Marginal Jew by Fr. John P. Meier

[richardeekw]

Yes, I have no doubt that there are many Good non-fictional books by Good Authors but I vote for 2007 and the years ahead

**Jesus of Nazareth **by Josept Ratzinger is a **MUST READ **work, and is worth every dollar in your pocket and much more!

I am eagerly waiting for his Part II work!
A Pearl of Great Price.
Cheers!

 

[utunumsint]

OK. I know his if off topic, but I can’t resist. This is from the same speach from Cardinal Ratzinger.

God bless
Ut

a) The time seems to have arrived for a new and thorough reflection on exegetical method. Scientific exegesis must recognize the philosophic element present in a great number of its ground rules, and it must then reconsider the results which are based on these rules.

b) Exegesis can no longer be studied in a unilinear, synchronic fashion, as is the case with scientific findings which do not depend upon their history, but only upon the precision of their data. Exegesis must recognize itself as an historical discipline. Its history belongs to itself. In a critical arrangement of its respective positions within the totality of its own history, it will be able, on one hand, to recognize the relativity of its own judgments (where, for example, errors may have crept in). On the other hand, it will be in a better position to achieve an insight into our real, if always imperfect, comprehension of the biblical word.

c) Philological and scientific literary methods are and will remain critically important for a proper exegesis. But for their actual application to the work of criticism — just as for an examination of their claims — an understanding of the philosophic implications of the interpretative process is required. The self-critical study of its own history must also imply an examination of the essential philosophic alternatives for human thought. Thus, it is not sufficient to scan simply the last one hundred and fifty years. The great outlines of patristic and medieval thought must also be brought into the discussion. It is equally indispensable to reflect on the fundamental judgments made by the Reformers and the critical importance they have had in the history of exegesis.

d) What we need now are not new hypotheses on the Sitz im Leben, on possible sources or on the subsequent process of handing down the material. What we do need is a critical look at the exegetical landscape we now have, so that we may return to the text and distinguish between those hypotheses which are helpful and those which are not. Only under these conditions can a new and fruitful collaboration between exegesis and systematic theology begin. And only in this way will exegesis be of real help in understanding the Bible.

e) Finally, the exegete must realize that he, does not stand in some neutral area, above or outside history and the Church. Such a presumed immediacy regarding the purely historical can only lead to dead ends. The first presupposition of all exegesis is that it accepts the Bible as a book. In so doing, it has already chosen a place for itself which does not simply follow from the study of literature. It has identified this particular literature as the product of a coherent history, and this history as the proper space for coming to understanding. If it wishes to be theology, it must take a further step. It must recognize that the faith of the Church is that form of “sympathia” without which the Bible remains a closed book. It must come to acknowledge this faith as a hermeneutic, the space for understanding, which does not do dogmatic violence to the Bible, but precisely allows the solitary possibility for the Bible to be itself.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I recommend instead, Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/57954sm.jpg

Here’s an excerpt:

It would been useful if the referents of the phrase “the reconstructions we have been presented with in the last decades” had been clearer. The phrase could refer to the last 60 years - or the 100, or the last 30. Whose reconstructions - those of a particular school, or religion, or what ? No clue is given - because none of the quotation was directed to discussions on CAF.​

If intended as an anti-critical comment - which the context does not in the least suggest - it would be utterly meaningless. So it is much to be hoped that the words of the Pope as quoted by the OP won’t be used in that way.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree.

The deposit of faith is much like a beautiful symphony, and when one hears a wrong note, it kinda makes you cringe. Much of the “*the reconstructions we have been presented with in the last decades” *are simply music that is in many respects is “off-key.”

As I read Pope Benedict’s book, its wonderful to be able to finally read a rebuttal to all the “historical Jesus” reconstruction that finally makes sense. So much of his text expands my understanding, and yet nothing in it makes me cringe, like so many others have.

Since you know enough about them, or it, to criticise it, or them, please explain what is wrong with them to those of us who do not know.​

Is that sort of reconstruction wrong in principle - if so, how ?
that Ratzinger speech:

d) What we need now are not new hypotheses on the Sitz im Leben, on possible sources or on the subsequent process of handing down the material.

That is for the NT scholars to​

decide - not all of them are RC, so not all are going to be impressed by being told how to do their work

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It would been useful if the referents of the phrase “the reconstructions we have been presented with in the last decades” had been clearer. The phrase could refer to the last 60 years - or the 100, or the last 30. Whose reconstructions - those of a particular school, or religion, or what ? …​

I can only provide more context from Pope Benedict’s text to help clarify, but at a certain point I think that it is better simply to read his book in order to better understand for yourself what he means.

