The Four Gospels at the Crossroads in History
Anyone who delves into Rosenstock-Huessy’s view of history and philosophy of language will eventually discover the extent to which the Gospels—and more precisely, the name Jesus Christ—occupy a central place within them. Anyone who subsequently explores his view of the Gospels will soon discover that it has little in common with more conventional biblical interpretations. Now, it is by no means an advantage to conform to conventional views. Usually, these are not the best. Yet, one would expect to see a connection with the discussions and conversations within New Testament scholarship. That hardly seems to be the case.
Hardly! A fierce debate was indeed conducted within New Testament scholarship in the second half of the 20th century regarding the origin, dating, order of origin, and meaning of the Gospels. That debate has since cooled down somewhat, but there are publications in which it still lingers. This debate provides a number of starting points for a dialogue with Rosenstock-Huessy’s conception of history and language. For New Testament scholarship and theology in general, this leads to a deeper understanding of the embeddedness of the Biblical scriptures in the history of the societies of the time, both in Israel and in the Roman Empire. Thanks to Rosenstock-Huessy’s historical insights, one sees more clearly how the Gospel writers forge a new path in their societies.
Conversely, the study of the Gospels also provides sharper insight into Rosenstock-Huessy’s conception of history. It also lends more color and substance to his work “The Fruit of the Lips.” For in this work, Rosenstock-Huessy does indeed provide a frame of reference, but the individual Gospels and stories, speeches, and healings, in turn, confirm that frame of reference and refine it. Sometimes they also correct somewhat hasty assumptions and interpretations that Rosenstock-Huessy puts forward in this work. At least, this mutual exchange becomes possible if, as Rosenstock-Huessy states, the Gospels indeed find their social and historical context in the crisis of the Roman Empire in the run-up to and during the regime of Nero.
How does that debate relate to Rosenstock-Huessy’s views on the Gospels (1)? That is the main question. The next question is: what does that mean on the one hand for understanding the Gospels and on the other hand for understanding Rosenstock-Huessy’s work (2)? And finally, the third question is: what do these two questions and their possible answers mean for the current era (3)?
To answer those three questions, it is necessary to follow this debate on the order and the moment of writing down the four Gospels more thoroughly. Again, three questions arise: what can be deduced from the texts themselves about the origin of the Gospels (1)? Can what the texts have to say, whatever they say in response to one another, be placed in a precise and particular historical context (2)? Do they each have a distinct message in that context, or at least a specific emphasis in the way they continue the telling of the story (3)?
