False Dichotomies in Gospel Studies
Restoration Quarterly Breakfast, Nov. 2001
Mark A. Matson
Milligan College
I. INTRODUCTION.
I am particularly thankful to James Thompson and the other editors at Restoration Quarterly for
the invitation to address this group this morning. I have taken this opportunity to reflect out loud on
some of the larger issues, theoretical and hermeneutical, that are driving my current research and
writing. And more importantly I hope this will generate fruitful interaction— yielding comments and
criticisms from many of you—as you react and perhaps push back on some of my reflections or push
me forward, as the case may be.
The area of New Testament studies that particularly interests me is the broad arena of gospel
studies. As with all scholars, I am a product of my time—I have inherited certain perspectives and
approaches toward the gospels that I am sure are primarily the product of the shape of my education
and the tendencies of my colleagues and mentors. But I also find that on many issues I am “swimming
against the tide.” The area of gospel studies is deeply compartmentalized, with sharp lines dividing the
areas. Students of the gospels are presented a cluster or sharp dichotomies: one chooses either the
synoptic gospels or John; one is either a historical critic or uses literary approaches; one shares a
modernist perspective or a post-modernist view; one either is operates from within a critical perspective
or a faith perspective. And as I try to identifying “my own kind”—my discourse community—I seem to
be neither fish nor fowl. That is to say, in the various dichotomies listed above I find value to each side
of the issue. As a result, let me posit as a thesis for this morning’s talk that the dichotomies listed
1
have been overemphasized, are indeed false or misleading, and that gospel scholars should be
finding ways to speak across the divides, to claim both/and rather than either/or approaches.
II. DICHOTOMY #1: JOHN VS . SYNOPTIC
In the study of the gospels, a significant gulf exists between the first three gospels, the synoptic
gospels, and the Fourth Gospel. This is seen perhaps most dramatically in the study of the historical
Jesus—so much so that Albert Schweitzer’s first clear “either-or” is that of “either John or the
Synoptics.”1 Schweitzer himself points to the influence of F. C. Baur and the Tübingen School in
delineating in very stark terms the contrast between the Synoptics and John, a contrast which is now
accepted as something approaching scholarly “orthodoxy.” It might be useful to review the substance
of Baur’s critique of the Fourth Gospel:2
1. John is thoroughly theological
2. John is primarily the product of a Hellenistic environment
3. John is late, and thus represents a long transmission or late use of sources
4. John is dependent on the Synoptics
This is not the venue to launch into a detailed engagement with Baur’s points.3 But especially
since they have been so important on the shape of gospel studies and historical Jesus research, I think is
important to briefly examine them – especially since every one of them is subject to fierce debate,
and in fact I think every one of them is false. So, briefly, let me summarize the objections:
1. While it is probably true to say that John is thoroughly theological, this is misleading in that it
suggests that the other gospels are not thoroughly theological. But as we have gained some
appreciation for the role of the composer in all the gospels, it is increasingly clear that they are all
2
thoroughly theological. Moreover, being theological does not inherently taint a gospel as being less
reliable as a historical witness or a bearer of sound traditions. It simply means that the ideological
underpinnings of the document are grounded in a view of God’s action.
2. Perhaps we should attribute the idea that John is fundamentally a Hellenistic gospel primarily
to 19th century approaches to the gospels, although the viewpoint still has a significant following. But
the discoveries of the Qumran and other sectarian Jewish writings have modified our view of John,
since many of the Hellenistic features are found in these writings as well.4 And our confidence that
somehow Palestine avoided being fairly extensively hellenized is also now shaken.5 As a result, it is
quite possible – even preferable to many – to place the origin of the Fourth Gospel within a Palestinian
Jewish milieu.
3 & 4. The lateness of John is itself dependent on the question of its relationship to the
Synoptics. This relationship still remains an open question, one subject to active debate.6 Prior to
Percival Gardner-Smith’s essay in the early twentieth century, the almost uniform conception was that
John was dependent on the Synoptic gospels.7 Under the influence of form criticism, the tide then
turned to see John as independent of the Synoptics. It would be fair to say that scholarly opinion is
now split on this question. The dating of John is obviously related to this. If John is dependent on the
Synoptics, either one or all of them, then it must be later. If John is independent, it may be earlier. In
my recently published dissertation, I suggest that Luke at least is aware of John and writes in dialogue
with at least Mark and John. 8 But I am by no means alone in suggesting that John is relatively early,
indeed a growing number of minority voices have suggested an early date for John.9 This previously
unheard of position gave rise two years ago to a conference in Salzburg, Austria – Für und wider die
3
Priorität des Johannesevangeliums – at which Paul Anderson, Klaus Berger, Jim Charlesworth and
others, including myself, engaged the question of whether John is an early and independent gospel.
All of the foregoing discussion was to highlight the tenuous nature of John’s marginalization as a
possible “historical” basis of Jesus’ life. As we have come to consider each of the gospels to be a
theological and rhetorical document written by an evangelist living in the culturally diverse Greco Roman
empire of the late first century, the completely distinctive nature of the Fourth Gospel becomes less
tenable.
But if John is one example of the variety of responses to Jesus in the early development of the
church, and if it cannot be automatically rejected or minimized as theological, or late, or Hellenestic,
then perhaps the dichotomization of our scholarship needs to be rejected as well.
Beyond simply the historical and theological value of holding both John and the
Synoptics in view together, rejecting the dichotomy between John and the Synoptics would also further
the exploration of how ancient stories of Jesus were constructed. By comparing the gospels in creative
tension, analysis of the rhetorical and literary features in each strain of the Jesus tradition could be
enhanced, highlighting both common and divergent tendencies.
