What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus, Interpreted: Benedict XVI, Bart Ehrman, and the Historical Truth of the Gospels
In this sequel volume to his Dark Passages of the Bible (CUA Press, 2013), author Matthew Ramage turns his attention from the Old to the New Testament, now tackling truth claims bearing directly on the heart of the Christian faith cast into doubt by contemporary New Testament scholarship: Did God become man in Jesus, or did the first Christians make Jesus into God? Was Jesus' resurrection a historical event, or rather a myth fabricated by the early Church? Will Jesus indeed return to earth on the last day, or was this merely the naïve expectation of ancient believers that reasonable people today ought to abandon?
In addition to examining the exegetical merits of rival answers to these questions, Ramage considers also the philosophical first principles of the exegetes who set out to answer them. This, according to Joseph Ratzinger, is the debate behind the debate in exegesis: whose presuppositions best position us for an accurate understanding of the nature of things in general and of the person of Jesus in particular?
Insisting upon the exegetical vision of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as a privileged avenue by which to address the thorniest issues in contemporary biblical exegesis, Ramage puts the emeritus pontiff's hermeneutic of faith into dialogue with contemporary exponents of the historical-critical school. Carrying forth the "critique of the critique" called for by Joseph Ratzinger, Ramage offers the emeritus pontiff's exegesis of the gospels as a plausible and attractive alternative to the mainstream agnostic approach exemplified in the work of Bart Ehrman.
As in the case of Benedict's Jesus trilogy upon which he draws extensively, Ramage's quest in this book is not merely academic but also existential in nature. Benedict's scholarship represents the fruit of his personal quest for the face of Christ, a quest which involves the commitment to engage, critique, and learn from the most serious challenges posed by modern biblical criticism while arming the foundations of the Christian faith.
In addition to examining the exegetical merits of rival answers to these questions, Ramage considers also the philosophical first principles of the exegetes who set out to answer them. This, according to Joseph Ratzinger, is the debate behind the debate in exegesis: whose presuppositions best position us for an accurate understanding of the nature of things in general and of the person of Jesus in particular?
Insisting upon the exegetical vision of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as a privileged avenue by which to address the thorniest issues in contemporary biblical exegesis, Ramage puts the emeritus pontiff's hermeneutic of faith into dialogue with contemporary exponents of the historical-critical school. Carrying forth the "critique of the critique" called for by Joseph Ratzinger, Ramage offers the emeritus pontiff's exegesis of the gospels as a plausible and attractive alternative to the mainstream agnostic approach exemplified in the work of Bart Ehrman.
As in the case of Benedict's Jesus trilogy upon which he draws extensively, Ramage's quest in this book is not merely academic but also existential in nature. Benedict's scholarship represents the fruit of his personal quest for the face of Christ, a quest which involves the commitment to engage, critique, and learn from the most serious challenges posed by modern biblical criticism while arming the foundations of the Christian faith.
296 pages, Paperback
Published January 19, 2017
4 people are currently reading
46 people want to read
About the author
Matthew J. Ramage
4 books6 followersDr. Ramage has earned an undergraduate degree in Religious Studies and Philosophy at the University of Illinois, an M.A. from Franciscan University of Steubenville and a Ph.D. from Ave Maria University. His doctoral dissertation was “Towards a Theology of Scripture: Joseph Ratzinger’s Method C Hermeneutic and Sacra Doctrina on the Afterlife in the Old Testament”.
He taught Religious Studies at the University of Illinois immediately before being hired at Benedictine College in 2009, where he is an Associate Professor of Theology. His research and writing concentrates on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, biblical exegesis, and the development of papal doctrine.
He has published in a number of scholarly journals including Nova et Vetera, Scripta Theologica, Cithara, and Homiletic and Pastoral Review as well as popular online venues such as Strange Notions, The Gregorian Institute, and Crisis. He lives in Atchison, Kansas with his wife and five children.
He taught Religious Studies at the University of Illinois immediately before being hired at Benedictine College in 2009, where he is an Associate Professor of Theology. His research and writing concentrates on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, biblical exegesis, and the development of papal doctrine.
