Here is the response of Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ, of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. It is well worth reading:
http://www.cwnews.com/offthereco...lay&
recnum=4148
Very interesting article. Fr. Moloney's commentary on the Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina series) was used for one of my courses. I was certainly disturbed when in the introduction he stated in no uncertain terms that the disputes between Jesus and the Jews should not be taken as historical.
If you're uncertain of your authors, always take Bible scholars cum grano salis. This is no less true with Catholic scholars, these days, than it is with mainline Protestant or (am I being redundant?) secular scholars.
Another reason to yawn when hearing the term "biblical scholar."
So Jesus really said to the Jews, "you are of your father the devil?"
That is depressing.
I think it is a good idea to have biblical scholars helping novelists who write about biblical subjects. How else clear away the tosh that loads down bookshop shelves?
How embarrassing that the Jesuits at the Biblicum gave their podium for this -- have they a clue about PR?
Doubly embarrassing is Fr Mankowski's crude literalism -- it leads one to suspect that scholarly standards are tumbling in the Biblicum.
Pertinacious Papist, Thanks!
“another case of individuals angling to cash in on the growth industry of Bible deconstruction.”
Yes, and I am sick of this growth industry; and its proximity to the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI is worrisome.
“The Pontifical Biblical Institute (P.B.I.) is a university-level institution of the Holy See.”
http://www.biblico.it/history.html
I have not read the book, but if I can safely judge by the news reports (maybe it is not so safe after all given the poor quality of most the media reports thus far), it does not sound like something a "university-level institution of the Holy See" should be associated with in any fashion.
The Pontifical Biblical Institute had no business allowing its facilities to be used in such a manner. Disgraceful. I am happy with Fr. Paul Mankowski’s response and criticisms, but I cannot accept his point of view when he writes: “The Pontifical Biblical Institute provided the bottled water at the speaker's rostrum for the Archer-Moloney press conference.” They did more than that. Undoubtedly as a faculty member he is proud of his school and wants to minimize the scandal, and downplay involvement, but the fact is they allowed their ‘pontifical’ institution to become associated with this book. It is shameful that the Institute agreed to become involved as the location for the book launch.
I would expect the Vatican to officially respond; or hope it will. But in this day and age, I am not holding my breath.
What would Pope St. Pius X have said?
==
"Doubly embarrassing is Fr Mankowski's crude literalism -- it leads one to suspect that scholarly standards are tumbling in the Biblicum."
Luke, what do you mean? Please elaborate. Thanks!
==
"Jeffrey Archer longs for redemption. Was he sent to challenge the forgiveness of the church?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
commen...2039706,00.html
Catherine Bennett
Thursday March 22, 2007
The Guardian"
==
This is embarrassing, as was the Catherine Bennett opinion piece. Groan.
"Jeffrey Archer launches controversial book on Judas"
http://www.indianmuslims.info/
ne...k_on_judas.html
"IndianMuslims.info
To preserve the past, present, and future of Indian Muslims."
I wonder what the Non-believers are thinking?
==
"So Jesus really said to the Jews, 'you are of your father the devil?' That is depressing."
What's so depressing about it? That group of Jews had just professed that they believed Jesus was the Messiah, but they rejected what Jesus taught. Those who reject the truth are of their father the Devil, the father of lies -- doubly so when it is followers of Jesus who reject the truth.
"Doubly embarrassing is Fr Mankowski's crude literalism -- it leads one to suspect that scholarly standards are tumbling in the Biblicum."
No, what's embarrassing is you thinking Fr. Mankowski espoused any sort of crude literalism. That the Biblicum has a stalwart, orthodox scholar like Fr. Mankowski there -- and that Fr. Mankowski is Jesuit -- are positive signs for the Biblicum and the Jesuits.
So Jesus really said to the Jews, "you are of your father the devil?"
Yes, like Clinton, an American, said to the visiting American students at University College of Oxford University, "You are a bunch of fascists."
