Which Nativity Stories *Really* Happened?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

Ridiculous ? How ?​

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.

John 10.36-38 is a very good example of the secrecy of His identity - all these texts are; & I don’t think there were any gospels in the lifetime of Jesus ​

• Did Cephas recognise Jesus in the famous incident presented in Matthew 16 ? Yes
• Did the other disciples ? No.
  They thought he was a prophet - Peter (as he became) recognised Him as something more.

All the evangelists express this theme of the “Messianic secret”. It’s at the heart of the mysterion, the “mystery” or “open secret” preached by St. Paul - & of the Gospel. And it is in continuity with the OT - which is why the question asked in Proverbs 30.4, is answered in John 3.13. That is one example of it. The episode of which Matt. 16.16 is a part, is an excellent example of it; so are the Baptism & the Nativity narratives. So is the recognition by the centurion (who wasn’t a Jew)

The identity of Jesus was recognised by Gentiles, by shepherds, by demoniacs, by unlearned men, but was hidden from the scribes, the teachers in Israel, the priests, the people who would be sure to perceive it (or so one might think). Instead, the “rulers” (humanly, the rulers in Israel ? - ultimately, the demons) “crucified the Lord of Glory”. Crucifying the Glorious Lord is evidence of non-recognition of His identity.

His identity was not perceived, so “the rulers [took] counsel together, against the Lord & His Anointed”, “thinking they [were] doing God service”. That quotation from Psalm 2 is from a kingship psalm - & it is interpreted in Acts 2 as fulfilled by the activity of Pilate & Herod & the others: He is the King of Israel in the very fullest sense - but, a crucified King. So it is no wonder He was not recognised. His Cross is essential to His identity - & this becomes clear only in retrospect, & through faith. Read St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 1: this crucified Messiah was “accursed” - that is what Deuteronomy 21.23 says of “one who is hanged on a tree”, as St.Paul points out.

Isaiah 6 is echoed & applied in Mark 4.11,12 - it too does not support the idea that He was recognised: it negates it. And Isaiah 6 is a vision of “the Lord the King” - it has a very great deal to do with the MS. So there appears to be a very close connection between the MS, & the Kingship of Christ. Which helps understanding what is said of Him in Revelation.

If the MS is what you say - what are you going to replace it with ? I find it illuminates the Bible (including the Nativity stories), the notion of sacramentality, the need for faith; & unifies these things with one another & with the the Church’s need for insight into the Bible, & with the primacy of Christ. For a false idea, it is very fruitful. What doctrine does it upset ?

 

[Metaron]

I do believe in Santa Claus (properly called St.Nicholas) just not in the reindeer, so… that’s why I didn’t mark Santa and reindeer. :frown:

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

The disciples surely thought he was at least a great prophet. Moses did bigger miracles than walking on water (parting the red sea, calling down plagues, etc).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So in other words, none of the signs in the gospels really happened,

I’m not saying that - it’s a different, but related, issue.​

and they didn’t worship Jesus as God.

Quite possibly not. At least, I can’t see anything in those episodes that requires one to think so. That we recognise Him as Lord & God, is not a reason to insist that they must have, or that the texts can be explained only by seeing them as witnessing to His Divinity.

AFAIK, the paying of proskunesis to Him is entirely compatible with recognising Him not as God, not as Lord, but as Messiah & Son of Man. If those figures were thought of as heavenly & “supernatural” (that is our category - it’s not a Biblical category, & we can’t impose our categories on those who did not use them), then it makes sense that He is honoured in a way that to us Christians looks like adoration, like recognition as God.

