Abstract

Tessitore’s book shows undoubtedly the existence of a “religion of historicism”. But what does he mean by “religion of historicism”? Essentially – this is the answer – Christianity. All the authors who have built the tradition of historicism, from Schleiermacher to Meinecke, intended themselves to be completely modern remaining Christian, notwithstanding the modern, through the development of all the positive knowledge, seems to be oriented towards calling Christianity into question. But, into Christianity, they had to distinguish the kernel from the shell. The kernel lies in the possibility to enter a direct relationship with Christ, the shell would be represented by the tradition, mostly the catholic one, which presents Christ starting from an interpretation determined by the synthesis between the Greek spirit and the religious Christian spirit. It may be asked: if we consider the advances made in the research into the historical Jesus above the last fifty years, does this division still work? In what sense is it possible to reach the original Christ, in a time in which the research is setting up that the historical Jesus inevitably escapes us? Is not a consistent philosophy of historicism fated, as it happens in Piovani and in Weber after all, to open itself – separating from Christianity – to the unavoidable acknowledgment of the tragic dimension to which man is delivered by the consequent development of the positive knowledge concerning the human?