Book Tip: "Jesus of Nazareth", by Ratzinger/Benedict

[Skybird]

You may wish to judge that by yourself, Leturm. I have completely avoided to reflect on the main focus of the book, as you may have noted, and as I have said in the "review": that was intention by me. I really only touched it's defining limits, and some thoughts laid out in the foreword, not more. The rest, which is the main content, is worth to be explored and assessed by the reader individually, and alone. Plus, the language: I found reading it fascinating. But maybe that is just me.

[Hitman]

Unfortunately I lack the free time necessary for reading that book -specially in german version, because being able to speak and read in german it would be a shame for me not to read such a book in its native language-, but with your comments I somehow confirm my impressions about Ratzinger's doctrines and views so far. IMO he believes in Jesus as a concept (Something that if didn't exist, would need to be invented) and not as a historic figure. In all the speeches from him I have heard and the documents from him I have read (Mainly short ones and newspaper articles - letters) I started long ago to believe that he in fact does not care too much if Jesus really was historically what he wants him to be.

This Pope remains me more than any other to Dostojewsky's tale (In the Karamazov brothers) about the Chief Inquisitor in Sevilla confronted to a resurected Jesus:hmm:

Sadly, I would need to read this book to make a fair judgement about that, and as already said, I can't. So take what I have said before as simple superficial impressions.

Thanks for the "Fassung" of the book Skybird

[Letum]

Well, I shall put the book as a maybe on my list, but my book list is vast at the moment and no through lack of reading.
So many ideas and so little time etc.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Unfortunately I lack the free time necessary for reading that book -specially in german version, because being able to speak and read in german it would be a shame for me not to read such a book in its native language-, but with your comments I somehow confirm my impressions about Ratzinger's doctrines and views so far. IMO he believes in Jesus as a concept (Something that if didn't exist, would need to be invented) and not as a historic figure. In all the speeches from him I have heard and the documents from him I have read (Mainly short ones and newspaper articles - letters) I started long ago to believe that he in fact does not care too much if Jesus really was historically what he wants him to be.

Oh, exactly the opposite (by this book), he wants to reach that, as you call it, the concept of Jesus (in which you put your faith into), and the historical Jesus are united again. He indicates that the growing distance and difference between the two, and growing numbers of different interpretations, from "Rome-threatening militia-Rambo" to "whistle-blowing softie", has caused the weakening of the attractiveness of the Christian faith, since it is not believable what you have to offer that way to those that are searching for answers and something to gain trust from. Since you and some others undestand german, a quote from the very beginning:

"(...) So wurde durch den Menschen Jesus Gott und von Gott her das Bild des rechten Menschen sichtbar. Seit den 50er Jahren änderte sich die Situation. Der Riss zwischen dem historischen Jesus und dem Christus des Glaubens wurde immer tiefer, beides brach zusehends auseinander (Skybird: has WWII somethign to do with it, maybe?). Was kann aber der Glaube an Jesus den Christus, and Jesus den Sohn des lebendigen Gopttes bedeuten, wenn eben der Mensch Jesus so ganz anders war, als ihn die Evangelisten darstellen und als ihn die kirche von den Evangelien her verkündigt?
Die Fortschritte der historisch kritischen Forschung führten zu immer weiter verfeinerten Unterscheidungen zwischen Traditionsschichten, hinter denen die Gestalt Jesu, auf die sich doch der Glaube bezieht, immer undeutlicher wurde, immer mehr an Kontur verlor. zugleich wurden die Rekonstruktionen dieses Jesus (...) immer gegensätzlicher: vom antirömischen Revolutionär, der auf den Umsturz der bestehenden Mächte hinarbeitete und freilich scheiterte, bis zum sanften Moralisten, der alles billigt und dabei unbegreiflicherweise selber unter die Räder kommt. (...) Als gemeinsames Ergebnis dieser Versuche ist der Eindruck zurückgeblieben, dass wir jedenfalls wenig sicheres über Jesus wissen, und dass der Glaube an seine Gottheit erst nachträglich sein Bild geformt habe. Dieser eindruck ist inzwischen weit ins allgemeine Bewusstsein der Christenheit vorgedrungen. eine solche Situation ist dramatisch für den Glauben, weil sein eigentlicher bezugspunkt unsicher wird. Die innere Freundschaft mit Jesus, auf die doch alles ankommt, droht ins leere zu greifen." (p. 10-11)

So, one should not believe that Benedict shifts attention from "believing" to "reason" - he reiterates the importance of faith AND reason. and to my great joy I believe to have understood that faith for him like for me is not about blindly believing and wildly guessing something, but to base on a fundament of (empirically prooven) trust. And that'S why I can live with this man, different to his predecessor (now don't get me started about Paul II...)After all, Benedict still is a man of the faith, but his concept of fiath and belief is something that I could accept as a ground for communication. And beyond the intellectual level, I very much feel the way like he sometimes put something into words. At another opportunity he said in words that he takes the gospels as granted, as a historical truth, but he also indicates that the gospels need to be understood, decyphered, with reason.

This Pope remains me more than any other to Dostojewsky's tale (In the Karamazov brothers) about the Chief Inquisitor in Sevilla confronted to a resurected Jesus:hmm:

Sadly, I would need to read this book to make a fair judgement about that, and as already said, I can't. So take what I have said before as simple superficial impressions.

"Fassung"...? what you mean? Review? Summary? Frame? :hmm:

[Hitman]

Oh, exactly the opposite (by this book), he wants to reach that, as you call it, the concept of Jesus (in which you put your faith into), and the historical Jesus are united again. He indicates that the growing distance and difference between the two, and growing numbers of different interpretations, from "Rome-threatening militia-Rambo" to "whistle-blowing softie", has caused the weakening of the attractiveness of the Christian faith, since it is not believable what you have to offer that way to those that are searching for answers and something to gain trust from.

I meant that he wants badly his concept of Christ to be accepted both as historic and conceptual. Of course he wants both to match, but he doesn't care if that is historically correct or not. He doesn't like any opinions/revisions that show that the historic Christ is not what the classical catholic doctrine says he was, even if it could be wrong -when compared to the reality-. Have you read the episode of Dostojewsky I refered before? It is difficult for me to express what I mean, but if you read it, it could be more clear. More or less the idea is: "Look, this is what mankind need badly to have a lighthouse in their lives. If you start discussing this or proving that this was not so historically, you might do a lot of harm to the good things we have developed starting from that idealization of a person. I do not care if I am lying or being inexact. The message and idea is what counts"

To a certain extent, this goes paralell to a more teologically developed mind like Ratzinger's. To many teologs, religion and a superior God is what matters, and the forms or religions -cults- that are around are some kind of "child tales" that help the less intelectually developed or interested understand and accept the essential concepts. I have always thought that Ratzinger was one of those. For him, the catholic church is just a way of bringing to mankind a message in a form that is understandable even by the most simplest. If that simplistic form starts being questioned, the religious message might fail to reach everybody, as not everybody is able to get the concepts above the "historical" characters.

Errr... did I make it a bit more clear, or did I worsen it even more?

"(...) So wurde durch den Menschen Jesus Gott und von Gott her das Bild des rechten Menschen sichtbar. Seit den 50er Jahren änderte sich die Situation. Der Riss zwischen dem historischen Jesus und dem Christus des Glaubens wurde immer tiefer, beides brach zusehends auseinander (Skybird: has WWII somethign to do with it, maybe?). Was kann aber der Glaube an Jesus den Christus, and Jesus den Sohn des lebendigen Gopttes bedeuten, wenn eben der Mensch Jesus so ganz anders war, als ihn die Evangelisten darstellen und als ihn die kirche von den Evangelien her verkündigt?
Die Fortschritte der historisch kritischen Forschung führten zu immer weiter verfeinerten Unterscheidungen zwischen Traditionsschichten, hinter denen die Gestalt Jesu, auf die sich doch der Glaube bezieht, immer undeutlicher wurde, immer mehr an Kontur verlor. zugleich wurden die Rekonstruktionen dieses Jesus (...) immer gegensätzlicher: vom antirömischen Revolutionär, der auf den Umsturz der bestehenden Mächte hinarbeitete und freilich scheiterte, bis zum sanften Moralisten, der alles billigt und dabei unbegreiflicherweise selber unter die Räder kommt. (...) Als gemeinsames Ergebnis dieser Versuche ist der Eindruck zurückgeblieben, dass wir jedenfalls wenig sicheres über Jesus wissen, und dass der Glaube an seine Gottheit erst nachträglich sein Bild geformt habe. Dieser eindruck ist inzwischen weit ins allgemeine Bewusstsein der Christenheit vorgedrungen. eine solche Situation ist dramatisch für den Glauben, weil sein eigentlicher bezugspunkt unsicher wird. Die innere Freundschaft mit Jesus, auf die doch alles ankommt, droht ins leere zu greifen." (p. 10-11)

Sei Schreibstil sieht wirklich gut aus.

"Fassung"...? what you mean? Review? Summary? Frame? :hmm:

Summary-Frame. I meant you summary on the style of the book and reader advice. Not the contents of course, since you already made it clear you were not willing to comment it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hitman

I meant that he wants badly his concept of Christ to be accepted both as historic and conceptual. Of course he wants both to match, but he doesn't care if that is historically correct or not. He doesn't like any opinions/revisions that show that the historic Christ is not what the classical catholic doctrine says he was, even if it could be wrong -when compared to the reality-. Have you read the episode of Dostojewsky I refered before? It is difficult for me to express what I mean, but if you read it, it could be more clear. More or less the idea is: "Look, this is what mankind need badly to have a lighthouse in their lives. If you start discussing this or proving that this was not so historically, you might do a lot of harm to the good things we have developed starting from that idealization of a person. I do not care if I am lying or being inexact. The message and idea is what counts"

I'm sorry, but I still must disagree. Ratzinger is expert in old languages, he even used his own translations of the old scriptures and bible-verses, he says, so when it is about reunite the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith, he really is serious in trying to point out that orginally, and in the meaning of the intention in which the gospels had been written, both the historical man and the theological object of belief were one and the same, once. The question if the reunification of both Jesus-"versions" is historically correct, is misleading that way, and distracts from his real intention. What he seeks for is authenticity. No matter if you believe in Jesus doing wonders, or just acting wisely, point is that it must have been historical fact that there was something special happening around him that left so much an impression in people, that the gospels were written the way they actuall had been written (else they wouldn't have been written at all). So, they necessarily must describe both the to-be-believed-Jesus, and the historically correct Jesus, necessarily. When you say Ratzinger does not care if his understanding of both historical Jesus and Christ to be believed is "historically correct", then you describe it wrong.

To a certain extent, this goes paralell to a more teologically developed mind like Ratzinger's. To many teologs, religion and a superior God is what matters, and the forms or religions -cults- that are around are some kind of "child tales" that help the less intelectually developed or interested understand and accept the essential concepts.

I don't understand your distinction between religion and forms of religion here, because this or that theologian by definition is basing on a theoretical set of assumptions that in your description falls under the term "cult". Do you mean a culture-free form of spirituality, maybe? Or mysticism like in Christian mystic's understanding? A theologian always bases on the institutional form of religion (that has brought him forward). If they leave that frame that educated them, once, they get expelled in any form, or even declared heretic.

I have always thought that Ratzinger was one of those. For him, the catholic church is just a way of bringing to mankind a message in a form that is understandable even by the most simplest. If that simplistic form starts being questioned, the religious message might fail to reach everybody, as not everybody is able to get the concepts above the "historical" characters.

See above. I think you misunderstand him somehow. According to him the message of Jesus has stopped to attract the people because the one, unified, non-separated identity of Jesus (the historical figure and the christ that people believe in: both being one and the same) no longer is clear to people. Again:

"Die Fortschritte der historisch kritischen Forschung führten zu immer weiter verfeinerten Unterscheidungen zwischen Traditionsschichten, hinter denen die Gestalt Jesu, auf die sich doch der Glaube bezieht, immer undeutlicher wurde, immer mehr an Kontur verlor. zugleich wurden die Rekonstruktionen dieses Jesus (...) immer gegensätzlicher: vom antirömischen Revolutionär, der auf den Umsturz der bestehenden Mächte hinarbeitete und freilich scheiterte, bis zum sanften Moralisten, der alles billigt und dabei unbegreiflicherweise selber unter die Räder kommt. (...) Als gemeinsames Ergebnis dieser Versuche ist der Eindruck zurückgeblieben, dass wir jedenfalls wenig sicheres über Jesus wissen, und dass der Glaube an seine Gottheit erst nachträglich sein Bild geformt habe. Dieser eindruck ist inzwischen weit ins allgemeine Bewusstsein der Christenheit vorgedrungen. eine solche Situation ist dramatisch für den Glauben, weil sein eigentlicher bezugspunkt unsicher wird. Die innere Freundschaft mit Jesus, auf die doch alles ankommt, droht ins leere zu greifen."

[Hitman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
I meant that he wants badly his concept of Christ to be accepted both as historic and conceptual. Of course he wants both to match, but he doesn't care if that is historically correct or not. He doesn't like any opinions/revisions that show that the historic Christ is not what the classical catholic doctrine says he was, even if it could be wrong -when compared to the reality-. Have you read the episode of Dostojewsky I refered before? It is difficult for me to express what I mean, but if you read it, it could be more clear. More or less the idea is: "Look, this is what mankind need badly to have a lighthouse in their lives. If you start discussing this or proving that this was not so historically, you might do a lot of harm to the good things we have developed starting from that idealization of a person. I do not care if I am lying or being inexact. The message and idea is what counts"


I'm sorry, but I still must disagree. Ratzinger is expert in old languages, he even used his own translations of the old scriptures and bible-verses, he says, so when it is about reunite the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith, he really is serious in trying to point out that orginally, and in the meaning of the intention in which the gospels had been written, both the historical man and the theological object of belief were one and the same, once. The question if the reunification of both Jesus-"versions" is historically correct, is misleading that way, and distracts from his real intention. No matter if you believe in Jesus doing wonders, or just acting wisely, point is that it must have been historical fact that there was something special happening around him that left so much an impression in people, that the gospels were written the way they actuall had been written. So, they necessarily must describe both the to-be-believed-Jesus, and the historically correct Jesdus, necessarily.

I was trying to explain what I thought about Ratzinger's ideas before reading your comments on the book. May be I did not explain correctly that what you quoted above is just an expansion of that, to clarify, not a critic or reply to your previous message. That's why I started with "I meant that... ", indicating that I was just trying to explain better my previous position, before having read your comment on the book.

When you say Ratzinger does not care if his understanding of both historical Jesus and Christ to be believed is "historically correct", then you describe it wrong.

(Now entering the discussion and no longer explaining my previous ideas) The gospels were written by people who were taught about Jesus much later than Jesus died, so an "idealization" of the figure is more than logic. One of the catholic faith's assumptions is, however, that transmission of the facts is exact thanks to the holy spirit, and Ratzinger sticks formally to that. That's why he believes the coincidence of the historic Jesus with the gospel Jesus and also tries to proof that. I never said that according to his own texts and speeches Ratzinger does not care about the coincidence between historical Jesus and gospel Jesus, I meant instead that in my opinion Ratzinger thinks that internally, but obviously will never say it openly. That would be simply against the above mentioned faith principle of the exactitude of the gospels My bad if I did not explain well that I was referring to my conclusions about his real thoughts.

Again, I would need to read this book to be able to have a more accurate opinion and see if I change my thoughts about Ratzinger. But basically I still consider that internally he is not completely interested in the match between historical and gospel Jesus, however he externally uses arguments in favour of that match as a tool to strengthen the catholic faith.

I don't understand your distinction between religion and forms of religion here, becasue this or that theologian by definition is basing on a theoretical set up assumptions that in your description falls under the term "cult". Do you mean a culture-free form of spirituality, maybe? Or mysticism like in Christian mystic's understanding?

My bad for not being able to use precise concepts in english I meant religion in the sense of spiritual dimension of men, and "forms of religion" in the sense of different cults or forms of adoring a God.