John P. Meier, professor of New Testament at the Catholic University of America (Washington), published in 1991 his book A Marginal Jew. As basic premises for the correct understanding of the subject matter, he includes in the first chapter of his book a very clear distinction between several terms which at times have been used interchangably without, perhaps, sufficient attention to their true significance.[1] In the following article this distinction is presented and discussed in the historical perspective and the implications that emerge thereof.

Meier's first distinction regarding the term real is between knowing the total reality of the person and having a reasonably complete picture of a person. This distinction arises because there are degrees to the reality of an account. Meier argues that it is impossible to know the total reality of a person (everything he/she ever thought, felt, experienced, did and said). No one would deny that such a total reality did exist, although it is not knowable to us. In fact, it is not even fully knowable to the individual him/herself, in the sense that every person has some elements in one's personality that one might not be aware of. In this sense, it is impossible to know the real Jesus.

Some scholars, thus, try to obtain a reasonably complete picture of a person. In such a case Meier argues that if the person in quest was a figure of modern history, say, Richard Nixon, it would be possible to extract facts from a considerable collection of empirical data (public archives, military records, election tallies, presidential press conferences, Watergate tapes, congressional hearings, presidential libraries, etc.) Here, "the real and the historical do not coincide, but there is considerable overlap."[2] To this there are some exceptions in ancient history, about whom so much was recorded that it is also possible today by scholars to reconstruct with difficulty a somewhat reasonably complete picture of them (e.g. Julius Caesar or Cicero). But, says Meier, "Not so with Jesus of Nazareth"[3]. In the case of Jesus, the real Jesus would never be available not because the real Jesus never existed ("...he certainly did"[4]), but because the records we have today, mostly concerning part of his life (the public ministry) were never to the least intended to contain all or most of his words and deeds. Thus, in both senses mentioned above, it is impossible for us to know the real Jesus.

With the certitude that the real Jesus is not knowable to us, Meier sets out on his quest for the historical Jesus or the Jesus of history, this being "a modern abstraction and construct."[5] This is the recoverable Jesus by the use of scientific tools of modern historical research. In this way one would be forming the faint outline of a faded fresco, since Jesus of Nazareth left no recordings of his words or deeds, no writings, no monuments or anything which comes to us unmediated. The reconstruction of the historical Jesus is a fraction of the real Jesus. Hermann Reimarius (16943/41768) is dated to have first attempted such research during the Enlightenment.

Meier points out that all this is not identical with the earthly Jesus, which can be used, with different nuances, to describe both the real and the historical Jesus. According to Meier it is anachronistic to say that the Gospel writers' work fails to portray the historic Jesus. This is because the very Gospels themselves are the main sources for present day scholars to construct the historical Jesus and because the Gospels' writing predates the eighteenth century when we could identify the first writing that portrays the historical Jesus. The accounts found in the Gospels that portray the earthly Jesus are inadequate to express the real Jesus and predate any form of writing in the Jesus research that can be termed historical 3/4 "to speak of the Gospel writers as presenting or intending to present the historical Jesus transports them in an exegetical time machine to the Enlightenment."[6]

Another distinction usually found in German authors to which Meier alludes, but which he does not prefer to lean on is that between historical (historich) and historic (gesichtlich). The historical is that knowledge or data that remains detached from the present. It can be brought to light simply through the use of objective scientific criteria. On the other hand historic data offers a challenge to the present, being engaging and thought-provoking for present-day men and women. Meier argues that in principle any tentative construct of Jesus of Nazareth can either be historical - "the object of a cooly distant scientific investigation"[7] - or, historic - "the highly significant source and centre of Christian thought and life down through the ages, a figure still worshipped by millions today."[8]

Meier gives a series of reasons why the distinction between historical and historic is not worth doing. This distinction arose among German scholars, namely Martin Kähler, who disagreed very much to what the biblical scholars after Reimarius were trying to do. It was held by these scholars that the basis of dogma had to come from a clear concrete knowledge of what Jesus thought, said and did, and not from the theological speculation of the early church. This gave rise to the so called Life-of-Jesus Movement, wherein scholars tried to construct the Jesus of history or the historical Jesus. Kähler, on the other hand, in his attempt to protect basic traditional Christian teachings about Jesus Christ, said,

