tracing the early jesus tradition: a preamble to a proposal
In an upcoming post I will be sketching out my thoughts on the origins and development of the Jesus tradition through the first century and into the early second century. This proposal will be laid out in a series of logical and chronological propositions, not defended or substantiated in any significant way, so I thought I'd begin with a preamble to describe where I'm coming from in the proposal that follows.
My proposal is what you might call a "working hypothesis." It is a general reconstruction that flows from my own engagement to this point with both the primary witnesses to the early Jesus tradition and also the secondary sources on the subject. But it also forms a general framework within which I engage the primary and secondary literature. This means that, in good hermeneutically circular fashion, the proposal is very much "in process," never finalized but always being modified as my own research continues. Now for some of the foundational ideas behind my proposal:
1. I'm not fully convinced by any of the dominant theories of oral tradition transmission thus far: to follow Bailey's schema, these are "informal uncontrolled" transmission (e.g. Bultmann), "formal controlled" transmission (e.g. Gerhardsson), and "informal controlled" transmission (e.g. Bailey himself). To put it somewhat simplistically, "informal uncontrolled" gives too much credence to folklore models, ascribes too much creativity to Christian prophets and teachers, and does not adequately recognize the presence of authoritative tradents in earliest Christianity; "formal controlled" gives too much credence to rabbinic or "formal school" models and ascribes too much ubiquitous authority to the primary tradents in earliest Christianity; and "informal controlled," while retaining some of the good aspects of the other theories, also retains too many of the bad (e.g. still influenced by a folklore model).
2. Nevertheless, while Bailey's "informal controlled" model doesn't quite cut it, some kind of mediating position between the other two makes the best sense to me. With Dunn, Bauckham, and others, I would affirm the ongoing presence of authoritative, even eyewitness tradents through the first three or four decades after Jesus, tradents that traveled extensively and passed on testimonies and traditions to those who would be teachers in the local Christian assemblies. However, against Gerhardsson I would deny that these authoritative tradents formalized the tradition and its transmission to the extent of later rabbinic schools, nor would I see their authority over the tradition as virtually ubiquitous within the early Christian movement. Quite likely, authority issues related to the Jesus tradition varied in different locations and situations.
3. Orality and textuality mixed and mingled (in sometimes unpredictable ways) in the first century Mediterranean world and in earliest Christianity. Theories of orality that propose a sharp distinction between orality and textuality just don't work. One can see some of the "characteristics of orality" (see below) in the written canonical Gospels, and the textual tradition of these Gospels would seem to indicate that ongoing orality shaped the written expression of the Gospels through the second century. Furthermore, there seems to have been a multiplicity of "oralities" and "textualities" at work: a first-level orality (oral communication of orally communicated traditions); a second-level orality (oral communication of remembered written texts previously read or heard); third- and greater level oralities (oral communication of orally communicated remembrances of written texts); and corresponding combinations related to textuality.
4. Nevertheless, I see orality as the predominant paradigm for understanding the origin and development of the early Jesus tradition. The most significant characteristic of orality (and even underlying memory) that I see at work is the relative stability of a perceived core and the relative flexibility of a perceived periphery, a stability and flexibility that functioned both at the micro-level (with individual tradition units, e.g. essential plot elements and final saying of a pronouncement story being stable, with other elements fluid) and at the macro-level (with the tradition as a whole, i.e. some traditions more central than others). This characteristic of orality (along with others) worked throughout the oral transmission of traditions, and even influenced the earliest written witnesses to the Jesus tradition. For example, one can note Mark's preference for parataxis as opposed to hypotaxis (another feature of orality), or the core-stability-and-peripheral-flexibility pattern at work in Matthew's and Luke's uses of Mark.
5. However, as this last statement indicates, I am convinced of some degree of literary interdependence among the Synoptics, and possibly to some extent between one or more of the Synoptics (esp. Luke) and John. I am convinced of Markan priority and Matthew's and Luke's direct use of Mark, but I am unconvinced by arguments for Q. Luke's direct use of Matthew makes more sense to me (thus a Goodacre-esque Farrer hypothesis), in spite of the apparent difficulties. But this does not mean other sources are not at work: the denial of a definable Q document as a common source for Matthew and Luke does not preclude the use of prior sources by Matthew for what we know of as the double tradition - Matthew got that material from somewhere. However, because of my thoughts on the previous point along with other considerations, I tend to see these other sources along oral rather than written lines.
6. Although I'm not convinced of autonomous "communities" in early Christianity as a general rule (see below), I do think that the idea of a semi-autonomous Johannine community makes a good deal of sense. There are a few factors that point me in that direction, factors for which there are no real parallels with the other canonical Gospels: a) there is a "we"-"he" contrast in the context of a statement of authorship (John 21:24), at the very least a good prima facie point for an editing community following up on an authoring "beloved disciple"; b) there are very close affinities with a clearly distinct body of literature (the Johannine epistles, two written by "the elder"), literature which also points to some distinctive community concerns; and c) there is patristic tradition related to all these writings that indicates a Johannine community of disciples in Asia Minor (e.g. Irenaeus, Haer. 2.22.5). Taken together, these factors point to an early Johannine community which remained noticeably distinct in its patterns of practice and expression even as it interacted with other Christian groups. Furthermore, while I'm not generally a fan of multiple edition theories of the Gospels, the aporias of John (e.g. John 14:31b) combined with the indicators of community editing lead me toward a two-edition theory of the fourth Gospel.
7. Still, I'm convinced that, if one can speak of autonomous or even semi-autonomous Christian "communities" within the early Christian movement at all, such communities were the exception rather than the rule. Rather, along with Bauckham et al, I see quite a bit of interaction among different groups within earliest Christianity, crossing geographical and even apostolic "denominational" lines. That is not to say that individual tradents or groups would not have had their own distinctive testimonies, traditions, and interpretations, but that I think there was much more cross-fertilization than is often allowed.
8. I don't think enough attention has been paid to non-Gospel witnesses to the early Jesus tradition. In a way this lack of attention makes sense, as the pickings are relatively slim outside the canonical and early non-canonical Gospels. But in a way this lack of attention is curious to me, since some of these other witnesses predate the Gospels significantly, and there are some golden nuggets of traditional material among them. For myself, I see the following non-Gospel writings as the most helpful in this regard, to varying degrees: 1 and 2 Thessalonians (esp. 1 Thess 4-5 and 2 Thess 2), 1 Corinthians (esp. 7, 9, 11, 15), Romans (esp. 12-14), James (for teaching material), Hebrews (esp. for narrative material), Acts (with possibly independent sources for the kerygmatic material), the Didache (esp. 1, 8, 16), and 1 Clement (esp. 13). All but the last three I see as predating the Gospels, and the last three I see as witnessing to an ongoing oral tradition at some level of orality.
9. Following up on these last two points, the idea of a Paul-Jerusalem or Gentile-Jew split in earliest Christianity has too often been overblown. Undoubtedly there were tensions along those lines, and one can certainly see evidence of those tensions within the New Testament. However, emphases and evidences of a fundamental unity run through the New Testament as well (e.g. Gal 1:23; 1 Cor 15:11). But this is not a radical uniformity, any more than the evidence of tensions suggests a radical opposition. Rather, a better model for making sense of these earliest Christian writings is some form of "unity in diversity," to some extent socially but especially theologically. In practical terms for the early Jesus tradition, this provides partial impetus for the suggestion that Paul was not as ignorant or apathetic toward the Jesus tradition as is often assumed.
10. Finally, I think that too often, too much authority and creativity has been ascribed to the early Christian prophets and teachers related to the Jesus tradition. My own research into earliest Christian prophecy (which I hope to sketch out in a series of posts at some point) points to the earliest Christian prophets functioning much more like their Greco-Roman counterparts, essentially providing practical guidance for everyday decision-making through clairvoyance and prediction. One doesn't see authoritative prophetic "I-sayings" and extensive prophetic teaching authority until the end of the first century and into the second, after the primary apostles have passed from the scene. Rather, in the first decades after Jesus, it seems that authoritative formation and promulgation of tradition and doctrine was primarily in the hands of a relatively select group of "apostles" and secondarily transmitted by local "teachers."
Perhaps the bottom line in all of this is that I think the development of the Jesus tradition through the first century was more conservative than many would like to believe, and a whole lot "messier" than anyone would like it to have been.
See here for the proposal itself.
My proposal is what you might call a "working hypothesis." It is a general reconstruction that flows from my own engagement to this point with both the primary witnesses to the early Jesus tradition and also the secondary sources on the subject. But it also forms a general framework within which I engage the primary and secondary literature. This means that, in good hermeneutically circular fashion, the proposal is very much "in process," never finalized but always being modified as my own research continues. Now for some of the foundational ideas behind my proposal:
1. I'm not fully convinced by any of the dominant theories of oral tradition transmission thus far: to follow Bailey's schema, these are "informal uncontrolled" transmission (e.g. Bultmann), "formal controlled" transmission (e.g. Gerhardsson), and "informal controlled" transmission (e.g. Bailey himself). To put it somewhat simplistically, "informal uncontrolled" gives too much credence to folklore models, ascribes too much creativity to Christian prophets and teachers, and does not adequately recognize the presence of authoritative tradents in earliest Christianity; "formal controlled" gives too much credence to rabbinic or "formal school" models and ascribes too much ubiquitous authority to the primary tradents in earliest Christianity; and "informal controlled," while retaining some of the good aspects of the other theories, also retains too many of the bad (e.g. still influenced by a folklore model).
2. Nevertheless, while Bailey's "informal controlled" model doesn't quite cut it, some kind of mediating position between the other two makes the best sense to me. With Dunn, Bauckham, and others, I would affirm the ongoing presence of authoritative, even eyewitness tradents through the first three or four decades after Jesus, tradents that traveled extensively and passed on testimonies and traditions to those who would be teachers in the local Christian assemblies. However, against Gerhardsson I would deny that these authoritative tradents formalized the tradition and its transmission to the extent of later rabbinic schools, nor would I see their authority over the tradition as virtually ubiquitous within the early Christian movement. Quite likely, authority issues related to the Jesus tradition varied in different locations and situations.
3. Orality and textuality mixed and mingled (in sometimes unpredictable ways) in the first century Mediterranean world and in earliest Christianity. Theories of orality that propose a sharp distinction between orality and textuality just don't work. One can see some of the "characteristics of orality" (see below) in the written canonical Gospels, and the textual tradition of these Gospels would seem to indicate that ongoing orality shaped the written expression of the Gospels through the second century. Furthermore, there seems to have been a multiplicity of "oralities" and "textualities" at work: a first-level orality (oral communication of orally communicated traditions); a second-level orality (oral communication of remembered written texts previously read or heard); third- and greater level oralities (oral communication of orally communicated remembrances of written texts); and corresponding combinations related to textuality.
4. Nevertheless, I see orality as the predominant paradigm for understanding the origin and development of the early Jesus tradition. The most significant characteristic of orality (and even underlying memory) that I see at work is the relative stability of a perceived core and the relative flexibility of a perceived periphery, a stability and flexibility that functioned both at the micro-level (with individual tradition units, e.g. essential plot elements and final saying of a pronouncement story being stable, with other elements fluid) and at the macro-level (with the tradition as a whole, i.e. some traditions more central than others). This characteristic of orality (along with others) worked throughout the oral transmission of traditions, and even influenced the earliest written witnesses to the Jesus tradition. For example, one can note Mark's preference for parataxis as opposed to hypotaxis (another feature of orality), or the core-stability-and-peripheral-flexibility pattern at work in Matthew's and Luke's uses of Mark.
5. However, as this last statement indicates, I am convinced of some degree of literary interdependence among the Synoptics, and possibly to some extent between one or more of the Synoptics (esp. Luke) and John. I am convinced of Markan priority and Matthew's and Luke's direct use of Mark, but I am unconvinced by arguments for Q. Luke's direct use of Matthew makes more sense to me (thus a Goodacre-esque Farrer hypothesis), in spite of the apparent difficulties. But this does not mean other sources are not at work: the denial of a definable Q document as a common source for Matthew and Luke does not preclude the use of prior sources by Matthew for what we know of as the double tradition - Matthew got that material from somewhere. However, because of my thoughts on the previous point along with other considerations, I tend to see these other sources along oral rather than written lines.
6. Although I'm not convinced of autonomous "communities" in early Christianity as a general rule (see below), I do think that the idea of a semi-autonomous Johannine community makes a good deal of sense. There are a few factors that point me in that direction, factors for which there are no real parallels with the other canonical Gospels: a) there is a "we"-"he" contrast in the context of a statement of authorship (John 21:24), at the very least a good prima facie point for an editing community following up on an authoring "beloved disciple"; b) there are very close affinities with a clearly distinct body of literature (the Johannine epistles, two written by "the elder"), literature which also points to some distinctive community concerns; and c) there is patristic tradition related to all these writings that indicates a Johannine community of disciples in Asia Minor (e.g. Irenaeus, Haer. 2.22.5). Taken together, these factors point to an early Johannine community which remained noticeably distinct in its patterns of practice and expression even as it interacted with other Christian groups. Furthermore, while I'm not generally a fan of multiple edition theories of the Gospels, the aporias of John (e.g. John 14:31b) combined with the indicators of community editing lead me toward a two-edition theory of the fourth Gospel.
7. Still, I'm convinced that, if one can speak of autonomous or even semi-autonomous Christian "communities" within the early Christian movement at all, such communities were the exception rather than the rule. Rather, along with Bauckham et al, I see quite a bit of interaction among different groups within earliest Christianity, crossing geographical and even apostolic "denominational" lines. That is not to say that individual tradents or groups would not have had their own distinctive testimonies, traditions, and interpretations, but that I think there was much more cross-fertilization than is often allowed.
8. I don't think enough attention has been paid to non-Gospel witnesses to the early Jesus tradition. In a way this lack of attention makes sense, as the pickings are relatively slim outside the canonical and early non-canonical Gospels. But in a way this lack of attention is curious to me, since some of these other witnesses predate the Gospels significantly, and there are some golden nuggets of traditional material among them. For myself, I see the following non-Gospel writings as the most helpful in this regard, to varying degrees: 1 and 2 Thessalonians (esp. 1 Thess 4-5 and 2 Thess 2), 1 Corinthians (esp. 7, 9, 11, 15), Romans (esp. 12-14), James (for teaching material), Hebrews (esp. for narrative material), Acts (with possibly independent sources for the kerygmatic material), the Didache (esp. 1, 8, 16), and 1 Clement (esp. 13). All but the last three I see as predating the Gospels, and the last three I see as witnessing to an ongoing oral tradition at some level of orality.
9. Following up on these last two points, the idea of a Paul-Jerusalem or Gentile-Jew split in earliest Christianity has too often been overblown. Undoubtedly there were tensions along those lines, and one can certainly see evidence of those tensions within the New Testament. However, emphases and evidences of a fundamental unity run through the New Testament as well (e.g. Gal 1:23; 1 Cor 15:11). But this is not a radical uniformity, any more than the evidence of tensions suggests a radical opposition. Rather, a better model for making sense of these earliest Christian writings is some form of "unity in diversity," to some extent socially but especially theologically. In practical terms for the early Jesus tradition, this provides partial impetus for the suggestion that Paul was not as ignorant or apathetic toward the Jesus tradition as is often assumed.
10. Finally, I think that too often, too much authority and creativity has been ascribed to the early Christian prophets and teachers related to the Jesus tradition. My own research into earliest Christian prophecy (which I hope to sketch out in a series of posts at some point) points to the earliest Christian prophets functioning much more like their Greco-Roman counterparts, essentially providing practical guidance for everyday decision-making through clairvoyance and prediction. One doesn't see authoritative prophetic "I-sayings" and extensive prophetic teaching authority until the end of the first century and into the second, after the primary apostles have passed from the scene. Rather, in the first decades after Jesus, it seems that authoritative formation and promulgation of tradition and doctrine was primarily in the hands of a relatively select group of "apostles" and secondarily transmitted by local "teachers."
Perhaps the bottom line in all of this is that I think the development of the Jesus tradition through the first century was more conservative than many would like to believe, and a whole lot "messier" than anyone would like it to have been.
See here for the proposal itself.
Labels: jesus, new testament, paul and his letters, the gospels
posted by Michael Pahl at
7/05/2007
7 Comments:
Interesting series. I look forward to it. If you want Bailey's article online, to reference it: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html
Enjoy.
By
Sean, at 1:13 AM
Thanks for the note, Sean. I was aware of Bailey's article online and linked to it in the post above. And I'm sorry to say that this won't really be a full "series"! I've only got this preamble and then a sketch of a proposal, unless other things arise from these two posts that I want to continue exploring in further posts.
By
Michael Pahl, at 7:41 AM
I've just revised this post to include a section on the Johannine community and a two-edition theory of John's Gospel.
By
Michael Pahl, at 7:34 PM
Mr. Pahl,
This is a wonderful post. It is a very good, dense summary of what I think are the most important new directions being taken in understanding the transmission of the Jesus tradition, and I agree with a lot of your positions on Bailey, Dunn, Bauckham, etc.
I was puzzled by your conclusion, however: "I think the development of the Jesus tradition through the first century was more conservative than many would like to believe, and a whole lot "messier" than anyone would like it to have been."
How can the development of the Jesus tradition be both 'more conservative' and 'messier' at the same time? Aren't these options mutually exclusive? Or are you aiming for some sort of middle ground which says that yes, it was largely conservative but there were also a lot of loose ends?
By
JD Walters, at 11:08 AM
JD, yes, that's essentially what I mean by that concluding statement. Once you begin to take seriously orality as the primary paradigm for understanding the early Jesus tradition, things get messy. There's no ultimate written exemplar to appeal to, and traditions are not transmitted by a "cut-and-paste" method from written source to written document - even when written sources are occasionally used to produce a written document! All this means that I don't think we will ever be able to trace out a lot of linear developments in the early Jesus tradition, and yes, there will always be a lot of loose ends. That's the "messy" side of things. The conservative side of things, however, comes from the ongoing presence of authoritative tradents and the core stability of the tradition.
By
Michael Pahl, at 12:00 PM
If your paradigm is primarily oral (and your acknowledged three levels of orality) then it seems anomolous that you would prefer to see a singular literary source behind Lk's 'Q' material (i.e. from Mt). The logic of your preamble would support either one of your three levels of orailty for this material. And if levels 2 or 3 then see the article mentioned on my blog December 9 2006 by Dennis Ingolsland http://sourcetheory.blogspot.com/2006/12/gospel-memorization-model-i-have-just.html
Tim Lewis
By
T LEWIS, at 12:45 AM
Thanks for the comment, Tim. "Primarily oral" is not "exclusively oral," so this is not really all that problematic. There are several reasons for thinking that Luke's use of the double tradition material stems from a written source. Luke's opening statement about the "many" written compilations he knows suggests this - though hyperbolic, certainly this is more than just Mark, and of course this does not in itself indicate what sort of interaction he had with those written compilations. The degree of Greek verbatim correspondence with the same material in Matt suggests this, as does the degree of correspondence in order with the Matt material. Given the kind of orality I see as most likely (not extensive verbatim memorization in any formal way), these and other factors point me toward Luke's use of a written source for that double tradition material. As for my reasons for thinking this was Matt itself and not some third-party source, that's a whole series in itself but I'd point to Mark Goodacre's work on this.
By
Michael Pahl, at 11:03 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home