Why Narratives?

 
     The Gospel comes to us in four narratives. Each narrative sets the context of the life of Jesus Christ, illustrating his practices and strategies as we understand it nearly two-thousand years later. The purpose of today’s blog is to briefly examine the Gospels as contextualized narratives in order to establish whether or not contextualization[1] is a normative practice and strategy of the early church. The narrative form of the Gospels is designed to engage the audience and draw them into the midst of the story in order to create an understanding of the life of Jesus and his ministry. They present Jesus interacting with his culture and society at large, as well as its expectations of normative behavior and the ensuing conflicts. The Apostle John makes his purpose statement clear in John 20:31, “But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” The Gospels as narrative are represented in three synoptic and one distinct account to narrate the life of Jesus the Christ. New Testament theologian Dean Flemming explains, “The Gospels tell the defining story of Jesus, sent by God, crucified, risen. Everything else in the New Testament in some way assumes and interprets this master narrative.”[2] The narrative formulation of the Gospels is not accidental, but designed in order to contextualize the Gospel for its various audiences. This allow for the importance of the background information of the narrative to be brought forward. Helping the conscientious reader to catch the details being emphasized.   Flemming further explains this, “. . . the four Evangelists have narrated the story of Jesus according to their own theological and literary concerns and in light of how they perceived the needs of their readers.”[3] The Gospels are the result of intentional contextualization; thereby communicating the life of Jesus Christ in various cultural settings found and bound in the first century.

            The writers of the Gospels understood the audience as diverse and pluralistic. The Gospel events, for the most part take place in Judaic culture, but the contents of the Gospel were not ever meant to be constrained by that culture. Flemming, and others of the New Testament school set on contextualizing the larger narrative, would argue that the four Gospel accounts are indeed separate contextualizations of a single story. Contextualization creates narrative relevance connecting the Christological message of the Gospels with other cultures. Flemming affirms,

If we are correct that the Gospels were targeted to different groups of people within the Greco-Roman world, then the relationship between the Evangelist and his audience becomes a key to understanding how the Gospel writers contextualized their Christological story.[4]

The necessity of the narrative form is to connect with the literacy level of the intended audience. Each of the Gospels appears to use varying levels of literary competence in order to achieve contextualization, thereby, allowing the target audience to connect with the Gospels in their unique perspective. Flemming writes, “The Gospels also vary in the levels of literary and rhetorical competency they expect from their audiences. Thus, Luke shows a higher degree of literary sophistication and mastery of Greek style (e.g., Luke 1:1-4) than Mark.”[5] Narrative or the ability to tell story was critical in the first century due to the fact that the literacy rate was quite low; however, due to regional populations and cultures, as well as the consideration of citizen’s class and gender, it is difficult to estimate with any accuracy the true literacy rate of the First Century world. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans, distinguished New Testament scholars, discuss this issue further in Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, wherein they explain:

W. V. Harris, using a broad definition of literacy and drawing on evidence partly explicit, partly circumstantial and partly comparative, has concluded that over the whole period of classical antiquity the extent of literacy rarely exceeded 10 percent of the population. In the special circumstances of a few Hellenistic cities it may have approximated 20 to 30 percent, while in the western provinces of the Roman Empire it may not have been as high as 5 to 10 percent. Such quantifications are necessarily tentative, but this estimate now commands broad assent. Even if the rate were twice as high, literacy would have characterized only a small minority, and it is beyond dispute that the ancient world knew nothing remotely like mass literacy.[6]

W. V. Harris’ estimation as a noted Professor of History at Columbia University specializing in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds is sufficient in establishing the literacy rate for the purpose of this blog, as the educational environment greatly empowered the literate of the first century. The lack of literacy amid the general population creates the necessity for an oral tradition, therefore the need for the narrative form. The narrative form allows for a dynamic oral delivery within a plurality of cultural contexts. The fact that the Gospel writers took into consideration the cultural contexts of the audience is evidence of the basic characteristics of positive deviance. Jerry and Monique Sternin, former directors of the Positive Deviance Initiative at Tufts University in Boston, in reference to positive deviance characteristics in cultural contexts believes, “. . . it is embedded in the social context of the community.”[7] The Gospel as narrative appears to firmly place the positive deviance characteristics and process within the social context of the community, as the Gospels were initially communicated through oral narratives in order to connect directly with the literacy levels of the audience. Flemming further explains this perspective,

Gospel writers like Mark primarily intended their works to be orally recited or performed in a communal setting – most likely a house church – then the Gospel’s ability to target and shape an audience becomes even more compelling. In the culture of the day, oral delivery would have been quite dramatic and spirited, emphasizing the emotional impact of the Gospel on the hearers. This enables the Gospel to become not just a story but an event which directly involves the listeners.[8]

Narrative contextualization of the Gospels allows for cultural relevance in an orally literate culture. Gospel literacy in the first century was mainly based in oral tradition. Each narrative presents specific cultural nuances. According to Flemming the Gospel of Mark relates primarily to “Gentiles of the Greco-roman biography.”[9] The priority of the Gospel of Mark is generally accepted amid New Testament scholars as the primary source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.[10]  The Gospel of Matthew is contextualized primarily for Jews.[11] The indication is Matthew was steeped in the Judaic Christianity contained within Jerusalem. Luke is presented in a way which lends itself to a Gentile orientation, because it follows the story telling form or narrative form that is historically presented in Greco-Roman style. Flemming explains, “Luke shows the strongest influence from Greco-Roman literary forms and conventions, with features of both Hellenistic biographies and historical writings of the time.”[12] Flemming’s affirmation is that Luke is a clear contextualization for the Greco-Roman culture or the Hellenized world. The Gospel according to Luke would have an Empire contextualization allowing it to be broadly accessible to the diverse cultures desiring to emulate or acculturate in the Hellenization process. The Gospel according to John presents a unique issue in contextualization.

In an examination of the Johannine account there is diversity in scholarship centered on the exact community of people to whom this Gospel was addressed. Most modern scholars assert the Gospel according to John is the product of a Johannine community. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo explain, “The fact remains that despite support for Johannine authorship by a few front rank scholars in this century and by many popular writers, a large majority of contemporary scholars reject this view.”[13] Flemming believes that no clearly defined community existed, whereas he asserts that the Gospel According to John possesses the most radical contextualization of all the Gospels. The distinctive Gospel of John presents issues for scholars due in part to the complexities and theories behind its development. Flemming’s stresses, “. . . if we listen to John’s own statement of purpose for his Gospel, we get the clear impression that he had a readership in view that extends beyond a narrowly defined community of Christians.”[14] The Gospel as narrative and orally transmitted writings implies that the Gospels were intended for use in pluralistic cultural environments and was not intended to be contained within one cultural context.

            The Gospel as narrative is evidence of contextualization for the purpose of reaching diverse and plural cultures. Paul G. Hiebert, Robert Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tiénou write about this relationship within the Gospels, “Contextualization must be an ongoing process in the life of the church. On the one hand, the world is constantly changing, raising new questions that must be addressed. On the other hand, all human understandings and obedience to the gospel are partial.”[15] The initial biblical material, the Gospels, coming to diverse cultures in the form of narratives presents a relevant genre that reflects the foundation of Gospel communication. The writers of the gospels recognized the importance of speaking from within a culture to the peoples of that culture. The action of speaking from within a culture is one of the main characteristics of the Positive Deviance Approach.[16] Regardless of the writers’ understanding of this founding characteristic of the early church (cultural contextualization) it is this cultural nuance that presents everything known about Jesus Christ. The Gospel Writers present Jesus Christ present to the world in the form of contextualized narratives. This formulation gives the church a descriptive narrative of the incarnation of the Christ as the key paradigm connecting God with humanity in the person Jesus.

The evidence of cultural contextualization supports the concept and process of the Positive Deviance Approach. By presenting the Gospel in the context of culture, each writer has nuanced the narrative to relate to various cultures. Fredrick J. Murphy clarifies, “. . . the gospel writers had their own viewpoints affecting the way they told the story of Jesus.”[17] Each of the Gospel writers presents their Christological perspective through the narrative in order to connect with the people in the diverse cultures throughout the Empire.

The three contextualized synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, as well as the radical contextualized Gospel of John each contain a descriptive narrative concerning Jesus Christ with particular Christological perspectives. It is through these Gospels that church is able to connect with the unique practices and strategies of Jesus Christ as a contextualization through incarnation. Formulating contextualization as a practice and strategy of the early church may be seen as normative. Tomorrow’s blog will examine the practices and strategies of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. The question is: are Jesus’ practices and strategies perceived as deviance in the Judaic culture? It is important to understand how Jesus is perceived because in every sense Jesus Christ is the prototype and the foundation of the early church. Here is where we are challenged in the contemporary church. We need to ask ourselves, are we perpetuating the practices and strategies as Jesus Christ and the early church?

---

[1] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 234; Hesselgrave and Rommen, Contextualization; Richard Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 22; Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and James Innell Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (InterVarsity Press, 2000), 164.

[2] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 234.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 238–239.

[5] Ibid., 239.

[6] Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans, Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Literacy and Book Culture.

[7] Pascale et al., The Power of Positive Deviance, 197.

[8] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 239.

[9] Flemming is the source of italics in this quote, Ibid., 241.

[10] Christopher Tuckett, “The Current State of the Synoptic Problem”, 2008, http://www.webcitation.org/5YBgZFADe, (hristopher Tuckett, “The Current State of the Synoptic Problem”, 2008, http://www.webcitation.org/5YBgZFADe.

Date Accessed October 20, 2011).

[11]Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 244.

[12] Ibid.,Ibid., 250.

[13] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan, 2005), 233.

[14] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 258.

[15] Hiebert, Shaw, and Tiénou, Understanding folk religion, 387.

[16] Pascale et al., The Power of Positive Deviance, 7.

[17] Frederick James Murphy, Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus (Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 227.