Watson's focus, however, is not limited by canonical delimitations; his unit on "Reframing Gospel Origins" includes significant discussions of the Gospel of Thomas, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Peter, and he spends multiple chapters also on the writings of the early church fathers (Augustine in chapter 1, but also Clement, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Origin, and Jerome in the chapters of Part 3: The Canonical Construct). This is nothing short of an amazing work, and scholarship is hugely indebted to Watson for bringing such a breadth of material together within the covers of a single volume (even if those covers are widely separated from each other).I want especially to highlight an extended quote from late in Watson's chapter on "Luke the Interpreter" (pp. 156–216), in which Watson focuses especially (and sometimes unhelpfully) on Luke the interpreter of Matthew. Watson snaps his readers' focus back onto Luke as interpreter of Jesus just at that point where we may have lost that angle in our efforts to see how Luke interprets the written Matthean tradition:
The dynamic of tradition would also be lost if we concluded that Luke and not Jesus is the author of the Prodigal Son and the Parable of the Lost Coin. That would be an utterly misleading claim. Luke composes these parables not as an independent author but as an interpreter, responsible for articulating the tradition that begins to form around Jesus during his ministry and that communicates him to ever-widening circles in the decades that follow, through preaching and writing. If oral and written tradition communicates Jesus, then it is also the case that Jesus communicates himself through the tradition. (208; italics in the original)This perspective is revolutionary; just two decades ago it would have been inconceivable to associate the historical Jesus so strongly with texts that bear such distinctive marks of Lukan redaction. These words, however, do not so much effect a revolution in Gospels and Jesus research as much as they reflect the revolution that has been taking place in the last decade or so, especially in that work that has emphasized memory—and especially social or collective memory—in the historical analysis of the Jesus tradition.
I just finished reading the book last evening. Very enjoyable and readable, as you say. A real eye-opener for me.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind, this quote illustrates one on the worst assumptions about memory theory. I'm repeating myself here -- y'all know my opinion on this matter so nothing new here... -- so I'll keep it brief. Watson assumes (as do so many people who use memory theory) that a memory of Jesus MUST go back to Jesus. Not verbatim of course, not even in a way that claims that the event portrayed happened more or less as depicted. The good memory theorists are more careful than that. Nonetheless, there is the assumption that Luke, or Luke's community, cannot possibly have invented a story de novo, one that reflects their own understanding of Jesus and nothing Jesus ever did or said. The assumption that a story of Jesus MUST in some way originate with Jesus' mission is simply not defensible. Yes, it could have. Absolutely, it could have. It happens all the time! But people also -- all the time -- make up material that reflects their positions and commitments and which have no connection (other than wishful thinking) to a originary moment (e.g., Jesus' mission). You'd think that material so patently redactional would be a prime candidate for reflections along the latter trajectory (e.g., Lukan memory manufacturing); instead it's "utterly misleading" to suggest that a memory of Jesus can possibly have as its origin something other than Jesus himself. Thinking with memory theory allows for both observations: that memory can be loosely and closely tied to things that actually happened, and that it can have no connection to something that actually happened. Too often when people are talking about Jesus, the latter possibility is denied.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Zeb. I think—this will come as no surprise to you—that your criticism is a bit too imprecise to be helpful. The point is not, I don't think, that "a memory of Jesus MUST go back to Jesus" or even, though this is more complicated, that "Luke, or Luke's community, cannot possibly have invented a story de novo." The point, as I understand it, is that the redaction and even the creation of Jesus tradition occurs in a context already characterized by and replete with images of Jesus, and so both redaction and creation must make sense within that context in order to have any hope of successful reception.
