Louvain Studies 40 (2017): 170-183 doi: 10.2143/LS.40.2.3220913 © 2017 by Louvain Studies, all rights reserved

The Proclamation of Truth between Exclusivity and Inclusivity A Critical Analysis of the Use of :6 in Vatican II

Ma. Marilou S. Ibita

Abstract. — One of the prevailing contexts leading to Vatican II was the increasing impact of historical-critical exegesis on the way of theologizing in the Church. This paper concentrates on the theme of the proclamation of the truth and the use of biblical warrants in Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes. It asks if the use of the phrase “via et et vita” in these documents is justified in view of the Johannine literary and historical contexts. It suggests that in the light of the com- munal and farewell meal context, ’ claim, “ the way and the truth and the life,” underscores his exclusive role in the Johannine community and affirms group identity while it also potentially provides an opening for inclusivity by means of the recognition of otherness.

One of the influential paradigm shifts at the background of Vatican II was the developing and increasing use of historical-critical methods in the interpretation of biblical texts.1 Although more prominent outside of Catholic biblical scholarship to the Council, the insights brought about by the scientific study of the and the challenges associated with it were also impacting various areas of theology and the way the- ologizing was being done within the . This paper focuses on the theme of the proclamation of the truth and the use of biblical warrants2 in Nostra Aetate (promulgated on October 28, 1965) and

1. See Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak, eds., History of Vatican II. 1: Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II: Toward a New Era in Catholicism (Leu- ven: Peeters, 1995), 272-285; Maureen Sullivan, The Road to Vatican II: Key Changes in Theology (New York: Paulist, 2007), 4-8; John W. O’Malley, “Introduction,” in Vatican II: Did Anything Happen?, ed. David G. Schultenover (New York: Continuum, 2008), 1-23, specially pp. 14-16. 2. See Reimund Bieringer, “Annoncer la vie éternelle (1 Jn 1,2): L’interprétation de la Bible dans les textes officiels de l’Église Catholique Romaine,” Revue Théologique de Louvain 37, no. 4 (2006): 489-512, p. 491. Bieringer shows that the the proclamation of truth 171

Ad Gentes (promulgated on December 7, 1965) particularly John 14:6 as found in NA 2 and AG 8 and 13.

I. ‘Truth’ in Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes

Without delving into an extensive analysis of the conciliar documents’ complicated genesis, it is interesting to note that the word ‘truth’3 was not part of the earlier drafts of Nostra Aetate. The word ‘truth’ only began to appear from the September 25, 1964 draft, “On the Jews and Non-Christians,” written by the Coordinating Commission. This document mentions ‘truth’ twice in the following contexts: Impelled by such love for our brothers, let us consider with great diligence views and doctrines which, though in many points are dif- ferent from ours, in so many ways, however, carry the ray of that truth which gives light to every person born into this world. (…) it enjoins them, moreover, to love not only the neighbor, but even the enemies, should they think they have any, so that they should be in truth the sons of the Father who is in heaven and who makes his sun rise over all (cf. Mt. 5,44-45).4 The addition of “radium illius veritatis” to the draft seems to reflect Paul VI’s respectful and inclusive approach to world religions already evident in his Ecclesiam Suam (nos. 107-108, August 6, 1964).5 This phrase was the subject of deliberations in the Council.6 is referred to more than the First Testament and John’s Gospel is the source of most quotations. 3. The original of the conciliar documents uses veritas and cites from the , the New Testament employs the Greek ἀληθεία and the English versions translate these words as truth. A deeper study can further nuance the similarities and differences of these words. This paper, however, treats them as equivalents because the translations of the Bible and conciliar documents do so. 4. See http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman- catholic/second-vatican-council/na-drafts/1027-draft1964sept-1 (accessed 10/11/2015). 5. See Thomas Roddey, Das Verhältnis der Kirche zu den nichtchristlichen Reli- gionen: Die Erklärung Nostra aetate des zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils und ihre Rezeption durch das kirchliche Lehramt, Paderborner theologische Studien 45 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2005), 36-37. 6. for example, see the text from the conciliar fathers’ discussion on September 28, 1964, Joseph Cardinal Frings ( of Cologne, Germany), http://www.ccjr. us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/second-vatican-coun- cil/na-debate/992-v21964sept28 (accessed 11/11/2015). Likewise, see the texts of the council fathers on September 29, 1964: Lawrence Satoshi Nagae (Bishop of Saitama, ) see http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman- catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/1004-v2-1964sept29a; John Carmel Heenan 172 ma. marilou s. ibita

In the penultimate draft “Declaration on the Church’s Relationship to Non-Christian Religions” on November 18, 1964, the “ray of that truth” phrase continues to be a part but the second ‘truth’ phrase is dropped. Instead, a citation from John 14:6 comes before the sentence containing the phrase “ray of that truth.” The Catholic Church rejects nothing in these religions that is true and holy. For ceaselessly she proclaims Christ, “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14, 6), in whom God reconciled all things to Himself (cf. 2 Cor. 15, 19). Having learned of various paths of salva- tion (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer, IV, 28, 2; PG 7, 1062), she regards with sincere reverence those ways of action and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though different from the ones she sets forth, reflect nonetheless a ray of that Truth which enlightens all human beings.7 In the final version of Nostra Aetate, ‘truth’ is employed thrice. It is dif- ferently used in NA 2 (twice) and in NA 4 (once). After talking positively about Hinduism and Buddhism, which are much older than , and other religions found in the entire world, ‘truth’ is first mentioned in NA 2: The catholic church rejects nothing of those things which are true and holy in these religions. It regards with respect those ways of act- ing and living and those precepts and teachings which, though often at variance with what it holds and expounds, frequently reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens everyone. Yet, without ceasing, it preaches, and is bound to preach, Christ who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom people find the fullness of reli- gious life and in whom God has reconciled all things to himself.8 Although without explicit biblical citation connected to it, a synthetic reading of the document shows that “a ray of that truth which enlightens everyone” most probably alludes to :9: “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.”9 Yet instead of ‘true

(Archbishop of Westminster, United Kingdom) and Joseph Parecattil (Archbishop of , ), see http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-state- ments/roman-catholic/second-vatican-council/na-debate/1020-v21964sept29b (accessed 11/11/2015). 7. See http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman- catholic/second-vatican-council/na-drafts/1028-1964nov (accessed 11/11/2015). 8. Citations for Nostra Aetate are based on Norman P. Tanner and Giuseppe Albe­ rigo, eds., “Declaratio de ecclesiae habitudine ad religiones non-christianas/Declaration on the Church’s Relation to Non-Christian Religions,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 968-971, p. 969, no. 2. 9. Biblical citations are from Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, eds., The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). the proclamation of truth 173 light’, NA 2 has ‘truth’, implicitly introducing Christ who has not yet been mentioned in Nostra Aetate but is explicitly referred to immediately in the next sentence. In contrast with the penultimate draft, NA 2 quotes the three-fold predicate complement of the “I am” saying in John 14:6,10 “via et veritas et vita” after the phrase “ray of that truth” in other religions was affirmed and in the context of the need for explicit proclamation. According to John M. Oesterreicher, the addition of John 14:6 in the draft was to respond to the concerns of some fathers that the positive appreciation of other religions would slip into a relativistic attitude.11 Given this explanation, it is, however, very notable that the intensifica- tion of the exclusive Christological claim provided by John 14:6b is absent. Instead, Christ’s unique role is asserted in seemingly more inclu- sive language as the sentence continues that it is in Christ “in whom people find the fullness of religious life and in whom God has reconciled all things to himself,” cross-referencing 2 Cor 5:18-19. ‘Truth’ appears anew in NA 4 without explicit link to a specific biblical text. After it deals with the renewal of Jewish and Christian rela- tions based on Rom 9:4-5,12 next to a critical note on :6 (the chief priests and their officials urging Jesus’ crucifixion) and after it clarifies that “those things which were perpetrated during his passion cannot be ascribed indiscriminately to all the Jews living at the time nor to the Jews of today,” NA 4 commands: Although the church is the new , the Jews should not be presented as rejected by God or accursed, as if that follows from holy scriptures. All should therefore take care that in holding reli- gious instruction and preaching the word of God, they teach nothing which is not in keeping with the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

10. See http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman- catholic/second-vatican-council/na-drafts/1028-1964nov (accessed 11/11/2015). 11. See John M. Oesterreicher, “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to the Non-Christian Religions,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, trans. Simon and Erika Young and Hilda Graef, vol. III (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 1-136, p. 90. 12. See Gerald O’Collins, The Second Vatican Council: Message and Meaning (­Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2014), 198. O’Collins writes: “Before Vatican II, no ecumenical council had ever cited Romans 9:4-5 and 11:28-29. The Council found its scriptural warrant in the classical texts of Paul about God’s irrevocable election of Israel. In the longer treatment of the Jewish people that appeared a year later in Nostra Aetate, the Council once again quoted 9:4-5 (no. 4), and in a reference to Romans 11:28-29 recalled the use of that verse in 16 (NA 4 n. 11).” The additional explicit citation is from Zeph 3:9. 174 ma. marilou s. ibita

This third and final use, “the truth of the Gospel” (cf. veritate evangelica), was lacking in the earlier drafts. It is a generalized abstraction, without any reference to any biblical text particularly in John where the theme of truth is mostly found.13 If this is an explicit ‘omission’, NA 4 poten- tially avoids the difficulties found in the relationship between Jesus (and his disciples) and the ‘Jews’ in John’s Gospel, particularly in relation to truth and God’s revelation.14 In sum, in the context of discussing non-Christian religions in Nos- tra Aetate, the document’s recognition of the “ray of that truth which enlightens everyone” in the different religions sets the tone. While the citation of John 14:6a helps to check potential relativism, the exclusive- ness conveyed by the metaphor of the way in v. 6b is not picked up. Instead the metaphor of the ray of truth enlightening everyone is con- nected with the metaphor of truth in 14:6. The verb ‘enlighten’ is inten- sified by conflating the metaphor of true light (John 1:9) with the truth (John 14:6a). The combined effect affirms the non-Christian religions, albeit as ‘ray of that truth’, while it upholds the centrality of Christ’s characterization as the truth. Considering Ad Gentes,15 ‘truth’ is employed twelve times. It appears once in the plural, “moral truths” (veritates religiosas et morales, AG 12), while the others are in the singular. Eleven are found in the body and one in note 48 of AG 8 which cites Irenaeus’ Against Heretics III, 15 (Veritates fuerunt praedicatores…).16 Among the singular, non-biblical uses in the main text, ‘truth’ in AG 1 comes from Augustine’s Exposition on Ps 44 (verbum veritatis). AG 8 speaks of “the truth about their total calling” (vocationis veritatem) while AG 11 speaks of “truth and love God has revealed” (veritatis et caritatis).

13. ἀληθεία appears 23× in John: 1:14, 17; 3:21; 4:23, 24; 5:33; 8:32, 40, 44 [2×], 45, 46: 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:7, 13 [2×]; 17:17, 19 [2×]; 18:37, 38. 14. See, for example, the discussions in Reimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, eds., Anti- and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, Jewish and Christian Heritage Series 1 (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001). 15. For the history of the text, see Suso Brechter, “Decree on the Church’s ­Missionary Activity,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Herbert ­Vorgrimler, vol. IV (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 87-181; Stephen B. Bevans and Jeffrey Gros, Evangelization and Religious Freedom: Ad Gentes, Dignitatis Humanae, Rediscovering Vatican II (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2009), 3-55. The text of Ad Gentes comes from Norman P. Tanner and Giuseppe Alberigo, eds., “Decretum de Activitate Missionali ecclesia/Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church,” in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 1011-1042. 16. Tanner and Alberigo, “Ad Gentes,” 1018. the proclamation of truth 175

Regarding the biblical warrants, apart from 1 Tim 2:4 in AG 7 and 42, most come from John. AG 3 explicitly cites the source of “full of grace and of truth (Jn 1,14)…” (plenus gratiae et veritatis). AG 8 recalls a part of John 14:6a even if there is no explicit biblical reference and the word ‘life’ is missing (“Ipse Christus est veritas atque via…”). This phrase is connected with preaching and with the proclamation of the Gospel to everyone which transcends races and nations. It is presented in an inclu- sive way. Yet the succeeding citation from Mark about repentance and belief in the Gospel is ambivalent: it is inclusive in that it invites every- one, but it is exclusive because one has to repent and believe in the Gospel, implying conversion from what one used to have. The exclusiv- ity is further underscored by the next sentence that recalls :18: “Since, however, the person who does not believe is already judged, the words of Christ are at one and the same time words of judgment and of grace, of death and of life.” Inclusivity is likewise palpable in AG 9: Whatever truth and grace are already to be found among peoples – a secret presence of God, so to speak – it frees from evil infections and restores to Christ their source, who overthrows the dominion of the devil and wards off the manifold malice of evil-doing. Accordingly, whatever good is found to be sown in the hearts and minds of human beings or in the particular rites and cultures of peoples, not only does not perish, but is healed, elevated, and perfected, to the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of humankind. The phrase “truth and grace” (veritatis et gratiae) reminds one of John 1:14 (“full of grace and truth“) although the order is reversed. The inclu- sivity also seems to expand with the discussion of “whatever good…” Yet the sense of Christ’s primacy is also underscored in the rest of the sentence. This same trajectory continues with the more explicit cross- reference in :23,17 “Deus adoratur in spiritu et veritate” at the end of AG 9. Unlike the incomplete reference to John 14:6 in AG 8 (“Christ himself is the truth and the way”), AG 13 explicitly cites John 14:6a (via, veritas, et vita), along with other biblical references, in the context of

17. See Benny Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Contribu- tions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 46 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). He discusses the pericope in connection with interreligious relations especially Judaism and John’s replace- ment theology in 4:24. Thettayil describes John’s approach towards the Jews as annula- tionist and supersessionist (52, 480, 429-471). 176 ma. marilou s. ibita conversion: “… that non-Christians … may in faith freely turn to the Lord and sincerely cleave to him who, since he is ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (Jn 14,6), fulfills all their spiritual expectations, and indeed infinitely surpasses them.” While John 14:6a in NA 2 is found in the midst of a positive regard of the non-Christian religion and the need to proclaim Christ, in AG 13 the context is not only the proclamation of Christ characterized as such but also includes the relationship of converts with him. In sum, focusing on the theme of truth in Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes, the conciliar documents use the word ‘truth’ in various ways. Considering the biblical warrants, they tend to use mostly John’s Gos- pel.18 In particular, both NA 2 and AG 8 and 13 employ John 14:6a as a common source. The various citations express a tension between inclu- sivity and exclusivity. Jesus as the truth is inclusive insofar as the other non-Christian religions reflect a “ray of that truth which enlightens eve- ryone” but it is exclusive in upholding Jesus’ primacy as the truth which needs to be proclaimed (NA, AG) and with whom converts will cleave (AG). Is using this text justified for official documents that advance Catholics’ relations with non-Christians and the Church’s mission in view of proclaiming the truth?

II. John 14:6: Some Exegetical Notes

Considering the biblical warrants used in Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes, Reimund Bieringer’s findings show that official Roman Catholic docu- ments (conciliar texts, encyclical letters, pastoral letters, catechisms, etc.) are replete with Scripture passages but they are referred to in various ways: direct quotes (from a few words up to a few verses), paraphrase, allusion or cited as reference introduced by “cf.” (leaving it up to the reader to determine whether the link is by allusion, paraphrase or cross reference).19 The function of biblical quotes also varies in their respective contexts: as support for a doctrinal proposition, a record of God’s saving action in history, or as a vision of full communion with God and neighbor.20 The citation in NA 2 and AG 8 and 13 is only a part of the full text of John 14:6 which reads: “Jesus said to him [Thomas], ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except

