The task of understanding the Gospel traditions:

Werner Kelber’s contribution to

New Testament research

Pieter JJ Botha
University of South Africa

A bstract
T h e ta s k o f u n d e rs ta n d in g th e G o s p e l tr a d itio n s ;
W e rn e r K e lb e r ’s c o n tr ib u tio n to N ew T e s ta m e n t
research

T he research o f WH K elber on the G o sp el trad itio n s

have im p o rtan t im plications. His m ain em ph ases are
sum m arized and certain aspects briefly com m ended. A
critical discussion concerning the aims of interpretation,
the issue o f conflicting traditions, the im mense problem
of orality and the in te rp re ta tio n o f M ark is concluded
w ith an a rg u m e n t on th e n e c e ssity a n d p itfa lls of
multidisciplinary research.

1. INTRODUCTION
T h e re a re sev eral ex cellen t rea so n s to tak e cognizance o f the w ork o f W ern er
K elber. H e has been described as ‘a courageous p ioneer’ (B rodie 1984: 575) and his
work as a ‘breakthrough’ (F arrel 1987: 27). His main focus has been on the Gospel
o f M ark, but he has also c o n trib u te d to P au lin e and Jo h a n n in e sch o larsh ip . A
featu re of his (la te r) w ork is interdisciplinary m ethodology, com bining aspects of
linguistics, folklore, literary history and criticism , anthropology and sociology with
biblical criticism.
A lthough the direct im petus for my interest in the contributions o f K elber is my
own research on the G ospel of M ark, I find his work convenient to highlight some ill
considered problem s in G ospel research. Amongst these is the lack of reflection on
the issues and problem s of interdisciplinary research.
A critical ap p reciatio n o f w hat K elber is doing is an acknow ledgem ent o f the
value and significance of his studies. In this sense it is im portant to em phasize that
the critical aspect is also a self-critical undertaking. Analysis and evaluation fulfill

ISSN 0259 9422 - H TS 4 6 /t & 2 (1990) 47

Understanding the Gospel traditions

their purpose by increasing one’s aw areness of the vulnerability and problem atic of
on e’s own perspective.
T he extent of K elber’s list o f publications m akes it self-evident that one cannot
possibly do justice to every aspect o f his w ork w ithin the scope of a paper. W hat
follows is a selection o f aspects I found thought provoking. T he structure adopted is
prim arily for the sake of convenience.

2. WHAT DOES KELBER SAY?

2.1 Mark and his traditions

T h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f G o sp e l criticism has m ade it com m on co n cern to see the
G ospels as a com bination o f traditions and redaction, the precise relation differing
from scholar to scholar according to a host of factors. Eventually, however, as is
well known, the evangelists’ ed ito rial activity and the ‘discovery’ o f th eir creative
in p u t b ecam e highly p ro m in e n t. G iven th e assu m p tio n of M a rk ’s p rio rity the
problem of determ ining the extent of redaction is obvious. More im portantly, it was
simply a m atter of tim e before the logical im plication o f the principle of redaction
w as re a liz e d : th e r e c o u ld b e no lim it to e d ito ria l activ ity . T h is fo rm s the
b ack g ro u n d for th e m a jo r d e v e lo p m e n ts in A m erican G o sp e l criticism o f the
seventies and eighties (as noted by K elber himself, 1984: 460).
To gain a sense of the context in which K elber’s initial studies developed I note
som e aspects of the work of N orm an Perrin and T heodore W eeden.
P errin initially d efin ed re d a c tio n criticism as th e study co n c e rn e d w ith ‘the
th e o lo g ic a l m o tiv a tio n o f an a u th o r as th is is r e v e a le d in th e c o lle c tio n ,
a r r a n g e m e n t, e d itin g , a n d m o d ific a tio n o f tr a d itio n a l m a te ria l, an d in th e
com position o f new forms within the traditions of early C hristianity’ (1970: 1). In
o ther words, he ‘viewed the G ospel narratives as high points of interpretation rather
than as bedrock o f history’ (K elb er 1984: 453). This is a succinct com m entary on
contem porary approaches to the Gospels, and also of K elber’s, obvious from his first
publications.
W eeden argued that M ark was in deliberate conflict with his sources, hence the
title of his work Mark: Traditions in conflict (1971). A ccording to W eeden, ‘Mark is
assiduously involved in a v e n d e tta against the disciples. H e is in te n t on totally
discrediting them . He paints them as obtuse, obdurate, recalcitrant men who are at
first u n p erceptive of Jesu s’ m essiahship, then opposes its style and ch aracter, and
finally rejects it. As the coup degrace, Mark closes his G ospel w ithout rehabilitating
th e d is c ip le s’ (1971: 50-1). T h e re a so n fo r th is sh a rp re a c tio n o f M ark is a

48 UTS 46/1 i 2 (1990)

 PJJ Botha

C h risto lo g ic a l c o n tro v e rsy in his co m m u n ity . H is o p p o n e n ts , ex p o n e n ts o f a

theology o f glory, claim th e a u th e n tic Je su s tra d itio n s fo r th e ir v iew point. In
response, M ark incorporated th eir very claims in his historical dram a, the disciples
rep resen tin g th e o p p o n e n ts and Jesu s acting o u t M ark’s theology (o f th e cross).
T hus W eeden introduced the notion o f conflicting traditions underlying the M arkan
Gospel.

2.1.1 K elber’s first m ajor work (1974) is a quite com prehensive redaction critical
investigation in to the origin, stru ctu re and p u rp o se o f M ark. As K elb er sees it,
M ark did not sim ply edit his m aterials. H e drastically restructured the trad itio n s
available to him. TTie whole is th erefore intelligible only from M ark’s concerns. In
fact, M a rk ’s use o f S c rip tu re ‘w ith e x tra o rd in a ry d isre g a rd fo r th e ir o rig in al
contextual setting’ is paradigm atic o f his use of (synoptic) trad itio n (1983: 197, cf
1980: 37).
T he G ospel o f M ark is a b o u t the re -ap p ro p riatio n o f Jesu s’ teaching on the
k ingdom o f G o d . M ark is situ a tin g his c o m m u n ity w ithin th e h istory o f the
kingdom , ‘in o rd e r to assign to his own people a place of hope in the m idst of it’
(1974: 42). The kingdom is anonymous and hidden at present. ‘B orn out of conflict,
G o d ’s rule on e a rth exists in, and suffers a sta te o f conflict’ (1974: 41). F u n d a ­
m entally, M ark is - according to K elber - about eschatology, which ‘is of ultim ate
concern to M ark, and the realized eschatology o f the G alilean K ingdom serves as
prem ise for, and holds the herm eneutical key to M arkan theology’ (1974: 11).
M ark, ‘the spokesm an o f G a lilea n C h ristian s’ (1974: 130), w rote his G ospel
shortly after A D 70 in response to the crisis in the C hristian com m unity caused by
the destruction of Jerusalem and the tem ple. T he crisis, m ore specifically, was due
to p ro p h e ts and le a d e rs in th e J e ru s a le m -J u d e a n C h ris tia n c o m m u n ity w ho
mistakenly prom ised the parousia of Jesus in connection with the Jew ish-R om an war
in Jeru salem . T he ‘evangelist m akes an issue of the d isaste r’ (1974: 130) exactly
because C hristians w ere profoundly affected by the failure of the parousia and the
pow er struggle o f the Je ru salem C hristians. T h e M arkan com m unity, existing in
northern Palestine (G alilee), is prom oted in the story as the centre for the parousia
and the final m anifestation of the kingdom (M k 14: 28, 16: 7). G alilee was divinized
and unified by Je.sus’ miracles (1974: 45-65).
K e lb e r solves th e w ell know n p ro b le m o f M a rk ’s u n u su a l p o rtra it o f the
disciples by seeing them as instances of a defective Jesus tradition. TTie disciples are
symbolically representatives of his ‘opponent.s’. T he denigration of the disciples and
•the fam ily of Jesus is thus actually a polem ic against the Je ru salem church. The
J e r u s a le m C h ris tia n co m m u n ity ‘tra c e d its o rig in to th e re la tiv e s o f Je su s,

HTS 46/1 * 2 (1990) 49

Understanding the Gospel traditions

considered itself standing in unbroken tradition with the twelve u n d er the primacy
o f Peter, and advocated a faith in so Jewish a fashion as to be - in the eyes of Mark
... virtually indistinguishable from , and thus guilty o f cooperating with, the Jewish
pow er stru ctu re ’ (1974: 64). T he disciples and th eir h eirs w ere co n cern ed about
th eir n ational identities, and mainly in terested in claim ing authority and working
m iracles (= w hat Jesus opposed in the discipleship narrative (M k 8-10) and in Mk
13). T he consistent failing of the disciples show that all of their claims to authority
are contrary to Jesus’ intentions; it equals abandonm ent of Jesus, and in fact none of
the disciples can claim a com m issioning from Jesus. They w ere n ev er rein stated
after their flight as the w omen never told them of the resurrected Jesus. ‘M ore and
m o re ... th e d iscip les e m e rg e as th e re a l po w ers th a t stan d in th e way o f the
fulfillm ent of the K ingdom’ (1974: 63). T herefore, they are ‘banished to the outside,
at one with the family and the Jeru salem establishm ent’ (1974: 64), as they are not
interested in ‘G alilee’ w here G reek and Jew were united.
M ark’s specially designed spatial configuration of north - south - north (G alilee
- tem ple m ount - M ount o f Olives - G alilee) ‘provides the topological framework
of the G o s p e l.... M ark’s conceptual world must find its natural explanation arising
o u t o f this circum spectly c o n tro lled space w orld and in full conform ity with the
inherent G alilee - Jerusalem antithesis’ (1974: 129). Hence the main purpose o f the
G ospel’s plot has been to discredit the eschatological prestige of Jerusalem and its
holy place, and to reinstate G alilee as the new place, and the near future as the new
time, of God.
T he in te rp re ta tio n of M ark against the b ackground of the afterm a th o f the
destruction of Jeru salem and the tem ple and polem izing against the role of Jewish
C hristians in th a t destru ctio n are persisten t them es in K elber’s un d erstan d in g of
M ark (1979a: 13-14; 1983: 210-11). His (red actio n -critic a l) conclusion th at the
disciples are rejected by the M arkan Jesus influenced all his subsequent work on
M ark. T his is all the m ore notew orthy as K elber claim s to have utilized different
assum ptions about the interpretation o f the G ospels in his later work.

2 .1 2 In his second book on M ark (1979a), K elber self-consciously adopts the

position o f literary criticism , th at is ‘to approach the M arkan story a s ... any oth er
story’ (1979a: 11). ‘T o read M ark through the glasses o f the o th er G ospels would
v io late the in teg rity o f M ark and m isa p p re h e n d the n atu re o f all four G o sp el
w riters. ... T h e read in g o f M ark d em an d s a single-m inded co n cen tratio n on the
M arkan text’ (1979a: 12). M ark’s G ospel is a dispute with the authority figures of
the Jerusalem church, rep resen ted by the Twelve who are in constant conflict with
J e s u s ’ tru e m ission an d id en tity . T h e co n flict is set w ithin a n a rrativ e which

50 H TS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990)
 PJJBoOut

construes Jesus’ public career as a series o f journeys, in each o f which his followers
progressively distance them selves from his objective, nam ely c o ro n atio n through
hum iliation and death.
‘T h e discip les, as M ark sees th em , fail to listen to th e voice o f Je su s and
prom ptly adopt a whole system o f self-serving values’ (1979a: 96). In o th er words,
the p o rtra it of the disciples is in te rp re ted from th e perspective o f 16: 8, which is
u n d ersto o d in the sense o f ‘th e w om en disobeyed and n e v er said a w ord to the
disciples’.
N otew orthy is th at K elber w rites about M ark’s elim ination o f all authority as
rem iniscent of R eform ation theology (1979a: 95).

2 .1 3 A later study specifically devoted to the disciples in M ark (K elber 1985a)

criticizes previous scholarship for consistently underrating ‘the integrity of a G ospel
and the novelty o f its form ’ and for not realizing th at ‘the G ospel could have been
w ritten for the purpose o f correcting ... tradition’ (1985a: 26). T h at m eans *we ought
to be m indful o f traditions in the plu ral ... the synoptic history a p p e a re d ... as a
struggle betw een com p etin g and possibly irreco n cilab le view points’ (1985a: 27);
som ething that had long been comm onplace in Pauline studies. T raditional M arkan
sch o la rsh ip also fails d u e to a su p p o sed p o s tre s u rre c tio n a l re s o lu tio n o f th e
disciples’ failure and a ‘disregard for narrative’ (1985a: 32).
H e n o te s th e follow ing c h a ra c te ristic s of M ark as esp ecially im p o rta n t; a
reserved a ttitu d e tow ard sayings, a repossession o f th e earth ly life o f Jesus that
culm inates in death rath er than in resurrection, a withholding o f the risen Lord from
the disciples, the banishm ent o f the disciples - initial insiders - tow ard the outside.
‘T o g e th e r th e se fe a tu re s a p p e a r to su b v ert a g e n re p a rtia l tow ard sayings, the
prim ary unit of oral speech, and partial also tow ard the risen L ord, who continues
speaking through apostolic, prophetic personalities’ (1985a: 41).
So the corrective function o f the form o f the G ospel alm ost leaps to the eye.
F o r by w ithholding the resurrection, M ark underm ines a crucial starting point for
o ral tra d itio n ; by n a rra tin g th e earth ly Jesu s and his d e a th he has c o u n tere d a
G attung rooted in the risen Lord; and by relegating the disciples to the outside he
has co m pleted w hat am ou n ts to an an ti-g en re to th e g enre o f a sayings trad itio n
(1985a: 41-42). ‘Put simply, Mark was up against a tradition that perceived itself to
be apostolic. ... the genre of the orthodox G ospel has transform ed Jesus’ whole life
and, above all, his death into the mystery that is accessible not to the few but to all
who read (o r hear) it’ (1985a: 42).
C onsequently K elb er em phasizes th a t in M ark the disciples are d ep icted as
having m isunderstood the earthly Jesus so as to be excluded from representing the

H TS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990) 51
Understanding the (iospci traditions

risen Lord (1985a: 31). K elber illustrated this also in his study on M ark 14: 32-42:
‘by setting standards over and against the three leading disciples the M arkan Jesus
discredits the notions of apostolic leadership and succession’ (1976: 59-60).

2 2 O rality
The oral and the written Gospel (K elber 1983) is undoubtedly an im portant book in
which the relationship betw een o ral and w ritten form s of the G ospel traditions are
reexam ined in the light of relevant research. It grew out o f an earlier study (K elber
1980) in w hich he a ttem p ted to relate studies o f oral trad itio n and oral culture to
F orm geschichte, an d to apply th is re se a rc h to th e o rig in s o f M a rk ’s G o sp el in
particular.
In investigating the relationship of speaking and w riting in M ark, Paul and Q,
K elber transposes his conclusions about revisionist traditions in early C hristianity to
the level of linguistic reflection. T he study is an attem p t at a ‘tradition-historical
e x p la n a tio n o f th e G o sp e l as c o u n te rfo rm to an o ra l tr a d itio n fra u g h t w ith
g n o stic iz in g p ro c liv itie s ’ (1 9 8 5 a: 4 1), to show th a t th e w ritte n G o sp e l is a
counterform to oral herm eneutics. In term s of theological developm ent, the great
divide is not essentially b etw een the earthly Jesus and p o st-resu rrectio n al Christ.
‘T he decisive b reak in the synoptic tradition did thus not com e ... with E aster, but
w hen the w ritte n m ed iu m to o k full co n tro l, tra n sfo rm in g Je su s th e sp e ak e r of
kingdom parables into the parable of the kingdom o f G o d ’ (1983: 220).
A t the core of his argum ent lies the realization that those ‘who derive a concept
o f o rality from oral m a teria l, and n o t from w ritten texts, a p p e a r to be virtually
unanim ous in em phasizing a perceptual difference betw een oral and literate culture’
(1980: 20). T h e in sig h t th a t o ra lity and tex tu ality (as K e lb e r p h ra se s it) are
incom parably different, forces one to recognize th at a ‘p erceptual chasm separates
the oral, as.sociative thinking’ of the traditions ‘from M ark’s causal thinking as it is
expressed in his G o sp e l’s seq u en tia l p a tte rn ’ (1980: 29-30). T h e w riting o f the
G ospel represents a new developm ent in the Jesus traditions; ‘a literary m entality
has taken control over and restructured oral m entality’ (1980: 35). R eleased from
d ire c t a u d ie n c e c o n tro l, M ark has ta k e n a sta n d o u tsid e o r above his so u rce
t r a d itio n s , o p e r a tin g fro m a lite r a r y d is ta n c e . W ith M a rk ‘w e w itn e s s a
b re a k th ro u g h fro m co lle c tiv ity to w a rd in d iv id u al a u th o rs h ip in th e sy n o p tic
trad itio n ’ (1980: 37). ‘Facing his tradition with discrim ination, M ark’s com position
is thus m ore in conflict than in continuity with his oral past’ (1980: 37-8).
K elber analyses the underlying assum ptions o f much o f current scholarship with
regard to the developm ent o f the G ospels. He points out th at both B ultm ann and
G e rh ard sso n , desp ite obvious d ifferences, sh a re th e sam e conviction of a linear

