By Pope Benedict XVl, reviewed by A N Wilson
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
“Everyone is free ... to contradict me.” These words alone will make many jaws drop, for their author, who describes himself modestly as occupying “the episcopal see of Rome”, is the only writer alive today whose job definition includes the word “infallible”.
From the supposed “Rottweiler Pope” comes this gentle exposition of a simple idea: namely, that the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith are one and the same, and that faith in Jesus Christ is reasonable.
True, he would say that, wouldn’t he? But remember the historic attitude of the Roman Catholic Church towards the academic study of the New Testament and you will see what a very remarkable book this is. The Pope’s book is, he writes, a personal search for “the face of the Lord”, rather than a formal exposition of church doctrine – but this makes its content all the more astonishing. Here we find grateful acknowledgement of the work of CK Barrett, Professor of Theology at Durham, of the Tübingen Lutheran Joachim Jeremias, and many other Protestant scholars. For a pope to write appreciatively of their works even 30 years ago would have been unthinkable. Moreover, the author accepts what the Roman Catholic Church vigorously challenged for decades: the validity of historical and critical study of the Bible.
Older Roman Catholic scholars will be wistful as they read: “I take for granted everything that...modern exegesis tells us about literary genres, about authorial intention, and about the fact that the Gospels were written in the context, and speak within the living milieu, of communities.” Any theologian who wrote those words during the pontificate of Pius X (1903-14) could easily have been branded a modernist, and excluded from a teaching office. Until the mid-20th century, any scholarly critical exegesis of the Scriptures was forbidden by Rome. Most Roman Catholic priests, until the last 20 years, would not have read the books quoted in this work for a simple reason: the pope of the day had forbidden them to do so.
The first scholars to dare investigate the historical Jesus came up with the idea, originating in Germany in the 19th century, that the Jesus of the Gospels was “not yet the Christ”. They claimed it was only later theology that made him the Christ. Ratzinger, by contrast, sets out in this book to demonstrate that the central contention of the Catholic faith – Jesus was both God and man – was told to the disciples by the Man of Nazareth himself.
There are deep problems here that Ratzinger’s book fails to address. Buried in the first three Gospels are sayings which suggest that Jesus only wanted to speak to Jews, that, for example, he regarded the Gentiles as “dogs” unfit to eat from the Master’s table. If this is an authentic saying, how can you reconcile it with the picture of Jesus telling the disciples to go and baptise and teach all nations, at the end of Matthew’s gospel? Isn’t the likeliest explanation that the saying is a bit of genuine oral tradition of the historical Jesus, who was, as many modern scholars believe, a practising Jew who had no ambition to break away from Judaism or begin a new faith for Gentiles?
On the other hand, if that is what you think, how do you account for the very early devotion, not to the memory of Jesus the prophet, but to the Living, Risen Lord? The hymn “At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow”, first quoted in the Letter of Paul to the Philippians, almost certainly dates from 20 years or so after Jesus’s earthly life.
Nobody has ever offered a completely convincing explanation of Christian origins. Surveying the extraordinary and life-changing nature of the material in the written Gospels, the author of this book rejects the idea that it came out of the collective consciousness of a nascent church. “The anonymous community is credited with an astonishing level of theological genius – who were the great figures responsible for inventing all this?” (Did I hear a brave voice at the back answering this rhetorical question with the word “Paul”?) Another theory, the one preferred by our author, is that Jesus himself preached about his unique relationship with the father because he was what Catholicism says he is, true God and true Man.
If this book will not satisfy every puzzled reader, it will explain why the book of the Gospels is carried so reverently at Catholic and Orthodox services – half as if it were a vulnerable child, half as if it were a time bomb that might explode.
One of the best passages in the Pope’s book defines the word Gospel, the saving message, as “not just informative speech, but performative – not just the imparting of information, but action, efficacious power that enters the world to save and transform”.
For much of his argument, he relies upon the testimony of the Fourth Gospel (St John), which is written in quite a different style, and attributes to Jesus long discourses that are quite unlike the pithy sayings and stories of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Most readers of this Gospel see it as reflecting the faith of some 1st-century Christian community. This church already had the Eucharist, so there was no need here for a description of Jesus instituting the Mass at the Last Supper – as you have in Paul’s Letter to Corinth and in the other Gospels. Instead, you have a Eucharistic discourse, after the Feeding of the Five Thousand. Ratzinger writes as if it is historical: “Jesus is no myth. He is a man of flesh and blood.” The Jesus of the Fourth Gospel says, “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life” (John 6:54), words that the Pope says “point to what underlies the Eucharist: the sacrifice of Jesus, who sheds his blood for us”.
This would be uplifting if said in a sermon; but does it answer the simple question of the curious – is the Fourth Gospel history?
It is a great pity that this book is not finished. “As I do not know how much time or strength I am still to be given, I have decided to publish the first 10 chapters . ..” But this leaves us not only without the Pope’s treatment of the Infancy narratives – which he says he has postponed to Part II – but also, rather more crucially, without any detailed account of the arrest, trial, and death of Jesus. Until these chapters see the light of day, some of what has already been printed will seem to beg certain crucial questions. Most controversially, post Mel Gibson, the Pope gives no attention to those Jewish scholars who question the likelihood of a blasphemy trial before the Sanhedrin. (“The fact that Jesus’ trial was . . . presented to the Romans as the trial of a political Messiah reflects the pragmatism of the Sadducees” is not a sentence that answers these difficulties).
Yet there is a dogged impressiveness about the Pope’s exposition of scene after scene from the Gospel, a reading that finds it more logical to worship the Christ of Faith in the Gospels than to invent the vestiges of some Jewish prophet who had his words distorted by some later theological genius. Jesus was the genius. That is Ratzinger’s message, and the luminous intelligence of the exegesis will prompt many to respond with an Alleluia. Wordy as the old German can be, this reader at least felt that he had repeatedly identified what was haunting, indeed frightening about the Gospels. No amount of reasonable liberal “explanation” can evade the voice that comes through them – calling the reader not to a set of propositions, nor to a theory, but to a Person, who is at one with God.
JESUS OF NAZARETH: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration by Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI
Bloomsbury £14.99 pp374
Buy the book here for the offer price of £13.49 (inc p&p)
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles

Find tickets for:


Pick up new releases when you buy The Times or The Sunday Times
2007
£47,700
2007
£41,899
2008
£41,445
Great car insurance deals online
£25,510 – 32,000
Transport for London
London
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£30k OTE
Meltwater News
Nationwide
100K
Confidential
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Homes Available on a shared Ownership Basis
Great Investment, River Views
By Funway – Thailand
from £589pp
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
This is a nice review. However, a little knowledge of Ratzinger's previous writings and Church history would have made it better informed. The Pope's book is far less radical than Wilson suggests. The relationship betwen the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith is a standard theme for Ratzinger. He has written on it several times. The present book is just his latest take. As for positively engaging the theological work of non-Catholics, this is also quite standard for Ratzinger. In the early 1960s, for instance, he wrote a book called "The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood," which drew significantly on the theology of Karl Barth. As for Catholic endorsement of historical-critical biblical scholarship, Wilson seems to have overlooked Pius XII's (1939-1958) famous encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu," published in 1943. Is the Benedict XVI's book "a startling break with Catholic tradition"? I suppose it might seem to be for those who know very little about Ratzinger or Catholicism.
Joseph Trabbic, Naples, Florida, USA
Jon seems to be saying that it's impossible to have even a general idea of what a piece of writing means. Either that, or he believes that the sayings of Jesus and Buddha and Mohammed and Vishnu were so contradictory and puzzling that there's no hope of having any idea what any one of those leaders meant. That's a very odd opinion. If I made a list of what Jesus taught and a list of what Buddha taught, it should be easy for a well-trained Christian or Buddhist to tell which was which.
Jim Swindle, Spring, Texas (USA)
Mr. Blaxland,
Please list the "claim after claim is disproved".
I would like to investigate them myself. If true then I can sleep in on Sundays. If false then maybe you are the one who should "squirm out of the ever-increasing constraints of reason and common sense" that is agnosticism or atheism.
Robert Riggs, Kansas City, Missouri USA
It was only ever an out of context and therefore a dishonest reading of the NT that sought to the distinguish the Jesus of history from the
Christ of faith. and it is only ever this kind of dishonesty of scholarship that raises questions that are easily answered in the text ( for example why the universal saviour of all would want to keep his ministry a secret at rhe start) , in order to make ths bogus distinction in the first place. Ratzinger is only doing his job: it is to be expected from any Bible scholar who regards the Bible as a thing to be studied not pulled apart in order to be rebutted.
Moreover let us not condemn Ratzinger for ignoring certain questions about blasphemy trials if he has not yet even finshed the book. such carping is unworthy.
Steve Meikle, Christchurch New Zealand,
Hopefully this addresses the claim that Jesus was merely Jesus the genius, as opposed to Jesus the Christ and God. For, in all actuality, Jesus could not have been a good teacher were He not who He claimed to be (God), as in John 8:58. Either He was a liar and knew it, and thus wicked, a lunatic, or He was telling the truth. Jesus is obviously not a lunatic, read His Words. Nor does He preach or do or practice evil. The only available mode of thought, then, is to believe what He says about Himself, that He was, is, and forever shall be God!
Jesus the Lord God bless you!
Trevor Clark, Ardmore, Oklahoma
How exciting to think of Jesus as a mere genius!
The idea of Jesus as a genius is far more credible and palatable than Jesus as God. Jesus's genius obviously was refined and perfected in the many years of his life of which absolutely nothing is known.
Thus, Christianity owes its creation to two mortal geniuses: Jesus the brilliant idea man, and Paul the consummate organization man, neither of whom knew the other. Their significance lies not in the promise of eternal life but in laying the foundation for civil, humane Western culture.
Doug McMillan, Malone, Florida USA
Alleluia indeed. Praise the Lord that we have a Pope more interested in true faith, and so people's redemption before God through Jesus Christ, than in Catholic dogma.
It is only this that can make us right with God, by His grace. We are cut off from God by our rebelion agaist Him, sin. But because Christ came into the world, fulfiled God's perfect standard and took our just punishment before His Father on the cross we can be reconsiled to God. We must accept this offer and live in obedience to Jesus, by His strenght and in the light of what He has done for us, to be saved.
Again, praise the Lord that the Pope is supporting the truth of Christ Jesus.
Gareth Rhymes, Hull, UK
Why the feigned surprise that the biblical Jesus is inconsistent? Inconsistency is the life-blood of religion. Only an inconsistent religion can go on standing as claim after claim is disproved, always insisting: "No, Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed/Vishnu didn't mean <i>that</i>, he meant <i>this</i> - where <i>this</i> is the latest attempt to squirm out of the ever-increasing constraints of reason and common sense. After two thousand years Jesus has been interpreted in millions of different ways, none of them with having any more evidence than any other. Any 'voice' that you or Pope Benedict hear in the Gospels originates nowhere but inside your own heads.
Jon, Blaxland NSW, Australia
You really ought to study what the doctrine of papal infallibility says. It is all about the (very rare) ex cathedra pronouncements, not about day-to-day comments such as "it looks like rain".
Clothilde Simon, Leeds,