|
Many readers of the Gospels are embarrassed and even
abashed when they stop to think about the meaning of
certain descriptions. The same is true when they make
comparisons between different versions of the same event
found in several Gospels. This observation is made by
Father Roguet in his book Initiation to the Gospels
(Initiation à l'Evangile) [ Pub. Editions du
Seuil, Paris, 1973]. With the wide experience
he has gained in his many years of answering perturbed
readers' letters in a Catholic weekly, he has been able
to assess just how greatly they have been worried by what
they have read. His questioners come from widely varying
social and cultural backgrounds. He notes that their
requests for explanations concern texts that are
"considered abstruse, incomprehensible, if not
contradictory, absurd or scandalous'. There can be no
doubt that a complete reading of the Gospels is likely to
disturb Christians profoundly.
This observation is very recent: Father Roguet's book
was published in 1973. Not so very long ago, the majority
of Christians knew only selected sections of the Gospels
that were read during services or commented upon during
sermons. With the exception of the Protestants, it was
not customary for Christians to read the Gospels in their
entirety. Books of religious instruction only contained
extracts; the in extenso text hardly circulated at
all. At a Roman Catholic school Ihad copies of the works
of Virgil and Plato, but I did not have the New
Testament. The Greek text of this would nevertheless have
been very instructive: it was only much later on that I
realized why they had not set us translations of the holy
writings of Christianity. The latter could have led us to
ask our teachers questions they would have found it
difficult to answer.
These discoveries, made if one has a critical outlook
during a reading in extens of the Gospels, have
led the Church to come to the aid of readers by helping
them overcome their perplexity. "Many Christians
need to learn how to read the Gospels", notes Father Roguet. Whether or not one agrees with the explanations
he gives, it is greatly to the author's credit that he
actually tackles these delicate problems. Unfortunately,
it is not always like this in many writings on the
Christian Revelation.
In editions of the Bible produced for widespread
publication, introductory notes more often than not set
out a collection of ideas that would tend to persuade the
reader that the Gospels hardly raise any problems
concerning the personalities of the authors of the
various books, the authenticity of the texts and the
truth of the descriptions. In spite of the fact that
there are so many unknowns concerning authors of whose
identity we are not at all sure, we find a wealth of
precise information in this kind of introductory note.
Often they present as a certainty what is pure
hypothesis, or they state that such-and-such an
evangelist was an eye-witness of the events, while
specialist works claim the opposite. The time that
elapsed between the end of Jesus' ministry and the
appearance of the texts is drastically reduced. They
would have one believe that these were written by one man
taken from an oral tradition, when in fact specialists
have pointed out adaptations to the texts. Of course,
certain difficulties of interpretation are mentioned here
and there, but they ride rough shod over glaring
contradictions that must strike anyone who thinks about
them. In the little glossaries one finds among the
appendices complementing a reassuring preface, one
observes how improbabilities, contradictions or blatant
errors have been hidden or stifled under clever arguments
of an apologetic nature. This disturbing state of affairs
shows up the misleading nature of such commentaries.
The ideas to be developed in the coming pages will
without doubt leave any readers still unaware of these
problems quite amazed. Before going into detail however,
I will provide an immediate illustration of my ideas with
an example that seems to me quite conclusive.
Neither Matthew nor John speaks of Jesus's Ascension.
Luke in his Gospel places it on the day of the
Resurrection and forty days later in the Acts of the
Apostles of which he is said to be the author. Mark
mentions it (without giving a date) in a conclusion
considered unauthentic today. The Ascension therefore has
no solid scriptural basis. Commentators nevertheless
approach this important question with incredible
lightness.
A. Tricot, in his Little Dictionary of the New
Testament (Petit Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament) in
the Crampon Bible, (1960 edition) [ Pub. Desclée and Co., Paris.], a work produced
for mass publication, does not devote an entry to the
Ascension. The Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Synopse
des Quatre Evangiles) by Fathers Benoît and Boismard,
teachers at the Biblical School of Jerusalem, (1972 edition) [ Pub. Editions du
Cerf, Paris], informs us in volume II, pages 451 and 452,
that the contradiction between Luke's Gospel and the Acts
of the Apostles may be explained by a 'literary
artifice': this is, to say the least, difficult to follow
! .
In all probability, Father Roguet in his Initiation
to the Gospel, 1973, (pg. 187) has not been convinced
by the above argument. The explanation he gives us is
curious, to say the least:
'"Here, as in many similar cases, the problem
only appears insuperable if one takes Biblical statements
literally, and forgets their religious significance. It
is not a matter of breaking down the factual reality into
a symbolism which is inconsistent, but rather of looking
for the theological intentions of those revealing these
mysteries to us by providing us with facts we can
apprehend with our senses and signs appropriate to our
incarnate spirit."
How is it possible to be satisfied by an exegesis of
this kind. Only a person who accepted everything
unconditionally would find such apologetic set-phrases
acceptable.
Another interesting aspect of Father Roguet's
commentary is his admission that there are 'many similar
cases'; similar, that is, to the Ascension in the
Gospels. The problem therefore has to be approached as a
whole, objectively and in depth. It would seem reasonable
to look for an explanation by studying the conditions
attendant upon the writing of the Gospels, or the
religious atmosphere prevailing at the time. When
adaptations of the original writings taken from oral
traditions are pointed out, and we see the way texts
handed down to us have been corrupted, the presence of
obscure, incomprehensible, contradictory, improbable, and
even absurd passages comes as much less of a surprise.
The same may be said of texts which are incompatible with
today's proven reality, thanks to scientific progress.
Observations such as these denote the element of human
participation in the writing and modification of the
texts.
Admittedly, in the last few decades, objective
research on the Scriptures has gained attention. In a
recent book, Faith in the Resurrection, Resurrection
of Faith [ Pub. Beauchesne, Coll. 'Le Point
théologique'.
Paris. 1974] (Foi en la Resurrection, Resurrection de
la foi), Father Kannengiesser, a professor at the
Catholic Institute of Paris, outlines this profound
change in the following terms: "The faithful are
hardly aware that a revolution has taken place in methods
of Biblical exegesis since the time of Pious
XII" [ Pious XII was Pope from 1939 to 1959]. The 'Revolution' that the author mentions
is therefore very recent. It is beginning to be extended
to the teaching of the faithful, in the case of certain
specialists at least, who are animated by this spirit of
revival. "The overthrow of the most assured
prospects of the pastoral tradition," the author
writes, "has more or less begun with this revolution
in methods of exegesis."
Father Kannengiesser warns that 'one should not take
literally' facts reported about Jesus by the Gospels,
because they are 'writings suited to an occasion' or 'to
combat', whose authors 'are writing down the traditions
of their own community about Jesus'. Concerning the
Resurrection of Jesus, which is the subject of his book,
he stresses that none of the authors of the Gospels can
claim to have been an eye-witness. He intimates that, as
far as the rest of Jesus's public life is concerned, the
same must be true because, according to the Gospels, none
of the Apostles-apart from Judas Iscariot-left Jesus from
the moment he first followed Him until His last earthly
manifestations.
We have come a long way from the traditional position,
which was once again solemnly confirmed by the Second
Vatican Council only ten years ago. This once again is
resumed by modern works of popularization destined to be
read by the faithful. Little by little the truth is
coming to light however.
It is not easy to grasp, because the weight of such a
bitterly defended tradition is very heavy indeed. To free
oneself from it, one has to strike at the roots of the
problem, i.e. examine first the circumstances that marked
the birth of Christianity.
|