Ads


Sign up for our
Email Newsletter

What the Pope Really Said About Christmas

The Pope’s new book, Infancy Narratives, was released on November 21. The day’s headline of the Daily Mail? “Killjoy Pope crushes Christmas nativity traditions: New Jesus book reveals there were no donkeys beside crib, no lowing oxen and definitely no carols.” CNN’s online story followed suit. The New York Daily News repeated the claim about the animals, adding not that the pope agreed with some historians on an earlier dating of the birth of Christ but that “the Christian calendar has Jesus’ birth year wrong, Pope Benedict XVI claims in a new book.”

But those who have read Pope Benedict at length know that such conclusions would be uncharacteristic of his thought. Had they even held the book? My curiosity was particularly stirred when I noticed the following quotation in the Time story, which they apparently took from the Telegraph (U.K.) rather than from the book: “No one will give up the oxen and the donkey in their [sic] Nativity scenes.”

Any book editor worth his or her salt would notice the obvious pronoun disagreement. “No way is that in the English edition,” I thought. In comparing the stories, I noticed that the Daily Mail and others instead rendered the quotation: “No nativity scene will give up its ox and donkey.” In the book, the sentence in question seems to be on page 69: “No presentation of the crib is complete without the ox and the ass.” This is different from both representations. Which was it? I sought to find out for myself. Random House confirmed via email that neither of the first two quotations listed is in the book; rather they are poor translations from the Italian. Not only have they misquoted the book, perhaps hastily translating the work from Italian, but these unofficial quotations have circulated among multiple publications—secular and religious.

Likely a select few misread the sense of the pope’s text and informed the journalistic community, who then informed the world how they misread the text. A Reuters story published Wednesday helped clarify things a bit. An excellent headline—“Read all about it: Pope has not cancelled Christmas”—should help this necessary corrective analysis gain exposure. Nonetheless, there remains much to clean up.

Back to that Daily Mail headline: “. . . no donkeys beside crib, no lowing oxen and definitely no carols.” Let’s have a look.

First of all, what did the pope actually say about the nativity scene animals? He wrote, “The manger, as we have seen, indicates animals, who come to it for their food. In the Gospel there is no reference to animals at this point. But prayerful reflection, reading Old and New Testaments in light of one another, filled this lacuna at a very early stage by pointing to Isaiah 1:3: ‘The ox knows its owner, and the ass its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand.’”

Benedict actually affirms the image of the ox and the donkey present at the manger by pointing to Old Testament imagery and, later, to iconographic tradition that complement the Gospel source. His words justify, rather than call into question, the presence of the animals in the manger scene. This is the beauty of Benedict’s writing, and why he is perhaps better read in the study or in the adoration chapel than in the newsroom. On the one hand, he points out what is obvious: the absence of the animals in the Gospel narrative. On the other, he shows why Christians came to understand that the animals were there, adding, “No representation of the crib is complete without the ox and the ass.”

And those talking, non-singing angels? What did the Pope actually say? He writes concerning the gloria, “According to the evangelist, the angels ‘said’ this.” That must be about as far as some in the secular press read, because the very next sentence is: “But Christianity has always understood that the speech of angels is actually song, in which all the glory of the great joy that they proclaim becomes tangibly present. And so, from that moment, the angels’ song of praise has never gone silent” (p. 73). To paraphrase, the pope is saying that when one reads Luke and sees that the angels “said” their glorious words, the angels were of course singing (because that is what angels do).

As for the calendar, well, compare the brusque way in which the New York Daily News says it: “Jesus’ birth year is wrong: Pope” with the way in which the pope actually wrote it: “One initial problem can be solved quite easily: the census took place at the time of King Herod the Great, who actually died in the year 4 B.C. The starting point for our reckoning of time—the calculation of Jesus’ date of birth—goes back to the monk Dionysius Exiguus (+ c. 550), who evidently miscalculated by a few years. The historical date of the birth of Jesus is therefore to be placed a few years earlier.” I used to write headlines for a living, and so I am on the one hand sympathetic to the challenge; nonetheless, I can also spot an unsympathetic rendering of Vatican news.

As should be painfully evident, there is a big difference between what the media says that the Pope says and what the Pope himself actually says. Each time the waves settle from their slipshod coverage, the media should find that it has displaced a bit more of the public trust, trust that they will deliver the truth about Vatican news. They forfeited my trust a while ago. If anyone were to ask me, “How should I read news about the Vatican from the secular press?” I would say, “It can be useful for information, but must be read with a fundamental principle of uniformly applied suspicion and doubt. In other words, read it in the same way in which they would have us read the Bible.”

Kevin M. Clarke is an adjunct professor of New Testament Greek at John Paul the Great Catholic University in San Diego, California. He is the author of a chapter on Benedict XVI’s Mariology in De Maria Numquam Satis: The Significance of the Catholic Doctrines on the Blessed Virgin Mary for All People, and writes for Lay Witness and Zenit. Follow him on Twitter @kevinmclarke.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

11.30.2012 | 4:19am
Michael PS says:
Little Dennis is best remembered for his Pascal tables. His algorithm for calculating the date of Easter required a Year 1 and the fact that 1 BC is both a leap year and the first year of the 19 year lunar cycle (the Metonic Cycle) simplified calculation. In the Julian calendar, the cycle is 532 years (7 x 4 x 19), which meant that his first table, beginning in 533, marked the beginning of such a cycle.

This is not to say his choice was merely arbitrary, but the wish could well have been father to the thought.
11.30.2012 | 7:46am
The media will be distrusted only to the extent that the public gets contrary news about the Vatican or Church from elsewhere. But, I think this is increasingly not the case; no one who doesn't go to church, nor reads the Pope's books would have any other source of information, & no way to detect any bias or shortcoming in mainstream coverage of religion. I'm coming to the rather gloomy conclusion that a prejudiced media will over time find it easier to misinform an increasingly ignorant public.
11.30.2012 | 9:35am
G says:
If you’ll forgive me an entirely un-theological point, I think that the author’s astonishment/disapproval at a singular use of ‘their’ after ‘No one’, is misplaced. This is a very common way of using the word, and has been for many centuries. The Oxford English Dictionary says of ‘their’: “Often used in relation to a singular sb. or pronoun denoting a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every one, etc. Also so used instead of `his or her', when the gender is inclusive or uncertain.” – And this would apply perfectly in this case. That said, the OED grants that this usage is ‘not favoured by grammarians’.

But why not? It’s not as though this usage doesn’t have a venerable pedigree. Thackery, apparently, once used wrote: “No one prevents you, do they?”. And Thackery is just the tip of the iceberg. The OED provides a number of further examples with ‘Nobody’, such as:

1548 UDALL, etc. Erasm. Par. Luke 94 b, “No bodye will receiue you into their house”.
1628 tr. Mathieu's Powerfull Favorite 108 “No body should dare to stretch out their arme, or present their bosome to receiue him”.
1755 WHARBURTON in W. & Hurd Lett. (1809) 201 “Nobody has yet written against me, but at their own expence”.
1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 “Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would”.
1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives §38 (1873) 44 “Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing”.
1874 L. STEPHEN Hours in Library III. 333 “Nobody ever put so much of themselves into their work”.

And in general the singular ‘they’ is very common in many great writers. Consider the King James Bible: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Phillipians, 2:3).

Shakespeare: “God send every one their heart's desire!” (Much Ado About Nothing, Act III Scene 4), and “There's not a man I meet but doth salute me, / As if I were their well-acquainted friend.” (Comedy of Errors, Act IV Scene 3).

C. S. Lewis: “She kept her head and kicked her shoes off, as everybody ought to do who falls into deep water in their clothes.” (Voyage of the ``Dawn Treader'' Chapter I)

Walt Whitman: “...everyone shall delight us, and we them”.

For more quotes see: http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html And for a wonderful discussion of the matter see: http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/
11.30.2012 | 10:16am
Jim Bell says:
I am a retired journalist who spent almost 50 years in the news broadcasting business. Like Prof. Clarke, I despaired of trusting secular media reporting of things churchly and sacred long ago.

I wouldn't mind them so much if they weren't so abysmally ignorant of religion. They know nothing of church history, and have no understanding of Faith and why people have Faith, and it shows in their shallow reporting.

Their reactions to the Pope's book is just the latest example. Their worst failing is their total lack of interest in even learning something about this subject.
11.30.2012 | 10:29am
Cbalducc says:
The secular media, for the most part, isn't interested in what the Pope - ANY Pope - has to say about anything. They just want to distort his words to make him look like a fool.
11.30.2012 | 1:12pm
Sondra Shinn says:
Thank God for this site! When I first read what the Pope was suppose to have wrote, my heart sank!

I decided to find out what our Pope actually wrote...then I found this article! It explains in detail .......THE TRUTH!

Thank you so much!

Sincerely,
Sondra Shinn
11.30.2012 | 2:46pm
Craig Payne says:
Government Drone writes: "I'm coming to the rather gloomy conclusion that a prejudiced media will over time find it easier to misinform an increasingly ignorant public."

I agree that this is part of the problem. The other part is that "increasingly ignorant" also applies to the media.

Want another discouraging story? I teach a Bible as Literature course in a secular college. Recently, at the beginning of the term, a student showed me her tiny New Testament, a gift from the Gideons who visited our campus. "Is this a Bible?" she asked me. "Is this what I need for the class?" No, I explained; she would also need the Old Testament for the class. "Where can I get that?" she asked. Sensing some economic difficulties, I suggested a Goodwill or Salvation Army. "So they'll have both books?" What do you mean, both books? "Will they have this book and the other one you mentioned?" she asked. No, I explained; when you get a Bible, you get both in one book. She was happy about that--not that she finally learned, in college, what a Bible was, but that she could get both books for one price.
11.30.2012 | 9:17pm
Mary says:
I am so grateful for this article. What a difference from what the Holy Father actually said and what the media reported. They indeed make him sound like a dried up old kill-joy. Reminds me of how I felt when subjected to the teaching of modernist theologians and the clergy that followed them. They took delight in telling us there was no Noah, Ark ect. Holy water and the sacraments are not "magic."and so forth. How very sad and not at all edifying! Just the words "Infancy Narratives" can scare me from the past bad experiences with the phrase. Still, I have become quite accustomed to the fact that the secular media distorts most news about religion and particularly Catholicism in the most distressing ways. They never let Benedict speak his own words. Thank you for the truth. I am going to get the book.
11.30.2012 | 11:41pm
I find it astonishing that anything of such minor importance justify an essay and lengthy comments. Maybe The Pope may have been better placed in justifying that the only Gospel with the nativity story is not myth making to accord with what were seen as prophecies. By all means let us enjoy, as I do, celebrating Christmas as a human response to the coming of Jesus.
12.1.2012 | 12:08am
Sisto Maximo says:
I noticed English translation either from French, Italian and Latin are terrible. I just don't understand how the translation could be so far off. It's secular like movies, books, and papers. It's also in religious prayers like Latin into English. In one divine office prayer in Latin a Saint died a Virgin and a Martyr in the prayer. In the English translation the Saint died as a dignified woman. Like for some reason virgin and martyr did not exsist in the Latin text of the prayer. Correct translations of texts are very important especially when it deals with texts from the Bible. We trust the translations but when translations of prayers are questionable then Bibical translations could be called to question. Just look at the Publishers translation of the Popes text of his book. It's a big problem we just hope any translation is a close as the original text as possible and the basic concept of what the original writer wanted expressed is correct without the translater interjecting his opinionated version or slant which is always a possibility.
12.1.2012 | 4:06am
Luciano says:
Jesus being born 4 years before the presumed date fits me fine, that would mean that He died when He was 37years old. I've wondered for a long time about that possibility of 37 which by the way when multiplied by 3 results in 111 and the significance it has. I'm not surprised about the pundits response for they are notorious for misrepresentation and false interpretations. I'm planning to buy all 3 books of his trilogy and waiting until they are available.
All the fuss that is being made may motivate more people to take a closer look at this wonderful mystery of the Nativity and what it can teach us. Persevering prayer to the Holy Spirit and meditation can open the door to the wonders that it holds and the way it can change us and lead to a closer relationship with the Lord Jesus! God bless everyone in Jesus through Mary with Joseph.
May you have a fruitful Advent for the journey inward where mind and heart are truly one n Jesus!
12.1.2012 | 9:04am
Michael PS says:
G

A construction in which a form, such as a pronoun, differs in number but agrees in meaning with the word governing it is known as synesis, e.g. "If the group becomes too large, we can split them in two."

Mary

"No Noah, Ark, &c" I do remember a little boy (about 6 or 7) asking our teacher, a French nun, if Joan of Arc was Noah's daughter. "No," answered the good sister, "Noah's ark was made of wood and St Joan of Arc was Maid of Orléans." Pretty good, when one considers English was not her first language.
12.2.2012 | 10:01am
Mary Flood says:
Another example of the secular world persectuing, undermining Truth and scripture; in any way possible. M. Flood
12.2.2012 | 3:28pm
G says:
I’ve said this before on this website, but I must say it again – because it seems to have become a recurrent bad habit of some commenters. This time, it is in response to Mary Flood, who writes: “Another example of the secular world persectuing, undermining Truth and scripture”. You may think my attitude finicky, but I think that the hyperbole involved in talking of ‘persecution’ in describing what is touched upon in this article is so strong that it borders on the immoral. There have been in history – and still are in too many places – situations of *real* religious persecution. When that happens, it usually involves blood, torture, and martyrdom. It does not involve merely things like sloppy or biased newspaper reportage on Vatican non-news – however annoying, hurtful, or pernicious that may be. Catholics have, in certain places, at certain times, been subject to actual religious persecution. Catholics have also been responsible for their share of actual religious persecution. It is a very dangerous thing to forget what persecution really is – slapping the name casually on any old thing one doesn’t like, disagrees with, or is offended or hurt by. It makes it more difficult for all of us, who are not subject to any religious persecution whatsoever, to appreciate that fact, give thanks for it, and protect and value the secular institutions that allow for it; it cheapens the memories of those who truly suffered through genuine religious persecution - often unto death; and it makes it easier for us to perhaps actually foster an atmosphere of genuine persecution, for having cheapened the name so that it is no longer the horror that it ought to be.
12.20.2012 | 10:58pm
G. C. Davis says:
I view the secular press on reporting matters of faith in the same light the the late South Vietnamese President Ngô Ðinh Diêm viewed the American press in reporting internal matters in Vietnam during his administration. The American press deliberately misreported an incident in 1963 and blew it out of porportion. Can we trust secular press to honestly report on Church matters? Many say that the secular press is more honest because they consider themselves the 'guardians' of public trust. If the secular press took the time to investigate the actual writing, they would able to wash the taste of shoe leather out of their mouth, and then be able to recover the trust.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact