Gospel Writing

A Canonical Perspective

Francis Watson

• Éditeur: Eerdmans
• Année: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781467437653
• Sujet: Theology & Religion
• Sous-sujet: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

That there are four canonical versions of the one gospel story is often seen as a problem for Christian faith: where gospels multiply, so too do apparent contradictions that may seem to undermine their truth claims. In Gospel Writing Francis Watson argues that differences and tensions between canonical gospels represent opportunities for theological reflection, not problems for apologetics.Watson presents the formation of the fourfold gospel as the defining moment in the reception of early gospel literature -- and also of Jesus himself as the subject matter of that literature. As the canonical division sets four gospel texts alongside one another, the canon also creates a new, complex, textual entity more than the sum of its parts. A canonical gospel can no longer be regarded as a definitive, self-sufficient account of its subject matter. It must play its part within an intricate fourfold polyphony, and its meaning and significance are thereby transformed.In elaborating these claims, Watson proposes nothing less than a new paradigm for gospel studies — one that engages fully with the available noncanonical material so as to illuminate the historical and theological significance of the canonical.

PART ONE

THE ECLIPSE OF THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL

CHAPTER 1

Augustine’s Ambiguous Legacy

If there are to be four gospels at all, they must differ from one another. Without differences they would simply be four copies of a single gospel. But if they together constitute the one canonical gospel, they must also be similar, variations on a common theme rather than disparate and unrelated. Difference and similarity belong together. Where there is difference there will also be similarity, if the canonical gospel is indeed singular. Where there is similarity there will also be difference, given that the canonical gospel is also plural. In its fourfold form, the canonical gospel actually prescribes difference. It represents the recognition that no single telling of Jesus’ story can be final and definitive, and that the same story must be told and retold in variant forms. If the canonical gospel is to come into view as a textual object in its own right, then both difference and similarity, plurality and singularity, must be given their due. Where this delicate balance is lost, the gospels will be viewed either as heterogeneous or as uniform, and each of these undialectical extremes will represent a reaction against the other. Either way, the integrity of the canonical form will be compromised.

Historically, gospel differences have often been viewed not as integral to the truth of the gospel but as potentially subversive of it. A difference that might be seen as enhancing the gospel testimony is understood instead as a contradiction, real or apparent. The criterion by which a contradiction is identified has to do with the texts’ relationship not only to one another but also to prior historical reality. A contradiction arises when one factual assertion is exclusive of another. Jesus is said to have bestowed sight on a blind man both as he approached the city of Jericho (Lk. 18.35) and as he left it (Mk. 10.46). Since one cannot approach and leave the same location simultaneously, this is an apparent or real contradiction. The contradiction is only apparent if, in reality, Jesus performed two very similar miracles, one on the way into Jericho and the other on the way out. The contradiction is real if the same miracle is in view and if, in consequence, at least one of the two mutually exclusive assertions about its setting must be judged to be false. A contradiction between texts entails a noncorrespondence with factual occurrence.

It follows, however, that the possibility of contradiction only arises on the assumption that correspondence with factual occurrence is the appropriate criterion for assessing gospel truth — an assumption that may be held both by the critic and by the apologist. The critic appeals to gospel contradictions in order to demonstrate that the canonical gospel is an unstable construct that must be dismantled if the truth about the real or historical Jesus is to be brought to light. The apologist aims to show that the alleged contradictions are more apparent than real, and, beyond that, that the full historical truth will come to light only when the discrete narratives of the individual evangelists are reassembled into a single composite whole. In both cases, gospel differences are construed negatively, as entailing prima facie contradictions and potential disjunction from actual historical occurrence. In both cases, canonical pluriformity is sacrificed in the quest for a singular historical truth, whether minimal or maximal. And in both cases, the criterion of correspondence to factual occurrence proves destructive of the form of the canonical gospel.

The problem cannot be resolved by observing that the alleged contradictions are trivial and that it is of no consequence whether Jesus bestowed sight on a blind man as he approached Jericho or as he left it. The alleged contradictions are far from trivial. For one thing, there are very many of them, and they often relate to issues at the heart of Christian faith and life. More importantly, to trivialize the alleged contradictions is also to trivialize the differences that constitute the individual gospels in their discrete identities. The problem of alleged contradictions can only be resolved by recognizing that the criterion of correspondence to factual occurrence is already rejected in the canonical form itself. As Origen recognized but Augustine did not, the apparent contradiction demonstrates the inadequacy of this criterion and compels the reader to seek the truth on a different plane to that of sheer factuality.1

It was Augustine rather than Origen who shaped the subsequent Western understanding of gospel relationships, above all in his work on the agreement of the evangelists, De Consensu Evangelistarum.2 Augustine here laid down principles of gospel harmonization that remained influential even as they were rejected in post-Enlightenment scholarship; the Enlightenment’s dismantling of the canonical gospel is founded on Augustinian premises. Precisely in seeking to vindicate the canonical gospel, Augustine prepares the way for its dissolution.

Unlike post-Enlightenment scholarship, however, Augustine does believe in the fourfold canonical gospel. He has valuable if rudimentary insights to offer about gospel origins, and his development of the traditional Irenaean symbolism remains theologically suggestive. Where he is not trying to force plural narratives into singularity, he has much to offer. Even where he assumes a purely negative view of plurality as a potential threat to gospel truth, his sustained attention both to general principle and to textual detail compels respect and admiration. Here as elsewhere, one finds oneself instructed by Augustine even in dissenting from him.

Perspectives Historical and Theological

Augustine proposes a literary solution to the problem of the similarities and differences between the synoptic gospels. Mark, he claims, wrote his gospel in dependence either on Matthew alone or (more probably) on Matthew together with Luke.3 Neither hypothesis is highly regarded in most current scholarship, rightly committed to the priority of Mark. But what is significant is that Augustine should propose this type of literary hypothesis at all. His proposal is in tension with his commitment to gospel harmonization, which normally assumes that all four gospels have direct access to apostolic tradition, from which their points of both similarity and difference are derived. It is also in tension with the ancient tradition that Mark’s gospel is dependent not on any written text but on the preaching of Peter in Rome. In spite of these potential difficulties, Augustine presents his hypotheses without any sign of anxiety or consciousness of innovation.

At the start of his work Augustine briefly sets out his views on the individual gospels.4 These four evangelists “are said to have written in the following order: first Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, then John.”5 Matthew and John, the two apostolic authors, enclose and support the two nonapostolic ones, Mark and Luke.6 The first gospel was originally written in the language of the first Christians: Matthew “is said to have been written in the Hebrew language.”7 A long-established tradition is here passed on without further comment.8 Tradition also presupposes that the four gospels are independent works deriving directly or indirectly from individual apostles: Matthew and John, but also Peter and Paul in the case of Mark and Luke.9 This assumed independence could be exploited for apologetic purposes. For Chrysostom, independence is a precondition for the evangelists’ trustworthiness, and is demonstrated by their differences and discrepancies:

For if they had agreed in all things exactly, with regard to time and place and in their very words, our opponents would be convinced that they had colluded together and wrote as they did by mutual agreement. . . . But as things stand, their disagreement in minor matters frees them from all suspicion and testifies clearly in favour of the writers’ integrity.10

Although this apologetic argument remains in circulation to this day, it is incompatible with the type of source-critical hypothesis introduced by Augustine. Having repeated the tradition about Matthew, Augustine now ventures into uncharted territory. The evangelists, he argues, are not independent of each other, in spite of appearances to the contrary:

Although each of them may seem to keep to his own order of narration, we do not find [non reperitur] that each of them decided to write without awareness of his predecessor, or to omit in ignorance matters recorded by another; but as each was inspired, he added his own distinctive contribution [non superfluam cooperationem sui laboris adiunxit].11

The inspiration of the later evangelists occurs in and through their engagement with their predecessors. Augustine has learned this not from the tradition — which took the opposite view, as Chrysostom illustrates — but from his own study of the texts.12 Reading carefully and critically, we find that Mark did not write independently of his predecessor, Matthew, even though he did not precisely follow the Matthean order of narration. The traditional sequence — first Matthew, then Mark — is here reinterpreted as a literary relationship, and evidence for this claim is provided in the form of a succinct survey of the five possible relationships to other gospels in which given Markan passages may stand:

Mark, following [Matthew], appears to be his footman, as it were, and his summarizer [tamquam pedissequus et breviator]. While Mark has (1) nothing shared only with John, (2) only a few items unique to himself, and (3) still fewer shared with Luke alone, (4) with Matthew he has a great deal in common, much of it virtually identical and expressed in the same words [multa paene totidem adque ipsis verbis], whether shared with him alone or (5) together with the others.13

Mark shares so much material with Matthew because he wrote in full knowledge of the earlier gospel. The relationship is so close that Mark may be seen as an attendant, accompanying Matthew wherever he goes, and as his abbreviator. Augustine’s evidence for this claim is probably derived from the “Eusebian Canons,” or tables of gospel parallels arranged in ten categories, mediated through Jerome’s new gospel translation.14 All five of the possible relationships Augustine specifies are covered by the Canons, and the lists of enumerated passages that follow each of them:

(1) [Mk+Jn]: cf. Canons VII, Mt+Jn; IX, Lk+Jn.

(2) Mk alone: Canon X, 19 items.

(3) Mk+Lk: Canon VIII, 14 items, thus “fewer” than the preceding category.

(4) Mk+Mt: Canon VI, 47 items.

(5) Mk+Mt+(Lk and/or Jn): Canons I-II, IV, 211 items.

...

Table des matières

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgements
• Prologue
• PART ONE: THE ECLIPSE OF THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL
• PART TWO: REFRAMING GOSPEL ORIGINS
• PART THREE: THE CANONICAL CONSTRUCT
• In lieu of a Conclusion: Seven Theses on Jesus and the Canonical Gospel
• Bibliography
• Index of Patristic Authors
• Index of Modern Authors
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts