What do you think?
Rate this book
The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ
English, German (translation)
160 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1988
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 10, 2014
A classic, and rightly so. In an age of German Protestant Leben Jesu (biographies of the historical Jesus), Kähler penned these lectures in 1893 (revised 1896) for a broader audience. His critique boils down to two major points, which we would do well to pay attention to in the midst of the sogennante "Third Quest for the Historical Jesus." (1) The historical Jesus is unattainable and inaccessible through historical-critical means. Instead, Christ can only be grasped through faith, which is the major subject of the Gospels. This leads to the second major point, (2) the Gospels, and the entirety of the Christian canon, is the basis for accessing and grasping (or being grasped by!) the Christ of faith. Though extra-canonical literature is immeasurably helpful for reading the Gospels and the Christian Bible, it does not replace it. Similarly, scholarly "Lives of Jesus" in actuality create a type of "fifth Gospel" which a scholar then would have to use as the basis of faith. For Kähler, this would indeed be building the house of faith on shifty, sandy soul. Rather, the rock of the New Testament is our only accurate picture of Christ. Here, though, he makes a critical distinction: the Gospels do not offer us sober history, recounting detail after detail so that we can reconstruct the Jesus of history. Instead, they are offered as testimonies, witnesses to the life of faith lived by those who were touched by Jesus. They can be historical, but they are not merely historical, and we misread them if we suppose historical veracity is their chief concern. Presenting Christ to those who would believe is their main goal, and they should be read in the light of their own internal aim if we are to encounter and follow the historic, biblical Christ.
March 2, 2018
Better and surprisingly more orthodox sounding than most of his German contemporaries. I appreciate his aims in this work, as well as his worshipful and pastoral tone in writing this academic work.
December 15, 2019
3.5 stars. A response to the 'historical Jesus' movement within Liberal Protestantism of his day, Kahler's book is a good read.
November 26, 2012
REVIEW AND CRITIQUE Kähler, Martin. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ. Translated by C. E. Braaten. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964.
Kähler is an interesting figure in that he criticizes the historical quest of “authentic” Jesus as not really the original first-century Jesus, while he shares the same presupposition with his contemporary scholars of the “impossibility of Protestant theory of plenary verbal revelation.”
He asked the very profound critical question, “How can Jesus Christ be the real object of faith for all Christians if what and who he really was can be ascertained only by research methodologies so elaborate that only the scholarship of our time is adequate to the task?”
Persuaded by the Kantian dichotomy of noumena and phenomena and its application in Lessing’s “ditch,” Kähler teaches that the “historical” (historisch) profile of Jesus is impossible to reconstruct through the means of historical-critical methodologies; the only profile of Jesus accessible to us is the “historic” (Geschichtlich) Christ.
Strangely, Kähler speaks of the “comparatively remarkable trustworthiness” of the Jesus “legends” in the Gospels, “so far as this is conceivable.”
Critiques:
What Kähler wants is a clear profile of Christ of faith, leaving the Jesus of history as an agnostic item. He is either unaware of, or intentionally overlooking the internal inconsistency of his position to have a a-historical Christ whose profile is inseparable from his person and works in the history.
His dichotomy of "historical" and "historic," from the perspective of present reviewer, is also false, for the historic meaning of faith does not necessarily negate the historical veracity of the content of faith. As stated before, the case of Christianity is inseparable from the historical events.
However Kähler is absolutely right in seeing the historical reconstruction program of his time, and of today's scholarship as well, as a matter of fact, a re-imagination of the historical Jesus to conform to the historical-critical expectation, instead of the going back to the 'authentic' Jesus.
Kähler is an interesting figure in that he criticizes the historical quest of “authentic” Jesus as not really the original first-century Jesus, while he shares the same presupposition with his contemporary scholars of the “impossibility of Protestant theory of plenary verbal revelation.”
He asked the very profound critical question, “How can Jesus Christ be the real object of faith for all Christians if what and who he really was can be ascertained only by research methodologies so elaborate that only the scholarship of our time is adequate to the task?”
Persuaded by the Kantian dichotomy of noumena and phenomena and its application in Lessing’s “ditch,” Kähler teaches that the “historical” (historisch) profile of Jesus is impossible to reconstruct through the means of historical-critical methodologies; the only profile of Jesus accessible to us is the “historic” (Geschichtlich) Christ.
Strangely, Kähler speaks of the “comparatively remarkable trustworthiness” of the Jesus “legends” in the Gospels, “so far as this is conceivable.”
Critiques:
What Kähler wants is a clear profile of Christ of faith, leaving the Jesus of history as an agnostic item. He is either unaware of, or intentionally overlooking the internal inconsistency of his position to have a a-historical Christ whose profile is inseparable from his person and works in the history.
His dichotomy of "historical" and "historic," from the perspective of present reviewer, is also false, for the historic meaning of faith does not necessarily negate the historical veracity of the content of faith. As stated before, the case of Christianity is inseparable from the historical events.
However Kähler is absolutely right in seeing the historical reconstruction program of his time, and of today's scholarship as well, as a matter of fact, a re-imagination of the historical Jesus to conform to the historical-critical expectation, instead of the going back to the 'authentic' Jesus.
