f~n Essay for Lutheran Pastors Gn the Charismatic Movement ; DAVID P. SCHER F !*he Cadng God [la review article) $- C 5, $The Historical-Critical Interpretation :of the Baptism of Jesus froin the i~ers~ective f of Traditional Idheran ;Exegesis DEAN 0. WENTHE On Believing, Teaching, and : Confessing: A Fresh Look at the : Confessions JOHN F. JOHNSON Paul's Concept of Justification, and Some Recent Interpretations of Romans 3 : 7 1-3 1 WALTER A. MAIER ,Book . .. Reviews ; Index to Volume XXXVII The Historical-Critical Interpretation of the Baptism of Jesus from the Perspective of Traditional Lutheran Exegesis T HE HISTOR1C;AL-CIXITICAL METHOD as it is elnployed in the study of the New Testament accounts of Jesus' baptism serves to illustrate the various procedures which are characteristic of this type of exegesis. Indeed, since the practitioners of the historical- critical method are themselves often in disagreement over its precise definition, it is perhaps best to examine a case in point. An added benefit is that a direct examination of historical-critical methodology's treatnlent of a specjfic passage enables the reader to base his evalua- tion on primary data. No longer must he rely upon this or that cpin- ion concerning its mcrits or liabilities. SIMIL~ARITIES WITH PREVIOUS EXEGISIS In looking at the various conlmentaries and their discussions of the accounts of Jcsus' baptism, we notice that those which are written from the perspective of historical-critical methodology share 111any concerns with previous Lutheran exegesis (sometimes termed gram- matical-histarical methodology). Arriving at the most ancient and most faithful Greek reading (textual criticism), ascertaining the precise meaning of individual ivords, determining in so far as is pos- sible the exact historical situation, understanding the sense of specific syntactical constructions; endeavors in these and related arcas are re- garded by the historical-critical exegete and the grammatical-historical exegete alike as absolutely necessarv for a correct understanding of the Grcek texts which pertain to 'Jesus' baptism. Neither type of exegete, for cxample, ivould question the use of the oldest Greek manuscripts in ascertaining the best possible reading. Sincc both n~ethods of exegesis rely upon these procedures, it is morc instructive, at least for purposes of definition, to examine those aspects of each nlethod which are uniquely its own. We look first at those areas wherc the historical-critical treatment of the accounts of Jesus' baptism diverges from that of the grammatical- I~istoricnl mcthod. FORM CRITICISM First it is to be notcd that there is a broad divergence among historical-critical exegetes with regard to thc specific "form" which the various acco~ints assume. At one extreme stands Rudolf Bultmann who says, "The account of Tcsus' baptism is legend , . . It is told in the interest not of biography, but of faith."' BuItmann views the various accounts of Jesus' baptism as reflecting a literary form, namely "legend." As a result, he believes that the texts tell us not so much liistorical-Critical Interpretation - - - . -- . - . -. .- - - - . . . .- -- - - . - -- - . - - - - - - 23 1 about an event in Jesus' life as about the faith of the early Christians with regard to Jesus' baptism. Bultmann's effort to take into account "modifications which the life and thought of the church-both Jewish-Christian and gentile-Christian - have introduced" is form criticism in action.? Hans Conzelnlann succinctly describes the foun- dation upon which this procedure is based when he says, "Form criticisnl asserts that an essential part of the tradition about Jesus is not faithful to history, but represents a theological construction made by the comn~unity."~ In accord with his form-critical analysis, the historical-critical exegete feels that he is justified in describing thc faith of the early Christian corn mu nit)^ with regard to Jesus' baptism, but not in asserting any certainties beyond this point. Even the historical fact of Jesus' baptism is questioned. Eduard Schweizcr writes, "Although even this has been questioned recently, it is liltely that the baptism of Jesus by John is historical, since it causcd the early church much difficulty, . . . How many of the details are historical is open to question."-' It should be noted that neither Bultmann or Schweizer has any n pviori objections to regarding the baptism as non-historical. Schweizer feels that the evidence, particu- larly what he interprets as the difficultv which thc early church had with the baptismal accounts, compels Bin1 to regard at least a portion of the accounts as reflecting an event which actually occurred in the life of Jesus. If, however, Bultmann or another scholar could present him with a more plausible explanation for thc supposed difficulty of the early church than that it was occasioned by the actual baptism of Jesus, Schweizer might well join those who would deny that the event took place. LITERARY CRITICISM Another dimension of the historical-critical method which dis- tinguishes it from grammatical-historical exegesis is clearly shown by Walter Bundy's application of literary criticism to the accounts of Jesus' baptism. Literary criticism has been defined as concerning itself "with such matters as the authorship of the various New Testa- ment boolcs, the possible co~nposite nature of a given work, and the identity and extent of sources which may lie behind a certain docu- ment.jY5 Bundy, in accord with this procedure, endeavors to analyze the baptismal accounts by examining the history of the texts and. of the traditions behind them. This examination leads him to conclude that the source of some parts of the baptismal accounts is traceable to the imagination of the particular evangelistic author. He suggests that the accounts of Jesus' baptism have developed in three distinct stages. The step-by-step manner in which he traces these stages lends itself to an understanding of this aspect of the historical-critical method. His presentation is as follows: First Stngc The simple statement in Mark 1 :9 concerning Jesus' baptism by John is seen by Bundy as the original tradition. He, like Schweizer, regards the baptism itself as an historical fact. Second Stage The vision and the voice in Mark 1 : 10-1 1 are regarded as Another example might clarify the historical-critical approach in its use of redaction criticism. If we look at 1,ukeJs account of Jesus' baptism, we find that the majority of the historical-critical exegetes are convinced that he too had certain motives in writing his account, and that he shaped his account in accord with these motives. In this case, the motive is viewed as a desire on Luke's part to present Jesus as a pious individual. We read: Throughout his Gospel Luke features the praying of Jesus to an extent that Matthew and Mark do not. These passages are freely supplied by Luke, who thus endows his hero with traits of human piety. Such portrayal belongs to the field of personal legend. The professional historian ~vould describe this praying in Luke as rhetorical listo or ti on.'^ Thesc citations are sufficient to demonstrate the general ap- proach of redaction criticism as it is commonly applied by historical- critical methodology. We might anticipate matters dealt with later by looking briefly at the question: I-Iow does the historical-critical view ef the develop- ment of the text affect the process of exegesis, if at all? The exegete who assumes the above framework (which, we remember, he has also created) iinmediatelir finds himself working not with the canonical text as it is contained in the Scsiptzres, but rather with various levels of canonicity. Each level, he believes, spoke a word to the contemporary situation, but at the same time was conditioned 'by that situation so as to require the modern theologian to take account of its conditioned nature in his preaching and teach- ing. Anyone who simply takes the text at face value, in this view, would to a greater or lesser degree misunderstand its import and intent. This Inevitably places the exegete in the position of selecting which level of canonicity or which coinbinztion of elements, drawn from thc various levels of canonicity, is to be used in addressing a problem in today's church. The subjectivistic dangers are obvious; indeed, they are evidenced by the plethora of conflicts which appear in the preaching and teaching of theologians of the historical-critical school. Perhaps an analogy woulrl illustrate this point. If a group of theologians were invited to a banquet last evening and the host served only his renowned casserole, we could be certain that each man ate casserole. Indeed, unless someone was so impolite as to refuse the fare, we would also be certain that all the various ingre- dients were presently wending their way through his digestive tract, into his bloodstream, and throughout his system.' The casserole as casserole would have its effect on each man's taste buds and tummy. If, however, the host set before his theological guests a cafeteria style arrangement of the various ingredients which went into his casserole, and then asked them to select their own corntination of any or all of the items, the results would probably be as varicd as the number of men present. Lutheranism with its Sola Scriptura and "Scripture interprets Scripture" principles has repeatedly affirmed that the canonical text of Scripture in its present form is the diet that God would have his people feed on. He, ancl here we might sing a Te Deum, did not leave us with the chore of passing through a cafeteria line where we had to choose from various elements on different shelves. His grace will not even permit our "enliglltened exegetical ego" to deny us the entirety of His rich 'IVord. To extend the analogy somewhat, just as the quality and nature of the conlpleted casserole depend not only on the ingredients, but on the order and maniler in which they were mixed, so the Scriptures convey both the content of certain events and their setting. Historical-critical lnethodology by its very nature permits one to posit other settings for the words and events of Jesus' life. Normally this is done in two steps: first, the narrative is fragmented into what are thought to be prior units, and then these u~its are placed in a hypothetical "original" setting. The Lutheran exegete realizes that the authority and reliability of the Scriptures extends also to the recorded settings in ~vhich events trans- pired, It should be noted that some historical-critical exegetes describe this treatment of the baptis~nal accounts and the historical-critical approach in general as being an exercjse in historical description; that is to say, that he, as exegete, is merely engaging in a rigorous effort, using every means at his disposal, to describe what occurred and how the present baptismal account came into being. What, it must be asked, however, causcs thc historical-critical exegete to remove such aspects of Jesus' baptism as the dove and the voice from the realm of history and assign them to the imagination of the earlv church or of a particular evangelist? A thorough reading of the New Testament accounts does not reveal a single statement to the effect that these things are less than historical occurrences. The fact that the great majority of Christian theologians, through the eighteenth century at least, regarcled the dove and voice as real oc- currences is ample testimony that the New Testament accounts purport to describe what happened. Some historical-critical exegetes would argue that because the various accounts of the baptism are not identical, therefore at least soille parts must bc regarded as fictional. This assertion, however, faces a grave difficulty In that the varied nature of the accounts may point only to the fact that God through the evangelists has filled in the various aspects of the event. If we truly regard the Scriptures as having been written in thc language of men and subject to the normal rules of grammar and communication, then it is natural that God should take advantage of various human personalities with their indi- vidual stylcs and viewpoints to aid His task of communication. Though God could ~vell have employed a single human being to pen the entire Scriptures, we are undoubtedlv enriched by the fact that He saw fit to lay out His plan of salvation by inspiring different men. Even in current newspaper accounts of the same event, we are able to perceive the author's individual style and method while at the same time regarding the several reports of the incident as totally accurate. The thesis that multiple accounts of the same event cannot all be true, unless they arc identical, is obviously indefensible. Thus, be- cause the other evangelists do not describe the recognition of Jesus Historical-Critical Interpretation 235 by John in 1-10 way offers evidence or reason for positing that this nar- rative is an invcntioii of Matthew's imagination and entirely fictional. Incteed, one could justifiablv argue that this procedure displays a deep bias against the historicity of the baptismal accounts. For in- stance, the Konlan historian Tacitus, writing in the early sccond century concerning events half a century earlier, is considered a first- rate historical source for the period despite the fact that the oldest manuscript copy of his work which remains dates from a full mil- lenium after he wrote. In contrast, in the case of the New 'Testament we have some four thousand Greek nlanuscripts with fragments dat- ing from as carly as 120 A.D. The fact that a man \.im~ld generally accept Tacitus' record of an event, but remove the dove and the voice from the baptismal accounts reveals something less than even-handed treatment. If, then, historical-critical methodology derives its impetus neither from the text itself, nor from the fact that the manuscript tra- dition is corrupt, for what reason, it must bc asked, does the exegete feel justified in removing elements of thc accounts from history? An argument often heard in this regard is that the evangelists were not interested in recording history. Their primary purpose in writing, it is stated, was theological, not historical. No one rvould deny that each of the evangelists was a theologian, but the assumption that one is therefore rendered incapable of accurately rcporting his- torical events is totally unproven. Rather we see a deep concern on thc part of the evangelists to record events in a faithful fashion. Luke directly states that he has exercised discrimination in his use of vari- ous sources. (cf. Luke 1 : 1-4) The whole question has been put forth pointedly by I. Howard Marshall when he writes: We may note, first that the basis of this general outlook, namcly that the tasks of proclamation and of writing history are incom- patible, is pure assumption, and basclcss assumption at that. What is being suggested to us is twofold. First, it is being denied that faith can be dependent upon historical facts . . . The second suggestion that is being made in this assumption is that a person who is committed to proclanlation or to theology cannot write history . . . There is no reason why the interests of the theo- logian and the historian should be mutually exclusive." This assumption, i.e. that the evangelists could not be both good theologians and good historians, leads naturally into the idea that large sections of the New Testanlent and of the accounts of Jesus' baptism in particular, derive not from eyewitness accounts of the events, but from the faith of the early church. If the eyewitnesses and apostles are removed from the stage (most historical-critical exegetes would question whether Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John were the true authors of the works that bear their names), then obviously someone was responsible for composing and editing the materials which the final editors eventuallv employed. Typically a nebulus and nameless church is assigned this role. It must be said, however, that this assumption is certainly far from proven, for apart from an appeal to the infallibility of Scripture (an appeal that Lutherans gladly rnake because of the Lord's attitude toward the Scriptures and their own clainl to accuracy), it can be argued that the evidence points in a direction exactly opposite that of a church freely creating fictitious elements and weaving them into the accounts of Jesus' baptism. First, we can see that the earlv Christian's emphasis upon eye- witnesses points to their desire to *have an accurate record of the Lord's life and teaching, including His baptism. (cf. Luke 1 : 2) Secondly, the high regard for the apostolic officc shows the de- sire to have a first-hand, authoritative account. It is well known that the select band which bccaine disciples of a rabbi or teacher was ob- ligated to preserve both his teaching and his life's work with utter and total faithfulness. A disciple who wouId openly invent or significantly change the words and deeds of his master would not only be subject to cr~ticism from his pecrs, but would also be derelict in his obliga- tion to the master. The moral obli~ation of the disciple to imitate his master in so far as was possible was a given in early Jewish society. There is evidence both that the disciples exercised extreme care in preserving a correct menlory of events and that they may have jotted clown notes.]' The idea that the early Christians and disciples freely created ancl shaped episodes in Jesus' life springs not from the Jewish soil of Palestine, but rather from the desk of a German professor's study. The Lutheran exegete will, however, want to con- sider other factors than these in his evaIuation of thc claim that the early church freclv creatcd and altcred the traditions concerning Jesus' baptism. Certainly a prime consideration for the traditional Lutheran cxegcte is his desire to view all of Scripture through its own claims (2 Tim. 3: 16, I Peter 1:21, etc.), and as a result to regard the ivholc as a true and reliable description of what occured. In accord with the Scrjpture's own claim, the Lutheran exegete has assumed that whatever the prior sources, forms, motives, etc., may have been, the Holy Spirit has so inspired the evangelists and apostles in their emyloy~ncnt of the materials, that the Scriptures which he rcads are, in their j~rese7zt for~fz, the God-intended and inspired text and, in this case, the record that God ~vould preserve for us of Jesus' baptism. "This imparts to the Scriptures a qualitative difference from all other human literature, for the Spirit Himself insured and imbued the lloly ~vriters with His unerring-guidance. The greatest Lutheran exegetes and teachers have enlphaslzed this point. Quenstedt, one of the forenlost of the Lutheran fathers, stresses this feature of the Scriptures when he says: Whatever fault or untruth, whatever error or lapse of memory, is attributed to the prophets and apostles is not imputed to them without blaspheming the holy Spirit, who spolte and wrote through them. Bv virtue of His infinite knowledge God the Holy Spirt cannot be ignorant of anything, cannot forget anything; by virtue of his infinite truthfulness and infallibility it is im- possible for Him to err, deal falsely, or be mistaken, even in the snlallest degree; and finally, by virtue of His infinite good- ness He is unable to deceive anyone, nor is He capable of lcading anyone into offence or error. Such an opinion (that there arc errors in Scripturc) vitiates the authenticity and authority of Scripture, and by such an opinion the certainty and assurance of our faith are destroyed . . ." Thus any speculation or enterprise which suggests that it can delve behind the present accounts in such a way as to remove certain aspects of the event from the realm of history (e.g. the recoonition 7 scene), is correctly regarded as in conflict with the Scriptures clear claim to accuracy. In fact, the subjective nature of this speculation lends itself to enthusiasm and the dangers of the Sch\viirmerei--each man basing his faith on his subjective experience. Traditional Lutheran exegesis in its use of grammatical-historical methodology stresses the need to work with the text as we have it. Historical-critical methodology cliffers markedl!. from grammati- cal-historical exegesis in its attitude toward harmonizat~on. This difference is brought sharply into focus when one looks at how tra- ditional Lutheran exegetes engage in efforts to harmonize the various accounts of Jesus' baptism. They arc convinced that each aspect of the event which the evangelists record dicl occur. Thus, though they may riot always reach total agreement, they regard the harmonization of the various accounts as a valid and edlfying enterprise. One example might demonstrate this point. IVilliam Arndt, sainted Professor of New Testanlent Exegesis at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., penned these words in his study of the baptismal ac- counts : Matt. 3 : 17 "And, behold, a voice from heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son in whom I am .tvell pleased." Mark 1 : 11 "A voice came from the heavens: Thou art R4y beloved Son; in Thee 1 am well pleased." - It has been charged that there is a discrepancjl hcre, because thc one evangelist reports the voice as saving, "This is R4y beloved Son," and the other, "Thou art My beloved Son." Everybody will have to admit that in the substance of the words spoken in this connection there is no tfifference. The meaning conveyed is the same in both cases . . . According to Mark, the words are spoken to Jesus; according to Matthew, they are spoken of Him. The divergence is explained very readily if we assume that Mark records the words of God the Father with literal exactness, while in Matthew merely the meaning is given. Where, it must be said, grammatical-historical exegetes fail in arriv- ing at a totally satisfactory answer, they are more inclined to doubt the capabilities of their own intellectual acumen, then to doubt the reliability of what God through His evangelists has described a! happening. It should also be added that this traditional Lutheran exegesi! works with what has been called "the garden variety of truth." This means that when the grammatical-historxcal exegete reads a statement in Scripture he is more inclined to take it at face value and in its literal sense-barring some clear indication by the Scriptures them- selves that it is not to be take11 literally-than to search for some allegorical or symbolical meaning. Thus, unlike many historical- critical exegetes, he understands that if he were there at the baptism of Jesus, he would have heard John inquire about ~vhy he should be baptizing the Lord, seen the dove (lesccnd, etc. Another great difference between traditional grammatical- historical exegesis and historical-critical exegesis is the fact that the former regards the accounts as the conveyors of sound teaching and doctrine. The historical-critical exegete might well protest that this is not a part of his task.; however, ~t becomes obvious that his pro- cedures would render such work impossible. One exarnple will illustrate the marked difference in approach. Luther in his commentary on St. John sees great doctrinal significance in the fact that the various events which surround Jesus' baptism witness to the presencc of all three persons of the Trinity. IIc writes: But now behold how glorious a thing baptisln is, also how subliine a spectacle Cl~rist's Baptism presented. The heavens opened, the Father's voice was heard, ancl the Holy Spirit descendcd, not as a phantom, b~tt in the form and figure of a 11atura1 dove. Nor was the Father's voice an illusion when He pronounced these ~(70ds from heaven: 'This is Ally Beloved Son; wit11 Him I am well pleased.' These were real natural, hilnian words. And this dove, in the form of which the Holy Spirit was seen, was real and natural. All this was done in honor and praise of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism; for this is not it human institution but something sublime and holy. Eminent personages are jnvolved it it: the Father, -cvho bestows and who speaks here; the Son, who receives and is baptized; the Holy Spirit, ivho hovers above and reveals .Himself in the fornl of a dove.'" Ob\?iously Luther builrts his doctrinal teaching on the fact that Jesus' baptism occurred precisely in the manner the Scriptures de- scribe. Me sees in the records clear testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity, and in turn views the presence of the three persons as an indication of thc sublime nature of baptism. Now such an enterprise, from the viewpoint of the historical-critical exegete, is beset by many difficulties. He ~vould view Luther's failure to take into- account the history and developnlent of the text (the three stages discussed earIier) as a serious omission, Manifestly, if we cannot confidently assert that both voice and dove were pres< in the inanner described, we cannot with confidence derive support for the doctrine of the - Trinity fro111 this passage. Nor can we use the presence of all three persons, as Luther does, to stress t.he importance of baptism. From the I-Iistorical-Criticd Interpretation .- - . 239 perspective of the his torical-critical exegete, Luther has built at least this part of his theological edifice 011 a rather shaky foundation. In view of these differences, it is evident that the historical- critical exe8ete is engaged in soinething more than rigorous descrip- t-ion. I11 point of fact, he is engaged in a very special type of descrip- tion-one which assumes a certain philosophical and theological attitude. Elements of this attit~rde include allowancc for such a variety of lllotives in the evangelist's use of the tradition that it becomes mandatory for the exegete to go beyond the clear sense of the passage and decide with reference to his critical cazons as to the historicity or non-historicity of the narrative. It is obvious that if the particular exegete includes among his critical canons the proposition that the nliraculous must be viewed as a mere superstition which characterized New Testanlent times, then he must discount the voice from heaven and other elements of the baptismal narratives as some- thing less than historical fact. PRESUPPOSITIONS In conclusion it must bc said that each student of the Scrip- tures, whether historical-critical or grammatical historical in his exegetical orientation, will examine the recorcls of Jesus' baptism from his own perspcctive. This is to sap that he will not begin the task of interpi-etation with a mind clcuoid of presuppositions. Perhaps it is here that we find the source of the various differ- ences between these two methods of exegesis, for while the historical- critical exegete approaches the text expecting, certain phenomena (e.8. the church's or evangelists c~eation of additional, non-historical elements), the traditional Lutheran exegete comes with great respect for thc clear sense of the baptismal accounts and a trust in their veracity. UltiinateIy the theological stance of the exegete plays the decisive role. Despite any human longing that we might have for total objectivity, honesty requires that every exegete be viewed also as systematician . The exegete's prior attitude toward Scriptures, to- ward truth, toward language, and toward God cannot be neatly divorced from his task of interpretation. Lutherans in the past have derived their presuppositions from the Scriptures and have been forthright in describing their nature. These Lutheran presuppositions begin with the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture by virtue of its nature as God's very word and its own explicit claims. In view of this the Lutheran exegete is convinced that God has indeed told him many details of that glorious day on which Jesus was baptized. In these certain facts and in the Spirit's Scrip- tural explanation of their meaning for him, he rests his hope and confidence. FOOTNOTES 1. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament-Volume I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951),.p. 26. Cf also the same author's Dic Geschichte Dcr synoptiochs~z Tradztron (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8r Ruprecht, 1957), pp. 263-270, passim, 2. Dan 0. Via, "Editor's Forward" in What is Form Criticism, by Edgar V. McKnight (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), p. vi. 3. Hans Conzelmann, An Oz~tline of the Tlzeology of the A7e1v Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 6. 4. Eduard Schweizcr, The Good Nczc7s According to Mark (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1970), p. 36. 5. Dan 0. Via, op. cit., p. v. 6. Walter Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19 5 S), p. 55. 7. ibid. 8. Francis Wright Besre, Thc Earliest Records of Jesus (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), p. 41. 9. See also Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: MacMillan & Co., Ltd., 1959), p. 159. 10. Walter Bundy, op. cit., p. 54. 1 I. I. Howard Wlarshall, Lz~ke: Historian and I'heologi~~lz (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Publishing Housc, 1970), pp. 4 6-4 7. 12. Gcrhardsson, Rcrgcr. Mcrn0l-y & Mn~zuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transnlission in JIabbinJs Judaism G. Early Christianity (Lund: C. w. K. Geerup, 19611, Passim, but cf especially his comments on Luke 24: 36-45 and other passages, pp. 250ff. 13. Systema, P. I., C. 4, S. 2, q. 5. (Translation by Ilr. liobert Preus). 14. Wjlli;~rn Anldt, Docs the 33ible Contradict Itself? (St. Louis : Concordia P~~blishing House, 1926), p. 56. 15. Martin Luther, "Sermons on the Gospcl of St. John (Chapters 1-4)," Idzttherls Works, Val. 22, Edited by Jarslav Pelikan, (St. Louis: Concordia P~~blishing House, 1957), p. 173.