What Benedict XVI has written about the Jews is news—but not new news

There is one topic that has dominated news stories so far about Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth, Part Two: Holy Week—From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, as can be seen in these headlines from the past two days:

• Pope's new book says Jewish people not guilty of Jesus' death (USA Today)
• Settled After 2000 Years: Jews Not Guilty for Jesus' Death, Pope Says In New Book (The Daily)
• Jews in the clear on death of Christ (Sydney Morning Herald)
• Pope book says Jews not guilty of Christ's death (Reuters)
• Pope Benedict strikes welcome blow against rising world anti-Semitism with his new book about Jesus (New York Daily Times)
• PM praises Pope for clearing Jews of Jesus' death (The Jerusalem Post)
• Pope Benedict XVI Points Fingers on Who Killed Jesus (Christianity Today)

Each of these is referring to this section from chapter 7, "The Trial of Jesus" in which Benedict writes:

Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus’ accusers? Who insisted that he be condemned to death?  We must take note of the different answers that the Gospels give to this question.  According to John it was simply “the Jews”. But John’s use of this expression does not in any way indicate — as the modern reader might suppose — the people of Israel in general, even less is it “racist” in character. After all, John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers.  The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews.  In John’s Gospel this word has a precise and clearly defined meaning: he is referring to the Temple aristocracy.  So the circle of accusers who instigate Jesus’ death is precisely indicated in the Fourth Gospel and clearly limited: it is the Temple aristocracy-and not without certain exceptions, as the reference to Nicodemus (7:50-52) shows.

In Mark’s Gospel, the circle of accusers is broadened in the context of the Passover amnesty (Barabbas or Jesus): the “ochlos” enters the scene and opts for the release of Barabbas.  “Ochlos” in the first instance simply means a crowd of people, the “masses”.  The word frequently has a pejorative connotation, meaning “mob”.  In any event, it does not refer to the Jewish people as such.  In the case of the Passover amnesty (which admittedly is not attested in other sources, but even so need not be doubted), the people, as so often with such amnesties, have a right to put forward a proposal, expressed by way of “acclamation”.

Popular acclamation in this case has juridical character (cf.  Pesch, Markusevangelium II, p.  466). Effectively this “crowd” is made up of the followers of Barabbas who have been mobilized to secure the amnesty for him: as a rebel against Roman power he could naturally count on a good number of supporters.  So the Barabbas party, the “crowd”, was conspicuous, while the followers of Jesus remained hidden out of fear; this meant that the vox populi, on which Roman law was built, was represented one-sidedly.  In Mark’s account, then, in addition to “the Jews”, that is to say the dominant priestly circle, the ochlos comes into play, the circle of Barabbas’ supporters, but not the Jewish people as such.

An extension of Mark’s ochlos, with fateful consequences, is found in Matthew’s account (27:25), which speaks of “all the people” and attributes to them the demand for Jesus’ crucifixion.  Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here: How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death?  It seems obvious that the historical reality is correctly described in John’s account and in Mark’s.  The real group of accusers are the current Temple authorities, joined in the context of the Passover amnesty by the “crowd” of Barabbas’ supporters.

Here we may agree with Joachim Gnilka, who argues that Matthew, going beyond historical considerations, is attempting a theological etiology with which to account for the terrible fate of the people of Israel in the Jewish War, when land, city, and Temple were taken from them (cf.  Matthäusevangelium II, p.  459).  Matthew is thinking here of Jesus’ prophecy concerning the end of the Temple: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!  How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!  Behold, your house is forsaken .  .  .” (Mt 23:37-38: cf.  Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, the whole of the section entitled “Gerichtsworte”, II, pp.  295-308).

In a piece for Headline Bistro, "Jesus of Nazareth and Anti-Semitism", Pia de Solenni makes this important point:

This time, the media find it newsworthy that the pope writes that the Jews were not responsible for the death of Christ. Ironically, what he’s saying really isn’t news. Sadly, it still needs to be heard.

I agree: it certainly does need to be heard. And part of the reason it needs to be heard is that many people, for various reasons, haven't noticed or don't know that the essential point made by Benedict XVI is a point that has been made many times over by the Catholic Church for several decades now. As de Solenni notes, the Vatican II Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), stated:

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

The significance of that passage cannot be overstated (and its roots can be traced back much further, to Popes Pius XI and XII). But there is more, for the pontificate of John Paul II focused often and intently on building bridges with Jewish leaders and communities; for example (just one of many), in a 1984 address to the Anti-Defamation League, the late pontiff said:

The Jewish community in general, and your organization in particular, as your name proclaims, are very much concerned with old and new forms of discrimination and violence against Jews and Judaism, ordinarily called anti-Semitism. The Catholic Church, even before the Second Vatican Council [cf. S. Congregation of the Holy Office, March 3,1928; Pius XI to a group of Belgian radio-journalists, September 6, 1938] condemned such ideology and practice as opposed not only to the Christian profession but also to the dignity of the human person created in the image of God.

But we are not meeting each other just for ourselves. We certainly try to know each other better and to understand better our respective distinct identity and the close spiritual link between us. But, knowing each other, we discover still more what brings us together for a deeper concern for humanity at large: in areas, to cite but a few, such as hunger, poverty, discrimination wherever it may be found and against whomever it may be directed, and the needs of refugees. And, certainly, the great task of promoting justice and peace [cf. Ps. 85:4], the sign of the messianic age in both the Jewish and the Christian tradition, grounded in its turn in the great prophetic heritage. This "spiritual link" between us cannot fail to help us face the great challenge addressed to those who believe that God cares for all people, whom he created in his own image [cf. Gen. 1:27].

A 1993 declaration, "Fundamental Agreement Between the Holy See and the State of Israel", stated:

§ 1. The Holy See and the State of Israel are committed to appropriate cooperation in combatting all forms of antisemitism and all kinds of racism and of religious intolerance, and in promoting mutual understanding among nations, tolerance among communities and respect for human life and dignity.

§ 2. The Holy See takes this occasion to reiterate its condemnation of hatred, persecution and all other manifestations of antisemitism directed against the Jewish people and individual Jews anywhere, at any time and by anyone. In particular, the Holy See deplores attacks on Jews and desecration of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries, acts which offend the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, especially when they occur in the same places which witnessed it.

But perhaps most striking (especially from a theological and historical perspective) is this long passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

595 Among the religious authorities of Jerusalem, not only were the Pharisee Nicodemus and the prominent Joseph of Arimathea both secret disciples of Jesus, but there was also long-standing dissension about him, so much so that St. John says of these authorities on the very eve of Christ's Passion, "many.. . believed in him", though very imperfectly.378 This is not surprising, if one recalls that on the day after Pentecost "a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith" and "some believers. . . belonged to the party of the Pharisees", to the point that St. James could tell St. Paul, "How many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; and they are all zealous for the Law."379

596 The religious authorities in Jerusalem were not unanimous about what stance to take towards Jesus.380 The Pharisees threatened to excommunicate his followers.381 To those who feared that "everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation", the high priest Caiaphas replied by prophesying: "It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."382 The Sanhedrin, having declared Jesus deserving of death as a blasphemer but having lost the right to put anyone to death, hands him over to the Romans, accusing him of political revolt, a charge that puts him in the same category as Barabbas who had been accused of sedition.383 The chief priests also threatened Pilate politically so that he would condemn Jesus to death.384

Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus' death

597 The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles' calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept "the ignorance" of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: "His blood be on us and on our children!", a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

    . . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388

All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

    We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391

    Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392 (pars. 595-98)

The similarities between this nearly 20-year-old writing and the pope's new book are pretty obvious (not surprising, of course, since then-Cardinal Ratzinger was a co-editor of the Catechism). And, again, it's understandable and important that the Holy Father address the issue in a chapter about the trial of Jesus Christ. Yet is not so understandable why so many news outlets (not all, but many) are presenting Benedict's statements as somehow new and surprising, even unprecedented.

It's important that people understand that the Catholic Church—in conciliar and magisterial documents—has addressed this vital issue directly, and that Benedict is fleshing out and remarking in more detail on what has already been established by previous pontiffs.

• Visit www.JesusofNazareth2.com for more about Pope Benedict XVI's new book, available March 10th.

Comments

[Kenneth Covington]

This is not at all a new idea. Catholics should have longer memories. Indeed, the Christian's guilt is greater than that of the Jews, as the 16th Century Roman Catechism attested:

Besides, to increase the dignity of this mystery, Christ not only suffered for sinners, but even for those who were the very authors and ministers of all the torments He endured. Of this the Apostle reminds us in these words addressed to the Hebrews: Think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds. In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.

[Michael Patrick]

I am a Catholic who immigrated to the USA some time ago and am now an American citizen but at no time in my secondary education (in the 1950s) in the country I came from in Africa was I ever taught to hate the Jews or that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death. To be honest, I didn't even know that so many thought that way. It was only here in the USA when I heard Brittany Spears, a Christian (?) blame the Jews for Jesus' death that I became aware of this phenomenon. I have never had anything but good thoughts for the Jews who admittedly might drive a hard bargain in business matters but then so do most Christian businessmen and, who, generally and individually are no more or less a sinner than I am.

[Mark Brumley]

I have such mixed feelings about all of this. On the one hand, this is largely a deja vu moment. "Been there, done that." Repeatedly, and in so many ways, the message has been communicated that the Jewish people as a whole are not specifically responsible for the death of Jesus. It is annoying, then, when this is treated in certain segments of the media as if, "Finally, the Vatican has come around!".

At the same time, given the great evils perpetrated by people claiming to justify their persecution of the Jews on the basis of an alleged collective responsibility for Jesus' death, it is important to show that such persecution is not theologically underwritten by Scripture. And it is important for Christians to underscore this. The Holy Father has done a great job. His interpretation of Matthew's account is brilliant, because it takes the theological presentation of Matthew and shows the deeper meaning than one would reach on a superficial reading of the text.

[wheat4paradise.wordpress.com]

St. John Chrysostom offers this gloss on Mt 25:27:

Nevertheless, the lover of man, though they acted with so much madness, both against themselves, and against their children, so far from confirming their sentence upon their children, confirmed it not even on them, but from the one and from the other received those that repented, and counts them worthy of good things beyond number. For indeed even Paul was of them, and the thousands that believed in Jerusalem; for, “you see it is said, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe.” And if some continued in their sin, to themselves let them impute their punishment.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/200186.htm

Knowing the Holy Father's attachment to the Fathers of the Church, I wonder if he had St. John Chrysostom's gloss in mind?

[wheat4paradise.wordpress.com]

Let us not forget that the point of the Pope's book is to draw us closer to JESUS, not to become fixated on world opinion concerning the Jews and their issues with the Church. Let us also be mindful that the Temple aristocracy is alive and well, and bears no love toward Our Lord. They would like nothing better than for the world to be distracted from the essential point of the Pope's book.

[Mark Brumley]

I'm not sure who the Temple aristocracy is you had in mind.

[David]

Mark,

I mean the Jewish rabbinical leaders who pressed for the death of Jesus. The Pope refers to them specifically:

The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews. In John's Gospel this word has a precise and clearly defined meaning: he is referring to the Temple aristocracy. So the circle of accusers who instigate Jesus' death is precisely indicated in the Fourth Gospel and clearly limited: it is the Temple aristocracy — and not without certain exceptions, as the reference to Nicodemus (7:50–52) shows.

The Temple aristocracy also refers to those who persecuted the early Christians, as recorded in Acts. Who is the Temple aristocracy today? I would say that it consists of persons of influence within the Jewish community whose hearts are hardened against Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, and who have the means to attack the Church in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Someone like Abe Foxman comes to mind.

[craig]

All this is distraction from the mainstream media. Point one: Jews who reject Christ are no different than anyone else who rejects Christ. Period. Christianity is the fullness of the Truth for all people: the Jews are not excused from this reality.

Point two: now--having said that, should we ever force people to convert--NO, NEVER! But what is all this nonsense about one race being responsible for Christ's death? It's a distraction! Who outside of the 13th century ever believed that all Jews in all times and places were responsible for Christ's death anyway?

How many times do popes need to apologize for anti-semitism? How many times do popes need to say that all Jews are not responsible for Christ's death? Political correctness run amok! We should be able to say that ethnic Jews are people just like everyone else, but of course, we should also admit, that Judiasm--like Hinduism, Buddhism, shamanism, Islam, etc.... are incomplete religions that need Christ!

Now we can wait 15 years until the next pope announces that the Jews, as an entire race, were not responsible for Christ's death and the media can go crazy reporting it as if it were news again!

[Mark Brumley]

Who is the Temple aristocracy today? I would say that it consists of persons of influence within the Jewish community whose hearts are hardened against Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, and who have the means to attack the Church in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Dave, if you mean only that there are Jewish people in positions of power and influence who are opposed to Christ and the Church, well, of course, that is true. But it seems to me that there are plenty of non-Jews in positions of power and influence who are opposed to Christ and the Church. Also, I'm not sure how relevant the enthically Jewish identity of the people in question is--they hardly seem accurately described as the "Temple aristocracy", which in Jesus' day purported to maintain a religious identity, to uphold a central aspect of the Mosaic covenant--the sacrificial system--and not just to identify ethnically with Israel. The people to whom you seem to refer today as "Temple aristocracy" do not seem to represent themselves primary as Torah observant Jews. I am sure that there are plenty of religious Jews today who would regard the people to whom you refer as anything but representative of covenantal Judaism.

Craig, while I share your frustration that what is sometimes presented as "news" in this regard isn't "news" because it isn't "new", it seems to me that plenty of people outside the 13th century have held all Jews as responsible for Christ's death. Or if they didn't actually believe this in their heart of hearts, they acted as if they did and tried on this basis to justify to themselves and others the idea that Jewish suffering and persecution were deserved.

One more point. It seems to me that we should affirm that Judaism is like the other religions in being incomplete because Judaism, like the other religions, does not affirm Jesus as the Messiah. At the same time, it seems to me that Judaism differs from these other religions in being founded on divine revelation and God's covenant with Israel.

This is a touchy and difficult theological subject. We obviously can't do justice to all the fine points of the matter in a combox exchange. But it seems to me that the developed teaching of the Church insists on a continued theological signficance, and even, in a sense, mission of Israel. Of course Israel would not see that mission in the same way as Christianity sees it--a mission to signify God's faithfulness to his promises despite man's infidelity and a pointing beyond Israel to God's establishment of a new, universal covenant in the coming Messiah or Messianic age.

But nevertheless, that mission remains, even if Israel carries it out, from the Christian perspective, in confusion and with a certain inability to understand its own covenant (2 Cor 3:15-16). Israel's mission will be brought to fulfillment when the Lord comes and prior to that coming "all Israel" is saved (Rom 11:26; cf. Acts 3:19-21; CCC 674).

[David]

Mark, I think that you're right about the whole "Temple aristocracy" thing. I was wrong to throw that term around so carelessly.

Not so sure about Israel's "mission". How can Israel point beyond itself to the coming Messiah, when the Messiah has already come? Do you refer to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? Also, the new, universal covenant has already been established. How can they point to it when they deny it? Doesn't make much sense.

[David]

Mark, has the Magisterium actually spoken concerning this alleged "mission" of Israel?

[David]

I've posted some musings on the "mission of Israel" topic here:

http://wheat4paradise.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/what-has-become-of-israels-mission/

Hope this won't come across as a shameless promotion of my blog. :-) I'd just like to get some discussion around this topic, and I don't want to further hog the combox here.

[Charles Stack]

Christ came as a sacrifice. No one is to blame.

[David]

Charles, yes and no.

Christ's sacrifice should be our focus, not pointing fingers of blame. In this sense, the Pope's exegesis says more about Jesus than it does about those who plotted and executed His death.

On the other hand, those who plotted and executed the death of Our Lord bear responsibility for what they did, and they must answer for it at the Particular Judgment. The same goes, indirectly, for anyone who believes that the Pharisees where right to push Pilate into crucifying Jesus.

[Charles Stack]

Christ's sacrifice should be our focus. Period. Amen

[Charles Stack]

Matt. 16:21-23

[David]

Charles, those verses are spot on. It had never occurred to me how relevant they are to this whole obsession (to which I have often succumbed) over the culpability of the Jews in the death of Our Lord.

[Nancy D.]

Charles is correct, although Matthew 16:21 identifies who the Temple aristocracy was.

"Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing." - Christ

While there are elements of truth that exist in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc., there are also elements of error. In Christ, through which The Fullness Of Truth exists, there is only Truth, there is no error. One cannot be complete without being completely transformed through, with, and in Christ. Thus if in dying we are restored in Christ, Christ Has Died for many sinners, even those like the Good Thief, who, at the moment of his death, was converted.

[David]

Rabbi Eugene Korn has written:

But [the Pope's] supersessionism has always been focused on the end of time, and he has maintained that Jewish unification with the church is “hardly possible, and perhaps not even desirable before the eschaton.” In his latest book, he expands this idea, insisting that for now “Israel retains its own mission” and that saving Israel “is in the hands of God” — meaning, presumably, not in the hands of Christian missionaries.

I find this statement deeply troubling, especially the part in bold. Did the Pope really say that?

Does the Pope explain what this "mission" of Israel is in fact? It all seems very ambiguous and dubious. Rabbi Korn also suggests that the Pope's "eschatological supersessionism" doesn't really even require acceptance of Jesus Christ on the part of the Jewish people:

And if some Jews still object to his eschatological supersessionism, they should remember that it is not far from what most traditional Jews believe will occur in the “end of days,” when gentiles will accept Judaism’s God and, as Jews proclaim regularly in our Aleinu prayer, “In that day, the Lord will be One and His name One.”

"Judaism's God" as understood by Jews today obviously does not mean Jesus Christ. Quite to the contrary.

This is not good. Someone needs to set the record straight here, and quickly.

[Manuel Razetto]

Benedict XVI does provide new news in his Jesus of Nazareth II, like he did in Volume I (1). This time the Holy Father offers a new interpretation regarding who accused and handed down judgment onto Christ. We learn in Volumen II that the origin and enabling act came from a segment of the aristocratic priesthood. (2) In other words, the Sanhedrin.

Since Jesus publicly taught his Doctrine for three years and converted many Jews into Christianity, all others- among them Pharisees- that did not accept his teachings and blamed him of heresy and blasphemy could not express indifference but dislike and condemnation. Unless there was a distinct opposition of perception between all observing Jews and the priesthood, there had to exist cohesiveness of understanding about whom He was and what He preached.

If we place the concept of Sanhedrin under careful and thorough examination we really set foot in a dwelling of obscurity and contradiction. For example, this council had judicial and legislative jurisdiction, as reported by Mark, Luke, Acts like 'part in or adjudication' during the trial of Jesus, Peter and John the Baptist. But according to the Talmud, it was composed of 71 sages as a religious legislative court, administrating rituals, meeting on fixed occasions, in the Temple of Jerusalem.

The above discrepancy, when dealt by scholars -based on Josephus, N.T. and the Talmud- show a greatly divided elucidation regarding the nature, framework and responsibility of the Sanhedrin. Since Josephus and the Gospels assign it political/legislative duties and the Talmud just religious tasks, some scholars side with the former, others with the latter; a third group opines there were two Sanhedrins and a fourth who claims that one Sanhedrin handled both positions (!).

The make of the Sanhedrin is, as well, in much debate regarding members of the two major groups: Sadducees and Pharisees. There are those who say it was composed of Sadducees and others by Pharisees and a third opinion is that it was comprised of both. Ultimately there is no agreement among the scholars as whether the Sanhedrin had the power to hand down a death sentence.

I believe Pope Ratzinger has opened a new avenue in Hermeneutic interpretation. Aided by chosen scholar contributions he brings the life of Jesus closer to a better understanding of our Redeemer. Benedict XVI glides day by day labouring assiduously during his older years, as an intellectual prodigy.

(1)Based on work by Henri Cazelles the true writer of the Fourth Gospel was a pupil of John named Presbyter John, who wrote it from his teachings.

(2) Mt. 27:25 is no longer taken as it was before.