1991 - Tony Kelly - The Historical Jesus and Human Subjectivity. A Response to John Meier

7/27/2019 1991 - Tony Kelly - The Historical Jesus and Human Subjectivity. A Response to John Meier

1/27

202Pacifica 4 (1991)

The Historical Jesus an d Hum an Subjectivity: AResponse to John Meier

Tony Kelly, C.Ss.R.Abstract : Problems associated with the distinction between the historical Jesus and the historic Jesus can be satisfactorily clarified onlyby paying much greater critical attention to the subject, the personmak ing and using such distinctions, and by a methodo logical re-integration of the wholeness of consciousness. Faith can thus employhistorical scholarship, not cowed or threatened, but a stutely aware ofthe possibilities, limitations and necessity of searching into its past,and of incarnating itself in this stream of time, space, human experience and development.

FOR NEARLY A CENTURY, Martin Khler's distinction between thehistorical (historisch) Jesus and the historic (geschichtlich) Christof Faith has become deeply embedded in much christological researchan d reflection. Recently, no less an au thority th an Professor John Meierof the Catholic University of America has questioned its usefulness, atleast for the English speaking world.1 He documents the way inwhich ambiguity and confusion have at tended on such a seeminglyclear distinction thr ou gh ou t its history. N ot only has it camouflaged agreat variety of hidden agendas, the dist inction is also, despitePerrin's efforts to refine it,2 too simplistic for the complexity of the1 John P. Meier, 'The Historical Jesus: Rethinking Some Concepts", Theological Studies 51 (1990) 3-24. I take this to be the backg roun d to his splend idly concise "Jesu s" in The N ew Jerome Biblical Comm entary (Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990) 1316-38. Subsequent references to Meier w ll bem ade a s page references in m y text.2 Norm an Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM,1967).


2/27

Kelly: The His toric al Jesu s an d H u m a n Subject ivi ty 203chr is to log ica l s i tua t io n . Th ou gh defens ib le in theo ry , such ca teg or iesha ve be c ome "us e le s s in the r e a l wor ld - e ve n the ' r e a l ' wo r ld o fscho la rs" (p . 6 ) . He nce , Meie r p ro po ses to rep lace i t wi th a ne w se t o fd i s t inc t ions . H is a p p ro a c h is bo th fo r th r igh t a nd p rov oc a t iv e ; we l ldes igned to goad the curren t jaded accep tance of a somewhat pe t r i f iedd is t inc t ion in to a l ive ly a rgument .

My own response a r ises ou t o f the concerns o f theo log ica l methodo l o g y . 3 M ore prec ise ly , I wi l l con ten d tha t p ro b le m s assoc ia ted w i thth is venerab le d is t inc t ion can be sa t i s fac tor i ly c la r i f ied on ly by pav ingmuch grea te r c r i t ica l a t ten t ion to the sub jec t , the pe rson making andusing such dis t inct ions .1. NEW DISTINCTIONS?

But f irs t a word on Meier 's construct ive suggest ion, for he proposes ana l t e rna t iv e s e t of d i s t inc t ion s . The s e he in t r od uc e s w i th the "p a ra doxical" thes is : " the his torical Jesus is not the real Jesus , and the realJesus is not the historical Jesus" (p. 14).Wha t doe s Me ie r me a n by the " re a l J e s us "? He s t r e s s e s tha t the" to ta l rea l i ty" o f an y h is to r ica l pe rso n is s im ply no t access ib le . Atbes t , we have a " reasonably comple te" p ic tu re , su ff ic ien t to re fu te wi ld

hy po the ses an d obvi ou s m is rep rese n ta t i ons . But , in the case o f Jesus ,eve n a " reas ona bly comp le te p ic tu re" is un a t ta in ab le . M os t of h is li fe ," the h i dd e n ye a r s " , a re e v ide n t ly ina c c e s s ib le to h i s to r i c a l -c r i t i c a lm eth od s . Th ere is s im ply a lack of em pirica l evi den ce. Of cou rse , Jesusis no spec ia l case . For the re i s s imi la r pau c i ty of ev i den ce reg ard ingother g rea t f igures o f h is to ry , such as Socra tes , Py thagoras , Alexanderthe Gre a t . O n the o the r ha nd , p rec ise ly beca use of the i r w r i t ing s , som eothers , l ike Cice ro , Ju l ius Caesar , Marcus Aure l ius , Pau l o r Igna t ius o fAn t ioch , a re com para t ive ly m or e access ib le . S t il l, i t rem ain s t ru e tha tthe rea l pe rsons o f anc ien t h is to ry a re no t access ib le to us and neverwi l l be . So , w e a re we l l adv ise d to ab an do n any na ive ho pe of k no w ingthe " re a l J e s us " th rough h i s to r i c a l me thods .

But w e can kno w som eth ing ; inde ed , says Meie r , " it i s su rp r is ing ho wmuch we can know about Jesus" (p . 18) . Here he in t roduces h is second3 I am mainly indebted here to Bernard Lonergan, above all in Insight: AStudy of Human Understanding (London: L ongm an, Green, 1975), Method inTheology (London: Darton Longm an and Todd, 1972) and "Christology Tod ay:M ethodological Co nsiderations" , in F.E. Cro we (ed.), A Third Collection (New

York: Paulist Press, 1985) 74-99. The brea kthr oug h in cognitional theory thatLonergan represents h as been very impressively applied to some aspects of Jesusresearch in Ben Meyer, The Aims of]esus (London: SCM Press, 1979) 15f., 57f.


3/27

204 Pacifica 4 (June 1991)term , "the historical Jesus" or "the Jesus of history". The "Jesus ofhistory", he emphasises, is a modern abstraction and construct , recovera ble by us ing th e tools of m od ern scientific research. As such, theJesus-Quest of the last two hundred years of cri t ical history is apeculiarly modern endeavour, extending from Reimarus to the presentda y. Essen tially, it m ust be view ed as a reco nstruc tion from thefragments of a mosaic, "the faint outline of a faded fresco that allowsof ma ny interpr ta rions" (p. 19). It is not the "real Jesus" nor a "reasonably complete" picture: indeed, 'The historical Jesus may give usfragm ents of the real per son , but noth ing m ore " (p. 19). As aninh ere ntly hyp othe tical project, it is eve r op en to revision. Becausethe Jesus-Quest is a product of modern scholarship, it would be hopelessly anachronistic to expect the Gospels to portray the "Jesus ofhistory " in the post-Enlightenmen t sense. Thus, in terms of the statedthesis, the historical Jesus is not the real Jesus.

In addition to the "real Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" there is athird term , "the earthly Jesus". This has been used with many different connotations: the Jesus of the Gospels, Jesus compared to a pre-incarna tional or post-resurrectiona l state, and so forth. A basic ambiguity is compounded by the tendency of some (Schillebeeckx, forexam ple) to confuse the "ea rthly Jesu s" with the "real Jesus". Becauseof such ambiguity, Meier would like to banish this category in theological usa ge, or a t least dem ote it (p. 20; an d note 49).Then the re is the fourth term , "the Jesus of faith". Meier is emphatic that the three terms, "real", "historical", and, at least in somesenses, "earthly", when applied to Jesus, prescind from what is knownby faith. On the other ha nd , the dom ain of faith introdu ces furthercomplexit ies (p. 21), when theology considers the relat ion of thehistorical Jesus to the risen Lord of the Ch urch . W e move from wh at istake n by Meier to be a pu rely em pirical historical-critical framew orkprescinding from faith, into a larger context in which faith seeksun de rsta nd ing (p. 21). Such a mo ve "mak es a great difference inconce pts and term inolog y" (p. 21) abov e all in the mean ing of "real". Inthe historical frame of reference, the real is defined in the world ofspac e and time , in princ iple accessible to any observe r. But faith andtheology affirm ultimate realities, such as the triune God and the risenJesus. The Christian scho lar is thu s faced w ith the prob lem of relatingChristian faith to the historical-critical project.

At this juncture, Meier, expressing agreement with Kahler andBultmann, asserts that the historical Jesus cannot be an object ofCh ristian faith and p rea ch ing . It w as not so in a pa st, blissfully un -


4/27

Kelly: The Historical Jesus an d H um an Subjectivity 205troubled by mo dern historical concerns. No r, because of the bew ilderingvariability of results of such research, can it be so now: for, given thevariety of historical portrayals, whose "Jesus" would we favour? Evenif such p ortraits ha ve an academ ic usefulness (p. 22), they can not be theobject of faith for the universal chu rch . For the real object of faith isthe risen Jesus; and faith adheres to this person, "indeed, incarnate,crucified and risen - and only secondarily to ideas and affirmationsabout him" (p. 22). Once more, though in a seemingly different sense,the real Jesus is not the h istorical Jesus.Indeed, as regards the direct object of faith, the Jesus-Quest is useless(p . 22). Nonetheless, if christology - "faith seeking understanding" - isto be credible in the present scholarly context, there are considerablebenefits to be gained from the historical que st. For it "u nd erlin es th efact that there is a specific content to Christian faith", even if it"can not sup ply th e essential conten t of faith" (p . 23). The historicalJesus gives de pth to theology a nd "color to that conten t" (p. 23). An d, inso do ing , it cou nterac ts docetic tenden cies by identifying the risen Lordwith that first century Palestinian Jew in the conditions and limitations of his life an d d ea th. The historical quest will ten d to thr owlight on the uniqu ene ss an d originality of Jesus by no t letting any age orideology cap ture him for i ts pu rpo ses . The fruitful relat ion shipbetween faith, theology and historical scholarship is made possibleonly by "getting on e's categories straight" (p . 24).

2. PROBLEMS ARISINGThough Meier's "Jesus" in the New Jerome Biblical Com mentary is aconcrete example of both the fruitfulness and challenge of Jesus-research as actually conducted, I fear not all problems are yet solved

rega rding categories in the article un de r discussion. N ote , for exam ple,the potential confusion in regard to the "content" of faith: if, as theauthor argues, the Jesus-Quest contributes nothing to the essentialcontent of faith, yet does give something "specific", something of"colour" and "depth" and historical focus to that "essential" content,then one may be excused for thinking that the Jesus-Quest is far morerelated to the "real Jesus" than he ha s allowe d. For instance, Meierstates (p. 22):the pro per object of Christian faith is not an d canno t be an idea o rscholarly reco nstruc tion, how eve r reliable. The object of Ch ristian faith is a living person, Jesus Christ, who fully entered into


5/27

206 Pacifica 4 (Ju ne 1991)a t rue h u m an ex is tence on ea r th in the fi rs t cen tury A .D., bu t w honow l ives r isen and glorif ied, forever in the Father 's presence.But the re appears to be qu i te a lo t o f " the h is to r ica l Jesus" in th is"proper ob jec t o f Chr is t ian fa i th" - the name, the t ime , the dea th andthe re po r te d resurr ec t io n of Jesus . So , w e m us t ask , a re the ca tegor iesre a l ly a s " s t r a ig h t " a s the a u th o r ma in ta in s ? M igh t I s ugge s t he re ,e ve n a t th i s e a r ly s t a ge o f ou r r e s pons e , tha t a d i s t inc t ion be twe e nChris t ian fa i th (a t ranscendent g i f t and grace) and Chr is t ian be l ie f( the p re a c h ing , s ymbo ls , the a r t i c u la t ion a nd doc t r ine s tha t me d ia tethe meaning and va lue o f such fa i th in h is to ry) would have been ino r d e r . 4

St i l l , the spec ia l va lue o f Meie r ' s a t tempt to rev i ta l i se the Jesus -Q ue st l ies in his v ig or ou s effort to c larify bas ic categ ories . H is projecti l lus t ra tes , in fac t , the historical charac te r o f our sea rch fo r the h is to r i c a l J e s us . Fo r s c ho la r s h ip itself, wi th i t s va ry ing c onc e rns a ndte c hn ic a l c a te go r ie s , i s ine v i t a b ly imme rs e d in the c onc re te ne s s o fh i s to ry . De s p i t e the "h i s to r i c " c on t r ib u t ion of ou t s t a nd ing s c ho la r s ,they a re themse lves "h is to r ica l" , c rea tures o f a pa r t icu la r t ime , p lace ,cu l tu re an d rang e of in te re s ts . M eie r ' s ow n pos i t ive sugges t io n , in i t se f fo r t to t ranscend the l imi ta t ions o f pe t r i f ied ca tegor ies , ins tances anew h is to r ica l consc iousness : a new phase o f the h is to ry o f the Ques t i ss t rugg l ing fo r express ion . 5 H e i s c ha l l e n g ing th e l imi ta t ions of pos t -En l igh ten m ent sub jec t iv ity for the sake of som eth i ng m ore a pp rop r ia teto the " ' rea l wo r ld ' , even the rea l w or l d o f scho la rs" (p . 6 ) .

The process by which a series of b lack marks on a page becomes a textr e a d b y t h e b e l i e v e r / s c h o l a r t o d i s c o v e r h o w t h i n g s o n c e w e r e , i s ,admit ted ly , a mos t in t r ica te one . The s teps invo lved in such read ing , inpass ing f rom b lack marks to h is to r ica l fac ts o r t ranscendent mys te r iesa re s o nume rous a nd c omple x tha t a ny he rme ne u t i c a l the o ry i s s t r a ine dto the u t m os t . The on ly th ing tha t is c lea r i s tha t the r e i s a g rea t dea l4 A retrieval of the older notion of "credibility" of faith and belief, andthe Augustinian "cum assensione cogitare" as interpreted by Aquinas (SummaTheologiae, 2-2, q.2, a.l) is a classic topic for the discussion of this wholematter .5 See Ben Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 110f.: "Since the mid-nineteenthcentury and for the first time in history, discovery and development havebecome, in a reflexly conscious fashion, salient features of "tra ditional belief".These, indeed, are now seen to belong indispensably to the conditions of thepossibility of the perduring identity of faith and the faith-community alike.To the discomfort of its critics, "traditional belief" refuses to lie down and now

re pu di at es th e claim to be do ing so. Most significantly,...faith learns fromhistory, i.e., from the march of time, from the discovery of the historicity ofknowledge, and from historical knowledge as such."


6/27

Kelly: The Historical Jesus and H um an Subjectivity 207going on within the reader; a living subject with eyes and imagination,with mind and heart is involved.6 It is not to be wondered at that acertain idealism is a temptation here, since so much occurs within theconsciousness of the read er. The quality of that consciousn ess becom esi tsel f a datum for any comprehensive hermeneut ical undertaking:meta-critical components inform the horizon in which the linguisticsigns are deciphered, read, often translated, and understood as databea ring on the reality of the past. Thu s, I believe that the p roble mMeier addresses can be considerably clarified by searching more deeplyinto the subjectivity of the que ster. To limit a solution he re to the invention of new objective categories without exploring the fundamentalsubjectivity involve d is not radica l en ou gh . After referring to thevariety of debates regarding the relationship of history to Christianfaith in The Aims of Jesus, Ben Meyer approaches the subjectivityquestion:

W hat impo rtance do these deba tes hav e for faith? Considerab leimportance, for they determine the relat ive compatibil i ty offaith and integrity. In the long cou rse of these deba tes from theEnlightenment to the present, some (e.g., early German pietists)have decided that faith required the renunciation of intelligence(sacrificium intellectus); others, far more numerous, that intelligence - better, intellectual integrity - required the renunciationof faith; oth ers , tha t malgr tout and by the skin of one's teethone could keep hold of both faith and integrity; and finally, stillothers, that, when all was said and done, intellectual integritypositively called for entry into the life of faith and perseverancein it.These are not only diverse judgem ents but diverse states of h eartand m ind . At the root of each lies a pa tter n of ima ges an daffects, sympathies and revulsions, tastes, evaluations, decisionsand com m itme nts. Ho w faith and integrity are related in theview of any particular person depends on his heritage of valuesand the fund of experience, the reach of his powers and the goalof his conscious striving, for these determine his horizons, i .e.,the sum and limit of what is meaningful to him. 7After al l , historically speaking, the Jesus-Quest developed pre-

6 Admittedly, the very notion of the "reader" is itself quite complex, as,for example, in the categories "the real reader", "the intended reader", "theimplied reader". For an illumin ating rem ark on this area, see Francis J.Moloney, "Narrative Criticism of the Gospels", Pacifica 4 (1991) 181-201,especially 190-200.7 Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 95f.


7/27

208 Pacifica 4 (Ju ne 1991)c ise ly a t a t im e wh en t he sense of the hu m an se lf w as be ing mos t e rod edin i t s t r a n s c e nde n t o r i e n ta t ion , in i t s de pe nde nc e on s ome ma t r ix o ft r a d i t ion , in i t s s oc ia l r e l a t ions h ip s a nd e ve n in i t s ma te r i a l e mbod i me n t - the who le ne ga t ive a s pe c t o f the En l igh te nme n t . 8 A p rog re s s ive g radua l se l f -a l iena t ion , i t migh t be a rgued , i s no t the bes t resourceto b r ing to the sea rch fo r the un ique h is to r ica l pe rson we know as Jesusof N a z a re t h . Da re w e w on de r wh e the r a r e -a pp rop r ia t ion of a l arge r ,m or e a u the n t i c s e l fhood w ou ld be g in to y ie ld f ar m ore imp re s s iveresults in the Jesus-Quest i tse lf?3. THE "QUESTER" AS A SUBJECT

Hence my suggest ion to look more c losely a t the subject ive pole of there s e a rc h in que s t ion . Me ie r ha s p ro v id e d c om pe l l ing e v ide nc e of thed i s to r t ion l a t e n t in the ob je c t ive c a te go r ie s a nd t e rms h i the r to e mplo yed . A dm it te d ly , eve n to ra ise the ques t ion of such sub jec t iv i ty cana p pe a r l ike ba d a c a de m ic fo rm, t a n t a m ou n t to que s t ion ing the in te g r i tyof on e 's acad em ic co l leagues . But a la rger cons id era t ion m ight tend toco un ter such defensive ness . After a ll , i t is not un co m m on tod ay for thosem os t c onc e rne d w i th v i t al hu m a n t r u th s a nd re a l it i es - p s yc h o the ra p ya nd a r t i s t i c t r a in ing c ome to mind a s e xa mple s - to unde rgo hou rs a ndeven years of cr i t ic ism of their subject ivi ty : they are scrut inised by thepa ne l , c on t inuous ly c ha l l e nge d by the in s t ruc to r o r the ma s te r in thef ie ld , un t i l such t ime as i t can be reasonably hoped tha t t ra inees a resuff ic ien t ly luminous to themse lves so as no t to indu lge in p ro jec t ion ,manipu la t ion , exp lo i ta t ion of the o ther in the use o f the i r sk i l l o r g i f t .C om pa re d to s uc h p ra c t i c e s , w ha t I a m p rop os in g i s qu i t e a m od e s ta f fa i r ; qu i te s imply , a mat te r o f be ing f ree to ra ise the "sub jec t ive"ques t ion , an d to e labora te som e ca tegor ies in it s exp lora t ion .Th ere i s , o f cou rse , no w ay of go in g back to som e pre -E nl igh te nm entsubject ivi ty . Suc h a regr ess io n is not poss ib le : m od er n inte l l igence canno t be s im p ly pu t to s l e e p , a nd a m ne s ia i s no he a l t hy st a t e . Theinno cen ce of an un dif fe ren t ia ted , p re -c r i t ica l consc io usnes s is los t fo rever . But ne i the r i s suc h a regr ess io n des i r ab le . The capac i t ie s and8 See Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 25-59, 95-110. For a larger p oint of view ,Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity (Cambrid ge, Mass: Ha rvar d University Press, 1989). In a more aesthetic vein, thereis the stimulating George Steiner, Real Presences (Chicago: University ofChicago P ress, 1989). W ith ecological concerns, Tom Berry, "The New Story:

Comments on the Origins, Identification and Transmission of Values", CrossCurrents (Su m m er/F all 1987)197; Vincent Dono van, The Church in the Midstof Creation (M arykno ll, Ne w York: Orb is, 1989) 35-48.


8/27

Kelly: The Historical Jesus an d H um an Subjectivity 209achievements of historical scholarship are an authentic attainment inthe history of our culture. The only w ay forward is a m ethodologicalre-integration of the wholeness of consciousness, so that faith canemploy historical scholarship, not cowed or threatened, but astutelyaware of the possibilities, limitations and necessity of searching intoits past, of incarnating itself in this stream of time, space, human experience and development.The engagement of subjectivity can be instanced by reflecting for amoment on the notion of "the real" which figures so centrally in Meier'sdistinc tions. W hilst he limits it to his "real Jesu s", the notion of thereal, it seems to me, must pervade each of the categories he uses in anana logo us fashion. Th oug h he recognises this in rega rd to the Christ offaith (p. 21), the matter is more confused in terms of his thesis: "Thereal Jesus is not the historical Jesus...". I am sure h e does no t m ean thatthe historical quest is intent on unreality, let alone untruth or fantasy.So I do ub t the w isdom of his "categorial" use of such a term.A nuanced notion of the real might provide more space for approach ing the problem of the "real Jesus". My first rem ark is perh apsm ore existential. Th ere is an inev itable relativity inh ere nt in allkno w ing of the reality of the othe r. The "real pe rso n", not only som eone of the pa st, bu t also in the pres ent, is an elusive my stery. N ot torecognise that can deeply impede a truly personal knowledge of, say,spouse , friend, stranger, enem y. To equ ate the "real pe rso n" with anaccumulation of data on him or her, is likely to end in considerablealienation! W hen the re is no roo m for the intelligence of catching on tothe clue, using a bit of imagination, growing in sensitivity to the manylevels of human existence, of setting one's judgements in the context ofthe whole l ife of this original human being, any relat ionship isseverely limited. N ew dim ens ions of the real othe r con tinue to berevealed . Being ope n to the m ystery , searching for it, is an inescapa bleactivity; and a process of continuing revision, al lowing for theoriginality of the other beyond our projections and stereotypes, is alived necessity. He nce, as I say, a health y relativity is of the essence .This is the basic ana logy , I m ight sug gest, for the Jesus-Quest. Failureto appreciate the complexity of both the knowing and the reali tyresults in the confusion against w hich M eier is strugg ling. In the case ofJesus, we know the full reality of Jesus neither in history nor, for thatm atter, in the Spirit. There is alw ays mo re. It is no small glory ofbiblical research to have continually confronted both fai th andtheology w ith the historical originality of the Jesus of the Gosp els. Inother words, knowing the "real person", let alone the "total reality" of


9/27

210 Pacifica 4 (June 1991)the other, is subject to limitation not only in regard to the real personsof the pas t. All kn ow led ge is hu m bled before the reality of the other,even in the present; and, for that matter, even of oneself.But m ore profound philosophical m atters begin to obtru de. Meierdo es not wa nt " to revel in subtle scholastic distinctio ns" (p. 16). Butsuch awkward considerations must be given a place, especially if hewishes to bring some clarity into the "murky debate about the historical Jes us" (p. 20) w ith his novel pro pos al. A vexing problem is thedegree to which his expression oscil lates between the extremes ofidealism and empiricism, even if, as I continue to stress, his scholarlybiblical w ork c ertainly do es not. In fact, in his perfo rm ance , he is atou gh -m ind ed critical realist. But is he so at a m ore theoretical level?Interestingly, he conducts his whole discussion of the problem addressed without any reference to the notion of truth, preferring,obviously, to go straight for the "real" in matters of history and faith.However, without advert ing to the imperious demands of truth, i t isimpossible to discuss our at tainment of the real: ens per veruminnotescit. The rea l, after all, can only be kn ow n as affirmed thro ug hthe complex process of mak ing a true judgem ent. We can take this orthat as real only if I, or someone on whose judgement I reasonably rely,ha s judged truly. Truth in judgem ent includes attention to the relevantdata, insight into the possible meanings, deliberation on the probabilities, an d as sent to w ha t is the case thro ug h sufficient re ason . Incontrast , the empiricist , bolstered by the success of the physicalsciences, is confined to data, which as I implied above, is a perilousbu sines s in the kn ow led ge of the othe r. The idealist, on the otherhand, concentrates the dynamics of knowing into mere thought: nomatter how imaginative, how vast the system, how splendid theballoon of theory, it is ever apt to be punctured by the simple, precisequ estio n, "Is it tru e? " Re turnin g to the existential instance, w e arefamiliar enough with the idealist error when we so often tend toidentify an idea of the other (of ourselves) with the reality of theoth er (or of ou rse lve s). Th e un ea se we ther eb y suffer or inflict demands, in extreme cases, considerable therapeutic counselling in theinterests of a more critically attuned grasp of personal reality in anacceptan ce of "th e real pe rso n" concern ed. Critical realism, for its part,does not stop at data, nor is it content with ideas that arise from such.It pu sh es forw ard into the realm of the real. W hat, gro un ded on thedata and agitated in all the questions of meaning, can truly be affirmedto be the case, to be the reali ty presented by the data? Self-


10/27

Kelly: The Historical Jesus and H um an Subjectivity 211transcendence unfolds in disciplined attention to the data, in an elaborate consideration of what they might mean, to arrive at genuineknowledge in the affirmation of the real, the factual, the objectivestate of affairs, wit h either ce rtitu de , or m or e likely, w ith differingdeg rees of probab ility. He nce in every sph ere of reality, be it science,historical scholarship or systematic theology, the dynamism of self-transcendence is verified, unfolding through attention to the data (empirical consciousness) by searching into all the possible meanings ofsuch data (intellectual consciousness) and by weighing the evidence(rational consciousness), thus to come to a true judgement based on"sufficient reason" that, yes, this not that is certainly or probably thecase. The real is affirmed through the virtually unconditioned character of the true judge me nt. Truth th us reveals, confronts us w ith, thereal: subjectivity of our knowing and objectivity of what is known meetin the transcendental notions of the true and the real. 9 Meier 's discussion might begin to admit some clarification and point of integrationif the real were not made one category as opposed to the historical, andif the truth value of all the categories employed were more explicitlyexp lored. Because M eier do es not explicitly concern himself w ith thetrue in his account of the real and historical Jesus, his suggestion isnotably we aken ed. As Ga dam er has rem arked , "there are no satisfactory methodological criteria that prescind from the criteria oft ru th" .1 0 For this reason there is a kind of wobble in his discussion ofthe reality of Jesus, as he veers now to one ex treme, no w to the othe r.

Take idealism first of all: Meier co ntend s tha t confusion in the Jesus-Quest arises from the failure in distinguishing the three "concepts" :the "real Jesus", the "historical Jesus", and the "earthly Jesus" (p. 14).Significantly his article is subtitled "Rethinking some Concepts". Is itexcessively technical to inquire into the degree this Quest is understoodas a matter of forming not judgem ents, but "con cepts", as thoug h the realwere attained merely by thinking about data, in a way that leaves outthe proce ss of critical judge me nt? Ind eed , the "Jesus of history " tu rn sout to be, "a m ode rn abstraction and co nstruct" (p . 18). Per hap s, inpreference to "concept", "notion" would be the more accurate term here,with its connotation of progressive movement from the known to the as-yet-u nk now n. But this suspicion of idealism ap pe ars rath er finickycompared to our author's empiricist proclivities.

9 Of course, in the sphere of faith, the ultimate reason is the light of God;God draws the heart to assent and surrender: a limited case of Pascal's hearthaving its reasons which the head does not know. On the dynamics of judgement see Lonergan, Insight, 271-318.1 As quoted in Lonergan, Method in Theology, 292.


11/27

212 Pacifica 4 (June 1991)For a peculiar empiricism is far m ore obvious. Kno wing the reality,even "the total reality" of an historical person is made equivalent to

the capacity for gathering all possible data on the subject (p. 15).Admittedly, the more usual case is one of assembling "a ' reasonablycom plete pictu re'" (p. 15). Som etimes, in M eier's usage , these " da ta"are termed "facts": "at least the facts are there" (p. 15) which"exercise some control over wild hypoth eses" . N ow , this is the pointw here con siderable confusion can arise. I do not doub t that the interaction of hypotheses and data can lead to a judgement of fact, withgreater or less degree of probability. 1 1 Further, I concede that in alater stage of historical research, such facts, established in an earlierstage of investigation, can be data for comprehensive hypotheses andeventual judgement, with the desired result that "wild hypotheses"become less unlikely in the community of scholarship, so that thereali ty of the way things were is slowly and solidly established.However, it remains that the emerging facts, the established reality,is a long wa y from data alone, however ab und ant they might be.

Thus, when Meier concludes that "The real and the historical do notcoincide, but there is a considerable overlap" (p. 15) and that "thehistorical Jesus m ay give fragments of the real perso n bu t nothing m ore "(p. 19), w ha t do es this m ean? The ob viou s implication is that thetotality of possible data (Meier's "real Jesus") contrasts with theactual paucity of the data ("historical") - so limited in the case ofJesus. The result is that the "real Jesus", implicitly equated with thehistorian's capacity to access the totality of relatively adequate data,is declared "unknown and unknowable to the historian" (p. 16). True,the historian is never going to have all the historical data on Jesus;hence all historical reflection is going to be limited and hampered bythis lack. But only by an empiricist equ ation of know ledge w ith thegath ering of da ta, doe s M eier's statement stand . If, on the other h and,while recognising the restriction on the am oun t of data, you und erstandkno win g as a com pou nd of attending to the limited da ta, of interpretingit to the best of your ability, of forming the most appropriate hypotheses, and then com ing to som e proba ble or certain judgem ent abou t thereality of the way things were, then his statement seems surprisinglynega tive. W hy should historians, usin g the data they hav e, not cometo a good p robab ility abou t the way things really were? W hy shouldadvan ces be ruled out? "U nkn ow n" and "unk now able" are unjustifiablyextrem e. Th us, if there are any data , and M eier - in contrast to

1 1 For the distinction between data and facts, see Lonergan, Method inTheology, 201-203; and Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 81-7.


