If there is anything in the world of studies on the historical Jesus that I find difficult to understand is the timeless mania historiographical periodization and systematize storia della ricerca.
Illuminante da questo punto di vista è il nuovo libro di Giuseppe Segalla La ricerca del Gesù storico (Queriniana), che riprende il diffuso schema First/Old Quest – No Quest - Second/New Quest – Third Quest, incentrandolo non più diacronicamente sulla successione di “fasi” quanto piuttosto sull’individuazione di paradigmi metodologici ed epistemologici che possono ripresentarsi in epoche diverse.
Essi sarebbero essenzialmente tre: 1) il paradigma illuministico (prima ricerca); 2) il paradigma kerygmatic (new research), and 3) the paradigm of postmodern Jewish (third study), which adds a Segalla chronological stage of transition between the Enlightenment and the paradigm kerygmatic (corresponding to the so-called period of "no quest").
The first of these would be representative as well as the pioneering work of Strauss and Reimarus and the lives of Jesus "liberal," even by the reaction to these Eschatological by Weiss and Schweitzer. And not only following, perhaps James Dunn (see The memory of Jesus vol. 1, pp. 69-74), Segalla in this paradigm also includes the recent sociological interpretations of Jesus by Horsley, Theissen and Herzog and anthropological to Crossan, Fish and Aguirre, just as examples of "social liberalism".
kerygmatic The paradigm includes the two movements instead of reverse and complementary kerygmatic succeeded in theology: an escape from history (Kähler, Bultmann and his recent recovery from Luke Timothy Johnson) and a return to history, known to be represented by the work of the disciples of Bultmann (Käsemann, Bornkamm, Robinson), but also from a recent scholar of Japanese artist Takashi Onuki ( Jesus. Geschichte und Gegenwart , Neukirchener Verlag, 2006).
Finally there is the general paradigm of postmodern Jewish Third Quest, which according to the author, presents a clear and distinctive identity in historiography, as well as methodological and theological.
From historical point of view, this paradigm would be characterized by the recognition of the impossibility of a purely objective of the historical attitude towards its subject (objectivity that can not therefore be claimed by more than historical non-believer believer, in fact) is no longer monolithic and pluralistic vision the Judaism of Jesus' time, holistic approach (sayings and deeds) and abandonment of the analytical treatment of the individual traditions about Jesus in favor of a comprehensive view of him and each other (Segalla but note that this is not the case of Meier).
From methodological point of view, the new paradigm is characterized by the use of a wider range of sources, both indirect (the writings of Qumran, Nag Hammadi, literature intertestamental) and direct (non-canonical gospels, which, however, are not felt by Segalla, in the wake of Meier, historically unreliable, or irrelevant) to the rethinking of the traditional criteria of authenticity and methods for the contribution of sociological, anthropological and literary. Finally, from a theological point of view, the paradigm of the Third Research is characterized by the distinction, but at the same time for the link between method el'inseparabilità historical and theological method, since faith is an integral part of the historical evidence about Jesus and that historical investigation helps to understand the development of Christological faith.
Segalla is instead a bit 'vague when it comes to illustrate the characteristics but not the real players in this paradigm. Certainly not the Jesus Seminar scholars belonging, which are instead classified as a recovery Before the search, with influences of the Second. Without a doubt are Sanders and Charlesworth, and Meier, whose work is explicitly judged the best of the Third Research, despite the fact that his analytical approach is diametrically opposed to the "overview" (the Sanders) that should be typical of the Third Research. Segalla probably include, among the members of the paradigm and also Puig i Tarrech Pagola, as well as Dunn and Bauckham, though about the latter he is uncertain whether we should speak of a "second front of the Third Research" or a true quarter paradigm.
Now, one can be more or less agree or disagree with this historiographical representation of the proposed research by Segalla and that he identifies with the characteristics listed in the different paradigms (and limiting myself to just one of the alleged third search, I doubt that we can actually recognize all those convergences in historiographical, methodological and theological Segalla that it has identified.) But what I wonder is, even if we accept it, what do I gain? What is its usefulness? My opinion is that it does not lead to anything other than a series of labels that will not only greatly abstract provide no insight positive, but even likely to be ambiguous and misleading.
What I gained when I put in the same pot Enlightenment and liberal (or neo-liberal) Reimarus, Strauss, Renan, Weiss, Schweitzer, Theissen, Horsley and Crossan, and in another pot postmodern Sanders , Meier, Puig i Tarrech, Dunn and Bauckham? These traverse help to better understand the positions of the scholars in question? Or rather, are made at a level of abstraction that represent little or nothing of them, or worse, to lead the reader to specialized reviews with no real foundation?
Frankly non mi riesce proprio di capire come si possa pretendere di dare un contributo positivo di conoscenza, quando si sussumono 230 anni di ricerca e centinaia di studiosi in tre grandi barattoli. Penso che si possa fare della buona storiografia rinunciando a grandi generalizzazioni e limitandosi a fare accostamenti, individuare filoni e tracciare tendenze nella misura in cui ciò si rivela effettivamente significativo. L’identificazione di modelli e paradigmi può essere utile solo entro un certo grado di astrazione, oltrepassato il quale si ha solo il flatus vocis .
Nel complesso, l’impressione che mi sono fatto di questa schematizzazione Research (consciously teaching) offered by Segalla, is that is nothing but a handbook for use by theologians who have not or the time or desire to engage with the great diversity, plurality and inconsistency of approaches and results that characterize the landscape inevitably research. As a recognition of the research for what it really is, would be virtually useless for the theologian, then you try to pack a ghostly third research which shows a much clearer identity as non-existent at the level of historiographical assumptions, methodologies and epistemological relationship with faith, so that the theologian is satisfied and can begin to build on it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment