Jesus of Nazareth - Africa and the Good Samaritan

A passage out of sequence
Because I have been asked about it, I skipped ahead several chapters to translate part of the Holy Father's commentary on the parable of the Good Samaritan which concerns Africa... and which has attracted much of the press attention in recent days. It's worth reading carefully and in full. (Usual apologies for any defects in translation)

The relevance of this parable is obvious. If we apply it to the dimensions of globalised society, we see how the populations of Africa find themselves robbed and pillaged and this concerns us very closely. We see how they are our neighbours; we also see that our way of life and the history in which we are involved have defrauded/stripped them and continue to defraud/strip them. Above all, this includes the fact that we have wounded them spiritually. Instead of giving them God, the God so near to us in Christ and instead of welcoming from their traditions everything that is precious and great, and bringing those things to fulfilment, we have instead brought them the cynicism of a world without God, in which only power and profit matter; we have destroyed moral criteria so that corruption and the unscrupulous desire for power is evident. And this doesn't only apply to Africa.
Yes, we must give material assistance and we must examine our way of life. But we give much too little if we only give material things. And don't we also find man defrauded/stripped and tormented closer to home? The victims of drugs, of person-trafficking, of sexual tourism and people who are internally destroyed, who are empty despite an abundance of material goods. All of this concerns us and calls us to have an eye and a heart for our neighbour, and also the courage of love towards our neighbour. Because, as I have said, the priest and the Levite pass on the other side perhaps more out of fear rather than indifference. We need, starting with our interior selves, to learn again the risk of goodness; we are only capable of goodness if we become interiorly good, if we are interiorly neighbours and if we have the ability to identify what type of service in our surroundings and in the broader scope of our lives is demanded, what is possible for us and therefore what is given to us as our duty. [pp 235-236]

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that Benedict has an awful lot more to say about the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Jesus of Nazareth - The Temptations of Christ and St Augustine

The aid of the West to developing countries based on purely technical-material principles, that doesn't only leave God to one side, but has also led men away from Him because of their pride in their own self-importance, has made the Third World into the Third World in the modern sense. This assistance has put to one side existing religious, moral and social structures and has introduced its own technicalist mentality into the vacuum. They think that they can change rocks into bread, but they have given stones in place of bread. The primacy of God is at question. It concerns recognizing Him as a reality, a reality without which nothing else can be good. One cannot govern history with mere material structures leaving God aside. If the heart of man isn't good, then nothing else can become good. And goodness of heart can only come from He who is Himself goodness, the Good. [p56, Unofficial translation from the Italian]

This commentary on the temptations of Jesus, and in particular Satan's suggestion that Christ change stones into loaves of bread struck me very deeply. I don't want to harp on about this point, but the above passage is proof (if proof were needed) that the Holy Father is a thoroughgoing Augustinian. What we have above is a development of St Augustine's doctrine (found in, for example, his late anti-Pelagian work ‘Against Julian’) that the acts of man cannot be pleasing to God unless they are rooted in the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. St Augustine affirmed something which would certainly strike many modern ears as outrageous. He argued that the virtues of pagans were ultimately vices, as they did not draw on the source of goodness and were not properly oriented to their proper end due to the absence of what we would now call the theological virtues. St Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, laid down a theology of virtue which afforded more space for so-called natural virtues.
Now, I'm not sure that we can attribute the Augustinian doctrine in its full rigour to Pope Benedict - in his anti-Pelagian polemic, Augustine sometimes ended up taking positions which further reflection theological development ended up moderating. (And indeed, the Augustinian position, as developed by later authors has much to commend it over the Thomistic theory.) However, it is clear from the above passage that in his social thought (as already expressed in Deus Caritas Est), Pope Benedict is very much thinking along Augustinian rather than Thomistic lines. He very clearly sees that even what appear to be man's most worthwhile ‘secular’ projects are ultimately harmful and misguided if the primacy of God is ignored or denied.

Jesus of Nazareth - The Baptism in the Jordan

I feel a certain ambivalence about posting these extracts translated from the Italian edition of the Holy Father’s new book. Firstly, I'm very aware of that my translation from the Italian may not always accurately reflect Pope Benedict’s actual thoughts. Translation is not as simple as it might seems to be. (Traduttore, traditore!) Secondly, I wouldn't want it thought that I'm intending to offer any thing like a comprehensive synthesis of all that’s in the book itself.
Those reservations aside, I have to say that I'm sufficiently enthused by what I meeting so far that I have to share some snippets, along with my own thoughts and I very much look forward to the discussion which will follow the publication of the English edition of this work.
On Moses
I had intended referring to the ‘Introduction’ in today's post, where Pope Benedict presents Christ as the new and greater Moses who surpasses all the expectations of the people of Israel. Time, alas, does not allow me to deal with this topic adequately. However, I would make the following observations.
1. This treatment of Christ with reference to a concrete Old Testament figure is typical of the best patristic exegesis, and highlights the preparatory role of the Old Testament in a very real way. We are not dealing here with some kind of religious evolution, but rather the specific promises made by God to the people of Israel. God's self-revelation is something very specific, and the figure of Christ is tied very tightly to specific biblical figures who went before him and who foreshadowed him. Pope Benedict has always made a point of highlighting the ‘scandal’ of this particularity. Some modern theologians and exegetes are unable to accept the concreteness of this preparation, and do not see the relationship between God and Israel as differing qualitatively from the religious experience of any other nation or tradition. To an extent, this is understandable and has cropped up within Christianity at various times, starting with various Gnostics and in particular Marcion who tried to present the God of the Old Testament as someone different from the Father-God of the New. The universal role of Jesus is much more easily appreciated if he is detached from his Jewish background. However, such an approach is alien to the tradition of the Church and taken to its logical conclusions ends up in a denial of Christ as the unique mediator between God and man who entered history at a precise time and in a specific place. Thus, Pope Benedict is saying that Christ arrived following a specific preparation and a definite promise made by God. He affirms Christ as a concrete figure who cannot be substituted by another.
2. Secondly, this presentation of Christ as the New Moses reflects another recurring feature of Joseph Ratzinger's thought. He has written several occasions about the various covenants of the Old Testament and their significance for Christian theology. Indeed, it has been said that his theology in this area has opened the way for a particularly fruitful dialogue between Christianity and Judaism.
On the Baptism
The first chapter proper of the book is devoted to the baptism of Christ in the Jordan. Having read the chapter as a whole, I must say that I'm very impressed (as always) by Benedict's ability to present some fairly meaty theological ideas in simple and accessible terms. A theological background is not required to enjoy and appreciate this book.
It is fascinating to see the diverse sources that Pope Benedict draws on in this work. He certainly makes use of modern biblical scholarship and the results of archaeological investigations (in Qumran, for example), but also draws on the liturgy and the Church’s iconographic tradition in order to explain the deeper meaning of the information which historical research throws up. He is remaining true to his method, namely the use of historical-critical scholarship in the context of a more broadly based theological reading of the text in harmony with the Church’s tradition.
What then does he say about the baptism? The following quotation reflects part of what Pope Benedict has to share with us:

Descending into the water, those baptised recognized their own sins and sought to free themselves from the weight of being oppressed by sin. What did Jesus do? Luke, who throughout his gospel pays particular attention to the prayer of Jesus, and constantly presents Him as the One who prays - in dialogue with the Father - tells us that Jesus was at prayer after being baptised. Because of the cross and resurrection it becomes clear to Christians what had occurred: Jesus took on his shoulders the weight of the sin of all humanity; he took it with him into the Jordan. From the beginning of his activity he takes the place of sinners. There begins the anticipation of the cross. He is, so to say, the true Jonah who said to the sailors: take me and throw me into the sea. (Jonah 1:12) The full meaning of the baptism of Jesus, his fulfilment of “all righteousness” (cf Matt 3:15) reviews itself only in the cross: the baptism is the acceptance of death for the sins of humanity, and the voice from heaven "This is my beloved Son” is the anticipated reference to the resurrection. Thus one understands the reason why in his own discourses Jesus uses the word baptism to refer to his own death. (Matt 10:38; Luke 12:50) [p 38]

Commentary
Note how Scripture is being understood as a whole, both in terms of the Old and New Testament illuminating each other, and in terms of the whole of Christ's life being understandable in the light of the Paschal mystery. There is a sensitivity to the differences in the evangelists’ presentations, but no desire to dissect Scripture in such a way that it cannot be put back together again.
In this chapter, the Pope also reflects on the continuity of John the Baptist and Christ with the Jewish tradition, but also shows how they are presenting something wholly new that surpasses anything expected by Judaism. The universality of their respective missions is just as crucial a key to understanding them. (Thus, he contrasts the genealogy of Christ in Matthew which concerns itself with Christ's Davidic descent and that of Luke who traces Christ's origin back to Adam, the father of all mankind.)
As I mentioned before, one of the particularly interesting things the Pope Benedict does is that he draws on the Eastern iconographic tradition to flesh out our understanding of the baptism in the Jordan. He notes that the Eastern icon of the baptism portrays the Jordan as being a ‘liquid sepulchre’ which highlights the link between this act of baptism and Christ's descent into hell. Those who have been following the recent debate about von Balthasar’s theology of the descent will find what Pope Benedict does this particular dimension fascinating. He doesn't present this descent in terms of Balthasar’s passive descent into Sheol – indeed, the focus is much more on Christ’s triumphant defeat of the devil in his descent into Hell - but there are decided echoes of Balthasar in Benedict’s description of the baptismal descent. By his baptism Christ “can take upon himself all the sin of the world and exhaust it, suffering to the utmost - leaving behind nothing in the descent into the identity of those who are fallen."
There is much more to say about Benedict's treatment of the baptism in the Jordan - the link he makes between this baptism and St Paul’s theology of baptism is fascinating, especially as St Paul never made explicit reference to the baptism of the Jordan. What we have is a blend of Benedict's fidelity to the tradition and his authentic theological creativity.
Finally, he is insistent that modern scholarship should support the Church’s reading of the Bible and repeatedly affirms the value of what might be thought of as as the ‘plain man’s reading’ of the Gospels. The picture presented by the texts themselves is plausible and logical and need not be supplanted by a more ‘scientific’ vision of ‘what really happened:

A broad current of liberal theology has interpreted the baptism of Jesus as a vocational experience: that He, who until this moment lived a totally normal life in the province of Galilee, had a disturbing experience; He came to the awareness of a special relationship with God and of his religious mission, and made sure awareness based on the expectations which were then present in Israel (to which John the Baptist had given new form) thanks to personal upset caused in Him by the event of baptism. But none of this is found in the texts. No matter how learned the clothes one can put on this theory, it ultimately owes more to the genre of a novel about Jesus, than to the true interpretation of the texts. These texts do not permit us to see inside Jesus. He is above our psychologies. (Romano Guardini) Rather, they let us know what relationship there is between Jesus and “ Moses and the Prophets”. They let us know the intimate unity of His journey from the first moment of his life until his cross and resurrection. Jesus does not appear as a kindly man with his emotions, failures and successes - in other words, as an individual of a past historical era He would remain irreducibility distant from us. Rather, he is put in front of us as the “Beloved Son”, when one hand is totally Other, and because of this he can also become contemporary to all of us, for each one of us he can be closer to us than we can be to ourselves. (Cf St Augustine, Confessions, 3.6.11) [p 44-45]

[That last point is pure Ratzinger. He points out that Christ can be closer to us than we can imagine, precisely because he is so unlike us. The Holy Father has a taste for the striking paradoxes of our faith, and yet is sufficiently sensitive to their meaning to resist the temptation to reduce them to confusing or meaningless dialectic. (Again, another Augustinian dimension to his thought - Erich Pryzwara identified this quasi-dialectic aspect of Augustine's thought as one of the reasons for his eternal relevance - his thought never grows stale)]

Jesus at Prayer: A brief extract from the 'Introduction' of Jesus of Nazareth

Apologies for the slight 'clunkiness' of the translation - Italian sentence structure and idiom does not always transfer smoothly into English. I shudder to think how this extract will compare with the professional English translation from the German. Ambiguities and infelicities of expression are, in all probability my fault, rather than that of the Holy Father:

To understand Jesus the recurring instances when He withdraws "to a mountain" and prays for entire nights "alone" with the Father are essential. These brief references disperse a little the veil of the mystery and allow us to cast a glance into the filial existence of Jesus, to discern the wellspring of his actions, his teaching and his suffering. This "praying" of Jesus is the conversation of the Son with the Father in which are involved the human knowledge and will i.e. the human soul of Jesus, so that the "prayer" of the man can become participation in the communion of the Son with the Father.

The famous affirmation of Adolf von Harnack that the message of Jesus was a message about the Father, of which the proclamation of the Son didn't have a part - is therefore a Christology which does not belong to the message of Jesus - it is a thesis which refutes itself. Jesus can speak about the Father as he does, only because he is the Son and lives in filial communion with the Father. The Christological dimension, that is the mystery of the Son as the revealer of the Father, namely “Christology” is present in all the discourses and all the actions of Jesus. This makes clear another important point. We have already said that in the act of prayer the human soul of Jesus is involved in the filial communion of Jesus with the Father. (See John 14:9) The disciple who walks with Jesus, in this way, is involved together with Him in communion with God. And it is this which truly saves; namely transcending the limits of being human; a step which man by means of his likeness to God is already predisposed, as something desired and as a possibility right from the moment of his creation. (pp 27-28)

Points of interest:
1. Note that the Holy Father is pretty explicit about this book being based around the idea of a Christology 'from above'. The starting point is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and this allows the details of his earthly existence to fall into place and make sense. It's very much a case of 'credo ut intelligam' - I believe so that I might understand.
2. That doesn't mean that the full humanity of Christ is neglected. The Pope makes a very clear reference to the human soul of Christ and tries to help us understand what His Divine Sonship might mean in terms of the human operations of His soul... without engaging in any imprudent and ultimately fruitless speculations that say too much about the human conciousness of Christ.
3. This leads us to, what seems to me, a very Augustinian understanding of Christ - namely the One who is both God and Man, and therefore is the one and only Mediator between God and Man. Thus, closeness to Jesus allows the prayer of the disciple to also share in the communion which Christ has with the Father by virtue of His Divine Sonship.
4. Finally, we have a reference to man's openness to communion with God. Without suggesting anything as explicit or as technical as De Lubac's fashionable (but flawed) theory of a natural desire for the supernatural, or proposing some form of the Thomistic 'capax Dei', Pope Benedict again expresses himself in a simpler, and what I would regard as a fundamentally Augustinian way. Man is said to have some kind of predisposition towards this incredible step towards communion with God (which happens through Christ the mediator) right from His creation - a decided echo of St Augustine's You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.
5. All in all, the Holy Father is presenting some fairly profound ideas, but with the simplicity and lightness of touch of one who has a keen existential and intellectual grasp of what he's talking about.
6. This section of the introduction is preceded by a fascinating reflection on Christ as the new Moses, something I may blog about tomorrow. That's an interesting theme, and a fascinating way to begin a book which is primarily about the Christ of the Gospels. Ratzinger is remaining very true to one of the fundamental truths which the Church teaches about Scripture, and which modern exegesis frequently overlooks. The Old Testament is a genuine preparation for the New Testament; the New Testament is the complete fulfilment of the Old. Thus, the Old Testament doesn't merely provide a historical background for the events of the New Testament, but in the figure of Moses and the promise of a successor who would be greater than Him, we see a genuine preparation for and pre-announcement of Jesus Christ. I suspect that some of my readers know more about this than I do, but the figure of Moses himself as a pre-figurement of Christ does not strike me as being one of the more common themes of patristic exegesis. Certainly, we have St Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses, but in general, the Fathers seemed to focus on particular events in Moses's life as foreshadowing details in the life of Christ rather than as presenting Christ as the New Moses. If I'm correct on this point, then the use of Moses as the point of departure for the Holy Father's analysis is a wonderful example of authentic theological creativity which is thoroughly sympathetic to the tradition, yet presents things in a new and striking manner.

Jesus of Nazareth - Initial Thoughts

As I mentioned previously, this morning I bought a copy of the Italian translation of the Pope's new book Gesù di Nazaret. In as much as time permits me (and I make no promises) I hope that I would have the opportunity to share a few of my observations as I read this book.
Some Initial Observations
The first thing I notice that this Italian edition was edited by Ingrid Stampa (of whom we haven’t heard much recently) and Elio Guerriero. Flicking through, one notes that this book is very much more evidently directed at the general public than Ratzinger's previous volumes; in particular I note the absence of the footnotes which normally abound in theological works. I remember a scientist once telling me that the inclusion of a single mathematical equation in a book probably halves its sales. I suspect that footnotes have the same effect for many people. A theologian of my acquaintance (who received an advance copy some time ago - lucky sod! ;) ) suggested that it's pitched at such a level that it should be accessible to anyone with a decent high school education.
Turning to the index of names at the back it's surprising to note that despite being a noted Augustinian thinker, there are only three page references to St Augustine as opposed to eight for St Cyprian. Apart from the various biblical and historical figures, one notes that Joachim Jerimias, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Jacob Neusner (a Jewish rabbi!), Adolf von Harnack and Rudolf Bultmann seemed to be the most frequently cited ‘dialogue partners’ in this investigation of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It should be noted that all four figures take very differing and very distinctive approaches to the person of Christ, and it should be fascinating to see how the Pope engages with each one.
There is also a list of citations from magisterial documents at the back of the book - one reference each from Divino afflante spiritu (Pius XII’s great Biblical encyclical) and Dei Verbum 12 (Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), and one reference each from two relatively recent documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church and The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.
The list of biblical citations is also interesting -- the most cited gospel is that of John, with more or less equal attention being given to each of the three synoptic Gospels.
Reading the Preface
In his preface or ‘premessa’ (premise), Pope Benedict explains that this book is the result of "a long interior journey."
The Division between the Christ of Faith and of History
He recalls that in his youth (the 1930s and 1940s) there flourished theological books about Jesus which drew heavily on the Gospels written by the likes of Karl Adam, Romano Guardini and so on. However, from the 1950s there has been a greater separation between "the historical Jesus" and "the Christ of faith." One of the results of historical-critical research is an increasing distinction between the levels of tradition present in the Scriptures, with the result that the figure of Jesus himself has become less clearly apprehended. The various attempts to reconstruct "the historical Jesus" have produced an ever greater a variety of contrasting figures and the figures of Jesus therefore seems more and more distant from us. We are left with the impression that we know very little about Jesus, and the idea that the belief in his divinity has caused his image to be reshaped has profoundly penetrated the mind of Christianity. This has the very serious consequence of making the fundamental point of reference of our faith uncertain, namely intimate friendship with Jesus.
Schnackenburg's Attempted Solution
This problem was tackled by Schnackenburg (perhaps the most important German-language Catholic exegete of the 2nd half of the 20th century) who tried to present believers with a reliable picture of Christ, albeit even Schnackenburg was not immune to the shortcomings of his method. The Pope accepts Schnackenburg’s statement about the Gospels, namely “the historical foundation is presupposed, but overtaken by the vision of faith of the evangelists" but we are left with the question of how to arrive at this "historical foundation." (It should be noted that Schnackenburg makes the decisive historical point of Christ's divinity.)
The Pope makes this latter point on which his book will rest, namely the consideration of Jesus starting with his communion with the Father. This is the true centre of his personality and without understanding this one cannot understand Jesus.
Moving beyond Schnackenburg
Benedict proposes moving beyond Schnackenburg. He selects the following phrase from Schnackenburg’s work as being central to its shortcomings: “ the Gospels wish to reclothe with flesh the mysterious Son of God who appeared on earth.” The Pope notes that the evangelists had no need to reclothe the Son of God with flesh, because he really took flesh. But can we reach this flesh through the jungles of traditions?
Principles of Biblical Interpretation
The Pope accepts the validity of the historical-critical method, but also insists that biblical faith has as its foundation real historical events, in the Bible cannot be reduced to symbols. The historical fact is indispensable, because God took flesh and entered history. If we put aside the historical reality, we are replacing Christianity with some other religion. The fact that we are dealing with a historical fact means that Christian faith is accessible to the historical method, and indeed Christian faith demands it. Dei Verbum 12 outlines how this is done, and specifies concrete methodological points which must be kept present in reading the scriptures.
However, even though the historical-critical method is indispensable, it still forms only a part of our understanding of how to read the Bible. Its limits must be recognized, namely that it treats the words of Scripture as belonging purely to the past, an approach which is in adequate in isolation. The Bible must also be understood, not only as individual books written in particular historical contexts, but as the whole which we call Scripture (canonical criticism). The Pope adds that we must also bear in mind the instruction of Dei Verbum 12 that: “Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith.”
The Ecclesial Dimension of Scripture
Benedict also insists on the ecclesial dimension of the Scriptures. Scripture emerged for and from the "living subject of the People of God." Initially we have a single author or a group of authors to whom we attribute a particular book. However, these are not autonomous writers in the modern sense of the word, but rather belong to the common subject of the People of God. They speak from and to this People, to the extent that at a deeper level the People is an author of Scripture. However, this People is not self-sufficient, but is guided and directed by God himself who speaks to men in their humanity. Therefore, the relationship between the Church and the Scriptures is essential. The Bible is the criterium which comes from God to guide this People, and lives only within this People.
In summary, Benedict explains that on the basis of these methodological indications, he trusts the Gospels in their picture of Jesus. Whilst accepting the fruits of modern biblical scholarship, he intends to present the "Jesus of the Gospels" as the real Jesus, that is the "historical Jesus in the real and proper sense." He is convinced that this Jesus is more historically convincing and logical than the various reconstructions which have been offered in previous decades. Only if something extraordinary happened can we understand the figure and words of Jesus in all their efficacy. The question is posed how we can explain the early history of the Church in any other way. In presenting things like this, Benedict is aware of that he is going beyond much of what contemporary exegesis says. However, he asks that it be understood not as written in opposition to modern exegesis, but rather with recognition of the many things that this form of exegesis continues to offer. The Pope explains that moving beyond mere historical-critical interpretation, he has sought to apply new methodological criteria which allow for a properly theological reading of the Bible, which demands faith, without wishing to or being able renounce historical seriousness.
The Necessary Disclaimer
Pope Benedict explains that he offers this book, not as a magisterial act, but has an expression of his personal search for the face of the Lord.
My Initial Assessment
That, in summary is what the foreword of the book has to say. It is interesting to note what exactly the Pope is doing here. Firstly, the fact that he decided to publish a book like this whilst Pope indicates something about his understanding of the Church's teaching mission. One can hardly doubt that Pope Benedict appreciates the magisterium’s authority to definitively set forth dogma and to define it in such a way that the Church can bind the intellect of the faithful and propose unalterable truths. However, this does not exhaust the teaching office of the Church, and as we have seen from his preaching, he sees that it is also essential that the Church be convincing in her teaching. He has faith in the strength of Christ's Gospel to convince and convert the minds and hearts of men, if only it is preached with clarity and authenticity.
Secondly, in his outline of the method that he employs, he is providing us with an example of what Vatican II sets out as being authentic biblical interpretation. He makes use of the best scientific research, without allowing himself to become so fascinated by it that he cannot see beyond it. The historical nature of Christianity means that we have nothing to fear from authentic historical and textual research, as long as it is understood within the context of the faith of the Church. Historical-critical exegesis is indispensable, but only in the context of a broader understanding of biblical interpretation that takes the tradition of the Church, the magisterium, the unity of the Scriptures and other methods of exegesis into account.
Thirdly, in his desire to present us with Jesus as the Gospels show him, Pope Benedict is making a statement in favour of the faith of the ordinary Christian. The truth about Christ is not confined to those who share in the gnosis of biblical criticism, but is accessible to the ordinary believer who (with the guidance of the Church) takes up the Gospels in good faith.
Finally, the book very obviously promises to be an expression of the centrality of Jesus Christ in the thought and life of Joseph Ratzinger.

Finally!

Expect some initial comments some time this (Roman) afternoon.
Edited to add: My Initial Thoughts