“Jesus and the Thoughts of Many Hearts”
Collin Blake Bullard, Jesus and the Thoughts of Many Hearts, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015 (ISBN 978-0-567-66035-0), xviii + 210 pp.
“When Jesus perceived (ἐπιγνούς) their thoughts (διαλογισμός), he answered them, ‘Why do you question in your hearts?’” (Lk 5.22). Rudolph Bultmann famously argued that “the idea is widespread in pagan and Christian Hellenism; the ability to recognize and to read the thoughts of those whom one meets characterizes the θειος ἄνθρωπος’ (The Gospel of John: A Commentary [Oxford: Blackwell, 1971], 102n1). Since Bultmann, the trend has been to suggest that the Gospel writers embellished their portrayal of Jesus with a trait commonly applied to Hellenistic ‘divine men’—knowledge of others’ thoughts—in order to make him more palatable for a non-Jewish audience. Now, Collin Blake Bullard has offered a strong critique of this shallow reading, undermining these supposed Hellenistic parallels and establishing an alternative Jewish background and Christological interpretation of this crucial theme.
In Bullard’s monograph, which originated as a doctoral thesis at the University of Cambridge under the supervision of Dr. Simon Gathercole, he begins by noting the Lukan motif of Jesus’ knowledge of the inner dispositions of others (uniquely referred to by Luke as διαλογισμός) and inquires as to its narrative function in the third gospel (cf. Lk 5.17–26; 6.6–11; 7.36–50; 9.46–48; 11.14–32). Situating the narrative presentation of Jesus within the thematic framework of Simeon’s oracle to Mary (Lk 2.34–35), he notes that one of the consequences foretold of Jesus’ coming is the “revealing of the thoughts of many hearts” (7). Given the centrality of this theme, Bullard inquires as to the Christological implications intended by Luke, rightly noting that “What Jesus knows and how he knows it are fundamental features of his identity” (15).
Among those who have considered the implications of this motif for Jesus’ identity, Bullard delineates three interpretive options. Jesus’ knowledge of human thoughts is understood as an extraordinary human ability (Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Vincent Taylor), prophetic discernment (esp. L. T. Johnson and Joel B. Green), or divine knowledge. For the third category, the key question is whether this ability is considered with reference to Hebrew or Greco-Roman literature. By addressing the ancient context (chapter 1) and the narrative function of the motif of Jesus’ extraordinary knowledge (chapters 2-3), Bullard opts for the third option and argues that “Luke understood Jesus’ knowledge to be a divine ability which he possessed by virtue of his identity as Lord” (25).
In chapter one, Bullard begins with a survey of the relevant Greco-Roman sources, finding that, although the motif of the ‘knowledge of thoughts’ would not conflict with this Hellenistic context, it is not itself particularly Hellenistic. Further, the literature reveals that assigning extraordinary knowledge to a person can serve to confirm a variety of identities for that character, such as “holy man, philosopher, prophet, seer, priest, etc.” (40). He concludes that if Luke were trying to adopt familiar elements to make Jesus more palatable to a Hellenistic audience, it is remarkable that Luke’s usage bears so little resemblance to Greco-Roman literature. Turning to Jewish literature, Bullard considers the attributes of prophetic knowledge in the LXX and Second Temple Jewish literature (STJ) and finds that “no prophet in the OT or STJ is depicted as overhearing the interior monologue of other characters” (62). Rather than 1 Samuel 9.15-20 or 2 Kings 6, Bullard suggests that the closest literary parallels to the Lukan motif of Jesus’ knowledge of thoughts are found in Genesis 17.15-20 and 18.1-15. Knowledge of the heart is uniquely attributed to God in the OT and is closely connected with the theme of divine judgment. In conclusion, Bullard maintains that if Jesus’ extraordinary knowledge were concerned with external realities in order to authenticate his credentials, then it would properly be deemed ‘prophetic’. But if it is concerned with inner thoughts and intentions for the purpose of judgement, then it must be read in line with the tradition of divine knowledge of the heart.[1]
Chapter two comprises a succinct and even-handed interpretation of Simeon’s oracle (Lk. 2.34-35). Bullard demonstrates the programmatic nature of the oracle, which provides an interpretive framework for the subsequent narrative. At the same time, he relies on the outworking of that narrative to illuminate the meaning of the terse and enigmatic oracle. He helpfully sets it within the context of Deuteronomy 8:2 and exposes the presence of the OT theme of testing and division that reveals what is in the heart. The oracle makes it clear that Jesus’ ministry is to be described with reference to the revelation of the thoughts of many hearts, and it is the task of chapter three to consider how this is so. Bullard makes use of a fourfold approach to interpret each key text in Luke, considering the narrative presentation of Jesus’ knowledge, noting Luke’s redaction of his sources, considering thematic resonances with Simeon’s oracle, and then unpacking the implicit Christological links encouraged by the text. Bullard argues persuasively that the motif of Jesus’ knowledge functions within the broader theme—the revelation of the thoughts of many hearts—to depict Jesus as (1) the revealer of hidden motives and attitudes and (2) the one who executes judgement on those thoughts in such a way that (3) his knowledge must be understood as a uniquely divine (not prophetic) ability associated with his identity as κυρίος.
One of the weaknesses in the study is the way in which Bullard seems to set prophetic and divine knowledge over-against each other. Although he notes that Jesus’ identity as a prophet and as Lord are not mutually exclusive, he limits Jesus’ prophetic vocation primarily to suffering and fails to connect it with Jesus’ ministry more broadly. It seems a lack of theological sophistication hinders his interpretation on this score throughout. Notwithstanding, Bullard has expertly highlighted the way in which Luke weaves his Christological presuppositions into the very form of his narrative; the very way the story is told reveals Luke’s fundamental belief that “an encounter with the Lord would involve an exposure of the heart” (181). This is a valuable contribution to the growing body of research uncovering a very early and ‘high’ Christology in the synoptic gospels. Also important is Bullard’s insistence that Jesus’ knowledge is not incidental to his identity, rather it “colors the very way in which Jesus interacts with others and it constitutes one of the fundamental ways in which Luke has conceived of Jesus sharing with the God of Israel the identity of κυρίος” (184). Indeed, it is precisely the question of what Jesus knows that determines our understanding of what he does and, ultimately, of who he is.
[1] Bullard points out multiple times in his discussions of Lukan redaction that John’s presentation of Jesus’ knowledge “carries no hint of judgment” and often does function “to impress upon the dramatis personae the exalted status of Jesus” (cf. Jn. 1.47-51) (103). In this way, his tidy and helpful schema potentially causes theological issues, if one gospel writer is assumed to attribute knowledge of hearts to Jesus as a sort of prophetic knowledge, even though Bullard has argued persuasively that such knowledge is only ever attributed to God and must therefore be divine knowledge.