12/27

Kelly: The Historical Jesus an d H um an Subjectivity 213Bultmann - would certainly say there are, intelligent interpretation ofthem is possible, probabilities can be w eighed, judgem ent can be m ade ,and the real can be reached, resulting in the "surprising" extent of ourhistorical knowledge of Jesus compared to, say, of Apollonius of Tyana(p . 18).Meier considers that the historical Jesus-research "of its very natureprescind s from question s of w hat is know n by faith" (p. 20). For, in suchhistorical investigation, "the real" has to be defined in terms of whatexists within this world of time and space and can be experienced inprincip le by an y obs erve r" (p. 21). H ere "th e rea l" is confined to "th erealm of the merely em pirical" (p. 21). N ow , this is an extrao rdinar yconcession to emp iricism. It wo uld a m oun t to evacu ating most of thetruth of historical knowledge and, indeed, of human sciences in general,to say nothin g of persona l or interpersonal kn ow ledge in particular. Iwould have to agree with our author in as much as historical knowledge m ust be based in some empirical data, and that there is a specialproblem in relating, say, the resurrection, or the Trinity to such empirical data . But a worry ing point is M eier's redu ction of the realityof his tory to the purely empir ical . 1 2 For the critical realist, incontrast, reality stands forth as what is affirmed after the data arescrutinised, eva luate d, interpre ted and po nd ere d. After all, the historian know s more about w hat w as really going on than those wh o we regoing through it: here the analogy of, say, an historical evaluation ofthe war in Vietnam and a young soldier serving on either side in thesteaming jungle w ou ld be instructive! These latter had the data in acertain immediate fashion; but to interpret, to understand, to reflect,and to pass judgem ent on the m eaning and reality of w hat w as going onis ano ther m atter. So also the problem of redu cing the real to wha t isexperienced.

12 Are the rules of e mp irical evidence (w hich are inte nde d to characterisethe historical-critical method) sufficiently formulated in supposing that historical data is in principle open to verification by any observer? (See Meier,note 33, p.16, p.21) If someone dismissed a M ozart symp hony as cacoph onou snoise, or Shakespeare's Hamlet as a tedious tale, he or she would hardly merita response. The stature of Mozart and Shakespeare is established with sufficient objectivity. But that objectivity in apprecia tion is the fruit of a subjectivity prom oted, refined and n urture d by centuries of tradition in mu sic and th eperforming arts. Only those wh o hav e p articipated in the exper ime nt ofsubjectivity with feeling and intelligence can arrive at the "real" work of art,and arrive at an objective assessment of its wo rth. Lest such exam ples seemaltogether banal, many Westerners have to struggle precisely with this kind ofproblem if they witn ess, say, a Ch inese Op era or Japanese K abuk i. Th eobjective reality of the art is lost where the subjectivity has not been educatedto judge correctly.


13/27

214 Pacifica 4 (June 1991)On the other hand, if "faith and theology affirm realities beyondthe em pirical..." (p. 21), this doe s not me an that such affirmation lacksempirical sup port in the wo rds or deed s, in symbolic actions and eventsconnected with Jesus; and in the subtle or dramatic experience ofconversion, in the l iving test imony of the earl iest witnesses andbelievers.So, against the empiricist tendency in Meier's position, it must beurged that all knowledge goes beyond empirical data; and, against hisidea list exp ression s, I w ou ld su ggest that faith an d theology themselves ha ve their ow n kind of empirical foundation. W hat historiansmight disagree on is both the meaning(s) and worth of such data:Quidquid recipitur, recipitur per tnodum recipientis. But that is anoth er qu estion w hich w e will deal with later. For the mo m ent, M eier'sacco unt is restricted by an ina deq uate set of term s. His seemingly clearcategories will not stay "straight"!Oddly, despite his concluding remarks and his own scholarly performance, Meier seems to be at pains not merely to distinguish faithan d sc holarship, but to separate them . More than most, he is aw are ofthe proliferation of accounts of the historical Jesus, and so insists thatsuch tentat ive and contradictory views cannot affect the essentialobject an d p rese ntatio n of faith. For he ask s "Who se historical Jesus?"in the face of the bew ilde ring va riety of historical reco nstruc tions. Itseems to me that there is only one possible answer: the historical Jesusof the c hurch , the Jesus of the believing, worshipp ing, preaching, theo-logising, research ing and acting comm unity of faith. Du e in no smallmeasure to the work of Christian scholars like Meier himself, I wouldconte nd that th ere is no w no need to consider the Jesus of critical historyas, in principle, outside the horizon of the church's faith and belief.Indeed, a critically reflective belief can be a powerful stimulus in the

de ve lop m en t of christological doctrine . The integrity of both faith andthe incarnation as its focal mystery would be truncated if the only "realJesus" "to whom access is given only in fai th" was thought to beind ep en de nt of critically established historical reality. For the "historical Jesus" is, within its critical limits, an affirmation of an historical reality. I thin k Meier is himself in a bind at this po int. Afterall, he intro duc es so m uch of the Jesus of history into his own statementof the object of faith (p. 22); an d he do es go on to stress the "usefu lness"of the Jesus-Quest for "fai th seeking understanding" in a cultureinform ed by historical scho larsh ip (p. 22). But aga in, I think a moreobvious dist inction might have been made, since al l fai th seeks


14/27

Kelly : The His to r ica l Jesus an d H u m an Subjec tiv i ty 215un de rs ta nd in g of i ts object in som e w ay . The re lev ant dis t in ct ion her e isfa i th l imi te d in the pa s t to r e a d ing the Gos pe l s in a p re c r i t i c a lfa s h ion , a nd fa i th r e a d ing the m now wi th the re s ou rc e s o f mode rnscho la rsh ip . Ch r is t ian fa ith i s no t de pe nd en t on scho la rs , for fa i th i sa gif t ; but there is no intr ins ic reason why the art icula t ion of such fa i thin s ta tements o f be l ie f and doc t r ine cannot be c la r i f ied , enr iched andpu r i f i e d by ge nu ine s c ho la r s h ip in i t s p re s e n ta t ion o f the h i s to r i c a lreal i ty of Jesus . To ex clu de from t he in te nd in g of fa i th the real i ty ofthe cri t ica l ly es tablished his torical Jesus seems to me to lay one open toOt to Miche l ' s charge aga ins t Kahle r , a s Meie r pu ts i t , " f lee ing f romthe wor ld o f the h is to r ica l and the h is to r ica l ly ve r i f iab le ; fo r h im,the Wo rd n eve r fully beco m es flesh" (p . 11).4. SOME DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES

Ad m i t t e d ly , the mo re inc lu s ive , r e a l is t pos i t ion I ha ve be e n c om m e n d i n g , h o w e v e r c r y p t i c a l l y , m a y a p p e a r n a i v e , g i v e n t h e c u r r e n tacad em ic s i tuat ion of so m uc h bibl ica l research . Th e con creten ess of thep rob le m i s , dou b t l e s s , wha t Me ie r ha s in m ind . I w i ll s a y s o m e th in gfurther on this po int bel ow .To go fu r the r w ou ld inv i te a la rge sca le ph i lo soph ica l exp lora t ion .

Per hap s i t can be convenien t ly cond ensed in a m uch quo ted Lon ergan ianax iom : "ob jec t iv i ty i s the f rui t of au th en t ic sub jec t iv i ty" . 1 3 For theres t of th is reflec t ion, I wil l a t tempt to tease out the implicat ions ofth i s a x io m fo r the p r ob le m o f the J e s u s Q ue s t . N o t to in t e g r a tea u the n t i c s ub je c t iv i ty in to a ny que s t o r s e a rc h , in Lone rga n ' s words ," inev i tab ly lead s to som e m eas ure o f reduc t ion ism ." i4 in h is susp ic ionof the biased or uncri t ica l subject ivi ty of those who have employed theo ld Jesus of H is t o r y / C hr is t o f Fa i th d ich o to m y ( for exa m ple , by sm ug g l ing in cover t theo log ica l agendas , in the in t rac tab i l i ty o f the " rea lworld" of the f lesh and blood real i t ies of the scholars in quest ion, andso fo r th ) , Meie r tends to leave the dead to bury the i r dead , and so totake re fuge in a k ind of super-ob jec t iv i ty re la ted to fa i th where therea l Jesus and the rea l i ty o f Chr is t a re immedia te ly engaged , l i f tedbeyond the ebb and f low of his torical research.

But tha t do es no t offer th e radi cal c larif ica t ion he seeks . Th e onlyw a y fo rwa rd i s no t tha t o f c on t ra s t ing s om e k ind of w a y w a r d a n dimpre s s iona b le s ub je c t iv i ty w i th a n impe rv ious a nd t r a ns c e nde n t ob jec tiv i ty . Ra th er , i t i s a m at te r of s t ress in g the d is t inc t ion be tw ee n aninau then t ic sub jec t iv i ty on the one hand , and an au then t ic sub jec t iv i ty13 Lonergan, Method in Theology, 265, 292.1 4 Lonergan, Method in Theology, 292.


15/27

216 Pacifica 4 (Ju ne 1991)on the other: for , to repeat , object ivi ty is the frui t of authentic subject iv i ty , a s e l f - t r a ns c e nde nc e t ru ly a t t e n t ive to the da ta , ope n minde dand c rea t ive in an e f for t to unders tand them, ca re fu l and d ispass iona tein judgement , and , a t i t s peak , su rrendered to the t ranscendent demandsand ev idences o f fa i th .

What then , in the Ques t fo r the h is to r ica l Jesus , a re the symptoms ofan inauthentic subject ivi ty? Obviously , a re ject ion of data ; a refusal toinquire in to a l l meanings ; b ias o r p re jud ice in coming to judgement ; alack of re l ig ious aw aren ess o r exper ience . W hi le such shor tcom ings a r ec ompa ra t ive ly obv ious , the re i s the f a r more imponde ra b le b ia s o f ag iv en age or cu l tu re : a scho la r m igh t be ru th less ly hone s t wi th ou t a nyawareness o f the l imi ts o f the t rad i t ion in which he o r she i s opera t ing : the curren t p re jud ice o f academe, the b ias o f the age might sop e n e t r a t e o n e ' s m i n d a n d h e a r t t h a t c e r t a i n o p t i o n s a r e s i m p l y a s s ign ed to the im pos s ib le , the s tu p id o r the ab su rd . Th is i s the g r avep ro b le m o f a n una u the n t i c t r a d i t ion .1 5

In fac ing these p rob lems , a number o f methodolog ica l ca tegor ies mayprove most useful .(a) The Structure of Consciousness

Th e f irs t i s , adm it ted ly , the mo s t vag ue , bu t it i s fund am enta l to theres t . I t is the dyn am ic s tr uctu re of the conscio usness of the know er, or , inthe p rese n t ins tan ce , of the "Qu es te r" . Th is i s no t the t ime to go in tothe who le ph i lo s ophy o f the huma n inqu i r ing s ub je c t , bu t s imp ly tos t ress tha t address ing the b ib l ica l da ta mus t have the charac te r o f aluminous se l f - t ranscendence in the d i rec t ion of the g iven , the meaningfu l , t he t rue , the good , the u l t ima te . 1 6 I t i s mos t un l ike ly tha t wewould de tec t any g iven scho la r asse r t ing tha t read ing the tex t i s o f noim po r ta nc e , o r tha t t ry i ng to un de rs tan d i t i s unn ecess a ry , o r tha t theme a n ing i s s o u t t e r ly c l e a r a nd c onv inc ing tha t no ponde r ing on theprob abi l i t ie s o f correc t in te rpre ta t io n i s req u i re d . S imi la r ly , i t w ou ldcas t some doubt on the capac i t ie s o f such a myth ica l scho la r to a r r ivea t a reasonable in te rpre ta t ion of the b ib l ica l da ta i f he o r she ad-

1 5 See the rem ark of Lonergan (Method in Theology, 162; see also 221): "Onthe other han d the tradition m ay be una uth entic . It may consist in wateringdown the original message, in recasting it into terms and meanings which mayfit into the assump tions and convictions of th ose w ho have dodged the issue ofradical conversion. In that case a genuine interpretation may be met withincred ulity a nd ridicu le such as expressed in Acts 28:26."1 6 For a concise presentation of this dynamic structure, see Lonergan'sremarks on 'Transcendental M ethod" in Method in Theology, 13-20.


16/27

Kelly: The His torica l Jesus an d H u m a n Subject ivi ty 217m i t t e d a c o m p l e t e l a ck of s y m p a t h y f or t h e m o r a l o r r e l i g i o u sc o m m un i ty tha t p ro du c e d s uc h t e x t s the n , a n d re a d s the m a s foun -da t iona l do c um e n t s now . The s e g ro te s que pos s ib i l it i e s s im p ly u nd e r score the fact that sol id bibl ica l scholarship arises out of the genuinese l f - t ransc ending capa c i t ie s o f scho la rs the m se lv es . The i r ob jec t iv i tyi s the ou tc ome o f a n a t t e n t ive , in t e l l ige n t , r e a s ona b le , mora l a ndre l ig ious sub jec tiv i ty . But he r e w e m us t look a t som eth i ng ra the r m or ef u n d a m e n t a l t h a n w h e t h e r o r n o t s c h o l a r s i g n o r e t h e i r d o c u m e n t s ,fa ls i fy resea rch , a re over t ly p ropagandis ts fo r th is o r tha t pos i t ion , o rres olu te red uc tio nis ts in the rea lm of re l ig ion and C hris t ian fa i th . I t isbe t te r to concen tra te on the hea l thy , success fu l pe rformance of genuineschola rsh ip . H ere , h um an consc io usness ma nifes ts i t s au th en t ic i ty in as t ruc tured , however th rea tened , se l f - t ranscendence by way of a ca re fu ls c ru t iny o f the da ta , the ima g ina t ive fo rming o f hypo the s e s , s e r iouswe igh ing o f the p roba b i l i t i e s , c ons ide re d judge me n t , a nd , th rough i ta l l , a l ived famil ia r i ty wi th re l ig ious rea l i t ie s tha t a re under d iscus s ion . Such scho la r ly se l f - invo lvement (and consc ience) unfo lds th roughin te r - re l a t e d l e ve l s o f c ons c ious ne s s : e mp i r i c a l in a t t e nd ing to theda t a , in t e l le c tua l in que s t io n in g the i r m e a n ing , r a t iona l in w e ig h in gthe ev idence , mora l in commitment to , o r , a t leas t , a fee l ing fo r the i rhu m a n s ign i f i ca nc e a nd v a lue , r e l ig ious by f re ely e n te r ing in to thehorizon of fa i th .This se lf- tra nsce ndin g subject is , of co urs e , ne ve r foun d in som e p u res ta te . W e op era te a lwa ys in the s t rugg le of ou r f le sh an d b lood l ives ,whe n the impe ra t ive s to be a t t e n t ive , in t e l l ige n t , r e a s ona b le , r e s pon s ible , an d ad or in g tend to coalesce as the on e und iffere ntia te d voice ofscholarly conscience.

Sti l l , a good deal of the confl ic t in matters of Chris t ian scholarshipmay be c la r i f ied by d is t ingu ish ing wha t i s usua l ly no t exper ienced ass e pa ra te d . The re by we c an pu t ou rs e lve s in a pos i t ion to a t t e nd tofa i lures on one or oth er of these levels of con scio usne ss . Lea ving gro ssfa i lures as ide , the most l ikely source of confusion is that of not ful lyappropr ia t ing the requ irements o f each leve l o f consc iousness , wi th them e thodo log ic a l de m a n ds p rop o r t i on a te to e a c h . In h i s r e fl e c tion onwhat i s requ i red in th is respec t , Lonergan offe red a pa r t icu la r mode l o fthe o log ic a l me thod a s "a f r a me work fo r c o l l a bo ra t ive c re a t iv i ty " inme d ia t ing the me a n ing a nd va lue o f f a i th to a g ive n c u l tu re . 1 7 H er e c o g n i s e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e t h r e e t y p e s o f s p e c i a l i s a t i o n : field

I7

Method in Theology, p. ix. To app rop riat e, critically and positively,one's specialist position in this complex process makes not only for collaborationalong more clear lines, but assures a larger creativity in the process as a whole.


17/27

218 Pacifica 4 (Ju ne 1991)spec ia l i sa t ion i s the scho la r ' s spec ia l a rea o f concen tra t ion , someth ingfamil ia r to us a l l in to da y 's kno wle dge- explo s ion . The second , subjector department spe c ia l i sa t i on , res p on d s to the nee d to c lass i fy th eresults of such ever-burgeoning research into subjects to be taught in thef a c u lt y o r t h e d e p a r t m e n t . T h e t h i r d , functional s pe c ia l i s a t ion , i sh i the r to the mos t ne g le c te d a nd , c ons e que n t ly , the oc c a s ion o f mos tc o n f u s i o n .1 8 Here we d is t ingu ish , and i f need be , separa te the succes s ive s t a g e s in the p roc e s s f rom d a ta to r e s u l t s : r e p re s e n t in g s uc hdifferent s tages in the process are the textual cr i t ic , the exegete , theh i s to r i a n , the s y s te ma t ic the o log ia n , the pa s to ra l the o log ia n a nd there l ig ious communica tor .

These s tages can be thought o f as someth ing of a sp i ra l con t inua l lymov ing th rough pos s ib i l i t i e s a nd de ma nds o f e a c h l e ve l o f c ons c ious ne s s ( e m p i r i c a l , i n t e l l e c tua l , r a t ion a l , r e s po ns ib le ) . I t t a ke s in theda ta o f the pas t th rough the spec ia l t ie s o f : Research (a t tend ing to theda ta : fo r example , the tex tua l c r i t ic ) ; Interpretation ( a d isc ip l ineda t t e mp t to unde rs t a nd s uc h da ta : fo r e xa mple , the e xe ge te ) ; History( s e t t ing s uc h unde rs ta nd ing in b roa de s t c a te go r ie s o f wha t wa s ha p pen ing and deve lop ing a t tha t t ime: fo r example , the fac tua l , cu l tu ra l ,m o r a l , r e l i g i o u s h i s t o r i a n ) ; a n d Dialectics ( s tudy ing the c on f l i c t srevealed in such his tory, the different in terpre ta t ions and so forth: fore xa mple , the e c ume n is t ) .Such a method opens to the future , in the l ight of th is assumption ofthe past, first of all by Foundations, an effort to obje ct ivise on e ' sre l ig iou s , in te l lec tua l an d m ora l s tance : for exam ple , a ren ew ed fundam e n t a l t h e o l o g y . I n t h e m e a s u r e t h a t t h i s i s a c h i e v e d , c e r t a inposi t ions fol low from the in tegri ty of ones cri t ica l ly es tablished s tandp o i n t : Doctrines. For i ts part , Systematics seeks to exp lore the cont e m p o r a r y m e a n i n g o f s u c h p o s i t i o n s a n d t o f o r m t h e m i n t o ap rov i s iona l w ho le . The be t t e r type of "Dog ma t ic s " i s a n e xa mple of

the m ate r ia l cov ered by these las t tw o spec ia l i sa t ions . F ina l ly , Communications completes the c irc le of the spira l by trying to re la te a l lthe fo re go ing to the me a n ings a nd va lue s o f a g ive n c u l tu re a s thec a te c h i s t , t he p re a c he r , the pa s to ra l the o log ia n , the r e l ig ious e du ca tor do the i r work . 1 9N o w , I g iv e th i s ve ry c u rs o r y ind ic a t io n of Lo ne r ga n ' s m e th od -1 8 See Method in Theology, 125f.19 Method in Theology, 127-44. This metho dological framew ork implicitly envisages an horizon in which, to use modern narrative categories, theworld of the text, the world behind the text, and the world in front of the textcome together in an orde red, critical m anner (see Moloney, "N arr ativ e Cr iticism of the G ospe ls", 188).


18/27

Kelly: The Historical Jesus an d Hu m an Subjectivity 219ological specialisations as an example of the complexity of thechristological task. It enab les us to sym pa thise with M eier's dissa tisfaction w ith the Jesus of his tor y/C hr ist of faith distinction. It could b eargued that such a distinction would mean different things at each oneof these po ints of specialisation. Little w on de r such a "rule of th um b "has eventually yielded to a more methodological and interior "rule ofthe structured demand of consciousness". Kahler's venerable distinctionsimply cannot bear the weight of this refined methodological demandinclusive of faith, belief, scholarship, systematic thought and commu nicative praxis. W hen the distinction between the Jesus of historyand the Christ of faith petrifies so as to limit the theologian to onlyone phase of the theological enterprise of mediating the meaning andvalue of faith to one's culture, or is so fluid as to include them all, thenit is obviously felt to be inad eq uate .

So, I suggest that what has been termed the "historical", the "historic" and the "Jesus of faith" of the Jesus-Quest indicate primarily notdifferent realities, but different phases in the unfolding of a methodologically structured "faith seeking understanding" of the reality andsignificance of Christ Jesus.

(b) Differentiations of ConsciousnessBut the re is a further cau se for confusion. This arise s out of thediffering realms of meaning in which the biblical sources can beap pro ac he d. It is an inesca pab le fact of m od er n life that w e tend tooccupy different realms of "real life".20 Lonergan has sketched theserealms of meaning or "differentiations of consciousness" under suchheadings as common sense, theory, transcendence, scholarship, art andinferiority.So as not to be unduly theoretical we can consider the followinginstance s. You can ha ve the local pa rish Bible stu dy gr ou p: he repeople are operating mainly in a common sense mode of a given culture.Yet it is a community of believers, and hence has some familiaritywith the realm of transcendence: not all its members are prophets andmystics, but the very reason for their meeting indicates an awareness ofa realm of meaning in which Spirit does not mean motor fuel, but aliving mystery of ultima te love. But these two realm s of com mo n senseand transcendence do not exhaust the mentalities in which the sacredwritings are app roac hed . In principle, ou r consciousness can be end-2 0 On differentiations of consciousness, see Lonergan, Method in Theology,258, 272.


19/27

220 Pacifica 4 (June 1991)lessly diversified as it responds to different exigences as they emerge inhistory: a feminist, a liberationism an aesthetic or literary appreciation of m ean ing and valu e. But there are three mo re fundam entalpos sibilities which are in fact realise d. Th ere is the theoreticalmentality where the concern is not the immediately practical - "reallife" as most commonly understood - but a disinterested exploration ofthe objectively real. Such a conce rn app rox im ates to the com m onprocedures of theology and philosophy, and parallels the detachmentof pure science intent on reality "in itself", irrespective of its concreteapp lication to actual living. Such a theoretic m od e is most at hom e notin the parish hall or the community chapel, but in the academy, theschoo l, the theolog ical faculty. A familiar scholastic instanc e ischristology, an ordered at tempt to deal systematically with suchissues as the meaning and mode of the incarnation, with its technicalcategories of perso n and na ture , and so forth. The mem bers of a study orprayer group might find such procedures austere and the terminologyqu aint and abstract com pare d to wh at they are abo ut. Still, from timeto time, they are not above turning to "the experts" for help whencommon sense and faith raise questions that they cannot answer.

But this realm of theological theory has not been left untroubled.There is another realm of meaning that resolutely disallows atheoretic christology using the biblical writings as a pool of proof textsfor its co ns tru ctio ns . This is, of cou rse, the world of scholarship,specifically of biblical and historical scholarship in the presentinstanc e. A scholarly differentiation of consciousn ess feeds on thesources of our knowledge of the past; it aims to recover the "commonsense", the "real world", of a past culture through i ts eruditefamiliarity with the languages, customs, concerns and modes of thoughtof a van ished age . If the abov e m ention ed differentiations of consciousness are more at home in the world "in front of the text", thescholarly type of mentality is habituated to the worlds "within thetext" and "beh ind the text". For the biblical source s are located in thecontext of their historical and cultural emergence: the "Jewishness" ofJesus, for instance, emerges with a disconcerting particularity for atheology hitherto content with a theoretic elaboration of the doctrineof the inc arn atio n. In the critical im ag inatio n of the scholar, thew orld of Jesus or Pau l stand s forth as "a real w orld ". Such historicalsch ola rship ha s been w ith us for scarcely two cen turies. Before that,there was only a precritical history largely constructed through beliefin au the ntic ate d testimo ny. Critical history takes such precriticalhistor y as da ta for its critical con struction s and judg em ents . The


20/27

Kelly: The Historical Jesus an d H um an Subjectivity 221morality of this new scholarly knowledge is not limited to givingedifying accounts; for it aims at a disinterested reconstruction of howthings were, attempting to disentangle the factual from the symbolicexpression, and from the moral and religious concerns which so obviously figure in the sources as we hav e them . Th us the inspira tion ofthe Bible is not in the first place a principle guiding such scholarlyresearch, but more a statement of the quality of the data it has toassess, namely, a record of early Christian beliefs, values and practices. In we ighing such evidence , biblical scholarship aim s to construct,with greater or lesser probability, the shape of earlier strata of evidence, and through that, seeks some approximation to the reality ofthe Jesus of history.

Hence christology, long habituated to a theoretic mentali ty, andcontent to prove its doctrines from the Bible, now has to be open to thefindings of a community of scholarship - ongoing, tentative, assessingprob abilities, an d ever revising the state of the questio n. It is acomplex world: the textual critic, the exegete, the literary scholar, thefactual historian, the moral historian, and the religious historian allhave their respective interests. W hat they have in com m on is thescholarly effort of self-transcendence manifested in attentiveness tothe variety of data, in an intelligent exploration of their possiblemeanings, in reasonableness in coming to the m ost probable judg em ents,in responsibility in being open to a continuous open-minded, criticalrevision of the achievements of oneself and others, with all thisideally marked by a conscious part icipation in a methodologicallyelaborated comprehensive theological quest.

This is not to say that the scholarly differentiation of consciousnessis the only possible me ntality today. The catechist, the preache r, thesystematic theologian, the contemplative at prayer continue, respectively, to go about the business of making sense of their faith in thecultu re of the day . But the com m unity of scholars, specialising in thepast, does make a difference, now challenging, now confirming, nowdemanding a wholesale reconsideration of what had been uncriticallybelieved as the way things were.Problems arise when these different realms of meaning are simplyjuxtaposed, either in a single Christian consciousness or in the specialisations and pluralism of the culture as a who le. W hat doe s Te ilhard'scosmic christology have to do with the life, the teachings, and the fateof the itinerant Galilean preacher as, say, Meier has described it?What does the Chalcedonian doctrine of "the one person in twonatu res" have to do with Jesus' preaching the Kingdo m of God? W hat


21/27

222 Pacifica 4 (June 1991)do any or all of these concerns have to do with someone overwhelmedwith guil t and asking for mercy, or with a mystic breathing inadoration the w ord s of Thom as, "My Lord and my G od"?The predictable clash of "real worlds" demands a further and fundamental differentiation of consciousness: interiority. Specialists in thisrealm of mea ning ar e forced to ask, "What is going on here?" Ho w is itthat all these "realms of meaning" - common sense, theory, transcenden ce, scholarsh ip - are "real wo rlds"? The privileged data for thisinvestigation are the data of consciousness itself, accessible in theliving minds and hearts of all involved in the theological enterprise.From such an inspection there emerges the dynamic structure of the selffrom wh ich all these realm s of meanin g emerge. Such a turn to thesubject becomes the foundation of a holistic theological method inwhich the exigences of the varying differentiations of consciousness canbe respected. H ere, I think, Lonergan m ost offers a contribution. Thesedifferentiations of consciousness give sometimes obvious, sometimessubtle, modulations to the meaning of the "real", the "historical", the"earthly" in regard to Jesus.

Ob viously , M eier's app roac h is scholarly. The problem is, therefore, not to reduce or undercut the validity of other differentiations ofconsciousness, but to distinguish them in order to highlight the techniques and resources peculiar to each in approximating to the reality ofJesus. But Meier does not explicitly address himself to the question ofthe com plex subjectivity involved . No neth eless, in an implicit recognition of the presence of other realms of meaning, he lifts the "realJesus" out of scholarship altogether: "The real Jesus is not the historical Jesus...". Ad m ittedly it is prob ably no t pos sible, un less one ispsy cho tic, to inh abit any of these realms exclusively. N or is itdesirable: each realm has its own attainments and richness, its ownprom ise of success as well as its ow n kind of limitations and frustration.The peculiarly modern theological skill that we need to develop isnot only that collabo rating with sp ecialists in these realms, bu t ofrecognising their roots in our own consciousness; only in this way canfalse conflicts be avoided and the established distinctions be freed fortheir relative usefulness in a faith seeking to understand itself in allrealms of meaning, be they common sense or theory, interiority or art,transcend ence or scholarship. After al l, und erstan ding and reasonthem selves hav e a history w hich is rich and varied . A failure to notethis occasions a situation in which theology is a collection of specialists spe akin g at cross pu rp os es . Yet a positive, critical recognition ofsuch a history necessitates something like Lonergan's method.


22/27

Kelly : The His to r ica l Jesus an d H u m a n Subjec tiv i ty 223(c) Conversion

Sti l l, w e ar e no t yet a t the end of the m at ter . For scho lar s can b emore o r l e s s "c onve r te d" in a s e ns e ra the r more a mp le tha n i s o f t e nthou ght . For the r e i s a lw ays a da ng er of th in k in g tha t an em pt y h ead ,a n un fe e l ing he a r t , a mo r t i f i e d im a g in a t io n a nd a n a gnos t i c s p i r i tcons t i tu te the bes t equ ipment fo r scho la r ly resea rch . 2 1

Lonergan has p resen ted convers ion in te rms of a l ibe ra t ing en t ry in toa n u l t im a te ho r iz on of t ru th , va lu e a n d mys t e ry . In s uc h a r a d ic a lperso na l t rans format ion , on e can cons ider d is t inc t, bu t re la ted , m om en tsof in te l lec tual , moral and re l ig ious convers ion.22These var ious moments in the p rocess o f Chr is t ian convers ion idea l ly

occur in the one consc iousness . Ind eed , Lon ergan se em s to env isag e th a tre l ig ious convers ion p lan ts the seeds , a s i t were , o f an even tua l in te l l e c tua l a n d mo ra l tu rn , thou gh the re i s no t e l l ing in w ha t t e m po ra lsequ ence a ll th is m igh t ha pp en . W ha tev er the case , the h ig her leve ls" s ub la te " o r s ubs ume the lowe r l e ve l s . 2 3 For e xa mple , r e l ig ious c on ve rs ion no t on ly p la c e s one ' s in te l l e c tua l a c t iv i ty in a n u l t ima te lymeaning fu l un iv erse , bu t g iv es the in te l ligence a m ys te r y to exp lore . Ina s imi la r fash ion , an u l t imate surrender to the Mys te ry o f Love br ingsan in f luence of t ranscendent va lue in to one 's mora l l i fe ; jus t a s tha tmora l l iv ing s ubs ume s the be s t c r i t i c a l in te l l ige nc e to i l lumina te i t spu rpo s e s . Th i s no t io n of s ub la t ion a l lows for a n e nc o un te r w i th therea l i ty o f Jesus on d i f fe ren t leve ls : i t i s compat ib le wi th fa i th ' s su rre nde r to a " thou" , in p ra ye r a nd a do ra t ion a nd u l t ima te t ru s t , bu t a ssubsuming a l l in te l l igen t e f fo r ts a imed a t e s tab l ish ing the h is to r ica lfac ts , the h is to r ic in f luence , and par t icu la r humani ty o f "h im", in thed i f fer ing con tex ts of m ean ing . H er e I agre e w i th Meie r , w ho in tu r n

2 1 See Meyer, The Aims of ]esus, 97.2 2 Recent commen tators, such as Doran, Conn and Fletcher, add other m odesof conversion: "psychic", as leading to a new appro priatio n of on e's affectiveand symbolic consciousness; "Christian", as an encounter w ith th e crucified an drisen one as Lord; perh aps w e could also add "ecclesial" as a comm itment to thecomplex mediation of the church, as the only subjectivity in which the truemeaning, value and mystery of Christ is experienced in the ongoing conversionof the chu rch 's life. See Lonerg an, Method in Theology, 253; A Third Collection, 86-9.2 3 On sublation, Lonergan writes ( Method in Theology, 241): "what sub-lates goes beyond w hat is sublated, introduces something new and distinct, pu tseveryth ing on a new basis, yet far from interfering with wh at is sublate d ordestroying it, on the contrary needs it, includes it, preserves its prope r featuresand properties, and carries them forward to a fuller realisation within a richercontext."


23/27

224 Pacifica 4 (Ju ne 1991)f o l l o w s C h a r l e s w o r t h 2 4 i n a dve r t ing to the " loa de d" c ha ra c te r o fsearching for Jesus as though for someone who was los t in a dark room oru n d e r a pi le of ru bb le (p . 14, no te 32). O n the re l ig iou s level , in so m equi te de f in i te and unshakeab le sense , the re i s no sea rch , no ques t : Jesusis a p r ese n t an d l iv ing rea l i ty . Th e ac t iv i ty o f sea rch ing is ra th e r anin s ta nc e o f the t r a d i t ion o f " fa i th s e e k ing unde rs ta nd ing" , fo r a nun de rs ta nd in g of f a ith c on fo rm a b le to m od e r n h i sto r i c a l a n d c r i ti ca lt e c h n i q u e s .

The s e va r ious mome n ts o f c onve rs ion ha ve c ons ide ra b le be a r ing onthe Jesus Qu es t . The qua l i ty of on e 's conve rs ion co lours the hor iz on inw hic h the real i ty of Jesus is foun d o r sough t, or bo th found an d soug ht ind i f fe ren t m an ner s . Inde ed , w e cou ld d isqua l i fy ourse lves from the ques tth rough a lack of convers ion in one or o ther o r , pe rhaps , a l l o f i t sm om en ts . For exam ple , the de vo ut can say , "W ho need s to seek for theone who ha s a l r e a dy be e n found? " , thus ope n ing the wa y to funda me nta l i sm of one sor t o r ano ther . The non-re l ig ious can conf ine them se lvesto a fac tua l h is to ry o f the pas t wi thout any persona l engagement wi th ,o r s e n s e of, the t r a ns c e nd e n t r e a l i t ie s invo lve d . The re s u l t i s asecu la r is t ic reduc t ion : the da ta o f pas t be l ie fs and tes t imonies can haveno re a l m e a n ing . O n the o the r ha n d , s om e one a t t e m p t in g to in te rp re ts uc h da ta w i thou t s u f f i c i e n t mora l de ve lopme n t migh t we l l c onc ludethat i t is a h is tory of merely economic or poli t ica l forces .A wo rd th en on each of these re la ted mo m en ts of convers ion . In te rm sof the re l ig ious co m po ne nt o f convers io n , I th ink the an sw er i s s imp le .Ob je c t iv i ty in r e l ig ious h i s to ry i s the f ru i t o f a u the n t i c r e l ig ioussubject ivi ty in the prese nt . If a resea rche r is not ope rat i ng in an hor izont h a t a l l o w s f o r t h e r e a l i t y o f d i v i n e s e l f - r e v e l a t i o n a n d c o m mun ic a t ion in the p re s e n t , t he n i t i s ha rd to ima g ine how s uc h a onec ou ld de te c t a n y c on t inu i t i e s w i th s uc h re a l i t i e s in the pa s t . In aradical sense , a quest for the real i ty of Jesus would be foredoomed; or , a t

be s t , r e duc e d to s c ho la r ly unde rs t a nd ing ,^ r a the r tha n the re ve r s e .I t i s a l i t t le more complex in the domain of mora l convers ion , bu t in2 4 James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism (New York: Doubleday,1988).2 5 The case of Denys Arca nd's film, Jesus of Montreal is instructive. On theone hand, there is the "Montreal" element with its culturally anticlerical,liberal theological starting point, and the diffident and lam e conclusion. Onthe other there is the magic of the Jesus story escaping these pre-determinedlimits; and, in so doing, refreshing the subjectivity of faith with a new

appreh ension of the man of the Gospels. See Joseph C unneen , "Role is the Manis the Son", National Catholic Reporter 26/34 (June 29, 1990) 19; and morepositively, Peter Malone, "Jesus of Montreal", Compass 24 (1990) 40-2.


24/27

Kelly: The Historical Jesus an d Hu m an Subjectivity 225principle, not much different. To the deg ree scholars have been affected by such values as love, hope, compassion and justice as intrinsicto the human good, then there will be varying degrees of imaginativemo ral em path y with the data of the past. They will be dispo sed torecognise som ething "historic", som ething "classical"26 in terms of themoral values necessary for the emergence of a more gracious humanity.Their objectivity will be the fruit of their authentic subjectivity.The tricky point in the above bears on more recent types of moralconversion to a graciou s hum anity , for exam ple, the feminist, ecologicalor liberationist turn, as new values, new scales of values demand to beprize d and p rom oted . This pres ents a special prob lem , as, for instance,in Meier's obvious unhappiness with some of the exegesis of Liberationtheology. Arg uably , Jesus wa s not a pro ph et of social justice, not afeminist , nor an environmentalist in a recognisably modern sense.Thoug h no one could seriously deny that such concerns should have anessential place in the Christian life of today, disputes on their biblicalfoundation in the Jesus of history lead right into the most complex andinherent aspect of the scholar's mind, intellectual conversion.While I have been accenting the fact that scholars are not withoutsoul or heart or imagination, the value of mind, of disciplined, disinterested objectivity is surely pre-e min ent. H ere once again, authe nticsubjectivity is the only way forw ard. The most ob viou s forms ofunauthentic subjectivity with which Lonergan contends are naive empiricism an d idealism . To becom e a critical realist sup po ses a conversion of mind that neither reduces knowledge to having a good look,nor to free-floating thought nor to bright ideas, however systematicthey might app ear. There is nothing w rong w ith having a good look ifthat is required as a first step to knowledge - one must read what isactually writ ten . Ne ither is there any intrinsic dra w bac k in thefertility of imagination and the creativity of intelligence as themeanings of such data are examined, agitated, formed into possiblem ean ings . For if a heart of stone will only confirm o ne 's cu rren tprejudice, an "empty head" properly restricts one to looking at blackma rks on a page. Genuine know ledge presuppo ses attention to data, justas it demands the imaginative formation of such data into intelligiblem eaning , and reflection on the mo st probab le interpreta tion. But theknowing process reaches its term in judgement when, after the assessment of all the possibilities, this, not that, is stated as certainly orprobab ly the case. The authenticity of min d is experienced in recognising the condit ions that make this more likely than that or any

26 See David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, (New York: Crossroad,1981) 99-130.


25/27

226 Pacifica 4 (Ju ne 1991)o th er poss ib i l i ty . K no w led ge ex pa nd s in to the a f f i rmat ion of the rea lth r ou gh suff ic ien t reason , w he re reason becom es t ru ly suff ic ien t on ly b yr e f le c t i n g , d e l i b e r a t i n g , p o n d e r i n g t h e w e i g h t of e v i d e n c e . T h u sa u t he n t i c in te l l ige nc e i s ma n i fe s te d in a s e l f - t r a ns ce nd ing m ov e m e n tbe yo nd w h at I w an t to be so , or feel to be so , to the s ta te m ent th at suchan d such is m ost l ikely to be so .

A dm itt ed ly , th is brief ind ica t ion of cri tica l rea l i sm is je june, an d canh a r d l y r e p l a c e Insight in i t s magis te r ia l exp lora t ion of such mat te rs .Our po in t i s r a the r tha t h i s to r i c a l s c ho la r s c a n l a c k s uc h c r i t i c a lre a l i s m, a nd fa l l s ho r t o f the de ma nds o f in te l l e c tua l c onve rs ion . 2 7I n d e e d , L o n e r g a n a v e r s t h a t b o t h B a r t h a n d B u l t m a n n l a c k t h i sd ime ns ion in the i r r e s pe c t ive the o log ie s . 2 8 Lest th is seem too severe ,i t i s p rec ise ly to th is convers ion in the rea lm of fa i th tha t modernsch ola rsh ip inv i te s a l l Ch r is t ian th in kers . Jesus -researc h i s no t in ten ton i l lus ion , le t a lone un t ru th ; i t does no t p romise fan tasy , bu t fac t :facts , i t is t rue , that emerge only out of the probabil i t ies of h is toricala s s e s s m e n t a n d j u d g e m e n t , e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e c o n s t a n t l y r e v i s e dp roc e s s e s of the c o m m un i ty o f h i s to r i c a l s c ho la r s h ip ; a n d the re fo rep roba b ly t rue , p roba b le s t a t e me n ts o f wha t wa s the c a s e , wha t wa s therea l h is to r ica l agen t o f these deeds , the rea l h is to r ica l speaker o fthese words , the rea l h is to r ica l su ffe re r o f th is execu t ion , the h is to r ica l rea l i ty o f the one we be l ieve in as the Word incarna te , and soforth.29

2 7 In Meier's article, the problem begins to emerge in a few passing rema rksabo ut the character of disinte rested historical judg em ent. The historical ispresented as referring "to dry, bare bones of know ledge about the past"; the past"as dead past, viewed with the cold eye of objective research, interested inpure, verifiable data for their own sake" (p. 5). This strikes me as an oddlyunsch olarly app reciation of w hat research is abou t. Is any know ledg e of thepast "dr y, ba re bones"? W hat does it mean to be "interested in pure verifiabledata , for their ow n sake"? Does one verify data? Surely hypoth eses are whatare verified in the light of available data? Is there not a pha se or a mo me nt ineven the most passionate or imaginative investigation of history when "coollydistant scientific investigation" (p. 5) is desirable?28 See Lonergan, Method in Theology, 318.2 9 An interesting parallel to the interaction between faith and scholarshipis the following example: At one stage, Meier (p. 5), illustrating the unsatisfactory nature of the historical/historic distinction, imagines the case of "ablack college student writin g a thesis on Martin Luther K ing, Jnr. The youn gscholar might be quite careful in researching the facts; but the figure of Kingcould never be for that stu den t a da tum emb almed in the past. Inevitably thestudent would select, arrange, underscore certain data in so far as they seemedto speak to the problems and promises of today ."What Meier offered as a fictional example is strangely related to an actual


26/27

Kelly : The His to r ica l Jesus an d H u m an Subjec tiv i ty 227Fa i th m us t seek i t s t ru e h is to ry . I t i s inv i t ed to be co m e t ru ly in c a rna te in the m ov e m e n t of h i s to ry . If, for in s t a nc e , c on t e m po ra r yl ibe ra t ion the o logy , o r f e min i s m o r e c o log ic a l a wa re ne s s ha s to be

d isappoin ted in no t f ind ing tha t Jesus was a soc ia l p rophe t o r an a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i v i s t o r a n e c o l o g i c a l m y s t i c , s u c h a u t h e n t i c a l l yChr i s t i a n m ov e m e n ts ha v e to c on te n t the ms e lve s w i t h a founda t ion a limpe tus in the Jesus o f h is to ry , and seek in a renewed ecc les io logy andc h r i s t o l o g y a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e s u p p o r t f o r t h e i r v a l u e s t h a n i sposs ib le in the h is to r ica l fac ts pe r ta in ing to the l i fe and teach ing ofJesus . Fur the r , i t i s poss ib le tha t ne w mo ra l o r sp i r i tu a l con cern s asins tanced in the Libera t ion Theology , femin ism, eco log ica l awarenessa l r ead y re fe r red to , o r as m ig h t be the ou tc om e of, say , in te r fa i thd ia log ue , m igh t s o re f re s h the c a pa c i t i e s o f fu tu re r e a de rs of th eG o s p e l s t h a t t h e y w i ll b e b e t t e r e q u i p p e d t o a p p r e c i a t e h i t h e r t oover lo oked o r un de rp lay ed aspec ts of the h is to r ica l rea l i ty o f Jesus . O nthe o the r ha nd , s c ho la r s c ons t ra ine d by a l a t e -En l igh te nme n t , We s te rnEurope a n wor ld -v ie w in wh ic h mi ra c le s do no t ha ppe n , God doe s no tac t , the dead do no t r i se , the human se l f i s no th ing bu t d is incarna tein te l l igence , an d h is to ry ha s no fu l fi lment, ha ve o th er p r ob lem s . Th eEnlightenment "prejudice agains t pre judices", i f i t is to be true to itself,i s now ca l led upon to confess the charac te r o f i t s own pre jud ice inrea din g the pas t . I t is no se cure s tance to turn to the pas t , to the Jesus ofh is to ry , fo rea rmed wi th the convic t ion tha t wha t he was confessed tobe , w ha t he l ived an d d ied fo r, cou ld no t be t rue . A la rger wo r ld- v ie wtoday , no t un insp i red by the wonders o f sc ience itself,30 and in ten t on ainstance, even thou gh with an unfo rtunate twist: The Stanford histo rianClayborn Carson, was a young man in 1963 when he took part in the march onW ashington and heard the famous "I have a dream " speech. He was invitedby Coretta King to edit her husba nd's papers in 1985. But Car son's scholarshipled him to the disturbing discovery: extensive portions of King's academicwritings, including his 1955 doctoral disserta tion at Boston U niver sity, we replagiarised. And so, he concluded that "M artin Luther King Jnr wa s a greatman but a careless scholar.... Unlike other discov eries that y ou can be ha pp yand elated wi th, ther e is little joy in th is ". See Newsweek (AustralianEdition , 29 Novem ber 1990) 70.This is a good instance of wh at intellectual conversion m ean s. The parallelwith the intellectual integrity demanded in Jesus research is, of course, notexact; but it is sufficient to indicate how history feeds faith with truth, and iscontinually correcting an a-historical docetism.30 vVe can begin to see how lim ited our past catego ries hav e been an d,indeed, how a larger subjectivity has its place in regard to the "new ontology"emerging in contemporary science. For a splendid reflection on this issue, seeJohn Honner, "A New Ontology: Incarnation, Eucharist, Resurrection andPhysics", Pacifica 4 (1991) 15-50.


27/27

228 Pacifica 4 (Ju ne 1991)more ho l i s t i c a pp re c ia t ion o f huma n e x i s t e nc e , ope ns the wa y to agreater cr i t ica l object ivi ty , not by implic i t ly aff irming that most of theGospe l te s t imony cou ld no t be t rue , bu t by f inger ing the sharp edge of aques t ion , "What i f i t i s?"

Thus, i f we pay some at tention to the subject ive real i ty of the Jesusques te r , the Jesus -Ques t can be in tegra ted in to the ongoing bus iness o f" fa i th s e e k ing unde rs ta nd ing" in a more s pa c ious a nd c r i t i c a l ma nne r .To be a le r t to the co l labora t ive charac te r o f the theo log ica l en te rpr ise ,to a l low for the various differentia t ions of consciousness occurring in ourh i s to ry , to l ive w i th the h i s to r i c a l c ha ra c te r o f c onve rs ion itself,sug ge s ts a d i f fe ren t a pp ro ac h to the unsa t i s fac tory n a tu re of the d is t inc t ion be twe e n the J e s us o f h i s to ry a nd the Chr i s t o f f a i th .Cla r i f ica t ion i s no t p r imar i ly to be sought by changing or add ing to thete r m s o f s uc h a d i s t inc t io n . P ro g re s s i s pos s ib le on ly by a ke e ne rawareness o f the sub jec t iv i ty o f the scho la r , the resea rcher , the theologian, the bel iever, and of a l l the different ways in which we can be"q ue s te r s " , o f te n a t the s a m e t ime . The p rob le m a t ic d i s t inc t ion tha toccas ioned Meie r ' s "Re th ink ing" wi l l , desp i te i t s c rudeness , con t inue toha ve a ce r ta in em ble m at ic re leva nce . In a sense , i t i s m ere ly e xpr es s ing , in a s c ho la r ly c on te x t o f me a n ing , the ine v i t a b le c omple x i tyinheren t in the des igna t ion of the ob jec t o f Chr is t ian fa i th as "JesusCh r i s t " . In tha t na m e , h i s to ry a n d t r a ns c e n de nc e ha v e me t ; a n d thebeliever and the scholar can be one. 3 1Fina l ly , l e t me e mpha s i s e tha t though my the o log ic a l a nd me thod o l o g i c a l r e s p o n s e t o J o h n M e i e r ' s s u g g e s t i o n h a s b e e n s o m e w h a tne ga t ive , i t c ome s ou t o f a ge nu ine a dmi ra t ion fo r wha t th i s p re s e n tgenera t ion of exege tes has accompl ished in genera l , and of wha t thed i s t ingu i s he d s c ho la r s h ip o f J ohn Me ie r ha s a c h ie ve d in pa r t i c u la r .My concern i s to ass imi la te more deep ly the resu l ts o f the remarkab les c ho la r s h ip tha t ha s be e n one o f the c h ie f g lo r i e s o f c on te mpora ryt h e o l o g i c a l r e n e w a l .

31 Modern literary stu dies , especially as they attend to the narra tivequality of the biblical data, will bring the subjective and objective pole ofbiblical investigations mo re closely togethe r, in a post-m odern sense. At themo men t scholars, such as Frye, Kerm ode, Josipovici, do n't seem fully t o ap precia te the enor m ou s yield of the historical scholarsh ip. But wh en biblicalscholars, at home both in historical method and literary narrative, turn theiratterMon to the biblical data, as in Francis Moloney's "Narrative Criticism ofthe Gospels", one cannot but sense that a new stage in scholarship is about toemerge.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buster301168
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

1991 - Tony Kelly - The Historical Jesus and Human Subjectivity. A Response to John Meier

Documents