CONTEMPORARY CATHOLIC BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP: CERTITUDES OR HYPOTHESES?
                               A Commentary

Msgr. Michael J. Wrenn                                       January 8, 1988



         One of the axioms of contemporary Biblical scholarship is that the
exegesis  of  a  text  depends  on its dating.  The question of dating truly
conditions  our  understanding  of  the Gospels: at least insofar as what is
essential  to the text is concerned, witnesses were still very numerous when
they  were being composed and their statements could be verified.  They were
not  transmitting  their  imaginings  but  rather their testimonies.  In the
words  of  the  Prologue of the Gospel of St. Luke: "Many have undertaken to
compile  a  narrative  of  the events which have been fulfilled in our midst
*precisely  as  these  events  were  transmitted  to  us*  by  the  original
eyewitnesses  and  servants  of the word.  I, too, have carefully placed [or
been  carefully  informed  by  these witnesses] the whole sequence of events
from  the  beginning  and  I  have  decided  to  set  it  in writing to you,
Theophilus, so that Your Excellency may see how reliable the instruction was
that you received."

         Scholarly  introductions  to  the New Testament demonstrate that a
consensus  has  been  established among most Catholic scholars regarding the
dates  of  the  composition  of  the  Gospels.  For example, the majority of
scholars  place  the  composition of the Fourth Gospel toward the end of the
first  century  and  place  the Gospel of Matthew around 85.  They generally
place  the  Apocalypse [Revelations] and the Acts of the Apostles at the end
of the first century as well.

         But  in  1976  a  bomb  went  off  in  scholarly  circles with the
publication  of  the late Anglican Bishop John A.T. Robinson's "Redating the
New  Testament."  Robinson's book is not only scholarly, but it is extremely
amusing.   He  tells  us  that  for  a  long  time,  that  is,  up until the
respectable  age  which he has attained, he believed everything which he had
been  taught  in the field of historical-critical exegesis, everything which
the German school propounded.  And one day some years ago he asked himself a
simple  question,  one  of  those which are at the heart of major scientific
breakthroughs: "On what are the theses of the critical school, regardless of
the  dating  of  the composition of the Gospels *SCIENTIFICALLY* based?"  To
this  question,  posed in the cocktail hour of his life, Robinson was unable
to secure a response.  Being the good English Empiricist that he was, he set
about, in a scientific way, to look again at the entire matter of the dating
of the books of the New Testament.

         He  starts  with  a  very simple, evident, and startling fact.  No
text  in  any  book of the New Testament proves that a particular author had
been aware of that most startling event in the history of Judaism during the
first century of the Christian era - namely, the Taking of Jerusalem and its
destruction  by  the  Emperor  Titus  in the year 70 A.D.  In the entire New
Testament,  there  is not one word of commentary on this catastrophic event,
even  when  occasion  would have seemed to present an opportunity for it, or
even  tow arrant it, as for example with respect to Jesus' prophecies, which
forecast  the  destruction  of  the Temple of Jerusalem.  If the Greek texts
which report these prophecies, which could be read in Matthew, Mark or Luke,
had  been written *after* the destruction of Jerusalem, they would have been
followed by comments stressing that history had verified these prophecies.

         The  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  *constantly* concerned to show or to
emphasize  that  a  particular  ancient  prophecy is verified by the events.
This  would have been a golden opportunity to add a comment which would have
validated  the  sayings of Our Lord.  Everything, however, takes place as if
the  Four Gospels had been redacted as we read them today in Greek AT A TIME
WHEN THE TEMPLE WAS STILL STANDING. [Empasis by editor].

         Claude  Tresmontant, a distinguished scholar at the Sorbonne, sets
forth  his own views not only on the language but also the dating of the New
Testament,  and  provides  an  argument from archaeology to help confirm the
thesis of Robinson.  He observes, in his recently published work "The Hebrew

Christ,"  that  almost  all  scholars  tell  us  that  the Fourth Gospel was
redacted  around the end of the first century.  Yet we read in John 5:2 that
"there  IS (in Greek, 'estin') at Jerusalem, at the Sheep Gate, a pool named
in  Hebrew  'Bethzatha.' It has five porticoes." [Note once again the use of
the  *present* tense].  How do you conclude that around the end of the first
century  of  our  era  an author would have written "there IS at Jerusalem a
pool"  when  Jerusalem would have been destroyed some 25 or 30 years before,
reduced  to  a  heap  of  stones  with a Roman encampment, at the very time,
positioned  on  top  of  it?  If one referred to a monument which existed at
Hiroshima   before   the   destruction  of  1945  and  which  had  not  been
reconstructed,  one would not say there IS, but there WAS.  Moreover, during
this  century, there were actually *found* the remains or ruins of this pool
with  five  porticoes.   The  author  wrote in the present indicative [mood]
BECAUSE  THE POOL EXISTED WHEN HE WROTE.  The Gospel of Matthew was written,
therefore, before 70 A.D.


##MMR 2.45�.
         Catholic  exegetes  generally  think that the author of the Fourth
Gospel  is  John,  the son of Zebedee, the Galilean.  If he is the author of
the  "Fourth  Gospel"  and if he committed it to writing around the year 95,
then  that  would  make  him  about  95  years  of age.  How psychologically
improbable  that  John  would  have waited 65 years to commit to writing the
account  of  the events of which he had been an eyewitness.  We have only to
re-read the account of the cure of the man born blind from birth, in Chapter
9,  with  the dialogues which are found there.  We see quite well that these
scenes  have  been  set  down  immediately,  fresh,  warm in his memory with
amusing details of tremendous precision.  These are not the recollections of
a  man  95  years  of  age.   These  are  notes  which were set down as they
happened.

         Robinson  concludes his scholarly work with analysis regarding the
datings which are quite different from those which have commonly been taught
up until now.  He believes the Fourth Gospel was composed before 70 - in the
main, between 40 and 60.  He also places the Apocalypse before 70.

         Claude  Tresmontant,  in  his pioneering work, "The Hebrew Christ"
which  is  soon  to  appear in English, basing himself on arguments distinct
from  those  of  Robinson,  situates  the  GREEK translation of the original
Hebrew  of  the  Fourth Gospel around the years 36-40 and therefore prior to
the  dates  proposed  by  Robinson.   He situates the original Hebrew of the
Fourth  Gospel  before  its  translation into Greek and proposes reasons for
believing that in its present form, in GREEK, the Gospel of Matthew had been
composed  before  the end of the 40s.  But the original Hebrew or Aramaic is
of  course  before this time.  Now, hold on to your seats!  What Tresmontant
is  in  effect  saying  is  that  the  Gospels  as  we  have them are really
translations  -  which are actually not that late - of much earlier original
compositions  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  and  therefore  much  closer  to  the
'ipsissima verba Christi.'

         Tresmontant  is  not alone.  Until his unexpected death in October
of last year, the noted scholar of the Dead Sea scrolls and the world's most
renowned  expert  on the "Our Father," Father Jean Carmignac of Paris, whose
warmth, kindness and priestly friendship I will cherish until the day I die,
had  for  the last 20 years been working on the question of the language and
dating  of  the  Gospels.  Fortunately a number of his friends had prevailed
upon  him to write a popular description of his theories, which he did three
years  ago.  I was privileged to translate this work, which is entitled "The
Birth of the Synoptic Gospels."

         Father  Carmignac  was  a  philologist, an exceptionally competent
expert  in Biblical Hebrew.  He knew well the ravages that a particular type
of  contemporary exegesis was producing among priests and faithful.  For, if
the  Gospels  were later compositions, simply witnesses of the growing faith
of  the  earliest  Christian  communities,  Bultmann  was correct and so was
Loisy.   Yes,  indeed, as Father Carmignac once observed to me, if the Jesus
of  History  is practically unattainable, it is the Christ of Faith who very
quickly is rejected!