DeleteIn the current context, if Luke completely made up the Prodigal Son—de novo, as you say—we still have to explain (i) why/how Luke should have thought this was a plausible story to communicate something about Jesus, and (ii) why others agreed, apparently, that this brand new story, which no one had ever heard, resonated with their already existing images and understandings of Jesus. And this, at least, is the point Watson is making: It would be a mistake to read even a wholly fabricated Prodigal Son only as a story about Luke's late-first century CE context. Luke offers it not as a truth about Jesus-following Judaism in the Flavian era but rather as a truth about Jesus of Nazareth in Herodian Galilee/Roman Judea. At the very least, then, Prodigal Son—even as a story invented de novo—reveals the interpretation of Jesus in the early decades after his death, and we will have to explain how that interpretation relates to, extends, contradicts, corrects, clarifies, or whatever previous interpretations of Jesus.
Finally, I think Gospels and Jesus scholars have been too happy to facilely describe this or that pericope as an "invented story de novo," without feeling any need to explain how/why that story should have been created in the first place and/or whence its parts. For example, it's commonplace to observe that the accounts of Jesus' death rely on biblical traditions (esp. from the Psalms and Isaiah) to narrate the story, and it's a short step from there to say that the accounts of Jesus' death have been fabricated de novo from the biblical materials. But this ignores the central question of collective memory theory: Why did anyone look upon particular crucifixion and perceive the psalmic and Isaianic traditions as appropriate frames for narrating and explaining and contextualizing the events in question? That they did so is observed; why they did so is never addressed and so taken for granted. But isn't this really one of the unique features of the Gospels' treatment of crucifixion: the attempt to re-interpret a Roman execution in terms of Israelite tradition? And don't we need to explain why others found this reinterpretation compelling? Part of the answer, surely, is that nothing is ever "de novo," even if it represents a completely a- (or un-) historical development in the Jesus tradition. (See my reading of redaction in Luke 4.16–30; chapter 6 in Structuring Early Christian Memory.)
Thanks, Rafael. Three things, briefly. First, you (as usual) add more nuance than that position I'm critiquing (Watson's). Watson says that something is lost if we assume that Luke and not Jesus is the author of those stories, and he appears to echo memory theory language to make his point. You (and others) don't, but he assumes it seems from this quotation that memories of Jesus must start in some way with Jesus. That's what I was objecting to.
DeleteSecondly, you don't entirely address the complain by focusing only on Lukan invention -- when you ask, if Luke made it up de novo, we have to explain how that invention made sense to his audience (more on that below). I was careful to include "Luke's community" which is important, because it means Luke didn't have to invent the memory at all. Perhaps he inherited and included it faithfully, but that doesn't mean that it must go back to Jesus. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Memory theory can't tell us either way. Watson, I think, assumes that memory theory does necessitate a memory originating with Jesus (in some albeit nuanced way).
Finally, I need to ask: what evidence is there that Luke's stories resonated with his readers, or that they agreed with this story they'd never heard? How do we know readers of Luke weren't utterly baffled, or even outraged? And what kind of role do you imagine those reading (or hearing) communities to have had on evangelistic writers? I mean honestly, Matthew has the crypts of Jerusalem open and the dead walk the streets. Presumably this would have been quite a memorable event, and yet, also presumably, when it was first invented (by or before Matthew, it doesn't matter) no one likely remembered ever hearing about it before. My point is, I don't actually see much evidence that suggests that gospel writers were that concerned with creating material that had a ring of truth to it.
Watson's discussion of "Thomas versus Q" (chapter 5; pp. 217–85) is, unfortunately, fatally flawed. I will have to discuss these flaws later; for now I simply note he nowhere cites Stephen Young's book, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers, or Mark Goodacre's Thomas and the Gospels, both of which are directly relevant to his argument for a Sayings Collection genre.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that his failure to cite these works have to do with timing: all three books came out within a span of eighteen months of one another. I'm not entirely sure if Young's book is quite as relevant as Goodacre's though: if we accept Young's argument re: the presence of oral Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers that wouldn't obviate the possibility of a Sayings Collection genre. That said, I am inclined to agree: I thought that one of the weaker aspects of Watson's work.
DeleteThanks, Jonathan. Yes, I think you're right about publication dates. But Young's book (which I did not find persuasive) argues for positions Watson takes for granted are untenable, especially with respect to 2 Clement. I would have appreciated seeing him nuance his discussion of oral tradition.
DeleteWatson does interact extensively with Simon Gathercole's book on the composition of GThom, which I think is roughly contemporaneous with Goodacre's book. It's unfortunate that he did not take Goodacre's work into greater account in this particular chapter.
Hi Rafael,
DeleteLooking forward to some exciting comparisons between your Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text and Watson’s Gospel Writing!
Regarding your comment that Watson engages "extensively" with Gathercole's book on the composition of GThom: we had extensive discussions about this and other issues here at Tyndale House, Cambridge, with the likes of Peter Head, Simon Garhercole, Steve Walton etc joining in. After working through the volume Watson came down to Cambridge for an informative discussion.
I'm not sure Watson engages “extensively” with Gathercole's GThom. In fact, I think Watson's references to Gathercole (222 n15; 271 n168; 279 n182; 283 n188 etc) are quite arbitrary. A case in point is p 271 n168. Watson states: “That a number of sayings in GTh betray the influence of Matthew and Luke has been well demonstrated by Simon Gathercole, who gives extensive attention to the relevant methodological issues ... It should be noted that GTh’s ‘dependence on the synoptics’ would not establish this work’s secondary, postcanonical status, since both Matthew and Luke are also dependent on at least on of the synoptic gospels”. It seems to me that Gathercole does not agree with Watson’s claim that “GTh’s ‘dependence on the synoptics’ would not establish this work’s secondary, postcanonical status”. Watson does not engage with the evidence Gathercole puts forward for the relative dating of Matthew and Luke before Thomas (cf. 145ff). Notice also Gathercole’s reference to Mark Goodacre’s “unpublished observations” (269).
If you’re interested, see Gathercole's recent critique of Watson in “The Christ of the Canonical Gospels and the Christ of the Apocryphal Gospels”. Pages 531-48 in The Oxford Handbook of Christology, edited by Francesca Aran Murphy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). The quote below sets up Gathercole’s discussion nicely:
“Skepticism about the canonical gospels having anything which makes them especially worthy of canonical status can be illustrated from the work of Pagels, Ehrman, Patterson and Watson ... Francis Watson has criticized the view that the canonical gospels and non-canonical gospels are fundamentally different in theological character from each other. Watson instead sees all ancient gospels as legitimate inheritors of the Jesus tradition: ‘these gospels all claim apostolic authority, and they all present an image of Jesus rooted in early tradition and shaped by later interpretative developments’ (Watson 2013: 341). Nor, he avers, are the canonical and apocryphal gospels as far apart as is sometimes supposed:
It would be difficult to argue on neutral exegetical grounds that differences between the Synoptics and Thomas are more fundamental than differences between the Synoptics and John (Watson 2013: 370).
Thus one cannot pit authentic canonical gospels against apocrypha which can be dismissed as ‘free invention’, for apocrypha too ‘are not fictions but renewed attempts to articulate the significance of an already inscribed tradition’ (Watson 2013: 370).
The contention in this essay will be that in fact there were sufficiently clear theological reasons for preferring some gospels (i.e. the canonical gospels) over against others. Nor were these merely later, retrospective evaluations: rather, there were theological criteria in operation even before the compositions of any gospels. These were embedded in the preaching of those who had been closest to the earthly Jesus, viz. the apostles: although there were no doubt many who had been impacted by the earthly Jesus (see Meggitt 2010), we do not have any good evidence that they propounded any different message. All the gospels―canonical and apocryphal alike―emerge from a context in which there are already established, though also developing, norms of what constituted authentic apostolic proclamation”.
Thank you for a great discussion Rafael!
Best wishes, Ferdie
Rather than behind memory theory, announcing the triumph of the historical Jesus construct, I think I would say that memory theory is useful. But the actual existence of a real Jesus remains problematic or controversial. Were Luke's interviewees remembering an actual Jesus? Or narrating and conflating, compositing, many folk tales from c. 170 to 4 BC? Were they and Luke responding to a single, real salvific hero? Or socially constructing one out of their desires?
ReplyDelete"[T]he actual existence of a real Jesus remains problematic or controversial" only among those who can be described as unconsciously incompetent: i.e. so utterly incompetent in going about the work of biblical studies that they don't even realize they are incompetent. Your questions reveal this. For instance, even if Luke's interviewees were "narrating and conflating, compositing, many folk tales from c. 170 to 4 BC" (note that it is pure speculation that they were, and why if Luke was written in the 70s or 80s CE they couldn't be using material any later than 4 BCE is quite beyond me) it would not follow that Jesus did not exist. No competent historical Jesus scholars supposes that Jesus's existence turns upon him being a "salvific hero." There is no reason to exclude him existing and yet being utterly non-salvific. In fact, I don't even know how a historian can go about determining whether someone is salvific or not. And of course the gospels's presentations of Jesus is constructed, but even a rudimentary moment of reflection upon constructionist should suffice to demonstrate that it doesn't follow that Jesus didn't exist. Heck, the main point of memory theory is really that the presentations of Jesus that we find in the gospels are constructed, so to set up construction as antithetical to memory really demonstrates a profound ignorant of both constructionist and memory theory.
DeleteI'd say that Watson's strongly affirmative language on Jesus, hints at the old specific hero, as historic. And yes of course that is not justifiable.
DeleteMy own current folkoristic study of Jesus is indeed tentative. And could indeed include some material after 4 BC. Though I am especially interested in material from before the years Jesus was said to exist. Since that would be material that would perhaps be least plausibly based on any historical Jesus.
Anthony Le Donne, with James C., is currently trying out the editor's desk at JSHJ. I feel he is therefore shifting from the strictly neutral position of the phenomenologically bracketed "Jesus" of neutral historical investigation, and some memory theory. To the typically more traditional assumption of at least a minimal real Jesus; an assumption commonly found as even the guiding light, so to speak, of the JSHJ. Which thereby deviates from strict historical or phenomenological neutrality.
Anthony Le Donne is far from neutral. He's a Giants fan, for crying out loud.
DeleteI know you mean San Francisco and not New York; I am not sure if that's better or worse.
DeleteThanks for sharing the two-way perspective of Watson's work: tradition influencing Jesus, Jesus influencing tradition. Polarization of views to one end or the other has not only been a killer of political progress but of scholarly progress. Scholarship should not start with an abstract viewpoint to be defended, but it should proceed on an even playing field with the null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the evidence supporting conditions A and B, this work being done in dialogue with the researcher's emotional involvement with the material. Every research effort includes, at a minimum, emotional involvements equal to the number of characters in the material studied.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Goodacre's book is critical for Thomas studies.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Is it really revolutionary to suggest there was a real Jesus behind Luke? That position was the standard assumption of pious Christians for about 2,000 years. Overall it was therefore far,far more revolutionary to begin to increasingly, by degrees, abandon it.
ReplyDeleteFrom the larger historical perspective, the re-emergence of this all-too-traditional view might be seen as belated and probably temporary counter-reform; A's reactionary or counter-revolutionary conservatism. A movement that nay be as fated, as the Catholic Counter Refomation against Protestantism.
As we academically questioned one individual element of Jesus after another, c. 1860 AD and thereafter, one part of Jesus after another disappeared. Until, as in the case of the Cheshire Cat, it seems to many that only the cynical or toothy grin remains.
I would suggest that what remains of Jesus depends upon the impact of the material on the individual. For example, if I agree with the removal of mythological elements, and personally find that the red/pink votes of the Jesus Seminar (5 Gospels, 1993; Acts of Jesus, 1998)
ReplyDeleteproduce a profoundly inspiring 'voice and action print' as compared to any other leaders in history, then the arguments over whether there was a real Jesus behind Luke become moot. I am then dealing with a profound historical event, and I am obligated to dialogue with others about these ancient writings.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Since all are in question, I guess I'd really recommend removing them all.
Delete