Excerpt from B16's "Jesus of Nazareth"

Via Newsweek:

Conflicting movements, hopes, and expectations shaped the religious and political climate around the time of Jesus’ birth. Judas the Galilean had called for an uprising, which was put down by the Romans with a great deal of bloodshed. Judas left behind a party, the Zealots, who were prepared to resort to terror and violence in order to restore Israel’s freedom. It is even possible that one or two of Jesus’ twelve Apostles—Simon the Zealot and perhaps Judas Iscariot as well—had been partisans of this movement. The Pharisees, whom we are constantly meeting in the Gospels, endeavored to live with the greatest possible exactness according to the instructions of the Torah. They also refused conformity to the hegemony of Hellenistic-Roman culture, which naturally imposed itself throughout the Roman Empire, and was now threatening to force Israel’s assimilation to the pagan peoples’ way of life. The Sadducees, most of whom belonged to the aristocracy and the priestly class, attempted to practice an enlightened Judaism, intellectually suited to the times, and so also to come to terms with Roman domination. The Sadducees disappeared after the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), whereas the pattern of life practiced by the Pharisees found an enduring form in the sort of Judaism shaped by the Mishnah and the Talmud. Although we observe sharp antagonism between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Gospels, and although his death on the Cross was the very antithesis of the Zealot program, we must not forget that people came to Christ from every kind of background and that the early Christian community included more than a few priests and former Pharisees.

Read the entire excerpt.

Order Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI.

Also from Newsweek, "Who Was Jesus? Pope Benedict's Answer" by Lisa Miller, who appears to be stuck in the "Second Quest" for Jesus, not to mention the "Yeah, the Pope seems to be a smart guy, but he's so, like, mean" approach to covering Benedict and the Catholic Church:

Liberal Catholics worry that, in spite of assurances to the contrary, Benedict is writing an "official" biography, and they have cause for concern. Benedict has been notoriously disapproving of unauthorized views of Jesus; he helped John Paul II crush the liberation theologists in Central America in the 1980s and more recently suspended an American priest for writing a book about Jesus that he said did not give sufficient credence to the resurrection. But for orthodox Christian believers, Benedict's book is a gift—a series of homilies on the New Testament by a masterful Scriptural exegete. In NEWSWEEK's exclusive excerpt, the pope explicates Jesus' baptism by John—a story that appears in all four Gospel accounts and that modern historians believe is at least partially grounded in fact. Benedict starts by describing the social and historical backdrop of the time, and the common use of ritual ablutions among first-century Jews. His picture of John the Baptist reflects the scholarly consensus in most respects; the Baptist was an ascetic who likely spent time with the Essenes, a group of Jews who lived in the desert awaiting the imminent arrival of the Messiah.(Benedict is notably silent, though, on the Baptist as an apocalyptic preacher and on the probability that Jesus also believed that the world was about to end in flames. In a discussion elsewhere in "Jesus of Nazareth," Benedict goes to lengths to show that when Jesus said, "The Kingdom of God is at hand," he didn't mean the apocalypse. What he meant, the pope writes, is that "God is acting now—this is the hour when God is showing himself in history as its Lord." This interpretation may be profound and in keeping with Benedict's Christ-centered message; it is not, many scholars would say, historically accurate.)

Why, oh why, do we have to care what "liberal Catholics" think? After all, it's not as though they don't have a couple of hundred books about a Jesus who is (pick one or two) a cat-friendly vegan, a registered Democrat, a social worker, a Jewish pen pal, a warm feeling in the tummy, a personal guru, a personal trainer, an inspirational man who didn't actually exist, a neo-Marxist, an old-fashioned Marxist, a John Lennon fan, etc., etc.

And you've gotta love the vague appeal to "modern historians." Yep, all "modern historians" agree that the Gospel's description of the baptism of Jesus by John is partially true; that is, John may have existed, Jesus may have existed, and the Jordan River may have existed. Beyond that, we really don't know much of anything because, hey, an unnamed group of men supposedly say so, according to a Newsweek reporter with a bachelor's degree in English. I don't doubt that Miller is a smart lady. I just wish she were smart enough to know when she doesn't know what she pretends to know. Ya know?

