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:
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/
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.
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
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.
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!
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.



This is not to say his choice was merely arbitrary, but the wish could well have been father to the thought.