Bible scholar rips pope's book, warns of chilling effect

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

didymus

Guest
****from Nat’l Catholic Reporter:
Bible scholar rips pope’s book, warns of chilling effect
Click to expand...
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Lugano, Switzerland
Click to expand...
A leading New Testament scholar, and former Catholic priest, has criticized Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 book on the Gospels, Jesus of Nazareth, saying that its insistence on identifying the historical Jesus with the Christ of traditional Christian faith has “turned back the clock” on modern scholarship.
Click to expand...
The comments from Geza Vermes, author of the acclaimed book Jesus the Jew and a longtime professor at Oxford, came during a summit of leading Western intellectuals May 16-17 in Lugano, Switzerland, devoted to the theme of “truth.” The gathering was sponsored by the Balzan Foundation, which awards the Swiss-Italian equivalent of the Nobel Prize.
Vermes spoke as part of a panel on religious approaches to truth that also included Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier, former theologian of the Papal Household under Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...
Vermes devoted his presentation to arguing that on the basis of the New Testament, the image of Jesus that emerges is that of a charismatic, wonder-working Jewish holy man, and thus not the divine Son of God claimed by later Christian tradition.
Click to expand...
The Greek-influenced version of Christianity developed by St. Paul and elaborated across centuries of Christian theological reflection, Vermes said, “would have perplexed Jesus the Jew.”
Click to expand...
I love the interview with this guy, “The Pope is not a Bible scholar”, “the Pope is not an exegete”, “the Pope is not trained in Biblical languages”.

Yeah? He’s still the Pope and you’re not!!
 
A perfect example as to why I don’t allow the National Catholic Reporter into my home.
 
This just proves how good the Pope’s book actually is. How shocking that the Pope doesn’t deny the divinity of Christ like this guy does? :rolleyes:
 
This guy doesn’t any more know what was in Jesus’ mind than he knows how many atomic particles there are in the top three inches of the surface of Alpha Centauri.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, would remain always with the Church. He did not make a similar promise concerning every apostate quackeroo who undertakes to write an article. Think I’ll stick with Jesus on this one.
 
So, who acclaimed his book, Jesus the Jew? Most likely not any real Bible scholars. :cool:
I know! the Jesus Seminar!
 
This Vermes fellow is clearly not even Christian anymore, let alone Catholic. Why should anyone pay any attention to what he says?
 
didymus said:
from Nat’l Catholic Reporter:

I love the interview with this guy, “The Pope is not a Bible scholar”, “the Pope is not an exegete”, “the Pope is not trained in Biblical languages”.

Yeah? He’s still the Pope and you’re not!!
Click to expand...
I began reading this book and had to quit because very early on I realized that there were serious errors. I know nothing about the Nat’l Catholic Reporter but I do know that the Pope made some basic errors that make the book far below a scholarly work, and it probably wasn’t intended to be one. My opinion is worth very little or maybe nothing at all, but I don’t think this Pope is a Bible scholar.
 
Funny, while I am certainly not a Bible scholar I’m not completely uninformed in Bible studies, and I found Pope Benedict’s book not only marvelously scholarly but quite refreshing in its authentically scholarly tone.

Unlike too many contemporary scholars for whom any study automatically is ‘informed by their personal worldview’, the Pope chooses to examine not how much Jesus conforms to his (Benedict’s) worldview but on who Jesus really is. . .

IOW, Benedict leaves his own personal ‘worldview’ where a scholar should. . .subordinate to the actual facts being studied and interpreted. Benedict can support what he says about Jesus and His teaching with Church documents which support Benedict’s understanding, and Benedict helps make that teaching clearer to us, the ‘average’ Catholic Christians.
 
what we have to bear in mind is that it is not an authoritative work; it is his “personal search for the face of the Lord”, and has not invoked ex cathedra, nor is it to be considered dogma. It is his own journey to meeting the historical Christ, and we should be grateful that he is able to share that with us. The man is an acclaimed Catholic theologian in his own right, even before he was elected pope.

Furthermore, why are you so quick to take this man’s view as an absolute, when all he did was rip up a book, and thus degrade His Holiness’ opinion of Christ? In all things considered equal, they are just opposite views to an issue. Yet you go with the guy who made a bit of mess…
 
Tietjen said:
A perfect example as to why I don’t allow the National Catholic Reporter into my home.
Click to expand...
while I also boycott that publication, in justice to its editors and the interviewer, Allen was reporting what was said by a third party, a self-proclaimed “bible scholar” and his cohorts, he was not editorializing and putting forth those opinions as his own.

those who agree with the critic’s assessment of his abilities in the field of biblical exegesis and scholarship may want to do a quick search on his biography and bibliography of pre-papal writings (including the fact that he headed the Pontifical Biblical commission and that he is one of the foremost theologians of the 20th c). He is both a gifted exegete and a biblical scholar, and has a command of several languages, including the classicals.
 
Archus said:
what we have to bear in mind is that it is not an authoritative work; it is his “personal search for the face of the Lord”, and has not invoked ex cathedra, nor is it to be considered dogma. It is his own journey to meeting the historical Christ, and we should be grateful that he is able to share that with us. The man is an acclaimed Catholic theologian in his own right, even before he was elected pope.

Furthermore, why are you so quick to take this man’s view as an absolute, when all he did was rip up a book, and thus degrade His Holiness’ opinion of Christ? In all things considered equal, they are just opposite views to an issue. Yet you go with the guy who made a bit of mess…
Click to expand...
I made nor will I make any reference to that man. I merely stated my opinion that the book was not a scholarly work because of substantial errors. It’s a bit of warm fuzzy pap likely to make people feel good. It is not by any stretch a scholarly work, and I doubt that it was intended to be such a work. It was likely written for popular consumption, which is OK as long as that is understood.
 
any possibility we could direct the personality assaults to the principals in the news story cited, rather than at each other? esp as it seems evident we are entirely unable to engage in a rational discussion w/o attacking somebody.
 
It was likely written for popular consumption, which is OK as long as that is understood.
Click to expand...
Setting aside that you haven’t really demonstrated any scholarly errors except your personal opinion, I find your remark rather elitist.

“Scholarly work” and ‘written for popular consumption’ are not mutually exclusive. And to charge Pope Benedict and his work by your ‘feelings’. . .well, that strikes me as personal opinion and not a ‘scholarly judgment’ on your part.
 
As someone of Italian descent, I am concerned that there is a Swiss-Italian equivalent of the Nobel Prize. So, we cannot win a Nobel Prize, so we started our own version that no one cares about outside of Italy?

Anyway, who cares? One is pope in Truth and the other is pope in his own mind.
 
It is interesting that the Bible scholar in question (not the reporter, and not the Pope) sticks to a very 20th century construct of Jesus as being more ‘authentic’ than 20 centuries worth of scholarly interpretation, primary sources, etc.

IOW. . .the 20th century construct of Jesus as being the ‘persona’ of what the 20th century scholar has RECONSTRUCTED as being a 1st century Jew is held to be the ‘true reality’ based on the opinion of what the 20th century scholar believed a 1st century Jew was and believed. . .

But the actual words and teachings of 1st century Jews which spoke of Jesus as being ‘different’ to that 20th century construct are treated not as the words of witnesses actually taught by Christ, but as ‘overlays’ of later ‘leaders’ with their own personal ‘construct’ attempting to MOLD Christ into something He was not.

Even though there is no evidence to support that theory except the fact that there IS a difference between what the Jewish people were EXPECTING from Scripture and what Jesus fulfilled.

It wasn’t the SCRIPTURE that was lacking. . .it was the people’s erroneous interpretations.

And in Christ fulfilling Scripture, there was no need to ‘invent’ a God to fulfill the ‘new’ idea. . .there was God Himself showing and telling us what the Scripture meant.
 
Namesake said:
I made nor will I make any reference to that man. I merely stated my opinion that the book was not a scholarly work because of substantial errors. It’s a bit of warm fuzzy pap likely to make people feel good. It is not by any stretch a scholarly work, and I doubt that it was intended to be such a work. It was likely written for popular consumption, which is OK as long as that is understood.
Click to expand...
I have been reading the Pope’s book and have no idea why you have made such outlandish claims. While I do not claim to be a bible scholar, I am a serious student of scripture and the Pope’s book is one of the best books I’ve read. There were a couple of places at the beginning that the reader has to take slowly so as not to get confused. The Pope analyzes much of what has been written by others. It is important not to confuse what he is analyzing with what he is saying. Patience pays off in the reading as he shreds the errors that have been put forth by others.

I highly recommend his book and can say with confidence that he is a scholarly man who has written a scholarly and thoughtful book.
 
puzzleannie said:
while I also boycott that publication, in justice to its editors and the interviewer, Allen was reporting what was said by a third party, a self-proclaimed “bible scholar” and his cohorts, he was not editorializing and putting forth those opinions as his own.

those who agree with the critic’s assessment of his abilities in the field of biblical exegesis and scholarship may want to do a quick search on his biography and bibliography of pre-papal writings (including the fact that he headed the Pontifical Biblical commission and that he is one of the foremost theologians of the 20th c). He is both a gifted exegete and a biblical scholar, and has a command of several languages, including the classicals.
Click to expand...
Are you describing Allen or Vermes? If Allen is the biblical scholar and exegete you’re talking about, then perhaps he is. But if you’re talking about Vermes himself, he has obviously lost his faith, whatever his quifications might otherwise be. No greater attention should be paid to his opinions than to those of a Muslim scholar holding forth on the nature of Jesus. He’s not a Christian any more than a Muslim is. He a…a…Vermicelli?😛
 
Namesake said:
I began reading this book and had to quit because very early on I realized that there were serious errors.
Click to expand...
Could you share the actual errors with us? I am not saying you are wrong, and I certainly don’t want to debate them since I am definitely not a bible scholar, but as I have been reading this book I think it would be helpful to be aware of such things.

Many thanks,

Patrick
 
its insistence on identifying the historical Jesus with the Christ of traditional Christian faith has “turned back the clock” on modern scholarship.

**And this Geza Vermes person thinks he’s turning FORWARD the clock?

Sounds to me like another case of “The Pope isn’t infallible, but I am.”**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top