As for the statement, "This interpretation may be profound and in keeping with Benedict's Christ-centered message; it is not, many scholars would say, historically accurate," Miller would do well to catch up a bit on the world of biblical scholarship, a field—dare I point out the obvious?—that a certain Joseph Ratzinger has been following closely (and has often been involved in, in various ways) for a number of years now, probably more years than Miller has been alive.

The condescension continues:

"Jesus of Nazareth," then, will not bring unbelievers into the fold, but courting skeptics has never been Benedict's priority. Nor will his portrait join the lengthy list of Jesus biographies so eagerly consumed by the non-orthodox—the progressive Protestants and "cafeteria Catholics" who seek the truth about Jesus in noncanonical places like the Gnostic Gospels. Moderates may take "Jesus of Nazareth" as something of a corrective to fundamentalism because it sees the Bible as "true" without insisting on its being factual. Mostly, though, "Jesus of Nazareth" will please a small group of Christians who are able simultaneously to hold post-Enlightenment ideas about the value of rationality and scientific inquiry together with the conviction that the events described in the Gospels are real. "This is about things that happened," explains N. T. Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham who is perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar. "It's not just about ideas, or people's imaginations. These are things that actually happened. If they didn't happen, you might still have interesting ideas, but it wouldn't be Christianity at the end of the day."

Funny that Miller quotes Wright here since he is not among those "many scholars" who would disagree with Benedict's assessment of Jesus' proclamation of "the kingdom," since it is a perspective that he has endorsed and argued for in great detail in a monumental trilogy. And even if Miller didn't have time to read those books (understandable enough), she could have either asked Wright, or peeked at one of his shorter works, such as The Challenge of Jesus (IVP, 1999), in which Wright states:

"The kingdom of God, [Jesus] said, is at hand. In other words, God was now unveiling his age-old plan, bringing his sovereignty to bear on Israel and the world as he had always intended, bringing justice and mercy to Israel and the world. And he was doing so, apparently, through Jesus." (p 37)

"His aim was to be the means of God's restitution of Israel. He would challenge and deal with the evil that had infected Israel herself. He would be the means of Israel's God returning to Zion. He was, in short, announcing the kingdom of God—not the simple revolutionary message of the hard-liners but the doubly revolutionary message of a kingdom that would overturn all other agendas, including the revolutionary one. ... [H]e was thereby claiming both the role of Messiah and the vocation of redemptive suffering. ... [H]e was claiming that this was the vocation of Israel's God himself." (pp 52-53)

In other words, the "world's leading New Testament scholar" agrees with Benedict's Christ-centered message, not with the outdated and unsatisfactory views of Schweitzer and Co., aka, "many scholars."

Finally, Miller makes it even harder for readers to take her comments seriously when she trots out this silliness, revealing the actual depths (or lack thereof) of her study:

Nevertheless, in the last 30 years the speed and intensity of that search has escalated—starting with the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars who, like Jefferson, tried to weed the authentic sayings of Jesus from the inauthentic and ending most recently with the largely discredited "discovery" of Jesus' family tomb in a Jerusalem suburb.

It seems evident that she is interested only in the sort of biblical "scholarship" that is self-serving, self-promoting, and isn't taken seriously by truly serious biblical scholars. As a friend of mine—who actually renounced Christianity while working on a PhD in biblical studies, and now has a doctorate in continental philosophy—told me recently, "The Jesus Seminar was a complete and utter joke." (He also said that if he ever came back to Christianity, he'd have to become Catholic, in part because of his admiration for Catholic biblical scholarship. Go figure.)  And need we address the stupidity of the "Jesus family tomb" nonsense? (No, because Mark Brumley already has.)

But, to give Miller some credit, it is probably true that Benedict's book isn't for skeptics—that is, those who renounce everything except their own (supposedly) intellectual superiority—or "liberals" or people who want any and every kind of Jesus except the one described in the Gospels. His book is for those who are open to truth—to the One who is Truth—and he has written it as a theologian and scholar as well as a pastor and pope. How many others can say the same?

Related posts:

• The New Yorker on Benedict XVI (April 4, 2007)
• That's more like it (April 11, 2007)
• And this week's winner... (More Newsweek nastiness; April 12, 2007)

Comments

[Rich Leonardi]

... he helped John Paul II crush the liberation theologists ...

Who are these "theologists"? Liberation theologians I've heard about, but not this new group.

/ snark

Nice post, Carl. I predict this book will be a smash hit in U.S.; the sense of anticipation is enormous. And to the extent its critics, both in and out of the Church, are forced to spend time reacting to it -- "This is only the Pope's personal opinion after all" -- they will have less time to peddle fanciful versions of Jesus.

[Ed Peters]

"Read the entire excert." Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Ryan Browning]

Who are these "modern historians"? I love it when they quote a group of people as if they are the ones who hold the key to truth and everyone else is stupid for not following along with the spirit of the age. Everyone knows how much smarter and sophisticated we are today than those Apostles and Early Church Fathers. How would they know what Jesus meant by His teachings I mean after all they were only fishermen, tax collectors, etc. Our "modern historians" know much better the mind of our Lord. Anyway!!

Wonderfully done as usual. I really enjoy these posts, keep up the great work.
God Bless

[Jeff Miller]

The irony is that the Pope has quite a lot of pointed barbs at those who use modern biblical exegesis to carve an image resembling themselves. Though he certainly is willing to use those tools of modern scholarship himself properly ordered.

I haven't finished the book yet, but I was up until the wee hours reading it and I am stunned by the Pope's achievement. I have read many of his books, but if there is one book he is remembered by - surely it it this one.

[padraighh]

The Newsweek Newspeak continues....

"Jesus of Nazareth," then, will not bring unbelievers into the fold, but courting skeptics has never been Benedict's priority. (Habermas anyone,... anyone. Yeah and who was that agnostic journalist Seewald? Is it final then, will not bring - can not bring - tis a shame.)

Nor will his portrait join the lengthy list of Jesus biographies so eagerly consumed by the non-orthodox—the progressive Protestants and "cafeteria Catholics" who seek the truth about Jesus in noncanonical places like the Gnostic Gospels. (Another shame - his portrait, i.e. of Jesus, will not join the lengthly list of nonsense biographies - but wait - maybe that's a good thing)

Moderates may take "Jesus of Nazareth" as something of a corrective to fundamentalism because it sees the Bible as "true" without insisting on its being factual. (Nice dig at the fundamentalists - who apparently have given up reading your rag)

Mostly, though, "Jesus of Nazareth" will please a small group of Christians who are
able simultaneously to hold post-Enlightenment ideas about the value of rationality
and scientific inquiry together with the conviction that the events described in
the Gospels are real. (Whoa doggies ... since when is rationality
a post-Enlightenment virtue - I thought slaughtering poor people was the
post-Enlightment project- where was I when they changed horses.
Rationality is to the post-Enlightment dictator as New Clothes to the Emperor.)

[Mark Brumley]

Where to begin?

The Pope's book is an excellent beginning of a sketch of the life of Jesus. It is informed by good critical scholarship but it is not enslaved to the findings of particular scholars who claim to be or who are treated as if they were the mouthpiece for the Spirit of Scholarship.

Yes, there are historians with different assessments of certain events in the life of Jesus. Big revelation, that. There are also historians who agree with Benedict XVI's analysis. So what?

Let's not pretend that such historians represent independent, objective, critical thought, while the pope has an agenda to push. Those scholars also bring a set of presuppositions to bear on their historical analysis. In short, an agenda. The question is, when all relevant factors are taken into consideration, who gives the best reading of the data?

You don't have to take my word for it when I say that the Pope's interpretation is at least as historically sound as other scholarly views if not clearly superior to them. You can read the book for yourself and decide.

At least two other volumes seem to be anticipated--a volume on the birth of Jesus and a volume taking us from the Transfiguration to Jesus' death and resurrection. That said, it should be noted that Benedict occasionally wades into those topics in this book.

I hope to post a review of the book here in due course. We'll see how my schedule works out. Others may say what needs saying before I do, in which case I will happily defer.

[Carl Olson]

"Read the entire excert." Isn't that an oxymoron?

Actually, an excerpt of an excerpt is, I like to think, a mystery wrapped in an enigma and covered with a zesty secret sauce.

[joe]

"These are things that actually happened. If they didn't happen, you might still have interesting ideas, but it wouldn't be Christianity at the end of the day."

But Miller thinks Benedict's book "...sees the Bible as 'true' without insisting on its being factual.'

How anyone *not* versed in theological discussions will be able to even begin to understand the difference in these two propositions is beyond me. 'Truth' in quotes is a curse of postmodernism. Once again, Newsweek 'reports' on religion with helpful commentary the obscures as much as it clarifies in key areas.

[Dan]

Carl, thanks for this post. I had read the Newsweek piece before I saw your post, and even though I place far greater trust in Pope Benedict than I do in Newsweek I was bothered by Ms. Miller's suggestion that Pope Benedict's interpretation of the preaching of the Kingdom of Heaven was not historically accurate. Your rebuttal relieved me of having the sense of an unanswered charge hanging over the book.

On a related topic, Zenit is publishing over the next three days a response written by Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher of the Pontifical Household, on the book "Inchiesta su Gesù" (An Investigation on Jesus) by Corrado Augias and Mauro Pesce. I read this response some time ago on Sandro Magister's blog, and it is excellent. It provides in summary form a sophisticated, and convincing, response to many of the "Jesus Seminar"-type claims.

I hope Pope Benedict's book brings more people to Christ. I hope it also brings more people to Joseph Ratzinger's other books. I tirelessly promote J. Ratzinger's "Introduction to Christianity." It is one of the most profound, maybe the most profound, 20th century book about Christianity that I have read. It is not an easy read but it is entirely accessible to non-theologians. (The discussion in "Introduction to Christianity" about what "faith" is, and what it means to have faith, is brilliant (as is the whole book). I have not read the Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens trilogy that attacks religion. But when I read about those books I wonder, "Do they address the arguments that Joseph Ratzinger advances in "Introduction to Christianity"? Are they as sophisticated?")

[mark p]

"Yeah, the Pope seems to be a smart guy, but he's so, like, mean"

Ha! I love it.

I'm anxiously awaiting my copy of this book. It's the first time I've ever pre-ordered a book :)

[David]

Excellent piece Carl.

With respect to the "kingdom of God" issue, what do these liberal scholars think all Christians after, say, A.D. 100 thought? If there was an apocalytpic understanding in the immediate years after Christ, why did the Faith persist beyond those early years of Christianity? I'm pretty sure the Apostles and Fathers of the early Church would have turned their minds to these issues. And I think they are far more trustworhty than Newsweek!

I think we should be always aware of Our Lord's words warning us that we don't know the time or the hour, both when we're going to die and when the Second Coming will be.

[Adam Janke]

I received my copy of the book in the mail today and have been reading it. It's finally brought some sense to why certain theologians and other "Catholics" are so upset. Pope Benedict has pinned their view for exactly what it is, and has eloquently destroyed their argument. And of course, when you know you are sunk, you simply complain irrationally about how "Ratzinger must be destroying the Catholic Church".

This book is a triumph.

[John Blair]

Has anyone done a serious study of religion writers (especially academic background) for major general public publications, such as Time, Newsweek, etc.?

[george brown]

As a Christian, I find it hard to imagine the Bible "true" without it also being "factual" (I'm not even sure what that could mean). One crosses the Jordan on dry ground or one does not. Fortunately for me, my source for spiritual insight, moral authority, or theological veracity does not come via Newsweek.