance if treated as Historie - that is to miscategorise it, because it is important only because it is part of Heilsgeshichte, of salvation history. The mere fact of its happening gives it no importance whatever: billions of things happen, every day. That does not make them salvation history, does not make them mighty saving acts of God.

Is that clearer ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

When the verb proskyneō is used, it does not always mean “I pay divine worship to”.​

It’s used 60 times in the NT, & many of those times are likely to refer to an act of respect which is not what we now call “adoration” at all, but an act of prostration which need not imply that divine worship is intended.

There are two other possibilities at least:

• that an act of respect is being interpreted or represented as divine worship of Jesus, not because that is what was intended in the event narrated in the Gospel, but because the Church’s tradition interpreted an act of respect in the light of its faith in Christ as being an act of divine worship.
• The other possibility, which is compatible with the former, is that Jesus was honoured in the incident narrated not as God, but as Messiah, or Son of Man, or as Davidic King, or as two or more of these.
  At any rate, it’s not necessary to see the various incidents in the gospels as showing or proving an awareness of the Divinity of the Lord on the part of the person who is “worshipping” Him. Proskunesis was not paid to God alone - there is a reference to something similar in 1 Chronicles 29.20. Daniel prostrates himself to an angel, & Abraham does so in Gen. 23.

The gospels are rather indirect in their presentation of the identity of Jesus - He often tells those who pay Him proskunesis not to speak of Who He is. This fits with His being Messiah, & does not require Him to be God. The Disciples are depicted as very slow to believe, so it is very unlikely that they realised before the Passion that He is God Incarnate; that seems to have dawned on them only later. And if they did not see that, then their fellow-Jews are not likely to have done so either.

He is certainly presented as God later on, but not in those terms. His acts in the gospels hint at His Divinity, as does the way they are related - He does things that God does in the OT. The miracles & signs don’t prove His Divinity - they are what the Messiah was expected to do. Elijah worked miracles - & he was a man, not God. Jesus can be understood as being God, but His identity, as the Church writing the NT documents recognised it, does not impose itself - IMO, that is a feature of the hiddenness of His identity, of its being accessible only to faith, of its being known only by God’s gift.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Jesus can be understood as being God, but His identity, as the Church writing the NT documents recognised it, does not impose itself - IMO, that is a feature of the hiddenness of His identity, of its being accessible only to faith, of its being known only by God’s gift.

Absolute nonsense. This is History Channel theology - the completely ridiculous claim that Jesus didn’t say he was God, and that his disciples didn’t see him that way either. Even the most passing familiarity with the gospels completely destroys any case for that:

Matthew 3:16-17
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 4:3
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Matthew 14:33 KJV Chapter
Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matthew 27:43
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Matthew 27:54
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

John 10:36-38
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil,
First, it seems to me that your question implies the attitude I wrote about earlier, that is the “All or Nothing” attitude.

Not me. I just think you’re avoiding spelling it out because you feel your position needs explanation to be accepted, but the wordyness makes it hard to understand. Why can’t you just say “I don’t believe that wise men followed a star from the east and worshipped baby Jesus”?

(but what good is cake just to look at and not eat?)

Once you eat the cake, you don’t have it anymore, you’ve swallowed it. So you can’t eat your cake and still have your cake.

I thought I was clear that I believe in the Incarnation - hopefully this will clear up any doubts some may have.

It’s so very clear that you believe in the Incarnation. You believe God became flesh. This thread is about specific Christmas stories like the 3 wise men and the shepherds. We all just assume that anyone who is catholic believes that God became flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus. That’s not the subject of this thread. So no need to write another page explaining that you believe it. We believe you.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil_Anthony:

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.

When the verb proskyneō is used, it does not always mean “I pay divine worship to”.​

It’s used 60 times in the NT, & many of those times are likely to refer to an act of respect which is not what we now call “adoration” at all, but an act of prostration which need not imply that divine worship is intended.

There are two other possibilities at least:

• that an act of respect is being interpreted or represented as divine worship of Jesus, not because that is what was intended in the event narrated in the Gospel, but because the Church’s tradition interpreted an act of respect in the light of its faith in Christ as being an act of divine worship.
• The other possibility, which is compatible with the former, is that Jesus was honoured in the incident narrated not as God, but as Messiah, or Son of Man, or as Davidic King, or as two or more of these.
  At any rate, it’s not necessary to see the various incidents in the gospels as showing or proving an awareness of the Divinity of the Lord on the part of the person who is “worshipping” Him. Proskunesis was not paid to God alone - there is a reference to something similar in 1 Chronicles 29.20. Daniel prostrates himself to an angel, & Abraham does so in Gen. 23.

The gospels are rather indirect in their presentation of the identity of Jesus - He often tells those who pay Him proskunesis not to speak of Who He is. This fits with His being Messiah, & does not require Him to be God. The Disciples are depicted as very slow to believe, so it is very unlikely that they realised before the Passion that He is God Incarnate; that seems to have dawned on them only later. And if they did not see that, then their fellow-Jews are not likely to have done so either.

He is certainly presented as God later on, but not in those terms. His acts in the gospels hint at His Divinity, as does the way they are related - He does things that God does in the OT. The miracles & signs don’t prove His Divinity - they are what the Messiah was expected to do. Elijah worked miracles - & he was a man, not God. Jesus can be understood as being God, but His identity, as the Church writing the NT documents recognised it, does not impose itself - IMO, that is a feature of the hiddenness of His identity, of its being accessible only to faith, of its being known only by God’s gift.

So in other words, none of the signs in the gospels really happened, and they didn’t worship Jesus as God. They figured out later that Jesus was the Son of God, and put stories of miraculous signs into the Gospels to justify that.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be - I tried to explain in that post, by distinguishing between Historie & Heilsgeshichte, at some length ​

Historie is history as mere “happening”

Heilsgeshichte is salvation history - historical events that are taken up into God’s activity to become His saving acts.

Historie is not Heilsgeshichte - happenings as such are not salvation history; they are mere history, & as such, utterly irrelevant to our salvation.

That is the sense in which that particular birth is irrelevant; it’s of no importance if treated as Historie - that is to miscategorise it, because it is important only because it is part of Heilsgeshichte, of salvation history. The mere fact of its happening gives it no importance whatever: billions of things happen, every day. That does not make them salvation history, does not make them mighty saving acts of God.

Is that clearer ?

Yes it’s clearer. I agree that the specific events in the nativity narratives aren’t important for salvation history. Mark didn’t even bother with the nativity in his gospel, so that shows that the nativity stories aren’t crucial.

On the other hand, with the credibility of the gospel accounts out the window, I’m not sure what to believe anymore.

 

[adrift]

So in other words, none of the signs in the gospels really happened, and they didn’t worship Jesus as God. They figured out later that Jesus was the Son of God, and put stories of miraculous signs into the Gospels to justify that.

And Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. His followers did that like the Romans did to their leaders. It is really him in that tomb they found. The whole of Christianity is a false religion. The popes know it and believe this. I guess it is easier than getting a job to just fool people. I am not being sarcastic. It is a light bulb going on. It IS a false belief. You have proved it to me. Being a Catholic was hard. I am glad to have this false belief exposed. If the gospels are fiction in one place, the rest of the gospels can not be trusted.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

And Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. His followers did that like the Romans did to their leaders. It is really him in that tomb they found. The whole of Christianity is a false religion. The popes know it and believe this. I guess it is easier than getting a job to just fool people. I am not being sarcastic. It is a light bulb going on. It IS a false belief. You have proved it to me. Being a Catholic was hard. I am glad to have this false belief exposed. If the gospels are fiction in one place, the rest of the gospels can not be trusted.

I guess the Unitarians were right after all. Oy vey…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;3016245:

The sad th n read the same thing and come away with a different point of view.
:bowdown2: :whacky:

**I suppose your little icons are meant to mean something, but they are a poor substitute for a responsible answer. **

You have a distorted view and do not see what is truly taught.
I note that you do not include the Catechism in your statement. Nowhere in the Catechism is your extreme view held.

It would be hard to have a distorted view of the contents of the material we use in RCIA and adult study when I read the texts. Duh. The Catechism is hardly the final word on anything.

I doubt you can speak for them and I suspect that if I were to speak to them I would find you misinterpret them as well.

**You arrogance is quite amusing. Apparently you have no argument. I can hardly misinterpret what I am TOLD to teach by both my priest and our sister. duh. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Absolute nonsense. This is History Channel theology - the completely ridiculous claim that Jesus didn’t say he was God, and that his disciples didn’t see him that way either. Even the most passing familiarity with the gospels completely destroys any case for that:

Matthew 3:16-17
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 4:3
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Matthew 14:33 KJV Chapter
Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matthew 27:43
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Matthew 27:54
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

John 10:36-38
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Let me see, we are discussing the historical accuracy of some things in the bible and you cite as your proof…the bible…That of course is circular argument, proves nothing, and is exactly what one expects of a protestant. Gott is an excellent researcher it seems, knows what he is talking about, and you just say rubbish with no response of any consequence. Let those with ears hear.

How can you claim that this amounts to the disciples not believing Jesus was God? Certainly the said they did, and what’s more MOST OF THEM DIED FOR THAT BELIEF. who are you trying to kid now?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.

**Now that’s an utterly ridiculous claim not based on a single thing said here. **
His followers did that like the Romans did to their leaders. It is really him in that tomb they found. The whole of Christianity is a false religion.
**Wow, sorry you have come to that conclusion. It’s sure not warrented by anything anyone has said here. **
The popes know it and believe this. I guess it is easier than getting a job to just fool people. I am not being sarcastic. It is a light bulb going on. It IS a false belief. You have proved it to me. Being a Catholic was hard. I am glad to have this false belief exposed. If the gospels are fiction in one place, the rest of the gospels can not be trusted.

**So very sorry you cannot follow the logic, but have jumped to such a wild conclusion. **

 

[patg]

So in other words, none of the signs in the gospels really happened, and they didn’t worship Jesus as God. They figured out later that Jesus was the Son of God, and put stories of miraculous signs into the Gospels to justify that.

It’s a little extreme to say “none” but that’s an excellent summary of the development of the gospels - it sounds like you’ve read the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. This document talks about the development of the non-literal nature of the gospel stories numerous times. A few related points:

• The gospels are not “boigraphies” although they contain some elements of biography.
• They are not histories although they contain a historical core.
• Their purpose is not to tell us what Jesus did, their purpose is to tell us who Jesus was.
  Just as the authors of the birth stories of Alexander the Great wrote of his divine birth surrounded by omens and portents, Luke and Matthew use similar stories and extensive symbolism to tell us who Jesus was to them. Surely we all must believe Alexander was literally the son of a god - after all, you can read all about it in an ancient document (just google “alexander the great birth” and select the first item).

And the miracle stories don’t tell us very much at all since the same stories were told about any number of Jewish holy men of the same period - do we believe they were gods because of this?

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

How can you claim that this amounts to the disciples not believing Jesus was God? Certainly the said they did, and what’s more MOST OF THEM DIED FOR THAT BELIEF. who are you trying to kid now?

Now I think you’re deliberately trying to confuse this discussion.

Your anonymous Irish friend, Gottle, made the ridiculous claim - oft repeated by atheists - that Jesus didn’t say he was God, and that his disciples didn’t see him as God. In response, I posted a dozen gospel quotes proving otherwise.

Try reading posts before you respond to them, and for everyone’s sake - will you please learn how to use the quote function correctly?

Thanks.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Patg,

I feel sorry for any child unfortunate enough to be instructed in the faith by you.

Isn’t there a Church of Humanistic Secularism forum you can go haunt?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s a little extreme to say “none” but that’s an excellent summary of the development of the gospels - it sounds like you’ve read the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. This document talks about the development of the non-literal nature of the gospel stories numerous times. A few related points:

• The gospels are not “boigraphies” although they contain some elements of biography.
• They are not histories although they contain a historical core.
• Their purpose is not to tell us what Jesus did, their purpose is to tell us who Jesus was.
  Just as the authors of the birth stories of Alexander the Great wrote of his divine birth surrounded by omens and portents, Luke and Matthew use similar stories and extensive symbolism to tell us who Jesus was to them. Surely we all must believe Alexander was literally the son of a god - after all, you can read all about it in an ancient document (just google “alexander the great birth” and select the first item).

That’s interesting, so I guess the gospels tell us what the apostles believed more than they tell us why they believed that Jesus was the Son of God. I wonder if, like most of us, Jesus’ teachings rang very true to them, and they had some subjective personal encounters with Jesus in prayer, and they just came to the conclusion that Jesus is divine based on that?

But how is that different from any other religion… they all started with a few believers who made up convincing stories. I have had personal encounters with God, but they aren’t really detailed enough for me to know for sure that Jesus is a divine person who is a member of the trinity… or are they… I’ve always felt that my beliefs were partly subjective faith and partly based on reason… but there goes the reason… I think?

Wow its disconcerting to have one of the pillars of one’s faith pulled out from under them like that :S

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s a little extreme to say “none” but that’s an excellent summary of the development of the gospels - it sounds like you’ve read the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. This document talks about the development of the non-literal nature of the gospel stories numerous times.

Hey wait…

The catholic encyclopedia says the Magi were historically real.

newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm

Magi
(Plural of Latin magus; Greek magoi).

The “wise men from the East” who came to adore Jesus in Bethlehem (Matthew 2).

Rationalists regard the Gospel account as fiction; Catholics insist that it is a narrative of fact, supporting their interpretation with the evidence of all manuscripts and versions, and patristic citations. All this evidence rationalists pronounce irrelevant; they class the story of the Magi with the so-called “legends of the childhood of Jesus”, later apocryphal additions to the Gospels. Admitting only internal evidence, they say, this evidence does not stand the test of criticism.
…

patg, are you a rationalist?

 

[rwoehmke]

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia site is from 1914 a bit early for the latest in Bible Studies.

I am also curious whether Son of God = God = Messiah in the minds Jesus’ disciples. Even Peter in telling Jesus who he was did not call him God, but the Son of the living God, the Messiah.

Matthew 16:15-16 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

If the fact that Jesus is God was so obvious from what he said in the Gospels, why the heresies and necessity for Nicea? It is easy to look back on it all and say to ourselves “It is so obvious” but was it.

I am sure that by the time the Resurrection occurred
the Apostles and other disciples were tumbling to the fact, but am am not that convinced they were sure until their visit from the Holy Spirit.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s a little extreme to say “none” but that’s an excellent summary of the development of the gospels - it sounds like you’ve read the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. This document talks about the development of the non-literal nature of the gospel stories numerous times. A few related points:

• The gospels are not “boigraphies” although they contain some elements of biography.
• They are not histories although they contain a historical core.
• Their purpose is not to tell us what Jesus did, their purpose is to tell us who Jesus was.
  Just as the authors of the birth stories of Alexander the Great wrote of his divine birth surrounded by omens and portents, Luke and Matthew use similar stories and extensive symbolism to tell us who Jesus was to them. Surely we all must believe Alexander was literally the son of a god - after all, you can read all about it in an ancient document (just google “alexander the great birth” and select the first item).

And the miracle stories don’t tell us very much at all since the same stories were told about any number of Jewish holy men of the same period - do we believe they were gods because of this?

**Well said, I would only add that the stories woven around Jesus in each gospel were an attempt to help the listener relate to their present difficulties. As we all know, Mark’s audience was under stress, mostly it is claimed from Roman persecution, although some now argue that Mark’'s community was located outside Jerusalem and was embroiled in the Jewish War. In either case, Mark’s gospel is apocalyptic in nature because of the persecutions his community was facing or enduring. **

Now I think you’re deliberately trying to confuse this discussion.

Your anonymous Irish friend, Gottle, made the ridiculous claim - oft repeated by atheists - that Jesus didn’t say he was God, and that his disciples didn’t see him as God. In response, I posted a dozen gospel quotes proving otherwise.

**No he did not say that at all. He said it was possible to understand the Gospels in that manner. You’re confusing a literal reading with an exegetical one. There are indeed many scholars who don’t believe Jesus ever made such a claim to deity, though undoubtedly I believe he was. I believe the gospel writers were convinced of it as well. The argument is that the writers may have placed such statements into the mouths of the disciples because they wanted to reassure their audience that indeed Jesus was God.

There are two kinds of research. One is apologetic in nature. It is proving from the scriptures as given whatever proposition one is interested in. It assumes from the beginning that all major tenets of Catholic faith are present in the determining of what scripture means.

The second kind of research is scientific in nature. It follows the evidence based on commonly used tools of exegesis. The same tools that would be used by any scholar investigating the journals of Alexander, Plato, Cicero, etc. The cannot make these same declarations of faith to *guide *their work because its simply unethical. It’s this second group you dislike because they suggest that you can’t read the bible as a literal handbook. ****

**Take it easy there. I have no idea what this anonymous stuff is about. and Gott is not my friend, I’ve merely read and responded to some of his posts. Now that your attack stuff is disposed of. **

Try reading posts before you respond to them, and for everyone’s sake - will you please learn how to use the quote function correctly?

**Thanks again for the usual rudeness. Since I apparently am too doltish to figure out whatever you wish me to do regarding quotes, and since no one else seems so offended, please submit to me a detailed explanation of your needs regarding my posting technique. I shall review and get back with you. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia site is from 1914 a bit early for the latest in Bible Studies.

I am also curious whether Son of God = God = Messiah in the minds Jesus’ disciples. Even Peter in telling Jesus who he was did not call him God, but the Son of the living God, the Messiah.

Matthew 16:15-16 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

If the fact that Jesus is God was so obvious from what he said in the Gospels, why the heresies and necessity for Nicea? It is easy to look back on it all and say to ourselves “It is so obvious” but was it.

I am sure that by the time the Resurrection occurred
the Apostles and other disciples were tumbling to the fact, but am am not that convinced they were sure until their visit from the Holy Spirit.

I think everyone is a bit puzzled by the statements made by the disciples and supposedly by Jesus, yet time and time again, they fail to act in any manner that suggests they believed he was God. I can tell you that if I truly believed Jesus was God (being Peter), I can’t really imagine running away, as Peter did. And there is reference to Jesus giving them additional instruction privately. What could that have been but only more evidence of who he was. Heck if I saw somebody walking on water, you wouldn’t have to ask me twice who it was.

Some would of course argue, that God somehow kept them unable to understand until what? the crucifixion could be accomplished? My anwswer would be, If I thought Jesus was God, I’m sure he could convince me easily to “play along”. So I’d be looking for something in the scriptures that suggested that, that they knew and were just going along to fulfill salvation history. I don’t find it.

 

[patg]

Hey wait…
The catholic encyclopedia says the Magi were historically real.

That’s interesting but hardly a Papal or Biblical Commission Instruction or Dogmatic Constitution. My granddaughter believes they were real also. I prefer scholars recognized as the best by the church.

Rationalists regard the Gospel account as fiction;

Interesting how he is defining this label on the fly here. Actually, it doesn’t really matter as long as you understand the meaning and symbolism. Whether or not it is an actual account is irrelevant.

Catholics insist that it is a narrative of fact

I’m sure some of them do. Of course I never heard of Walter Drum but this is an untenable statement.

, supporting their interpretation with the evidence of all manuscripts and versions, and patristic citations.

Uh, just what manuscripts would those be? Using a single story in a single gospel is sound evidence?

All this evidence rationalists pronounce irrelevant;

All what evidence? If there was any real evidence, some of this would be mentioned in a history book.

…they class the story of the Magi with the so-called “legends of the childhood of Jesus”, later apocryphal additions to the Gospels. Admitting only internal evidence, they say, this evidence does not stand the test of criticism.

That is correct, there is no supporting evidence whatsoever. Even the simplest application of historical-critical analysis reveals serious doubts.

patg, are you a rationalist?

May be - but that is only Mr. Drum’s label and not one that really means anything. I agree with the current church and its current scholars who emphasize looking at all the aspects of the narratives, including using the historical-critical methods. Does John Meier or Raymond Brown or Ronald Witherup or Pope Paul VI agree with him? Are they Rationalists? If so then sign me up!

Is there an Instruction from the PBC or a Pope supporting this? Once again, the story doesn’t have to be historically true to teach us who Jesus was. When there is no supporting evidence, plenty of symbolism, and overwelming evidence of it all being a classical “Infancy Narrative”, it only seems rational to me that it is mostly fiction.