As part of my journey into scrutinising the evidence for and against the reliability of the gospels, I've just finished reading "A New Perspective on Jesus - What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed" by James D.G. Dunn (PhD, University of Cambridge).
(Have so far also read N T Wright's "Who was Jesus" - and now making my way through "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by R M Price - so far it's disappointing.)
The book presents a new paradigm for understanding the origins of the gospels, and is a summary of the author's 'Jesus remembered'. It's extensively referenced and biliographed, the author being Emeritus Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham and well known amongst academics in this field.
The basic premise presented by Dunn is that for the last 200 years the search for the 'historical Jesus' has failed to adequately take into account the oral tradition in the creation of the gospels and that this should be the default setting for understanding the historical Jesus. He states that too much emphasis has been given to treating the gospels from a literary perspective, as if they are just the product of layers upon layers of redaction that must be peeled away to get to the truth. This literary default setting adopted by the Quest in the last 200 years is borne from our modern literary mindset and has failed us.
Some salient snippets from the book are:
p.22 - "An inescapable starting point for any quest for Jesus should be the historical fact that Jesus made a lasting impact on his disciples. It can be regarded as one of the most secure of historical a prioris that Jesus made a deep impression during his mission. No one with any sense of history can dispute that Jesus existed and that he was active in some sort of mission in Galilee, probably in the late 20s or early 30s of the first century, prior to his execution in Jerusalem "under Pontius Pilate". We know this because he left his mark on history. The historical fact of Christianity is impossible to explain without the historical fact of Jesus of Nazareth and of the impression he left. What he said and did evidently "got home" to many people, and the impact that he made on them has resonated down through history."
p.23 - "This is the first point to be noted, then: faith among the disciples of Jesus did not first arise with Easer....The second point follows. This initial faith shaped the Jesus tradition from the first. It would be impossible to argue that the impact made by Jesus was on individual disciples who treasured the memory of what they had heard Jesus say and seen Jesus do; that they treasured that memory in their hearts and only after Easer began to talk about what they remembered....Such sharing of impressions, such reflecting on the striking things Jesus had said, such retelling stories of Jesus' doings are the obvious beginnings of the Jesus tradition. In this way, we may say, the initial forms of the Jesus tradition first took shape. The alternative, of disciples staying silent all during Jesus' mission, with no talk of what had most impressed them, with no sayings of Jesus or memories of his healings to be shared when there was nothing else to do of an evening - the alternative of such hidden memories being suddenly jerked into verbal utterance by the event of Easter is simply too incredible even to be considered. Rather, it is a priori compelling to deduce that the Jesus tradition began as a matter of verbal communication as the disciples talked together about the impact Jesus had made severally upon them."
Dunn then takes a critical look at a number of theories about Q that have developed and largely been taken for granted in the last century. He accepts the Q hypothesis, but highlights some fallacies and assumptions about it.
p39 under the heading 'The Inadequacy of the Literary Paradigm':
"The character of this oral tradition had alrady been identified by Julius Wellhausen in his analysis of the Synoptic Gospels: "The ultimate source of the Gospels is oral tradition, but this contains only scattered material"; the Jesus tradition as oral traidition was known only in small units....Unfortunately, however, Bultmann could not escape from the literary mind-set, his own literary default setting; he could not conceive of the process of transmission except in literary terms. This becomes most evident in his conceptualization of the whole tradition about Jesus as "composed of a series of layers." The imagined process is one where each layer is laid or builds upon another. Bultmann made such play with it because, apart from anything else, he was confident that he could strip off later (Hellenistic) layers to expose the earlier (Palestinian) layers. The image itself, however, is drawn from the literary process of editing, where each successive edition (layer) is an edited version (for Bultmann, an elaborated and expanded version) of the previous edition (layer). But is such a conceptualization really appropriate to a process of oral retellings of traditional material? Bultmann never really address the question, despite its obvious relevance."
'The Characteristic Features of Oral Tradition'
'The Characteristic Jesus':
p69 - "If the theses being argued in these chapters are correct, then what we are looking at in the Jesus tradition, and what we are looking for through the Jesus tradition, is one whose mission was remembered for a number of features, each illustrated by stories and teaching, peformed in the disciple cifcles and church gatherings, though not yet (properly speaking) "documented" (the "literary paradigm"). H.Strasburger has put the claim more boldly than I would: ' The very abundance of historical inconsistencies speaks in favour of an...untidy, but certainly developed oral tradition whose honest basic effort at the beginnings of the formation of tradition was apparently to preserve as precise as possible a memory of Jesus, his teaching and proclamation, that is, to give a true and historical witness. And precisely this unique, unfasifiable overall impression has undoubtedly been preserved in the canonical gospels...no matter how many details in the accounts may still, and perhaps forever, remain disputable.' "
p.76 - "To sum up, it is not difficult to build up a picture of the characteristic Jesus - a Jesus who began his mission from his encounter with John the Baptist; a Jew who operated with Galilee, within the framework of the Judaism of the period and in debate with others influential in shaping the Judaism of the period; a Jesus who characteristically proclaimed the royal rule of God both as coming to full effect soon and as already active through his ministry; a Jesus who regularly used the phrase "the son of man," probably as a way of speaking of his own mission and of his expectations regarding its outcome; a Jesus who was a successful exorcist and knew it; a Jesus whose characteristic mode of teaching was in aphorisms and parables;...."
p. 77 - "From these three chapters I therefore conclude : Remembering Jesus really means what it says, that the Jesus tradition was a way of remembering Jesus, showing how Jesus was remembered, and enabling us today still to share in these rememberings. My threefold thesis can be summed up simply. First, Jesus made an impact on those who became his first disciples, well before his death and resurrection. That impact was expressed in the first formulations of the Jesus tradition, formulations already stable before the influence of his death and resurrection was experienced. Second, the mode of oral performance and oral transmission of these formulations means that the force of that original impact continued to be expressed through them, notwithstanding or rather precisely because the performances were varied to suit different audiences and situations. As lasting form still attests, the Jesus tradition was neither fixed nor static, but living in quality and effect. And third, the characteristic features running through and across the Jesus tradition give us a clear indication of the impression Jesus made on his disciples during his mission. As that doyen of British NT scholarship, C.H.Dodd, put it in his last significant book: "The first three gospels offer a body of sayings on the whole so consistent, so coherent, and withal so distinctive in manner, style and content, that no reasonable critic should doubt, whatever reservations he may have about individual sayings, that we find here reflected the thought of a single, unique teacher." The resulting picture of Jesus is not an objective description. There is no credible "historical Jesus" behind the Gospel portrayal different from the characteristic Jesus of the Synoptic tradition. There is no Galilean Jesus available to us other than the one who left such a strong impression in and through the Jesus tradition. But that assuredly is the historical Jesus that the Christian wants to encounter. And should the scholar and historian be content with anything else"
There is then a lengthy appendix which is titled "Altering the Default Setting - Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition". It discusses in depth the faults with the long-held literary paradigm , what we mean by an 'oral culture', and so on. A number of tabled comparison between a few passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are presented to highlight certain common motifs in each version. Dunn says that we should envisage the gospel writers retelling the story known to them from Mark, that is, retelling it in oral mode - as story tellers, rather than editors - with Matthew and Luke as evidence not so much of redaction as of second orality. In other words, it is likely that such variation in what is obviously the same material is the result of the flexibility of oral tradition, not as indicating contradiction or editoral manipulation. The variation is simply the hallmark of oral tradition, how the Jesus tradition functioned. The variations within the Synoptic tradition reflect more closely the kind of variations that were common in the oral performance traditions of the early churches, not the result of editorial ingenuity of tremendous complexity and sophistication.
Anyone wanting a fresh approach to the quagmire that is the Jesus Quest should read this great little book, which presents a strong case for the essential reliability of the Gospel materials.
Yadda
What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed
by yaddayadda 57 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
yaddayadda
-
lovelylil
Yadda,
thanks very much. The book does look interesting. I often wonder myself why many who profess to be Christian than seem to pull apart the gospel accounts and look for seemingly inconsistances in it rather than trying to do the opposite and look for ways to build up theirs and other's faith in the gospel account?
Many do look at the bible in a literary sense only but escape the fact that looking at it thru eyes of faith - gives you a totally different view. And I don't mean blind faith as you should check facts, just that the gospel accounts have been argued to death at this point. And by doing this we have missed most of their real value. I hope what I am saying is making sense.
I read a lot of books on the gospels and most of those that say there is a contradiction because they are looking at it soley from a literary point of view - I have been able to easily disprove in my own mind. So I don't read those anymore.
But this book does seem different and I may get a copy. The author seems to look at the gospels from a different perspective than what people have done for a long time. Lilly
-
slimboyfat
Dunn is a first rate scholar. I especially enjoyed his The Theology of Paul the Apostle.
You may be interested in his
recentonline seminar:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/J_D_G_DunnSeminar/
Slim
-
peacefulpete
yaddayadda, I'm sure the book resonates with many readers. Unfortuantely the author fails to regard the real issue plaguing the quest for an historical Jesus. There wasn't any, at least not any one figure responsible for the contradicting legends and tales found in the early Christian traditions. I find the oft repeated rhetoric about there simply had to be an historical man named Jesus to account for Chritianity, truly naive. (pg 22 quote). Why, the majority of cults of history had central figures that were entirely literary (or oral if you prefer). There is nothing so terribly unique about Christianity in its origin or popularity. Its only in the author's and reader's mind that Christianity stands alone. Even considering the Jewish cult and its Abraham, Isaac and Jacob there is very strong reason to believe the OT characters were drawn from a local deities rather than some historical persons.As far as actual personalities contributing to the Jesus stories, that makes sense. For example the birth legends found in Luke and Matt. were very likelydrawn from the John the Baptist legends. Jonny was a real person who left a cult of followers who embellished his life with miracles and magic. It was his conception and birth story that was commandeered by the new Christian cult (perhaps as polemical attempt to diminish the Messinic claims for Jonny) as well as the Mary cult of a few decades later. There are other canidates for historical figures that contributed to the overall Jesus legend including the cryptic Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and any number of Zealots with ambitions to bring the messianic Age through cleansing the Temple and resisting the Romans.
I agree that Price's book was not as well written as hoped. He's a shoot from the hip type author, brilliant but not always focused (admits that in into). His greatest contribution to recent historical Jesus research was his revival of the theory that the Jesus (title not personal name) of the Christians may have represented a resurrected John the Baptist. The NT itself has many clues to support this idea, despite rather clumsy editing to conceal the Christian origins.
When your done with your present book, consider Earl Doherty's "Jeus Puzzle". He has updated and refined a few ideas through his website but the book is still a fine argument against there being an historical Jesus, or at least against the necessity of one.
If you want to, refer to any specific episode or saying attributed to Jesus, and we can analyze it from a literary/mythic perspective. Be specific in your choice.
-
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Peaceful Pete,
I can only think of two passages that fit in with the idea that Jesus was a resurrected John. The first one where Herod is said to have worried whether Jesus was the Baptist come back from the dead. I wonder if Herod was purposefully chosen to somehow distance prospective followers from the idea. The pious wouldn't gravitate to ideas supposedly held by those who hadn't really "gotten it" and of his sullied character. The second one, less explicit: where Jesus asks his disciples who people think he is and they list off the Baptist as well as Elijah, etc. But again, the idea is clearly lumped in with other ideas that were believed to be "off". Are there any others?
-
peacefulpete
MidgetSasquatch, the key to this question is understanding the patchwork approach the writers used to create the legend of Jesus. They inherited chunks of material, stories and legends, sometimes later authors even unaware of the source. The author of Luke/Acts for example seems to go to pains to insist Jeus was not John despite retaining elements that suggest otherwise. In Luke 1:69-80 for example JtB's dad is heard announcing Messianic promise with his son. Its only later tradition that attempted to negate those words by suggesting John was only a forerunner of the actual Messiah. Similarly the logion retained in Matt 11:11-14 ( also known to Luke but broken up 7:28,16:16) seems to clearly indicate John's Messiahship but then both (by redaction? or qualifier inserted by Matt) attempts to diminish this claim with the added, "yet he who is least in the kingdom is greater".The most interesting bit is the way the 2 authors (Matt and Luke) separately attempted to supplant JtB's legend with Jesus' in use of the former's birth story. They disagree precisely because of the way each determined to utilize the JtB legend, Matt simple substitution, Luke drawing parallels.
The legend of JtB's annuciation and miraculous birth, escape from Herod, and father Zechariah's death in the Temple for not revealing his location (luke 11:51 shows their awareness of these stories) is preserved in a number of ancient sources, making very conspicuous the parallels Matt and Luke claim for Jesus. Luke even preserves the JtB tradition along side his Jesus one, yet carefully makes sure his readers conclude that Jesus is the superior. There are even texual differences that further muddy the identity of the speakers in these episodes. The Mandean "book of John" goes as far as calling JtB the Son of God.
edited to add: I just recalled the way JtB is described by Luke as born "in a (nameless) city in Judea" in 1:26 while Matt has Jesus born in Nazareth (nonexistant at the alleged time but good midrash nontheless). Could this explain why Luke has to invent the census story to have Jesus travel to be born in Bethlehem? Perhaps JtB was born there, at least in legend but for an author seking to deminish JtB's claim to messiahship and exalt a new character, this could not be allowed. This would make sense of the Herod anachronism and the odd census story.
-
Narkissos
yadda,
I certainly don't question Dunn's scholarship and find his personal itinerary (from moderate Evangelicalism to center-right mainstream) quite interesting in its own way. Yet, the above summary denotes circular reasoning: If there was a historical Jesus (i.e. someone fairly similar to the Gospel character) he must have left oral tradition behind him, and indeed there is no reason to doubt that such oral tradition is echoed in the Gospels. Under this assumption, analysing the core of the Gospel stories as oral tradition rather than literary development makes sense. But is the assumption correct?
Literary development is an unescapable fact, too. What Matthew, Luke and even John draw and modify from the text of Mark (or proto-Mark) can no longer be regarded as oral tradition. I doubt even Dunn would seriously consider much oral tradition background behind the discourses of Jesus in John. As for Jesus' teachings in the Synoptics, a better case may be made for oral tradition, but whether it can be traced back to a historical Jesus is a different question altogether. The existence of similar material in the Pauline epistles, or in the epistle of James, which don't ascribe it to Jesus, is a strong counter-argument.
So we are left with the question whether the basic Gospel plot, as outlined in Mark, reflects oral tradition or literary fabrication. The mythical and literary echoes of many passages (Jesus walking on the sea, feeding the crowds, transfigured... etc.) cannot be missed. The anachronisms in the debates with the Pharisees, the references forward to Jesus' death and resurrection must also be taken into account. Some historical or historical-like material undoubtedly remains, but whether they can be traced back to one historical character is another matter as peacefulpete pointed out. There were quite a lot of prophets, activists, and crucifixions in the 1st-century AD.
The basic problem is methodological. If one reduces the historical Jesus to what cannot be explained except through a historical Jesus, it shrinks to nothing as Price shows. Of course this conclusion is by no means a proof that there was no historical Jesus. The only certain thing is uncertainty.
-
peacefulpete
Does this suggest that the "historical Jeus" was born in Nazareth and not a son of David? No. There may be other strong reasons these elements were included in the tradition. Galilee was highly Hellenized (and generally distainful of Jerusalem) compared to Judea and this might reflect some awareness of the source of some of the Jesus story but even more likley IMO is the simple explanation Matt gives (2:23) for this element "to fulfill the prophets". Of course we know of no such prophecy but he thought here was one, or there was some local spin on a verse to that effect after the town's founding. So its a coin toss whether the writers included the Nazareth element because of a popular interpretation of a text or he made up the quotation so as to explain away the "historical Jesus" birthplace.
The son of David issue requires our understanding of the very different conceptions of the messiah current within Judaism. For some a priestly messiah was anticipated, coming to restore a spiritual Kingdom. For others the messiah was Kingly formost with priestly elements secondary. Its quite possible that the writers of the logion of Mark 12:35 did not await a Kingly messiah. It is interesting that Zechariah addresses his son as a son of David but yet serves at the Temple, therefore the JtB legend appears to have Jonny of both priestly and kingly descent.
Also of note is the question of Jonny's identification as Elijah, the Gospels say both yes and no in direct contradiction that appears to be a result of modification of the legend. Also interesting then is the words put in Jeus' mouth at his death by Matt (27:46) that, according to this writer, listeners understood as saying Elijah had forsaken him. Matt again goes to pains to deny this claiming the stories were incorrect and the words were Aramaic and therefore it was God that forsook him. All this creates new complications. If howver (out on limb) Jesus was in some early oral tradition a reincarnated Elijah/John then maybe this verse can be understood. Perhaps he was calling out his own name and wondering why he was abandoned in this legend.
How about the different statements about the age difference between JtB and Jesus? Luke has both Jeus be Jonny's cousin and six months apart, an announce he is the Mesiah to the crowd and later have John not know Jesus (7:19) and have Jesus speak of John in the distant past tense. ""Since the days of John the baptizer...until now" (Matt11:12 Luke 16:16). This latter part could easily be editorial fatigue betraying the fact that these words were written many decades after the alledge setting, but it certainly reveals a collection of traditions not always in sync. But IMO the purpose of this episode is to have JtB dey his messiahship and appear weak and needing the help of the true messiah Jesus. It all smacks of contrivance.
-
peacefulpete
Ok that matt 27:46 idea was stretched, but it at least raises questions why the author of Matt felt compelled to create an episode expressly to deny that he was calling out 'Elijah', (by quoting a Psalm in Aramaic that sounded similar) again it seems to be a deliberate response to some tradition associating Jeus with Elijah/John the author wanted buried. Remember Luke doesn't even go there but puts different last words in his mouth instead.