52 H TS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990)
 PJJBoOm

developm ent in the transm ission of Jesus stories. This is quite unacceptable in view
o f th e extensive resea rc h d one on o raiity (1983: 14-34). H e discusses th e basic
fe a tu re s o f o ral tran sm issio n , em p h asizin g th a t it is a p ro cess in w hich social
identification and preventive censorship predom inates.
H e follows this with an analysis of som e o f M ark’s source traditions, studying
the oral syntax and values of the m iracle stories and parables, noting the plurality
and pow er of oraiity.
H is exam ination of the textual M ark further develops his conclusion that Mark
was engaged in a polem ic against the disciples. Using the irreconcilable differences
betw een the m edia worlds of oral speech and writing, M ark is seen as criticizing the
disciples (and P eter) as representatives o f an oral G ospel, which included a sort of
glory theology. M ark was th e first to im pose on th e p lu ralistic an d charism atic
tra d itio n o f the oral transm ission th e m ore reflective and h arm o n io u s m odes of
con cep tu alizatio n th at com es with the w orld o f w riting. T he M ark an story ‘self-
authenticates its new, redem ptive medium over against the prevailing authorities of
oral transm ission’ (1983: 130).
A re m a rk a b le d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n o ra l a n d w ritte n G o sp e l tr a d itio n s -
according to K elber - is orality’s inability to narrate the death o f a hero. ‘T he oral
tradition is preoccupied with aspects o f the vita aciiva of Jesus and concerned with
the p resen ce o f h earers, b u t silent o r reticen t with reg ard to Jesu s’ d eath . ... the
tra d itio n reflects a h e rm en e u tic a l clim ate th a t is anything b u t fav o rab le to the
com position o f a passion narrative’ (1983: 193 - criticized by G reen 1988: 165-169).
This is tied up with th e opinion that M ark 1-13 stands closer to its oral background
than M ark 14-16. TTie passion narrative ‘is a densely plotted narrative’ and a clear
instance of literary com position out of Old T estam ent them es (1983: 189-197).

23 Paul, Q and John

2 J .1 Paul
If M ark is pictured as a w riter opposing oral tradition, Paul is an oral traditionalist
opposing writing.
W ith ‘his com m itm ent to oral speech’ (1983: 155), Paul is involved in a ‘polem ic
against the Law in term s of an aversion tow ard the objectified, w ritten w ord’ (1983:
141). P aul’s partiality tow ard oral discourse is clear in the oral analogues th at he
uses for his G ospel: the description of his revelatory experience resem bles th at o f a
prophetic call story (1983: 142); the coming o f Jesus is som ething heard ra th e r than
seen (1 T h 4: 15-17), the final resurrection will be affected by the sound o f a trum pet
(1983: 143), th e G o sp e l according to Paul is co n stitu tio n ally an d o p eratio n a lly

N T S 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990) 53
UndcrstaiKliiig the Gospel IradilioiLS

defined in oral term s, not by association with writing and reading: eúayycX í^eaG at,
XaXeïv, K axayyéX eiu, K npú o o eiu , P e P a íu a iq , ó)aoXoyía, án o X o y ía, Koiuwuia.
P aul’s w ritten exposition of his G ospel leaves no doubt that when it cam e alive the
G ospel was spoken aloud and, if it is to bring life again, m ust be sounded afresh
(1983: 144). ‘T h e fo rce an d p erv a siv e n e ss o f au d ito ry a n a lo g u e s in P au lin e
lite r a tu r e has ra re ly re c e iv e d a d e q u a te th e o lo g ica l a p p re c ia tio n , p resu m ab ly
because they are alien to the m odern reader of texts’ (1983: 143).
K elber revives the im p o rtan t insights of Ju liu s Schniew ind (1910) th at Xóyoq
and eúayyéX ioi/ should not be as.sociated with doctrine and specific content. Paul
has little interest in these aspects as he does not link the word with content but with
the effect it has on hearers. The essence of Paul’s G ospel is ‘dass es gebotschaftet,
ausgerichtet w ird’ (Schniewind 1910: 72). T o m odern visually oriented logic Paul’s
claim of oral authority and oral efficacy appears alm ost magic.
H ow ever, an o ra l synthesis ‘c re ate s a ten se w orld of p erso n al loyalties and
b etray als’ (K elb er 1983: 147). Known and know er are inextricably linked in oral
c u ltu re : ‘a co m m u n ity v isited by d iffe re n t a p o sto lic sp e a k e rs co u ld b eco m e
fragm ented into clusters of sh ared loyalties’ (1983: 147). This u nderlies the well
known spectacle of C orinthian factionalism.
Paul’s abiding com m itm ent to the oral G ospel casts fresh light on his polem ical
stance tow ard th e Law. Focussing mainly on G alatian s 3 the curse o f the Law is
seen in its contrast to the ‘personalized com m unication fostered by the oral Gospel
an d faith th at com es from h earin g ’ (1983: 153). ‘Im plied in this language is not
aversion to th e legalistic ch aracter of the Law nor skepticism about self-righteous
use o f it, b u t a sen se o f its w ritte n to tality and com plexity’ (1983: 153). W hat
com m its m an to bondage is fi ypc«|)Ti, the Law in its inscribed existence. The Word
th at is delivered into the hearts o f believers, cnayyeX ia, in the form of a spoken
m essage opens up to G o d and c re a te s a sp h ere of freed o m . ‘In d e p th it is not
content, but the modality and transform ational power of language that discrim inates
b etw een all th a t is w ritten down in the book of the Law and th e single logos o f
C hrist’ (1983: 155).
C o n se q u e n tly , an aly z in g 2 C o r 3: 1-6, th e nueu)i.a - ypá)j.)ia a n tith e sis is
because of the m edium dim ension. Paul as oral traditionalist reconnects the ‘Spirit
o f th e living G o d ’ w ith w ord in its in te rn a l p erso n aliz in g efficaciousness. The
o p p o n e n ts w ith th e ir d iv in e-m an -th eo lo g y are convinced th at the w ritte n word
serves as c a rrie r o f th e Spirit. P au l’s o p p o sitio n is n o t ag ain st th e Law as legal
authority, not the m atter o f works, but ‘the objectification o f the Law as gram m a’
(1983: 158).

54 UTS 46/1 á 2 (1990)

 PJJ Botha

K elber also addresses R om ans 7 with orality versus literacy as herm eneutical
key. T he basic problem o f this fam ous c h a p te r is th e logic o f seeing th e Law as
cognitively valid ( ‘it w as th e law th a t m ad e m e know w h at sin is’ - vs 7) but
soteriologically a failure (‘a prisoner to the law of sin’ - vs 23). This is because the
w ritten Law ‘has b ecom e unhinged from th e o ral, p a rticip ato ry lifew orld. It has
assumed an existence as verbal a rtifa c t.... It is in this posture of detachm ent that the
Law benefits the quality o f percep tio n ’ (1983; 163). But with writing, salvation has
b ecom e depersonalized and w hat results ‘is a p o stu re of reflection upon the Law
m ore than engagem ent in it’ (1983: 163). P aul’s fundam ental disposition is not to
teach objectification, but to preach participation (1983: 164).
'H SiKOioaúini t o u 0 eo \i is likew ise ro o te d in th e oral m atrix. N e ith e r of
objective nor of subjective quality, the righteousness of G od is an event o r an act
(R m 1: 16-17). P aul’s articulation of it has all the aspects of oral ontology: verbal,
vocal base, efficacious, w ith present, revelatory force and an universally bonding,
unifying potential (1983: 167).
O ne senses, however, the dilemma: Paul wrote letters. So, does his ‘em ploym ent
of the w ritten m edium register effects o f alien atio n ? H as the disjunctive force of
w riting e n te re d in to th e fib er o f his theology, p ro d u cin g stra in s w ith th e o ral
G o sp el?’ (1983: 169). Y es, indeed. Paul ‘in serts critical lim itatio n s to full oral
synthesis’ (1983: 172). In its very oral functioning his G ospel could be the source of
enthusiasm, as happened for example in Thessalonica. In C orinth Paul counters the
oral words of wi.sdom by writing about Jesus’ cross. The em phasis on death is a shift
in accent in the oral G ospel. ‘If this anti-oral em phasis on death were carried to its
natural conclusion, one would arrive at the position of M ark who silenced the post-
resurrectional Jesus, m aking it peak in his death and narrating it in opposition to the
oral authorities. But P a u l ... merely gives us a subtle preview of what was to come
w ith M a rk ’ (1983: 175). W h e n fa c e d w ith th e fu ll c o n s e q u e n c e s o f o ra l
herm eneutics (e.g. th e C o rin th ia n s’ su p e rio r a u th o rity of w ord - 1 C o r 2: 1) he
resolutely grasps the form ula y e y p a n ta i y ó p o r óXXá KaGwq y c y p a n ta i (1983:
176). T hat means that Paul has, occasionally at least, ‘activated the pow ers o f the
w ritten medium for the purpose of rupturing the oral synthesis’ (1983: 177).

2 3 .2 T he oral herm eneutic o f O

For the basic reconstruction o f O, K elber accepts the findings of Schulz, H offm ann
and Liihrm ann (K elber 1983: 223n70). O is a sayings G ospel with no reference to
the death of Jesus. He goes his own way in seeing 0 as representing an oral genre
(1983: 201). This fundam entally oral disposition is then correlated with the absence
of a passion narrative. The ‘oral perform ance of 0 ’ was the making present of the

H TS < 6 /; A 2 (1990) 55
Underslanding the Gospel traditions

exalted Lord, not th e historical figure of the past. ‘A trad itio n th a t focuses on the
continuation of Jesus’ w ords cannot sim ultaneously bring to consciousness w hat put
an en d to his speaking. As long as Jesus is perceived as speaking in th e present,
th ere is no need, and hardly a possibility, o f recapturing the story o f his death. By
the sam e logic ... a heavy n arrative em phasis on death , such as one finds in M ark,
may imply a critique of the sayings tradition’ (1983: 201). As a sayings genre Q has
no conception of the past. T he ‘oral, prophetic m ode ... united the earthly and the
future Son o f m an into the present efficacious o n e’ (1983: 203).
M ark sp>ecifically, with his cen terin g on the past and crucified M essiah, is the
calculated reaction to the sayings genre; a ‘counter-from ’ to the herm eneutics of Q.
M atthew and L uke co n tin u ed th e im pulse: they w an ted th e p ro p h etically living
voice o f Je s u s to b e co m e th e u n a lte ra b le w ords o f p ast a u th o rity . So K elb er
concludes that it was precisely Q ’s oral ontology o f language that the G ospel authors
- and one may assum e the canonizers - perceived to be its ‘defect’ (1983; 203).
In resp o n se to th e q u estio n o f Q, n o te th at K elb er’s criticism o f trad itio n a l
Traditionsgeschichte u n d erm in es the m ethodological basis on which th e iden tifi­
c atio n of Q rests. In o th e r w ords, if one accepts th e criticism of ‘th e d o m in an t
paradigm o f linearity’ one m ust realize th at th at is the exact paradigm underlying
most of the research done on the synoptic traditions and specifically on Q. Further,
if it is tru e th a t scholars have not really grasped w hat the oral foundations of the
synoptic traditions entail, th eir reconstruction of it must be defective.
W ith th e rejection o f the ‘original form ’ concept (K elber 1980: 33), most o f the
cu rren t reco n stru ctio n o f p re-G o sp el trad itio n s becom es dubious. If the G ospel
au th o rs heard Q an d th e o th e r sayings trad itio n s, one c an n o t possibly apply the
co n c e p t o f an o rig in a l v e rsio n in re c o n s tru c tin g th em - to c ite K e lb e r’s own
criticism. It is significant th at the disparate estim ates o f 0 forces one ‘to think of Q
in term s of m ultiple recensions, m ultiple docum ents, or the w hole confluence oral
and w ritten traditio ns’ (B lom berg 1987: 39) - considerably reducing the analytical
value of the hypothesis.
A side from the many in h eren t problem s o f the theory (P e trie 1959; G o u ld er
1985, and Du Plessis 1988 in connection with M ark’s priority) it is quite possible that
Luke knew M atthew (o r the M atth ean trad itio n s) in view of the so-called ‘m inor
ag reem en ts’, obviating the need for p o stulating O. B ut the p o in t is n o t so much
about Q as about the need for m ethodological consistency and critical discussion of
theoretical validity.

56 N T S 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990)
 PJJ Botha

233 L ogocentric metaphysics and th e G ospel o f John

In a re cen t article K elb er (1987b) ad d ressed th e G o sp el o f Jo h n in term s o f the
developm ent ‘from charism atic speech to narrative G ospel’.
T h e im m e n se a m o u n t o f o ra l m a te ria l is p lain ly in sig h t in Jo h n . M ore
specifically the sayings in this G ospel exhibits a pneum atic, oral herm eneutic. Jesus’
w ords a re prim arily regarded not as carriers o f ideas or records o f inform ation, but
as m anifestations of pow er (1987b: 111). H ow ever, Jo h n w rote his G ospel ‘not to
produce an unedited version of oral verbalization, but to recontextualize orality, and
to devise a co rrectiv e ag ain st it’ (1987b: 116). H en ce his reductive move o f the
X óyoi to the A o y o q , th e auth o rity over th e p lu ral Xóyou ‘O n e may s u s p e c t... a
d istin ctiv ely o ra l o p e ra tio n o f sayings in J o h n ’s co m m u n ity w hich cau sed the
evangelist to reach beyond the logoi, spoken by or attrib u te d to Jesus, back to the
prim ordial, personified Logos’ (1987b: 110). ‘Seen in these perspectives, it may well
seem ap p ro p riate th a t Jesus presides as Logos over a narrative th a t sets standards
for o ral p ro c la m a tio n an d p ro p h e tic a u th o rity , an d revises a C hristology and a
notion of discipleship that are both deeply rooted in the oral m atrix’ (1987b: 119).
Some interesting im plications are drawn from these perspectives on John. The
preexistence of the W ord situates him ‘prior to the realm o f history and outside the
reality of the text’ (1987b: 119). In oth er words, A óyoq is an appropriate m etaphor
for transcendence; constituting ‘som ething of a metaphysical reference point w ithout
w hich w o rld an d te x t a re d e p riv e d o f o r ie n ta tio n ’ (1 9 8 7 b : 119). W ith th is
form ulation o f Jo h n ’s h erm en eu tic K elber discusses th ree schools of thought that
are antithetical to A o y o q metaphysics: R abbinic herm eneutics. New Criticism and
the gram m atological philosophy of D errida. ‘Having experienced the pow er of the
gram m atological tradition, it behooves us to return to the logocentric G ospel, and to
relearn its textual valence, its tre a tm e n t o f the logoi, and its su bordination to the
Logos' (1987b: 126).

2.4 Parabolic logic and the narrativity o f the G ospels

2.4.1 T he G ospel as w ritten parable

‘If the G ospel is view ed as having arisen o u t o f a process o f d econtextualization,
tra n sfo rm a tio n , a n d re in te g ra tio n , we have th e re b y sk etc h e d th e histo ry o f its
textuality but not its new literary identity’ (1983: 117).
K elber sees p ara b le as the generic key to th e G ospel of M ark (cf 1983: 215).
Parabolic discourse has mainly a riddling, alienating function; it is the very opposite
o f being in stru m en t o f clarificatio n , illu stratio n , illum ination. P arab les are also
open ended.

H TS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990) 57
Understanding the Gospel traditions

T h ree argum ents are used as substantiation o f seeing M ark as a parabolic story
a lto g e th e r: th e L e itm o tif o f k ingdom a n d its m e tap h o ric a l quality, th e insider-
o utsider dichotom y and the pervasive dynamics of reversal. T h at M ark has only a
few p a ra b le s in his story is no o b stacle. ‘M ark employs few and relatively tam e
p a ra b le s b e c a u se h e has in v e ste d p a ra b o lic dynam ics in th e inclusive G o sp el
com position’ (1983: 219). T his links up with his conviction th at narrative rem ains
dense and opaque. It reveils in revealing (cf 1988b).
T he relationship of M ark to Jesus is briefly discussed. H e finds the connection
o stensibly in p a ra b le logic: ‘B oth in its n a rra tiv e form an d in its d iso rien tin g ,
m etaphorical proclivity canonical M ark o p erates according to the herm eneutics of
J e s u s’ p a ra b le s ’ (1987c: 113). T h e ro le th a t his id eas a b o u t Jesu s play should
how ever n o t be u n d e rra te d . ‘Jesu s the p a ra b o list is h im self not th e reassu rin g
fo u n d atio n o f u n b ro k e n continuity, an d co n n ected n ess is not all th e re is to the
trad itio n he set into m o tio n ’ (1983: 219). Indeed, if Jesus was the incarnation of
revelation, ‘he could not him self have been a m ere tran sm itter of trad itio n ’ (1983:
219).

2.4.2 The interpretation of narrative

With the ideal to ‘prom ote a general theory of interpretation which seeks to advance
herm eneutical reflection on the G ospels’ (1987c: 107) K elber has recently advanced
aspects o f narrative theory.
H e provides us with a ‘critical inventory’ of five modes of reading the Gospels,
using th e c o n stru c tio n o f m ean in g as o rg a n iz in g p rin cip le (1988a). Mis own
p referen ce is quite clear: ‘F or many of us the change to the narrative logic of the
G o sp els was an ex h ila ratin g e x p e rie n ce ’ (1988a: 131; cf 1979b: 14). K elber is
co n v in c e d th a t n e g le c t o f th e G o s p e ls ’ n a rra tiv ity has b e e n th e single m ost
im p o rta n t fa c to r in d is to rtin g o u r re a d in g o f th em . It is even th e an sw er to
deconstruction, for ‘by radicalizing the differential quality o f language, meaning-as-
deferm ent disallows narrativity to come into its own’ (1988a: 135).
N arrative is seen as som ething with an ontology of its own, not in connection
with reality. As in te rp re ta tio n it is artificial. ‘N arrative is an artistic production,
b o th prom ising and w ithholding, an d not a source of natural rev elatio n ’ (1988a:
130). C o n seq u en tly , th e ‘stum bling block to o ur co m p reh en sio n o f the G ospel
narratives rem ains their narrative em plotm ent itself (1988a: 135).
In response I would use his own rem ark th at discussion of critical theory goes
beyond m ethod, as ‘each m ode of reading is inform ed by certain epistem ological
and theo logical claim s, ... bound up with differing, often com peting assum ption’
(1988a: 130). Clearly, these are the really interesting and im portant m atters! And

58 HTS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990)
 PJJ Botha

the discussion will only develop when we address them .

Seeing narrative as interpretation standing over and against reality is, in a sense,
setting up false alternatives. T h at our interpretations differ is a problem and not a
necessity. Many South Africans are involved in the ‘poetic em plotm ent of incidents
and agents’, yet experiencing and claim ing reality for th eir histories up to the point
o f facin g d e a th . T h e e sse n c e o f tex ts a re n o t d e te rm in e d by th e ir n a rra tiv e
elem ents, but by the in tention given to it by peo p le. F or instance, the essence of
history - despite its story likeness, and lim itations - is disciplined inquiry o f which
the goal is knowledge.

3. A PPR E C IA TIO N
K elb er clearly takes the notion th at th e re w ere div erse g roups w ithin prim itive
C h ristia n ity in ten sio n w ith each o th e r, even in P a le s tin e , q u ite serio u sly . I
ap p reciate how he specifies the different traditions. Thus, a m ajor contrib u tio n is
th e raisin g o f aw are n e ss o f th e p ro b le m (s) o f tra d itio n . H e n o te s th a t form
criticism, despite many m ethodological inadequacies ‘succeeded in alerting us to the
significance of the tradition’ (1987c: 111). It can confidently be stated that is exactly
w h at K elb er h im self has d o n e. M ore sp ecific ally 1 th in k he ch a lle n g e s New
T estam ent .scholarship with the issue of understanding the G ospel traditions.
A most significant developm ent is an aw areness of the ‘intersecting w orlds of
narrative and tra d itio n ’, th a t ‘the p ursuit o f n arrativ e m eaning is not always and
inevitably com prom ised by explorations into trad itio n ’ (K elb er 1988a: 132; 1987c:
121-126).
By far the m ost im p o rta n t a sp e c t o f his w ork, to my m ind a t le a st, is his
prom otion of taking seriously the features and effects o f d ifferent com m unication
m edia. G ager (1974: 249) has rem arked that for ‘all its p rom inence as a working
hypothesis ... the o ral tra d itio n has n ev er received th e carefu l scrutiny w hich it
deserves and needs. O nce established, the basic assum ptions about the ch aracter
and behavior of the oral tradition have survived with virtually no review or revision’.
K elber confronted this issue fully.
The im portance o f seeing the ancient M editerran ean world as basically an oral
world and grappling with its im plications cannot be overem phasized. ‘T he oral state
of mind and psychological structures so evident in the Bible are strange to us, as we
now know, not because we are "Western" but because we are typographic folk’ (O ng
1967: 189).

H TS 4 6 /t A 2 (1990) 59
Undcntaiidiog the Gospel Iraditions

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 The aims of interpretation

It is a g o o d s ta rtin g p o in t to d e fin e w h at o n e has in m ind w h en sp ea k in g of
‘in te rp re ta tio n ’. In te rp re ta tio n can serve many p urposes and m ean m any things.
W hat is deem ed relevant to the in terpretative act is partly d eterm ined by w hat one
aim s for. W hen criticizing a different in terp retatio n one must a ttem p t som e clarity
at this level as it explains w hat one finds perplexing and w hat not.
E lu cid atin g o n e ’s c o n c e p t o f in te rp re ta tio n is an im p o rta n t way o f m aking
presuppositions explicit; that is, to define, substantiate and criticize presuppositions.
T h e o rie s o f u n d e rsta n d in g and sem antics, theory o f texts and th e p u rp o ses that
research serve are all instances o f w hat determ ines the context in which a study has
m eaning (for an illustration of the principle, cf Schmidt 1983).
I see the purpose of in terp retin g a text as the discovery o f the com m unicative
event. C o m m unicatio n is the fu n d am en tal activity o f b eing h um an, th at is, the
making m anifest of an inform ative intention to others, in the sense o f producing and
in te rp re tin g ev id en ce (th e lite ra tu re is vast; see S p e rb e r & W ilson 1986 fo r a
discussion). ‘Inform ative intention’ is m eant in a broad sense. We use language for
much of the tim e to symbolize experience, to transform experience symbolically and
give m eaning to it in our interaction with others.
M ore specifically, my concern for construing com m unicative event is due to a
historical interest. Speaking very broadly interpretation usually restricts itself either
to texts or to events. T h e re a re many im p o rtan t reasons for b earin g in m ind the
differences and the different concepts of ‘m eaning’ in each case. My concern would
not be the texts as such, but th at they are ‘instrum ents’ to the worlds in which people
lived and died. C o nsequently the value o f the e n terp rise is th e in te rp re ta tio n of
existence.
T his should not be seen as a plea for the resurrection of historical positivism,
b u t to show th a t w hat o n e aim s fo r d e te rm in e s th e m eth o d o lo g ic a l issues and
c o n tro ls w h at is re le v a n t ‘e v id e n c e ’. A n in sta n c e is th e u se o f th e so -ca lle d
in ten tio n a l fa lla cy by N ew T e sta m e n t sch o lars as a criticism a g a in st h isto rical
research. W im satt has argued th at ‘the design o r intention of the au th o r is neither
available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success o f a work o f literary a rt’
(1954: 3). It is obvious that the value of art as art cannot be determ ined by analysis
o f its g e n e sis. C o n c e rn fo r th e a r t o f th e G o sp e ls c re a te s in te r e s t in (re -)
ex p eriencing th e ir a e sth e tic m eaning. O ne m ust be careful not to mix activities
a n d /o r conclusions without argument.
T h ere is a tendency to identify historical criticism (as New T estam en t scholars

60 N T S 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990)
 PJJ Botha

know it) with historical research. H istorical study is not so much the em ploym ent of
a p ro ced u re - o f w hich m ost cate g o ries a re litera ry anyway - as an in terp retiv e
stance (G ra ff 1987; 2; cf C raffert 1989). F u rth erm o re, the idea th a t history is the
c o llectin g o f d ry -as-d u st ‘fac ts’ an d th e re fo re - in N ew T e sta m e n t re se a rc h -
positivistic by nature is wrong. K eep in mind that historical knowledge is involved in
all in te rp re ta tio n , w h eth e r ad d ressed o r not. Som e id ea o f o r persp ectiv e on a
historical context always plays a p art in understanding. In this sense I will claim that
New T estam ent scholarship is a long way off from being proficiently historical.
T his arg u m en t p resu p p o ses th e im p o rtan c e o f h isto rical u n d erstan d in g . It
ju d g e s origins as co n stitu tiv e fo r ev alu a tin g a n d u n d e rs ta n d in g an u tte ra n c e ’s
Wirkungsgeschichte. It also assum es a respect for o th e r people and w hat they were
up to. T he point, once again, is not so m uch to say w hat in te rp re ta tio n m ust be
about, as to em phasize the need for arguing why it can or should be so.
To illustrate the im portance of describing the purpose of in terpretation: central
to K e lb e r’s reaso n in g is the juxtap o sin g o f th e o ral versus th e w ritten m edium .
W ith o u t dim inishing th e obvious ro le o f m edium , it is b u t a m edium m ediating
som ething betw een persons. It is in principle possible to com m unicate anything in
any m edium . Seen from the point of com m unication there is no fundam ental reason
why a m edium cannot convey w hat any other m edium can. N arrative com petence is
not necessarily connected with textuality. T he p o in t is not ab o u t ap prop riaten ess
but about possibility.
The ever-present role o f historical context dem ands an im m ense investm ent in
historical research. K elb er’s reco n stru ctio n o f besieged Je ru sale m is based on a
straightforw ard reading of Josephus. Nothing is m ade o f reading Josephus critically,
no e x tra -lite ra ry so u rce s a re u tiliz e d . 1 d e te c t th e sam e negligence as regards
possible historical contexts when it com es to the orality-literacy conflict, with little
use of com parative m aterials. G raff (1987: 17) has criticized many discussions about
literacy for th eir ignorance o f the vital role of socio-historical context; a criticism
clearly relevant to discussions o f orality (see the exploratory investigation of Mk 15:
40-16: 8 - B o th a 1989).
D ow ning, in sev e ra l w orks, has c h allen g e d N ew T e sta m e n t sc h o larsh ip to
approach our docum ents with the suppositions and ideas th at iheir audiences would
have had; ‘a painstaking attention to w hat their contem poraries w ere able to "hear",
an attention we need to em ulate if we are to hope ourselves to understand the first
C h ris tia n s ’ a tte m p ts to c o m m u n ic a te an d if we a re to sh a re an d e n ric h o u r
understanding with others’ (1985: 116; cf 1981; 1987: 8-32).

UTS ■46/1*2(1990) 61
Undcntanding the Gospel traditions

4 2 Conflicting traditions in early Christianity

A ccording to K elber, in the M arkan com m unity the Jewish C hristians are claiming
Jesus as th eir authority; so is M ark. T he Jewish Christians, obviously, falsified the
Jesus traditions. M ark, on the o th er hand, is ‘a creative reconsideration o f the past
o f Jesus so as to be of im m ediate service to the present o f M ark’ (1974: 131). We
are co nfronted with the p roblem of d eterm ining w ho is in the right. In principle
b o th a r e d o in g th e s a m e th in g , c h a n g in g ‘t r a d i t i o n s ’ w ith th e ey e o n
com tem porization, desiring ‘to rem ain in living attachm ent to Jesus and to preserve
continuity betw een Jesus and the ... community o f followers’ (1974: 5).
In d e p e n d e n t o f th e co rrectn ess o f K e lb e r’s analysis one must face up to the
issue of competing traditions present in early Christianity. How would one go about
e v a lu a tin g th e d if f e r e n t tr a d itio n s ? K e lb e r sp e c ific a lly c o n tra s ts M a rk ’s
in terp re tatio n with th a t o f his predecessors. T he em phasis on discontinuity raises
the problem of the reliability and correctness of any one tradition as it was Christian
traditions that created or becam e part o f the problems.
In K elb er’s analysis M ark ap p ears decidedly m ore acceptable than eith er the
pow er hungry and zealo u s Jew ish C h ristian s, o r th e gnosticizing orally-m inded
prophets. Is it because M ark is p art o f the canon that his viewpoint is more valid?
T h e im plicit a p p ea l to the canon aggravates the p ro b lem as th e c riteria for the
c anonizers w ere, am ongst o thers, continuity and the presence o f the voice of the
living Lord! Strangely, some o f the first readers of Mark attem pted to subvert Mark:
M a tth e w an d L u k e p ro m p tly r e in s ta te d th e d isc ip les. In te re stin g ly , M ark ’s
historicizing with a disregard for accuracy m akes him a pow erful force, in m odern
term s, for prom oting gnosticised Christianity.
K e lb e r’s re c o n s tru c tio n o f co n flict p re su p p o se s th in g s such as n o rm ativ e
Judaism , a consciousness o f C hristian self-identity, an d a developed sense o f the
im p o rta n c e o f th e ir c re e d s am o n g early C h ristian s. W ithout serio u s h istorical
investigation, conceptualizing contexts becom es highly unreliable, making the texts
am biguous. C onsequently, given this am biguity of the textual references there is
alm ost no end to the scenarios o f conflict which may be im agined.

4 3 O rality
W hat is needed is a sense of how ancient (read orally d eterm in ed ) w riters actually
o p e ra te d : how an cie n t h erm en eu tics w orked. W ith o ut this it is easy to im agine
conflict w here th e re is none. O n e easily falls into th e tra p o f ‘m ed ia eisegesis’
(B oom ershine 1987: 65).
How can oral texts be identified? In K elber’s exposition Paul’s written texts are
basically oral in nature, in continuity with oral dynamics, but M ark’s G ospel is only

62 HTS 46/1 <{ 2 (1990)

 PJJ Botha

re m in isc e n t o f o ra lity an d b asically literary in th ru st an d in c o n flict w ith o ral

herm eneutics. Ironically, he notes the difficulties in arguing from a text to the oral
traditions behind it, but does not address the identification o f traditions themselves.
T h e co n clu sio n s o f o th e r sc h o la rs a re c ite d (b a se d - as th ey a re - o n e rra n t
assum ptions).
T h ere a re differences in consciousness betw een orality and literacy (see, with
different perspectives, T an n en 1982; A kinasso 1982a; 1982b; 1985; F innegan 1988
for an overview of the issues and p roblem s involved). H ow ever, one should not
think of orality and literacy as forces in them selves. We should p icture cultures; a
predom inantly oral and a predom inantly literate culture (form ed by printing) as the
o p p o site poles w ith a vast range o f p o ssibilities in betw een. K eiber tak es these
differences and interprets them as opposing forces within the New T estam ent.
H e is confusing the ability to read and w rite with literacy itself. Literacy, as he
claims M ark’s writing to be exemplary of, simply did not exist in a pre-technological
society, except to a very lim ited extent in the u p p er classes. ‘W riting arrived as an
extension of speech; it was p rint that offered a substitute for speech’ (Sm ith 1986;
183). K eiber collapses many centuries o f d evelopm ent (from full scale orality to
literacy) into the 30 years before A D 70. T o most w riters o f antiquity the situation
is rather one of writing and hearing than writing and reading: ‘the texture of scribal
culture was so thin th a t heavy relian ce was placed on oral transm ission even by
literate elites’ (E isenstein 1983: 7). As writing was part of ancient society (e g it is
quite probable th at even Jesu s was lite ra te , Safrai 1976: 950) th e m ore relevant
comparative ‘cultural’ aspects should be folklore, and not prim ary orality.

4.4 Interpreting the G ospel o f Mark

An im portant facet of K elber’s thinking is his view of M ark as polem ic writing. It is
not so much the possibility of reading M ark as polem ical as the need to read the
textual clues in a specific m anner that raises questions.
M ark’s literary genius is a trad itio n al bone of co n ten tio n . If M ark took such
m eticulous care in form ulating his story, why th e many n arrative inconsistencies?
Why the extremely complex way o f saying th at the Jew ish C hristians are w rong in
their appeal to the risen L ord? The problem persists even with regard to the oral-
w ritten conflict. T hat the G ospels are ‘u nique’ is not at stake (for otherw ise they
w ould have been exact d u p licates o f o th e r texts), bu t w hat is special, relevantly
distinctive about them ? Despite our (valid) reactions against the view of the G ospels
as Kleinliteratur b e tte r a lte rn a tiv es still have to be fo u n d . W e a re using in a p ­
propriate categories; we should find different term inology to articulate the questions
Mark poses.

H TS 46/1 * 2 (1 9 9 0 ) 63
Undcrstandmg the Gospel traditions

‘T he first genuinely popular writing we encounter in G reek is to be found in the

basic m o n u m en ts o f C h ristian ity . T h e ... New T e sta m e n t ... envisaged a much
sim p ler an d in fin itely w id er au d ie n c e th a n had ev er b e e n a d d ressed in w riting
before.... early C hristian w riters d isreg ard ed form s which lim ited both expression
and au dience and w rote as ordinary people spoke’ (H ad as 1950; 266). H en ce my
em phasis on reading th e G ospels, or at least M ark, against the background o f the
world of folklore.
I view M ark as an oral G ospel surviving in w ritten form. A lthough we know it
only as a w ritten text it originated, existed at first and had its first m ajor im portance
in a context that was basically oral. O ne should ‘read ’ it as a com m unication event
w ithin a spoken situ atio n , as a casual tran scrip tio n of w hat had b een p erfo rm ed
orally (K loppenborg 1987: 36 - on K elber’s views o f Q; cf also Theissen 1983: 189-
195; B oom ershine 1987; Dewey 1989). Against this background M ark is probably a
type of hero tradition (in the sense of R aglan 1965); the cross redefining heroism (cf
Farrel 1987: 41-42). This perspective satisfies the problem raised by the many links
w ith ancient biography noticed in cu rre n t G o sp el research and highlights M ark’s
individual characteristics.
It seem s to me th a t th e d u m b n ess o f th e d iscip les is ra th e r typical o f oral
co m p o sitio n . T he e x cellen t te a c h e r ‘n e e d s’ in e p t stu d e n ts. As sp o k e n w ords
perso n ify an d e n co u rag e p a rtic ip a tio n in the m essage, not reflectio n on it, the
p ro b lem o f the disciples no t h earin g the m essage from the young m an becom es
irrelevant, a typographic problem , so to speak.
W hereas K elb er sees the w riting o f the G ospel as a reactio n against th e so-
called oral a u th o ritie s (th e p eo p le tran sm ittin g the Jesus sto ries orally) 1 would
d efen d the thesis th at M ark (th e a u th o r) was o ne o f these oral authorities. His
‘writing’ should be ‘read ’ and interpreted as a text so involved with the oral medium
that m ere reciprocity is inadequate. It is - even as a w ritten text - basically an oral
perform ance; especially w hen seen historically, as a com m unication act w ithin an
oral context.
K elber has resp o n d ed to the possibility of in terp retin g textual M ark as orally
oriented, by quoting the (ap p aren t) lack of stories narrating a hero’s full career from
birth to death in oral traditions (1987a: 100). But that is not quite true of M ark as it
is a very incom plete account o f Jesus’ career. K elber also strongly em phasizes that
the G ospels ‘as texts can and do in fact enjoy the stability of docum ented existence’
(1987a: 101). T rue enough, but the fact that Mark can be read as such is not yet that
it must be read in this way; and so the call is for clarification of the why.

64 U TS 46/1 <t 2 (1990)

 PJJBoOia

4^ Narrative and story

In co n tem porary theorizing on in terp re ta tio n th e re is w ide sp read concern about
narrativity. This is reflected in K elber’s recen t considerations on in terp re tin g the
G ospels. N arrativity is an im m ensely co m p licated subject, and I do not for one
m o m en t d o u b t th e fo rm id ab le c o n trib u tio n s o f W ayne B ooth, K en n eth B urke,
R o b e rt Scholes and R o b ert Kellogg, F ran k K erm ode and Paul R icoeur (to nam e
but a few). Som e reservations tow ard a straightforw ard adoption o f th e ir insights
can be expressed, how ever, even if only as challenge to clarification and fu rth er
research.
O ne finds an am azing stress on fo rm . Form determ in es w hat can be said and
w hat not, fo rm d e te rm in e s c o n c ep tu al w o rlds (K e lb e r 1985a: 32). F ro m this
perspective the G ospel’s narrativity determ ines its in terp retatio n . This is probably
due to seeing narrative both as som ething ‘out th ere’, som ething substantial in itself
with its own ‘laws’ and effects and, closely related, as som ething unconnected to the
real world, synthetic, an im position on reality.
T h ere seem s to be confusion in the und erstan d in g o f the concepts ‘narrativ e’
and ‘story’. N arrativity is not yet story, although it might be a prom inent feature of
it. T h ere is no such thing as a narrative in itself: we have narratives used for story
p u rp o s e s, h is to ric a l p u rp o se s, e d u c a tio n a l p u rp o s e s; an a lm o st e n d le ss list.
In te rp re ta tio n dem an d s g enre concepts. O ne d eterm in es w h eth er a text is story
(fictional), or story about supposedly real events (the fictive ch aracter o f all history
d o es n o t im ply th a t n o th in g can b e said a b o u t th e p a st); o r w h a te v e r is the
a p p ro p riate category. N arrative is not a g enre. Im agine a judge claim ing th at a
testim ony is narrative, the ‘logic of history’ and ‘external events’ are irrelevant as ‘it
m ust be tru e to its e lf. A cadem ic en te rp rise can n o t be th a t stran g e to com m on
experience.
Setting up n arrative as som ething in itself - d ifferent from reality - misjudges
the reciprocity betw een Ding-an-sich and in terp retatio n . I am quite aw are o f the
im m e n s e c o m p le x itie s , b u t w a n t to e m p h a s iz e th e b o th - a n d c h a r a c te r o f
k n o w led g e/in terp retatio n and reality. It is som ething we assum e and act on from
day to day. T h e s h e e r e x te n t o f th e m a tte r re la tiv iz es its im p act. A nd m ost
im portantly, narrative and history should not be set up against each o th er as “we are
in history as we a re in the world: it serves as the horizon and background for our
everyday experience’ (C arr 1986: 4; cf also M unz 1977).
T h e re can be no m eaning o r u n d e rstan d in g w h atso ev er w ithout context: by
.saying one reads it in term s of itself is merely substituting one historical construction
o f context for another. Think about the im m ense am ount of extra-textual material
needed simply to follow the story of Mark.

H TS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990) 65
Understanding the Gospel traditions

K elb er has also resp o n d ed to an one-sided stress on narrativity a t the cost of

tradition, claim ing a sort of m iddle position (1987a: 101; 1988: 131). His em phasis
o n th e auto n o m y o f texts - especially M ark - b elies this. N arrativ e , to him , is
som ething opaque, yet astoundingly creative. A narrative is a kind of special object
requiring unusually conscientious study by which significances, even m ysteries, are
to be discerned.

5. C O N C L U S IO N : T H E C H A L L E N G E O F IN T E R D IS C IP L IN A R Y R E ­
SE A R C H
U n d o u b te d ly o n e o f th e m o s t a ttr a c tiv e f e a tu r e s o f K e lb e r ’s w o rk is his
interdisciplinary research. However, this so rt of enterprise has some very complex
consequences.
C ontem porary views on the n ature and aim s of scientific enquiry (cf Bernstein
1983: 34-49, 223-231; B o h m e 1975) m ak e an a rg u m e n t fo r th e necessity and
im portance of interdisciplinary study alm ost superfluous. The quest for meaningful
answ ers and significant discussion have becom e highly complex undertakings. We
have becom e fam iliar w ith th e futility o f basing things we argue for and believe
relevant to others on ‘com m on sense’. T h ere are so many opinions and decisions
involved th a t w e c a n n o t p ossibly su p p o rt th e m all w ith p e rso n a lly ex am in ed
evidence and the inw ardly com pelling logic th a t ‘com m on sen se’ im plies. ‘G ood
reasons’ presuppose expert authority. We move out of the fam iliar and into other
disciplines to develop relevant expertise, credentialism , and autonomy.
But, to ad ap t a rem ark o f C arney (1975: 37), ‘the price ... is eternal vigilance’.
O n a g e n e ra l level th e p ro b le m o f claim in g e x p ertise is th e ability it gives to
legitim ize ideology. Only by a truly critical aw areness can we e.scape the seductive
pow er of ‘expertise’ which all to easily gives quantitative expression to differences of
rank and fosters an illusion of continuity with dearly held beliefs (see Larson 1984).
In terd iscip lin ary resea rc h can ju st as easily b ecom e a strateg y o f confirm ation,
instead o f a critical tool.
It is obvious that an interdisciplinary approach must be eclectic. Not only the
vast am ount of literatu re and studies forces this, but also the subject m atter itself:
o n e n eed s to a d a p t an d d ev elo p p o ssib ilities. O n e ’s c rite ria will th e re fo re by
necessity be functional: its ap p ro p riaten ess to o n e’s hypotheses and its value for
resolving problem s. H ow ever, th at is not the final word, as an eclectic piecem eal
fu n c tio n a list a p p ro a c h can be d isa stro u s, esp ecially in lea d in g to c o n ce p tu a l
fra g m en tatio n (T iry ak ian 1985: 1139). T h e critical rigour lies in achieving and
m aintaining a balance betw een historical precision and theo retical .sophistication

66 HTS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990)
 PJJBoiha

and integration.
W hat is involved in ‘being critical’?
As a fo u n d a tio n th e re should be an ex ten siv e a w a ren e ss o f p h ilo so p h ic a l
reflection so th at one can recognize epistem ological fram ew orks and u n d erstan d
‘paradigm s’. T oo easily aspects are transpo.sed from contexts th at com pletely alter
their meaning.
‘H um an perception is selective, limited, culture-bound and prone to be unaw are
that it is any or all of the above. The cognitive maps with which we select, sort and
c a te g o r iz e c o m p le x d a ta in te r p o s e th e m s e lv e s b e tw e e n e v e n ts a n d o u r
interpretation of them w hether we like it o r not. T he only real question, therefore,
may be w hether we choose to raise this process to a conscious level and examine it
or prefer to leave our biases alone’ (R ohrbaugh 1987: 23). R ohrbaugh wrote in the
c o n te x t o f th e n ecessity o f using m o d els; th e p rin c ip le is th e sam e fo r w hat
interdisciplinary research can and should do.
Finally, clarity ab o u t o u r aim s is re q u ire d . T h e aim o f in te rp re ta tio n can
definitely not simply be conglom erating masses o f inform ation; the adding together
of disparate materials.
To ask b etter questions is undoubtedly the g rea t issue facing New T estam ent
scholars. I would like to see am ongst the criteria for this the quest for being more
hum ane, the search for w hat it is to be hum an. In o rd e r to do this one has to take
up the challenge of multi-disciplinary studies.
It is in this regard th a t we should jo in K elb er in investigating the trad itio n s
about Jesus from N azareth. This will be well served by exploring the herm eneutics
o f orality - both as a w ider context for understanding th e way in which the texts of
early Christianity are different and m ore specifically in developing m ore appropriate
concepts for the analysis of Mark.

W O RK S C ITED
A K IN N A SO , FN 1982a. T he literate w rites and the n o n lite ra te chants: W ritten
language and ritual com m unication in sociolinguistic perspective, in Frawley, W
(ed), Linguistics and literacy, 7-36. New York: Plenum Press.
AKINNASO, FN 1982b. O n the differences betw een spoken and w ritten language.
Language and speech 25,97-125.
A KIN N A SO , FN 1985. O n the sim ilarities betw een spoken and w ritten language.
Language and speech 28, 323-359.
B E R N ST E IN , RJ 1983. Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics
and praxis. London: Blackwell.

HTS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990) 67
Undcrstaoding the Gospel traditions

B L O M B E R G , C L 1987. Synoptic studies: Some recen t m ethodological develop­

m ents and debates. Themelios 12,38-46.
B oH M E , G 1975. T he social function o f cognitive stru ctu res: A co n cep t o f the
scientific com m unity w ithin a th eo ry of action, in K norr, K D, S trasser, H &
Z ilian, H G (eds), D eterm inants and controls o f scientific developm ent, 205-25.
D ordrecht: Reidel.
B O O M E R S H IN E , T F 1987. P e te r ’s d e n ia l as p o le m ic o r c o n fe ssio n : T h e
im plications of m edia criticism for biblical herm eneutics. Semeia 39,47-68.
B O T H A , PJJ 1989. oúk ë a x i i ' 2 8 e ... M ark’s stories o f Jesu s’ tom b and history.
Neotestamentica 23, 195-218.
B R O D IE , T L 1984. Review of K elber 1983. CBQ 46, 574-575.
C A R N EY , T P 1975. The shape o f the past: Models and antiquity. Lawrence: C oro­
nado.
CARR, D 1986. Time, narrative, and history. B loom ington: Indiana U niversity
Press.
C R A F F E R T , PF 1989. T he origins of resurrection faith: T he challenge of a social
scientific approach. Neotestamentica 23, 331-348.
D EW E Y , J 1989. O ral m ethods o f structuring narrative in M ark. Interpretation 43,
31-44.
D O W N IN G , FG 1981. E thical pagan theism and the speeches in Acts. N T S 27,
544-563.
D O W N IN G , FG 1985. E ars to hear, in Harvey, A E (ed). Alternative approaches to
New Testament study, 97-121. London: SPCK.
D O W N IN G , FG 1987. Jesus and the threat offreedom . London: SCM.
D U PLESSIS, JG 1988. M ark’s priority: The nature and structure o f the argum ent
from order, in M outon, J, V an A arde, A G & V orster, WS (eds). Paradigms and
progress in theology, 295-308. Pretoria: HSRC.
E IS E N S T E IN , E L 1983. The printing revolution in early m odern Europe. C am ­
bridge; University Press.
F A R R E L , T J 1987. K elber’s breakthrough. Semeia 39,27-45.
F IN N E G A N , R 1988. Literacy and orality: Studies in the technology o f co m m u n i­
cation. Oxford: Blackwell.
G A G E R , J 1974. T he G ospels and Jesus: Some doubts about m ethod. JR 54, 244-
72.
GOULDER, M 1985. A house b u ilt on san d , in H arvey, A E (e d ) A lternative
approaches to New Testament study, 1-24. London: SPCK.
G R A F F , H J 1987. The labyrinths o f literacy: Reflections on literacy past and present.
London: Falm er.

68 H TS 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990)
 PJJ Botha

G R E E N , JB 1988. The death o f Jesus: Tradition and interpretation in the passion

narrative. Tubingen; Mohr.
H A D A S, M 1950. A history o f Greek literature. New York: C olom bia U niversity
Press.
K E L B E R , W H 1972a. T he history of the kingdom in M ark: A spects o f M arkan
eschatology, in M cCaughy, LC (ed ), S B L 1972 proceedings vol 1, 63-95. s 1:
Society of Biblical L iterature.
K ELB ER , W H 1972b. M ark 14,32-42: G ethsem ane. Z W 63, 166-187.
KELBER, WH 1974. T he kin g d o m in M ark: A n ew p la c e a n d a n ew tim e.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
K E L B E R , W H 1976. T h e h o u r o f th e Son of m an a n d th e te m p ta tio n o f the
disciples, and; F ro m p assion n a rrativ e to G o sp el, in K elb er, W H (e d ). The
passio n in M ark: S tud ies on M ark 14-16, 41-60 & 153-179. P h ila d e lp h ia ;
Fortress.
K ELB ER , W H 1979a. M ark’s story o f Jesus. Philadelphia; Fortress.
K E L B E R , W H 1979b. R edaction criticism ; O n the n atu re and exposition of the
G ospels. Perspectives in religious studies 6,4-16.
K ELB ER , W H 1980. M ark and oral tradition. Semeia 16, 7-55.
K ELB ER , W H 1983. The oral and the written Gospel: The hermeneutics o f speaking
and writing in the synoptic tradition, Mark, Paul and Q. Philadelphia: Fortress.
K EL B ER , W H 1984. The work of N orm an Perrin: An intellectual pilgrimage. JR
64,452-467.
K EL B ER , W H 1985a. A postolic tradition and the form of the G ospel, in Segovia,
F F (ed), Discipleship in the New Testament, 24-46. Philadelphia; Fortress.
KELBER, W H 1985b. F rom aphorism to Sayings G o sp el, and from p a ra b le to
narrative G ospel. Foundations and facets fo m m 1,1-8.
KELBER, W H 1987a. Biblical herm eneutics and the ancient a rt o f com m unica­
tion: A response. Semeia 39,97-105.
K ELB ER , W H 1987b. T he authority of the W ord in St. Jo h n ’s G ospel; C harism atic
speech, narrative text, logocentric metaphysics. Oral tradition 2, 108-131.
K E L B E R , W H 1987c. N arrative as in terp re tatio n and in terp retatio n o f narrative;
H erm eneutical reflections on the Gospels. Sem eia 39,107-133.
K ELB ER , W H 1988a. G ospel narrative and critical theory. B ThB 18,130-136.
K EL B ER , W H 1988b. N arrative and disclosure: M echanisms of concealing, revea­
ling, and reveiling. Semeia 43, 115-140.
K L O P P E N B O R G , JS 1987. The fo rm a tio n o f Q: Trajectories in ancient wisdom
collections. Philadelphia: Fortress.

N T S 4 6 /1 A 2 (1990) 69
Undcrslanding the Gospel traditions

LA R SO N , MS 1984. T h e pro d u ctio n of expertise and the co nstitution o f expert

power, in Hasi(ell, T L (ed). The authority o f experts: Studies in history and theory,
28-80. Bloom ington: Indiana University Press.
M UNZ, P 1977. T he shapes o f tim e: A new loolc at the p h ilo so p hy o f history.
M iddletown: W esleyan University Press.
ONG, WJ 1967. The presence o f the word: S o m e prolegom ena fo r cultural and
religious history. New Haven: Yale University Press.
P E R R IN , N 1970. What b redaction criticism?. Philadelphia: Fortress.
P E T R IE , S 1959. ‘0 ’ is only what you make it. A fr3,28-33.
RAGLAN, LORD 1965. T he h ero o f trad itio n, in D undes, A (ed). The study o f
folklore, 143-157. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
R O H R B A U G H , R 1987. M odels and m uddles: D iscussions of the social facets
sem inar. Foundations and facets forum 3/2 , 23-33.
SA FR A I, S 1976. E ducation and the study o f the T orah, in Safrai, S & Stern, M
(eds) The Jewish people in the first century, Volume 2, 945-970. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
SC H M ID T, SJ 1983. Interpretation: Sacred cow or necessity? Poetics 12, 239-258.
SC H N IE W IN D , J 1910. Die Begriffe Wort und Evangelium hei Paulus. Bonn: Carl
G eorgi.
SM ITH , A 1986. O n audio visual technologies: A future for the printed world, in
B aum ann, G (ed), The written word: Literacy in transition, 171-192. Oxford:
C larendon Press.
S P E R B E R , D & W IL SO N , D 1986. Relevance: C om m unication and cognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
TA N N E N , D (ed ) 1982. Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy.
Norwood: Ablex.
T H E IS S E N , G 1983. The miracle stories o f the early Christian tradition. Philadel­
phia: Fortress.
T IR Y A K IA N , E 1985. Review o f WA M eeks 1983, The first urban Christians. AJS
88, 1138-1140.
W E E D E N , T J 1971. Mark: Traditions in conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress.
W IM SATT, WK 1954. The verbal icon: Studies in the meaning o f poetry. Lexington:
K entucky University Press.

70 UTS 4 6 /! A 2 (1990)