A “man from heaven” need not be God - he can be a creature, & a creature of very great dignity. The problem for us is that we have the gospels - but, we don’t have the ideas current in first-century Judaism. The Apostles, & Jesus Himself, & their contemporaries, did. So it is easy for us to be ignorant of ideas that they would have been familiar with. We do have the Church’s witness to His Divinity - the Jews of the first century did not. And that makes understanding these ancient writings more difficult than might be supposed: for we have to read them both with the Church, & also, with the ideas of that time & place in mind. This complicates matters - it also indicates how many-layered these writings are

They figured out later that Jesus was the Son of God,

Yes - except that I think this gives credit to “flesh and blood”. “Flesh & blood” cannot attain such knowledge - that is why it has to be revealed by the Father. Peter did not “get” Who Jesus was because he was wise, but because the Father of Jesus revealed this great secret to Peter. Some things there are that He has not revealed - but that is not one of them.​

That apart: AFAICS, the NT witnesses to the Divinity of Christ as to something that the disciples understood only after the Resurrection, & not before.

and put stories of miraculous signs into the Gospels to justify that.

This too is another issue. If you’re referring to form criticism, which allows for the possibility & even the likelihood that some incidents in the gospels were generated by the preaching of the Church, I don’t see why that should be impossible. But it’s not what’s meant.​

I was thinking of incidents like the stilling of the storm on the Lake of Galilee. Instead of saying “Jesus is God”, the evangelists tell a story which show Him doing what God did in the OT - they witness to their faith in His Divinity, by showing Him doing just what His Father does, or what He does in the OT “before” He “was made flesh”. The episode, purely as a miracle-story, could be read as showing that He was a great but not Divine figure - the clue to its meaning is in

• 1. its use of OT texts to describe His deeds & words
• 1. the fact of its being told in the writings of believers in His Divinity
     His miracles are not any old miracles - they are His; that is what gives them their character. Doing miracles is nothing - that Jesus Christ does them, is the important thing. They witness to the identity of their Doer - & to the presence of God’s Kingship in Him.

We can understand them better by seeing what words are used for them, & asking why - this sheds light on the meaning of Christ, & of the gospels. Miracles are all very well, but they do not by themselves reveal the true character of their doers - which is why “lying miracles” are not impossible. Christian faith is not a revelation of miracles - it is the revelation of God in Christ.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes it’s clearer.

Good ​

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.

They are as credible as ever they were - nothing has changed that, nor can it. Don’t stop believing they are true - for they are true. Not because of the letters of them, but because they are the work of God Who does not lie. Belief is not in Mark or John or Paul or the rest - but in the God Whose messengers and witnesses they (& we) are. That’s why God, & not man, is the Primary & Real Author of Sacred Scripture. Which is why faith in His witness to His Son is necessary, whether one believes in the historicity of all episodes in the gospels - or not. Equally, faith in His witness is not a reason to ignore critical questions - they have their place too, so that the human & created element in the Bible can be better understood: that in turn can help the Church at large to appreciate her message more, for the sake of the mission she has been given. Our duty & need to believe God is unchanged.​

Uncertainty about which parts are historical is not in the slightest a reason not to accept the gospels as true: because history =/= truth. It is one mode of truth - & only one. Midrash, parable, myth, prophecy, etc., are others. The Gospel is most definitely credible - nothing in creation is more credible. Nothing can be allowed to obscure that.

 

[TOME]

Neil,
In the past I had received criticism for the lenght of my paragraphs, however, with your post #143 I take comfort that their lenght is no longer an issue but it is now my “wordyness”. I was beginning to worry I wouldn’t have anything to work on as a New Years Resolution but now I do - Thank You!

I didn’t quite understand your comment about this thread being about specific Christmas stories because I infer from your comment a certain dissection between the Christmas stories and the Incarnation - maybe I am reading too much in what you wrote, if so I apologize.

I cannot help to think that the real question about the Infancy Narratives should be their relationship to Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection? Does denial of the Christmas stories as historical events (again, in the 21st Century understanding of history) also mean a rejection of the historicity of the Paschal Mystery and thus any belief in Salvation History?

But going back to your post, I guess you missed what I thought was the point I was trying to make, namely, the Christmas stories are important in the proclamation of the Incarnation but are not essential to my belief in the Incarnation (which, thankfully, you understand is a myster of our Faith I fully accept and believe).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

FWIW -

• 1. Sorry, I’m not Irish
• 1. I’m certainly not anonymous - see my sig line
• 1. It may be obvious to us that Jesus claims to be God, because the Faith we hold predisposes us to come to the texts with that understanding of them in mind.
• 1. It does not follow, that our understanding of them - which as an OP noted is post-Nicene - is one the contemporaries of Jesus had. We can’t read back into the Palestinian Judaism of the time of Jesus the convictions, assumptions, & beliefs that we take for granted.
• 1. They had ideas of their own: various Messiah-theories, the Kingship of God, apocalyptic, eschatology, the Son of Man, & much more. These & other ideas have left their mark on the NT, the gospels included; so it is right that they should be understood. NT scholarship spends a great deal of time trying to do that - which is entirely right, because there is far more to the meaning of the texts than appears on the surface. Someone has to do what they are doing.
• 1. Geza Vermes (for example) is not a Christian - he’s a Jew. That makes him not Catholic, but it doesn’t make what he says of no value. It can be very illuminating to see the Jew Jesus through Jewish eyes. This can do a great deal to deepen one’s appreciation of what the Incarnation led to.
     I’m not mad keen on the formulation “Jesus is God” - it oversimplifies. For the NT texts, the name “God” almost always refers to the Father; Jesus is much more often referred to as “Lord” - this has the advantage of pointing to His Divinity, without leading to confusion with the Father. If His Divinity were as obvious as is perhaps implied, it is surprising that the Church took 300 years to get round to teaching it in the sense that it did. It is not obvious, & that is something the scholars recognise.

 

[TOME]

I see this thread has taken on an interesting direction in regards to the gospels, the disciples belief in Christ and Christ understanding of himself.

I think part of the answer (if answer is the correct word) to the questions raised by (Neil_Anthony any Joel Tunnah) is found in Luke 24 and the two disciples’ encounter with Christ on the road of Emmaus. Remember Jesus’ words, “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all the prophets spoke!” (NAB) The Jesus went on to explain how the Law and the Prophets each pointed to Himself. The point is these two disciple, the Apostles and all the followers of Christ just did not grasp who he truly was and the gospels and Acts go on to teach us they still did not fully understand Christ until enlighten by the Holy Spirit at Pentacost (even the Apostles last question to Jesus just prior to the Ascension showed they still did not have the full understanding of Jesus).

I think it is vital, to this discussion, that we remember the books of the NT are Post Resurrectional documents. The gospels were written by men of faith for people of faith of a particular community whose faith was grounded in their belief in the Resurrection as proclaimed by the Apostles, The Twelve - who themselves (along with Paul) had experienced the Risen Christ but wasn’t able to fully grasp the meaning of all the things Jesus taught, all the mircles he performed, his Paschal Sacrifice and the Resurrection until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. ( I may seem to be repeating myself but I do this is stress the point I just made).
In his light, what Gottle of Gear wrote about at Peter’s confession they were acknowledging Christ mesiahship, as they understood it, but it was after the Resurrection - Pentacost experience did the Apostles understand the full meaning of their act.

And it is from the Church’s Post Resurrectional understanding of Christ Jesus came the Gospels with the Infancy Narritives which is why I wrote earlier perhaps the question in this thread should some how relate our understanding of the Infancy Narratives to the Paschal Mystery itself.

 

[TOME]

The question has been raised whether of not Jesus called himself God and how the disciples saw Jesus.

One thing scripture scholars point out is Jesus rejection of title, refusal to accept titles and Jesus’ command to be silent in regards to demonic acknowledgment of who he was. From what I have read Jesus this refusal to be labled cameffrom Jesus’ knowledge of himself and his role in doing the will of his Father. It seems the popular title people wanted to use for him would, in his understanding only obscure his activity of proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Even when people got it right Jesus would command that they kept silent about it. What I find interesting is in the gospels the ones who got it right most of the time we demons and he certainly always ordered they to be silent. It seems many scholars agree the reasons for Christ’s attitude was the comtemporary understanding of what titles, such as Messiah, were too inadequate and again would obfuscate his mission of doing the Father’s will not proclaim it.

This leads to the question did Jesus call himself God. I find Pope Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth” a good synthesis of modern theological thought and scriptural studies on this subject. From what I read, Jesus never came out and said “I am God” (I think his being a 1st century Palestinian Jew this would have been imposible to say and from a high Christology - even if he could say it he would have been, and was, wise enough not toproclaim this truth). However, the Pope like so many others since the time of Jesus ask the question what was it about Jesus that got him killed, and the answers seems to be if Jesus didn’t come right out and say it he certainly act and spoke as if he was God. In the gospel of John Christ emphasis on his being one with the Father indicated his awareness of his unique relationship with God if not his divinity. Also, his many “I Am” statements all pointed to an awareness of his uniqueness. His actions also spoke of his divinity especially his forgiveness of sins and his proclamation of lordship over the sabbath. All Divine perogatives. But for me, the strongest evidence of Christ’s awareness of his divinity was through his proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his complete identification of the Kingdom with his very person thus his being in total communion with the will Father so much so that he would state the “Father and I are One.”

Still, I cannot say it was just one of the things I listed above but all of them taken as a whole indicates for me Christ awareness of his Divinity.

As for the Apostles and disciple and their undersatnding who Jesus was my starting point is from a low Christology. Again I refer to Luke 24. If the disciples of Jesus knew he was God, I doubt Christ would have had to explain all the Law and Prophets to the two at Emmaus while the rest of the Apostles and disciple were elsewhere hiding, - especially Peter James and John in light of the Transfiguration (although these same three did experince Jesus’ agony in the garden as well which may have created a few doubts for them concerning Jesus’ divinity if that is what they believed at the time). And when we consider Peter’s Confession in Matthew 16 isn’t this followed immediately by Peter’s lack of comprehension of Jesus’ prediction of his death invoking Jesus to call Peter “Satan”?

But this is not to deny that at the time of Jesus’ ministry his disciple didn’t experience Jesus as a totally unique person - unlike anyone else. When Jesus called Peter to become his follower remember Peter’s first reaction to Jesus was to ask him to leave him (Peter) because Peter perceived Jesus’ holiness which stood in stack contrast to Peter’s sinfullness. I think someone has already mentioned the Apostles experienced Jesus relationship with the Father was also totally different than anything they had experienced especially in prayer and Jesus’ use of the term “Abba”. The disciple and all who had any contact with Jesus as he spoke and taught were aware of Jesus’ unique authority and they were witnesses to the mircles of Jesus.

But all this (low Christology) cannot be use as proof that the Apostles and disciples understood Jesus to be divine. That only came after their experience of the Risen Christ and once they were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. Then they could perceive/understand all Jesus said and did in a whole new light, the light of the Holy Spirit. And it was from this new understanding came the proclamation of the kerygma and eventually through further layers of Tradition the gospels would be written of which the nativity narratives are an intregal part.

 

[patg]

patg, are you a rationalist?

In my previous response to this I left out something - if someone doubting the historicity of the Magi story is condemned as a “rationalist” then believing the story is literally true must make one an “irrationalist”. I can live that!

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

If His Divinity were as obvious as is perhaps implied, it is surprising that the Church took 300 years to get round to teaching it in the sense that it did. It is not obvious, & that is something the scholars recognise.

These “scholars” you refer to obviously haven’t read the letters of St Paul. He describes the same exact Christ that we worship today. There is no evolution in Christ’s diety between Pentecaust, and today.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I cannot help to think that the real question about the Infancy Narratives should be their relationship to Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection?

The real question? Do you mean the most important question? Maybe, but surely we’re allowed to ask other questions.

Does denial of the Christmas stories as historical events (again, in the 21st Century understanding of history) also mean a rejection of the historicity of the Paschal Mystery and thus any belief in Salvation History?

Not necessarily.

But going back to your post, I guess you missed what I thought was the point I was trying to make, namely, the Christmas stories are important in the proclamation of the Incarnation but are not essential to my belief in the Incarnation (which, thankfully, you understand is a myster of our Faith I fully accept and believe).

Yes, I understand that you believe in it. I guess I’m wondering why we believe in it, though… It was reading the gospels as a child that led me to Jesus, and I read them with the understanding that they were literal historical accounts of the events of Jesus’ life. I don’t know how to go back now and see if I would have still believed had I known they were fiction. How did you come to believe, with gospels that you knew to be fictional?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The disciples surely thought he was at least a great prophet. Moses did bigger miracles than walking on water (parting the red sea, calling down plagues, etc).

I agree. And one notes in Exodus the exact same inability to recognize the wonders. The people continually argued with Moses about everything. One wouldn’t assume such would have occurred had all these miracles occurred before them.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

These “scholars” you refer to obviously haven’t read the letters of St Paul. He describes the same exact Christ that we worship today. There is no evolution in Christ’s diety between Pentecaust, and today.

Where did anyone claim any such evolution as you mention ? I’m not talking about the Divinity of Christ, but about what or who people behaved Him to be - which is a wholly different matter. Although Christ “is the same yesterday, today & for ever”, now that He is glorified in Heaven, the Church is not, & neither is the way she expresses the faith she has received - at least, I don’t think St. Paul was a Thomist That’s a silly example, but it makes the point: for the expression of belief is not timeless, for life on earth is contingent: it is not timeless.​

The Apostles were not Thomists - Thomism is contingent upon (for example) the reception of Aristotelian philosophy with the Church; without the Aristotelianism, there is no Thomism. And that reception took place in Latin Christianity, long after the Apostles. So they cannot be read as though they had studied the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas. There are ways of reading them, & ways of not reading them. They can’t be read as though they had exactly the same intellectual furniture as we do - even the most ardent admirer of St. Thomas is going to meet insuperable obstacles if he tries to argue that St. Paul’s success as a missionary owed something to his very detailed knowledge of the Summa. We may know nothing, & care less, for first-century ideas about Messianism & so on: it does not follow that the Apostles must have had our attitudes. Our communion with them is in the faith they & we share - not in how this shared faith is expressed.

As with St.Thomas, so with them - we need to understand something of their historical context: & that includes understanding their assumptions & their other ideas. It’s not respectful to impose one’s own assumptions on an author - that stops one hearing what the author has to say. If a reader cares only for his ideas, & not for those held by the author he’s reading, what is the point in reading ? NT scholarship helps towards understanding the ideas in the gospels & the other books - therefore, it would be unwise to ignore it. If we want to learn NT Greek, we don’t wait for God to give infused knowledge of it - there are NT grammars we can learn from. Neither does one sit around waiting for infused knowledge of (say) ideas about Messianism: one reads a book such as “He that Cometh”, which is a classic on the subject of the development of ideas about Messianism, including those in the NT. By reading what others say, we can learn from them many things we might not learn otherwise. If we don’t expect our friends to have our ideas alone, why should we expect this of the books we read ?

 

[Pete_Holter]

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.

Hopefully the following verses, infallibly interpreted by the Church at the Council of Trent, will help to bring perspective on what role the plurality of witnesses has in determining what is crucial:

“CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.”

Comment: Only John preserves this record of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus.

“CANON III.–If any one saith, that those words of the Lord the Saviour, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and of retaining sins in the Sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them; but wrests them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the gospel; let him be anathema.”

Comment: Only John records this post resurrection appearance.

“CANON I.–If any one saith, that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by the blessed apostle James; but is only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human figment; let him be anathema.”

Comment: Only James provides the framework for this sacrament.

“CANON II.–If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.”

Comment: I think this last one is the most relevant to the discussion at hand. For the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, four witnesses, preserve for us the words of Jesus at the celebration of the Eucharist. But only two of the four, Luke and Paul, record the pivotal words, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

So we see that even things that are only explicitly covered by a single verse of Scripture are, indeed, crucial to our salvation.

All of Scripture is God-breathed. All of Scripture is profitable for the man of God. In Spiritus Paraclitus, Benedict XV favorably assesses Jerome’s opinion “that belief in the Biblical narrative is as necessary to salvation as is belief in the doctrines of the faith.” And so we want to be careful to rightly interpret, most especially [due to their “special preeminence” (*DV 18)], the Gospels. The specific events of the nativity narratives are important precisely because the surpassing element of God’s saving work takes its rise from and is wrapped up in their historicity. In a similar way, the historical events of the Old Testament “took place as examples for us” and “were written down for our instruction” (1 Cor. 10:6, 11).

I hope that this helps. And I hope that this post is received by you as a blessing, as I intended it to be.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Matthew precedes the birth of Christ by saying that it “took place in this way” (Matt 1:18). If we look at what happens following this, “an angel of the Lord appeared to [Joseph] in a dream” (Matt 1:20). After telling us of the dream, Matthew then says that “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet” (Matt. 1:22). On both sides of this dream, we have Matthew telling us that the inclusive material actually “took place”. I mention this because these dreams and fulfillments are a repeated occurrence throughout the infancy narrative and also further on in Matthew’s Gospel account. If at first they are presented as historical, how could we suppose that they somehow become non-historical as his narrative progresses? What impossible skill and unheard of hermeneutical tools would have to be employed in order to uncover the switch? Again, the text says that “All of this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.” What the text does not and could not say is that this story I have just made up fulfilled what the Lord had spoken. I myself could fulfill a thousand things that have been spoken by the Lord if this were the case! Later in the infancy narrative, after telling us of the slaughter of the innocents, Matthew writes, “Then was fulfilled…” (Matt. 2:17). Again, if the slaughter of the innocents did not occur, then nothing was “then” fulfilled.

I’ve pointed out in a previous post that Luke precedes his entire Gospel by saying that he is about to present "an orderly account …] of the things that have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:3; 1:1).

We now have two authors - carried along by the Holy Spirit to write down everything and only those things that God wanted - telling us that what we have in front of us is of an historical nature.

If the Gospels themselves indicate that they are giving us an historical account, “the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error” (Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels), the Church “unhesitatingly asserts” their historicity (Dei Verbum, 19), and historical accounts must “square with the facts, since history is the written account of events as they actually occurred” (Spiritus Paraclitus, 22), then they are plainly historical and true in all of their details. It would take a mountain of irrefutable evidence to overturn the plain meaning of Scripture and everything that has come before us in order to show that current trends among certain Catholic scholars are an authentic development of the Catholic dogma of inspiration as it pertains to interpreting the infancy narratives. But I think that what we really need is faith. Do not be afraid, my brothers and sisters, whom I love in the Lord! For “though many things are said in the Bible which seem incredible, yet they are true” (Spiritus Paraclitus, 14). It is Saint Augustine’s view of inspiration and inerrancy, not that of Father Brown and others, that is held out to the Church as the authentically Catholic one: “For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false” (Epistle 28 to Jerome, cited by John Paul II in Augustinum Hipponsensem, 1986).

Good night and may God bless you all!

 

[Patrick2340]

I’m not a Scripture scholar, but the issue for me boils down to this. If the Nativity narrative in the Gospels is not historically true, then Christ’s birth did not occur as a fulfillment of the Scriptures, but rather in a different way historically. If this is true, then the Old Testament scriptures predicting the birth of the Messiah were wrong. If they are wrong, then Scripture is not inerrant, but merely a book with errors. If this is true, then Christianity is a hoax.

It seems to me that Scripture scholarship should lead people towards Christ, not away.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Amazon.com has it (as does my library). It has an *imprimatur *and nihil obstat.

Here is what I know about him: a Biblical scholar and Catholic priest. He attended St. Joseph’s Seminary and College (B.A., 1964), Gregorian University [Rome] (S.T.L, 1968), and the Biblical Institute [Rome] (S.S.D., 1976). He was editor of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly and president of the Catholic Biblical Association. Meier is Professor of New Testament in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to Notre Dame, he was Professor at The Catholic University of America.

Yes, his books contain an imprimatur (at least the ones I reference do).

Compare with that the fact that I can’t find an edition of the CCC, in French, Latin, or English, that has any of the following - the:​

• Imprimatur
• Imprimi potest
• Nihil obstat
• Cum permissu superiorum
• Cum licentia superiorum

• not that the CCC would qualify as needing either of the last two.

Father Brown’s books, OTOH, or such few of them as I’ve read, have the necessary permissions. As do those of Pere De Vaux. Roman documents seem not to - funny, that.

I wonder whether it is sufficiently realised that giving a publication the Imprimatur does not imply agreement with all the opinions, but certifies only that it has been judged to contain nothing contrary to faith & morals ?

So** if** those with pastoral or canonical authority in the Church wish Catholics to hold only those positions on the Bible which are incompatible with critical methods, ISTM that the Magisterium has a grave moral duty to reassert those positions - rather than leaving the Roman Theological Forum (say) to deplore their not being held. No matter where Catholics stand on these issues, ISTM to be a matter of urgency that the Magisterium should clarify matters - instead of leaving Catholics on each side of the question to belabour each other with quotations from magisterial documents. At least with Pius X people could know where the Church stood on these issues.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Catechism
In order to catechese you must teach what is believed. 525 - 535 states what the Church teaches. The Catechism is a statement of what is believed otherwise it would have no purpose.

There is no verb “to catechese” - I realise that most Vatican dicasteries are staffed by folk who couldn’t write good English if they lives depended on it, but please, let’s not add to the barbarisms. ​

Though to be fair, not even Vatican apparatchiks can commit the linguistic abominations of which Catholic bishops are routinely guilty - there is a particularly uncouth document on Communism by the French bishops which in its English dress is nearly unreadable. For some reason, Catholic ecclesiastical English has become very degraded over the last forty years - I blame the Americans.

As for the CCC - five points:

• It is not (for example) an introduction to the study of the NT - therefore, it can’t & doesn’t give guidance on the issues of NT scholarship. For those, books bearing directly on the subject should be consulted. It is a book of Catholic doctrine, as the late Pope explains - it is not a handbook to any of the theological (or other) sciences or disciplines
• Specifically, it does not do the work of NT scholars for them
• So it’s all very well to quote (say) the 1964 Instruction, as long as one does not use it in order to try to smother NT criticism
• • it is, after all, based upon the very scholarship that many Catholics seem to want to see the back of
• • & neither the CCC nor the Instruction make it difficult for Catholics to accept that the Nativity narratives as neither formally nor strictly historical (which is not to say they are fiction).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is a reason it is titled "The Christmas mystery’ - no one knows what really happened. There is also no mention of most of the events in Luke and Matthew’s narratives and there is no indication that the events which are mentioned are to be considered literally or symbolically. It is obviously fine for a high-level look at what Catholics believe but an in-depth understanding requires study of the source documents behind the Catechism.

I know what the church teaches and I have helped teach it for many years - it is important to go beyond the catechism if you are really interested in this.

There’s something published by Ignatius Press called “A Companion to the Catechism” which should be some help for those who want to do that. It contains ETs of the documents which are referred to in the CCC - what it won’t do, & can in the nature of the case not do, is teach people how to think theologically. Merely to quote the Magisterium does not by itself mean - still less does it guarantee - that one is presenting the authentic teaching of the CC as it is in the here & now. Even so, the book is very useful for showing the context of a quotation in the CCC - though not easy on the arms, the pocket, or the eye ​

That faith in Christ is mysterious, & does not tamper with the “mystery of Christ”, is one of the things I like about critical approaches. A CA does not require one to try to “prove” or otherwise validate the facts about Him: it allows them to be whatever they are, rather than having to be what one wants them to be for the sake of one’s apologetic for one’s churchmanship.