The Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney (Pell, 2007), commenting last week on Pope Benedict's recent book on Jesus of Nazareth, said that "Scripture scholars are a mixed bag and have done more damage than any other group of theologians, except perhaps some moralists, by destroying simple faith and putting nothing in its place". His comment raises some interesting questions and issues that deserve thoughtful consideration. For this reason I have chosen to suspend my present series on the uniqueness of Jesus' message and explore a couple of these issues.

Catholic biblical scholarship…

There is no doubt that some biblical scholars have tended to be unjustly critical of the traditional approach taken by Christian devotees to their sacred scripture. Many scholars have seen their task as that of the iconoclast who must tear down the "simple faith" of the many who have put their trust in a simplistic understanding of the historicity of the scriptures. The Cardinal is quite correct to say that scripture scholars are a "mixed bag". Nevertheless, this should not tempt us to imagine scripture scholarship as a modern, pre-dominantly Protestant fad, which is bent on viewing all scripture as "mythology" rather than "history" (Pell, 2007).

	Biblical interpretation can be successfully integrated into "faith's hermeneutic"

The terms "mythology" and "history" are not mutually exclusive, and Catholic biblical scholarship has traditionally understood the task of biblical interpretation as one involving an exploration of both mythology of our faith and the history of our founding luminaries. Indeed, to take the lead from Pope Benedict himself, we must argue that biblical interpretation can be successfully integrated into "faith's hermeneutic" (Ratzinger, 1987: 44-45).

Hermeneutics…

The quest for the historical Jesus is never intended to replace "living in imitation of Jesus of Nazareth", nor for that matter is the recovery of the "Jesus of history" intended as an attempt to displace or supplant the "Christ of faith". On the contrary, I see it as a process of "re-sourcing" our faith in the founder of our tradition. By going back to the original source we can better judge where we are today, what distances we have travelled, and the whether or not we have done so legitimately. Accordingly, the process of biblical interpretation is a dialectical one where we encounter the "real" Jesus via the medium of the Gospels, which tell the story of the "historical" Jesus from the perspective of the Evangelist's faith.

To speak of interpretation of the scriptures like this or, for that matter, any form of human communication, is to enter the realm of "hermeneutics" (Gk. Hermeneia), a term that has several meanings.

First, the term hermeneutics can refer to interpretation by speech itself, in as much as language brings to expression and interprets what is in one's mind (conscious and unconscious), or even what constitutes one's identity, being and person. This process is dynamic and not static — the very act of linguistic communication can shape identity and purpose. However, in biblical discussion we must struggle with the added complexity of the capacity of (human) biblical language to bring expression to God's "mind", "will" and "person" (terms which are used only analogically of God).

In reading scripture we enter into a dialectical relationship whereby the text acts as mediator between God and us. The divine inspiration of Holy Scripture is limited to the moment of composition. Inspiration is ongoing and can happen every time we open the pages of the Bible. As I think I have said on a few occasions, one of the impulses that drive my analytical approach to the scriptures is my never-ending delight in finding again and again how the "god of surprises" can bring forth the divine purpose despite our human failings.

One of the most remarkable things about the scriptures of the Judeo-Christian tradition is that little attempt has been made to cover up all the faults, conflicts and "rough patches". All the wrong turns taken, the disputes, political manoeuvrings, jostling for prestige, as well as the courage, determination, charity and love are all there side-by-side in what is a truly remarkable achievement born of the marriage of divine inspiration and human creativity. It is a testament (two, in fact) to the "humanity" of God (figuratively speaking) as well the "divinity" of humans (when at our best), which in the Christian scriptures is reflected in the whole movement in the awareness of the early Church from "Jesus" to "Christ".

Not for any small reason do we associate the Word with both the scriptures and God Incarnate — both bring together the best of the divine with the best and worst of the human condition. All divine revelation is historically mediated, which means that it comes gift-wrapped in human trappings.

Christ Pantokrator.

The Vatican II document Dei Verbum recognises this aspect of hermeneutics. It claims that "divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit … [and, therefore,] everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (11) However, it goes on to say that "since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words" (12).

This principle, which has been endorsed subsequently by various pronouncements signals the importance of reading scripture in its original historical context and the "particular circumstances" of the original author (12). Thus, the Council fathers also recognised that the Scriptures are "human expressions" of divine inspiration and their inherent "truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse" (12).

Part of the problem we face in interpretation is the tradition history, which in practice means that very little of what we have is in its original form. Thus "hermeneia" can refer to the process of translation from one language or culture to another. The process of interpretation began long ago, in most cases even before the texts were committed to writing.

Jesus spoke in Aramaic to Palestinian Jews in the early part of the first century. His sayings were remembered and passed on for forty years before the first Gospel was written. In that time the stories told about him and the stories he told were translated (from Aramaic to Greek) and interpreted for new audiences (throughout the Greco-Roman world). Moreover, the Easter event itself literally transformed the Apostles' understanding of all that they remembered of Jesus' words and deeds. As I have said elsewhere:

Put yourselves in the place of the Evangelists and try to imagine how you could write a story about the "man" Jesus, which would do justice to the "Truth" of who he was — the incarnate Word of God, son of the Divine? Obviously a straight historical, blow-by-blow description of what he did and said would not be enough. Then add in all the other aspects of early Christian beliefs about the resurrection, parousia, morals, ethics, gender, as well as the relationship between Judaism and nascent Christianity, and between Christians and the Roman state. How do you convey all that "Truth" within a story about Jesus without taking some poetic licence?

This is recognised by the Catholic claim that scripture alone is not sufficient to understand the import or impact of Jesus' words and deeds. Scripture is but one expression of the Church's living tradition. From the very inception of the Judeo-Christian tradition the community has always viewed the scriptures as having a more-than-literal meaning.

The author of Wisdom (11-19), for example, takes the older narratives of the plagues and the Exodus and reads out of them a message for his or her own time. The Gospel writers similarly drew heavily on their (Hebrew) scriptures to interpret the oral traditions about Jesus they received from their communities. In the Patristic era, especially in Alexandria, the scriptures were interpreted allegorically with no interest whatsoever in the literal sense. Things appear to have been a bit different in Antioch, but little is left of their exegetical efforts.

Early Examples of a Holistic Approach to Biblical Criticism…

In the Middle Ages, exegesis was guided by John Cassian's (d. ca. 435) distinction of the four senses of scripture: (1) the historical or literal; (2) the allegorical or Christological; (3) the tropological, moral or anthropological; (4) the analogical or eschatological. This was an incredibly sophisticated view and reflects very closely the four purposes of myth outlined by Joseph Campbell: (1) Cosmological (to explain where we fit into the big picture); (2) sociological (to explain who we are as a people); (3) pedagogical (to pass on our wisdom and truth to the next generation); (4) psychological (as means to personal transformation). Both of these schemes accurately capture the complexities of the Church's understanding of the truth of scripture.

There is no one single "truth" to be derived from a scriptural passage, and context determines the application of that truth. To begin with there is the meaning intended by the original author — what John Cassian would call the "historical" meaning (DV, 12). Second, there is the meaning derived from the canonical context: "since 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" (DV, 12).

As Christians we read even the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the Incarnation, all revelation is seen to reach its fulfilment in Christ — this is John Cassian's "Christological" meaning. Third, the Church holds that scripture is intended to teach important truths about the human condition, morality and behavioural ethics (DV, 11) — John Cassian's "moral" meaning. Finally, all scripture must be read through the lens of the living tradition of the Church as it journeys towards the kingdom — John Cassian's "eschatological" meaning.

	John Cassian

Let me give you an example of John Cassian's exegesis. In the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus makes one final, fateful journey to Jerusalem (in Mark it is the very heart of the Gospel during which the bulk of Jesus' teaching of his disciples occurs). Cassian saw the journey as historical; Jesus did indeed make his fateful journey to Jerusalem where he met his death and was raised. Much can be learned by seeking to place the story in its historical context, filling out the scant information that the Gospel writers give.

On another level, however, Jerusalem is the Holy City for both Jews and Christians, which allegorically represents the Church of Christ, past, present and future. The story of Jesus' passion, death, resurrection and exaltation speaks to the experience of the Church through all ages and teaches the community much about what to expect as members of Christ's body — persecution, martyrdom but, also ultimately, resurrection and exaltation.

On a personal level, we can read this story as reflecting our individual journeys into the heart of God. The transformation of the personality requires self-sacrifice before we can transcend our limitations and sin. Jesus' journey to his death becomes the model for the necessary death of the ego, which will usher in the resurrection of the fully individuated self.

Finally, the journey to Jerusalem must be understood analogically as standing for the Heavenly City (see Revelation) to which we are all destined. Thus Jesus' final journey has eschatological significance, prefiguring the destruction and rebuilding of the earthly city into its heavenly equivalent.

We see here in this process a very complex understanding of the scriptures as "truth". To merely interpret the scriptures literally is to ignore the inspiration of God that can touch us on so many different levels. This is why Joseph Campbell's analysis of myth can help us further appreciate the way scripture functions as "myth", in the broadest sense of that word (not as something untrue but as a figurative way of expressing truths that are fundamentally ineffable). Myth attempts to describe, explain, and teach us about how the divine interacts with the human, how the sacred realm touches and impacts upon the profane.

The Scriptures as "Myth"…

When we refer to the scriptures as myth, we are not saying that they are untrue. We are making a statement about how they function. Myth (Gk, muthos) literally means "to veil". Any contact with the divine is always "veiled" and, therefore, must be historically-mediated through corporeal "things" or "people".

Contact with the divine via religious experience is often if not always ineffable — it is neigh on difficult to describe plainly. One must often tell the story of the meeting in a way that brings out its true significance. To merely describe the facts does not come close to conveying the meaning of the event. Jesus' journey to Jerusalem was historically a tragic event. But after the resurrection, those who had shared that journey saw it in an entirely new light. Accordingly, the story must have been significantly altered to accommodate the new understanding.

Such a story then has a number of functions in common with the genre of myth. First, it has cosmological significance, and the telling of it must bring out the divine character of Jesus. Hence the Synoptics include in this journey several meaningful "predictions" by Jesus of his death. Do you imagine that Jesus actually made such predictions? Jesus may have been aware that his message would put him on a collision course with the powerbrokers of his day, but did he really see that clearly (right down to how many days he would be in the tomb)?

Second, the story has sociological significance. Mark wrote his Gospel for a persecuted community whose members were being arrested and martyred by the Roman authorities during Nero's pogrom against Rome's Christians in 64-69 CE. Jesus' journey spoke eloquently to a community who understood that they were destined to live the cruciform life, just like Jesus. The death of the Messiah and his resurrection became the focal point of Christian self-identity — hence every Christian Church today has as its central symbol a cross. But it was the Synoptic Evangelists who first told the story of Jesus with a focus on the cross. Prior to his death and resurrection, I am sure that the cross played no role in either Jesus' thinking or that of his disciples. The crucifixion changed all that, and the Synoptic Gospels (Mark in particular) tell Jesus' story basically as a passion narrative with an introduction.

Third, the story has a pedagogical function. It was told and retold to teach people about Jesus. But the story is more than a simple retelling of what happened. It includes interpretation. Notice how the Parable of the Sower in Mark 4 includes a catechetical explanation. It is likely that this extended instruction had its origin in the early Church as proselytes were introduced to the meaning of Jesus' teachings. Moreover, examine how the Gospels are put together. Mark in particular strings together collections of parables, conflict stories and miracle stories in an apparently haphazard way, suggesting that like a "stringer of pearls" he is simply stitching together pre-existing traditions that had already been collected as sets of parables, sayings, stories, apocalyptic material, and miracles.

Finally, all the stories function on psychological level as the means by which we reflect upon and incorporate the story of Jesus into our own lives. The scriptures have both a public and private function and they therefore have "truths" that are applicable within a wider Church community and the world as well as for each of us personally. Moreover, we should not discount the individual contributions made by the biblical writers. Their own history has shaped their personalities, which hermeneutically speaking was probably foremost in determining what traditions were selected, how they were augmented and arranged in each of Gospels.

No one who has ever read all four Gospels would suggest that we can simply harmonise the four stories into one. Each has its own unique perspective on the Jesus event, which is why the early Church chose to preserve four Gospels instead of one — after all, psychologically speaking, the figure four symbolises wholeness and completeness.

Final Reflections…

Jesus is an interesting historical figure, as well as the founder and focus of our faith. The questions I ask are historical ones. A student of ancient Greece might use the writings of Plato to reconstruct the life and times of Socrates in much the same way as I use the writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. It is a work of historical reconstruction. However, we should not confuse my speculative "Jesus of History" with the actual person of Jesus. As I have noted in one of my early commentaries (2006):

"The Jesus of history is important, but it must also be said that this 'Jesus' is a modern theoretical reconstruction, which is both tentative and fragmentary. We should not confuse the Jesus of history with the 'real Jesus' — a person who can never be completely recovered by us who are separated from that person by time and space."

Jesus, both the man and his message, is an enigma. He cannot be easily quantified and described. He escapes easy categorisation. The reason for this is that Jesus is not simply an historical figure. He is the "Incarnate Word" and has become the Christ of our faith — of my faith, of your faith and, before that, of Mark's, Matthew's, Luke's and John's faith.

Jesus is now a being of mythic dimensions, by which I mean he now transcends the space/time box and evades sense experience. When we open the scriptures, we enter a mythic world where we encounter God in a dynamic relationship that brings us into contact, not only with our own depths (our soul if you will), but also with the divine being as mediated through Christ and those whose reflections and artistry provide the text (as place of meeting) and the broader community of faith (which has shaped and continues to shape our preconceptions out of which we interpret the text).

It is a dialectal relationship that confronts, challenges and changes us. Our understanding of Jesus is never fixed and finalised, and at any one time reflects our needs and the necessities of the moment. Jesus' words are never static and they always speak afresh to our current situation. Not surprisingly, then, each of us discovers in the scriptures a "Jesus" who is unique to each of us; who challenges us to be more than we are now — and that is the "real" Jesus.

Finally, one should not imagine that Catholic biblical scholars are bent on undermining the credibility of the scriptures or tearing down the "simple faith". On the contrary, in my experience most New Testament exegetes argue that the Gospels contain a great deal of accurate historical data and the work of Catholic biblical scholarship has proven invaluable in demonstrating that fact. However, we must eschew the notion that the Gospels are intended to be "history" in the "modern" sense of that word. The Gospels are "myths" in the fullest sense of the term in that they teach religious "Truths". "Truth" after all is far greater than the facts, especially when dealing with realities that transcend the space/time box and escape sense experience.

Bibliography and Further Reading:
Peter D. Brown, "Catholic Biblical Scholarship" HPR (2006).
URL: www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/brown.htm#6
Ian J. Elmer, "Would the Real Jesus Christ Please Stand Up?" Catholica Australia (2006).
URL: www.catholica.com.au/ianstake/007_it_260806.php
Michael D. Marlowe, "Catholic Biblical Studies" Bible Research (2001).
URL: www.bible-researcher.com/links09.html
George Cardinal Pell, "Pope Benedict on Jesus of Nazareth" Sunday Telegraph 5th August 2007. URL: www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/STC/2007/200785_380.shtml
Josef. Ratzinger, Behold the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987.

Photo Credits:
"Christ Pantocrator" About the Church (2007).
URL: aboutthechurch.com/images/Christ_pantocrator_daphne1090-1100.jpg
"John Cassian" Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia (2007)
URL: home.iprimus.com.au/xenos/johncassian.html
"Jesus of Nazareth" by Josef Ratzinger. Amazon (2007)
URL: ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hx4sZHxWL.jpg

What are your thoughts on this commentary?
You can contribute your thoughts in our forum.

Ian Elmer can be contacted at: Ian Elmer <ianelmer@catholica.com.au> Please Note: You need to remove the "NOSPAM" words at the beginning of the email address before sending the email"

©2007 Ian Elmer

[Ian's Take Archive]