April 4, 2014
Kähler provides a good look at the presuppositions of the quest for the "Historical Jesus" and finds them to be flawed. There is no way to separate Jesus from the dogma the New Testament authors present with him. The only access to Jesus we have is through the gospel writers and if their perspective is hopelessly skewed due to biases, then the real Jesus is lost to history. On that point, I believe Kähler is correct, and ahead of his time.
Of course he believes that the gospels do have an accurate portrayal of Jesus and it is reliable in so far as it is internally consistent with the rest of the Bible, not to mention with the way that his life and actions still speak to people today. Although we cannot find a historically reliable picture of Jesus, we do have a Historic-Biblical picture that is sufficient for faith. He provides several other reasons for why one can have faith in Jesus despite the dearth of unbiased opinions.
Whether or not one finds that aspect of his book compelling will depend a lot upon what preexisting views the reader already holds. Since Kähler rejects the possibility of an entirely firm foundation on which to base understanding of Jesus, faith remains the key. That, to me, seems to be consistent with what Jesus taught anyway and consistent with what one finds in reality. As a fan of N.T. Wright, I suppose that he might overstate the hopelessness that accompanies the historical study of Jesus, but overall I think his thesis is a good one. Perhaps he also goes too towards suggesting that any historical source can attain the reliability that the gospels are discredited for not having. Overall, its a nice, clear little book that provides a good window into the world of the once-popular search for Jesus.
Of course he believes that the gospels do have an accurate portrayal of Jesus and it is reliable in so far as it is internally consistent with the rest of the Bible, not to mention with the way that his life and actions still speak to people today. Although we cannot find a historically reliable picture of Jesus, we do have a Historic-Biblical picture that is sufficient for faith. He provides several other reasons for why one can have faith in Jesus despite the dearth of unbiased opinions.
Whether or not one finds that aspect of his book compelling will depend a lot upon what preexisting views the reader already holds. Since Kähler rejects the possibility of an entirely firm foundation on which to base understanding of Jesus, faith remains the key. That, to me, seems to be consistent with what Jesus taught anyway and consistent with what one finds in reality. As a fan of N.T. Wright, I suppose that he might overstate the hopelessness that accompanies the historical study of Jesus, but overall I think his thesis is a good one. Perhaps he also goes too towards suggesting that any historical source can attain the reliability that the gospels are discredited for not having. Overall, its a nice, clear little book that provides a good window into the world of the once-popular search for Jesus.
July 25, 2018
Three of the most influential theologians of the 20th century trace their ideas back to Martin Kähler, a German theologian writing at the end of the 19th and into the 20thcentury. Kähler’s book The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historical Biblical Christ was one of his most influential works—influencing and bearing similarities to the later theologies of Barth, Bultmann, and Tillich.
Kähler’s title is intentionally paradoxical: it puts in opposition what seem at first to be the same thing. Kähler employs a distinction in German between the objective facts of history—historie, the subject of the historical-critical sciences—and the subjective reception or effect historical events have—their interpretation, geschichte. This distinction outlines the main argument of his book, to unmask the failed project of modern historical-critical Christianity and to provide his solution to the problem raised, the Christ of geschichte.
I think that Kähler’s thesis is unconvincing in major ways, but the questions he is asking are profoundly important nonetheless. How can a person in Africa or China today, a North American scholar, or a Greek Christian 1500 years ago read Scripture or hear it preached and have a sufficient foundation for their faith? This is challenge that Evangelicals today have not done a good enough job answering. I am convinced that the answer does not begin with the presupposition of human autonomy—where Kähler starts—but with the acknowledgment of the ultimate authority of God.
Read my full review of Kahler's book on Teleioteti.ca.
Kähler’s title is intentionally paradoxical: it puts in opposition what seem at first to be the same thing. Kähler employs a distinction in German between the objective facts of history—historie, the subject of the historical-critical sciences—and the subjective reception or effect historical events have—their interpretation, geschichte. This distinction outlines the main argument of his book, to unmask the failed project of modern historical-critical Christianity and to provide his solution to the problem raised, the Christ of geschichte.
I think that Kähler’s thesis is unconvincing in major ways, but the questions he is asking are profoundly important nonetheless. How can a person in Africa or China today, a North American scholar, or a Greek Christian 1500 years ago read Scripture or hear it preached and have a sufficient foundation for their faith? This is challenge that Evangelicals today have not done a good enough job answering. I am convinced that the answer does not begin with the presupposition of human autonomy—where Kähler starts—but with the acknowledgment of the ultimate authority of God.
Read my full review of Kahler's book on Teleioteti.ca.
April 28, 2011
Kahler addressed the interest in the historical Jesus among scholars in the late 1800s. He make the point that the church has only had a relationship with the Jesus of the scripture and an objective biography of Jesus can not be found in the Gospels. Paul Tillich wrote the introduction to this volume and discussed Kahler’s influence on him. This topic feels like it is very current. Luke Timothy Johnson picks up this theme in some of his writings from the 1990s.
April 1, 2013
Probably a good book for anyone interested in the Historical-Jesus thing.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews