Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Crux Sola: Formed by Scripture to Live like Christ

Home
Evangelical
Francis Watson on Gospel Writing: Interview Part 2 (Gupta)

Francis Watson on Gospel Writing: Interview Part 2 (Gupta)

Last updated on: January 23, 2014 at 9:47 am by Nijay Gupta

Francis Watson on Gospel Writing: Interview Part 2 (Gupta) 2014-01-23T09:47:28-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Welcome back to the discussion of Francis Watson’s Gospel Writing. As I mentioned in the earlier part, I had a chance to interview and dialogue with Prof. Watson (FW) over the telephone last week and ask him about, not alone what he wrote in his book, but also about the whole concept of the act of writing and re-writing “gospels” as it happened in the first two centuries after Christ.

As discussed in the previous post, FW argues that the process of gospel writing is somewhat fluid in the first century, rather than formal. It is as if there is this built-up writing energy that has to flow through acts of reflection and re-interpretation of the Jesus tradition. Whilst reading Gospel Writing, I found it very interesting that FW urged that the spawning of new gospels (in particular beyond Mark) was not an unfortunate happenstance. In some way, it is a result of Jesus himself. I will quote from the part of the book that struck me:

“In the tradition, Jesus himself calls for the new interpretative activity that seeks to communicate his significance afresh. The interpretative dynamic underlying gospel writing and rewriting originates in the risen Lord who is also the earthly Jesus of the tradition” (p. 287 in Gospel Writing).

When I had read FW’s statement, I had wondered if there was, perhaps something specific Jesus did or said, in his mind, which called for this “new interpretative activity.” So I asked him about it. FW responded that he does not have in mind anyone singular moment, but the person himself. Watson told me this: “all of the ongoing activity of interpretation about which the book is concerned can be traced back to the figure of Jesus himself.” He explained that, with the gospels, we are working with a particular kind of datum (from Latin, he explained, meaning “gift”); the gospel writers understood that datum (gift) to be Jesus himself “and everything stems from him.” This point took us back to the focus on the risen Jesus. The new reality of Jesus as the apostles understood him was, in a sense, beyond words, and, thus, one gospel was not enough.

Beginning with Jesus and Not “Redaction”

FW expressed, here, the concern that, all too often in gospels studies there is a tendency to focus on the editorial interests and mindset of the individual evangelist. It is misleading, urged FW, to portray the evangelists as redactors who simply treated Jesus as a kind of “passive object whom people manipulate and fit into their own desires or needs.”

On this point, FW directed me to the influence of the work of Hans-Georg Gadamar’s Truth and Method on his own thinking. This work helped FW to see the possibility of “texts generating their own reception” rather than as inert objects. Now, that is not to say the “text” does all of the work; rather “there is a dialogue between text and interpreter.”

This can be easily applied to the situation of the reception of Jesus. FW imagines a Jesus who “because he had such an impact on his followers, continues to evoke interpretative responses.”

Interpretation is Fine, But Who is Right?

When we talk about the proliferation of interpretations (often competing, or at least “plural”), some people get uncomfortable with the subjectivity involved and make a plea for objectivity. Aren’t interpretations basically opinions? Shouldn’t we peel back the redaction and interpretation, and look for the historical or “real” Jesus?

Certainly there are whole schools of scholars who think that way, but FW is not one of them. Watson believes there can be no “uninterpreted Jesus.” Indeed, he argued to me, we need to get beyond the idea that interpretation means distortion.

On this point, I inquired further – Did Jesus encourage interpretation of his work and self?

The Call of the Risen Jesus

FW’s answer took me by surprise. This ongoing work of gospel writing and (re)interpretation was necessary because the evangelists believed Jesus rose from the dead and took reign over his kingdom and people. In FW’s own words:

Interpretative activity by Luke, Mark, or Matthew is representative of their own response to what they took to be the call of the risen Jesus mediated through the written and oral tradition about Jesus of which they had access.

There was something larger than life about Jesus, the super-abundance of his essence and activity. And this required, not merely tolerated, ongoing reflection.

Reflection is Well and Good, but Plurality?

That brought me back to a broader question about the canonical nature of a fourfold gospel which FW refers to as a “plural,” not singular, witness to Jesus. I raised the ostensible problem that, for many Christians, “plural” sounds like a bad word. Plural (for some) implies not true (hence the temptation to harmonize).

FW made a number of helpful points in response, but began with a general one.

“Most of the things we normally regard as true are plural rather than simple. Different perspectives of different observers will inevitability lead to plurality. We should question the assumption that truth is always a straightforward matter like 2 + 2 = 4. Interesting truths are always complex, are always capable of being looked at from different perspectives, and it doesn’t stop it being “true,” but we cannot just draw their truth straightforwardly or in totality in the way we can with 2 + 2 = 4.”

FW mentioned two further points related to the gospels in particular. First, he talked about how plurality was not considered a compromise by the patristic theologians, but a mark of richness (and Watson pointed me to Ephesians 3). Secondly, FW noted how he has found the later titles given to the four gospels especially stimulating – the gospel according to Matthew or according to Mark (or Luke or John). It is the Greek word kata which has been especially important to FW’s understanding of the importance of more than one gospel. He even remarked, we might say the kata should be understood as marking perspective – “the gospel in Matthew’s perspective.” So, “we have four perspectives on Jesus.”

The church collectively decided ‘we’ll henceforth work with these four perspectives on Jesus’, and that means, in a sense, that it tacitly accepted that no individual gospel gives us direct access to Jesus. There is access to Jesus, of course there is, but it is mediated through the perspective of a plurality of individuals.

Plurality or Rivalry?

I was quite comfortable with the idea of multiple perspectives and plurality, but occasionally FW used the word “rivalry” in our discussion, which could sound scandalous and dismissive. FW acknowledged the importance of seeing this historically. He appealed to what he heuristically calls a “first-century” (pre-canonical) perspective, versus a “second-century” (canonical perspective). In the former, at the point of composition, FW believes that it could be the case Matthew saw his gospel as a rival and replacement of Mark. But, when the church decides to accept Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John together and they co-exist canonically, the situation changes. In that new (fourfold) context, “the canon may well overrule the expectations and intentions of the evangelists.” While no evangelist expected his work to be placed alongside others on equal authority, the church decides that no one gospel can or should be privileged as the singular work on Jesus.

“What we have with the fourfold gospel, according to the church, is something that is more than the sum of its parts. Together they operate and shape Christian thinking about God, Jesus, and the world in ways that they could not have done if they had operated individually if we only had just one gospel or if we had a different collection. With this collection we have some ‘value added’.”

Wow! What a fresh and enriching perspective on the gospels, and I was in FW’s debt for sharing this insight with me. Who said scholarship cannot be good for the soul!

More Research on the Gospels Ahead

My last question in my hour with FW was about his ongoing research. He was kind enough to share what he has forthcoming in print, or just now in thoughts, on the subject of the gospels.

A Grant. FW was awarded an Arts & Humanities Research Council grant called “The Fourfold Gospel and Its Rivals” which provides a number of things including funding for a post-doctoral researcher and a PhD scholarship under his tutelage.

Early Four-Gospel Books. FW is interested, not just in the subject of the fourfold gospel, but the earliest evidence of the four gospels in one physical document. FW mentioned Eusebius’ fascination with the interrelationship of the four gospels that is seen in his “canon tables,” what FW calls a “brilliant intellectual achievement.”

Artwork. FW is also interested in how the fourfold (plural) gospels inspired beautiful works of art throughout history.

Introduction to the Gospels. FW mentioned that he is slated to write an introductory book on the gospels that looks at them from a canonical perspective. I am eager to see this emerge in due time!

Get the Book!

That is the conclusion of the interview, and I would just like to add that if you are interested in looking at the development and early reception of the gospels from a historical and canonical perspective, Gospel Writing is the book for you!

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 22, 2014

Having Fun with Crux Sola Search Terms (Gupta)

Next Post

January 26, 2014 Are the Ecumenical Creeds Inspired?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz