Digital Commons @ George Fox University Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies College of Christian Studies 7-2010 A Fourth Quest for Jesus: So What, and How So? Paul N. Anderson George Fox University, panderso@georgefox.edu Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ccs Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Previously published in The Bible and Interpretation, July 2010. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/fourth357921.shtml This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Christian Studies at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. By Pa u l N . An de r son George Fox Universit y Newberg, Oregon July 2010 I n May, Marcus Borg and I engaged in a set of public dialogues on t he Gospels and 1 Jesus in Bi- Opt ic Perspect ive, and Marcus asked m e a quest ion I will be t hinking about for a long t im e. At t he end of our first session on t he developm ent of t he gospel t radit ions he asked, “ Okay, Paul, so what ? What ’s t he significance of drawing t he Gospel of John int o Jesus st udies? I s it sim ply a m at t er of im agining t hat Jesus t ook several t rips t o Jerusalem inst ead of one, or m ight it lead t o som et hing really significant in t erm s of how we underst and t he Jesus of hist ory?” That is a really great set of quest ions, which I am st ill pondering! My response at t he t im e went along t wo lines. First , I said, t he quest for Jesus of Nazaret h t hrough t he Johannine lens is dem anded by crit ical concerns, regardless of what t he out com e m ight be. Crit ical appraisals of crit ical quest s show t hat t he dehist oricizat ion of John and t he de- Johannificat ion of Jesus are crit ically flawed plat form s on which t o base eit her gospel analyses or Jesus research. I n t hat sense, t he John, Jesus and Hist ory Proj ect — as well as m y own work on t he Fourt h Gospel and t he quest for Jesus—is driven by t he j udgm ent t hat t he first t hree quest s for Jesus have overlooked an ext rem ely im port ant resource: t he Gospel of John as an independent Jesus t radit ion, which, t hough highly t heological, also has it s own wort hy claim s t o hist oricit y. 2 Think of it ! What would happen if t he Nat ional Geographic Channel ran a special on a recent ly discovered gospel t ext from t he lat e first cent ury, which was different from t he Synopt ics but also developed an alt ernat ive rendering of Jesus and his m inist ry? I f t he t hirdcent ury Gospel of Judas creat ed a st ir, wit h virt ually no hist orical- Jesus t radit ion wit hin it , im agine what sort of a ruckus would em erge if John were t aken seriously as an independent Jesus t radit ion, differing from t he Markan gospels wit h at least som e knowing int ent ionalit y. That ’s what I believe will happen if t he Fourt h Gospel’s hist orical feat ures com e out from being eclipsed by it s t heological ones. The second part of m y response em erged wit hin our second dialogue on Jesus in Synopt ic and Johannine perspect ive, but it st ill requires furt her reflect ion; and, I invit e ot hers t o j oin m e in t hat inquiry. I n essence, yes. I ncluding t he Fourt h Gospel could m ake a significant difference in our underst anding of Jesus of Nazaret h in several ways, alt hough t he m ain quest ion will be whet her a part icular feat ure is really “ significant ” or not . At first blush, a Jesus who includes wom en in leadership around him self, who t eaches t hat every person has access t o God’s presence and direct ion, who declares t hat aut hent ic worship is lim it ed neit her by form nor place but wherever people worship in spirit and in t rut h, who challenges religious and polit ical est ablishm ent s wit h t he aut horit y of t rut h, who em phasizes relat ionships cent rally—wit h God and wit h one anot her, and who shows t hat sacrificial love is cent ral t o God’s sending his saving/ revealing wit nesses in t he world is highly significant , I believe! Of course, ot her feat ures will em erge as being of great er or lesser significance, but even t hese cause m e t o t hink m ore about t he im pact John’s present at ion of Jesus m ight have upon our underst andings of t he prophet from Galilee as port rayed in t he one gospel claim ing t o have direct cont act wit h Jesus as a basis for it s cont ent . Such a vent ure, however, will not be easy. I ndeed, t he very t ools for det erm ining hist oricit y wit hin t he first t hree quest s for Jesus have been forged on a Synopt ic- favoring set of program s, oft en at John’s expense. Therefore, t his leads t o a second quest ion regarding how t o conduct Jesus research m aking use of all viable resources—including t he Gospel of John: how so? While st andard crit eria for det erm ining hist oricit y wit hin Jesus research are st ill of use, t hey m ust be m odified t o include t he Fourt h Gospel as a pot ent ial resource for Jesus research inst ead of funct ioning as grids for excluding Johannine feat ures from gospel analysis. This is especially t he case if t he Fourt h Gospel reflect s a self- st anding Jesus t radit ion, t hough t heologically engaged, and if t he Johannine narrat ive was craft ed as a com plem ent and alt ernat ive t o Mark. Therefore, given t he dialogical aut onom y of t he Fourt h Gospel and a BiOpt ic Hypot hesis regarding John’s com posit ion and dist inct ive relat ions t o ot her t radit ions, present crit eria m ust be revised. Prim it ivit y versus Dissim ilarit y. While t he crit erion of dissim ilarit y m ight keep a scholar from wrongly at t ribut ing lat er Christ ian im pressions t o t he Jesus of hist ory, it also fails t he t est of serviceabilit y because it elim inat es everyt hing t hat is st andard Jewish and/ or Christ ian from t he gospel account s of Jesus. What if Jesus really did t each or do convent ional Jewish t hings? What if som e of his followers really did follow his t eachings and exam ple aut hent ically so t hat t hey becam e a real part of t he m ovem ent ? When a herm eneut ic of suspicion is applied t o it self, it wit hers under it s own weight . What is needed is a way of dist inguishing prim it ivit y from lat er developm ent s wit hin t he Jesus m ovem ent , and t he Fourt h Gospel has a good deal of prim it ive m at erial in addit ion t o developed t radit ion. Palest inian feat ures, Hebraism s and Aram aism s wit hin t he t ext , Jewish t hought form s and cust om s, and preform al ( less developed) present at ions of t he Jesus m ovem ent provide a m ore serviceable way forward on t his account . Also, a lat er present at ion of an earlier m em ory st ill m ay have a hist orical root , even if developm ent has evolved, so being able t o sort t hrough such issues is also im port ant . Corroborat ive I m pression versus Mult iple At t est at ion. I f m ult iple at t est at ion is used as a t ool for select ing feat ures of Jesus’ port rait ure, any t im e t he Fourt h Gospel differs from t he ot hers, it aut om at ically becom es t he loser; likewise Mat t hew and Luke. I f t he Johannine narrat or was seeking t o build around Mark, however, John’s dist inct ive m at erial m ay have been int ended as a hist orical augm ent at ion of ( and t o som e degree a correct ive t o) Mark. Therefore, rat her t han excluding m at erial because it is a lone t est im ony, hist orical analysis should focus on how t his present at ion corroborat es and is corroborat ed by ot her perspect ives on Jesus. While a dist inct ive narrat ive m ight reflect a t heologized addit ion, it m ight also reflect a t radit ional report unknown t o ot her narrat ors, included precisely because t he narrat or held it t o be im port ant hist orically. The quest ion is how it m ight cont ribut e a corroborat ive im pression of Jesus’ m inist ry, even if reflect ing a m inorit y report . I f such is int ended as a com plem ent or challenge t o Mark, it should be evaluat ed on t hat basis. Then again, I not ed at least 31 incident s and feat ures of Jesus’ m inist ry t hat are at t est ed in all four 3 canonical gospels and 44 sim ilar sayings in John and Mark alone. So, John’s dist inct ive corroborat ion of Synopt ic report s should be not ed as well as t he Fourt h Evangelist ’s dist inct ive cont ribut ions. Crit ical Realism versus Dogm at ic Nat uralism or Supranat uralism . Gone are t he days when biblical scholars argued for t he hist oricit y of all supranat ural report s in t he Bible dogm at ically, but equally problem at ic is t he dogm at ic arguing of a st rict nat uralism as t he only grid for inferring biblical hist oricit y. Crit ical t heory on hist oriography is needed as m uch now as ever! Jesus m ay indeed have done som e t hings t hat were int erpret ed as wondrous by his cont em poraries, even if som e account s becam e em bellished in t heir narrat ion. So, st raining out every bit of t he wondrous from gospel narrat ives is easily overdone. While t he adding of t he Johannine Prologue t o an earlier edit ion of t he narrat ive prepares t he reader t o receive t he st ory, it should not be seen as t he basis for t he narrat or’s original work. Like Mark, t he Johannine narrat ive began wit h a com m ent ary on John t he Bapt ist and t he launching of Jesus’ m inist ry as a Galilean prophet . Crit ical realism t herefore allows one t o deal wit h t he problem s t hat wondrous report s pose t o hist orical analysis, while at t he sam e t im e allowing t he polit ical, religious, archaeological, and t opographical realism of t he t ext t o speak for it self. Open Coherence versus Closed Port rait ure. While t he crit erion of “ coherence” is essent ially circular in it s im plem ent at ion, it is st ill valuable. As an alt ernat ive t o closed port rait s of Jesus in recent Jesus quest s, t he port rait ure should rem ain open and in process. Here, dichot om ies should be avoided unless t hey are genuinely irresolvable. Because Jesus t aught love of enem ies and neighbor, does t hat m ean he never assert ed t hat his followers should love one anot her? Because Jesus resist ed popular and nat ionalist ic designs on his m inist ry, does t his m ean he did not assert m ent ion direct ly his sense of divine com m ission? Because Jesus t aught in parables about t he Kingdom of God, does t his m ean he did not em ploy ot her m et aphors and t each about how God act ually leads hum anit y in spirit - based t erm s? The point here is t hat at t em pt s t o assert som e feat ures of Jesus’ port rait ure at t he direct exclusion of ot hers m ay involve false dichot om ies leading t o dist ort ed port rait ure. I f Jesus was indeed underst ood in t he com pany of ot her first - cent ury Jewish prophet ic leaders or ot her cont em porary figures, m ight he also have cont rast ed his work t o t heirs as opposed t o fit t ing int o any convent ional m old? To say Jesus was “ j ust like” a cont em porary m odel m ay it self be a m ist ake. So how do we proceed wit h t he t wo- cent ury quest for t he Jesus of hist ory while including t he Gospel of John? I t is fair t o say t hat we need t o grind new lenses t hrough wit h t o view t he Jesus of Nazaret h t hrough all gospel t radit ions, including John. I n response t o t he quest ion, “ so what ?” only t im e will t ell. For now, however, a fourt h quest for Jesus is underway, as m aking sense of Johannine hist oricit y is every bit as needed as m aking sense of Johannine t heology. 4 Not es 1 These sessions were held at Reedwood Friends Church in Port land, Oregon May 19 and 22, 2010, sponsored by t he Cent er for Christ ian St udies. JohnDave Medina has provided a helpful report of t he first session on his websit e: ht t p: / / nearem m aus.wordpress.com / 2010/ 05/ 25/ t he- origin- and- developm ent - oft he- fourt h- gospel- paul- anderson/ . 2 See t he overview of t hese t wo program s of research in m y February 2010 Bible and I nt erpret at ion essay, “ The John, Jesus, and Hist ory Proj ect —New Glim pses of Jesus and a Bi- Opt ic Hypot hesis,” ht t p: / / www.bibleint erp.com / art icles/ j ohn1357917.sht m l. 3 Paul N. Anderson, The Fourt h Gospel and t he Quest for Jesus; Modern Foundat ions Reconsidered ( London: T&T Clark, 2006) 129- 32. 4 We will be holding a Sum m er School graduat e course at t he Universit y of Mainz, August 25. All are welcom e; m ore inform at ion is on t he websit e: ht t p: / / www.ev.t heologie.unim ainz.de/ Dat eien/ Flyer.Sum m erschool.pdf.