In 2007, Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI published the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth not just as a devotional book, a “personal search for the face of the Lord,” but as one written in conformity with “the historical-critical method.” Scholars of this school treat the gospels as ancient literature and investigate them linguistically, historically and doctrinally in the cultural context of their age. The first volume did not really follow these rules: it was devoid of philological analysis and shied away from comparing contradictory statements, such as whether the gospels were intended only for the lost sheep of Israel or for the world at large. We were offered an old-fashioned story in which the gospels were taken quasi-literally and interpreted not in their historical framework, but in light of any passage picked ad lib from the Old and New Testament or from two millennia of Christian thought. It represented biblical exegesis as it was practiced in the pre-modern era.
The volume provoked, in the pope’s words, a “predictable variety of reactions.” The chorus of approval by the pious was accompanied by scholarly voices of protest. The critics took exception to the book’s rejection of the principal finding of the historical-critical school: the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Ratzinger, they asserted, followed methodological rules only if they suited his theological preconceptions. I was curious to see part two, which had to deal with the tricky topics of the Passion and Resurrection. Not surprisingly, the general tone remains unchanged: it continues as an extended sermon. To detect, therefore, whether he shows any awareness of problematic issues, one must look at the pope’s treatment of the conflicting chronologies of the Passion in the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) and in John.
The facts are these. In the synoptics the last supper is a Passover meal eaten after sunset, when the Jewish day starts, on 15th Nisan. Everything that follows — Jesus’s arrest, his trial and sentencing to death for blasphemy by the Jewish high court, his transfer to Pilate on the different charge of sedition, and the Roman proceedings leading to the crucifixion — occurs on the Passover festival. Yet the chief priests, sticklers for legal minutiae, spend the whole night and day engaged in forbidden activities on a feast day.
John, by contrast, antedates everything by 24 hours. The last supper is not a Passover dinner. There is no Jewish blasphemy trial; Jesus is simply interrogated by the former high priest Annas. In the morning, without the accused being present, the chief priests convene and decide to deliver the revolutionary Jesus to Pilate early on 14th Nisan. They refuse to enter the palace so as not to be defiled and barred from eating the Passover meal that evening.
Any historian familiar with Judaism must realize that the synoptic timetable is impossible: Jesus’ two trials and crucifixion could not have taken place on Passover day. Obliged to make a critical choice, the pope judges the synoptic chronology erroneous and opts correctly for that of the fourth gospel. However, he wants to have it both ways. Instead of adopting the coherent story from John’s gospel, he transfers the synoptic details that are missing from John, including the Jewish trial, to the day before Passover. But taking such liberties turns out to be costly: the denial of the last supper’s paschal character flatly contradicts the clear mention of the feast in the synoptics and, further, clashes with the reference that Jesus and his party had sung the halleluiah psalms, “the hymn” concluding the Passover dinner, before they departed to Gethsemane.
A tougher challenge soon follows. Who is to be blamed for the death of Jesus? A decree of the Second Vatican Council prevents the pope from following 19 centuries of Catholic tradition and pointing the finger at the Jews. So what about Matthew 27:25, which states that, after asking for the release of Barabbas, “the people as a whole” shouted the fateful words, “His blood be on us and on our children”? Here the pope displays courage for a Christian leader of his disposition and correctly concedes that what Matthew reports is not a “historical fact”: the whole Jewish people, he argues, could not have foregathered outside Pilate’s residence. The exoneration of the Jews from the crime of deicide thus receives papal approval: the guilt lies, he declares, with the temple aristocracy and the pro-Barabbas mob. Legally, in fact, the chief culprit was Pilate, the notoriously cruel and lawless Roman governor, who was later dismissed from office and sent to Rome to account for his crimes.
One should add that the pope spoils the effect of his denial of general Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus by explaining the verse in Matthew as a “theological etiology” — an anticipated justification by Matthew of the terrible fate and total destruction the Jews brought on themselves by demanding Christ’s execution.
Another quiet admission lurks in the evaluation of the resurrection testimonies. In a theologically mysterious way, the pope defines the resurrection as “a historical event that bursts open the dimensions of history and transcends it ... the last and highest evolutionary leap.” The evidence, he says, is twofold: confessional (the apostles and Paul profess that Jesus was resurrected) and narrative (the reports of the empty tomb and apparitions). For him the confessional traditions are certain, whereas the narrative testimony (on which, I would suggest, the confessions rely) is “not binding in every detail.” In scholarly language this means that the records do not tally and are sometimes irreconcilable.
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. But today’s many disturbed seekers after religious truth — people who long for fresh knowledge, inspiration and intellectual stimulus — had better look elsewhere for spiritual help. Gospel experts, however, may note with pleasure that 200 years of labor has not been in vain and that small fragments of New Testament criticism seem to have penetrated the mighty stronghold of traditional Christianity.
Geza Vermes is professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford University
Sept.16 to Sept. 22 The “anti-communist train” with then-president Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) face plastered on the engine puffed along the “sugar railway” (糖業鐵路) in May 1955, drawing enthusiastic crowds at 103 stops covering nearly 1,200km. An estimated 1.58 million spectators were treated to propaganda films, plays and received free sugar products. By this time, the state-run Taiwan Sugar Corporation (台糖, Taisugar) had managed to connect the previously separate east-west lines established by Japanese-era sugar factories, allowing the anti-communist train to travel easily from Taichung to Pingtung’s Donggang Township (東港). Last Sunday’s feature (Taiwan in Time: The sugar express) covered the inauguration of the
The corruption cases surrounding former Taipei Mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) head Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) are just one item in the endless cycle of noise and fuss obscuring Taiwan’s deep and urgent structural and social problems. Even the case itself, as James Baron observed in an excellent piece at the Diplomat last week, is only one manifestation of the greater problem of deep-rooted corruption in land development. Last week the government announced a program to permit 25,000 foreign university students, primarily from the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, to work in Taiwan after graduation for 2-4 years. That number is a
This year’s Michelin Gourmand Bib sported 16 new entries in the 126-strong Taiwan directory. The fight for the best braised pork rice and the crispiest scallion pancake painstakingly continued, but what stood out in the lineup this year? Pang Taqueria (胖塔可利亞); Taiwan’s first Michelin-recommended Mexican restaurant. Chef Charles Chen (陳治宇) is a self-confessed Americophile, earning his chef whites at a fine-dining Latin-American fusion restaurant. But what makes this Xinyi (信義) spot stand head and shoulders above Taipei’s existing Mexican offerings? The authenticity. The produce. The care. AUTHENTIC EATS In my time on the island, I have caved too many times to
In a stark demonstration of how award-winning breakthroughs can come from the most unlikely directions, researchers have won an Ig Nobel prize for discovering that mammals can breathe through their anuses. After a series of tests on mice, rats and pigs, Japanese scientists found the animals absorb oxygen delivered through the rectum, work that underpins a clinical trial to see whether the procedure can treat respiratory failure. The team is among 10 recognized in this year’s Ig Nobel awards (see below for more), the irreverent accolades given for achievements that “first make people laugh, and then make them think.” They are not