In other words, the point doesn’t seem that subtle to me. And it seems pretty obvious that a lot of the claims of contemporary Biblical scholars lead us pretty rapidly and directly into heresy. But you may be right that this doesn’t seem as obvious in certain circles. Allen’s so often praised for his fair-mindedness, but he has his own blind spots, and this might tap into one of them.

A case in point: for well over a hundred years now, the idea that the traditions of the apostles were maintained in oral form for some period of time before some of them were written down is taken as sufficient to cast doubt on those writings (e.g., the Gospels). However, serious anthropological and sociological studies of oral transmission in “pre-literate” and “semi-literate” cultures (cultures where having a vast oral memory was highly valued, as in the Mediterranean in Christ’s time) are capable of passing on vast amounts of information with consistent accuracy over hundreds of years. The accuracy is far in excess of what transpires with the copying and reproduction of documents. To this day, in parts of Asia (even in Italy, with the reciters of Dante’s works) there are those whose sole living is to recite impossibly long epics. That’s not so amazing: what is amazing is that they are soon put out of business by their AUDIENCES if they forget a single thing—which means their audiences accurately remember these vast works, such as the Epic of Gesar (Tibetan) or the Koran, etc.

Then again, my impression from the line of questioning – “So did he succeed? Did he?” – was that he didn’t appreciate this point.

I think it’s a somewhat subtle point. We’re used to deferring to consensuses of all sorts, especially medical and scientific. I couldn’t say for sure, of course, but I imagine that the overwhelming weight of consensus is, in fact, with Vermes and not with a position like Benedict’s.

I’m also inclined to think that Biblical scholarship is a place where liberal Catholics feel especially entitled to strut their stuff. Since the demise of the bad old Pontifical Biblical Commission, as it existed under Pius X, a Catholic has been able to say pretty much whatever he wants about the Bible. In other words, I take Vermes as an ally of the sort of position that someone like Allen and his National Catholic Reporter crowd would endorse. Probably not all the way, but at least more along those lines than along Benedict’s lines.

It’s really a pretty good book (Ratzinger’s), from the perspective of traditional scholarship, not outstanding perhaps, but certainly offensive to the pieties of contemporary scholarship. Ambrosius and I have both read it. I recall that as far back as God and the World (a book length “conversation” between Peter Seewald and Joseph Ratzinger), Ratzinger was talking about the possiblity that John’s gospel was actually the oldest of all – he mentions this as a thesis, not which he accepts, but which can be reasonably supported, though the view is, needless to say, terribly unpopular.

The only thing I would say about your review, Iosephe, is that I’m not sure it’s fair to presume that Allen is himself so ignorant of the dynamic between the pope and the so-called contemporary Biblical scholars. He himself doesn’t say terribly much. Allen is a careful one; I wouldn’t say that I fully trust him to defend orthodox Catholic truth, and I don’t really know why he wanted to interview this Vermes guy in the first place when his views should have been fairly predictable as you say. Nonetheless, he may understand more than you give him credit for.