He has published in a number of scholarly journals including Nova et Vetera, Scripta Theologica, Cithara, and Homiletic and Pastoral Review as well as popular online venues such as Strange Notions, The Gregorian Institute, and Crisis. He lives in Atchison, Kansas with his wife and five children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 20, 2018
Just Silly
“What is the appropriate presupposition for the task at hand?” Ramage approvingly quotes Benedict XVI who appears in his own words as a card-carrying Pragmatist. Benedict is correct to ask the question of course. But by some not very subtle sleight of hand, both he and Ramage then go on to equate presupposition with religious belief, as if faith simply supplied some otherwise unknowable but superior presupposition from which to think about the world. This is not only an intellectual fraud, it is also an attack on human intellect itself in the manner of all Christian apologists since Saul of Tarsus successfully redefined religion as something to do with the heart rather than the head.
Jesus, Interpreted is a direct response to Bart Ehrman’s books on the historical exegesis of the Bible carried out by scholars over the last 250 years or so (See for example https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Ramage admires Ehrman’s scholarship and exposition but doesn’t like his conclusions - mainly that the clear layer of legend which has been added to the oldest gospel texts (those of Mark) indicates a progressive divinisation of Jesus by his followers after his death. Ramage does not dispute the legendary addenda but he does disagree about their implications. He wants to demonstrate that the ‘revelation’ of Jesus’s divinity was virtually instantaneous to his followers during his lifetime.
Ramage’s (somewhat fey) apologetic technique is to use the exegetical and apologetic writings of the former pope, Benedict XVI, as counters to Ehrman’s thesis. As Ramage recognises, however, this is a risky path since Benedict differs fundamentally in his views from those of the historical church regarding the critical study of the Bible. By allowing the debate to move beyond the scope of mere church interpretive authority, Benedict does promote intellectual engagement at a level never before experienced in the Catholic Church - a dangerous move if common standards of rationality are employed as criteria of credibility.
But there are doctrinal limits to the freedom intellect which even Benedict dare not transgress. And these are precisely set in the matter of presuppositions. And in general the presuppositions he and Ramage have are those articles of faith which they want to defend. This is patently tendentious. The method is not to investigate or interrogate scripture but, in the ancient manner of the first Christian apologists, to sift through documents, legends, and traditional interpretations to find confirming data, and to use these data to invent explanations for inconsistencies, errors and contradictions. The intent is to protect the presuppositions at all cost.
Ramage attacks what he calls Ehrman’s “merely philosophical presumptions”. He believes that his own presumptions about the religious testimony of early followers of Jesus are at least as good a place to start in thought as as any epistemological principles. In particular, Ramage wants the miracles reported in the New Testament to be accepted as factually accurate accounts. This he makes equivalent to Benedict’s plea for an “open philosophy” in biblical criticism. The rest of his argument follows from this presupposition.
It is difficult to know where to even begin a rational response to this point of view. Faith in miracles is not equivalent to critical exegetical presuppositions like authorial intentions, or sociological conditions, or states of knowledge. These can be questioned, modified and if necessary abandoned. The presupposition of miracles is simply an intellectual dead-end; it is not permissible to question much less abandon it. Garbage in, garbage out as they used to say in computer programming. So it is impossible to even call Ramage wrong; he is only silly. Jesus, Interpreted simply digs the hole Christianity finds itself in to new depths.
Postscript: For more on the difference between religious faith and scientific presumption see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
“What is the appropriate presupposition for the task at hand?” Ramage approvingly quotes Benedict XVI who appears in his own words as a card-carrying Pragmatist. Benedict is correct to ask the question of course. But by some not very subtle sleight of hand, both he and Ramage then go on to equate presupposition with religious belief, as if faith simply supplied some otherwise unknowable but superior presupposition from which to think about the world. This is not only an intellectual fraud, it is also an attack on human intellect itself in the manner of all Christian apologists since Saul of Tarsus successfully redefined religion as something to do with the heart rather than the head.
Jesus, Interpreted is a direct response to Bart Ehrman’s books on the historical exegesis of the Bible carried out by scholars over the last 250 years or so (See for example https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Ramage admires Ehrman’s scholarship and exposition but doesn’t like his conclusions - mainly that the clear layer of legend which has been added to the oldest gospel texts (those of Mark) indicates a progressive divinisation of Jesus by his followers after his death. Ramage does not dispute the legendary addenda but he does disagree about their implications. He wants to demonstrate that the ‘revelation’ of Jesus’s divinity was virtually instantaneous to his followers during his lifetime.
Ramage’s (somewhat fey) apologetic technique is to use the exegetical and apologetic writings of the former pope, Benedict XVI, as counters to Ehrman’s thesis. As Ramage recognises, however, this is a risky path since Benedict differs fundamentally in his views from those of the historical church regarding the critical study of the Bible. By allowing the debate to move beyond the scope of mere church interpretive authority, Benedict does promote intellectual engagement at a level never before experienced in the Catholic Church - a dangerous move if common standards of rationality are employed as criteria of credibility.
But there are doctrinal limits to the freedom intellect which even Benedict dare not transgress. And these are precisely set in the matter of presuppositions. And in general the presuppositions he and Ramage have are those articles of faith which they want to defend. This is patently tendentious. The method is not to investigate or interrogate scripture but, in the ancient manner of the first Christian apologists, to sift through documents, legends, and traditional interpretations to find confirming data, and to use these data to invent explanations for inconsistencies, errors and contradictions. The intent is to protect the presuppositions at all cost.
Ramage attacks what he calls Ehrman’s “merely philosophical presumptions”. He believes that his own presumptions about the religious testimony of early followers of Jesus are at least as good a place to start in thought as as any epistemological principles. In particular, Ramage wants the miracles reported in the New Testament to be accepted as factually accurate accounts. This he makes equivalent to Benedict’s plea for an “open philosophy” in biblical criticism. The rest of his argument follows from this presupposition.
It is difficult to know where to even begin a rational response to this point of view. Faith in miracles is not equivalent to critical exegetical presuppositions like authorial intentions, or sociological conditions, or states of knowledge. These can be questioned, modified and if necessary abandoned. The presupposition of miracles is simply an intellectual dead-end; it is not permissible to question much less abandon it. Garbage in, garbage out as they used to say in computer programming. So it is impossible to even call Ramage wrong; he is only silly. Jesus, Interpreted simply digs the hole Christianity finds itself in to new depths.
Postscript: For more on the difference between religious faith and scientific presumption see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
July 2, 2023
The author likes and respects Bart Ehrman's writing as I do, but does an excellent job pointing out where he goes off the rails (along with the rest of the Historical Jesus crowd). Their basic approach is to take a religious work, cut out everything religious, and then look at the paltry skeleton that remains and call that the 'real Jesus'. Key techniques are the criteria of dissimilarity and embarrassment, which assumes that anything which conflicts with the Christian tradition must be the real historical core. They then use that 'historical core' as evidence against the Christian tradition. That is obviously arguing in a circle, as well as ensuring that the historical Jesus turns out to be exactly what they assumed him to be in the first place. Ramage instead presents Benedict's viewpoint of drawing our image of Jesus from the Gospels as a whole (as well as their Old Testament foundation), while including all the insights that scholarship has added over the last century. It's a far richer, more complete picture. The synoptic Gospels and John don't present two different people, but difference perspectives of the same Jesus, and seeing both at the same time needs some toleration of paradox, but the result is far deeper and more compelling.
Tackled here are all the thorny issues of whether the disciples (and perhaps even Jesus himself) expected the end of the world to come quickly, what exactly Jesus meant by the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God. Ehrman's conclusion is that Jesus thought that the Son of Man was a cosmic figure coming any moment to usher in a tangible kingdom of God in this world, turning upside down all existing power structures, with Jesus himself ruling as king. He think Jesus was shocked and distraught that he was executed instead. Ramage (through Benedict) shows how this idea just doesn't square with the Gospels as a whole, and relies on wilfully misreading certain passages and ignoring others. His book is an important antidote to a catchy but incoherent conspiracy theory.
Tackled here are all the thorny issues of whether the disciples (and perhaps even Jesus himself) expected the end of the world to come quickly, what exactly Jesus meant by the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God. Ehrman's conclusion is that Jesus thought that the Son of Man was a cosmic figure coming any moment to usher in a tangible kingdom of God in this world, turning upside down all existing power structures, with Jesus himself ruling as king. He think Jesus was shocked and distraught that he was executed instead. Ramage (through Benedict) shows how this idea just doesn't square with the Gospels as a whole, and relies on wilfully misreading certain passages and ignoring others. His book is an important antidote to a catchy but incoherent conspiracy theory.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews