"Jesus of Nazareth" Chapter 8

Chapter 8 "The Principal Images of John's Gospel"

When I first received my copy of Pope Benedict's book this was the first chapter that I flipped to and read. The reason is that I have a keen interest and impatience in those who have spread doubt about the validity and Apostolic origin of St. John's Gospel, and I wanted to see how Benedict dealt with this. I was very pleased with how he did, though of course he is more diplomatic and charitable than I would have been! Here are some of my thoughts about that section of the chapter, and about the manufactured controversy in general.

Those who wonder "if St. John really wrote the Gospel, or Revelations" are usually zooming in on the more intimate, numinous, and discoursing tone of the Gospel of St. John compared to the writings of the other Gospels (though they too have been criticized as being written with "too high" a level of literary skill for "simple" people such as the disciples and Apostles.) Pope Benedict thoroughly refutes these prejudices, though he doesn't go into some of the psychological reasons why critics sometimes think like this (nor should he) however I will. I think one reason is obvious though subtle, which is that people have trouble imagining that the Gospels are all distillations of days and nights of verbal discourse between Jesus and the Apostles and disciples. The miracles, conversations, and preaching that are recorded are obviously the key parts of Jesus' ministry, but an Apostle who is "beloved" by Jesus, as was St. John, would have many conversations and images of his time with Jesus to draw upon when writing, thus his Gospel is more discoursing in nature and tone. Secondly, remember that after Jesus died and resurrected, St. John was given by Jesus the responsibility for caring for his mother Mary. St. John lived many years after Jesus, and certainly Mary and St. John did not have vows of silence (being ironic here) so like with Jesus, John and Mary would have had many conversations to expand on insights and "remember" what Jesus said and did. Benedict does a wonderful job of discussing the implications of St. John's continual use of the word "remember." It is widely understood that similarly St. Luke in his Gospel also obtained insight, information, and remembrance from Mary (for example, the words of her Canticle.)

There's a third reason that I believe some critics criticize or question St. John's authorship or the authenticity of his first hand remembrances. That is there is fear of what he knew and what he wrote about, which culminates in the Book of Revelation, known also as the Apocalypse. I think that some intellectuals who bury themselves in the historic methodology do so to unconsciously mitigate the total and absolute judgement that will occur at the end of times. I think there is a tendency to "fear" what St. John knew and saw. So there is a temptation to view what he wrote as being "symbolic." Well, a symbol did not have care of the Blessed Virgin Mary committed to him by Jesus. And they would not have had "symbolic" conversations and remembering. And later in Revelations, St. John did not see cartoon characters and "symbols" as the angels walked him through understanding of terrifying absolute judgement and the return of Jesus with a "not symbolic" sword coming from his mouth. I think there is this temptation to make being loved by Jesus, learning from him the true nature of the Kingdom of God, and seeing the Apocalypse "safer" and "symbolic" by picking apart and casting doubt. Benedict, again, does a great job of quoting some of these who attempt to dilute St. John's contribution and refuting them, without examining their motivations. I offer my insight regarding motivations because I think that casting a keen eye on the foibles and temptations, albeit unconscious, of scholars strengthens the faith and understanding of those who might be exposed to their incomplete speculations.

Two favorite quotes from this part of the chapter:

How does it strengthen faith if it presents itself as a historical testimony - and does so quite emphatically - but then does not report history? I think that we are dealing here with a false concept of the historical, as well as with a false concept of faith and of the Paraclete. A faith that discards history in the manner really turns into "Gnosticism." It leaves flesh, incarnation - just what history is - behind (p. 228.)

What the Gospel is really claiming is that it has correctly rendered the substance of the discourses, of Jesus' self-attestation in the great Jerusalem disputes, so that the readers really do encounter the decisive content of this message and, therein, the authentic figure of Jesus (p. 229.)

The rest of the chapter discusses the principle images of Christ that appear in the Gospel of St. John. The images are Water, Vine and Wine, Bread, and Shepherd, spending 47 pages on those subjects. They are a masterful, substantive yet approachable, beautiful and insightful read. While Benedict calls these "images" they are all manifestations of genuine physical words, actions, miracles and deeds performed by Christ. For example, Water refers to both the numinous, cultural, and spiritual meaning of water, but also the literal water that gushed from Christ's side as he was pierced by the lance. This section needs a good thorough read, more than one actually, and I plan to reread it this weekend. Another delightful part of this section of the chapter is that you hear Benedict's actual voice and expression of his personal faith, as you read what he has written, particularly in the section The Shepherd. A very fine chapter throughout!!