The Quest for the Historical Jesus after the Demise of Authenticity: Toward a Critical Realist Philosophy of History in Jesus Studies by Jonathan Bernier

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Quest for the Historical Jesus after the Demise of Authenticity: Toward a Critical Realist Philosophy of History in Jesus Studies by Jonathan Bernier Llewellyn Howes Bernier, Jonathan. 2016. The Quest for the Historical Jesus after the Demise of Authenticity: Toward a Critical Realist Philosophy of History in Jesus Studies. The Library of New Testament Studies 540. London and New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Hardback. ISBN 978-0567662866. Pp. 224. $39.95. The Third Quest for the historical Jesus entails perhaps most importantly the conviction that there was a great measure of continuity between Judaism, Jesus and the early church. On the one hand, scholars like Ben F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders are often credited for laying the groundwork that would eventually cement the current scholarly consensus of continuity between Jesus and first-century Judaism. On the other hand, James D. G. Dunn should in all likelihood be credited for being the first scholar to convince many others that there was significant continuity between the historical Jesus and the early church. These developments have brought the criterion of "double dissimilarity" into disrepute in recent years. The philosophical approach to historiography known as "critical realism" had a huge influence on Ben Meyer, and was also explicitly appropriated by James Dunn. These scholars are heavily indebted to experts in the philosophy of science, including especially the theologian, Bernard Lonergan. In the monograph reviewed here, the historiographical enterprise of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus is considered anew by reflecting on the contributions of "critical realism" in general and the work of Lonergan in particular. The book is divided into two sections: "The first will lay out the basic structure of Lonergan's critical realism as it relates most fully to the task of New Testament historiography while the second will undertake the work of historiography proper" (12). The first chapter introduces critical realism, which is best defined in contrast with both empiricism and idealism. A purely empirical approach supposes that our knowledge of reality is limited to our sensory perception, so that perceived reality is only real if it is devoid of subjective meaning. Conversely, a purely idealist approach maintains that our knowledge of reality always includes both sensory perception and subjective meaning, so that perceived reality is never real, but always ideal. Both perspectives believe that subjective meaning distorts reality. The empiricist combats this belief by striving for [End Page 497] complete objectivity, while the idealist combats the same belief by striving for complete subjectivity. By contrast, the critical realist accepts with the empiricist that reality can be known, but also accepts with the idealist that knowledge is always mediated and subjective. For the critical realist, the answer lies neither in circumventing mediation nor in denying the ability to possess accurate knowledge of reality, but in embracing mediation as a necessary part of gaining such accurate knowledge. "The question is never whether one is mediating reality but, rather, it is how one does so and how well" (22). According to this understanding, objectivity is not a neutral state and subjectivity is not in all cases an impediment to knowing. Rather, objectivity means to acknowledge one's own subjectivity while also adopting a stance that values actual truth and critical thinking over desired truth and wishful thinking. Such objectivity guards against subjective bias, which does indeed curtail and distort true knowledge. The word "critical" implies making judgments, so that the term "critical realism" implies making judgments about reality. For historians, this means making judgments not only about how well constructions of the past match the available data, but also about the extent to which these constructions are able to predict the data. When it comes to the broad category of theology, Lonergan identified a number of functional specialties, only four of which are relevant to historical Jesus studies. Chapter two considers the first two of these specialties, namely research and interpretation. According to Bernier, one needs to distinguish between research proper and historical investigation. The former is a process that ultimately makes data available, while the latter interprets available data in order to construct history. Bernier argues that the conflation of these two fields gave rise to...