         One  day  some 20 years ago, Father Carmignac started to translate
the rather inelegant and ear-grating Greek of St. Mark's Gospel into Hebrew.
To  his astonishment, he did not encounter any real problems in retroversing
into  Hebrew.   As he relates, a certitude began to form within him:  "I was
convinced  that the Greek text of Mark could not have been redacted directly
in  Greek  and  that  it  was  in  reality  only the Greek translation of an
original  Hebrew....   The  Hebrew-Greek translation had transposed word for
word  and  had  even  preserved in Greek the order of the words preferred by
Hebrew  grammar."   Carmignac  continues:  "As my translation gradually took
shape,  my  conviction  was  reinforced:  even a Semite having learned Greek
later  on in life would not have permitted the stamp of his mother tongue to
come  through;  he  would  have, from time to time at least, made use of the
expression current in Greek.  But no.  We have here the literal, carbon copy
or  transparency  of  a  translator  attempting  to respect, to the greatest
extent possible, the Hebrew text which he had in front of him."

         In  order  to  bolster  further his position, Carmignac sifted out
into  nine categories the hundreds of Semitisms in the Gospels: Semitisms of
borrowing,  of imitation, of thought, of vocabulary, of syntax, of style, of
composition, of translation, and of transmission.  (An example of a Semitism
of  transmission  would  be  that  of  a  copyist's mistake as a result of a
similarity in Hebrew between consonants.)

         Carmignac  gives  a  number  of  demonstrations of Hebrew 'play on
words' in the text.  What follows is a quote in which he attempts to give us
an  example  of  play  on  words  which  Hebrew  had  a great preference for
employing,  taking  great  pleasure  in  making reference to similar sounds,
thereby facilitating the task of memorization.


              "The Benedictus, reproduced in Luke 1:68-79, is composed
    of three strophes, each having seven stichs; the first begins with
    the Biblical and Qumranian formula, 'Blessed (be) the Lord the God
    of Israel'; the third begins, as frequently is the case at Qumran,
    with  a  personal pronoun: 'And you, child'; the second has in its
    first  stich:  'to  show  mercy  to  our  fathers,'  in  which the
    expression  'to  show mercy' translated the verb 'hanan', which is
    the root of 'Yohanan' (=John); then follows the second stick, 'and
    he   remembers   his  holy  covenant,'  in  which  'he  remembers'
    translates  the  verb  'zakar,'  which  is  the root of 'Zakaryah'
    (=Zachary);  then the third stich; 'the oath which he swore to our
    father  Abraham,'  uses,  in two different forms, the root 'shaba'
    (to  swear, or to take an oath), which is the root of 'Elishabaat'
    (=Elizabeth).   Is  it  by  chance that the second strophe of this
    poem  begins  by  a  triple  allusion  to  the  names of the three
    protagonists:  John, Zachary, Elizabeth?  But this allusion exists
    only  in  Hebrew,  and  the  Greek or English translation does not
    preserve it."

         Moreover,  Father  Carmignac  maintains  that  the  destruction of
Palestine  by the Romans in the year 70 prevents us from supposing that such
documents  as  the  Gospels  could  possibly  have been produced *after* the
dispersion  of  the  community  for  which  they  were  originally intended.
Carmignac   also  discovered  that  since  the  15th  century  the  same  80
retroversions  of  the  Gospels  had  been  made  into Hebrew by a number of
scholars in different parts of the world.

         The  little  treatise  "The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels" which I
was  honoured  to translate is an introduction to his discovery and the five
major  works  of  retroversion  which  he  managed  to  publish  before  his
unexpected  death.   He  once observed to me his conviction that by the year
2000  scriptural  scholarship  will  start with the Hebrew or Aramaic rather
than the Greek.  "Sooner or later, specialists will be hit right between the
eyes and see themselves like me staring directly at the very backdrop of the
Gospels."

         What  follows  are  the  provisional  results  of  his 20 years of
research on the formation of the Synoptic Gospels:

              1.    It  is  *certain*  that  Mark,  Matthew,  and  the
    documents used by Luke were redacted in a Semitic language.

              2.   It  is  *probable*  that  this  Semitic language is
    Hebrew, rather than Aramaic.

              3.  It is *sufficiently probable* that our Second Gospel
    was composed in a Semitic language by St. Peter the Apostle.

              4.   It  is  *possible*  that  St. Matthew, the Apostle,
    redacted  the  COLLECTIONS  of discourses, or that he redacted the
    COMMON SOURCE utilized by our First and Third Gospels.

              5.   Utilizing  internal evidence in the Epistles of St.
    Paul,  Father Carmignac next presents a very interesting and novel
    *hypothesis* regarding the dating of the Gospels.

         In  the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul speaks in 8:18
of  a  person  whom  he  describes  thus: "the brother whom all the Churches
praise  for  his  preaching  of  the  Gospel."   If  it is a question of the
preaching  of  the Gospels, this would not be a distinctive designation, for
it  would  apply  to  all  the collaborators of St. Paul.  In order that the
Gospel  be a motive for special recognition throughout alll the Churches and
characterize  one  brother  from  all  of  the others, isn't it because this
brother,  alone of all the others, is the author of a Gospel?  Thus it would
have  been  "spread  throughout  all  the Churches."  Many commentators have
understood  this  allusion  of  St.  Paul in this way, beginning with Origen
(cited  by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book 6, Chapter 25,
#6).

         This  text  of  St.  Paul  is unfortunately not explicit enough to
warrant  being considered a final argument, but it constitutes, at least, an
indication which is worth not forgetting.

              6.   Even if the indication of the Second Epistle to the
    Corinthians  (which  would  not  be viewed as scientific) is taken
    into account, it is beyond the limit of probability to situate the
    redaction  of  Luke  in  Greek  later  than the years 58-60; it is
    beyond the limits of probability to place the final redaction in a
    Semitic  language  of our First Gospel much later than Luke; it is
    beyond  the  limits  of  probability  to  place the redaction in a
    Semitic  language  of our Second Gospel much later than around the
    year  50,  and equally beyond the limits of probability if account
    is   taken  of  the  indication  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  the
    Corinthians (which would be viewed as more scientific), to situate
    the  redaction  of Luke in Greek later than the years 50-53; it is
    beyond  the  limits  of  probability  to  situate  the  definitive
    redaction  in  a  Semitic  language of our First Gospel much later
    than  Luke;  it is beyond the limits of probability to situate the
    redaction  in  a  Semitic language of our Second Gospel much later
    than around the years 42-45.


              7.   It  is  *probable* that the Semitic Gospel of Peter
    was translated into Greek, perhaps with some adaptations, by Mark,
    in  Rome,  at  the  latest  around  the year 63.  It is our Second
    Gospel  which has preserved the name of its translator, instead of
    its author.

         As  for  external evidence, Father Carmignac refers to the Witness
of  Papias.   Toward  the  middle  of  the  reign of Trajan (98-117), Papias
composed  a  treatise  of five books entitled "Exegeses (or Explanations) of
the  Words  of  the  Lord."   We  no  longer  possess  anything except a few
fragments  of  this  work  -  so  valuable  because of its antiquity.  These
fragments  are preserved in the "History of the Church" written by Eusebius.
What  follows  are two texts relative to Mark, which are taken directly from
Eusebius  and  which, for the sake of convenience, we will call "Text A" and
"Text  B."   The  first,  Text  A,  is  taken  from Book 2, which covers the

earliest  Christian  history  from the Ascension to the end of Nero's reign,
from  30 to 68 A.D.  In Chapter 14, Eusebius recounts how Peter came to Rome
to  preach  the  good  news  during  the reign of Claudius (41-54) and there
confronted  Simon  the  Magician.  The chapter has as its title, "The Gospel
According to Mark."

         "So brightly shone the light of piety in the minds of Peter's
    hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the real
    teaching of the divine message,  they resorted to appeals of every
    kind to induce Mark, whose Gospel has come down to us, as he was a
    follower  of  Peter,  to leave  them  in writing a summary of  the
    teachings which Peter had transmitted to them orally, nor did they
    cease until they had persuaded him and thus became responsible for
    the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark."

         What   follows  is  the second fragment of Papias contained in the
History of the  Church  by  Eusebius  -  what we have referred to as Text B.
Papias is quoted as saying:

              "And  this  is  what [John] the Presbyter  used  to  say:
    'Mark,   who  had been  with  Peter's  interpreter,    wrote   down
    *carefully,   but  not always in order*,   all the things which  he
    remembered to have been *said* or *done* by the Lord."

              For  [here  Papias  is again speaking] Mark did not  hear
    the  Lord,   nor did he accompany him,  but later,  as I said,   he
    accompanied Peter.   Peter used  to give his instructions according
    to  needs  [adapt  his teaching to the  occasion],    but   without
    making  a  systematic  arrangement  of  the Lord's sayings, so that
    Mark,   having written down these things as he recalled them,  made
    no  mistake; he had actually one sole concern; to omit nothing that
    he had heard and to falsify nothing."

         That   is  what  Papias  reports regarding Mark  (History  of  the
church," Book 3, Chapter 39, 14-50).

         Moreover, Eusebius tells us:

              "It   is  said that,  on learning by revelation from  the
    Spirit  what  had happened,  the Apostle [Peter] was  delighted  at
    their  zeal  and enthusiasm [referring  to the  fact  that  Peter's
    hearers  had  induced  Mark to set down in writing  a   summary  of
    teachings which Peter had transmitted to them orally, mentioned  in
    Text  A] and that he [Peter] authorized the reading of the book  in
    the    assemblies.     Clement   of   Alexandria    reports    this
    information in "Outlines,"   Book  6, and the Bishop of Hieropolis,
    Papias,   confirms  this by his own testimony."   [History  of  the
    Church, 11,15,1-2].

              "We have,  therefore, in this instance, in the witness of
    Papias,  a  testimony  going  back  to  the  very beginning of  the
    Second  Century,   which attests  that  Mark  had   written  before
    Peter's death;  it is known that the apostle  [Peter]  was martyred
    during  the  persecution of Nero which followed shortly  after  the
    burning of Rome in 64 A.D."

         Father  Carmignac also studied the writings of Origen, Tertullian,
Irenaeus,   Clement,    and shows that there is no need to  break  with  the
earliest tradition,  and to call into question the apostolic authenticity of
the Gospels.

         Thanks   to   the  efforts of Father Carmignac,   a   further  new
indication  of  the antiquity of the Gospels is in the process  of  becoming
established.  Prior to the year 50,  Christians  from  Judaic  circles  were
only  able  to express the message of Jesus Christ  in  Aramaic  or  Hebrew,
and it is this primitive message which constitutes the basis for the  gospel
documents.

         Time   does   not allow us to go into other  considerations  which
bear  upon  the  dating   of   the gospel texts  and  therefore  upon  their
historical  accuracy.   Suffice it to  say  that  there  is renewed interest
in  the study of oral tradition as this would have affected the  composition
of the Gospels.


         Father  Jousse,   in  1925,  published an astonishing work,  "Oral
Rhythmic and Memory-Building  Techniques,"  by which even Loisy would become
interested in Jousse's thesis,   whereby  the  oral  tradition  of  a  great
deal  of  the gospel becomes a very plausible and probably  well-established
fact.

         Research  shows that,  as a pedagogical method,  learning by heart
plays a key role in the three Jewish institutions of popular education:  the
family,    the  synagogue,   and  the  elementary  school.     Chanting   or
'cantillation'  and memory-building devices and drills  were  part  of  this
'culture of memory.'  In his study of the oral style of the Gospels,  Jousse
shed light on the rhythmic processes employed by Jesus and preserved by  the
earliest Christian recitators!

         In   1957,    at  the  Oxford Congress on the Four  Gospels,   the
eminent  Swedish  specialist   in  the  New  Testament,    H.    Riesenfeld,
maintained  that  not only was the Gospel  tradition  prior  to  the  Easter
event - therefore going back to Jesus Himself -but that:

              "In   the   Gospels  we  are  shown  very  clearly   that
    Jesus was a teacher,   especially in His relation to His disciples.
    This means more than His  mere  preaching  in  their presence.   He
    gave  them  instructions,   and in this  we  are  reminded  of  the
    methods  of  the Jewish rabbi,  and that implies that  Jesus   made
    His   disciples,    and   above   all  the  Twelve,   learn,   *and
    furthermore,    that  He made them learn by heart*"   ["The  Gospel
    Tradition," p. 22].

         In   the  light  of  a  number  of  new  hypotheses set  forth  in
the works of Carmignac,  Tresmontant and Bishop John A.T. Robinson, allow me
to raise the following questions,  which, even if these authors had not been
cited, most people in a state of doubt would answer in the negative.

              1.     Is  it  scientifically *proven*  that the  Gospels
    were written quite  late,   toward the end of the first century and
    after the years 66-70? No!

              2.     Is  it  *proven*   that  a  lengthy  (from   40-60
    years) oral transmission  of  the  essential elements of the Gospel
    needed to take place before they were committed to writing? No!

              3.   With  respect  to the two previous assertions, is it
    *proven*   that   a   major  problem   would  exist  regarding  the
    accuracy of the deeds and words of the Lord Jesus Christ because of
    oral tradition? No!

              4.     Is  it *proven*  that,  if the  Gospels  had  been
    transmitted  only  orally,  there would have been a damage  to  the
    Faith? No!

              5.   Is  it  *proven*   that Christian communities during
    the years between 70 and 90 A.D. altered, in the light of their own
    particular problems some  of  the  words  of  Christ which had been
    handed  down  in  order  to  have Christ   say  things  capable  of
    justifying the practices of these communities? No!

              6.   Is it *proven* that the Gospel According to John was
    the  last to  be  written  because  it  is  the most spiritual  and
    apparently the most finely- wrought?  No!

         In   the   light  of  this  demand  for certain proofs,  isn't  it
also  wise and scientific  to propose other hypotheses dependent upon  a  no
less  attentive reading and based upon the obvious Hebrew substratum of  our
Greek texts?

         For  example, why wouldn't the majority of passages in our Gospels
have  been written,  at least in bits and pieces if not all their  essential
elements,   a   short time after - if not even during - the earthly life  of
Jesus?

         Furthermore,   since the apostles began to preach the Good News of
Jesus  when the  Holy  Spirit came upon them on the Day of  Pentecost,   why
would  they be prohibited from  committing to writing the essential elements
of their preaching over a period of several decades?

         Why   would  their  hearers  have formally abstained  from  taking
notes during these  years?    And why, all of a sudden,  would this activity
of  committing  to  writing have been set in motion simultaneously  in  very
different places, but according to very similar styles?


         Why   would  there not have been a simultaneity between  the  oral
transmission (especially  preaching)   and  the  writing  down  of a certain
number of accounts,  and words,  as well as the major narratives such as the
Passion  and Resurrection - and this being  done  in very Jewish  categories
in  the cultural presence of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament,  in  the
everyday language of Hebrew and Aramaic?

         Thus,  we can also say that between the years 30 and 65, there was
already a certain  form of sporadic persecution coming from Jewish  circles,
though  this does not mean  that there was already a complete break  between
the synagogue and the "New Way."  This is more in line with the position  of
the  Gospels  having  been  written *before*  the year   60   -   the  Roman
persecution  beginning in full force in the year 64.   The writings of   the
New  Testament  rarely  point the finger at the Romans,  but  always  do  so
against the adherents of the Mosaic religion.

         Given   the hypothesis of a lengthy,  purely  oral,   transmission
before finally being  written  down  after  the  seventies,   we  are  still
permitted  to  present the hypothesis  of  an  oral   transmission   running
alongside  the redaction in Hebrew of partial  texts  during  the  thirties.
Gradually,  these texts would be employed as the basic  ingredients  at  the
very  center of the redaction of each Gospel,  essentially completed  before
the   years  60  to 65.   The entire corpus would have been translated  into
Greek   in  order to respond to the needs of new Christians coming from  the
Greek and Roman worlds.

         In  the  light  of  these various hypotheses,  the scientific test
or  control must  examine  which  functions  the  best  and   which   avoids
the greatest number of objections.

         It   is   not anti-scientific to think that the hypothesis of  the
lengthy  oral transmission  lacks  genuine  proofs and is fraught with  many
difficulties.   It is not anti-scientific  to claim that the hypotheses of a
short  oral transmission and a rapid writing  down  of the accounts or words
of  Jesus,   shortly after the events,  find solid  foundations  through  an
examination of the Greek text and its retroversion into Hebrew.

         In   a   recently   published  work  entitled  "Un   Homme   Nomme
Salut,"   Madame  Jacqueline  Genot-Bismuth,   who  occupies  the  Chair  of
Ancient and Medieval Judaism at the  Sorbonne,   ably  demonstrates that  in
the  scientific  discipline  which is critical  exegesis,    certain   major
errors   have  been taught for generations,  and have totally falsified  our
understanding   of   Christian  origins.   Since the beginning of  the  19th
century,   for  example,   it  was  commonly  taught that the Gospel of John
was a later composition  under  Hellenistic,   Gnostic or Iranian influence.
Madame  Genot-Bismuth,   through  her  exceptional  knowledge  of  the  most
ancient rabbinic literature,  makes a solid  case  for  the Gospel of John's
being  a *script*,  the translation into Greek of notes taken in  Hebrew  of
John who was a Kohen (a priest).

         Utilizing a wealth of details, she demonstrates that the Gospel of
John  is  a  contemporary  collection  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Rabbi
Yeshua.    Where  the German exegetes  of  the  nineteenth century saw  only
fiction and mythology, she re-discovers history!

         A    profound   disregard   for  the  Judean  ethnic   milieu   or
environment  explains  the   length of time that these errors have  been  in
vogue.    This disregard is due to an ingrained  attitude  of  despisal  and
detestation  of Judaism,  which are constants in German   philosophy,    the
mistress  of  German critical exegesis accepted by the majority of  exegetes
since  Renan and Loisy.   The book of Madame Genot-Bismuth will constitute a
revolution regarding our knowledge of Christian beginnings.

         There   is   a   new   Apologetic   making   its   appearance   in
Catholic  Biblical  circles.    Apologetics used to be a defense  of  Church
doctrine  aganst the Protestants,  who  used  historical-critical   exegesis
as   a weapon against the Church.   That's the *old*  apologetics.   The new
apologetics  is the defense of Catholic historical-critical exegetes,    who
learn their methodology from Protestants, against attacks by Catholics.

         In  France,   this  apologetics is reflected in the work of Father
Grelot  entitled  "The  Gospels in Apostolic Tradition:   Reflections  on  a
Certain Hebrew Christ."

         Besides   being  an  apologetical  defense  against  Tresmontant's
thesis, it also seeks  to  respond  to  Father  Carmignac and to Father Rene
Laurentin's  "The Truth of Christmas  Beyond  the Myths:  The Gospels of the
Infancy of Christ."  English-language examples  of  this new apologetics are
Jerome Murphy-  O'Connor's "Again Under Attack."  "The  Bible Today,"  March
1984; "Danger Also From the Left," Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, S.J. and  Raymond E.
Brown.    "The Bible Today,"  May 1985;  and "Biblical Exegesis  and  Church
Doctrine"   by  Raymond  E. Brown, Paulist Press, 1985.   In this last-named
work,   Brown  continues   the   fiercely   polemical   attack   on   Father
Laurentin  which  he launched on September  29,   1984,    at  the  Catholic
University  of  America.   The rapidity with which this body  of  apologetic
writing  was  formed and the eminence of  the  historical-critical  exegetes
called  upon  to  make  the  defense  indicates  that defense is a matter of
considerable urgency in the historical-critical exegetical camp.

         Some   sort of crisis seems to be at hand for  historical-critical
exegesis  as  this   methodology  is  being  practiced   in   the   Catholic
Church.    Might  some  of  the  apologetic   defenses   by   the   Catholic
historical-critical  exegetes just mentioned be motivated,   not  by  purely
scientific motives, but rather by that feeling of dread and worry  that must
come  into the minds of theoreticians when they see their own  theories  and
hypotheses *seriously* and *scientifically* threatened?

         But   there   are  signs  of  hope.     Recently,    a    mutually
vituperative and polemical  exchange  between  Father Grelot and Mr.  Pierre
Debray  in  a French Catholic weekly has given way to  a  reconciliation  of
views  between these two gentlemen who were in  agreement that,  yes,   this
Catholic  layman's  concern  about  the  hypotheses  being  set  forth    as
scientific   facts were indeed something that could cause - and had caused -
tremendous  difficulty  in  France  and elsewhere.  In short,  both of these
men agreed that "HYPOTHESES SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED AS CERTITUDES."

                                   FINIS

                        (Reprinted with permission)

Courtesy of Catholic Information Network BBS (CIN), San Diego, 619-287-5828

Provided by:

       The Catholic Resource Network
       Trinity Communications
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336

  The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
  service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
  bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
  -------------------------------------------------------------------