Mixed Messages on Meier?
That’s Monsignor John P. Meier, priest of the Archdiocese of New York, Professor at the University of Notre Dame, Bronx native. His four volume (and counting) work, A Marginal Jew, drew this praise from Pope Benedict: “a model of historical-critical exegesis.” This judgment, first offered in volume one of the Pope’s Jesus of Nazareth, has been reiterated in volume two. In addition, the new volume cites Meier several times.
However, in the “Glossary” of volume two — explicitly designated as “Prepared by the Publisher” (and indeed, there is no glossary in the Italian edition) — the listing under “Meier” says the following:
The premise of his critical work is that he proceeds using a critical method the results of which he maintains might produce agreement about Jesus of Nazareth’s identity and intentions among critical Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and agnostic scholars.
Now, as I understand it, Meier’s infamous “unpapal conclave,” convened by him in the bowels of the Harvard Divinity School, harbors no illusions about the possibility of reaching agreement regarding “the identity and intentions” of Jesus of Nazareth. Or have I misread the intentions of the good Monsignor?
What he says about this conclave is this:
“The basic requirement that the consensus document be open to verification by any and all persons using the means of modern historical research would produce a narrow focus, a fragmentary vision, perhaps even distortions. Nevertheless, something would be gained. We would have a rough draft of what that will-o’-the-wisp, ‘all reasonable people,’ could say about the historical Jesus. . . . Such a limited consensus statement, which does not claim to act as a substitute for the Christ of faith, is the modest goal of the present work.”
Perhaps this goes to show that Benedict is sometimes a more careful reader than his admirers (and translators).
I think if the qualifier “some” had been placed in from of “agreement,” then the claim in the glossary would be accurate.
What does “be open to verification” mean? Why shouldn’t this result in narrow focus, fragmentary vision, distortion?
There seems to be some sort of opposition there, but there always is when dealing with the ambiguity of language.
Pace Wittgenstein, language should be able to convey an existential reality outside of the subjects. Theologians at your stations!!!
Maybe the term “consensus” should have been used. Although consensus is a contested term, as I understand its usage consensus does not mean agreement. It does mean that the formulation as presented is adequate for the purpose for which it is proposed.
Oops. Nothing like seeing yourself quoted to spot a stooopid error, “in front…in front…in FRONT”
“the good Monsignor”
Meeow?
Maybe a link to the “Busybody” and its suggestion to broaden the conversation might be interesting.
What does “be open to verification” mean? Why shouldn’t this result in narrow focus, fragmentary vision, distortion?
For those attempting to write about the historical Jesus, all (or almost all) would concede that he was born. But even if he had been born in our own times (let alone 2000 years ago), it would be difficult for historians to verify that he had been born of a virgin, or conceived by the Holy Spirit. There are many, many things about the Christ of faith that are not “open to verification.” From a Catholic point of view, what is knowable to the historian is not enough to arrive at the Catholic depiction or understanding of Jesus. I would say this would remain true even if miracles, and even the resurrection, were historically verifiable.
There is a limit to how far you can go in writing about the past and still be a historian. If a historian were to conclude that Constantine won the Battle at the Milvian Bridge because God intervened, he (or she) wouldn’t be writing history any more, and one would have to allow for the fact that any battle might have been determined by divine intervention rather than the size of the armies, the types of weapons, the strategies of the generals, and so on.
There simply is a limit as to what we can know about Jesus from historical inquiry.
Here is an interview in which the “good Monsignor” speaks for himself:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Dec1997/feature3.asp
BTW, the good Father Imbelli (whatever that means!) posted on Benedict’s citing of Meier two years ago in the pope’s first volume, when Benedict misidentified Meier as a Jesuit…I never knew if that was a good thing or a bad thing to Ratzinger, given his track record with the Society, but John Meier was chuffed:
http://www.nd.edu/~lumen/2007_05/Apapalmistakegladlyforgiven.shtml
Ratzinger also wrote in that volume, regarding “Marginal Jew:”
“This multi-volume work by an American Jesuit represents in many ways a model of historical-critical exegesis, and clearly displays both the importance and the limitations of this discipline.”
I wasn’t quite sure what to make of that verdict, whether it is saying Meier recognizes the limits or the pope is recognizing Meier’s limits. Much ado about very very little, in the end, I think.
Ben F. Meyer was critical of John Meier’s “unpapal conclave” on several grounds:
“Make your criterion of the historically reasonable, not two middle-of-the-roaders [as Hans Küng did], but four: a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, an agnostic. For some questions, and not necessarily the least significant, this is tantamount to taking your historical marching orders from the agnostic. Meier’s idea is not that this is the way to get to the whole truth about Jesus. But it does seem to him a good way of working towards a significant common ground: what ‘all reasonable people’ might agree on.
“This may render a modest service, especially in times when extremist opinion is rampant, or threatens to become so, But as Evelyn Waugh remarked over fifty years ago, “The whole of thought and taste consists in distinguishing between similars.’ It would accordingly be still more instructive and helpful to be told, not what four abstract types might be thought to agree and disagree on, but what it is that concretely distinguishes the actual views of competent scholars currently working in this field.
“Moreover, it is far from helpful to leave the impression that what an honest, well-informed foursome–a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic–agrees on occupies the whole middle ground or even the best part of the middle ground, between unreasonable, extremist opinion, on the one hand, and the faith of the Church, on the other. The impression is unhelpful in several respects, but most of all inasmuch as it is totally false. Meier has unwittingly agreed to a very unlikely proposition, namely, that in the realm of ‘reasonable history’ what binds his four ideal types together is bound to be significant, and that what distinguishes each of the four is bound to be marginal.”
Meyer goes on to criticize Meier’s notion of “the real Jesus” as Kantian and his appeal to the foursome of scholars as illustrating what Bernard Lonergan called “the principle of the empty head,” that is, the idea that the best way to be “objective” is to empty one’s head of presuppositions. I think that a similar criticism is expressed when N.T. Wright speaks of Meier as in pursuit of “old-fashioned objectivity.”
[Ben F. Meyer, “The Relevance of ‘Horizon,” The Downside Review, 112 (Jan. 1994) 1-14]
I earnestly hope I can discipline myself to read the current volume on Jesus and the Law, because nothing confuses me more than this:
But for almost all Christians, the law seems to be gone. It was fairly recently that this, from Acts 15, came to my attention:
So even the decision by the apostles and the holy Spirit (their capitalization choice, not mine) to retain the requirement for Gentile converts to eat kosher meat has fallen by the wayside. I don’t understand.
By the way, I hear the forthcoming update of the New American Bible does not translate almah in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”
I think Ben F. Meyer is perhaps wrong to judge Meier by how Meier explains what he is doing rather than by what Meier actually does. The hypothetical Catholic, Jew, Protestant, and agnostic don’t actually exist, and I am reasonably sure that Meier doesn’t write down every possible conclusion and then cross out everything but what the hypothetical four could agree on. If we take Meier’s method too literally, his publisher could just have commissioned four books, each from one of the four viewpoints, and either published them all, or published only what they had in common. The real question is whether Meier is giving us something truly historical. The terms in which Meier describes what he is attempting to do—and his description is basically a metaphor—are not anywhere near as relevant as what the results of his method are. If Meyer read Meier’s work, concluded that Meier succeeded in giving a consensus view of a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, and agnostic, and decided it wasn’t a good book, then I suppose we can take his criticism somewhat seriously. But if he is just criticizing the idea of the four hypotheticals, I wouldn’t take this as a particularly helpful criticism of the work itself, most of which was not written in 1994, anyway.
Ben F. Meyer did not live to see even the second volume of Meier’s work. Several people agree that Meier’s performance is better than his own description of what he is about. The sections on faith and history in his first volume are not a serious engagement with the real historical and hermenuetical issues.
This topic strikes me as far too technical to be dealt with by blogging. I’m certainly no expert, but it seems that Meier is trying to do something significant but well circumscribed among serious scholars who have very specific competence. Meyer’s criticism, as David Nikol suggests, strikes me as off base. I have no idea what Fr. Imbelli is up to. Meier himself is not likely to blog with us. The only outcome i can see to this thread is that some people think that there is something wrong with what Meier is up to. That’s more than just regrettable.
Let Meier deal with knowledgeable critics in the proper forums. This blog site doesn’t qualify, in my less than humble opinion.
Bernard –
I don’t know theology, but I am interested in how literature works generally and how the Bible in particular can be interpreted. So I find this conversation of experts interesting even thought I don’t understand it all, especially since I can ask the experts questions, and that can’t happen with books. It’s one of the great things about the net, I think.
I apologize to Bernard Dauenhauer if my playful references to my former colleague and fellow presbyter appeared to suggest any sinister intent.
My purpose was two-fold. To call attention to the ongoing praise of Meier’s work on the part of the Holy Father, and to suggest that the non-papal compiler of the “Glossary” may have misconstrued the thrust of that work.
Here the laconic, but ever insightful, Joe Pettit may have provided an elegant solution by the simple addition of “some” before “agreement” to the description in the “Glossary.”
The comments of Bauerschmidt and Komonchak raise further considerations regarding Meier’s intent and success that are perfectly legitimate in this forum on the part of people who have thought hard about the issues. Some perhaps more supportive of Meier’s project, some more dubious about its outcome. Indeed, Luke Johnson’s reviews in the mother ship raised significant and thoughtful questions on these very issues. Nor is it outside the realm of possibility that Meier himself may grace us with an intervention, as he did the “St. Anthony Messenger” and “Lumen” — helpfully linked above.
Though I am grateful to David Gibson for enlarging my vocabulary so that I now confidently toss off “chuffed” at every opportunity, I don’t quite see the much ado about very little that he decries. What is this very little, and is it taking up valuable space that might be better filled with Homer Simpson?
As for those who failed to divine the Patrick-appropriate evocation of the “good Monsignor,” only meow up to the counter and I’ll gladly stand you for a glass of Guinness — two if accompanied by spouse.
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
But The Simpsons is good for you.
Meow, indeed…For the record, Bob, I wasn’t pulling your whiskers with my one comment, rather the opposite, I thought. I don’t think the question of whether Ratzinger was approving or disapproving of Meier with that one comment of his and the misidentification as a Jesuit was really a big deal. This area of discussion is interesting, if indeed it could be clarified. Ratzinger clearly relies on Meier a good deal, and is engaged in the same quest, hence the title “Jesus of Nazareth.” Many exegetes, especially on the Protestant side, would see Ratzinger as having indulged in the sin of historicism for not reading the Gospels literally and for not trying to explain away discrepancies.
In any case, this is apparently a neuralgic a thread so I will abstain from anything further. I comment mainly to defend the Japanese nuclear reactor workers who you seemed to include in your riposte in my regard, as I think you could have drawn blood without being quite so indiscriminate.
A few of my (limited) thoughts:I agree this may not be the best forum for this discussion.
Fr. Meier is an outstanding scholar and exegete.
He certainly stands beyond the hypercritical “Jesus Seminar” and the question of the historical Jesus will be enriched by his work.
That study will obviously be continued as further develoments in exegesis continue -and they will and be beter for it if grounded in real scholarshio without axes to grind.
But I think he’ll continue to be particulaly remebered for his insights into and insistenc eon understanding the “Jewishness” of Jesus.
I don’t see any problem discussing the work of John P. Meier on dot Commonweal. Few of us are experts, but some are. (Frs. Imbelli and Komonchak, Alan Mitchell, and Joseph Gannon, to name a few, all seem extremely knowledgeable.) If I weren’t in over my head a great deal of the time, I wouldn’t have the opportunity to lear so much. I got my hand slapped over on Mirror of Justice for saying I found some of the Biblical arguments on First Things (from bloggers and commenters) to be unsophisticated. But I stand by that opinion, and partly because I am used to the high standards here on dotCommonweal.
Bob I., Joe K., and John M. — all in seminary in N. Y. -any overlap? That must have been quite some theological mojo they were putting in the water at Dunwoody!
Cathy,
those were the days, my friends, we thought they’d never end … but end they did! Tom Shelley’s “History of Dunwoodie” makes for interesting reading — from the Suppression of the New York Review to Semin-Ex.
Note to self: A complimentary Guinness is there to be had if in the future I find myself in Boston on St. Patrick’s day. And a confession chaser if I have one too many?
Consensus on the historical Jesus seems a reasonable goal. The key breakthrough as far as I can see is still the one identified by Schweitwer: Johannes Weiss’s identification of Jesus as an eschatological prophet, back in 1892. The Jesus Seminar folk seen to be in flight from this insight.
Joseph O’Leary,
your comment is also germane to the post by Peter Nixon above (“More on Meier”).
Sorry we missed in Boston. The offer of a Guinness stands. You, Mark P. and I: quite a threesome!
Seriously, are you back in Japan?
Robert — back in Japan April 1.
Luisa Miller and Siegfried at the Bastille last week; beautiful Patrick’s Day liturgy at St Etienne du Mont yesterday; off to Vienna on Thursday. Friends in Japan say they would not have wished the experience of dread on their worst enemy.
Mixed messages on Meier? Yes. So, too, is the reference to an inconsistent quote from the false gospel of thomas on page 248 of Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth. I find this more than strange.