Pope has written first part of his book on Jesus
Entitled "Jesus of Nazareth. From Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration", the book's intention is to depict the "historical" Jesus, as opposed to the many depictions of Jesus which appear to be "snapshots of their authors and their ideals."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) It is not a magisterial document, but fruit of a "long interior journey", with which "one can disagree"; all the Pope asks is that readers "advance a sympathetic approach without which there can be no understanding." These are the terms used by Benedict XVI to define his book "Jesus of Nazareth. From Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration," the release of which was announced for next year; such terms also explain why, significantly, he is publishing it under the name of "Joseph Ratzinger Benedict XVI."
Here is the book's preface, released yesterday by the publisher.
This book on Jesus, the first part of which is presented herewith, is the outcome of a long interior journey.
At the time of my youth in the '30s and '40s a series of exciting books on Jesus was published. I remember the names of just a few authors: Karl Adam, Romano Guardini, Franz Michel Willam, Giovanni Papini, Jean Daniel-Rops. In all these books, the Gospel was the starting point for sketching an image of Jesus Christ: how he lived on Earth and how, at the same time, though being fully man, he brought to man God, with whom, being Son, he was one. Thus, through the man Jesus, God became visible and, starting from God, one could see the image of the just man.
From the beginning of the '50s, the situation changed. The split between the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith" widened ever more; the distance between them grew at every glance. But what meaning can faith in Jesus Christ, in Jesus the living Son of God, have if the man Jesus was so different from how the Evangelists present him and from how the Church announces him based on the Gospels? Progress in historical-critical research led to ever more subtle distinctions between the various layers of tradition. Behind these, the figure of Jesus, on which faith rests, became more and more uncertain; it took on an outline that was less and less definite.
At the same time, the reconstructions of this Jesus, which was to have been sought following the traditions of the Evangelists and their sources, became more and more contradictory: from the revolutionary enemy of the Romans who opposes established power and naturally fails, to the mild moralist that permits everything and unexplainably ends up causing his own ruin.
When one reads a certain number of these reconstructions, one can quickly see that they are much more the snapshot of their authors and their ideals than the unveiling of an icon which has become blurry. In the meantime, there was a growing mistrust towards these images of Jesus, and in any case the figure itself of Jesus has moved away even farther from us.
All these attempts have, in any case, left behind them, as common denominator, the impression that we know very little that is certain about Jesus and that only later the faith in his divinity shaped his image. This impression, in the meantime, penetrated deeply in the shared conscience of Christianity. Such a situation is dramatic for the faith because it makes its authentic point of reference uncertain: the intimate friendship with Jesus, on which all depends, risks floundering in emptiness. [ ]
I felt the need to supply readers with these indications of method because they determine the path I took to interpret the figure of Jesus in the New Testament.
For my presentation of Jesus, this means first of all that I have faith in the Gospels. Naturally, I take as given what the Council and modern exegesis say about literary forms, the intentionality of affirmations, on the community context of the Gospels and how they speak in this living context. Even accepting, to the extent that I can, all this, I wanted to attempt to present the Jesus of the Gospels as the true Jesus, as the "historical Jesus" in the true sense of the expression.
I am convinced, and I hope that readers can all come to this realization, that this figure is very logical and from the historical point of view also more comprehensible than the reconstructions that we have had to deal with in recent decades.
I feel that this very Jesus that of the Gospels is a historically sensible and convincing figure. Only if something extraordinary happened, if the figure and the words of Jesus radically went beyond all the hopes and expectations of the time, can his Crucifixion and its effectiveness be explained.
Already some twenty years after Jesus' death, do we find fully disclosed in the great hymn to Christ in the Letter to the Philippians (2:6-8) a Christology, in which it is said of Jesus that he is equal to God but stripped himself, became man, humiliated himself unto death on the Cross and that he is entitled to creation's homage, the adoration which in the prophet Isaiah (45:23) God proclaims to be due to himself alone.
Critical research poses itself, with good reason, the question: what happened in these twenty years from Jesus' Crucifixion? How was that Christology arrived at?
The action of anonymous community formations, whether or not their exponents can be actually identified, actually explains nothing. How is it that unknown groupings of people could be so creative, could convince and thus impose themselves? Is it not more logical also from the historical point of view that greatness is located at the outset and that the figure of Jesus practically overturned all the available categories and could thus be understood only from the mystery of God?
Naturally, believing that precisely as man he was God, and made this known cloaking it in parables and, in any case, in an increasingly clear way, goes beyond the possibilities of the historical method. On the contrary, if from this conviction of faith the texts are read with the historical method and its openness for what is greater, they open themselves, to display a way and a figure, which are worthy of faith. Thus, the multi-layer struggle that exists in the writings of the New Testament around the figure of Jesus and, despite all the diversity, the profound accord of these writings become clear.
It is clear that, with this vision of the figure of Jesus, I am going beyond what Schnackenburg, for example, says in representation of a good part of modern exegesis. I hope, however, that readers understand that this book was not written against modern exegesis, but with great recognition for all that it has given us and continues to give us. It has allowed us to learn a great quantity of sources and conceptions through which the figure of Jesus can become present for us in a vivacity and profundity that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. I have simply sought to go beyond the mere historical-critical interpretation, applying new methodological criteria which allow a properly theological interpretation of the Bible and that naturally require faith, which in no way means the desire or the ability to do away with historical seriousness.
Certainly, it is by no means necessary to purposely say that this book is absolutely not a magisterial act, but is uniquely an expression of my personal search for "the Lord's face" (Psalm, 27:8). Thus, everyone is free to disagree with me. I only ask readers to advance a sympathetic approach without which there can be no comprehension.
As I said at the beginning of the preface, the internal voyage toward this book was a long one. I was able to begin work during summer vacation in 2003. In August of 2004, I finalized chapters 1 to 4. After my election to the episcopal See of Rome, I used all my free time to advance work on it. As I do not know how much more time and energy I will still be afforded, I decided to publish as a first volume the first 10 chapters, which go from Baptism in the Jordan to the confession of Peter and the Transfiguration.
Rome, Feast of Saint Gerolamo
September 30, 2006
Joseph Ratzinger Benedict XVI
.png)
28/04/2005
