Deus, in adjutorium meum intende. Domine, ad adjuvandum me festina.
O God, come to my assistance. O Lord, make haste to help me.
My observations are made from the point of view of my Faith; and I was troubled by some, no, a lot, of what I read. Mr. O'Reilly and his co-author, Mr. Dugard, profess their Catholicism and do indeed note that the book is not written from a religious perspective, but a historical one.
However, it is impossible to write about Jesus without at some point touching on His divinity, perhaps inadvertently, but they did, and that creates problems. The authors did use the Gospels for their historicity. They could not help but use events reported in the Bible to show the reasons (they believe ) were behind the condemnation of Our Lord. One problem here is that they pick and choose which parts they think are applicable and which do not fit their narrative.
The history of the Roman rulers, their debauchery and depravity, the venal character of the Pharisees and Sanhedrin are well depicted. The research into the times was extensive. I find it odd that of the bibles that were mentioned as having been considered, not one of them was a Catholic translation. As Catholics they should know that any other version is flawed, in translation and interpretation. Zondervan's New International Version Study Bible is the one chosen, with the helpfulness of timelines and sidebars with architecture, etc. If they didn't want to use the traditional Douay Rheims New Testament they might at least have used The New American Bible. Actual quotes from the version used are somewhat suspect, remembering that words have meaning.
Early on, P. 22 has a long footnote regarding the Gospels and their history. The claim is made in KILLING JESUS, that Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek. The Haydock Bible (Douay Rheims) has a long preface to the New Testament in which the original languages of the Gospels is given. Matthew's was originally in Hebrew, the common language of the period in Palestine, but translated into Greek early on. The original text was still extant when Jerome was writing the Vulgate, but has since been lost. "The Greek translation is very ancient, the Latin version is scarcely less ancient and very exact and faithful." quote from Haydock footnote.
In the section on sources is one on Historical Jesus. "This focus has allowed a great number of modern advancements into the historicity of Jesus and a more complete understanding of the Gospels and their narrative structure." P. 278. Again, I find no Catholic authors. I might have suggested that they look into the Douay Rheims Haydock Old and New Testaments, with a comprehensive commentary, illustrated bible dictionary and a history of the books of the Bible. For a renowned commentary I would suggest A L'Apide's Commentary on the Four Gospels. Some of the interpretations that are accepted in this book are questionable.
I realize that the narrative is made as if Jesus is only a man. The authors themselves seem to forget that in some instances. Some quotes from the Gospels they use are the ones that show that Christ knew He was God. They acknowledge Jesus' claims to divinity and that the people didn't understand. As a child in the Temple He asked Mary and Joseph, "Did you not know I must be about my Father's business?" Though on P. 76 the quote is "....I had to be in my Father's House?" Again, remember that He told the Pharisees "Before Abraham was I Am." Of course He knew He was God.
And then there is the claim that Jesus had brothers and sisters. "The Gospels clearly state..." say the authors that James, Joseph, Judas and Simon were his four brothers and that He had sisters as well. They mark that the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity came four centuries after Jesus by a leader named Simon. With a little more research, it could be found that in the Protoevangelium of James, written about sixty years or less after the end of Mary's life (about A.D. 120 it is believed), memories of her life were vivid. The faithful of the time witnessed through Scripture and Tradition that she was perpetually a virgin,. There is more of her in the Protoevangelium, her consecration to the Temple by her mother, the need for a protector (Joseph), and more. In a footnote they do recognize that the Catholic Church considers the siblings to be cousins and that the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they were stepbrothers and stepsisters brought into the marriage by Joseph, a widower.
On P. 80, speaking about Jesus' teaching in the Synagogue, the authors imagine Jesus as a child sitting with Joseph there. People would remember a pregnant and unwed Mary. It was announced that she was pregnant out of wedlock, but was accepted when there was the eventual union of Mary and Joseph. Where did they get this idea? If she were pregnant out of wedlock and it was known, there would have been calls for her stoning. Mary and Joseph were "espoused." In fact they were considered married, just not living together yet. In Matthew, 1:19, "Whereupon Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately." People did not know Mary was pregnant.
On P. 38 they have John the Baptist preaching that the end of the world is near and people must prepare by being baptized. John did indeed say, "The Kingdom of God is at hand." He meant that salvation was at hand in the person of Jesus, not that the end of the world was coming. He told people to "do penance" and be baptized. he was the one to "make straight the way of the Lord."
Again, with John the Baptist, when he was in prison, Matthew 11:2, page 147, John did not doubt that Jesus was Lord when he told his own two disciples to ask Him. The authors ascribe thoughts to John, "He wonders if it was all in vain. Perhaps Jesus is just another great teacher, or another man like him intent on preaching about the coming of God." It was John's disciples who had doubts and came to John. Instead of giving them a ready answer he wanted them to find out for themselves to relieve their doubts. They loved John and were not willing yet to acknowledge Christ.. Read the commentary in the Haydock Bible, P. 1269. During that period more miracles were done than usual, to convince people. It is suggested to see explanations from Thomas Aquinas and John Chrysostom. Apparently these authors never thought to seek Catholic sources.
When the disciples come back they report the miracles and the words of Jesus Himself. The final words are "Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me. The Rheims translation is "Blessed is the man who is not scandalized in me." In other words, blessed be he who will not find Him a stumbling block when He has suffered the ignominious death on the cross.
On p. 123, "Something in him snaps." Christ, the divine, the human, did not "snap." He had a righteous anger, which is controlled. If one sees Jesus as simply man, he could lose it. However, here's where that idea, in order to keep to the idea of the book, gets in the way. There are times when one can not simply attribute human flawed (out of control) behavior to this "man." He would have all the emotions of a man, but not the flaws. Here the idea of Jesus as simply man for the purpose of the book gets out of hand. I find the bible quotation interesting, as well, since it isn't the well-known "den of thieves," but "How dare you turn my Father's house into a market." Oh, well, I guess the Zondervan Bible is more gentle in its translation.
On P. 131, in the Temple, Christ says, "Today the Scripture was fulfilled." Here again He is proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah as was prophesied.
Even Jesus' family members do not believe he is such a man. John 7: 5."For even his own brothers did not believe him." The Rheims translation is "For neither did his brethren believe in him." This means his kinsmen or townspeople of Nazareth. The Zodervan holds to the idea of Jesus' having brothers.
My red pencil was really busy while I read on P. 139 that Jesus picked fishermen (Peter, Andrew, James and John) apparently because they could speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and a little Latin because of their job. They could speak to a wider group of potential followers. Well, now, if a language were the criterion, Jesus could have picked educated people from among the populace with the same assets. I believe that He picked uneducated, humble, simple, men, because they were uneducated, humble and simple. They would confound and convert the world when full of the Holy Spirit, these uneducated, humble simple men.
We come to Judas. Jesus did indeed refer to Judas as "friend." He was good with money and took care of the disciples' meager funds (and stole some as well). Since Jesus was God, though we aren't supposed to think that, He was not stunned by Judas' betrayal. He knew that would happen when he chose him. Here again it is difficult to keep the image of a mere man without the evidence of divinity. Since the authors try to avoid mention of miracles, on P. 143 they simply speak of a Roman "military officer" declaring himself to be a follower of Jesus. Well, not really. This is the centurion who has heard of Jesus, and whose servant was ill. He wanted Jesus to come to his home to heal the servant. "Jesus is astonished. This admission could end the man's career or even get him killed. But Jesus turns to the centurion.'I tell you the truth,' he says with emotion. 'I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.' " Jesus is astonished? He gets emotional? Jesus is never astonished at the faith of people or of their lack of faith. He accepts what comes His way. It's probably more correct to say - but it means accepting His divinity - that He knows their hearts. There is nothing that says the centurion has become a follower. This is another assumption. No miracle of healing is mentioned here. That would mean accepting Christ's divinity.
A quote from the Lord's Prayer on P.142 is "...as we also have forgiven our debtors......And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." Why was it necessary to change the words of the prayer? Is this the advanced scholarship that makes the newer translations more worthy? Should we start revising the prayer when we say it?
On P. 144 Jesus is having a meal with the Pharisees. According to O'Reilly and Dugard, Mary Magdalene was invited to try to test Him. She was not invited, as I read the Scripture. She heard he was there and went to see Him. Luke 7:37 "And behold, a woman in the city, who was a sinner, when she knew that he sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster-box of ointment:...." Mary Magdalene is not named, but it has always been believed that it was she.
When Christ has been admonishing the Pharisees about the "Traditions of the Elders," those many rules and commandments issued by them above and beyond the Law of Moses, the disciples are worried because those powerful ones were offended. Peter asks Him to explain a parable He used. "Are you still so dull" or in Rheims "Are you also yet without understanding?" answers an exasperated Jesus. Was he exasperated? Here again, the authors attribute an emotion to Jesus. Perhaps He was. It would be more likely that He smiled and shook his head as a patient parent teaching a child slow to understand. See? I have my own image of how it was. These are elements of fiction, unless one knows the mind of the person and can say for certain that this is how He felt.
Getting to the end of the story, Jesus is pictured on the donkey, ready to ride into Jerusalem. On the hill overlooking Jerusalem Jesus weeps. "Perhaps it's the thought of spending a last week with his good friends, Lazarus, Mary and Martha. Maybe he foresees the eventual destruction of this great city. Or perhaps he looks on Jerusalem knowing that his own pageantry will be short-lived. For the Nazarene has powerful enemies within the city walls." Our Lord wept out of compassion, sorrow and love for the people and the city because of the severe punishment that would come from their rejecting Him and His promise of salvation. He did indeed see the destruction of the city and loss of souls.
As we get to the Passion and Christ's prayers in the Garden of GEthsemene, He asks for strength. His human side and human will needs consolation and He asks if what is to come may not be, but also He gives Himself up to the will of the Father. He does not "plead" (P. 222). Nor does he experience "panic' (P. 223). He experiences a dread of what is to follow, and fear, certainly, but not panic, another flawed human emotion. We will always have a problem trying to see Jesus as simply man.
The only words attributed to Jesus on the cross here are "I thirst," and "It is finished." Mary and Mary Magdalene are there, but no mention is made of John, the beloved disciple. The authors have used the book, THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS, A Forensic Inquiry, by Frederick Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D. to claim that Christ could not have spoken more because of the suffocation He was experiencing. I have that book and another, A DOCTOR AT CALVARY, by Pierre Barbet, M.D., which shows that He could have. It would take too long here to show the differences in conclusions, with Zugibe refuting Barbet. Barbet is a Catholic, of course. Beyond that, why did the authors choose those two things to have been said? Why not the words to the good thief? or Father forgive them.....(oh, the authors say He might have said that, but not from the cross), etc.? In fact, since John, who was there and wrote in his Gospel about that very fact, and included the words, "Woman behold thy son" and "Behold thy mother," then are they calling John a liar?
As to the early Christians being embarrassed by the cross, "for it was considered a punishment best suited for slaves, murderers, and members of the lowest class," that is a fallacy. The book states that by the fourth century the cross was more viewed with pride. True, the crucifix was not part of the culture until a few centuries later, perhaps due to the Church's belief in the Resurrection being the focus, but later reflecting that without the crucifixion, the reason for our salvation, there would have been no resurrection. I recommend the book, THE SIGN OF THE CROSS by Msgr. Gaume. The earliest Christians made the sign of the cross and it was attested to by early Fathers of the Church who were witnesses and the earliest who knew the Apostles. There is even a quote from Tertullian. The cross is seen many places in the catacombs as well.
Regarding the deaths of the Apostles mostly being "consigned to legend," let's look at that. The ancient Church acknowledged the martyrdom of most of them through Christian eyewitnesses and followers. Their deaths were corroborated by earliest tradition. We can find their stories as early as the third century. Their apostolates were named, the countries to which they ministered. Eusebius wrote a fairly complete history of the Apostles, getting his information mostly from other bishops We need to remember that in the first few centuries of the Church these stories were handed down by word of mouth, and the bishops would protect the information, especially with heretics threatening from the earliest days. So, I would not call their stories merely "legend." If we accept that the Romans kept good and true records of their history, why would we not believe that the early Christians wanted their story told as accurately as possible?
I found this footnote on P. 263, odd for a Catholic author to put forth. Christ referred to Simon as Peter (Rock) - and I'm quoting, "perhaps as a playful stab at Peter's impulsivity and less than stable personality."
The explanation of Latin and Greek words for rock, petra and its masculinization as petrus is given. Then "In time, however, Peter grew into this nickname (!), becoming the eminently stable 'rock' on which I will build this church." I find that, an insulting and ignorant statement.
On P. 137 the authors contradict themselves. "The spoken word carries easily across the lake's surface, and Jesus knows he will be heard by one and all if he teaches from a place upon the water." I have read elsewhere that as many as 5000 to 7000 people could hear Him from the boat and from a natural amphitheater for the Sermon on the Mount. But having said that, the authors then on P.271, in the Postscript say, "most couldn't even hear him preach, as the vast crowds that surrounded Jesus were too thick for personal interaction" So, they ask, what drew so many to him? And go on to give possible reasons.
There are other things I didn't cover here. This should be enough! While still a cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) wrote INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY. Part 2 involves a long section on the modern notion of trying to prove the historical Jesus without Christ. Modern theology ignores Christ and tries to cling to Jesus as a figure who is "historically comprehensible." I don't know if that is what O'Reilly and Dugard had in mind. I don't think so; but even so, to endeavor to place Jesus in history without recognition of His divinity and purpose makes a very weak story. To claim use of the Gospels as a base for historical truth, then picking and choosing what to use from Scripture and leaving out what doesn't suit to advance the narrative is disingenuous. To put forth that a major cause of the cry for Jesus' death was because the son of Annas, the high priest, had some of the money tables at the Temple that Jesus threw out, is a stretch. Money was not the reason. The Sanhedrin did worry about their power; but it was blasphemy, the fact the Jesus claimed to be God.
*******************************
I didn't research all the sources, only the ones used for "the historical Jesus."
John D. Crossan - left the priesthood, helped found the Jesus Seminars, calls Jesus a magician and does not take the Gospels literally. He had a publicized debate with William L. Craig.
William L. Craig - Christian apologist who argues for the existence of God with origins in medieval scholasticism. He defends that God, since creation, is subject to time. He does defend central Christian doctrines and the Resurrection.
J.P. Moreland - Evangelical Christian apologist
Darrell Bock =- Evangelical new Testament scholar. He did challenge the Da Vinci Code.
Craig s. Keener - New Testament professor, African-American, Baptist
Raymond E. Brown - Questions the inerrancy of the Scriptures and says Jesus never claimed to be God.
Paula Frederiksen - Scholar of the historical Jesus and says He was an apocalyptic preacher in the tradition of prophets before him and apostles after him. She was a major critic of "The Passion of the Christ" movie. She feels that scholarship regarding Jesus in the 19th and 20th centuries was anti-semitic.
Michael Licona - New Testament scholar who defends the resurrection ; however he is an evangelical apologist and thinks that "adjusted" interpretations of the Gospels are just fine.
David Flusser - Jewish, originally from Czechoslovakia; saw Jesus as an authentic Jew, misunderstood by his followers.
So there we have it. There is not one Catholic author or scholar except for the one who left the priesthood.
12/06/13
No comments:
Post a Comment