In the most recent episode of the Give and Take podcast, titled The Gospels as History, with Edward J. Watts (#315), host Scott Jones talks with Watts about his “Gospel maximalist” approach to the story of Jesus, (a discussion he qualifies as a holiday themed episode)
Watts is coming at this as a historian who’s specific interest relates to the history of ancient Rome, especially where it concerns bridging the very different worlds of the first century and the later centuries. He’s also looking at it as one who stands, relatively speaking, outside of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, or at the very least without any clear allegiances outside of his specific historical concerns.
What I found really interesting about Watts’ perspective, especially as I get set to dive in to his massive The Romans: A 2000 Year History (which Jones interviewed him for on an earlier episode), is the way he cuts through some of the noise that extant disciplines can sometimes create. Certainly one area this applies to is in his argument for an earlier dating of Marks Gospels (which of course brings the whole in tow) than certain popular disciplines would allow. His foundation for this argument, placing Mark in the 60’s prior to the destruction of the temple, is his analysis of the ancient world itself. As he notes, there is nothing strange at all regarding the way the Gospel compositions emerge in its world and as part of its complex environment, which would be perfectly in line with other figures in first century Rome.
One of the central facetes of his argument stems from the infamous theoretical Q source. While there has been a larger movement away from that theory (a path I think I would follow at the moment), one of the things he helps to unpack is how these accounts of figures emerge. If, as is largely accepted, Paul’s writings are the earliest window we have into this emerging Tradition(s) surrounding Jesus, what we have then is a figure (Pau) writing at a time of transition. Paul was writing at a time when those who walked and talked with Jesus were still alive and where these voices were accessible. Paul is also writing to communities whom have clearly been established around an already prominant credal presence, and within his specific Greco-Roman concern is clearly writing to communities where Jesus’ life and teachings were assumed to be known. Thus, as the Gospels emerge out of this soil they would have emerged as part of that natural concern for the preservation of this figure, in light of these eye witnesses dying out, whom they see as having utmost importance to their lives. Which is precisely how any such figure gets preserved at this point in history.
And in purely historical terms, this practice and effort would not have been taken lightly. Hence why Watts argues that a Q source makes perfect sense. This is how this act of preservation worked in the ancient world, and it actually gives us a window into how the Gospels all fit together as a larger conversation.
What’s interesting about this is contrasting this with Mark Goodacre’s new book, The Fourth Gospel: John’s Knowledge of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which actually fits within a similar argument as Watts with the exception of applying a later dating. Its worth mentioning that in the larger discussions within biblical scholarship right now John has found itself once again at the forefront, with much reconsideration for how common misunderstandings of its detachment from the world of the synoptics is being addressed. Goodacre I think is one voice making a compelling argument for this material swimming in the same waters as the whole.
If Watts is accurate, what we have is an active effort by disconnected communities to preserve the words of Jesus (hence the Q source). Why the words? Watts helpfully explains how when it came to figures of philosophical and theological concern, it was always the words that mattered over the story. The stories themselves were free to ebb and flow within these distanced contexts, told as they are within literary conventions and concerns and compositions, but the words were seen to be the thing that had to be preserved in the way they were spoken. Watts argues that this is exactly what we find in all four Gospels. Juxtapose this with histories of a people or an empire or a nation, and what you get is a story first mentality with the words themselves being the thing that was free to fluctuate.
Lots to think about. One of the things this evokes for me is simply a needed corrected in certain assumptions regarding the relationship between compositions and the sourcing. Any composition is a window into a pre-existing credal presence. Even in the case of Paul, an argument can be made that his earliest writings place us within 3 years of Jesus’ death, thus presupposing an already existing creed that arguably places us within a year of Jesus’ death. Of course of concern for academics is trying to trace this composition history, and the question for debate is whether or not these creative compositions are actively inventing new ideas, particularly around the person and identity of Jesus. I think writings like Watts and Goodacres, and I would throw in Brant Pitre’s new book Jesus and Divine Christology, which I think is the most definitive defeater of the idea that Jesus did not calim to be that which we find in all four Gospels (the incarnate Christ), actively give us very good reason to trust that these sources are actively preserving the words of Jesus. And not simply the words but a unified conversation between these distanced communities. To engage with the storytelling of the Gospel narratives, something which we expressly do in this season of Advent and Christmas, is to be entering into a conversation about those words within their specific second temple Judean framework. That I think makes it all the more powerful.
The Stories of my Life 