schöter, jens -the gospels of eyewitness testimony a cricital examination of richard bauchkham's...

8/13/2019 Schter, Jens -The Gospels Of Eyewitness Testimony A Cricital Examination Of Richard Bauchkham's Jesus And The

1/16

JSNT3L2 (2008) 195-209 2008 SAGE Publications

http://JSNT.sagepub.com

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X08098281

The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony? A Critical Examination ofRichard Bauckham'sJesus and the Eyewitnesses

Jens Schrter

Theologische Fakultt, Otto-Schill-Strae 2, 04109, Leipzig, Germany

[email protected]

How is the formation of the Gospels relatedtothe historical Jesus? Thisquestion has been discussed passionatelysincethe beginning of historical-critical research on the Gospels, unsurprisingly, for at stake here are thefoundations of Christian theology and faith. Is it possible to trace backthe contents of Christian faith to Jesushimself,or is the Christian con

fession based on ideas that were imposed on his life and death onlyafterwards?Are theorigins of Christian faith accessibleby'pure historical'examination, or is there always an inextricable interrelation ofhistorical event and interpretation? Does Christian faith have a securehistorical basis intheactivity and fate of Jesus of Nazareth lying behindall shapes and peculiarities of Christianity, oris such afoundationalwaysa construct of the historian, depending on his or her view of reality andtherefore provisional and changeable?

Richard Bauckham's monumental monograph is a challenge not onlyfor the interpretation of the Gospels,but alsofor historicalJesusresearch.The main argument ofthebook, namely that the Gospels are based oneyewitnesstestimony,is aimed ata re-evaluation ofthetransmissionprocesses of the Jesus traditions prior to the Gospels. Bauckhamwantstherebyto develop a paradigm that is able to answer the questions mentionedabove.Thenecessity of suchanapproach for Bauckham resultsfromtheobservation thattherelationship of event and interpretationisadequately

considered neither in recentJesusresearch nor in the prevalent methodologicalparadigm fortheinterpretation of the Gospels.Withregardto thef h hi k f h i J h i N hA i

AJSNTT
http://jsnt.sagepub.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://jsnt.sagepub.com/


2/16

196 Journal for the Study oftheNewTestament31.2 (2008)

of faithanddogma',1the form critics attributedtheGospels toananonymouschurchtradition andignoredfondamentalaspects of those processes

that led to their formation. Bauckham wants to overcome these insufficiencies, which resulted inahistorical Jesus without Christian faithorinChristianfaith without a historical Jesus, by introducing eyewitness testimonyasthe appropriate historiographie category for the formation of theGospels.

In some way Bauckham's approach reminds the reader oftherecentmonograph of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (Ratzinger 2007). Bothauthors emphasize the close connection between the ministry of Jesus

and the shape of Christian faith, whichhave beenseparatedin aquestionable way by historical-critical exegesis,andespecially by theformcritics.Moreover, in both approaches, the attribution of the Gospel traditions toeyewitnesses playsanimportantrole.This becomes particularly obviouswith regard to the Gospel of John, which is attributed by Bauckham andRatzinger to the personal memories of Jesus' beloved disciple, whomBauckham even identifies with the presbyter John mentioned in two ofJohn's lettersandby Papias.InBauckham's bookthemethodological and

historiographie value of the category 'eyewitness testimony' is evenreflected in afondamentalway. He highlights its importance for historiography in the ancient world in general and for the formation of theGospels in particular.

