Scripture, Culture, and Missions
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 55, No. 1 – Fall 2012
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
By Anthony Le Donne. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. 310 pages. Hardcover, $49.95.
The title of this volume provides the reader with an apt summary of the book’s central subject: historiography, social memory theory, typology, and the label of “The Son of David” as applied to Jesus. The compilation of these subjects as the book progresses makes for a rather technical and difficult read at times, but the book is still profitable for the detailed illustration it presents on how social memory theory may be applied to New Testament research. Le Donne’s key interest lies specifically within the field of historical Jesus research and how this realm of studies may be advanced further by approaching historiographical concerns from the perspective of a modified method of social memory theory. A positive contribution can be made to historical Jesus research, according to Le Donne’s thesis, by approaching historical inquiry through the analysis of memory refraction (i.e., the distortion between the remembered past and the actual past that inevitably results because memory recall is always perspectival, interpretative, and selective). Le Donne posits that this memory refraction can be discerned in the New Testament in typological interpretation (1314, 50-52, 65).
Put more simply, Le Donne believes that research into the historical Jesus is lamented by many historians because they misunderstand the primary goal of historical study. The goal is not to arrive at a provable but, rather, at the most probable knowledge of the past. The actual events of history belong to the past and are not available for objective verifiable analysis. Historical inquiry, therefore, is concerned not with verifying the earliest historical facts but with postulating the earliest memory of the plausible past (70, 87). With this conception of history in mind and the demand for absolute historical attestation set aside, Le Donne avers that the historian can delineate what the most original memory of an event likely was by familiarizing oneself with his theoretical model of the mnemonic cycle and tracing the development of successive memory refractions as they move from one memory cycle to the next in diachronic fashion. Since interpretive traditions from previous to subsequent memory cycles share a recognizable continuity as they progress, the most plausible original historical memory that gave rise to similar and divergent traditions may be isolated, after distinct mnemonic cycles are compared and contrasted with each other (74). New Testament typology is important to Le Donne’s argument in this regard because it evidences a way of remembering that allows one to follow chronological trajectories of thought relevant for Jesus studies (13-14, 59, 91).
The first three chapters in the book provide the reader with explanation of historiographical matters and then culminates with a delineation of Le Donne’s thesis in chapter four. In the remaining five chapters, Le Donne applies his historiographical method of social memory to the title “Son of David” as used of Jesus in the Gospel narratives. He concludes that the title functions as a dual indicator with both Davidic and Solomonic connotations and that it is the product of typological interpretation (94, 268).
A few critical thoughts deserve mention. First, this book is demanding. The concept of social memory theory as a historiographical model is complex and makes for a hard-to-follow presentation at times. Second, Le Donne’s overall conception of history stands in need of correction, especially from a biblical perspective. Admittedly, the presentation of history from personal memory means that all history is selective and interpretive to some degree. That history is told from some particular “point of view,” however, does not mean that we must speak only in terms of plausible or probable history from memory. This is especially true when speaking of biblical history, for the doctrine of inspiration assures us of the historical objectivity and veracity of both Old Testament and New Testament events as they are recorded in Scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17). The foundation of the Christian faith is grounded not in a likely but in an absolute and truthful history (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-19). A historiographical method, therefore, that questions the validity of the Gospel portraits of Jesus is fundamentally flawed.
Third, Le Donne maintains that typology is illustrative of memory refraction and relegates it to a “means of remembering” (59, 77) and “a manifestation of the mnemonic process” (261). Such a view of typology differs drastically from the traditional, biblical view of typology, which understands it to be the study of correspondences between Old Testament types and New Testament antitypes within the framework of salvation history, whereby the former predictively foreshadow the latter by divine design. Classifying typology as memory association of present events in light of past events fails to represent adequately the concept of biblical typology. Typology, as Jesus taught and as the New Testament writers understood it, sees Old Testament persons, events, and institutions as being predictive of his person and work (cf. Luke 24:27, 44-45; John 1:45; 3:14; 5:39, 46; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:6, 11). Typology should be understood as a form of prophecy and not simply as a way of remembering.
On a more positive note, however, The Historiographical Jesus is beneficial for the introduction and application it provides of social memory theory. Since this is a relatively new method for approaching historiographical questions in historical Jesus research, those who are unfamiliar with this methodological approach to New Testament studies will find this book to be a useful resource on key terminology in the field and on the theory of memory recall. Additionally, one can still find value in some of his observations, even if his conception of history and his method do not permit him to speak in definitive historical terms.
