Three Stages of Gospel Development: Some Random Thoughts
During the formative stages of form critical research on the Gospels, the scholarly construct of “three stages of gospel development” became something of a critical orthodoxy. This paradigm began within protestant circles but was also ultimately embraced by the Roman Catholic church during Vatican II and spelled out in detail in Dei Verbum (§19), and the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document, “Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels” (§6-9).
The three stages are as follows:
Stage 1: Traditions from the Ministry of Jesus (Traditions stemming from the historical ministry of Jesus in the late 20s CE)
Stage 2: Post-Resurrectional Preaching of the Disciples (Religious convictions that arose about Jesus after his death)
Stage 3: The Writing of the Gospels by the Four Evangelists (Texts and traditions about Jesus that developed during the writing of the gospel narratives; what is often referred to as the evangelist’s Sitz im Leben)
Much contemporary research on the Gospels is rooted in this paradigm, and in the interests of full disclosure, I have taught this model approvingly for the better part of a decade now. My recent readings in historical Jesus research have caused me to think more deeply about some of the “assured results” of modern Gospels scholarship. For decades now the criteria (embarrassment, multiple attestation, dissimilarity, etc.)–which are rooted in form critical assumptions–have been used to establish the historicity of given sayings and events in the life of Jesus. However, with the growing skepticism about the value of those criteria can we really establish with a high degree of certainty “traditions from the ministry of Jesus”? To say it another way, since we have more reason to be skeptical about the prospect of discovering authentic Jesus material, how reliable is Stage 1 as a starting point? And, if Stage 1 is somewhat “up for grabs,” then how reliable is the rest of the model?
Chris, thanks for these perceptive thoughts. In my mind, the paradigm as a general historical description is one thing and not necessarily all that in danger. Our confidence about our ability to navigate that paradigm with the gospel traditions in tow is another thing; and this is what’s seeming to collapse.
But how long will the guild tolerate this paradigm if it’s not functionally advantageous? And for that matter, if the dominant paradigm doesn’t have to be advantageous, then why should this particular paradigm remain dominant?
My own view from the cheap seats has no angle on methodology but I simply cannot believe the earliest followers went their whole lives without composing documents about him, especially given the heavily literary aspects of their hebraic culture. Point being, I see no functional advantage in preferring such a view. It isn’t particularly based on the texts or hopes for a better way to interpret the texts. It just seems more plausible to me given the basic facts in admission.
So, the question, again, is at top. Does the predominant model of text formation have to provide hermeneutical guidance for textual interpretation? Yes or no, and why?
Since Anthony linked to this convo, lemme break down my question a bit and dial it back to [what I think was] my first unstated assumption:
First, regarding the History of interpretation: To what extent did this dominant paradigm become that way *because* it seemed functionally advantageous?
Second, regarding the future of interpretation: If the advantageousness was a significant factor, will the loss of that advantageousness eventually depopularize the paradigm?
Third, regarding the nature of interpretation: Is it more preferable or more problematic to have a model of text formation that also provides hermeneutical guidance for textual interpretation?
I hope that’s more helpful. I often can’t tell whether I’ve been obtuse, stumped the band, or just gone out of bounds. Blow the whistle, ref. I’ll sit in the penalty box. Cheap seat’s kinda gettin cold anyway…
All this is exactly right, Chris. But, as Chris (Keith) already said, the new criticisms re: historical Jesus scholarship and the criteria doesn’t imperil historical knowledge of Jesus. It just challenges the traditional methods of arriving at that knowledge. The recent work on social memory has especially problematized any sharp disjuncture (as well as any easy equivalence) between the past (stage I) and the present (stages II and/or III). I’ve heard there’s an interesting book on the subject called, um . . . what was that title? Oh yeah, Structuring Early Christian Memory.
Thanks for the post Chris. Do you imagine Jesus studies moving forward by means of forsaking the attempt to get “behind” the texts/traditions and focusing on interpreting the texts/traditions instead (allowing everyone to embrace some agnosticism as regards the events “behind” the text) or are you suggesting something else?
Thanks for this post.
In my mind, I don’t think that there is a problem in the recognition of stages, per se, but in the periodization (I think that I just invented that word) of stages. For example, I might be able to point to certain aspects of Matthew that seem to be later relative to the “tradition” received by Matthew. But this recognition does not necessarily tell me *when* this point of departure was composed. Moreover, the neat stratification of three stages is highly problematic.
-anthony
Thanks for the thought-provoking post. It seems to me that Anthony is right. That is, it seems clear that we can clearly recognize that there is a basic chronology; an actual historical ministry of Jesus preceded written accounts of his resurrection. Yet trying to seal off these periods is more difficult. To imagine that stage 2 can be neatly separated from stage 1 is silly. Obviously, memories of Jesus’ ministry were impacted by the Easter experience.
But here is another question: why link “traditions” with #1 and written materials only with #3? Can we really insist with absolute certainty that there were no written materials produced during Jesus’ ministry? Of course, the final form of the Gospels as we now have them were composed later; that is incontrovertible. However, is it not possible that at least one of Jesus’ disciples would have written some rudimentary notes of their master’s teaching? It seems to me very difficult to insist this could not have taken place.
In other words, even though we only have the written Gospels and have no record of earlier “notes”, I think it might be unwise to insist on a neat divide between the oral/written stages of the transmission process. It goes beyond the evidence.
Thanks again for the post.