Bauckham introduces the category 'eyewitnesstestimony'(sometimesonly 'testimony')rightat thebeginning. The basis is his conviction 'thatall history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony'.2 Therefore, theassumption in 'modern development of critical historical philosophyand

method' that the historian could access the historical truth independentfrom testimony has to be rejected. History, instead, is always an indissoluble combination of factandinterpretation.In thecase of the Gospelsthe category 'testimony' is especially appropriate becauseit enables ustoread the history of Jesus as the revelation of God in a way whichprecisely meets the intention of these writings. 'Testimony' therefore is

1. Bauckham 2006: 2. Such a historic-hermeneutical and naive approach mayapply to some recent North American Jesus scholarship but is by no means representative of actual Jesus research in general Cf Dunn 2003:99 136; Schrter 2006


3/16

SCHRTERThe Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony 197

the historiographically and theologically appropriate model for theinterpretation of the Gospels. It calls into question the idea of an anonymous oral transmission of the Jesus tradition before the formation of theGospels. Thefondamentalmisapprehension of this idea is that it leavesunconsideredthe roleof the eyewitnesses, testifiedtobyPapias as well asby theGospels themselves, in favour of an 'anonymous folk literature' asthe appropriate model for the transmission of the Jesus tradition.

With hisview Bauckhamalignshimselfwith thecriticisms against theform-critical approachwhich,sinceVincentTaylor,has beenacceptedinBritish scholarship only with reservation. Taylor's famous dictum '[i]fthe Form-Critics are right, the disciples must have been translated toheaven immediately aftertheResurrection'isquotedbyBauckham withapproval(7).In alater chapterhe takes up themain criticisms against theform-critical approach from recent decades: the assumption ofa'pureform' at the beginning of the transmission process, the supposition of astrict relation between genre and 'Sitz im Leben', the notion of certainlaws of transmission, the 'romantic'ideaofan anonymousfolk literature,thehypothesis ofanexclusivelyoraltransmission ofthe Jesustraditionin

the first decades and the application of a literary model to processes oforal transmission (246-52).

Although these criticisms would already suffice to prove the form-critical modelasunsatisfactory, Bauckhamseesthemainproblemintheinfluence that the idea of a 'long period of creative development of thetraditions before they attained written form in the Gospels' (249) stillexerts on current Gospelresearch.His approach presents a fundamentalcriticism ofthispresupposition.Taking eyewitnesstestimonyashis point

of departure, he wants to show that those persons who were themselvesinvolved in the events, and therefore are reliable witnesses, transmittedthe Jesus traditions from the beginning. Before this approach will bescrutinized in more detail, a remark will be given on the theological-historical constellation behind this debate.

The assumption ofalongeroral,'creative' phase ofthe Jesustraditiongoes back as far as Johann Gottfried Herder and was prominentlyadvancedahundredyearsbefore the basic publications oftheform critics

by David Friedrich Strauss. Strauss traced the traditions behind theGospelsback to 'mythical' interpretations of theeventsofJesus'activity


4/16


inseparable connection of historical event and 'mythical' interpretationhas rather tobe regarded asacharacteristic of the Jesus tradition since itsearliest commencements.

Strauss's ideas were heavily disputed already during his lifetime.Christian Hermann Weie, professor of philosophy at the University ofLeipzig, criticized them as 'faint and nebulous suppositions' that werealready disproved by Papias's testimony about MarkandMatthew (Weie1838). The sources mentioned by Papiasa Gospel of Mark that isallegedly based on Peter's memories, as well as Jesus' 'logia' collectedby the apostle Matthewwere the actual commencements of the Jesus

traditionandwouldprovespeculationsabouta phase oforaltransmissionas pure fancy. The reference to these two sources was the origin of theso-called 'two-source-theory'. It is worthwhile to note that this theoryoriginally was not developed to solve the Synoptic Problem, but to tracebacktheJesus tradition to two written sources in order to refute the ideaof an oral tradition behind the Gospels.

The problem indicated by Bauckham has therefore been an integralpart of the historical-critical research on the Gospels since its very

beginning.Itcould even be statedthatBauckham's refutation of the form-critical approach is a version of the controversy between Strauss andWeie under new circumstances. Thereby it is remarkable thatwithWeie,as withBauckham,Papias's testimony plays a decisive role for the assumption ofatradition that originated with identifiable witnesses. As alreadymentioned, Bauckham applies this theory even to the Gospel of John, asWeie did not. The differences between this Gospel and the SynopticGospels are in his view due to the fact that John's Gospel is an 'idiosyn

cratic testimony of a disciple whose relationship to the events, to Jesus,was distinctive and different' (411).

The theologically and historically explosive question therefore iswhetherthetraditionsthatwere taken over bytheGospel writers deliveranadequate picture of Jesus' activity becausetheyoriginatewitheyewitnesses, or whetherthetheological convictionsthatshaped these traditionshave displacedtheirhistorical reliabilityto aconsiderable degree. Thereis agreement between Bauckham on the one hand and Strauss and the

form critics on the other that Jesus' activity and fateas all historicaleventsare only accessible by their recollections. But it is disputed


5/16

SCHRTER The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony 199

ferredto John theBaptist,orJewish expectations of a Messiahwere usedfortheinterpretation ofJesus'activity. According toStrauss,thedogmatictruth of Christian faithwasin no way affected by these observations. Inthe Gospelsthistruthisexpressed, however, as 'ideal truth',not astransmission of historical facts. Bultmann and Dibelius also highlighted theformative influence of Old Testament stories (as for example in thevocation story in Mk1.16-20),referred to analogies in Graeco-Romantexts (as for examplein thechreiaiorin themiracle stories) and emphasized the influence of the early Christian confessions on the Gospels (asfor example in the story ofJesus'baptism or in Peter's confession 'Youare theChrist')topointoutthatthe Jesustraditions underwent processesof massive shaping and interpretation before they reached the Gospels.

Bauckham's viewisstrongly opposedto theseassumptions. Accordingto him, the Jesus tradition has to be regarded as 'recollective memory'relyingoneyewitness accounts thatdidnotgothrough a phase of anonymousoraltransmission andwastherefore not alteredin asignificant waybefore itwaswritten down bytheauthors of the Gospels. As Bauckhampoints out, using insights from psychology, such memories should becharacterizedasreports about 'unique or unusualevents'of great importance for the transmitters themselves because they were emotionallyinvolvedinthem.They wereshapedby'vivid imagery', contained irrelevant details about places and persons, mostly lacked exact dating andwerefrequentlyrecalled. Exactlythesefeatures would also characterizethe traditions taken up by the Gospel writers (319-57). The process oftransmission of these traditionshasthereforeto bedescribedas'remembering Jesus'.

Bauckham thus defines the concept of 'remembering' in a particularway. He dissociates himself from the model of an anonymous folkliterature, butat the sametime deals criticallywith theapproach taken byKenneth Baileyandthereafterby JamesDunn.Inthat approachthere is adistinction betweentheform-criticalmodelof an 'informal, uncontrolledoral tradition' on the one hand and the 'formal controlled oral tradition'of the Scandinavian school on the other. Bailey's own model of an'informal controlled oral tradition' is placed between these two.3

Bauckham makes the criticism that with the characterization 'informal'Bailey and Dunn neglect the role oftheeyewitnesses. That would do


6/16

200 Journal forthe Studyofthe New Testament31.2 (2008)

Forhisown description of the transmission process, Bauckham refersto theimportance of eyewitness testimonyinancient historiographyasitwas emphasized alreadybySamuel Byrskog (2000). Byrskog had pointedout, however, that the eyewitness at the same time appears as an 'interpreter' who was 'socially involved' in the reported events as a 'participant'. For ancient historiographers this personal involvement was noobstacletoconsidering eyewitnessesasespecially qualified witnessesofthe concerned events. It means, however, that events from the past areonly accessible through thereportsaboutthem.Eyewitness testimony,therefore, ensures closeness to the reported events but by itself says

nothing about the authenticity or even reliability of the reports.At this point a crucial aspect for the evaluation of the conception of

'testimony' emerges: As already becomes obviousfromthe differencesbetween the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel ofJohn,Jesus' activitycould be recounted in early Christianity in quite different ways. Thisspectrum would even be broadened if the apocryphal Gospels wereincluded, for example theGospelof Thomas,which Bauckham toucheson only inpassing.Bauckham explains this diversity not historically or

theologicallyfor example by pointing to the elaborated post-Easterperspective of the Gospel of John or to theGospelofThomasas a textfrom a later stage in the tradition history than the New Testament Gospelsbut by referring to differentmodesof recollections of eyewitnesses.Hereaserious problem emerges. Ifthecategory 'eyewitnesstestimony'isdefined in such a broad way, its relationship to the recollected events isobscured. IfJesus'life and fatecould berecountedinmarkedly differentwaysin early Christian Gospels,it seemsnecessarytodistinguish between

historical, reliable recollections and secondary, legendary traditionswhich originated onlylater.Without suchadistinction legendary storiesin the New Testament Gospels and the apocryphal Gospels would gainthe same status as those accounts that are fundamental for a historicaldescription of Jesus' activity. Itseemsunavoidable, therefore,toevaluatethe different accounts criticallywithregardtotheir particular perspectiveand to evaluate them accordingly. From such an evaluation it couldresult, for example,thatparticularaccounts in theGospelsfor example

the birth stories in Mt. 1-2 and Lk. 1-2, Jesus' teaching about themystery ofthekingdominMk 4 ortherevelatory speechesin theGospelf J h i h fi l d i i f J ' i i i


7/16

SCHRTERThe GospelsasEyewitness Testimony 201

What does that now mean for the traditions behind the Gospels?Bauckham, referringtoPapias's testimonyand to theprologueofLuke'sGospel,argues thattherelianceoneyewitnesses playedadeterminingroleforsecuringtheJesus tradition inthefirstdecades.Papias's referenceto a'livingandsurvivingvoice' () should therebynotbe interpreted metaphorically but as referring toa witness who wasstill alivein Papias's time and had personal memories of Jesus. This is,however, hardly convincing. It is much more probable that Papias heretakesuptheancienttoposofthevivavoxinordertounderlinethepriorityof oral tradition over against writtenaccounts.

4Moreover,theparticiple

is hardlytobe understood as referringtoalivingeyewitness. As,for instance,1Pet. 1.23 () shows, it is rather areference to the everlasting quality of 'God'slivingword/voice'.

Itis also hardly possible to draw conclusions concerningtheorigin ofJesus traditionsfromLuke's prologue.

5Rather,Luke uses varioustopoi

of prologuesinancientliteraryworkstodescribe hisownwork as relyingoncarefol investigation oftheevents whicharereportedincorrect order.Inthat wayLukejustifiesthe factthathe retells again what others have

already written down before him.A judgment concerning the origin ofthetraditions taken over by Luke can scarcely be derived from such ahighly conventional statement.

From Papias's testimony Bauckham develops another remarkablehypothesis. According to thisview,Papiasobservesa lack of order notonlyin theGospel of Mark, but alsoinMatthew's Gospel. The reason forthe former was that it is a transcription of Peter's speeches (thoughBauckham himself considerstheassertion of a missing orderinMark as

unjustified), while in the latter the original order was destroyed by thedifferent translations mentioned by Papias. Bauckham's conclusion isthatPapias must have known a Gospel withthe'correct' orderand com-paredittothose of MarkandMatthewnamelytheGospel ofJohn!Thissurprising solutionallowsBauckhamtointerprettheGospels ofJohnandMark as respectively indirect and direct eyewitness testimonies thatrepresent Jesus' activity inparticularways.TherebytheGospel ofJohnmade use of Mark's Gospelandalso presupposes readers' knowledge of

it.The most relevant eyewitness for the history of Jesus, according to


8/16


Synoptic Gospels and Acts. This conclusion remains somewhat unclearbecausethepreservation of names by itself says nothingabout the roleof

theconcerned personsaseyewitnesses. Bauckhamalsoreferstootherwiseunknown persons in Gospel stories as, for example, Levi in Mk 2.14,Bartimaeus in Mk 10.46, Simeon and Hannah in Lk. 2.25 and 36, orNathanaelandNicodemus inJn1.45and3.1.Using Talflan'sLexiconof

Jewish Names inLate Antiquity(2002), Bauckham isable toshowthatinmost cases the persons mentioned in the Gospel stories bear commonJewish names.Itis hardly convincing, however, to drawahistorical conclusion from this observation. It simply shows that the Gospel authors

gave their narratives a 'realistic effect' by choosing names that werecommon in the Jewish context of ancient Palestine where the narratedevents took place. Every good narrator of a novel or a fictional storywoulddothe same.Itis nevertheless absolutely possiblethat thepersonsmentionedin theGospels are in some cases individuals who experiencedthe healingsor werecalledasfollowersandhence became bearers of theconcerned traditions.6If this assumption is correct, it would enable us toidentify some ofthebearers of the Jesus tradition by their names. This

has of course to be distinguished from the literary form and pragmaticfunction of these traditions in the context of the Gospels in which theynow appear.

Takingthestory of the blind Bartimaeusin Mk10.46-52as anexample,this can be clarified as follows: Bartimaeus mighthave had anencounterwith Jesusandbeen healedfromhis blindness. Afterwardshe might havetold this life-changing event to others who pickedupthe storyandretoldit again in Christian circles or to highlight the extraordinary power of

Jesus in the context of early Christian mission. When Mark included thestoryintohis Gospelit hadalready passed throughatransmission historyof approximately 40 years.Inthis process the report abouttheencounterexperienced considerable elaborations. Probably Jesus and Bartimaeusspoke Aramaic with each other. Perhaps even the whole story about thehealing was transmitted in Aramaic in the first years. At some point,however, it must have been translated into Greek.Itobtainedtheform ofa miracle story and was embellished with features which made it more

lively(Jesus'commandtobe quiet, the evenloudercrying of Bartimaeus,the throwing off of the cloak, the healing because of Bartimaeus's faith).M th d i ti 'S f D id' 'th N ' d 't h '


9/16


general meaning which goes beyond the single event.Mark took the story over, reworked it according to his own literary

style and incorporated it in his composition ofthestory ofJesus.Hisaccount elucidates that the 'true'meaningof Jesus' wayis notadequatelyexpressed in Bartimaeus's addresses to Jesus. AccordingtoMark, Jesusis more than a teacher and more than the Son of David: he is the Son ofMan whose way leads through suffering and death to his resurrection,exaltationandreturnto thelast judgement (cf.,e.g., 8.31-38).ThehealingoftheblindBartimaeus,who is saved by hisfaithandhenceforth followsJesusinMark'sstory,thereforehasatthe same time a symbolicmeaning:

the healing oftheblind Bartimaeus in a symbolic sense means that helearnedto'see'who Jesus isandas aconsequence joinedthe groupof hisfollowers. The storyistherefore consciously placed atthetransition fromJesus' public ministry in Galilee and the surrounding regions to hispassion in Jerusalem.

Thus, different stages in the transmission ofthestory can be distinguished:theinitial transmission bytheeyewitnesses ofthe event(perhapseven Bartimaeus himself), the translation into Greek and the transfor

mation into a typical story of Jesus' healing activity, eventually theliteraryandcompositional incorporationintoMark'sGospel.Because ofthe diverse reformulations and interpretations during this process it ishardly possible to reconstruct earlier versions of the story, let alone an'original'version (whateverthat means) or theevent itself (whatever thatmeans). That such attempts wouldbefruitlessbecomes already obviousfrom more recent studieson thestyle of Mark's Gospel, the character oforal traditionaswell asfromthe inadequacy of the idea of a 'pure' form

at the beginning of a transmission process. The criticism oftheform-critical method therefore not onlycalls intoquestiontheassumption of ananonymous churchtradition;it also shows that the interpretation of theJesus tradition has to take its point of departure from the literary formand function of the traditions within the context of the Gospels.

The episode of blindBartimaeustherefore revealsasignificant featureof the early Jesus tradition: in earlier stages it consisted of shorterepisodes that sometimesmay havecontainednamesof involved persons

and other details. Here Bauckham has formulatedajustified objectionagainst older form criticism, which is of course not new. However, thisi i h b l d ff i h i i f h i d


10/16


faith in Jesus, the Son of David); and they were integrated into thespecific perspective on Jesus developed by the Gospel writers (in the

Bartimaeus episode bytheintegration into Mark'sstoryof Jesus, the SonofMan,who acts in God's powerandwhose way leadsthroughsufferingand death to exaltation). Both perspectivesthe obligation to historicaleventsandearly traditionsaswellas the shaping andtheological interpretation at later stagesmust not be played off against each other. 'Remembering Jesus' therefore cannot mean to invoke the trustworthiness ofeyewitness accounts against interpretations in the transmission processandbytheGospel writers,but tocorrelate both aspects inanappropriate

way.In three of the Gospels, eyewitnesses are presented in a remarkable

way, namely in Mark, Luke and John.Bauckham explains thisobservationwith regard to Mark by the fact that he refers to the memories of Peter.Concerning the literary form of the episodes, he refers to the studies ofCuthbert Turner, who had explained certain characteristics of Mark'sstyle with the assumption that Mark in several cases had taken over episodes narrated by Peter and transferred themfromthefirstinto the third

person. Against the background of more recent research in the literary,compositionalandtheological characteristics of Mark's Gospel, however,this assumption is hardly convincing. These studies have emphasizedthatMark hasrevisedthetraditions accordingtohis own style and not simplytaken over eyewitness accounts.

Bauckham further argues that Markaswell as Lukeand Johnused thehistoriographie principle of'inclusio of eyewitnesses'. In Luke,inadditionto Peter, an outstanding role is attributed to the women, as inJohnto the

beloved disciple. Bauckham explains this bytherespective 'inclusio': inMark, Peter is the first and the last of the disciples who is mentioned(1.16 and 16.7). Bauckhamfindsit especiallystriking that in16.7Peterisexplicitly mentioned in addition to the disciples to whom he of coursebelongs: 'tell his disciplesandPeter'.Luke introducesthewomen alreadyduring Jesus' activityinGalilee (8.2-3)andtheyoccur again at theemptytombinch.24.In John, the beloved disciplefirstappearsas theanonymouscompanion of Andrew (1.35-40) and again inch.21, both times in close

relationship with Peter with whomhestands in 'a friendlyrivalry'(128).This 'inclusio of eyewitnesses', according to Bauckham, works as ahi t i hi l i i l th t b di d l i th hi t i


11/16

SCHRTERThe Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony 205

The reference to named individuals at several places intheGospels isindeed striking. Itis amerit of Bauckham's studyto have workedout that

characteristic withadmirableerudition.Sometimes, however, his hypotheses seem somewhat far-fetchedandhardly convincing,as,for example,the alleged transformation of Peter's accountsfromthefirstinto thethirdperson in Mark's Gospel or the identification of the beloved disciple inJohn's Gospel with the presbyter who is mentioned in the second andthird letter of John and by Papias.8Moreover, the assignment of thetraditions to eyewitnesses must not leadto adisregard of the literary andtheological shaping of the traditions by the Gospel authors. Even if the

traditions originated with eyewitnesses, they now appear as literarilyreworkedandtheologically interpreted traditions andasintegralpartsofthecompositional strategies of theGospelwriters. Moreover,thederivationfromeyewitnessessaysnothing aboutthereliability oftheaccounts.

As Johannes Fried has demonstrated in a comprehensivestudy,itshouldnot beforgottenthat thecategory 'memory'has to beexamined criticallybecause it presents incidentsfromthepastmoreoften than notina highlyselective and subjective manner (Fried 2004). Because of their personal

involvement, eyewitnesses lack a critical distancefromthe reported events.This was certainly also the case with Peter and the other disciples ascompanions of Jesus during his activity and detention.

This observation is even underlined by Bauckham's comparison of'Holocaust testimony and Gospel testimony' (493-505). The reports ofsurvivors of the concentration camp in Auschwitz are highly subjectiveaccounts fromtheperspectives of affected persons.There is nodoubt thatas memories of those individuals these reports deserve the highest

respect. But it is also obvious that they cannot serve as the only relevantorauthoritative sources for a history of German NationalSocialism.Eyewitness testimonyisrather averyspecific historicalsource whosecharacteristic is that it derives directly from people who were personallyinvolved in the events. When it is included into the description of acertain period of history, this characteristichas to beconsidered criticallyand brought into relation with other sources. It would be by no meansplausible, however, to argue that eyewitness testimony has by itselfa

privileged position among historical sources.Thereferenceto'testimony'asa 'theologicalmodelfor understanding


12/16


the Gospels' therefore in no way leads by itself to the 'historical realityof Jesus'. The description as testimony first and foremost means that

some oftheepisodes in the Gospels may have been transmitted in thebeginningasselective and subjective eyewitness reports.It isat the sametime obvious that the recollections of Jesus' activity did not enter theGospels as unchangedanduninterpreted eyewitness testimony. The linguistic and compositional peculiarities of the Gospels instead show thatthese reports underwent a thorough reworking. It must be regarded as aweakness of Bauckham's studythat hedoes not adequately consider thatlatter aspect. It should have led to a more balanced evaluation of the

origin of the Jesus tradition and its interpretation in the Gospels.This leads to a further basicdemur thatshouldberaised in connection

with the model of 'eyewitness testimony'. Bauckham criticizes a 'navehistorical positivism' that ignores the fact that history is always a combination of fact and interpretation. This might be an apt criticism ofcertain tendencies in more recentJesusresearch, especiallyin theUnitedStates. This insight means that a historical-critical interpretation of theGospels does not present eventsfromthe past as they 'really' happened

but rather draws a picture of the past by using the tools of historicalcriticism.Assuch,the distinction between eventandinterpretation shouldnot be neglected. It is also not plausible to consider the interpretation ofeyewitnessesfromthe outsetas the'appropriate historical interpretation'.Probably, other contemporary witnesses who left no written documentsinterpreted the activity of Jesus quite differentlyfor example hisenemiesand it is possible even todaytodescribetheactivityandfate ofJesusfromotherperspectives than those of the Gospelsas it is usually

doneinhistorical-criticalJesusbooks. The 'navepositivism'that isaptlycriticized by Bauckham cannot be overcome therefore by replacing theevents of Jesus' ministry and fate with allegedly eyewitness testimony.

At the end of his book, Bauckham integrates the eyewitness accountsinto the perspective of critical historiography. He refers to Paul Ricoeur,whohas,however, tied historical memories strictlyto tracesfromthepastastheir criticalmeasure.Bauckham concedesthat trust intestimony mustnot mean 'blindbelief,because the reception of testimonyischaracterized

by 'a dialectic of trust and critical assessment' (490). The reason is that'[t]estimony shares thefragilityof memory', but often no other sourcesil bl Th t th G l t b f d f th t ti


13/16


entirely appropriate means ofaccess to thehistorical reality ofJesus'(5).That in most cases no other sources than the Gospels are available says

nothing about the character ofthesesources and their usefulness for ahistorical outline oftheministry ofJesusonthe basisof historical-criticalanalysis. The statement 'trusting testimonyisindispensabletohistoriography' should therefore be reformulated into 'relying on testimony' isindispensable for historiography, whereas 'trusting' is not, becausehistorical testimonies are not by themselves trustworthy but in need ofcritical examination.

To sumup,Bauckham's bookis anoutstandingstudyoftheearly Jesus

tradition and the origin of the Gospels. Itrightlycriticizes weaknesses ofthe form-critical model of an allegedly anonymous church tradition.Problems with Bauckham's approach, however, arise mainly at threepoints.

The main problem is the unreflective assignment ofliteraryobservationstoa historical level.As aconsequence,the modelofeyewitnesstestimonyis not adequately related to the literary and theological character of theGospels. Alreadyahundredyears agoWilliamWredehadmade thecriti

cism that Gospels scholars in their interpretations movedtooquickly fromthe literary to the historical level. The observation of Wrede and Karl-Ludwig Schmidt that the picture of the life of Jesus provided by theGospels isa literary product anddoesnotrely on living experienceshouldalso not be put aside too airily. In the footsteps ofthesepredecessors,contemporary researchhas shownthattheGospels are linguistically andcompositionally coherent narratives that develop the meaning ofJesus'activity and fate in the form of 'narrative Christologies'. The category

' eyewitness testimony' can contribute to this picture insofar asitelucidatesthe origin and early stages of transmission ofsomeJesus traditions. Itcannot explain, however, the formation ofthe Gospelsthemselves. In thisregard the insights highlighted by Wrede, the form critics and narrativecriticismare stillvalid andareputaside toohastilyinBauckham's study.This isallthe moreastoundingas heforcefully emphasizes that history isalways an interrelation of event and interpretation. This insight is notsufficiently applied to the Gospels as theological interpretations ofthe

early Jesus traditions in the light of early Christian confession.Second,Bauckham underestimatesthe dynamicsof oraltradition.Even


14/16


they received before they gainedtheir writtenformin theGospels cannotbe excluded.

The third andfinalobjection is related to this. A danger of the modeldeveloped by Bauckham might be that it promotesanuncritical view onthe Gospels as writings that should be 'trusted' rather than scrutinizedcritically. That would beaproblematic consequence, already because innot a few episodes it would be difficult to prove eyewitness testimony,9

and even where it may be plausible, that cannot mean that a historical-critical analysis should be put aside. In fact, such an analysis is in anycase necessaryin order todevelopaconvincingscenariooftheformation

of the Gospels. The category 'eyewitness testimony' can contributetoanunderstanding of the early Jesus tradition only insofar as it is integratedinto a perspective on the Gospels as consciously composed literary andtheological Jesus stories.

Bailey, K.E.

1991

Bauckham, R.J.2006

Byrskog, S.2000

Dunn, J.D.G.2003

Fried, J.2004

Ilan,T.2002

Krtner,U.H.J.1998

References

'Informal Controlled Oral Traditionandthe Synoptic Gospels',AJT5: 34-54.

JesusandtheEyewitnesses:The GospelsasEyewitness Testimony(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans).

Story as HistoryHistory asStory:The Gospel Tradition in the Context of

Ancient Oral History(WUNT,123;Tbingen: Mohr).

Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, 1; Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans).

Der Schleier der Erinnerung: Grundzge einerhistorischen Memorik

(Munich: C.H. Beck).

Lexiconof JewishNames inLate Antiquity: PartI:Palestine330 BCE-200CE(TSAJ,91;Tbingen: Mohr).

Papiasfragmente (Schriften des Urchristentums, 3; Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).


15/16


Ratzinger, Joseph (Benedict XVI)2007 Jesus von Nazareth. Erster Teil: Von der Taufe im Jordan bis zur

Verklrung(Freiburg: Herder).Schmidt, D.D.

1999 'Rhetorical InfluencesandGenre: Luke's Preface', in D.P. Moessner (ed.),Jesus and the Heritage ofIsrael:Luke'sNarrative Claim uponIsrael's

Legacy(Harrisburg, PA: TrinityPressInternational): 27-60.Schrter, J.

2006

Weie, CH.1838

Zeller, D.1981

Jesus vonNazaret:Jude ausGalilaRetter derWelt(Biblische Gestalten,15;Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).

Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch undphilosophischbearbeitet,I(Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hrtel).

'Wunder und Bekenntnis. Zum Sitz im Leben urchristlicher Wundergeschichten', 5ZNF25:204-22.


16/16

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically 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 specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright 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 previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

schöter, jens -the gospels of eyewitness testimony a cricital examination of richard bauchkham's...

Documents