18. See Bieringer, “Annoncer la vie éternelle,” 491. 19. See ibid., 1. 20. Ibid., 493-506. the proclamation of truth 177 through me’.” The conciliar citations do not refer to its literary context in John. Instead, John 14:6a is used alongside other biblical texts which altogether function as warrants to various claims. Thus, the employment of John 14:6a in NA 2 and AG 8 and 13 exemplifies a direct but incom- plete quote used to express a doctrinal proposition with regard to the way Catholics view Jesus Christ in relation to non-Christian religions and the mission of the church. Is this usage justified in view of the goals of Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes? Before answering this question, there is a need to consider John 14:6 in its literary and historical contexts. Truth is an important theme in John.21 John 14:6 is the fourteenth occurrence out of 24 in the whole Gospel. Almost all come from Jesus’ mouth except those from the narrator’s prologue (John 1:14 and 17) and Pilate’s question (18:38). Apart from those employed in conversation with others (see 3:21, ; 4:23-24, Samaritan woman; 18:37, Pilate; and 17:172, 19, Father), most of Jesus’ declarations about truth are addressed to the Jews (5:33; 8:32; 8:40, 44, 45, 46) and to his dis- ciples who hear of it mostly at the farewell meal (14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:7, 13). Catholic commentaries published around the time of the Council interpreted this as John’s way of communicating that Jesus is the defini- tive or ultimate stage of God’s revelation in contrast with the provisional revelation in the Old Testament,22 or that he is “the only revelation of the Father who is the goal of the journey.”23 One of the ways to understand the exclusivist claim of John 14:6a is in light of the competing associations and (religious) groups at the end of the first century ce Roman context, when the Gospel was written and where simultaneous worship of multiple gods and goddesses as well as belonging to various Greco-Roman associations were part of daily life.24

21. The theme of truth is prominent in John. See, for example, Peter G. Kirch- schläger, Nur ich bin die Wahrheit: Der Absolutheitsanspruch des johanneischen Christus und das Gespräch zwischen den Religionen (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2010). 22. See, for instance, Hendrik Van den Bussche, Jezus’ woorden bij het afscheids- maal : Verklaring van Johannes 13–17, 4th ed. (Tielt: Lannoo, 1960), 75; Hendrik Van den Bussche, Jean: Commentaire de l’Évangile spirituel, Bible et Vie Chrétienne (Bruges: Desclée De Brouwer, 1967), 398. 23. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John: Introduction, Translation and Notes, 2nd ed. (London: Doubleday, 1966), 630. For an analysis of the works of Brown on John’s Gospel and his evolving position regarding the potential anti-Judaism in it, see Sonya Shetty Cronin, Raymond Brown, “The Jews,” and the : From Apologia to Apology, Library of New Testament Studies 504 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). 24. See Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Francis J. Moloney (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 202-215. Brown discusses the various contenders of the provenance of John including the majority choice of Ephesus as well as the others, namely Alexandria, Antioch/Syria, Northern Transjordan, between 90-110 ce. 178 ma. marilou s. ibita

John 14:6 is found in the literary context of the Johannine Jesus’ farewell discourses25 (–17), spoken to his select disciples in a farewell meal setting (John 13:2, 26-27).26 As in Greco-Roman associations, meals are occasions of group identity formation,27 particularly if it is the segregative type. It delineates the insiders and outsiders, promotes social cohesion and may also be an occasion for the group’s self-exaltation since it is “a way for a group to gain self-identity, to keep tabs on its members and even to confirm internal divisions or hierarchies.”28 One of the famous examples of self-praise for their priest and their group in a meal context is found among the Iobacchoi in Athens: “Long life to his excel- lency, the priest Herodes!,” “Now you have good fortune!,” “Now we are the best of all Bacchic societies!”29 This kind of rivalry shows how asso- ciations claim that their deity is the best among the rest.30