"The Jesus of the 'Life-of-Jesus movement' is merely a modern example of human creativity, and not an iota better than the notorious dogmatic Christ of Byzantine Christology. One is far removed from the real Christ as is the other."[9]

Kähler, thus, insisted on the historic Biblical Christ, that later came to be called the Christ of Faith by Bultmann. Meier argues that although Bultmann was also in search of the historic Christ, he held a different position from that of Kähler. "For Bultmann, it makes no difference whether Jesus actually broke down and despaired on the cross; the mere fact that Jesus died on the cross is sufficient for Christian faith."[10] This is somewhat different from Kähler's intent; Meier argues that the difference in function of the term historic leaves no room for the distinction between a historical and a historic Jesus. The result of this departure from what initially Kähler attributed to historic led to a process where several subsequent theologians sought to recover the original meaning referred to by Kähler. However, in reality, a number of variations and interpretations emerged, that considerably decreased the clarity of the use of this term in this specific context. Meier claims this to be one reason for not counting the distinction between historical and historic to be reliable.

In order to confirm his point further, Meier mentions Albert Schweitzer, a 20th century scholar and German-Lutheran, who refers to the danger of distinguishing between the historical and the historic Jesus by Wobbermin, a professor at Breslau. Schweitzer treats the manner, however, by considering any distinction of that sort sarcastically and by not referring to Kähler's work at all.[11] Meier remarks that it is strange that such a distinction should emerge out of a German-Lutheran and be ignored by a German-Lutheran of the stature of Schweitzer.

The rising of new agendas, like liberation theology, and the value judgments attributed to those who propose them, according to which perspective they stick to (historical or historic), are also considered by Meier as a sign of the unnecesity of such distinction.

Finally, Meier also refers to the work of Norman Perrin, who incidentally wrote a review of Kähler's work in The Christian Century when Carl E. Braaten translated and published Kähler's work in English. Perrin devices a threefold distinction: descriptive historical knowledge or "hard" knowledge in level 1 (the historical element); highlighting of that knowledge which is relevant to us today in level 2 (the historic element); and, faith-knowledge of Jesus as Lord and Christ in level 3 (completely different from levels 1 and 2). Meier says that Perrin's device, is more fitting to the figure of Jesus since it is only in the third level that Jesus should fit. However, he concludes that in practical terms it does not offer any additional help since it does not do away with the premise that there could be a scholar who studies the historical Jesus in a completely detached manner from his present. "Jesus continues to be studied in all parts of the world because Buddhists, Marxists and Agnostics are all intrigued - for very different reasons - by this enigmatic Jew." [12]

Reading Meier's work was to me a very intriguing task. I wish to end this discussion by quoting a final sentence which will not only enlighten the mind but also the heart of the reader.

"While the scholar may prescind from a specifiically Christian or ecclesiastical commitment, a more general 'existential commitment,' a concern about what Jesus may mean for human life today, necessarily energizes the historical quest."[13]

Bibliography:

Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, Doubleday, New York, 1991.

Kähler Martin, The so-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1964.

Fabris Rinaldo, Gesù di Nazareth, Storia e interpretazione, Cittadella Editrice, Assisi, 1983.

Notes: 

[1] Meier cites Hans Küng's famous Christ sein (On Being a Christian) in which despite the fact that it was written for a wide audience, Küng uses among others the terms real and historical "with abandon". He comments, "This does not make for clear expression of thought, either in German or in English." Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, p.35.

[2] Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, p.22.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, p.25.

[6] Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, p.26.

[7] Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, p.27.

[8] ibid.

[9] Kähler Martin, The so-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, p.43.

[10] Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, p.27.

[11] It was thanks to Bultmann's mentioning of Kähler, that the latter's work got to be popular among a vast section of German scholars.

[12] Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, p.30.

[13] Meier John P., A Marginal Jew, p.31.