III. DICHOTOMY #2: HISTORICAL-CRITICAL VS. LITERARY
The trajectory of gospel criticism, and indeed all of New Testament studies, in the last 200
years has been primarily based on a historical-critical model. By this I mean that the meaning of the text
is integrally related to a reconstruction of the historical situation in which it gave rise. Thus the
historical-critical model explores the resources available for the author, the cultural assumptions of the
author and recipients, the available literary types upon which a text might have been modeled. The
4
methods and general approaches to this historical critical model are well known to students of the Bible
– we as faculty introduce our students early in their coursework to the various “geschichtes” (criticisms)
with which to approach the gospel texts: source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and its
variant composition criticism, and rhetorical criticism.
For the most part, these historical-critical methodologies focus on the world behind the text.
Either they seek to identify the raw materials of the gospels, or the pervasive cultural forces which
shaped ancient writers. Even when we turn to the point of the actual production of the texts from the
raw materials, these historical critical methodologies often focus only on the author—either trying to
understand the author’s particular patterns of behavior in reshaping the resources at his or her disposal,
or even seeking to understand the individual evangelist’s intention. Often without thinking about it, the
historical-critic works from Schleiermacher’s suggestion that the interpreter should seek to know the
mind of the author even better than the author himself or herself knew it.
In the last fifty years or so, and especially in the last couple of decades, strong objections to the
historical critical methods have been lodged. For these scholars, the emphasis on the pre-history and
background of the gospels has overshadowed the text itself. The text itself, according to his objection,
can function and be understood without reference to any knowledge of sources, or of the reliability of
any historical traditions upon which it might be based. And in many circles of the academy the
objections to the excessive attention to “background” issues have risen to a wholesale rejection of the
historical critical method, and thus has created the second of our dichotomies: Either historical-critical
or literary.10
The objections are based on very real concerns about both how much the interpreter can in fact
5
know and, more importantly, how important such historical reconstructions actually are. In the first
place, the emphasis on source criticism often assumed that identifying a source was the same as finding
the “meaning” of a text. In the cases of source and form criticism, the archeological task of digging
down to the earliest representation of a given pericope is often considered the end product: the “early”
form itself is the meaning of the text. We see this in much of the work of the Jesus Seminar – by
identifying which sayings of Jesus are early, the scholar finds the “true” sayings which then become the
primary object. Such an overemphasis on sources is like the history of religions approach to
Christianity – it assumes that a genealogical identification “explains” the resultant form.
In contrast, however, we now find an alternative emphasis on the text as it stands.11 In this
view, the text is all we really have, and so reliance on “background” issues is set aside as either
irrelevant or too susceptible to misreading. The text is either analyzed in terms of its own inherent rules
and structures—as for instance both structuralism and narrative criticism tend to do, although in very
different ways—or else the focus shifts to the response of the reader.
This emphasis on the text alone is based in part on a scepticism over how well we can ever
come to know the intention of an author.12 Certainly we must reject the bold approach of
Schleiermacher, who thought one could get inside the head of the author. But many literary approaches
reject out of hand any ability to understand the intentional thrust of a text, instead simply taking the act
of reading as the only available option. Once the initial communicative impulse of the text is
removed—the interaction between an author and the original intended readers—then the text can
become simply a canvas upon which to inscribe various “meanings” or “readings,” each of which is
equally valid. So various approaches, generally grouped together as ideological approaches, read the
6
text from feminist, lesbian, Marxist, African American perspectives. Each of these adds something to
our appropriation of the text, but often there is little attention paid to understanding the text’s original
purpose and function. Which is to say that many of the approaches which have arisen from the literary
skepticism of authorial intention are no longer hermeneutical; they often say more about the reader and
the current culture than the original text or the initial communicative impulse that gave rise to the gospels.
What we find, then, are two divergent approaches to the gospels. On the one hand, the
traditional historical critical model tends to valorize background issues that lie behind the text—the
sources, culture, and even author’s perspective and intention. And the meaning of the gospel that is
developed by these exegetes can easily be the creation of the critic built from the pieces of background
data. On the other hand, the literary critics tend to treat the text as an artifact that too easily becomes
simply a template for modern perceptions.
Having painted the dichotomy rather starkly, indeed with overly broad brushes,let me assert
that each of the approaches offers something significant to gospel scholarship. The historical critic
reminds us that the text was produced in a certain historical situation—the product of an author, in a
certain mileu, with a real intended audience. And the literary critic reminds us that what we are dealing
with is an actual text which confronted the ancient reader, and still confronts the modern reader, and
which was ultimately read and interpreted without reference to “sources” or psychologizing. Again, I
would assert that the dichotomy is itself dangerous to gospel criticism and some attempt to bridge the
two would be valuable to the field of gospel interpretation.
One beginning point in bridging the gap is to distinguish between the hermeneutical task and the
7
role of appropriation. The hermeneutical task, in which I am more interested, must take seriously the
original communicative impulse of the text. Each text was written in order to inform, persuade, or
shape opinions about the subject matter portrayed.
But literary criticism has much to offer the historical critic in the hermeneutical task as well.
Simply finding backgrounds and sources does little to elucidate the texts as communicative vehicles.
The exegete must take more seriously the role of the audience in the text. Texts were produced to be
read, so attending to the dynamics of how readers—ancient and modern— appropriate texts is crucial.
Narrative analysis and genre analysis are thus central to the hermeneutical task. So also is the rhetorical
function. How do texts utilize cultural conventions and knowledge of previous texts to control the
readers’ reactions to the texts? This is both a historical question and a literary question. It focuses on
the text as the primary raw material of exegesis, but necessarily draws on the historical reconstruction
of the ancient world —including available sources, cultural preconceptions, and reader
competencies—to ask how such texts might have been read.
IV. DICHOTOMY #3: M ODERNIST VS . POST M ODERNIST
A natural extension of the historical-critical versus literary dichotomy is the recent question of
whether we approach the gospels from a modernist or post-modernist perspective. As I approach this
issue, some provisional, if clearly inadequate, definitions are necessary to clarify how I will use these
vague and over-worked terms in this essay. I am mindful that these definitions are problematic, but
some clarification about what I mean by the terms seems crucial to pursue this dichotomy. And indeed
I am aware that the concept of dichotomy is itself a modernist concept, thus undermining at the outset
my attempt at bridging the gap.
8
Generally when one speaks of modernism in tension with post-modernism, what is in view is an
Enlightenment approach to seeking knowledge, and the way that intangible concepts such as meaning
(and the even more problematic concept of “truth”) can be apprehended and appropriated. In general,
the modernist-Enlightenment position would posit, with respect to the gospels, that there is an objective
meaning to each pericope and even each larger narrative unit that can be approached, and ideally,
ascertained through a carefully controlled process of investigation. A first corollary to this idea is that
the subjective perspective of the researcher is problematic for the process of investigation; only if the
researcher can be sufficiently objective in the analysis will the real central meaning of a passage or
narrative be able to be detected. A second corollary, and one that is central to the critique of the
modernist position, is that language is itself objectively referential. That is to say, that words and
phrases within a specific context refer to an single ascertainable idea – either an object or fact, or a
universal concept.
A good example of the modernist approach to the gospels can be seen in Jülicher’s treatment of
the parables.13 He argued that the parables must have only a single focus, and that careful analysis
could uncover that single focus—and discovering that focus would then also lead to identifying the
earliest and essential Jesus material. What is problematic, first of all, is the assumption that there is a
single identifiable meaning to each parable, which is to say that dual meanings, allusive language, plays
on words, not to mention possible allegories—with all the possible ranges of multiple meanings they
contain—are rejected out of hand. Also, this approach assumes that if identified, this “single meaning”
is therefore original Jesus material, and hence the only appropriate meaning. And, of course, Jülicher
presumes that the search for this single meaning is possible through careful objective analysis.
9
Post-modernism, in contrast to modernism, is far more aware of the involvement of the subject
in the search and construction of meaningful statements. Put another way, the post-modern scholar is
less sanguine about the possibility of anyone achieving a truly objective stance. There are a couple of
corollaries to this pespective as well. First of all, since human enterprise is heavily mediated by the
subject—the “I” of research, description, and writing—language itself is subjective, not objective.
Which is to say that it always reflects points of view, often unspoken and below the surface. Secondly,
because of the indeterminateness of language, there is rarely a “single” meaning to any discourse.
Instead, the possibility of multiple, new, or polyvalent meanings of words, phrases and narratives must
be considered. Texts then can often be seen as arising at the intersection of a variety of explicit and
implicit ideas which are competing for attention, but which invariably problemetize the task of
interpretation.
Returning to the example of Jülicher’s parable research, how might we critique this from a
post-modernist perspective? First of all, the emphasis on only one meaning would be very problematic,
since within the cryptic parables of Jesus are embedded a variety of options for reading or hearing.
Indeed, given the subjective nature of interpretation itself, based on the unique way language presents
itself to the individual, there are undoubtedly a wide range of possible ways to understand the
parables—and it is difficult to determine which reading should be normative.
So how does this affect us, then? On the one hand, the modernist approach has some
advantages in that it tends to reduce the task of interpretation to key issues. It also tends to focus
attention on the initial discourse of the author as having a primary focus. The modernist attitude toward
objectivity is a useful heuristic tool to center the task of interpretation. But it is dangerous if taken too
10
seriously or used exclusively. On the other hand, the post-modern approach appropriately raises
questions about the ability to ever achieve objectivity, since all language is mediated by the subjectivity
of the author, reader, and interpreter. Because language is inherently open to many meanings, there
may be more than one meaning, and more than one kind of meaning. But this post-modernist approach
may open the door to ever-expanding and conflicting meanings. Without some reasonable limit on
possible meanings, texts actually can become meaningless.
My own approach in this intersection of modernism and post-modernism has been to focus on
the rhetorical quality of gospel language. For me, meanings are frequently imbedded in the dialogic
nature of discourse.14 I am interested in how the gospel author is engaged in a dialogue with his or her
audience—attempting to persuade them and assuming certain competencies and shared
presumptions—but I also see the author engaged in dialogue with former texts and ideas. This focus on
the author’s initial discourse situation is fairly modernist in its perspective. But in moving outside of the
one meaning, and focusing on how meanings are negotiated rhetorically, and in allowing for levels of
intertextual engagement with prior texts, both written and unwritten, I am informed by post-modern
sensibilities.15 But of course the dialogue of discourse is also open-ended: readers continue to be
drawn into the original dialogue, and often bring new and surprising insights to the task.
My current approach attempts to bridge in a small way the modernist and post-modernist
approaches. There are other ways, though, to recognize strengths in each of the methods, so that the
sharp divide between these approaches is not seen as negative, but rather a positive step forward in the
our scholarly discourse.
V. DICHOTOMY #4: CRITICAL STANCE VS. FAITH PERSPECTIVE
11
The final divide which often separates scholars on the gospels is the issue of the role that faith
plays in the interpretation of scripture. This can be touched on fairly quickly and simply, given the
foregoing discussion on post-modernism. One of the great gifts that the post-modern critique of
scholarship has given to us is the recognition that all discourse is produced and received from a
subjective perspective. Let me suggest that this affirms a place for faith within the scholarly discourse,
not as an obscuring factor, but as one of the many subjective stances that are possible when
approaching the scriptures.
The modernist approach toward “objectivity” often created the view that any faith concerns
would necessarily cloud the intellectual apprehension of the meaning of a text. Within this view one
must set aside faith—or at least bracket it out—in order to pursue the analytical task of interpretation.
On the other hand, those who operate within a perspective which is grounded upon faith in Jesus Christ
often believe that they have to reject critical evaluation of the gospel material, thus resulting in an often
simplistic or facile evaluation of the scriptures.
When one approaches the gospels, it is clear that they are filled with faith language. The
subject matter deals with Jesus Christ, the rhetorical aim is generally toward engendering faith, and the
authors plainly wrote from a faith perspective. Bracketing out faith when dealing with such texts is
difficult and tends resist the very aims of the texts. And attempting what is deemed to be objectivity
often means either doubting the validity of the gospels’ message or rejecting the perspective of the
author. In other words, the “objective” or critical stance has as many significant barriers to
understanding and evaluating the documents as does a stance based upon a faith perspective. Each is
a point of view, and in each case the interpretation is already guided by the values of the interpreter.
12
If, however, we openly recognize the subjective quality of all language—both on the part of the
original writers and their audiences, as well as on our own part as modern interpreters—then a faithful
perspective can also claim a place in the academy. A faith perspective is not a requirement for
approaching the texts; a negative evaluation of the faith claims of the text does not invalidate the results
of analysis. But neither is a faith perspective inherently a barrier to interpretation. What is necessary,
though, is an honest appreciation for, and tacit claiming of, the preconceptions and values that guide
one’s thinking.
VI. CONCLUSION
We live in an exciting time in New Testament scholarship. The range of approaches to the
study of the gospels is expanding as other fields of study and approaches increasingly are being brought
to bear upon the texts. Sophisticated literary and rhetorical approaches, together with the rise of postmodern critiques of previously assumed norms of scholarship, are adding to our repertoire of ways to
read and interpret the gospels. These can, and often are, viewed as great chasms —either/ors that
divide scholars into competing camps. What I suggest instead is that we find ways to incorporate these
multiple approaches, and allow gospel studies – and indeed all of biblical scholarship – to be challenged
and enriched.
13
1.
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, tr. W. Montgomery (London: A. & C. Black,
1936), pp. 6 and 11.
2.
F. C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien (Tübingen: Verlag und
Druck, 1847), p. 239 ff.
3.
These points are discussed at greater length in my paper “The Contribution to the Temple Cleansing
by the Fourth Gospel”, SBL Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 490-493.
4.
See, for instance, the collection of articles John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth
(NY: Crossroad, 1990).
5.
See, for instance, Martin Hengel, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judea in the First Century After Christ
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1989), as well as Judaism and Hellenism (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1974).
6.
For a full discussion of the debate, see D. Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1992), soon to be released in a 2nd and updated edition.
7.
Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1938).
8.
Mark Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel? The Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the
Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Luke (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001).
9.
See J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John (Oak Park, IL: Meyer-Stone Books, 1987); Klaus
Berger, Im Anfang war Johannes (Stuttgart: Quell, 1997); Barbara Shellard, “The
Relationship of Luke and John: A Fresh Look at an Old Problem,” Journal of Theological
Studies 46 (1995): 71–98.
10.
Certainly this is the emphasis of Stephen Moore’s influential book, Literary Criticism and the
Gospels (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
11.
This emphasis began with the New Criticism movement in the middle of the 20th century in literary
critical circles, and was then taken up by biblical critics.
12.
Based in part on the influential essay “The Intentional Fallacy” by Willaim K. Wimsatt, Jr. and
Monroe C. Beardsley, in The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry, pp. 3-18
(Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1954).
14
13.
Adolf Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1910). See also
Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its
Problems (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), p. 186.
14.
See for instance my paper on “Intertextuality and the Relationship Between John and the Synoptics”
presented at this year’s SBL joint sections of Johannine Literature and the Synoptic Gospels.
This paper can be referenced at www.milligan.edu.
15.
So, for instance, see the emphasis on “Intertextuality,” “Bakhtin,” and “Kristeva” in the Handbook of
Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, ed. A. K. M. Adam (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000).
15
FALSE DICHOTOMIES IN GOSPEL STUDIES1
MARK A. MATSON
Milligan College
Introduction
I am particularly thankful to James Thompson and the other editors at
Restoration Quarterly for the invitation to address this group this morning. I
have taken this opportunity to reflect out loud on some of the larger issues,
theoretical and hermeneutical, that are driving my current research and writing.
More importantly, I hope this will generate fruitful interaction—yielding
comments and criticisms from many of you—as you react and perhaps push
back on some of my reflections or push me forward, as the case may be.
The area of NT studies that particularly interests me is the broad arena of
gospel studies. As with all scholars, I am a product of my time—I have
inherited certain perspectives and approaches toward the gospels that I am sure
are primarily the product of the shape of my education and the tendencies of
my colleagues and mentors. But I also find that on many issues I am
''swimming against the tide." The area of gospel studies is deeply compartmentalized, with sharp lines dividing the areas. Students of the gospels are presented a cluster of sharp dichotomies: one chooses either the Synoptic Gospels
or John; one either is a historical critic or uses literary approaches; one shares
a modernist perspective or a post-modernist view; one operates from within
either a critical perspective or a faith perspective. And as I try to identify "my
own kind"—my discourse community—I seem to be neither fish nor fowl.
That is to say, in the various dichotomies listed above, Ifindvalue to each side
of the issue. As a result, let me posit as a thesis for this morning's talk that the
dichotomies listed have been overemphasized, are indeedfalse or misleading,
and that gospel scholars should be finding ways to speak across the divides,
to claim both/and rather than either/or approaches.
1
This speech was given at the Restoration Quarterly breakfast at the annual
meeting of the AAR/SBL in Denver, Colo., on Nov. 20,2001.
130
RESTORATION QUARTERLY
Dichotomy #1: John vs. Synoptic
In the study of the gospels, a significant gulf exists between thefirstthree
gospels, the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth Gospel. This is seen perhaps
most dramatically in the study of the historical Jesus—so much so that Albert
Schweitzer's first clear "either-or" is that of "either John or the Synoptics."2
Schweitzer himself points to the influence of F. C. Baur and the Tübingen
School in delineating in very stark terms the contrast between the Synoptics
and John, a contrast that is now accepted as something approaching scholarly
"orthodoxy." It might be useful to review the substance of Baur's critique of
the Fourth Gospel:3
1. John is thoroughly theological.
2. John is primarily the product of a Hellenistic environment.
3. John is late and thus represents a long transmission or late use of
sources.
4. John is dependent on the Synoptics.
This is not the venue to launch into a detailed engagement with Baur's
points.4 But especially since they have been so important on the shape of
gospel studies and historical Jesus research, I think it is important to examine
them briefly—especially since every one of them is subject to fierce debate,
and in fact I think every one of them is false. Thus let me summarize the
objections briefly:
1. While it is probably true to say that John is thoroughly theological, this
is misleading in that it suggests that the other gospels are not thoroughly
theological. But as we have gained some appreciation for the role of the composer in all the gospels, it is increasingly clear that they are all thoroughly
theological. Moreover, being theological does not inherently taint a gospel as
being less reliable as a historical witness or a bearer of sound traditions. It
simply means that the ideological underpinnings of the document are grounded
in a view of God's action.
2. Perhaps we should attribute the idea that John is fundamentally a
Hellenistic gospel primarily to nineteenth-century approaches to the gospels,
although the viewpoint still has a significant following. But the discoveries of
the Qumran and other sectarian Jewish writings have modified our view of
John since many of the Hellenistic features are found in these writings as
2
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. W. Montgomery;
London: A. & C. Black, 1936), 6 and 11.
3
F. C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien
(Tübingen: Verlag und Druck, 1847), 233T.
4
These points are discussed at greater length in my paper "The Contribution to
the Temple Cleansing by the Fourth Gospel," SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992),
490-93.
MATSON/FALSE DICHOTOMIES IN GOSPEL STUDIES
131
well.5 And our confidence that somehow Palestine avoided being fairly
extensively hellenized is also now shaken.6 As a result, it is quite
possible—even preferable to many—to place the origin of the Fourth Gospel
within a Palestinian Jewish milieu.
3 and 4. The lateness of John is itself dependent on the question of its
relationship to the Synoptics. This relationship still remains an open question,
one subject to active debate.7 Prior to Percival Gardner-Smith's essay in the
early twentieth century, the almost uniform conception was that John was
dependent on the Synoptic Gospels.8 Under the influence of form criticism, the
tide then turned to see John as independent of the Synoptics. It would be fair
to say that scholarly opinion is now split on this question. The dating of John
is obviously related to this. If John is dependent on the Synoptics, either one
or all of them, then it must be later. If John is independent, it may be earlier.
In my recently published dissertation, I suggest that Luke at least is aware of
John and writes in dialogue with at least Mark and John.9 But I am by no
means alone in suggesting that John is relatively early; indeed a growing
number of minority voices have suggested an early date for John.10 This
previously unheard of position gave rise two years ago to a conference in
Salzburg, Austria—Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums—at
which Paul Anderson, Klaus Berger, Jim Charlesworth, and others, including
me, engaged the question of whether John is an early and independent gospel.
All of the foregoing discussion was to highlight the tenuous nature of
John's marginalization as a possible "historical" basis of Jesus' life. As we
have come to consider each of the gospels to be a theological and rhetorical
document written by an evangelist living in the culturally diverse GrecoRoman empire of the latefirstcentury, the completely distinctive nature of the
Fourth Gospel becomes less tenable.
5
See, for instance, the collection of articles John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed.
James H. Charlesworth; New York: Crossroad, 1990).
6
See, for instance, Martin Hengel, The 'Hellenization' of Judea in the First
Century after Christ (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1989), as well as Judaism and
Hellenism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
7
For a full discussion of the debate, see D. Moody Smith, John among the
Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), soon to be released in a 2d, and updated,
edition.
8
Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1938).
9
Mark Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel? The Influence of the Fourth
Gospel on the Passion Narrative of the Gospel o/"Lwfc<Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001).
10
See J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority ofJohn (Oak Park, DL: Meyer-Stone Books,
1987); Klaus Berger, Im Anfang war Johannes (Stuttgart: Quell, 1997); Barbara
Shellard, "The Relationship of Luke and John: A Fresh Look at an Old Problem," JTS
46 (1995): 71-98.
132
RESTORATION QUARTERLY
However, if John is one example of the variety of responses to Jesus in
the early development of the church, and if it cannot be automatically rejected
or minimized as theological, or late, or Hellenestic, then perhaps the
dichotomization of our scholarship needs to be rejected as well.
Beyond simply the historical and theological value of holding both John
and the Synoptics in view together, rejecting die dichotomy between John and
the Synoptics would also further the exploration of how ancient stories of
Jesus were constructed. By comparing the gospels in creative tension, we
could enhance the analysis of the rhetorical and literary features in each strain
of the Jesus tradition, highlighting both common and divergent tendencies.
Dichotomy #2: Historical-Critical vs. Literary
The trajectory of gospel criticism, and indeed all of NT studies, in the last
two hundred years has been based primarily on a historical-critical model. By
this I mean that the meaning of the text is integrally related to a reconstruction
of the historical situation in which it gave rise. Thus the historical-critical
model explores the resources available for the author, the cultural assumptions
of the author and recipients, and the available literary types upon which a text
might have been modeled. The methods and general approaches to this
historical critical model are well known to students of the Bible—we as
faculty introduce our students early in their course work to the various
"geschientes" (criticisms) with which to approach the gospel texts: source
criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and its variant composition
criticism, and rhetorical criticism.
For the most part, these historical-critical methodologies focus on the
world behind the text. They seek to identify either the raw materials of the
gospels or the pervasive cultural forces that shaped ancient writers. Even when
we turn to the point of the actual production of the texts from the raw
materials, these historical critical methodologies often focus only on the
authors—either trying to understand their particular patterns of behavior in
reshaping the resources at their disposal, or even seeking to understand the
individual evangelists' intention. Often without thinking about it, the historical
critic worksfromSchleiermacher's suggestion that the interpreter should seek
to know the mind of the authors even better than the authors themselves knew
it.
In the last fifty years or so, and especially in the last couple of decades,
scholars have lodged strong objections to the historical critical methods. For
these scholars, the emphasis on the pre-history and background of the gospels
has overshadowed the text itself. The text itself, according to this objection,
can function and be understood without reference to any knowledge of sources
or of the reliability of any historical traditions upon which it might be based.
And in many circles of the academy, the objections to the excessive attention
to "background" issues have risen to a wholesale rejection of the historical
MATSON/FALSE DICHOTOMIES IN GOSPEL STUDIES
133
critical method and thus has created the second of our dichotomies: either
historical-critical or literary. n
The objections are based on very real concerns about both how much the
interpreter can in fact know and, more importantly, how important such historical reconstructions actually are. In the first place, the emphasis on source
criticism often assumed that identifying a source was the same as finding the
"meaning" of a text. In the cases of source and form criticism, the archeological task of digging down to the earliest representation of a given pericope
is often considered the end product: the "early" form itself is the meaning of
the text. We see this in much of the work of the Jesus Seminar—by identifying
which sayings of Jesus are early, the scholar finds the "true" sayings, which
then become the primary object. Such an overemphasis on sources is like the
history of religions approach to Christianity; it assumes that a genealogical
identification "explains" the resultant form.
In contrast, however, we now find an alternative emphasis on the text as
it stands.12 In this view, the text is all we really have; thus reliance on "background" issues is set aside as either irrelevant or too susceptible to misreading.
Either the text is analyzed in terms of its own inherent rules and structures—as
for instance both structuralism and narrative criticism tend to do, although in
very different ways—or else the focus shifts to the response of the reader.
This emphasis on the text alone is based in part on a scepticism over how
well we can ever come to know the intention of an author.13 Certainly we must
reject the bold approach of Schleiermacher, who thought one could get inside
the head of the author. But many literary approaches reject out of hand any
ability to understand the intentional thrust of a text, instead simply taking the
act of reading as the only available option. Once the initial communicative
impulse of the text is removed—the interaction between an author and the
original intended readers—then the text can become simply a canvas upon
which to inscribe various "meanings" or "readings," each of which is equally
valid. Thus various approaches, generally grouped together as ideological
approaches, read the text from feminist, lesbian, Marxist, African American
perspectives. Each of these adds something to our appropriation of the text,
but often there is little attention paid to understanding the text's original
purpose and function; that is, many of the approaches that have arisenfromthe
literary skepticism of authorial intention are no longer hermeneutical; they
11
Certainly this is the emphasis of Stephen Moore's influential book Literary
Criticism and the GospelsQXew Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1989).
12
This emphasis began with the New Criticism movement in the middle of the
20th century in literary critical circles and Was then taken up by biblical critics.
13
Based in part on the influential essay "The Intentional Fallacy" by William K.
Wimsatt Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley in The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of
Poetry, 3-18 (Lexington: Univ. of Kentucky Press, 1954).
134
RESTORATION QUARTERLY
often say more about the reader and the current culture than the original text
or the initial communicative impulse that gave rise to the gospels.
What we find, then, are two divergent approaches to the gospels. On the
one hand, the traditional historical critical model tends to valorize background
issues that lie behind the text—the sources, culture, and even author's perspective and intention. The meaning of the gospel that is developed by these
exegetes can easily be the creation of the critic built from the pieces of
background data. On the other hand, the literary critics tend to treat the text as
an artifact that too easily becomes simply a template for modern perceptions.
Having painted the dichotomy rather starkly, indeed with overly broad
brushes, I will assert that each of the approaches offers something significant
to gospel scholarship. The historical critic reminds us that the text was
produced in a certain historical situation—the product of an author, in a
certain milieu, with a real, intended audience. The literary critic reminds us
that what we are dealing with is an actual text that confronted the ancient
reader, and still confronts the modern reader, and that was ultimately read and
interpreted without reference to "sources" or psychologizing. Again, I would
assert that the dichotomy is itself dangerous to gospel criticism, and some
attempt to bridge the two would be valuable to the field of gospel
interpretation.
One beginning point in bridging the gap is to distinguish between the
hermeneutical task and the role of appropriation. The hermeneutical task, in
which I am more interested, must take seriously the original communicative
impulse of the text. Each text was written in order to inform, persuade, or
shape opinions about the subject matter portrayed.
Literary criticism, however, has much to offer the historical critic in the
hermeneutical task as well. Simplyfindingbackgrounds and sources does little
to elucidate the texts as communicative vehicles. The exegete must take more
seriously the role of the audience in the text. Texts were produced to be read;
thus attending to the dynamics of how readers—ancient and modern—
appropriate texts is crucial. Narrative analysis and genre analysis are thus
central to the hermeneutical task. So also is the rhetorical function. How do
texts utilize cultural conventions and knowledge of previous texts to control
the readers' reactions to the texts? This is both a historical question and a
literary question. It focuses on the text as the primary raw material of exegesis,
but necessarily draws on the historical reconstruction of the ancient world—
including available sources, cultural preconceptions, and reader competencies
—to ask how such texts might have been read.
Dichotomy #3: Modernist vs. Post-Modernist
A natural extension of the historical-critical versus literary dichotomy is
the recent question of whether we approach the gospels from a modernist or
post-modernist perspective. As I approach this issue, some provisional, if
clearly inadequate, definitions are necessary to clarify how I will use these
MATSON/FALSE DICHOTOMIES IN GOSPEL STUDIES
135
vague and over-worked terms in this essay. I am mindful that these definitions
are problematic, but some clarification about what I mean by the terms seems
crucial to pursue this dichotomy. Indeed I am aware that the concept of
dichotomy is itself a modernist concept, thus undermining at the outset my
attempt at bridging the gap.
Generally, when one speaks of modernism in tension with postmodernism, what is in view is an Enlightenment approach to seeking
knowledge and the way intangible concepts such as meaning (and the even
more problematic concept of "truth") can be apprehended and appropriated.
In general, the modernist-Enlightenment position would posit, with respect to
the gospels, that there is an objective meaning to each pericope and even each
larger narrative unit that can be approached, and ideally, ascertained through
a carefully controlled process of investigation. A first corollary to this idea is
that the subjective perspective of the researcher is problematic for the process
of investigation; only if the researcher can be sufficiently objective in the
analysis will the real central meaning of a passage or narrative be discernible.
A second corollary, and one that is central to the critique of the modernist
position, is that language is itself objectively referential, that is, that words and
phrases within a specific context refer to a single ascertainable idea—either
an object, a fact, or a universal concept.
A good example of the modernist approach to the gospels can be seen in
Jülicher's treatment of the parables.14 He argued that the parables must have
only a single focus and that careful analysis could uncover that single
focus—and discovering that focus would then also lead to identifying the
earliest and essential Jesus material. What is problematic, first of all, is the
assumption that there is a single identifiable meaning to each parable, which
is to say that dual meanings, allusive language, plays on words, not to mention
possible allegories—with all the possible ranges of multiple meanings they
contain—are rejected out of hand. Also, this approach assumes that if identified, this "single meaning" is therefore original Jesus material, hence the only
appropriate meaning. Of course, Jülicher also presumes that the search for this
single meaning is possible through careful objective analysis.
Post-modernism, in contrast to modernism, is far more aware of the
involvement of the subject in the search and construction of meaningful
statements. The post-modern scholar is less sanguine about the possibility that
anyone will achieve a truly objective stance. There are a couple of corollaries
to this perspective as well. First, since human enterprise is heavily mediated
by the subject—the "I" of research, description, and writing—language itself
is subjective, not objective. That is, it always reflects points of view, often
14
Adolf Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 1910). See also Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of
the Investigation of ItsProblems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 186.
136
RESTORATION QUARTERLY
unspoken and below the surface. Secondly, because of the indeterminateness
of language, there is rarely a "single" meaning to any discourse. Instead, the
possibility of multiple, new, or polyvalent meanings of words, phrases, and
narratives must be considered. Texts then can often be seen as arising at the
intersection of a variety of explicit and implicit ideas that are competing for
attention, but that invariably problemetize the task of interpretation.
Returning to the example of Jülicher's parable research, how might we
critique this from a post-modernist perspective? First of all, the emphasis on
only one meaning would be very problematic since within the cryptic parables
of Jesus are embedded a variety of options for reading or hearing. Indeed,
given the subjective nature of interpretation itself, based on the unique way
language presents itself to the individual, there are undoubtedly a wide range
of possible ways to understand the parables—and it is difficult to determine
which reading should be normative.
How does this affect us, then? On the one hand, the modernist approach
has some advantages in that it tends to reduce the task of interpretation to key
issues. It also tends to focus attention on the initial discourse of the author as
having a primary focus. The modernist attitude toward objectivity is a useful
heuristic tool to center the task of interpretation, but it is dangerous if taken
too seriously or used exclusively. On the other hand, the post-modern
approach appropriately raises questions about the ability ever to achieve
objectivity since all language is mediated by the subjectivity of the author,
reader, and interpreter. Because language is inherently open to many
meanings, there may be more than one meaning, and more than one kind of
meaning. But this post-modernist approach may open the door to everexpanding and conflicting meanings. Without some reasonable limit on
possible meanings, texts actually can become meaningless.
My own approach in this intersection of modernism and post-modernism
has been to focus on the rhetorical quality of gospel language. For me,
meanings arefrequentlyimbedded in the dialogic nature of discourse.151 am
interested in how the gospel author is engaged in a dialogue with his or her
audience—attempting to persuade them and assuming certain competencies
and shared presumptions—but I also see the author engaged in dialogue with
former texts and ideas. This focus on the author's initial discourse situation is
fairly modernist in its perspective. But in moving outside of the one meaning
and focusing on how meanings are negotiated rhetorically, and in allowing for
levels of intertextual engagement with prior texts, both written and unwritten,
I am informed by post-modern sensibilities.16 But of course the dialogue of
15
See, for instance, my paper "Intertextuality and the Relationship between John
and the Synoptics" presented at this year's SBL joint sections of Johannine Literature
and the Synoptic Gospels, at www.milligan.edu.
16
Thus, for instance, see tiie emphasis on "Intertextuality," "Bakhtin," and "Kristeva"
MATSON/FALSE DICHOTOMIES IN GOSPEL STUDIES
137
discourse is also open-ended: readers continue to be drawn into the original
dialogue and often bring new and surprising insights to the task.
My current approach attempts to bridge in a small way the modernist and
post-modernist approaches. There are other ways, though, to recognize
strengths in each of the methods so that the sharp divide between these
approaches is not seen as negative, but rather a positive step forward in
scholarly discourse.
Dichotomy #4: Critical Stance vs. Faith Perspective
The final divide that often separates scholars on the gospels is the issue
of the role that faith plays in the interpretation of Scripture. This can be
touched on fairly quickly and simply, given the foregoing discussion on postmodernism. One of the great gifts that the post-modern critique of scholarship
has given to us is the recognition that all discourse is produced and received
from a subjective perspective. Let me suggest that this affirms a place for faith
within the scholarly discourse, not as an obscuring factor, but as one of the
many subjective stances that are possible when approaching the Scriptures.
The modernist approach toward "objectivity" often created the view that
any faith concerns would necessarily cloud the intellectual apprehension of the
meaning of a text. Within this view one must set aside faith—or at least
bracket it out—in order to pursue the analytical task of interpretation. On the
other hand, those who operate within a perspective that is grounded upon faith
in Jesus Christ often believe that they have to reject critical evaluation of the
gospel material, thus resulting in an often simplistic or facile evaluation of the
Scriptures.
When one approaches the gospels, it is clear that they are filled with faith
language. The subject matter deals with Jesus Christ, the rhetorical aim is
generally toward engendering faith, and the authors plainly wrotefroma faith
perspective. Bracketing out faith when dealing with such texts is difficult and
tends to resist the very aims of the texts. And attempting what is deemed to be
objectivity often means either doubting the validity of the gospels' message or
rejecting the perspective of the authors. In other words, the "objective," or
critical, stance has as many significant barriers to understanding and evaluating the documents as does a stance based upon a faith perspective. Each is
a point of view, and in each case the interpretation is already guided by the
values of the interpreter.
If, however, we openly recognize the subjective quality of all language—
both on the part of the original writers and their audiences as well as on our
own part as modern interpreters—then a faithful perspective can also claim a
place in the academy. A faithful perspective is not a requirement for
in the Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation (ed. A. K. M. Adam; St. Louis:
Chalice Press, 2000).
RESTORATION QUARTERLY
138
approaching the texts; a negative evaluation of the faith claims of the text does
not invalidate the results of analysis. But neither is a faith perspective
inherently a barrier to interpretation. What is necessary, though, is an honest
appreciation for, and tacit claiming of, the preconceptions and values that
guide one's thinking.
Conclusion
We live in an exciting time in NT scholarship. The range of approaches
to the study of the gospels is expanding as other fields of study and
approaches increasingly are being brought to bear upon the texts.
Sophisticated literary and rhetorical approaches, together with the rise of postmodern critiques of previously assumed norms of scholarship, are adding to
our repertoire of ways to read and interpret the gospels. These can, and often
are, viewed as great chasms—either/ors that divide scholars into competing
camps. What I suggest instead is that we find ways to incorporate these
multiple approaches and allow gospel studies—and indeed all of biblical
scholarship—to be challenged and enriched.
New front
Tennessee
The Stone-Campbell
Movement
AN INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS TRADITION
Edited by Michael W. Casey
and Douglas A. Foster
This volume brings together twenty-six essays
drawn from the wide-ranging scholarship on
the Stone-Campbell movement that has flourished over the past twenty years. Reprinted
from diverse scholarly journals and concentrating on historiographie issues, the essays
consider such topics as the movement's origins, its influence on the presidency, its presence in Great Britain, and its multicultural
aspects. The contributors include, among others, Richard T. Hughes, David Edwin Harrell Jr.,
Nathan O. Hatch, and Paul M. Blowers.
616 pages, ISBN 1-57233-179-8, $45.00
1:
Shipping & handling: $4.00 for first book;
$1. 00 for each additional book
www.utpress.org
iitp
The University of Tennessee Press • KNOXVILLE 37996-4108
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.