Invincible Ignorance

I'm sure there will be worse reviews of Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth, but it's hard to imagine there will be many that are more annoying that Lisa Miller's, in Newsweek. Here's a representative passage:

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.

Ah - those "many scholars." All honor and glory be theirs! There is, indeed, an interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth's life that holds that when he said "the Kingdom of God is at hand," he meant "the end of the world is coming, prepare to be raptured!" But it is by no means the consensus view, and the Pope - who has, one might venture, read slightly more recent Biblical scholarship than Lisa Miller, "religion editor" of Newsweek though she may be - ought to be able to argue with this interpretation without being accused of painting over "historical accuracy" in the service of a fairy tale - er, "Christ-centered message." (Particular by a writer whose summary, elsewhere in the piece, of recent historical-Jesus forays starts with the Jesus Seminar and ends with the Jesus tomb.)

And then we have this:

"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.

All the other Christians, of course, will be too busy snake-handling, blowing up abortion clinics, and beating their wives to read it. Plus they're illiterate.

(More in this vein here and here.)

Comments

Benedict makes a pretty strong claim in this book to historically accuracy - no? I don't think there are any serious Bible scholars out there who would dispute that there were many distinct yet apocalyptic worldviews populating greater Israel at this time. Additionally, there are all sorts of passages in the NT that have at least some apocalyptic/eschatological tone. (Such as when Jesus tells his disciples that they will not get to all the houses in Israel before the Son of Man comes. ... and pretty much all of Mark.)

Posted by berger | May 18, 2007 12:18 PM

Lawrence Cunningham, chair of the Department of Theology at Notre Dame, posted this at another site:

"Readers may be interested in this bit of background to the risible article by Ms Miller. The person who is acknowledged as helping with the article called me a few weeks before this article apeared doing "research." She wanted the names of famous books on Jesus and a description of their contents beginning with Reimarus. When I told her gently that the history of the "higher" criticism was a tad complicated she soldiered on asking about Schweitzer (the only name she seemes to know) and then, jumping ahead nearly a century, something about the Jesus Seminar. When I told her about some sources she might consult she said that she was on "deadline." Not to put too fine a point on it: she did not have a clue. Lesson to be learned: read these articles in the popular press with a shovel full of salt.As for the Miller piece itself: patronizing and snarky about sums it up. Oh, how I miss the days when Ken Woodward (Notre Dame - Class of 57) wrote on religion."

Posted by Joseph | May 18, 2007 12:23 PM

Waaal, dadgum. We'uns used t'have some post-Enlightment rationality back thar by the woodpile, but then we brewed it in the still. Dadgum.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | May 18, 2007 12:58 PM

"Jesus of Nazareth," then, will not bring unbelievers into the fold, but courting skeptics has never been Benedict's priority.

That's such nonsense. B16 has already brought Franz Beckenbauer back into the fold.

Posted by Catholic Soccer Fan | May 18, 2007 12:58 PM

Someone should introduce Lisa Miller to the work of EP Sanders, Richard Bauckham and NT Wright.

Posted by John Farrell | May 18, 2007 1:42 PM

Someone should introduce Lisa Miller to a clue. She's in desperate need of one...

Posted by Mike S. | May 18, 2007 2:09 PM

Ms. Miller says:

"he [Benedict XVI] declared at the beginning of the 2005 enclave that elected him pope"

oh, my. Ms. Miller does need a proofreader.

It should be "the 2005 conclave".

Posted by David | May 18, 2007 2:31 PM

How does EP Sanders contradict Miller???

Posted by berger | May 18, 2007 10:39 PM

I never know what to do with people who--like Ross here--make fun of people--like Lisa Miller here--who take the Bible to mean what it says.

How is one to interpret a passage like 1 Thes. 4:15-18: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not precede them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words"? If this is not St. Paul saying to his congregation in Thessaly, "Don't be sad that some of us have died; they will be raptured along with the rest of us any day now," what could it possibly be? Certainly St. Paul believed in the imminent apocalypse.

And how is one to interpret a passage like Matt. Matthew 16:28: "Verily I say unto you: There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom"? What is this if not a declaration of imminent apocalypse? Certainly St. Matthew believed that that was Jesus's promise.

Between St. Paul and St. Matthew on one hand and Ross and Benedict on the other on what Jesus taught, I'll take Paul and Matthew. Anything else requires a weird postmodern stance toward the texts: that they mean not what they say but rather what it would be convenient for (some of) us that they mean.

Posted by Brad DeLong | May 19, 2007 12:47 AM

Anything else requires a weird postmodern stance toward the texts: that they mean not what they say but rather what it would be convenient for (some of) us that they mean.

How is a "wierd postmodern stance" possible a mere 100 years after the death of Christ? Those were pre-modern, not post-modern, times. The Church has taught Ross's interpretation at least since the time of Irenaus -- that is, a mere two generations after the death of the last apostle. We're the realists.

Posted by Catholic Soccer Fan | May 19, 2007 1:44 AM

Her research is weak. I highly suggest you write your opinions about the piece and send it to Newsweek. At the very least you should let her know what the problems are.

Posted by John Troy | May 19, 2007 9:38 AM

Pope Benedict XVI is well aware that there may seem to be something arbitrary in the way he reads Scripture. He believes that it's not, and provides arguments to that effect.

Neither Lisa Miller nor Brad Delong bothers to take those arguments seriously; they merely repeat the objections that Benedict, at the very beginning of his book, sets out to answer.

It is, of course, possible that one will not to be persuaded by those arguments. But the failure to acknowledge that there are any such arguments is intellectual lazy, at best.

Posted by ed | May 19, 2007 1:16 PM

Re: "How is a 'weird postmodern stance' possible a mere 100 years after the death of Christ?... The Church has taught Ross's interpretation at least since the time of Irenaus -- that is, a mere two generations after the death of the last apostle."

That is a very good and very profound question. The Apostles thought that they would each become the Messiah Yeshua ben David's lieutenant for one of the twelve tribes of Israel, and quarreled over precedence. Matthew and Paul expected the imminent return of the LORD. None of these things happened. Yet they Believed, and Believed strongly enough to continue to preach and witness unto martyrdom and death.

Thus they left their pupils and successors with the problem of having to somehow make sense of 1 Thes. 4:15-18 and Matt. 16:28. So pupils and successors say that Paul has misunderstood what he saw on the Road to Damascus, and that the message Paul thinks is meant for his converts in first-century Thessaly is meant instead for the people millennia later who will be Raptured--or perhaps that Paul let the congregation in Thessaly misundersand him. And you develop the legend of the Wandering Jew--the one guy standing in the audience doomed not to die until the Day of Wrath itself--and perhaps commit yourself to the belief that Yeshua was having a little joke with his audience, misleading them in the same way Apollo misled the King of Lydia when he told him that if he attacked Persia he would "destroy a great kingdom"--not adding, "your own."

And these legends and interpretations accumulate on top of the texts themselves. But underneath remain the words that can only be naturally read to say that Matthew and Paul expected to see the Second Coming in their natural lifetimes.

Posted by Brad DeLong | May 19, 2007 1:29 PM

Brad DeLong is quite right with regards to the Gospel of Matthew and the Pauline Epistles: the current scholarly consensus overwhelmingly supports him here.

However, it must be mentioned that the diversity of Christian eschatological thought is not merely a matter of later theologians misreading the Bible -- rather, it's a matter of differing interpretations within the New Testament itself. Look at the Gospels. The authors of Mark and Matthew expected the Second Coming very, very soon -- within a generation. The author of Luke thought that the Second Coming was farther off. The author of John ignored apocalypticism and wrote about achieving a perfect life immediately after death. The diversity of 21st century theological interpretation is founded upon the theological diversity of the New Testament itself.

Posted by Ioann Volkovsky | May 19, 2007 9:37 PM

Clueless on History

"the Pope ... ought to be able to argue with this interpretation without being accused of painting over "historical accuracy" in the service of a fairy tale".

Umm, actually, no. Last week in Brazil, Benedict XVI claimed that Christianity wasn't forced on the natives of the new world:
"In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture," he said."

So it's hard to view the guy as much of a historian.

Posted by Tom Sawyer | May 20, 2007 12:09 PM

Re: So pupils and successors say that Paul has misunderstood what he saw on the Road to Damascus, and that the message Paul thinks is meant for his converts in first-century Thessaly is meant instead for the people millennia later who will be Raptured

Paul's pupils and successors did not preach or teach any rapture. Good grief, that notion was never heard of until some 19th century preacher in the US came up with it.

Posted by JonF | May 20, 2007 10:14 PM

JonF: "[T]hat notion [the Rapture] was never heard of until some 19th century preacher in the US came up with it."

Paul: 1 Thes. 4:15-18: "[T]he Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.... Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

Sounds like Paul didn't get your memo

Posted by Brad DeLong | May 21, 2007 12:01 AM

Brad,

Two points:

(1) Have you read the book? Or are you responding to a characterization of part of the book by someone who offers no quotations from the book to back up her specific point?

(2) What she does say is this: "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."

That is a claim about what Benedict argues, on her view, about one verse. It isn't a blanket denial of any apocalyptic expectation in the New Testament as a whole. All of your quotes from other passages in the NT aren't to the point, if we're going to respond to Ms. Miller's characterization of Benedict's claim.

Posted by David | May 21, 2007 8:32 AM

I don't know how Benedict would read the passages DeLong cites, and they do present a real problem, I think. Benedict is in fact arguing for a non-apocalyptic interpretation of the NT, and the passages DeLong cites would have to be explained according to that reading. Benedict doesn't address those passages in his book; perhaps they are damning for his argument.

However, the book does provide substantial Scriptural evidence against an "apocalyptic" reading of the NT as a whole, and it is (to my mind) rather persuasive evidence, at that. Moreover, the book provides a case that Scripture must be read in a certain way. It is not adequate to take preferred passages in isolation, but one must look at the whole and attempts to explain the whole. To make matters more difficult, Benedict insists that one only properly understands the whole when one is able to look at it in a way informed by faith (pp. xxii-xiii).

All of this is only to say that his arguments are difficult and serious. Even if one disagrees, there is a lot to be learned from engaging them seriously. That requires, however, that one read the book.

Posted by ed | May 21, 2007 12:59 PM

Re: Sounds like Paul didn't get your memo

Sigh. The "rapture" is an interpretation of the verses you quote, one that was unknown until the 19th century. Show me one single Church Father from antiquity (whether Eastern or Western), or one medieval theologian (you know, Aquinas and that bunch) or one Reformer of the 16th and 17th centuries that ever mentioned a "rapture" and I will admit my error.

Posted by Jonf | May 21, 2007 4:02 PM

"Umm, actually, no. Last week in Brazil, Benedict XVI claimed that Christianity wasn't forced on the natives of the new world..."

No, he did not. A more objective reading of Benedict’s remarks (a translation of which may be found at http://www.cathcom.net/featured/headline.php?ID=4380) would show he was merely denying the claim that "welcoming Christ" is in any way a denial of Indian culture. The same presumably goes for Chinese, Xhosa, or Arabic culture, else the Pope could hardly call himself "catholic".

In any case, making such a claim is not at all the same as contending that Christianity wasn’t delivered to the Indians alongside rape, chauvinism, and subjugation in general.

Posted by HA | May 21, 2007 9:11 PM

Re: Ed's well-put: "[Benedict's] book does provide substantial Scriptural evidence against an 'apocalyptic' reading of the NT as a whole.... Moreover, the book provides a case that Scripture must be read in a certain way. It is not adequate to take preferred passages in isolation, but one must look at the whole and attempts to explain the whole... in a way informed by faith..."

I guess I don't understand what "reading... the NT as a whole" could mean. There are at least ten authors here: John the Divine, John the Evangelist, Paul, whatever person or persons wrote the deutero-Pauline letters, Jude, James, Peter, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and also all the people whose gospels didn't make the canonical cutoff and all the people whose memory and imagination contributed to the "sayings" source. All ten thought differently. All ten are people desperately writing down what they think are the most important messages in the universe.

We do, I think, have an obligation to try hard to listen to these people, because they tried so hard to talk to us, and ran such great risks.

"Reading... the NT as a whole" seems to me to be code for not listening to them.

Posted by Brad DeLong | May 22, 2007 12:32 AM

Jesus underestimated how long it would take. OTH, get with the program and you are already there: your life is part of a larger whole, whose final issue you have helped to make: you are part of it and it is part of you. This is a psychological statement, not a historical one. Christianity make a virtue of necessity: yokemates in servitude can work together to overthrow the old order of domination and submission. Don't look now, but they succeeded. The guy was a moral, historical, and poetical genius.

Posted by Luke Lea | May 22, 2007 10:20 AM

Jesus underestimated how long it would take. OTH, get with the program and you are already there: your life is part of a larger whole, whose final issue you have helped to make: you are part of it and it is part of you. This is a psychological statement, not a historical one. Christianity makes a virtue of necessity: yoke-mates in servitude can work together to overthrow the old order of domination and submission. Glory in their servitude and degradation, the culminating chapters of which were African slavery and the Holocaust, which were emblematic in the highest degree. Don't look now, but they succeeded. The guy was a moral, historical, and poetical genius. But the price was horrendous. Let us never forget. Never, never, never, never, never.

Posted by Luke Lea | May 22, 2007 10:25 AM

Upset the apple-cart

Posted by OLIVER | November 29, 2007 3:51 AM

agent cerigerous pythagoreanly antirust lovely raninian windwaywardly houndsberry
http://www.constructivecomputing.com/ >Constructive Computing
http://www.pancanal.com

Posted by Pamala Sullivan | December 19, 2007 12:10 AM