25. See George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 117 (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2005), 31-35, 111-149. 26. See Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 274; Esther Kobel, Dining with John: Communal Meals and Identity Formation in the Fourth Gospel and Its Historical and Cultural Context, Biblical Interpretation Series 109 (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2011), 78-79. For the recent discussion on the literary symposium motif in John 13–17 particularly the “feast of words,” see Parsenios, Departure, 131, n. 57: “… the meal provides the basic setting for the conversation. It provides the structure for the scene. The point being emphasized here is that the actual consumption of food in the meal scene is not the central narrative concern. The point of the meal is to highlight the discourses. But without the meal, there would be no setting for the discourses.” 27. See Richard S. Ascough, “Social and Political Characteristics of Greco-Roman Association Meals,” in Meals in the Early Christian World: Social Formation, Experimenta- tion, and Conflict at the Table, ed. Dennis E. Smith and Hal Taussig (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 59-72 and the rest of the contributions in the same book; Philip A. Harland, “Banqueting Values in the Associations: Rhetoric and Reality,” in Meals in the Early Christian World, 73-85. 28. John F. Donahue, “Toward a Typology of Roman Public Feasting,” American Journal of Philology 124, no. 3 (2003): 432; However, Richard S. Ascough, “Forms of Commensality in Greco-Roman Associations,” The Classical World 102, no. 1 (2008): 36 points out that other associations such as the one attested to in PMIch. V 243=AGRW 300 have monthly banquet (segregative commensality) and a daylong funeral banquet. 29. See Philip A. Harland, “Spheres of Contention, Claims of Pre-Eminence: Rivalries among Associations in Sardis and Smyrna,” in Religious Rivalries and the Strug- gle for Success in Sardis and Smyrna, ed. Richard S. Ascough, Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le Christianisme et le Judaïsme 14 (Waterloo, : Wilfrid Lau- rier University Press, 2005), 62-63; See also Richard S. Ascough, Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg, Associations in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook (Waco, TX/ Berlin: Baylor University Press, 2012), No. 7. 30. Philip A. Harland, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians (New York and London: Continuum, 2009), 154: “There are similar rhetorical claims to preeminence among associations, sometimes with reference to the superiority of the the proclamation of truth 179

This kind of claim for identity construction and affirmation under- scores exclusivity. A few traits of the Johannine farewell meal context and the claim in John 14:6 also underline the group’s own identity, exclusiv- ity and how it differs from other group(s): a. The meal in John 13-17 is restricted to Jesus and his own disciples (John 13:1, 22). b. Jesus’ actions (footwashing, the meal itself) and words in John 13-17 highlight Jesus’ identity and special relationship with his tablemates (13:1, 33; 14:23).31 c. The “I am” sayings in 14:6 (the way, the truth and the life) and 15:1 (the ) explicitly underscore Christological traits of Jesus for the gathered group in the narrative and for the Johannine community who have access to the text. Consequently, the passage helps to continu- ously affirm their group’s identity in the midst of the other groups. d. The use of “no one” and “except through me” in 14:6b intensi- fies Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father32 and with his disciples who are exhorted to remain in their group.33 Thus, the segregative meal provides an apt and intensifying setting for the Johannine Jesus’ exclusive claim in 14:6 about himself and his very close relationship with the Father and his disciples. It grounds his com- mands to his tablemates to exclusively identify with him and consequently affirm their own nascent group’s identity as Christ-followers34 as they endeavor to find their place in the midst of various groups (Ioudaioi, 71×; Hellênes, 3× in 7:35 and 12:20; Samaritai/Samaritis, 4/2×; ethnos, 5×; Romans, 1×) and competing Greco-Roman associations towards the end of the first century.35 patron deity or deities. Occasionally there is rhetoric concerning whose god is the best, most protective, or most worthy of honour.” 31. For instance, his command for their mutual love following his example, (13:34-35), his promise to have them where he is (14:1-3) and sending of the Paraclete (14:15-21), his declaration of only manifesting himself to them (14:22-24), and so on. 32. For a narrative treatment of the character of the Father in John, see Mark Stibbe, “Telling the Father’s Story: The Gospel of John as Narrative Theology,” in Chal- lenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman, Wissenschaftliche Untersu- chungen zum Neuen Testament 2/219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 170-193. 33. For the theme of remaining in Jesus and the group, see, John 13:1, 18a, 33-34; 14:12-24; 15:1-18 an so on. For the theme of those who leave Jesus and the group, see, John 13:2, 10-11, 18b-30; 15:4b, 5b, 6 and so forth. 34. For instance, John 14:8-17, 20-21, 28-29, 15:1-10, 22-24, 16:5, 10, 15, 26-28 and . 35. for example, see Philip A. Harland, “Honours and Worship: Emperors, Impe- rial Cults and Associations at Ephesus (First to Third Centuries C.E.),” Studies in Reli- gion/Sciences Religieuses 25, no. 3 (1996): 319-334. 180 ma. marilou s. ibita

The claim in John 14:6, however, differs in significant ways from the other examples of segregative meals, such as that of the Iobacchoi: a. The priest does not claim a very intimate relationship with the divine unlike Jesus’ claim towards the Father. b. There is nothing that corresponds to Christological titles. c. The communal meal is not a farewell meal. d. The good wishes are spoken by the members towards the priest while in John it is Jesus who speaks to the disciples. Nonetheless, the exclusive meal setting and the particular claims uttered during the meal provide some commonalities which underline the groups’ exclusive identity claims vis-à-vis the other groups. Considering the use of the claim in John 14:6 in the conciliar doc- uments, although one cannot make a one to one correspondence between the first century ce and the twentieth century ce contexts, one observes the need for the affirmation of the Christian identity in the modern world within the complex socio-cultural-political and religious environ- ment surrounding Vatican II and attested by the complex process of writing Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes.36 In view of this, the exclusive claims of the Johannine Jesus in John 14:6, spoken to the disciples in the farewell meal and re-appropriated by succeeding generations of Christ followers, need not constrain but instead facilitate interreligious dialogue with openness and respect for otherness without losing one’s own identity. As Benedict XVI said: “[D]ialogue is only serious and ­honest when it respects differences and recognizes others precisely in their otherness. A sincere dialogue needs both openness and a firm sense of identity on both sides, in order for each to be enriched by the gifts of the other.”37

36. for discussions about the context surrounding Vatican II, see Simon Schoon, “Christian and Jews after the Shoa and the Mission to the Jews,” in The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature, ed. Peter J. Tomson and Doris Lambers-Petry, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 158 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 298-314, pp. 299-311; O’Malley, “Introduction,” 1-23; Stephen Schloesser, “Against Forgetting: Memory, History, Vatican II,” in Vatican II: Did Anything Happen?, ed. David G. Schultenover (New York: Continuum, 2008), 92-152; Melissa J. Wilde, Vatican II: A Sociological Analysis of Religious Change (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007). 37. Benedict XVI, “Udienza ad una delegazione dell’International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations,” October 30, 2008, http://press.vatican.va/ content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2008/10/30/0683/01688.html (accessed 20/12/2015). the proclamation of truth 181

III. Summary and Implications

In the preceding discussion I demonstrated how ‘truth’ was employed in Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes and analyzed the biblical warrants used in these texts. John 14:6a emerged to be one of the common sources in NA 2 and AG 8 and 13. I situated this biblical text in the segregative Greco-Roman meal context and demonstrated that it is an exclusive text. Because it is an exclusive text, which helps define group identity, there is more opportunity for recognizing the identity of the other which potentially paves the way for inclusivity in light of open, respect- ful dialogue. Given the preceding discussion, what was the effect of citing only parts of John 14:6a in NA 2 and AG 8 and 13? By not including v.6b, and quoting only v.6a, the final documents toned down the highly exclu- sivist claim of the Johannine Jesus, while they continued to uphold the particularity of Jesus as the revealer of God’s truth. I tried to briefly show that by favoring the metaphor of Jesus as truth over the metaphors of “the way” and “the life,” the Council fathers provided a space for the metaphor of the ‘ray of truth’ found in other religions to be connected to Jesus. In so doing, they were able to uphold openness to a certain inclusivity towards other religions (albeit only as a ‘ray’) while maintain- ing the primacy of proclaiming Jesus as the truth in NA 2. Leaving out John 14:6b in NA 4 also avoided the tricky tension of messing up the delicate articulation of the way the Church regards Judaism, even if the phrase ‘truth of the gospel’ in NA 4 may be interpreted in an ambivalent way.38 In view of the Church’s mission activity, John 14:6a in AG 8 and 13 also provided the impetus for proclamation in the midst of various races and nations as well as the reason for would-be converts to cleave to Jesus Christ. Admittedly, the tension regarding the proclamation of Jesus as part of the Church’s mission (especially to the Jews)39 and the

38. See, for example, the various attempts regarding Jewish-Christian relationship in David J. Bolton, “Catholic-Jewish Dialogue: Contesting the Covenants,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 45, no. 1 (2010): 37-60; Marianne Moyaert and Didier Pollefeyt, “Israel and the Church: Fulfilment Beyond Supersessionism,” in Never Revoked: Nostra Aetate as Ongoing Challenge for Jewish-Christian Dialogue, ed. Marianne Moyaert and Didier Pollefeyt, Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs 40 (Leuven and Wal- pole, MA/Grand Rapids, MI: Peeters/Eerdmans, 2010), 159-183. 39. for a partial list of documents regarding the discussion of mission to the Jews, see http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/themes-in-todays-dialogue/conversion (accessed 12 November 2015). See also Schoon, “Christian and Jews,” 299-314. For a recent review of Vatican II documents with regards to Jews and Moslems, see Gavin D’Costa, Vatican II: Catholic Doctrines on Jews and Muslims (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 113-159, 214. 182 ma. marilou s. ibita need to respect religious freedom and to take part in interfaith dialogue remains.40 However, despite these gains, there is a caveat. The inclusion of John 14:6a alone in order to affirm a doctrinal claim about Jesus’ pri- macy as the truth is an example of proof texting. It indicates the con- ciliar fathers’ lack of being fully liberated from the neo-scholastic way of engaging the Scriptures and some of their resistance to the historical- critical method of biblical interpretation. Although there is a slight open- ing to inclusivity by favoring the metaphor of ‘ray of that truth’ over the more exclusive metaphor of the ‘way’, the effect is still an inadequate engagement of the ‘truth’ of the other religions. Here the limit of this metaphor is reached. This observation calls for a continued exploration of the metaphor of truth in relation to the Holy Spirit and to other religions, as Ecclesiam Suam 32 expresses, even if AG 1 already locates the roots of the mission in the . Moreover, further exploration of the metaphor of life, curiously left out in the triad of “I am the way, the truth and the life” in both Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes, could have offered complementary insights and more opportunities in dealing with non-Christian religions and the mission of the Church, something that is already present in Lumen Gentium 16 and 17.41 Thus, (a) the challenge of proclaiming Jesus as the truth while respecting the truth in other religions and responding to the questions concerning inclusivity and exclusivity that are encountered in John 14:6, in Nostra Aetate and in Ad Gentes and (b) the challenge of being people in dialogue while maintain- ing one’s own identity and respect for otherness remain for post-Vatican II Christians who live in an increasingly complex world where religions and dialogue continue to be vitally needed.

40. See Gregory Baum, “Interreligious Dialogue: A Roman Catholic Perspective,” Global Media Journal – Canadian Edition 4, no. 1 (2011): 5-20; Loe-Joo Tan, “The of Religions: A Survey of Pre-Vatican II and Conciliar Attitudes Towards Other Religions,” Scottish Journal of Theology 67, no. 03 (2014): 285-303. 41. See Maurice Simon, “Lumen Gentium et les Non-Croyants,” Revue Théologique de Louvain 17 (1986): 38-54; Miikka Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions according to the Second Vatican Council (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Ralph Martin, Will Many Be Saved?: What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evan- gelization (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012). the proclamation of truth 183

Ma. Marilou S. Ibita hails from the . She gained her doctorate in theology with a dissertation in the area of New Testament exegesis entitled “‘If Anyone Hungers, He/She Must Eat in the House’ (1 Cor 11:34): A Narrative- Critical, Socio-Historical and Grammatical-Philological Analysis of the Story of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth (1 Cor 11:17-34)” at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven. She presently works as a staff member of the Centre for Academic Teacher Training of the same Faculty and is also a post- doctoral fellow in the project “New Hermeneutic for Renewed Dialogue.” Address: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Sint-Michielsstraat 4, box 3101, BE-3000 Leuven. E-mail: malou. [email protected].