Memories of the Nativity In Scripture

The Purpose and an Axiom

The purpose of this article is to propose keys found in the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke supporting the credibility of their birth narratives and, in doing so, illumine a Catholic understanding of those passages.

First, lets us look briefly at St. Luke’s introduction to his gospel (Luke 1:1-4). St. Luke states clearly that he will adhere to the sources of Revelation. His intention is to gather and hand on from both “eyewitnesses” and “ministers of the word”. That is, both the historical memories of the events of salvation and the Church’s reflection on those events in the preaching of the apostolic generation. St. Luke feels obligated to pass on only what he, who we believe is an inspired author, thinks is trustworthy. Because of the early date of the composition of the Synoptic gospels, these traditions were not a novelty but must extend to the first Christians. The reliability of these memories and preached reflections? It is not impossibly difficult for people to gather and remember a correct outline of shared events yet to present and reflect on that history from the diversity of human viewpoints. This is the axiom that underlies all history - to deny it is to lose all history.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke share common material and thus are called the Synoptic gospels. There is an interesting academic puzzle involving these gospels called the Synoptic Problem. The material that Matthew has that is not also in Mark is not found in Luke and, similarly, the material that Luke has that is not in Mark is not in Matthew. This is very evident in their accounts of the infancy of our Lord. In light of our above-stated historical axiom there is no real Synoptic “problem” but simply the diverse views of an important event. When an important event happens we tend to consult several sources to build the most complete account of the event. Perhaps the term “problem” really indicates that some students of the Scripture just have too much time on their hands. The real problem arises when someone claims that there are contradictions, for example, between the differing Birth narratives found in Matthew and Luke that suggest these stories are only based on the spiritual imagination of Christians. To answer this claim let us restate the axiom: Given any set of people, their reports of a shared experience can vary in detail and even accuracy but be correct in at least broad outline. Ask any mentally competent mother and father about the day their child was born. Their memories must be different but will agree on essential facts. Then ask the father to describe his memories to one person and the mother to another. In turn these two individuals must again describe or write accounts of that birth day which will be entirely separate but not uncomplimentary or contradictory.

There is another factor when studying the Bible other than the historical minimum offered above. It is a factor that I wanted to bring up only at the end of this article but which should be mentioned now considering our adolescent age of skepticism: faith.

The Bible can only be understood fully with faith. We believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are based on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and are contained or, at least, not contradicted by either source. Therefore the events of salvation and the preaching about those events contained in Scripture are divinely guaranteed as to the Revelation God wills to make. In other words, there are no errors concerning the divine matters of faith and morals when considered in their full context. Neither Scripture nor Sacred Tradition is guaranteed concerning non-essential (non-essential to the Divine message) facts of astronomy, geography, biology or even history. More on faith and context will follow the discussion below.

Key Verses We Consider in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke

Let us now consider specifics in Matthew and Luke that may be helpful. We focus sharply on a single phrase in a single verse, even a single preposition, in Luke. In Luke 2:24 we find the words “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons”. These are a direct citation from Leviticus 12:8. This citation tells Luke’s readers that Mary is a poor woman since this is what the Law states someone who cannot afford a lamb must offer in stead for her ritual purification. Circumcision of a male child occurred on the eighth day after birth; the mother’s ritual purification on the fortieth day after birth. (Keep this length of time in mind when, in a moment, we turn to Matthew.) Did St. Luke or his sources (more likely since the writer of the gospel establishes he is relying on sources at the start) just presuppose Joseph and Mary were good Jews and would follow the Law after the birth of a son or did they have a historical basis? If St. Luke was writing based on his or someone else’s religious reveries there would be no reason to give the Leviticus quote in the manner it was used, leaving a somewhat awkward “or”. Luke or his source would have made a choice of what Mary sacrificed for the imagined scene. Yet he does not feel free to make an “educated guess” between turtledoves and pigeons for the sake of narrative. In other words, he does not write something that is baseless.

Turn now to key verses in Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus: 2:7 and 2:16. Matthew repeats himself in both verses for emphasis: Herod knew exactly from the Magi when the star of the new king appeared. Based on this knowledge Herod has all boys two years old and under killed. King Herod is shown to be a “furious’ murdering criminal but not as stupid. He calculates. His calculations are based, as Matthew goes out of his way to tell us twice, on the exact time of the star’s appearance. Matthew is clearly indicating an age for Jesus that is after the forty day period covered by the gospel of St. Luke. This is after the birth in a stable annex, circumcision and purification in the Temple. One of the supposed “contradictions” between Matthew and Luke is that the shepherds go to a stable while the Magi visit a house. No, it is our imagined conflated nativity scenes that are too condensed and misleading. A man concerned about his young family responsibilities has obtained decent housing for Mary and Jesus by the time the Magi are reported. There is no foundation in Scripture to think that Herod could know about Jesus in the eight day or even forty day time period of Luke.

Complimentary Traditions

So, to imitate Matthew in our own poor fashion, I repeat that Luke is dealing with forty days while Matthew can reasonably be seen as writing about events at least months later. In any “calculation” there is generous room to reconcile, dare I say, synchronize the peaceful domestic religious tapestry of St. Luke with the dangerous secular circumstances of St. Matthew. The gospel of St. Matthew presents traditions about the birth of Jesus that can be described as derived from the natural fatherly concerns of Joseph. The main concern that fills the mind of a man with a young family? Protect and provide. The Joseph-father memories are shown in protecting Mary’s reputation (Mt. 1:19), protecting both wife and child from a direct threat (2:13), and providing a secure home (2:22).

St. Luke’s gospel gives us the memories and tradition of a joyful young mother. What is first and most important in her memory is not outside forces (Joseph took care of that) but the joy and wonder of domestic occasions: learning she would be a mother, the visit to her cousin Elizabeth, the birth of her cousin’s son, the birth of her son Jesus, the shepherds, the circumcision, her ritual purification and presentation of her first born son, what people remarked about her baby and herself, and, years later, the finding in the temple.

Why so many Joseph and Mary traditions in the Early Church? The gospels of St. Luke and St. John and the Acts of the Apostles firmly attest that Mary was notably present in the newborn Church. Together Luke and John offer Mary as the prototypical Christian. It would be ahistorical to the point of absurdity to think the first followers of Jesus and the entire Church in the first century did not seek the memories of the mother of the Lord or did not find them precious to maintain. As to Joseph, need we remind ourselves of Jesus’ relatives in the primitive Church? Joseph is presented in Matthew as the prototypical Christian elder with inspired leadership to provide for and protect the Church.

Faith

The true key to Scripture is faith. We cannot understand Scripture with the doubting question of Zechariah (Luke 1:18-20) but with the seeking to understand question of Mary (1:34-35). The response to Mary’s trust? Not according to the way of men but the result of a miracle. If, in blind devotion to the empirical side of science, you eliminate the miraculous, you have prejudged the very idea of Revelation and therefore cannot understand the Bible. Sadly, much of modern “biblical criticism” is founded on this premise: Since miracles are discounted, how do we study the Bible as secular literature?

The Church documents (Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council) do not endorse suspending faith as a prerequisite to the scientific study of Scripture. {Note: Since the first writing of this article Pope Benedict XVI has spoken in confirmation of this theme: http://www.zenit.org/article-27344?l=english }

The study of Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition depends on faith in the entirety of Revelation. Ultimately this is faith in Jesus, the Word of God (the gospel of St. John) and the final and complete revelation from God (Hebrews). Now, if you trust someone, you receive their statements and hold them in context. Context is the legitimate place for the scientific part of Scripture study: language, idiom, history, culture, human psychology. We also take into account the limitations and mistakes of ourselves and other students of Scripture.

Since Christ is the Revelation of God, the real context of Scripture is the body of Christ, the Church. All members who can should read and study the Word of God but only those apostolic members whose function it is to shepherd the Church can give authoritative interpretation. The Catholic approach to Scripture should be the via media, the middle way. There are those who take a naïve literalistic approach to each word in the library known as the Bible. (While this article seeks to restore balance away from the overly-critical, the “or” phrase of Luke can also demonstrate that the author did not dictate a transcript of history as spurious non-scriptural writings purport to have.) Others, who dominate today, view the Bible as an interesting example of culture and myth which they as modern critical thinkers can better understand than anyone else. Both of these stances towards Scripture are wrong. We must have a critical sense of history and literature at the disposal of an enlightening faith. Mary at the Annunciation: her question is derived from realistic knowledge, her acceptance on real trust.

But how does this apply to a naturalistic synchronization of the Birth narratives in the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke? It is intended as a counter-balance to the approach to the Bible that discounts the historicity of events. If one’s starting premise in approaching the Scripture is that only the empirical is reasonable, then this a priori prejudice spreads to even the understanding of ordinary events. In other words, since miracles reported assigned to the birth of Jesus are mere cultural expressions, even the reported outline of historical events is dubious. These Zechariahs, who have made the pre-judgment that miracles are doubtful, would reduce us all to dumbness in response to Scripture.

Once again, consider Mary’s response to the angelic message: “How can this be since I do not know man?”. Mary was “deeply troubled” by the angel’s words. God’s word to us is often difficult to understand. The full discipline of science depends on both the empirical and the logical, not just the empirical. Mary’s question is logical based on the empirical facts of life. But she is not just an empirical object in a merely physical world. She has a hope-producing and therefore an enlivening and enlightening faith. Once she is told that she would be a mother not in the empirical way but through the miracle of the Holy Spirit, she accepts and our salvation is assured. As Jesus often said to those whom he healed – “Go, your faith has saved you”.