You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > Pope Benedict's New Testament
 

All of this is interesting, of course, but the real effect of this second part of Jesus of Nazareth lies in the technique the pope employs. The pious readers seem to have a little trouble with the scholarly tone of the book, and the scholarly readers have loudly proclaimed their distaste for the pious tone of the book. In the Guardian, for instance, Geza Vermes, professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford, sniffs, "The pope's treatment of ‘the figure and the words of the Lord' consists of mountains of pious and largely familiar musings. He provides unquestioning Christians with plenty of solace." And as for the former Professor Ratzinger's scholarship, well: "Gospel experts [. . .] may note with pleasure that 200 years of labour has not been in vain and that small fragments of New Testament criticism seem to have penetrated the mighty stronghold of traditional Christianity."

All that comes to, in the end, is proof that Vermes is still mired in the 1970s. It's the pope who has successfully managed to move on. It's Benedict XVI who has succeeded in marrying what the 1970s thought impossible: biblical faith and biblical scholarship. He has mastered and now presents to the world the technique of reading with the tradition of the Church. It's the historical-critical method, without the pseudo-scientific suspicion that was once thought to be the vital core of the discipline. In fact, such suspicion proved a dead end for much theological work — a false light that led to nowhere. 

Benedict will win no prizes for his prose, but he carries the brighter lantern, and he's leading the reader toward a place where the work of scholarship and the truth of faith are not defined as oppositional. Watch, for instance, how he turns around the discussion of the Jews that has received so many news reports. "When in Matthew's account the ‘whole people' say: "his blood be on us and on our children' (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus's blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb. 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment, it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone, it is poured out for many, for all."

When read in the light of faith, Matthew means that "we all stand in the need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation. Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew's Gospel take on its correct meaning."

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Michael W.
August 24th, 2011
10:08 PM
"John Paul II was always two steps ahead of his critics, escaping the rigid either-or categories into which they tried to push him by finding the new both-and possibilities that come from integrating Vatican II into the long tradition of the Church." This statement is plainly wrong: John Paul II divided the culture of death from the culture of light, which lead to a polarisation within the Church. Furthermore, when attending Vatican II Karol Woytila voted against the reforms introduced. It is accepted by now that he tried to reverse changes made by the council and re-defined the previously vaguely defined term "magisterium" as the teaching authority of the whole body of the bishops, as papal teaching. Indeed, he is in the tradition of Pio Nono and Paul X rather than John XXXIII.

Sean
April 15th, 2011
2:04 PM
I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is indeed providential that JPII and BXVI were elected pope at this crucial period of Catholic history - 1980s until today. They have both succeeded in steering the vast rambling Catholic Church back to central track of tradition rooted in the Gospel from which it had strayed after Vatican II (not because of Vatican II but because of the misinterpretations by liberals of the Council). The Church is so much richer and complex than the reductionist abstractions of the liberal intelligentsia.

Gabriel Austin
April 9th, 2011
7:04 PM
You write: "Benedict will win no prizes for his prose". May one presume that you have read the volumes in the original German?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.