I think what he is referring to is the contrast in methodology of those who wrote about Jesus when he was growing up–a portrayal based upon the Gospels–with those beginning in the 1950s. This I gather from the first words of the forward to his texts…

From the forward of Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth:

When I was growing up–in the 1930s and 1940s–there was a series of inspiring books about Jesus: Karl Adams, Romano Guardini, Franze Michel Willam, Giovanni Papini, and Henri Daniel-Rops were just some of the authors one could name.
All of these books based their portrayal of Jesus Christ on the Gospels. They presented him as a man living on earth who, fully human though he was, at the same time brought God to men, the God with whom as Son he was one. Through the man Jesus, then, God was made visible, and hence our eyes were able to behold the perfect man.

But the situation started to change in the 1950s. The gap between the “historical Jesus” and the “Christ of faith” grew wider and the two visibly fell apart… As historical-critical scholarship advanced it lead to finer and finer distinctions between layers of tradition in the Gospels, beneath which the real object of faith–the figure Gestalt] of Jesus–became increasingly obscured and blurred… the reconstructions of this Jesus…became more and more incompatible with one another… If you read a number of these reconstructions one after the other, you see at once that far from uncovering an icon that has become obscured over time, they are much more like photographs of their authors and the ideals they hold. Since then there has been growing skepticism about these portrayals of Jesus… All of these attempts have produced a common result: the impression that we have very little certain knowledge of Jesus… Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air.

With regard to Fr. Meier’s text, A Marginal Jew, I haven’t read it. I have however read many works by Fr. Raymond Brown as well as the even stranger conclusion of the “Jesus Seminar.” While much of what Fr. Brown wrote has been of value to biblical scholarship, some of his assertions are, in my view, contradictory to Catholic teaching–they are “off-key.” I have discussed examples in past threads and don’t think I need to rehash them again here.

With regard to Fr. Meier’s work, Pope Benedict stated in his text (p. 366):

This several-volume work A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus] by an American priest is in many respects a model of historical-critical exegesis, in which the significance and the limits of the method emerge clearly. It is worth reading the review by Jacob Neusner of volume 1, “Who Needs the Historical Jesus?” in: *Chronicles, *July 1993, pp. 32-34.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is that sort of reconstruction wrong in principle - if so, how ?

In his intro, Fr. Meier stated he intended to “prescind from what Christian faith or later Christian teaching says about Jesus.**”

Is it wrong to present reconstructions of the Gospel that deliberately set aside how the actual Gospel was received and interpreted by the Christian Church–the actual intended audience of the Gospels? Whether it is right or wrong, it seems to me that it is a flawed hermeneutic.

For example, let’s say I wrote a letter to a group of friends explaining what I had learned from my master, to include what I had witnessed with my own eyes. Furthermore, I stated in my letter that I could write so much more, but instead look forward to discussing this further in person–face to face. Lets further imagine that after 2000 years, some scholar stumbles across my letter and wanted to “reconstruct” what I “really” meant. However, he chooses to distrust what my actual words state, preferring instead to attribute much of it to “later interpolations.” Furthermore, he chooses to ignore any evidence of how the intended audience–the group of people I actually wrote to–understood my letter. After all, they can’t be trusted because they were the culprits who inserted all those imagined “interpolations.” Such a method seems to me to purposefully omit very valuable evidence in drawing conclusions about authorial intent.

Why would any scholar purposefully prescind from including such evidence in their exegesis? What I wrote may have been at times ambiguous, as written communication alone often can be. If so, it’s reasonable to conclude that my personal oral discussions with my group of friends would complement that which I merely wrote, perhaps clarifying any confusing points. My witness testimony did not merely consist of what would later become ancient written documents, but there was no doubt two-way communication between me and my group of friends, who later would write amongst each other and provide new pupils commentaries about that which I wrote, handing them on throughout the centuries.

If the above hypothetical situation did indeed occur, and some scholar 2000 years later chose only to look at my written communication alone, prescinding from any consideration of how my letter may have been actually received and interpreted by the target audience, then he would be purposefully omitting rather important hermeneutical evidence. As such, his reconstructions would have less value than other scholars who DID take into consideration such important evidence.

If I want to better interpret the writing of the apostle St. John, for example, wouldn’t it be valuable to heavily weigh the interpretation of St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), who in all probability was the direct pupil of St. John and may have actually seen the original autographs of his Gospel, his letters, and his Book of Revelation? I think so. Especially since we have no evidence to suggest that what St. Ignatius wrote was in any way considered heterodox by any of his contemporaries or those who would write about Christianity decades later.

I guess I see the historical-critical method as just one tool in the hermeneutics toolbox. Those who enter into the work of Biblical interpretation deliberately using only that one tool instead of all the other great tools of hermeneutics are presenting reconstructions that are worthy of skepticism.

C.S. Lewis wrote a critique of modern biblical criticism of his day. In it he made observation that those who used the same “scientific” methods to try to ascertain what Lewis meant when he authored his literature were, much to his surprise, 100% incorrect. He notes that these literary critics had a distinct advantage over Bible critics because they were using their “scientific” method to interpret the “real meaning” of books written in their own vernacular language and in a culture they were quite familiar with. Still, when they attempted to “reconstructed” Lewis’ “real” meaning, they were always wrong. Always. He therefore doubts that anybody could use the same “critical” method any more accurately with regard to ancient literature such as the Bible, written in ancient languages within a cultural context that is even less understood.

It would have been something much different if these contemporaries of Lewis simply asked him what he “really meant,” like St. Ignatius undoubtedly did with St. John.

I encourage everyone to read Lewis’ critique online here:

Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism
by C.S. Lewis

 

[utunumsint]

That is for the NT scholars to​

decide - not all of them are RC, so not all are going to be impressed by being told how to do their work

I expect they wont. Still, it seems to me that Cardinal Ratzinger has some important things to relate and some expertise in the field.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

For all its merits, I think HC does deserve to be criticized (andnot just by fellow historians). I’ll used the words of C.S. Lewis.

Now for my second bleat. All theology of the liberal type involves at some point – and often involves throughout – the claim that the real behaviour and purpose and teaching of Christ came very rapidly to be misunderstood and misrepresented by His followers, and has been recovered or exhumed only by modern scholars. ** Now long before I became interested in theology I had met this kind of theory elsewhere. The tradition of Jowett still dominated the study of ancient philosophy when I was reading Greats. One was brought up to believe that the real meaning of Plato had been misunderstood by Aristotle and wildly travestied by the neo-Platonists, only to be recovered by the moderns. When recovered, it turned out (most fortunately) that Plato had really all along been an English Hegelian, rather like T.H. Green. I have met it a third time in my own professional studies; every week a clever undergraduate, every quarter a dull American don, discovers for the first time what some Shakespearian play really meant. But in this third instance I am a privileged person. The revolution in thought and sentiment which has occurred in my own lifetime is so great that I belong, mentally, to Shakespeare’s world far more than to that of these recent interpreters. I see – I feel it in my bones – I know beyond argument – that most of their interpretations are merely impossible; they involve a way of looking at things which was not known in 1914, much less in the Jacobean period. This daily confirms my suspicion of the same approach to Plato or the New Testament. ** The idea that any man or writer should be opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same language, shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be transparent to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion preposterous. There is an a priori improbability in it which almost no argument and no evidence could counterbalance.

The implication by most proponents of HC is that only a scholar of HC can truly read the Bible, or understand its contents. That the true Jesus is only accessible to their powers of discernment or using their methods of sifting through the evidence.

To put it as bluntly as I can, I find this attitude arrogant and condescending. I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I believe my criticism is valid. HC is a worthwhile enterprise, but it presents the point of view of one scholar only. Don’t tell me their conclusions have the same grounding as those of the physical sciences. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, it is a historical science and HC is always subject to interpretation and philosophical distortion.

Now, in defence of J.P. Meier and Fr. Brown, I believe they are aware of these limitations, and do acknowledge it in their writings. But I also believe that this makes their reactions to criticism all the more irrational, as can be seen by J. P. Meier’s use of the word “Neanderthal” to characterise his (and Fr. Brown’s) critics. Because HC is so open to subjective distortions, its conclusions should not be dogmatically accepted, as some seem to do so easily. I can act this way with regard to the magisterium, but this is a conscious act of faith, and I do not try to justify my submission to Catholic dogma by claiming it is a scientific conclusion.

God bless,
Ut

 

[TOME]

When I was reading the link that was provided us to Fr Most’s criticism of Fr Meier’s “A Marginal Jew” what struck me, in a way struck me as funny, was how in many ways Fr Most’s points of criticism were akind to the criticism of John D Crossan in Crossan’s work, “The Birth of Christianity”. Crossan’s criticism is grounded in what he sees as Fr Meier’s methodology or the lack of it. Also, I so someone make reference to Fr. Meier’s use of the term “Neanderthal” when describing his critics, however, (and I may be mistaken) I think those comments were directed to some scholars that many here would label as members of the “Jesus Seminar” (ilk).

I also have a question about the speach of Cardinal Ratzinger that was presented in a couple of post. My question is to whom was this speach given and for what occasion. The reason I ask is “Gottle of Gear” brought up a point I think is worth considering,
namely, what the Holy Father was suggesting at that time would, almost without doubt, be ignored by many protestant and jewish scriptural scholars - a I suspect a few Catholic ones as well. So I think it is important to establish the historical context in which this speach was given.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…I also have a question about the speach of Cardinal Ratzinger that was presented in a couple of post. My question is to whom was this speach given and for what occasion. …

It was a lecture given at St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in NY, on Jan 1988, at the invitation of Lutheran Pastor Richard John Neuhaus. I don’t think the lecture was intended to be limited to any particular sub-division of Bible exegetes, but was addressing all those exegetes who desire a truer understanding of the Scripture texts. The essay was also published Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, ed., Biblical Interpretation in Crisis (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1989), pp. 1-23.

By the way, that Lutheran Pastor who invited Cardinal Ratzinger to lecture at St. Peters, converted to Catholicism in 1990, is now a Catholic priest and editor of *First Things.

*So it appears that some Protestants didn’t ignore what he had to say.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Because HC is so open to subjective distortions, its conclusions should not be dogmatically accepted, as some seem to do so easily.

Amen! To quote Msgr. George Kelly, “Biblical theories are not a fit replacement for Catholic theology.”

 

[Marnica01]

Here is another perspective on the whole question of the historical Jesus. Until the advent of the scientific revolution, everyone thought the way to discover the truth was to (1) begin with solid premises, and (2) apply valid logic to reason toward conclusions that were guaranteed to be true as long as the premises were true. All the debates were then about who had the better premises or the better logic.

The debate about who had the best premises ended (more or less) when the Catholic Church realized that divine revelation established certain premises to be absolutely true. The debate about who had the best logic continued however, and even contributed to the Protestant Reformation (because the Reformers rejected the Aristotelian philosophy embraced by medieval Catholic theologians).

What enabled the scientific revolution (including the industrial revolution, nuclear power, space travel, indoor plumbing, modern computers, etc) was the realization that good premises and logic were not good enough. You also needed empirical evidence to guide the selection not only of premises but also of logical arguments.

So now enter historical Jesus scholarship. There is lots of debate about who Jesus was, whether the resurrection really happened, how much of the Gospels reflect actual history and how much reflect the later reflection of the early Church, and so on.

If we take historical Jesus scholarship as the search for empirical evidence to help sift through all the various ideas and theories, then it would seem that we will be better off.

If any of us is afraid that historical Jesus scholarship will undermine orthodox Catholic faith, that belies a lack of confidence that what we believe is really true. Because truth can never contradict truth: if our faith is true, then we have nothing to fear at all.

P.S.

I know someone will say that historical Jesus scholars are mostly non-believers who assume that the Gospels are not true, so you can’t rely on their methods or conclusions. This, of course, is the “hermeneutics of suspicion” in reverse, isn’t it?

The real answer to the challenge of the Jesus Seminar, for example, isn’t to call them names and run away. Rather, it is to show them on solid scientific grounds where they are mistaken. This is the approach taken, for example, by conservative Jesus scholar, N. T. Wright.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The real answer to the challenge of the Jesus Seminar, for example, isn’t to call them names and run away. Rather, it is to show them on solid scientific grounds where they are mistaken. This is the approach taken, for example, by conservative Jesus scholar, N. T. Wright.

That would only be true when the Jesus Seminar example has some solid empirical scientific fact. The problem does not seem to be with their facts, but with their interpretations of those facts. Those interpretations can not be scientifically disproved empirically; hence the name calling and running away. But seriously, it’s similar to Stephen Hawking expostulating that gravity created the universe.

 

[Alan55]

I’ve read the four volumes of Meier’s “Marginal Jew” series and found them to be wonderful scholarship. As others have noted, he does not write as a dogmatic theologian, such as Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. He is attempting to determine, using historical tools, what can be said about the historical Jesus on the basis of the text of the bible. I think reading both Fr. Meier and Pope Benedict are in order.