There's a decent article by Mark P. Shea addressing this topic in Crisis (November 2006) entitled "Devil Talk: Is the Gospel of John Anti-Semitic?" unless you need post-Enlightenment epistemological re-programming, which would take a bit more work.
Your "decent article" is rabid fundamentalism, sorry.
Mark Shea a fundamentalist???
Luke, do you know what fundamentalism really is? I'm finding it hard to believe you do, if you think Mark Shea is a fundamentalist, or if you think his essay is "rabid fundamentalism." Put that alongside your reference to Fr. Mankowski's supposed "crude literalism." I think what it boils down to is that you don't believe what the Church teaches about the Bible.
Of course it's always easier to casually dismiss something you disagree with as "rabid fundamentalism" than it is to intellectually interact with it. I suppose it's as Dr. Blosser said -- you might need "post-Enlightenment epistemological re-programming."
This reprogramming you talk about -- would it be something like sects' brainwashing? Or genetic manipulation? Lovebombing? A crash course in medievalist hocuspocus or what? What an ignorant polish jebbie says about the bible ain't nacessarily the church's teaching, and the church often gets things wrong anyway.
"This reprogramming you talk about -- would it be something like sects' brainwashing?"
No.
"Or genetic manipulation?"
No, absolutely not.
"Lovebombing?"
No.
"A crash course in medievalist hocuspocus or what?"
No, not that either.
But of course, you don't actually care what it really is, or else you wouldn't have posted so unconstructive and silly a comment.
"What an ignorant polish jebbie says about the bible ain't nacessarily the church's teaching,"
Yeah, so what? I'm not aware of any "ignorant Polish jebbies" involved in framing or handing on the Church's teaching about the Bible. But then I suppose you're just engaging in a racist insult against the excellent scholar and exegete Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ, who I suspect knows far more about the Bible and the Church's teaching than you do.
"and the church often gets things wrong anyway."
About some things, but not about the inerrancy of the Bible and the historicity of the Gospels.
In charity, I should offer a neighborly warning that Dr. Blosser doesn't take too kindly to your kind of contributions to his commentboxes. You might wish to moderate your rhetoric a bit.
Some notes about the Gospel According to Judas:
"As with all Gospels/scripture, the later it is written the more unreliable and the more it is embellished.
The Gospel of Judas does have some verifying facts if you want to "Crossanize" it. First it verifies that Jesus was an actual person. Many still don't believe this but see Crossan's list of first and second century historic biblical documents. These plus the publications of Josephus (as noted by Crossan in his The Historical Jesus) , Jesus lived and was crucified.
The Gospel of Judas would be placed apparently in Crossan's FOURTH STRATUM [120-150 CE/AD] along with the Didache etc.
Crossan's analysis of the conduct of Judas was already rated as non-historic so the story as told in the Gospel of Judas would definitely be rated the same. Being a single attestation from the Fourth Statum would also result in the same rating.
Mark 14:21 and Mark 9:31 and their equivalents do not mention Judas specifically. And as expected, both passages fail the time and attestation testing of many contemporary NT scholars i.e. not said by the historical Jesus.
"More prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered." ?????
Bernard, this is about the Gospel of Judas that was just written (with the assistance of a heterodox Catholic priest and Bible scholar) by convicted and unrepentant perjurer Jeffrey Archer's Gospel of Judas. This isn't about the ancient Cainite forgery written in the 100s A.D. The only things the two works have in common are that they are both works of fiction, they both pretend to tell "the real story" of Jesus from the perspective of Judas Iscariot, they are both blasphemous and sacrilegious and heretical, and they are both complete and utter rubbish.
Other than that, they're very different works.
I think the gospel of Luke is best -- the image of JC is very human and warm -- very different from John who goes around saying I AM THE TRUTH and YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL. No mystic murk in Luke.
Instead of reading Archer, I suggest you read the new book by Dr. David Ranan. (Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church.)
This is serious analysis (and criticism) of the use and abuse of power by the Church, without any attempts to better the teaching.
I find some of the stuff hard to take but, at least, it's not science fiction.
Commenting by HaloScan
