homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: How historical are the nativity stories? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: How historical are the nativity stories?
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Assuming that most people fall somewhere in between the two extremes of "It's all made up" and "It all happened exactly as written", I'd be interested to know how historical people think the various nativity stories in the New Testament are (I mean, it is 'nearly' Christmas!)

I've heard it said that they're obviously the most non-historical bits of the NT, that they were written to add cred to Jesus, giving him David as an ancestor, and so on. However, if I was to make up birth stories to big someone up, they probably wouldn't look like those we read. Laid in a manager, no space in a proper bedroom, shepherds the first visitors - they're pretty humble beginnings, which for me lend an air of historical authenticity.

So, what do Shipmates think?

[ 02. July 2015, 23:40: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Giving Jesus David as an ancestor through Joseph, right?
How does that work when Joseph, isn't, erm, well....

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It works if adoption counts.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712

 - Posted      Profile for PaulBC         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It had to have happened . Just remember that the 2 geneologies are parts of Gospels written for different parts of the church, Matthew to jewish converts & Luke to the non jewish church. Not that that really makes a difference.
Matthew was part of Jesus's inner circle so probably talked with Mary. Luke wrote a biot later and possibly interviewed the participants in the Gospel story.
Now was there a little embellishing ? Possibly. BUT doess it really matter ? The story is what we know .

--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8

Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jammy Dodger

Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872

 - Posted      Profile for Jammy Dodger   Email Jammy Dodger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see no reason why the nativity accounts aren't historically accurate as long as we recognise that lots of traditional "details" are layered on interpretations/embellishments not originally there. E.g. The reference to an "inn" might really be a reference to the "guest room" in a single peasant dwelling.

--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek

Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm in that group that doesn't worry about the historicity of the details of the story. The fact to attend to is that God became human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth; the rest of the story tells us important things about him, whether or not they are factually accurate in the modern sense. And that's not to say I believe they're not historically accurate; to say it doesn't really matter is simply to not worry about it and to take the story as it's been handed down to us. Much of it is theological (e.g., the humble birth, the visit of the Gentile astrologers), much of it is to tie it in with prophecy (e.g., the genealogies, the census that gets Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem) - but it could all be factually, historically accurate as well. Or not. We can't know or prove it one way or the other, so clearly that's not the point of the stories. I'm more interested in listening to what they tell us about God (and God in Christ, in particular).

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
People often read more into the accounts than is actually there. Did Mary and Joseph travel alone, unaccompanied, to Bethlehem? It doesn't say. How long were they there before Jesus was born? It doesn't say (other than at least 8 days). Was the birth attended by a midwife? It doesn't say. How long did they stay after the birth? It doesn't say.

The fact that the Biblical account is not complete is not a excuse for us to imagine details and then claim whatever we invented is Biblical.

Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
churchgeek
quote:
I'm in that group that doesn't worry about the historicity of the details of the story.
Count me as one of those, too. Regarding genealogies, what I find intriguing is that Luke not only claims that Jesus owed half his genes to the Holy Spirit but that Adam is described as "the son of God". Jesus, then, is divine both in his heavenly and earthly nature.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Matthew was part of Jesus's inner circle so probably talked with Mary. Luke wrote a biot later and possibly interviewed the participants in the Gospel story.

Except it is the other way around, Luke has the angelic visit to Mary, Mary's visit to Elizabeth, etc.

Matthew's events centre on Joseph. Joseph want's to break off the engagement, and is told not to. It's because of Joseph that they go to Bethlehem, and Joseph has the dreams which say go to, or come back from, Egypt. Matthew's Gospel, written for Jews, has Joseph in the roll of an Old Testament prophet - this is significant.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IMO the nativity accounts in Matt and Luke come in the category of Midrash.

I do not subscribe to the literal details

They are theology not history.

I subscribe to the theology

[ 30. November 2013, 20:24: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
E.g. The reference to an "inn" might really be a reference to the "guest room" in a single peasant dwelling.

The word Luke uses for "inn" in the birth accounts is the same one translated "upper room" for the last supper.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668

 - Posted      Profile for Stercus Tauri   Email Stercus Tauri   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I read Reza Aslan's Zealot recently, and was not very surprised to find that he considered there was nothing to support the traditional nativity story, nor very much else in the life of Jesus, for that matter. It doesn't bother me. I enjoy the story and I love the music that has grown up around it, and which has helped to mark the spot where our church began in the Christian belief. That is the value of storytelling. How and where Jesus was born doesn't matter very much, and no matter what you read, the historical evidence isn't there. What does matter to me is that Jesus was born and that our troublesome old church came into being because of that fact. That's what I'll be singing about tomorrow morning.

--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)

Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Nativity stories are theological reflections on the Christ event. They are not history as we think of.

Matthew sees Jesus as King, so he has the Wise Men acknowledging Christ as King. He also emphasizes Jesus as the New Moses, so the Flight of Egypt story and the massacre of the Bethlehem innocents reflect the story of Moses as a child being rescued from Pharaoh.

Luke sees Jesus as the universal Savior with a special attention to the poor and marginalized. The angelic announcement of his birth is meant to be a parody of the announcement of the birth of the Roman Caesar. Jesus is the true Lord as opposed to Caesar, and so it is the angels of the one true God who announce his nativity. The Shepherds represent the poor and marginalized who are the first to hear the good news.

The Nativity stories are mythical, but myth can convey truth.

The meaning of Christmas is the Incarnation. The important thing is the fact that He was born among us. Everything else is icing on the cake.

[ 30. November 2013, 20:30: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
People often read more into the accounts than is actually there. Did Mary and Joseph travel alone, unaccompanied, to Bethlehem? It doesn't say. How long were they there before Jesus was born? It doesn't say (other than at least 8 days). Was the birth attended by a midwife? It doesn't say. How long did they stay after the birth? It doesn't say.

The fact that the Biblical account is not complete is not a excuse for us to imagine details and then claim whatever we invented is Biblical.

Well they do contradict each other. Matthew doesn't have Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth until after the birth (they don't return to Judea after Egypt only because Herod's son is ruling there). Luke has them starting in Nazareth and going to Bethlehem where Jesus was born then going to Jerusalem for Mary's purification (40 days after) and then returning to Nazareth. Mark and John say nothing about Bethlehem. Well John does have 7:42 where some people are saying Jesus can't be the Messiah because he doesn't come from Bethlehem.

Probably the only accurate bits are that his parents are Mary and Joseph and that he was raised in Nazareth.

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
IMO the nativity accounts in Matt and Luke come in the category of Midrash.

I do not subscribe to the literal details

They are theology not history.

I subscribe to the theology

Why do you have an Incarnation then if the event is not useful or literal.

Surely God can love us without becoming an event - which is what you're suggesting. If God did become a man then I fail to see why there should not be an account of his birth.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Net Spinster:
quote:
Well they do contradict each other.
Matthew doesn't say where the first bit of the story started. It could have been at Nazareth. Who knows? Just because it seems sensible to us to include the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem if it happened that way, this doesn't mean there is necessarily a contradiction. The accounts could just have information that don't overlap.

But actually I'm with churchgeek on this. The story is spiritually true for me whatever the "facts". And I definitely believe in the Incarnation.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Any author with half an ounce of skill is going to pick and choose from the raw data in order to highlight the emphasis he has in mind. Matthew is painting a considerably darker picture than Luke, has more interest in things Jewish, and less perhaps in women and other marginalized people; and so naturally he highlights the Jewish prophecies, the homicidal king, the escape to Egypt (which parallels Israel's own time there). Luke picks up the more joyful and domestic stuff, and spotlights women, the elderly, and lowly shepherds.

I could do the same with the story of my own son's birth. If I were talking to a group of pregnant women, you can bet I'd highlight certain aspects (mainly the hopeful and comforting ones!), while if I were talking to a group of people who had experienced loss and disability, I'd focus more on the twin we lost, the various complications, and so forth.

Believe me, you'd never recognize the two stories as the same.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814

 - Posted      Profile for Galloping Granny   Email Galloping Granny   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
People often read more into the accounts than is actually there. Did Mary and Joseph travel alone, unaccompanied, to Bethlehem? It doesn't say. How long were they there before Jesus was born? It doesn't say (other than at least 8 days). Was the birth attended by a midwife? It doesn't say. How long did they stay after the birth? It doesn't say.

The fact that the Biblical account is not complete is not a excuse for us to imagine details and then claim whatever we invented is Biblical.

If the Romans wanted everyone to return to the place of their forefathers, then all of David's descendants would have been going too. Dozens and hundreds together.

I'm firmly with Shamwari.

Most major figures of the period had elements similar to the Jesus story to explain their own origin and importance.

Myth has its place. The gospels are Good News, with elements of history, biography, sermons and journalism.

GG

--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113

Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712

 - Posted      Profile for PaulBC         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There was some years ago a religion editor on one of the New York papers when asked about the contradictions of the Gospels answered " If I sent 4 writers out to cover 1 story and the came back with accounts that were as harmonous as the Gospels I would be an happy editor."
So I would suggest that aparant contradictions i.e. the journey to Egypt in 1 but not elsewhere is a case of some writers did not get all the facts. But the 4 in concert give us THE picture of the life & ministry of Christ.

--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8

Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
IMO the nativity accounts in Matt and Luke come in the category of Midrash.

I do not subscribe to the literal details

They are theology not history.

I subscribe to the theology

Why do you have an Incarnation then if the event is not useful or literal.

Surely God can love us without becoming an event - which is what you're suggesting. If God did become a man then I fail to see why there should not be an account of his birth.

No one is denying that Jesus wasn't born.

For some of us, however, the birth narratives were written by faithful Christians weaving their imagination to understand their Saviour and the impact he had on them. Historicity is not the same as truth.

The need for the birth narratives to be historical arises from a very modern understanding that historicity is equated to truth. However, religious truth can be conveyed in multiple ways, through myth, poetry, legend and literature.

God the Holy Spirit doesn't need the modern insistence on historical accuracy to convey Her truth.

[ 01. December 2013, 03:00: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Net Spinster:
quote:
Well they do contradict each other.
Matthew doesn't say where the first bit of the story started. It could have been at Nazareth. Who knows? Just because it seems sensible to us to include the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem if it happened that way, this doesn't mean there is necessarily a contradiction. The accounts could just have information that don't overlap.

But actually I'm with churchgeek on this. The story is spiritually true for me whatever the "facts". And I definitely believe in the Incarnation.

If they originally came from Nazareth why give the reason Matthew did for not going to Judea after returning from Egypt. Joseph had no reason to return to Judea if his home was already Nazareth. Nor reconcile the Egypt trip with Luke having them going to Jerusalem and then home to Nazareth 40 days after the birth.

"22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth."

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
If they originally came from Nazareth why give the reason Matthew did for not going to Judea after returning from Egypt. Joseph had no reason to return to Judea if his home was already Nazareth.

It's really not hard to fill in the gaps. Judging by when the Wise Dudes arrived and the ages of the Holy Innocents slaughtered by Herod, the Holy Family lived in Judea for about 2 years after Jesus was born. Joseph must have found work there, and they must have found a place to live. It's understandable that they might have tried to move back to Judea first, and when that didn't work, they fell back to Joe's old stomping grounds up north.

Not saying this happened, or indeed that this isn't fanciful. Just saying that you haven't uncovered a contradiction, just an anomaly that requires explanation.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

This "discussion of Biblical passages and themes" appears to be most "invigorating" - so it's going over to the Kerygmania board where it belongs. To find it, just follow the star.

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

This "discussion of Biblical passages and themes" appears to be most "invigorating" - so it's going over to the Kerygmania board where it belongs. To find it, just follow the star.

/hosting

What star?
[Big Grin]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Eutychus, sorry for starting it in the wrong place.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The Nativity stories are theological reflections on the Christ event. They are not history as we think of.

Matthew sees Jesus as King, so he has the Wise Men acknowledging Christ as King. He also emphasizes Jesus as the New Moses, so the Flight of Egypt story and the massacre of the Bethlehem innocents reflect the story of Moses as a child being rescued from Pharaoh.

Luke sees Jesus as the universal Savior with a special attention to the poor and marginalized. The angelic announcement of his birth is meant to be a parody of the announcement of the birth of the Roman Caesar. Jesus is the true Lord as opposed to Caesar, and so it is the angels of the one true God who announce his nativity. The Shepherds represent the poor and marginalized who are the first to hear the good news.

The Nativity stories are mythical, but myth can convey truth.

The meaning of Christmas is the Incarnation. The important thing is the fact that He was born among us. Everything else is icing on the cake.

I find this interesting. If they are purely myth, then they're obviously there to make strong points. In that case, it's facinating the details that the evangelists would choose to add. As I said earlier, for me those details suggest historicity, but it's interesting to see them presented as theological reflections. Do you think those reflections would have been obvious to the readers / hearers of the stories at the time?

I also fall into the "it doesn't matter" category, but I tend to see a lot more myth in the OT, and the NT as much, much more historical. However, if there is more myth in the NT than I think, then it would be interesting to see how the orgininal recipients saw it.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why would shepherds be watching their flocks at night and only a walk from Bethlehem? There is no sense in either of these, and they can only be read poetically. The same applies to much more of the biblical accounts.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jammy Dodger

Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872

 - Posted      Profile for Jammy Dodger   Email Jammy Dodger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Why would shepherds be watching their flocks at night and only a walk from Bethlehem? There is no sense in either of these, and they can only be read poetically. The same applies to much more of the biblical accounts.

That's really interesting I would've considered these details to be very true to the situation. Surely Bethlehem would've had lots of pasture land nearby (common for an agricultural community) - though the definition of "nearby" doesn't necessarily mean a short walk. The account in Luke 2 gives no indication how long it took the shepherds to find Jesus so it could've been some distance (coupled with a search through the village). Also my understanding was that shepherds in Palestine at that time pretty much had to guard their flocks 24x7. Them "watching" their sheep means guarding. So they weren't necessarily awake (maybe sleeping in shifts?) anyway to me this seems very true to life at the time - no need to interpret them poetically. Can you explain more why you think they are problematic?

--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek

Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If any sort of mystical or magical appearances occurred in relation to the birth of Jesus, why was he allowed to grow up in total obscurity?

I can't imagine any village which would forget the appearance of strange foreigners with gifts, or angelic hosts singing in the sky.

But, apart from one incident when he was 12, there is no indication of the awe or bullying or whatever that would have marked his life for thirty years.

You'd think that the slaughter of so many babies would have left the village wondering why Jesus managed to escape.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Most versions of the Nativity Story that were told to me in Sunday School as a child said that the shepherds were some kind of outcast, and that they perhaps preferred to stay outside of the city gates (even when close to it) because they would be looked down upon inside them. Not sure how much romanticism is involved here.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Offeiriad

Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031

 - Posted      Profile for Offeiriad   Email Offeiriad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't know if this belongs here or under daft things clergy say, but one Christmas preacher declared that Luke's account is the most accurate because Luke the Physician was in fact Mary's Gynacologist.....
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

This "discussion of Biblical passages and themes" appears to be most "invigorating" - so it's going over to the Kerygmania board where it belongs. To find it, just follow the star.

/hosting

What star?
[Big Grin]

I went to the recording of a Radio 2 programme called Follow the Star this time last year, which discussed the options for the star of Bethlehem. They came to the conclusion that it was the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn within certain auspicious constellations, which happened three times in 7BC. This was mostly proposed by Professor David Hughes (apologies, tinyurl as the wiki entry has parentheses).

(A similar argument was used in Blue Stockings as a demonstration of a woman student's erudition, which I suspect is based on research, but my programme notes don't tell me.)

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
If the Romans wanted everyone to return to the place of their forefathers, then all of David's descendants would have been going too. Dozens and hundreds together.

It seems clear that there was not a very widespread census at the time. There is a thread about this in Limbo. I am not convinced, however, that there was no census at all.

The KJV says, "that all the world should be taxed". I consider "all the world" to be on a par with a modern statement, "Everyone is talking about that movie." This kind of exaggeration is common human usage; it does not mean there is no underlying truth.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
Don't know if this belongs here or under daft things clergy say, but one Christmas preacher declared that Luke's account is the most accurate because Luke the Physician was in fact Mary's Gynacologist.....

If so, he was not only a skilled gynacologist but pretty good at preserving life (his own) if he was still vigorous enough to be knocking around with Paul on his missionary journeys in the 60s, then.

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I find this interesting. If they are purely myth, then they're obviously there to make strong points. In that case, it's facinating the details that the evangelists would choose to add. As I said earlier, for me those details suggest historicity, but it's interesting to see them presented as theological reflections. Do you think those reflections would have been obvious to the readers / hearers of the stories at the time?
The Evangelists who wrote the Gospels for their audiences would have been aware of their locations and contexts. In the same way that I believe that the audience who read Revelation would have concluded that St John the Divine meant "Beast in Chapter 13 equals to imperial Rome", I think the audiences would have caught the symbols in the Infancy Narratives.

If the Nativity stories originated at sources circulating before Matthew and Luke penned them down, then it is the Christian communities who started proclaiming them. I don't think the communities engaged in historical method to find out what "really happened" the way we moderns might do. Someone probably asked "How was he born?" And others answered weaving myth and history together (the history being that Jesus's parents were Mary and Joseph and Jesus was raised in Nazareth). Prophecy was also brought in as the communities, Matthew's in particular, would at least had a sizable Jewish-Christian population which would be familiar with the OT prophecies of the Messiah. So, like much of Scripture, the writers and/or communities composed great stories weaving, history, imagination, and prophecy together.

To ask about historicity is to miss the point. The point of these stories is to convey meaning.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I seriously doubt that Mary had a gynecologist. If there were no problems with a pregnancy, women in those days probably did not consult doctors. When the birth took place, there was a midwife who had experience assisting at births.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam.

Like as the
# 4991

 - Posted      Profile for Adam.   Author's homepage   Email Adam.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For me, the creeds tell me what I have to believe actually happened. When we turn to the nativity stories, that would be, then: the Virgin Birth, mother's name was some variant on Miryam. With my sober historian hat on, I'd give very strong probabalistic credence to anything that's double tradition given how unconnected the stories seem to be. That would be:

-- Legal father's name was Joseph, the husband of Mary.
-- The couple was a pious Jewish couple.
-- Baby was born in Bethlehem, but the child grew up in Nazareth (I wouldn't want to speculate on reasons for the move).

Beyond that, I would view the remaining historically questions as beyond answering to any reasonable degree of probability. The much more interesting question in any regard is what christological truths the evangelists were seeking to convey through them.

--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog

Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would have expected Hart to recommend Raymond Brown's 'The Birth of the Messiah'.

Great stuff.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(I mean, it is 'nearly' Christmas!)

The band 'Slade' is on pretty every store in town and, yes, it's time for the nativity thread!
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
...if I was to make up birth stories to big someone up, they probably wouldn't look like those we read.

I suspect if Matthew and crew were to make up a nativity story, too, they wouldn't have ended up with the versions in their Gospels.

I am happy to take a much more confident stance on the ability of the writers to write history and theology - eating the cake and still having it. I remain healthily skeptical of skepticism!

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The kataluma was not in a panocheion - pub. It was the temporary guest room (a 'loose[n] down', a 'demolishable') on top of Joseph's kinsman's house for Sukkoth, Jesus being quite possibly and most symbolically born Trumpets-Atonement-Tabernacles.

The star was an angel or another epiphany just for the Magi, no astronomical phenomenon could have led to Bethlehem, nobody else saw it.

As for the genealogies, what Wiki says.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
If they originally came from Nazareth why give the reason Matthew did for not going to Judea after returning from Egypt. Joseph had no reason to return to Judea if his home was already Nazareth.

It's really not hard to fill in the gaps. Judging by when the Wise Dudes arrived and the ages of the Holy Innocents slaughtered by Herod, the Holy Family lived in Judea for about 2 years after Jesus was born. Joseph must have found work there, and they must have found a place to live. It's understandable that they might have tried to move back to Judea first, and when that didn't work, they fell back to Joe's old stomping grounds up north.

Not saying this happened, or indeed that this isn't fanciful. Just saying that you haven't uncovered a contradiction, just an anomaly that requires explanation.

Except Luke has in 2

22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”, 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

then the stories of Simeon and Anna then

39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

Nothing about returning to Bethlehem first or a side trip to Egypt.

Following up on Hart I would disagree on born in Bethlehem despite the double tradition because there was a strong prior tradition (as indicated in John) that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem and so a strong reason to say Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Note John despite mentioning the tradition doesn't say Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Martin PC
quote:
The star was an angel or another epiphany just for the Magi, no astronomical phenomenon could have led to Bethlehem, nobody else saw it.
Martin PC, regarding the authenticity of the Star of Bethlehem it is instructive to note that St John Chrysostom (d.407 AD) was something of a sceptic. See <www.anastasis.org.uk/Star of Bethlehem.htm>
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Why would shepherds be watching their flocks at night and only a walk from Bethlehem? There is no sense in either of these, and they can only be read poetically. The same applies to much more of the biblical accounts.

If it was lambing season, you'd darn better be watching your flocks by night, as some of them may need help. Which is why a lot of people put the birth of Christ during lambing season.

As for the location, Bethlehem is what, a couple miles from Jerusalem? Pretty major city, with a temple needing continual sheep sacrifices, not to speak of ordinary uses for sheep. So the sheep could very well have belonged to people in either Jerusalem or Bethlehem, and the distances involved in either case are not surprising. In such a country you'd need to keep your sheep on the move fairly often so as not to graze what pasture you found all the way down to the roots. The distance, short or far, means little. Except that if it were lambing season, you probably WOULD choose to keep your flock a bit closer to home, in case of need. The grass would be up to it, too, with the rainy season just over.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If any sort of mystical or magical appearances occurred in relation to the birth of Jesus, why was he allowed to grow up in total obscurity?

I can't imagine any village which would forget the appearance of strange foreigners with gifts, or angelic hosts singing in the sky.

But, apart from one incident when he was 12, there is no indication of the awe or bullying or whatever that would have marked his life for thirty years.

You'd think that the slaughter of so many babies would have left the village wondering why Jesus managed to escape.

I'm sorry, you're bringing out the geek in me-- [Hot and Hormonal]

First of all, the two incidents (angels singing / wise men coming) were probably separated by about two years, as someone upthread pointed out. With regards to the angels singing, we are told they appeared to the shepherds, but not how far away they were from populated areas--and it was night. The later the hour, the less likely that anyone BUT the shepherds would be awake to witness anything. No electric lights, exciting nightlife, etc. in those days. You might get the occasional mother with a sick child or someone putting the last few stitches in a wedding dress or shroud. But really, it's not too surprising, even if the whole thing happened only a quarter of a mile outside the village.

Re the appearance of strangers with gifts--I've no doubt the strangers were noticed and eagerly speculated on (though whether any locals got to witness the gift presentation is unclear--they were inside a house at that point, and houses in those days were not exactly big. And I doubt Mary and Joseph were eager to spread the details ("Hey, Martha, you'll never guess what's under my pillow for safekeeping! Don't tell the local thieves, will you?" Uh no.)

And for both parents and village, the whole visit would have been swamped in the terror of the massacre that followed so quickly afterward. Remember, Jerusalem is only a couple miles away... Herod probably didn't wait long before concluding that the wise men weren't coming back, and it was time to move. And AFTER the massacre, who's going to be talking about the strange visitors? New news pushes out old. And they wouldn't have known the two events were connected.

Nor, most likely, would they have realized that Jesus escaped death. They would notice the young family had disappeared over night, and a few kindly-hearted people might hope it meant they'd gotten wind of the soldiers in time and made a run for it successfully--but it could just as easily mean that Herod's forces had "disappeared" them (Are you going to go and ask the authorities? no, didn't think so) or that after their baby was killed, Joseph and Mary were so upset that they upped anchor and headed back to their original home of Nazareth--far, far away from the soldiers in Jerusalem. Either would be logical assumptions.

I grant you, if Mary and Joseph had succeeded in resettling themselves in Bethlehem a few years later, questions would have been raised. For one thing, they would have had the only boy of Jesus' age in the village, all the rest having been killed. Perhaps this is why God directed them in that dream NOT to return to Judea--their return would have been too conspicuous, the news might have spread, and Archelaus was his father's son when it came to cruelty. Better to go back where nobody would be likely to connect the child Jesus to the massacre a few years back seventy miles away, or to have heard of any of the odd events surrounding his birth and early childhood.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Net Spinster, I don't think the passage

quote:
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

will bear the weight you put on it. There's a lot of wiggle room in that "when ... they returned" construction.

First of all, they almost certainly went back to Bethlehem even if we throw out the whole massacre/flight into Egypt story, because they'd have had to pack their stuff--and nobody brings all the family possessions along to the baby's presentation ceremony. [Big Grin] In the same way, nobody with options chooses to travel long distances with a 40-day-old infant and a mother not long past childbirth. I mean, yeouch. Particularly on foot (though I can't imagine a donkey, if they had one, was much more comfortable.)

There's also the possibility that they might have been dealing with nosy neighbors counting on their fingers. Mary was obviously pregnant soon after the wedding. Nazareth would be a very unusual place indeed if the local busybodies had no interest in the baby's birthdate. Return to Nazareth with an obvious newborn and you're screwed. Pick up work in Bethlehem, find a temporary house, stay a couple years--eh, is that kid two and a half, or three? Hard to tell, isn't it?

They may have been above such concerns, but I wouldn't have been. [Hot and Hormonal]

So all things considered, I expect there was some time elapsed between the presentation and the return to Nazareth. But we often condense or leave out events we don't consider germane to the story we're telling, and I think Luke did that here.

[ 01. December 2013, 18:07: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jammy Dodger

Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872

 - Posted      Profile for Jammy Dodger   Email Jammy Dodger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Loving your posts LC. [Overused]

--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek

Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Loving your posts LC. [Overused]

Lamb Chopped is my SOF biblical scholar par excellence.

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's really not hard to fill in the gaps. (etc)

Except Luke has in 2 (etc)
I didn't try to reconcile that because you hadn't mentioned it. I don't want to play a leapfrog game where I say something and you come back with, "Oh yeah? Well what about...."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Why would shepherds be watching their flocks at night and only a walk from Bethlehem? There is no sense in either of these, and they can only be read poetically. The same applies to much more of the biblical accounts.

That's really interesting I would've considered these details to be very true to the situation. Surely Bethlehem would've had lots of pasture land nearby (common for an agricultural community) - though the definition of "nearby" doesn't necessarily mean a short walk. The account in Luke 2 gives no indication how long it took the shepherds to find Jesus so it could've been some distance (coupled with a search through the village). Also my understanding was that shepherds in Palestine at that time pretty much had to guard their flocks 24x7. Them "watching" their sheep means guarding. So they weren't necessarily awake (maybe sleeping in shifts?) anyway to me this seems very true to life at the time - no need to interpret them poetically. Can you explain more why you think they are problematic?
Sorry for the late reply - I had somehow missed your post. Certainly watched meant guarded, and even with several flocks together, more than one would have been awake. 25 December is winter in Israel, and even though it's warmer there that much of Italy even, it's still quite cold at night. I've always doubted that the sheep were herded over far pasture in that sort of climate, and they they were returned to sheds and stables overnight. Summer was of course much different.

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David…" I wonder how large Bethlehem really was. Did it have the title of city because of its being that of David, and that the title was an honorific? That may well be true, but I stop at your reference to a village and think that might not be quite right either.

Yes, we don't know how long they walked. When they arrived at the stable, Mary was awake, so perhaps they had taken long enough for her to have had a sleep after the ordeal of birth. The usual paintings have the shepherds on a hillside with Bethlehem not far away.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
SyNoddy
Shipmate
# 17009

 - Posted      Profile for SyNoddy     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just got back from a Holy Land pilgrimage last month and its all about caves:
Cave used to coral sheep at night for safety with shepherd's sitting around fires at the opening to keep the sheep in and predators out
Series of caves used as temporary accommodation for influx of travellers. Mary taken deeper to a secluded cave for privacy during Labour and birth by fellow women travellers. Joseph left pacing about in cave nearer entrance - probably chain smoking!

Posts: 53 | From: Somewhere near the Middle | Registered: Mar 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jammy Dodger

Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872

 - Posted      Profile for Jammy Dodger   Email Jammy Dodger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Certainly watched meant guarded, and even with several flocks together, more than one would have been awake. 25 December is winter in Israel, and even though it's warmer there that much of Italy even, it's still quite cold at night. I've always doubted that the sheep were herded over far pasture in that sort of climate, and they they were returned to sheds and stables overnight. Summer was of course much different.

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David…" I wonder how large Bethlehem really was. Did it have the title of city because of its being that of David, and that the title was an honorific? That may well be true, but I stop at your reference to a village and think that might not be quite right either.

Yes, we don't know how long they walked. When they arrived at the stable, Mary was awake, so perhaps they had taken long enough for her to have had a sleep after the ordeal of birth. The usual paintings have the shepherds on a hillside with Bethlehem not far away.

Thanks.

Yes I totally agree with you about the summer/winter thing. But for me that doesn't mean that the details in the Bible story are incorrect it means that the traditional date for Christ's birth (which has no scriptural support whatsoever) is the thing that is wrong. As someone mentioned up thread it is more likely to have been in the summer months, in other words your celebration of Christmas in Australia in the summer (for you) is probably more accurate than for those of us in the northern hemisphere [Biased]

Also you are right to pull me up on the village thing. In comparison to Jerusalem Bethlehem would've been much smaller I imagine but to be called a city it would need to have been big enough to have a protective wall around it.

Again, paintings have a level of interpretation - Bethlehem could be shown nearby for artistic reasons to get the story across rather than because the is any literal connection with location.

Anyway I am not sure we are disagreeing. For me I am happy to believe the details that are actually in the gospel accounts. Actually though these details are very, very sparse and the gaps have been filled with traditional "details" that are not there in the original and it's those that I question.

--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek

Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools