Professional Documents
Culture Documents
··w'
What Is
Forni
Criticism?
by
Edgar V. McKnight
1---'
r.:1III
.J'-1..
Fortress Press
Philadelphia
_.._-
Editor's Foreword
~n paying a.ttention to the criticism of fiction and poetry the ~calpoint of vi'O.wwhich is expressed in and through
an to aesthetics and philosophy of Ian Th the composition. Although redaction criticism has been most
literary itici f th guage. erefore the
an ' en .C1Sm0, e New Testament has begun to reflect closely associated with the Gospels, there is no reason why it
f mt~est ~ ~uestions such as the relationship of content to could not be used-and actually it is being used-to illuminate
orm, e .SIgnificance of structure or form for meanin and the relationship between tradition and interpretation in other
e:::,at:.
b
;? ;~
ac
.~.
lanrage to direct thought and to moll' exis-
e vo ume on literary criticism in this series will
New Testament books.
While each of the volumes in this series deals separately
dis s,ensl,ltiveto both the older and the newer aspects of the and focally with one of the methods of critical inquiry, each
Clp me. author is also aware of the other two methods. It has seemed
The pUi'J.'Ose,of form criticism has been to get behind th wise to treat each of the three kinds of criticism separately for
~;t;;'fs w~ch lite~ary criticism might identify and to describ: the purposes of definition, analysis, and clarification, but it
on or ~as f appenmg as the tradition about Jesus was handed should be quite clear that in actual practice the three are
munitya y /om pe~?~ to person and from community to com- normally used together. They are not really separable. A New
. orm criticism has b~s eciall . Testament scholar, in interpreting any book or shorter text or
,,/ Jhe modific.ations which thee !if ~,With motif, would allow all three of the critical disciplines to con-
both Jewish::(;hristian and-- . and ~o~ ht of the ~urch-
tribute to his interpretation. An effort to demonstrate this
into the tra4itim> and forr!ent?~-C nstian- ~ve introduc d
for distinguishin ' th cntics have worked out criteria inseparability might be made by taking a brief look at Mark
the concerns of ~ o~e s~a~ in the Gospels which reflect 2:18-20:
thought to b e c urc om the stratum that might be "Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and people came
that the ch~~h'::t~ I~e historical Jesus. It has been shown and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Phari-
sees fast. but your disciples do not Iest]" "And Jesus said to them, "Can
on the content of the I: ';::~ OnI~ exerted a creative influence the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as
characteristics makin . a ?n ut also contributed formal they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. "The days will
terial in the S' 0 ti g It possible to classify much of the ma- come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will
cism has con:m~ ~ according to ~te~ary form. Form eriti- fast in that day.
.> vidual units-stories :~f lar.gely ~Ith mvestigating the indio This passage appears not only in Mark but is also a part of
Redaction cr'" n say-mgs-m the Synoptic Gospels.
that substantial portion of Mark which serves as a source for
tohave 'b~l; the ,,?ost recent of the three disciplines
Matthew and Luke (of. Matt. 9:14-15; Luke 5:$3-35) (liter-
out of form criticism -::;s~~ous method of inquiry. It grew ary criticism). Its outstanding formal features are a brief nar-
procedures of the earlie di I. resuPP?ses and continues the rative (18) that provides a setting for a saying of Jesus (19a)
i sifying certain of th rThlSclp me ';hile extending and inten-
em. e redaction iti . which takes the form of a question and which is the real inter-
v' sm all er units-both' I cn c mvestigat~how est of the passage (form criticism). The question of fasting
tion or
- _I
from Writt~lffiP e and composite-frQ!!! the oral tradl-
-~ources w~re put tozeth f - and the use of wedding imagery suggest a Jewish point of
comp exes, and he is es ;:il -; - --~~! JlLQrmJlIrger origin. At the same time we see a break with fasting and the
the-GOsPels as fini~ Cl~ y mterested. in the f'?!illation of attribution of joyful siguificance to the present-today is a wed-
cemed with the . t p~cts. Redaction criticism is con-
d 1 m eractlon between an . h . d ding-rather than waiting for the foture. These features sug-
an a ater interpretive pOint of . mente tradition gest a modification of the Jewish setting. On the other hand,
. I stand why the items from the trad;e~Its goals are to under· there is nothing, at least in I8-19a, which expresses the
V .!1e.ctedas the}' were to'd' n were modified and con- church's faith in Jesus' resurrection or the theological interpre-
were at work ~ ,osin I e~nZ th~ogiCal motifs that tation of Jesus' mission which grew out of that faith. This
p g a finished pe~an
I, WIG--=-:-.. 'd
I.U elUCl ate
vi --------.. oii
,'"
FOREWORD
y
Presuppositions an e .
I
I has illuminated the nature and meaning of the New Testament. Scholars
Examples 0f the A pp lication
1
':. .
of Form CntiClSm .
6
67
3
2 8
<, /
I
THE ORIGINS OF FORM CRITICISM THE NECESSITY FOR THE DISCIFLINE
life and thought of others in the eighteenth century who pio- matter of putting the material of the Synoptics into a Johan- l
neered in the historical study of Jesus and who did influence nine framework. This was the basic procedure followed by
the ~ter developments in the study. These early rationalists e ear y writers on the life of Jesus. But such a use of the
continued to be influenced greatly by their relatively uncritical J,Eospel of John in the study of Jesus' life was questioned by
methodology and limited by the lack of an understanding of '){~. F. Strauss in his Life of Jesus (183~6).' He pointed out
that the Johannine presentation of Jesus is clearly apologetic
~e n~ture and interrelationships of the Gospels. Yet, as a
histonan of the early studies of the life of Jesus says, and dogmatic, and that it shows an even further develop-
ment of tendencies seen already in the Synoptic Gospels. He
We must not be unjust to these writers. What they aimed at asserted, therefore, that the nature of the Gospel of John makes
was to bnng Jesus near to their own time, and in so doing they it unsuitable as a source for the historical understanding of
became the 'plOneers.of the historical studies of His life. The de-
fects of their ,,:ork ill regard to aesthetic feeling and historical Jesus. This point was reinforced by later studies, especially
gra~pelire out~el.ghed by the attractiveness of the purposeful un- y the work of F. C. Baur, and scholarly investigation began
P~Ju ced ~illg which here awakens, stretches itself and be- to focus on the Synoptic Gospels as sources.
gillS to move WIth freedom.' ' That there are literary relationships between the Synoptic
In the eighteenth century " then there was a'n Increasmg . Gospels was noted long before the nineteenth century. A'/
ope~.ess~ reas?n in biblic:tLstudy; in the nineteentliCentury great number of narratives and discourses exist in more than
~ttenlIon was gIVen to the relative merits of-the first three one of the Gospels-frequently in all three-and the agreements
ospels (the Synoptic Gospels), on the one hand and the extend beyond subject matter to the details of style and lan-
Fourth GospeU.12illl.), on the other, for a study of the life of guage. Compare the three accounts of the parable of the mus-
J esus, to the exact literary relationships between the first three tard seed:
Gospels, to the sources of the materials in these Gospels and Mark 4:30-32 Luke 13: 18-19
Matt. 13:31--J2
% re~~d qfuetlstio~which bear on the nse of these Gosp~1s in
e s y 0 re life and teachings of Jesns.
Another parable And he said. "With He said therefore,
he put before them, what can we com- "What is the king-
coWhe~ a pres~ntation of the life of Jesus is attempted by saying, "The king- pare the kingdom of dom of God like?
nnecting ~eCtions of_truWoJIl' _Gospels into a "harmon » • ,..lit dom of heaven is like God. or what para- And to what shall I
a grain of mustard ble shall we use for compare it? It is like
~;;::~~~~~e:dthat the G:spel of John has a .9~te di~~e;,~ seed which a man it? It is like a grain a grain of mustard
fl t thr -Go---1s ~a lca ramework from that of the took and sowed in of mustard seed, seed which a man
rs ee spe In the acco t i th S- which, when sown took and sowed in his
his field; it is the
~o~:~umey to Jerusalem,u:ut: J:m0~~~!~s:tm~~: smallest of all seeds, upon the ground, is garden; and it grew
but when it has the smallest of all and became a tree,
visit of JesusGt:liJleee t°alJe~salthem (2:13; 5:1; 7:10). The final and the birds of the
rus em ill e Synopti . f grown it is the great- the seeds on earth;
air made nests in its
a week, but in John it co .
(7:2) to the Passover of J=,e~ fro: cs continues or about
abFeast of Tabernacles
Synoptics inlply that Jesus' entiree~., .atry0ulthalf a year. The
est of shrubs and be- yet when it is sown
comes a tree, so that it grows up and be-
the birds of the air comes the greatest
branches."
c I' THE ORIGINS OF FORM CRITICISM THE NECESSITY FOR THE DISCIPLINE
-~ Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo, was the first to con- Of course, even the schola world was slow in accepting
sider seri~usly the literary relationships among the Gospels. the ideas of the nanty of Mark and the use by Matthew
He explained the relationships by the judgment that the Oos- and Luke of Mar an ana ier source. This totally reversed
pels originated in the sequence, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the traditional view of Synoptic relationships. But by the end
and that the later Gospel writers had knowledge of the earlier of the nineteenth century it had come to be looked upon as an
Gospels. Matthew is the earliest Gospel; Mark is an abridg- assured result of the critical study of the Gospels. For the next
me~t of Matthew; and the later Gospels depend upon these quarter of a century, scholars were mainly occupied ,with
earhe~ ones. Although other theories were put forward to additional documentary study-the attempt to trace and Iden-
expla~ the ObVIOUS literary relations of the Gospels, prior to tify all of the various written documents beyond the Synoptic
the nrneteenth century the view of Augustine was the "ortho- Gospels. Influential in the documentary quest was the pre-
dox" position. Even Strauss held this position in his Life of supposition that a history of Jesus would result. Scholars felt
Jesus. that, once all the documents had been isolated, their contents
. In the nineteenth century, however, a quite different solu- worked out, and their relation to the Synoptic Gospels deter-
c~ tion to the Synoptic problem was reached by students of the mined, a scientific history of Jesus could be written.
c Gospels: Mark ~ earliest of the canon!,caI.Gospels. The A high point in the documentary study of the Gospels came
authors oiliramiew and Ll! e Jia<Ir;;raj. hefore them' ... they in B. H. S,!reeteiLI!!.e.. • .fO'E:. GO!T!.eJ3;_A..J!'!d.Y....ot Orig!!!'..
wrote, and, therefore, the ~ls ..£llmmonJILaJl three Cos- (1924).- He gathered up the results of the study of. the. Gos-
cg;S~es.Ult fronwb~ J,lSe_w)Jic!)_Ml'tth.!<w and Luke made of pels in a systematic, comprehensiye_1V'l.}'.His most original
ar . Matthew and Luke also ~s2ianother source, now lost. contribution was the theory of the use of four documents in
, IS non-Maroun source (calle~presumably an abbrevia- the origin of the Gospels. In addition to Mark_!!Jld Q (the
tion of the German word for "source," QueUe) accounts for designation of the non-Marean material common to Matthew
the non-Marean materials common to Matthew and Luke. and Luke), Streeter suggest;d that Matthew ~nd !::':l<e_had
Fmally, each used additional material which was not used documents peculiar to each which <;2l11d bi,ciiIfed M an:\LL.
by the other. The supposition that the earliest documents, particularly
}.Karl Lach!"ann, best known for his work on the Greek text Mark, carry us back directly to the earthly Jesus was shaken
,of the New Testament;seems.:;to have been the first SCholar even before Streeter did his work. The studies of Wilhelm
to
f sUl?nnrt
-,'" the pnon iority O'lVIar
f ;{';~ k' from a careful study -oLthe Wrede, Albert Schweitzer, Johannes Weiss, and Julius Well-
acts. ,In 1835he showed t a , when Matthew and Luke used hausen established the fact that Mark was not a SImple, un-
m~eza~ also found in Mark, the order of events in Matthew complicated presentation of the life of the earthly Jesus. It
~n ~ e corresponds closely, but that no such corrcspon- cannot be presupposed that even the earliest documents carry
eh~ceh ~ order exists when Matthew and Luke use material us back directly t~ Jesus himself. .'
w IC IS not found in ark L h @elm W!e~.in..".u~r~te<Lt!'is~w tu;..r!10 th~ mterpre;
Matth dL k . ac mann, presupposing that
all thr":San ~ e could no have used Matk..CQncluded that tation ciIthe Gospels by Ius work on the Messianic Secret.
He dealt most fully withtlle.t~k'),nd in~cated
but that J:?~~I~~~els used an er Wri:te'1.•.Dr ora(sour~
the order of events 10 the older source that in the Gospel of Mark there are not only istorica but
~ore athccuratde!~ than did Matthew or Luke. Mark therefore also, and more important, ogmaticide'aS) The histoncal pat-
gIves e tra ition of th G ls .----!---' tern of the events in Mark is gIven y rede: Jesus appeared
otlier Gospe.ls .- e oSp'e - at__an earlier
. stage
_ than the
'"'"-- ._... "-
as a teacher in Galilee surrounded by a circle of disciples with
'Karl Lachmann, "De Ordln . 'Burnett Hillman Streeter, The FOUT Gaspel.r, A Sludu of Origins
Theologische Studien und Kr't'ke naSrraloonumIn evangelils synoplicls· (TOV. ed.; London: Macmillan, 1930).
" en, (1835),570 If. '
6 7
THE ORiGINS OF FORM CRn1CISM THE NECESSITY FOR THE DISCIPLINE
whom he traveled and to whom he gave instruction. Besides known (7:24; 9:30). He instructs the disciples privately eon-
teaching, Jesus is also pictured as performing miracles, espe- cerning "the secret of the kingdom of God" and other subjects
cially the exorcism of demons. He associates with publicans (4:W-12; 7:17-23; 8:31; 9:28-29; 31, 33-35; 10:33--34; 13:3-37). L
and sinners and takes up an attitude of freedom in relation Scholars following Wrede have not unanimously followed
to the law. He encounters the opposition of the Pharisees and his theory of the "Messianic Secret" as a means of harmonizing
the Jewish authorities, who set traps for him and eventually, the historical and theological in Mark, b~~~reinf!,~d
with the help of the Romans, bring about his death.P his view that Mark was not merel a historical resentatio
But there is also a definite nonhistorical dggmatic_CQntent of. the earthly Jesus. AI ert Schweitzer's work. on the, life of
~ Mark in whiclr esus ISpresente_d in sU!1emat.!!!ili~'%) He Jesus, published the same year that Wrede pubh~hed hIS work~
IS the bearer of a speCIal messianic office to which he is ap- reinforced Wrede's view that Mark is not mere hlstory.!' Mark,
pointed by God. The real fact, according to Wrede, is that indeed~isJl)ade_up-oJ a number of in<!!p'en~ent units and .
before the resurrection no one supposed that Jesus was the n~£!osely connected hjstor~-'!Ln::urative at all. Suggestive
!'1essiah. But :uter ~e resurrection there was a tendency to analogies'areusedio express this view:
mterpret Jesus mInIstry in messianic terms. The Gospel of
The material with which it has hitherto been usual to solder the
Mark, therefore, attempts to give a messianic form to the non- sections [of Mark] together into a life of Jesus will not stand the
messianic earthly life of Jesus, The tradi tion of the non- mes- temperature test Exposed to the cold air of critical skepticism it
~ianic character of Jesus' life was so strong, however, that the cracks· when the"furnace of eschatology is heated to a certain point
impulse to interpret Jesus messianically was not able to do the soiderings melt. in both cases the sections ~llfall apart. .
away with the historical elements. Hence, the historical and Formerly it was possible to .book through,~lickets . . . which
dogmatic elements had to be harmonized. enabled those travelling ill the Interests of Life-of-jesus construc-
tion to use express trains, thus avoiding the inconvenience o~ hav-
Wrede claims that the historical and dogmatic conceptions ing to stop at every little station, chang~, and run the nsk ~f
~e h~onized in the Gospel of Mark by means of an idea of missing their connexion. This ticket office IS now closed. There IS
intentional secrecy. Jesus is represented by the writer of Mark a station at the end of each section of the narrative, and the con-
(so Wrede says) as keeping his MessiahshiE an almost com- nexions are not guaranteed.12
P.l!'~i1e he is !Jl-ell!:!h,-He does ;~veal himseJiii) The works of ohannes Weiss~'!..-and....Juli!!!!. We1J!1ause~::V'.
,!essi"ili to, ru,s-dlScir.lc:s b~t he ;,imams'Uiifutelligible-eveIi to served to stren en the view that Mark is not, mere histo~
~em, and It ISonly WIth hIS resurrection that the true percep- and to call attention to the activit)' of the early Christian
tion ?f what he is begins. Attention is called to Significant community b"the fomJation-of Mark. ..
data m the Gospel of Mark which support this theory. In the
Gospel of Mark the demons who seek to make the identity
By the early part of the twentieth century the .cDtical dy :.ru
of the Synoptic Gospels had arrived at the followmg posittons:
?f Jesus known are silenced (Mark 1:25, 34; 3:11-12). Secrecy (1) The "two document" hypothesis.- was acc~£te~ ~ark \l.D~. \//
IS commanded after same of Jesus' mighty works have been Q served as sources-for Matthew and LUlie. (2.)...Both Mark .../fi
a~compllShed (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26). After the confession ';'"d Q, as well as Matthew and Luke, were influenced by the
o. Peter ~d. at the descent from the Mount of Transfigura- ----...... ~_.-
tion ~e disciples are charged to tell no one that Jesus is the "Albert Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of qod: The SeC1'~
of /eS1J8' Messiahship and Passion, trans. Walter Lowne (New York.
Messiah (8:30; 9:9). Jesus withdraws from the multitudes' Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1914). 331--32
he embarks upon secret travels and moves around Galilee un- "Schweitzer Quest of the Historical/estIS, pp. . V denhoeck
"johannes Weiss, Das iilteste Evangelium (COttingen: an
"WillIam Wred nod'Ruprecht, 1903). E I' Marel (Berlin' Reimer) was
gen: Vondenboeck'.?n'd w.:..wsgehelmnb In. den Eoongelien (GOttIn-
Ruprecht, 1963), p. 130. precht, 1901; reISSued, Vandenhoeck nnd
uJulius Wellhausen Das vange lurn lari eel
published in 1903, ";d in the next five years oommen es appear
on Matthew, Luke, and John.
8 9
/
'"
TIlE ORIGINS OF FORM CRITICISM THE POSSIBn.ITY FOR THE DISCIPLINE
' !h~ot()giSal views of the early church. (3 )__~~rk.A!'_d_~ con- 500 ~,!±,. The documents were combined and edited by
-:: ,~-ta!!.l~!Lnotonly early authentic mat~ri~sbut also materials_of laID writers to form our present books: J and E were united
~ - later d~e. Therefore, the discipline of source criticism did near the time of the end of the kingdom of Judall (587); and
~6ot bring scholars to pur~ historical sources which allowed this combined work,-lE, was united with P about the time
them to arrrve at an unbiased primitive view of the earthly of Ezra (444). Before the-doc~;ments were written, however,
Jesus. Some other tool was necessary! But what tool could there were individual stories which originally existed in an
be used to pry beyond Mark and Q into the preliterary stage oral form and which only later were placed in a structured
of the Synoptic Gospels? collection. In order to study the early history of the stories
they must be studied as individual units, not as they nOW
THE POSSIBILITY FOR THE DISCIPLINE,
GUNKEL'S STUDY stand in the Book of Genesis, Gunkel's view of the nature of
OF LEGENDS the earliest documents assisted him in his work, for the earliest
documents were not literary works composed by authors. The
A s,tudy of the early oral stages of a literature known to us
Yahwist and the Elohist were collectors, not authors; and al-
only 10 a l.ater wntten form sounds like an impossibility I But
though the Priestly writer maynave"been a -geiiiime- author
the truth IS that studies had been undertaken which would
responsible for a literary creation, he too used previous ma-
enable .scholars to pry back into the preliterary stages of the
terials which can be isolated and stndied as independent
Synoptic Gospels. The scholar who made the greatest direct
stories. Gunkel saw these originally oral stories as being de-
~ c?ntnbution by showing the actual possibility of fonn criti-
veloped and modified within the life of Israel over a long pe-
--:4\ ~Ism.was lk!rpann Gunkel, an Old T estJ,menLscholar..-He riod of time. As some of the stories were carried into Israel
-iphed-form eritieism to the first book of tbJ'JliblJ'J G~esis.
from foreign countries and as all of the stories traveled into
he fu:st.fhle.lJ09ks_Qfthe .Old.Testament (kno\m.colkcti';;;ly
as the -7Pentateuch) different parts of Israel, they were adapted to the existing
-_ ..~ para 11I . many ways the Gospels ~-
e 10 of the
life of the people. The stories also changed as they were
1L( e~esJa!!leAt. Although tradition attributes them to ~es
transmitted from one age to a succeeding age. "When a new
as tradition attributes the Gospels to the apostles), a care-
generation has come, when the outward conditions are changed
ful study of the materials indicates that they assumed their
or the thoughts of men have altered, whether it be in religion
Pdresentform over a long period of time and that a number of
'; - or ethical ideals or aesthetic taste, the popular legend can-
,f' ofocuments
th boc ks no longer extan t , were used in the composition
not permanently remain the same. Slowly and hesitatingly,
r;o,!:;-.~"") hIe hood' ~efore the end of the nineteenth century always at a certain distance behind, the legends follow the
'"'jl.,.t sc 0 ars a arrived t" d" '
,J . "I' /i" ' sources The d a h assure results concerning these general changes in conditions, some more, others less."'·
~"~ '" < R to the . e ' d o~u;;:ents, owever, did not carry scholars back Gunkel classified the stories of Genesis in light of the pur-
~"r'~--:;"t-' Pentat p no 0 e events recounted in the books of the
~,if ;~1- b euch, Some tool besides source criticism was seen to
poses of the stories. He acknowledged that some legends are
<;." , "historical" in that they reflect historical occurrences, they
t.~~.:,
~~~
{11,~~, G:::;::s;,ary to go behind the earliest documents, Hermann
that tooL as the Old Testament scholar who developed just
contain the remnant of a tradition of some actual event. But
he emphasized that legends in general arose in Israel for the
v <.-....,
l.4 ...1;.
"r,{~l,.$
~ {. 11
Gunkel acknowledg d th I
Genesis (and the oth e - ''j resi; ts of source..criticism; that
purpose of explaining something and he classified several dif-
ferent types of legends on the basis of what it is that they ex-
"'~ previo d er books of the Pentateuch) grew out of
Ie- ~t~ o,:"ments which may be attributed to the Yahwist. "Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis: T11e Biblical Saga and
of th-~ h:th century B.C., the Elohist (E) of the first half History, trans. W. H. Carruth (New York: Scho~kent H)~4), pp. 98-9~.
The Legends of Genesis is a translation of the Introduction to Gunkeh
~~g
..
__ century,-and the Priestly writer (1') between
~ CenesU (COllingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1901) •
10 11
/"
TIili OHIGINS OF FORM ClUTICISM THE EARLIEST WORK IN NEW TESTAMENT FORM CRITICISM
plain: ethnological legends, etymological legends, ceremonial story and by the fact that they are relatively unconcrete. Since
,legends, and geological legends. the art of storytelling degenerated after the high point which
~_EJ!1_Il.?l£gicai~gen~ are fictitious stories which were de- gave the legends their initial fonn, later additions show more
vised to explain the relations 2f tribes,- The story of Jacob's care for the thought than for the form of the story. Such later
deception, for example, explains how he obtained the better additions usually contain speeches and sometimes short nar-
country. rative notes. The note that Jacob bought a field in Shechem
-¥E,tymological lege~-: resulted from the thought given by (33:18-20) and that Deborah died and was buried at Bethel
ancient !srael to the origin and meaning, of the n~lJl~ of r~._ (35:8) are such narrative notes.
moun!..~, wells, sanctu:yie§..JlDcLcities. The explanation in More important than the additions are the omissions which
the legend is not scientific but popular, based on the language are intended to remove objectionahle features. Gaps in the
as it stood. "It identifies the old name with a modem one narrative give evidence of such omission. "Indeed, to those of
which sounds more or less like it, and proceeds to tell a little a later time often so much had become objectionable or had
story explaining why this particular word was uttered under lost its interest that some legends have become mere torsos."
these circumstances and was adopted as the name."'· Jacob is The case of the marriage with angels and the story of Reuben
interpreted as "heelholder" ('aqebh), for example, because at are such torsos. "In other cases only the names of the figures
birth he held his brother by the heel. of the legend have come down to us without tJ:eir legen~."'8
The imp~n:ant ceremonial legends seek to explain the exis- The names of the patriarchs Nahor, Iscah, Milcah, Phiehol,
!ence of rehgIO~sceremonies which had come to play such an and Ahuzzath are illustrations. The legend of the giant Nimrod
~porta?t, pa;t m Israel. ":"'~at is the origin of the Sabbath, of has been cut so that we have only the proverbial phrase, "like
circumcision, The real ongm caunot be given, so the people Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord" (10:9). Some
tell a story to explain the sacred customs. Tbe rite of circum- stories lost their context in transmission and were not correctly
cision~for e~ample, is in memory of Moses, whose firstborn understood by later writers. The later narra~ors, for example,
was clfcu:nclSed as a redemption for Moses (Exod. 4:24--26). do not know why Noah's dove brought an olive leaf (8: 11) or
GeolOgIcallegends explain the origin of a locality. "Whence why [udah was afraid to give his youngest son to Tamar
comes the Dead Sea with its dreadful desert? The region was (38:11).
cursed by God on account of the terrible sin of its inbabitants. Hence there is spread over many legends something like a blue
Whence comes the pillar of salt with its resemblance to a haze which veils the colorsof the landscape: we often have a f~el- f
woman? That is a woman, Lot's wife, turned into a pillar of ing that we indeed are still able to recall the moods of the ancle.nt
salt as .punlShment for attempting to spy out the mystery of legends, but the last narrators had ceased to have a true .appreCla-
God tion of these moods. We must pursue all these observatiOl~s,find
." 26) "17 Of course, various motifs are frequently com-
., (XIX
the reasons that led to the transformations,and thus descnbe the
bmed in one legend and some legends carmot readily be classi-
fied. inner history of the legends."
Gunkel felt that the history of the legend can be derived THE EARLIEST WORK iN
NEW TESTAMENT FORM CRITICISM
from a careful study of the legend itself because it shows the
result ?f changes in time and place in itself. Slight additions With tile necessity for a study of the preliterary period of
extensive additions ) and m
. rare cases an entire
. story have been' Gospel origins established by New Testament scholars ~d
added to the tr aditi S I dd
mon, uc 1 a itions may he recognized by the possibility for preliterary study established by Gunk~~ m
the fact that they are out of place in an otherwise harmonious his research on Genesis, it was inevitable that the fonn cntical
"Ibid., p. 28.
"Ibid., p. 34. "Ibid., p. 101.
"Ibid., pp. 101-102.
12 IS
, --
lli· .• /'
THE ORIGINS OF FORM CRITICISM THE EARLIEST WORK IN NEW TESTAMENT FORM CRITICISM
approach would be applied to the Gospel tradition. Three the Marcan framework itself was.llot original tQ~.J!!GGospelj fir"
scholars are credited with beginning this new effort in the writer provided the frameJ;Yllrkin th!lJigl:lt.o£.his.o~,n..i]JL... l:!i.ts.
study of the Gospels in the years 1919 through 1921. In 1919 His concluding paragraph points out that the lack of re1!!.!.!on-
came Der Rahmen der Ceschichte lesu. [The Framework of ship between the units in Mm,.!~l:les.t..GQs.Pd,J;hpj](Ul>at
the Story of Jesus] by Karl Ludwig Schmidt and Die Form- ilie oldest tradition of l\sus.J:\Jll,Sisted..Pi..lw abundance of
gesehiehte des Evangeliums (English translation: From Tradi- iIi ividual stories which have been united by earl Ch :!stians
tlcn to Gospel, 1935) by Martin Dibelius. These were followed wiili their cnrr.;'rent reJi~us,-!!pologetic, and missionary inter-
in 1921 by Rudolf Bultmann's Geschichte der syooptisehen ests. "Only nOW-ana then, from considerations about the inner
Tradition (English translation: History of the Synoptic Tra- &racter of a story, can we fix these somewhat more precisely
ition, 19(3). in respect to time and place/~ut as. a whole there is no life of L
_arL!::u~:~g Schmidt ..was only twenty-eight years old when Jesus in the sense of an evolvmg biography. no chronological
e published his book. It was his first book and established his sketch of the story of Jesus, but only single stories, pericopae,
reputation as a New Testament scholar. The title indicates which are put into a framework."" The work of the evangelist i ./
=
"'" the concern of the book-the framework within which the as seen in the completed Gospel is important for understand-\
ing the life and iliought of the church of his day. But for the
~spel writers placed the life of Jesus. As was seen earlier,
this was not a new concern. Earlier scholars such as D. F. earlier history we are dependent upon the single episodes.z
Strauss had deal~ with this. But Schmidt did a comprehensive The episodes obviously came from the Christian believers
study of the entire Gospel tradition and come to conclusions among whom they circulated singly in oral form, They were
which both demanded and enabled New Testament scholars preserved and transmitted because they met the needs of the
to pry back of the Gospels into the earlier oral period. church as a worshiping community .
. Schmidt accepted the conclusions of scholars as to the rela- If it is the case that the rise of the Christian faith can be under-
tions of the Synoptic Gospels-that Mark was the e!!lliest of stood only in terms of the development of Chri:tian worship-a
t!,'~ptiC ~ospels and that if was_us d by~~;l<lttm,w~_and view which has won increasingly WIde acceptanc.e .m recent years-
Lu e alo~g With ~on-Marcan materials. But he along with it is clear that the rise of Christian literary activity must also be
understood in relation to the experience of worship. In m~ opinion.
~ome earher scholars saw in addition that the Gospels-Mark
the significance of the early Christian tradition of \~orslllP. for the
IOcluded-are made up of short episodes which are linked to- process of which the literature of the Gospels came Into being can-
gether by a series of bridge passages which provide chronol- not possibly be exaggerated?'
ogy, ge~graphy, and a movement of the life of Jesus from his
early
" ministry to his arr es t . Th'e passion narrative
" is an excep- Schmidt carefully studied the entire Synoptic tradition ~om
tion, for It rea~he~ ~omething like its present fonn at an early the perspective of the framework which the Gospel wnters
date ~nd the IOdlVldual units in the passion narrative have gave to the life of Jesus. He also ga,:,e s.o~e helpf~l suggestions
j
meanmg .onI'I as t~ey fit into place as parts of a larger whole. as to the nature and origin of the mdlVldual umts ma.k~ng up
The passion narrative as a unit came into existence very early the Synoptic tradition. But Schmidt did not really ulIh~e the
to ~n~wer the question asked in the early period of the church's tools of form criticism to pry back into the oral penod of
~tlVlty, "How could Jesus have been brought to the cross by Gospel origins. This task was left for Martin Dibelius and
e people who were blessed by his signs and wonders?""o
By a careful study of the tradition Schmidt concluded iliat "'*'
Rudolf Bultmann.
DibeliYs...was. the firsUo apply ~orro critici~m .to the Sy- /
D:.ISseus""",w
T':~~d~f9S=~ Rah~.~che' Ges<hlchtelem (Berlin:
- ~ '''''--
no tic tradition. Indeed tl,e term _ form cnticlSm [Formge:.
14 15
THE ORIGINS OF FORM CRlTlCISM
Source Criticism .
The early form crities accept and build uPdon the cfo~~lusG'Ons
of source criticism. Tel h lit erary interdepen ence .0. .UJe W os-
ld US wiili a profitable tool for form enticlSm. e
pe IS provi es I' tr t d by Matthew
b how Marean and Q ma~.rj,! IS ea e
:~ °L~~~e and ~e ~y ';'-;'m-;'- that ilie sa~e pri:tl~:a':~ I
work during ilie written period were operafhve ~n M k nd
't as "'ven its orm m ar a
tional material even b e fore 1 ': b' I tl ~ starting point for
Q . Source en'ti°'elsm, however '. IS mere)'
..'
1......
as ilie task of
: .,. f when form cnticlSm IS seen
form cnhclSm, or. . . the S 0 tic tradition and of
discovering the ongmal umts off ili
establishing the earlier history 0
yn.J
e .um "
ilie written source "(-
PRESUPPOSITIONS
TIIE DISCIPLINE APPLIED BY DIBELIUS AND BULTMANN
though Bultmann follows an analytical method which hegins
Independent Unit, of Tradition with the text instead of the church, he admits that he cannot
The "funQ~Illental assumption," and in some sense the "dispense with a provisional picture of the primitive commu-
assumption which makes form criticism both necessary and pos- nity and its history, which has to be turned into a clear and
sible, is that the tradition consists basically of individual sayings articulated picture in the course of my inquiries:"
\! [ and narratives joined together in the Gospels by the work of the The assumption that the tradition is chu~ch.~riented makes I
editors. The assumption of original individual units does not very important the specific VIew of the pnmltlve com~1Un~ty
mean that there were no collections before the work of the Gos- and its history which Dibelius and Bultmann hold. Dibelius
pel writers. K. L. Schmidt had concluded that such earlier col- sees the Christian movement as originating with the Aramaic-
lections did in fact exist, and Dibelius and Bultmann acknowl- speaking Palestinian circle of Jesus, of course. Then comes a
edge that small groups of materials were formed in the oral pre-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity in close proximi~ to Juda-
period. Dihelius says, "That narratives were united even in the ism. These pre-Pauline Christian churches were in Greek-
old tradition, is seen most clearly in the interweaving of the speakin" regions such as Antioch and Damascus and grew out
= story of Jairus with the healing of the woman with the issue. of Jewish churches without making a logical break with Juda-
!he union is so close here, that we cannot regard it as originat- ism. Still later comes the Pauline church which is much less
mg in the evangelist as editor."! Bultmann stresses, however, closely related to Judaism.
~at "there. i: a natural limit to such groupings in the oral pe- Dibelius declares that the Synoptic tradition did not acquire
nod, even If it cannot be precisely defined, a limit which can be its TonTI in the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian church or in the
exceeded for the first time in the written tradition:'. later Pauline church. The tradition acquired its,fo rm in the
~Paulinel!ell~~~urches- closely asso~iated with Juda-
The Passion Narrative ism. These churches emphaSized that the faith and hopes of
One body of material is seen as an exception to the rule Judaism reached completion with the com~g of ~he Messia?,
that there were no connected narratives of the life of Jesus in Jesus Christ.' This Christianity was espeCIally ~terested in
the earli~st peri~d. This .excepjjon is the Pass~r.l!tiYl:. the traditions of the life of Jesus from the perspective that the
The earliest Passion story, however, is not the Marean story. long-expected salvation had nOWcome to pass in the events
Both Dibelius and Bultmann hold that the Marean story is the of Jesus among the Jewish people. The c~urc?es were not L
end result of a very early process of transmission of tradition interested in the tradition for literary and historical purposes.
and that even in the earliest Passion story that we can recon- They were interested in a tradition to be passed on to n:ission,
struct .we do not have pure history. We do have in the Passion aries, preachers, and teachers. This concern for preachmg led
narrat~ve of the Synoptics an early composition of a connected ~ to the cultivation and [ormation of the tradition. Such con-~
na~Ta~we, a. narrative which gives events in a larger context. cern might require that "the material should be. shaped .and /
This IS an Important exception to the general history of the directed for the purposes which it should serve, ~.e. defimte~y .
Synoptic tradition. sharpened, obscure points made clear, the material placed ill J
closer connection with the subject of the sermon, and thJ}/
The ..I!:2!!!!~d the Church
actual interests of the life of the Church introduced ...•
J ?'he tra1iti~n served 'the n.eedsa_nd_.Rl~rposes
of the church. Bultmann cannot dispense with a provisional picture of the
This assumption is vital for Dihelius since'he f011Owsa-COil- primitive community and its history in his analysis of the Syn-
stru~t~ve method and reconstructs the history of the Synoptic
tradition from a study of the early Christian conununity. Even 'Ibid., p. 5. G I 30
'Dibelius, From Tradition to ospe • p. .
:Dibelius. Fr~ Tradition to Cospe~ p. 219. 'Ibid., p. 31.
Bultmann, HIStory of the Synoptic Tf'adition~p. 322.
19
18
�'--- /"
THE DISCIPLINE APPLIED BY DffiELillS AND BULTMANN LITERARY FORMS AND THEm SITZ 1M LEBEN
optic tradition. But his approach does not demand as detailed LITERARY FORMS AND THEIR SITZ 1M LEBEN
a picture of the church as does the approach of Dibelius. Both Dibelius aud Bultmann, following the example of a
Hence Bultmann is satisfied to divide early Christianity into form critical study of the Old Testament, find a variety of
two basic phases: Palestinian Christianity and Hellenistic forms in the Synoptic Gospels.
Christianity.
The Farms of Dibelius
Classification of Form ~Jillll:9.ncero..Qf .lli!:>~lius is.with .the- narrative material ..
Dibelius and Bultmann assume that the materials can be of the Gos els, and he fin_<!~ three major categories of nar.ra-
; !classified as to fo~ and that the form enables the students to tive materiafIn- addition to the Passion narrative. The PaSSiOn
reconstruct the history of the tradition. Dibelius says that a ';iOry 'came first. It waS told relatively early as a connect~d
careful critical reading of the Gospels shows that the Gospel story. Then paradigms developed. These were short sto ....es
,/ writers took over unit~ial which already Eoss!'-ill'd a which told of isolated events in the life of Jesus and which
~. form of their own. Dibelius is not speaking of aesthetic stan- were suitable for sermons. When pleasure in the narrative
Sp{~\l" ~ar s"created by' a gifted. individual when he speaks of the for its own sake arose, the technique of the tale [Novelle]
form of a tradition. He IS speaking of the "style" of a unit- developed. Also, legendary narratives gr?wing out of per-
a style or form that has been created by its use among early sonal interest in the individuals involved WIth Jesus developed
Christians. The specific use to which a unit is put determines and joined themselves to the periphery of the tradition.
its form, and in the case of the early church the forms devel-
oped out of primitive Christian life itself. The units, there- Paradig~he sermons...2f t.h<l. ef!!'ly._Christians did not
fore, have a fq!J!l ..l\'hich i§~~eir_ pla~ in-!h.e life co~;simply the bare message of the gospel "but. rather
VOf the church. "':Ve are concerned ... not with things remem- the message as explained, illustrated and supported With ref-
ered complete in themselves, though without form, and thus erences and otherwise developed.'" The narratives of the
passed on, b.ut, from the very beginning, with recollections deeds of Jesus were introduced as examples to illustrate and
ful.1 of e~otional power to bring about repentance and to support the message. These examples constitute the oldest \ .,/
gam be~levers. Thus the things which were remembered Christian narrative style, and hence Dibe~ius suggests the
automatically took On a definite form, for it is only ~hen such name "paradigm" for this category of narrative. .
matters have received a form that they are able to bringabouL The-!ribute m.,?ney (Mark 12:13-17) is a pure paradigm:
repentance and .gain converts.'" Form criticism, then, must in-
And th sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of .the He.ro-
qUlre into the life and worship of early Christianity and ask ditans, to
ey entrap him' m· his talk And they came
wh~t categories are possible Or probable in this community of f and said. to
f
him,
"Teacher we know that you are true. and care or no man, fr~odu
unliterary people. do not re' ard the position of men, but truly teach the way 0 .
Bultmann is in complete accord with this assumption. "The Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? S.houIhdwe.dPa th y them,
proper undersbnding of form-criticism rests upon the judg- " len' their hypocnsy e Sal to em,
or should we not? But o~g . d 'let me look at it.·
~~~t that the literatu~e ... springs out of quite definite con-
ns and wants of life from which grows up a quite definite ~>;!.;t ::u~h:h:n~~Sf..~I;'~ s:d So ili~~::~?seJ~u:n:~;,,~
- style and quite ~pecific :orms and categories."' Every literary inscription is this?" They sal~ ili::t
or: Caes:..r's and to God
.Icat~go,?, then Will have Its own "life situation" [Sitz im Leben]
them "Render to Caesar the gs zed t bun
the things that are God's." And they were ama a .
which IS a typical situation in the life of the early Christian
community. The following units (with parallels in other Gospels at times)
are also judged to be pure paradigms. Mark 2:1-12, 18-22,
'JbU/., pp. 1a-14.
'BultmanD, Hl#Of1I of the Sf/1IOPIic Tradillon, p. 4- 'Dlbelius, From TradUlon to e;"spel, p. 25.
20
"-
I
THE DISCIPUNE APPLIED BY DIBELIUS AND BULTMANN LITERARY FORMS AND THEIR srrz 1M LEBEN
23-28,3:1-5,20--30,31-35; 10:13-16; 12:13-11; 14:3-9. Other Other Synoptic tales are found in the following units: Mark
less pure paradigms include: Mark 1:23-27; 2:13-11, 6:1-.Q; 4:35-41; 5:1-20, 21--43; 6:35--44, 45-52; 7:32-31; 8:22-26;
10:17-22, 35-40, 46-52; 11:15-19; 12:18--23, Luke 9:51-56; 9: 14-29, Luke 1: 11-16.
14:1--{j. The tales are similar to paradigms in that they are individual I..
From a study of the paradigms themselves Dibelius finds stories complete in themselves." But in almost every ?ther
.!~ess~.ntial characteristics: (I) independence from the liter- way they differ. The tales are much longer than paradigms,
ary ,:,ntext, (2) firevity-:aif't s!rI)£liC:iD'~li'[trse as.examples ill and they contain a greater breadth of description due to story-
a sermon, (3) religious rather than artistic coloring and style~ tellers and teachers "who understand their art and who love
(qr::a.@.~ctic style often causing'th~' words of J eSlls to" ~and. to exercise it."13There is also a "lack gUk ..QQ!.iJ).nal QJQtiQes..rmd
~ut S.l.~!!~ly, and (5) an ending in a thought useful for I'~g~s!!: ~ad.':'!!!....r..~i.!£!!! ..}?'L~t':'!!!!!!f.of J!!.EE....9!_ g~"!'!a~.Ea!1J{14
wg..:". word or act of Jesus,01'''the reaction of the onlooke!:~ in the tales. The conclusions do not contain material useful
for preaching such as we find in paradigms. Clear~y the tales
Jalf', . The tales in the Gospels are stories of Jesus' miracles do not playa part in the sermon ~ d~ the paradIgms. They
= which originate in their present form not ,~rrh preachers but exist for the pleasure of the narr~elf.
WIth storytellers and teachers who related the stories from the -Tales or~~ted!.~accordi?g to D~belius, ~n three .ways: by
life of Jesus "broadly, with colour, and not without art," In- .....Ef..IJding p~ra:I..ig!,~. by" mb:o~UClI~.~.J~elgp .J!',!h~,_.or ..!!y
deed, ·'1itera.':-!i4tYl",i!Lre'portin~miraelfy, a-fea~e which we borrowi!J.gJo!.~~~~Lfhe process of extending para-
nllsse'! on the whole from. Paradigms, ... appears inthe T,tles-' . igms was somewhat automatic when the paradigms were set
with a certain regularity."lO The style of the tales compares free from their context in a sermon. The storytellers and teach-
WIth the style of similar stories from ancient to modern times: ers, "men who were accustomed to narrate according to the
First ~omes the history of the illness, then the technique of plan of the usual miracle-stories or in the style of. current
~e miracle, and finally the success of the miraculous act. anecdotes.T" introduced a richer miracle content mto the
'Tales belong to a.higher grade of literature than paradigms."!' paradig~ and they employed all the usual ?arrat.ive elem~nts
. The first tale ill Mark is the healing of a leper (Mark to make the tales lively. Also, brief paradlgmahc narratives
1.40-45). (The miracle recounted in 1:23-27 is a paradigm, were extended by employing motifs perhaps strange to the
not a tale.)
original paradigm. For example, Dibelius feels that the story
of Jesus walking on the water (Mark 6:45-52 and pa.rallel
~~d a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him,
you will, ~ou can make me clean." Moved with pity, he passage, Matt. 14:22-33) may hav~ resul.ted from th.e. intro-
stretched"out hI.s hand and touched him) and said to him, "I will; duction of an epiphany motif (mamfesta:lOn of ~e divine on
bf clean. And Immediately the leprosy left him and he was made earth) into a primitive narrative of Jesus mten:enmg helpful.ly
c edan.'dAndhhiesternly charged him, and sent
answto'''S
him away at once
I'at you say nothing to anyone' but go ' in a difficulty caused by winds and waves. At times non-Chris-
m, ee t
sh ow yourself ' t . and 0 fIer for your cleansing what
d d to th e pnes " Moses tian stories were simply taken over as wholes.
Cornman e for a proof to the people." But he went out and be-
f th healin of the woman with the issue and the
I
ga~Jo ta~ freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus .!he account 0 e. gouse of Jairus is an exception. liThe at·
co d DO I anger openly enter a town, but was out in the COWltry· lalSIJ:lg from the dead In the I t ly destroy the structure of the
tempt to separate them wou 1d comp e e. ., lb·d 72
an peop e came to him from every quarter. ' main, together with the subsidiary narrative. I., p. .
ulbid., p. 76.
'Ibid., p. 70. ulbid., p. 79.
Hlbid.,p. 82.
ulbid., p.I03. ulbid., p. 99.
22
- ---
-------------~==~~=------
"-I - /"
THE DISCIPUNE APPLIED BY DIBELIUS AND BULTMANN LITERARY FORMS AND THEm SITZ 1M LEBEN
~gends. Legends, "religious narratives of a saintly man in ....Q!J esus. He finds preaching, especially catechetical instruc-
whose works and fate intereSt is taken ';'-a;:;'-;;e-iil-ih,;cnurcrr tion, as the place of formulation of such teachings, but he pre-
to satisfy .. double-d';-;ir;:}he'deSire t;-=~ow something of the supposes a law different from the law concerning narrative
~.E:'an vlftueunc!.J"t of the hol)L.Illi:JLJlna-wo'"ii'Wn ill )lj material to be at work in the sayings of Jesus. Just as the Jews
/ ,.l~ry_oiJesu~and th~ desire which gradually developed to of J esus' day took the rules of life and worship more seriously
~know ~.!!LlnJl1'i~11mJhis_way. The story of Jesus when he than they took historical and theological tradition, so the Chrts-j; <>(
IS twe ve years old (Luke 2:41-49) is the story of Jesus which tians treated the sayings of Jesus more senously than the nar- ~
show~ most clearly the qualities of legend. ratives. The sayings of Jesus were important, for they dealt
It l~ natural to think of legend as entirely unhistorical, and with Christian life and worship, and, when the early Christian
Dibellus a?knowledges that the religious interests of the nar- teachers transmitted the early exhortation, the words of Jesus
rator may lead to an unhistorical accentuation of the miracu- were naturally included. Dibelius reminds us in this connec-
lous~l~oa glorifyi~g of the hero and to a transfiguration of his tion that "all the sayings of Christian exhortation were regarded
li~e. . Yet, Dibeltus stresses that it would be wrong to dcny as inspired by the Spirit or by the Lord. Thus all of them ap-
~Istoncal content to every legend in the Synoptic Gospels. peared as exhortations 'in the Lord', if not as exhortations of
A narrator of legends is certainly not interested in historical the Lord."2.
confirmah.on, nor does he offer any opposition to increasing As the sayings of Jesus were transmitted, however, some
~,e material by analogies. But how much historical tradition he modification took place. The tradition emphasized and
ania:,~n ill a legend depends on the charactcr of his tradition strengthened the hortatory character of the words of Jesus and
On y. thereby altered the meaning and emphasis of words which
were not originally hortatory. There was also a tendency to
iMyth. D~belius is convinced that the story of Jesus is not include ehrtstological sayings so as "to obtain from the ,words
o mythologICal origin; the £..aradigms, the oldest witness of of Jesus not only solutions of problems o.r rulesJor ones own
== teprocess of formation of the tradition, do not tell of a mytho- life but also to derive from them some Indications about the
== , d 1 "21
;gl~a~.~ero: __ A Christ mythology, evident in the letters of nature of the Person who had uttere t rem,
a~:b ;. ans~ late ,in.the process of the tr'l,dition's formation.
. 1 e ,1~SJU ges that only to the small~tent is the Svnop'. TheFormsof~
tic tradItIOn of a mvtholo«t I h ' Bultmann does a detailed analysis of all the Syooptic ma-
wh lCh d escnlbe a mytholog'
o =-,gJ~,! c_amcter. The only narratives
I " terial within the two generalAjvj.<;iOj1.§of the discourses of
ti b t ica event, a many·sided interac-
On e ween mythological but not human persons"" are the Jesus and the narrative material. !he discoursesof JeSIlf~7are
records of the ba tismal miracle, (Mark 1:9-11 and arallel divided into two main groups:. apophthegms and ~~l:~
PIalssages),~mptation of [esus (Mark 1'12-13 andPparal sayings; but Bultrnann also gives a separate treatment of J.
e passages I, ana fh-- -",,--.-.:.:: . • ji'Xl~gs" and parables although by content they belong ~o.the
passages). ~ e t.!;,!s.!!J~1!lation(Mark 9:2-8 and parallel
dominical sayings . .1!'.~2!,!!,!ati~~?,aterials. are. also dlVl?:d
into two major groups: mirllcJe stones and hlstoncal llafrativ s
Saying.. Although D'b I' and.Iegends~
terra1orthe"'S t' G I e IUS emphasizes the narrative rna.
ynop IC ospeIs, he does deal with ~SJ\Y!!1gs_
Apophthegms. Bultmann's category "afophtheg.ms" Is basi·
"Ibrd .• p. 104,
"Ibrd., p. 108. cally the same as Dibelius's "paradigms. It applies to short
"I bid., p. 109
"Ibid., p, 271: "Ibid., p. 241.
"Ibid., p. 246,
/
point, but for the most part the starting point is a question parable with teac ers 0 basi "constitutive" forms are
0' t Three asic th
asked the Master by someone seeking knowledge. throughout th e nen. diti ed by the sayings em-
h rbs forms eon Ion I
used for t e prove
1
'. , all roverbial literature, not on y
The account in Luke 9:57-{l2 is ~ ~iQgr.'H'.hicalapophtMgm-'-.
selves. These forms .exlSt,10 t 0 tic Gospels. The proverb
Biographical apophthegms are so named because the apoph-
thegm purports to contain information about Jesus. The spe- !r
in the proverbial saY10gs m :h~h yo inciIlle o,_.a...de/;];u:'ltjgn
in a declarative fO,1J!l sets _."I ,. a 1''' -- Ex';'ples from the
effic starting point of the biographical apophthegm, although
co;C;;::em;;:;-g
";n;;te;.JaUhings. 9r~ers~f:..cL b ndance of the
not of the controversy and scholastic dialogue, is the sermon. ,- . -"" . I d ' "For out 0 tne au,
"The biographical apophthegms are best thought of as edify- Synoptic tradition me u "e. 12,34)' "Let the days own
ing paradigms for sermons. They help to present the Master heart the mouth speaks (~;~t." (~1att: 6:34); "The laborer
as a liVing oontemporary, and to comfort and admonish the trouble be sufficient for th 7Y)' d "Many are called, but
hi " (Luke 10: ,an 1 d'
Church in her hope."" deserves 15 wa!fes 22,14) Exhortations are pace m
In Bultmann's opinion all three types of apophthegms are few are chosen (M~tt. .., , hei'L ourself' (Luke 4:23);
animp'era@ejorm' l'hysJJ<~aQ,, 'd Y-d" (Matt. 8:22). Prov-
./ ~41ear-constru~Q!lUlf_th<r-churclt.-They are not historical
7're;~e ilie dead to bury thelr own (i~~' "And which of you
reports. It is true that Jesus engaged in disputations and was
asked questions about the way to life, the greatest command. erbs also exist In_tI}p t2J;l9~0f,.-4~~Stohi~ span of lifer' (Matt.
ment, and other matters. It is also true that the apophthegms by being anxious can add one cu ~ t while the bridegroom is
6:27); "Can the wedding guests as
could easily oontain a histOrical reminiscence and that the with them?" (Mark 2:19).
-Bultmann, HIstOfV of the s~1IOpI/c T,aditkm, p. 61.
-IInd., p. trT.
28
'""'-.
THE DISCIPLINE APPLIED BY DIBELIUS AND BULTMANN LITERARY FORMS AND THEIR SlTZ 1M LEBEN
Bultmann shows that there were developments in the prov- Matt. 11:5-6; Luke 11 :31--32; and Luke 12:54-56.) But there
e~bs even after they were written down, and that it is impos- are other passages which contain nothing specifically charac-
sible to evade the question whether all proverbs go back to teristic of Jesus and where it is most likely that there was a
~he earthly Jesus. The question is especially difficult when it Jewish origin (Matt. 24:37-41, 43-44, 45-51; Matt. 24:10-12;
IS. observed that Synoptic proverbs have parallels in '[ewish Luke 6:24--36; Luke 6:20-21.) Not all sayings which are
WIsdom hterature. (Compare Luke 14:7-12 with Proverbs 25: judged unlikely to have originated in Judaism come from
6--7, for example.) In regard to the genuinencss of the prov- Jesus, for the early church formulated some passages. Some
er~s, Bultmann sees several possibilities: that Jesus himself of the prophetic sayings were originally the work of early
~med some of the proverbs which the Synoptics attribute to Christian prophets which were later attributed to the ear~ly
h~m,.that Jesus occasionally made use of pnpular proverbs of Jesus. Such a church origin is more likely the more there IS a
~s tIme: and that the primitive church placed in Jesus' mouth relationship of the saying to the person of Jesus or ~o the lot
any Wisdom saymgs that were rcally derived from the store- and interest of the church. Bultmann asserts that one may
= house. of Jewish proverbial lore. Bultmann's judgment is that with perfect right recognize among them authentic words of
the Wisdom sayings are "least guaranteed to be authentic words Jesus; and though the Christian community itself pr?duced
o.f J:sus; and they are likewise the least characteristic and many a prophetic saying, as may be ~learly shown,. It must
significant for historical interpretation."" nevertheless be recognized that, accordmg to the testimony of
.PrQp,IWtiI!-,!-,!dapJJ9!,lypticsayings are those sayings in which the earliest Christians themselves, they owed their esehato-
. f J "26
Jesus proclU1med~thearrival of tile Heizn of God and preached logical enthusiasm to the prophetic appearance 0 esus.
the
-. call to repentan~e
',"'; .,
, promIsmg sa~lyahoo
~....-.,.
lor tnose who were The third group of sayings is made up ,of statements regard-
pr:pared and threatening woes upon the unrepentant."" To Jewish_l'J!!tY.Jl~d,teg~latwns of the early.cQ.m:,
ing!.!:.0:-/!!!!-Q!!:d
this c~tegory belong sayings like: "The time is fulfilled, and , munitluxamplcs are: There ISnothmg outside a m~n which
the kmgdom of Cod is at band; repent and believe in the by going into him can defile him;" but the things ~vhi~h come
gospel" I(Mark 1: 15); "Blessed are the ~yes which see what out of a man are what defile him (Mark 7: 15); Is it lawful
you see, For 1 tell you that many prophets and kinds desired on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to
kill?" (Mark 3:4); and "If your brother sins against you, go
hto see what ' you see ' an d did1 not see It,' and to hear what you
ear, and and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens
f' did not hear it" (Luke 10'23--34) '; "Bl esse d are you
~oor, or yours IS the kingdom of Cod. Blessed are you that to you you have gained your brother. But if he does not
unger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are ou that listen, ;ake one or two others along with you, that eve~ word
weep now, for you shall laugh" (Luke 6:20-21) are Jearl in may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three Wltn':"'Ses.
this category of sayings. y If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he
BtuJltm~nhnsees proof in the little apocalypse of Mark 13 :5-27 refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a
th a ewis matenal has b Centile and a tax collector" (Matt. 18:15-17),
d een ascnib e d to Jesus by the church
h e asks to what ext t th Bultmann declares that the history of the sayings can be
an
. 'I I . d en e rest 0 f the material must be'
SImi ar y JU ged In s . h seen "with desirable clarity" in the legal material. He indi-
10 ical " ,orne saymgs t e immediacy of eschato-
cates that the church possessed a stock of genuine sayings of
Je~us h:~~~~ousness IS so different from jewish tradition that
must have been the origin. (Luke 10 :23-24; Jesus. Especially important and genuine are the b~ief conflict
sayings which express Jesus' attitnde to [ewish piety (Mark
~Rudolf Bultmann "The Stud h
cism, ed. and trans: Frederick
p. 55.
b. fCtrant
0 e Syn(optic Cospels.~ Form CrfU·
New York, Harper 1962)
7:15; 3:4; Matt. 23:16--19, 23-24, 25-26), Concerning these
28 29
--"-
THE DISCIPLINE APPLIED BY DffiELIUS AND BULTMANN LITERARY FORMS AND TIIElR srrz 1M LEBEN
Bultmann says that "this is the first time that we have the relations, then the judgment is applied in the realm of the
right to talk of sayings of Jesus, both as to form and content."21 spiritual life.'·
The tradition gathered these genuine sayings, "gave them a Jesus, of course, spoke in parables, but the church trans-
new form, enlarged them by additions and developed them mitted the parables and used them for its own purpose. It
is clear that here and there the form has been changed and
further; it collected other (Jewish) sayings, and fitted them
applications added to the parables to make them more rele-
by adaptation for reception into the treasury of Christian in-
vant to the later church. Such alterations are even seen in
struction, and produced new sayings from its consciousness of
Matthew's and Luke's use of their written sources. But Bult-
a new possession, sayings which they ingenuously put into
the mouth of [esus.'?" Bultmann especially attributes to the mann sees more radical alteration by the church .. The 'parables~
church the Old Testament citations which are frequently
have been placed into particular contexts and gIven mtroduc- t(
tions which affect .th.e..-Jneaning...o.lthe stories. At times th
found. in combination with debating sayings, the sayings which
church placed a new parable alongside an oTdef independent
cont~m rules for the discipline of the community and for its
story, the new parable being built along tile same general
mlssl~n, and the sayings in which the church expressed its
lines and giving either the same teaching as the old parable
faith in Jes~s, his work, his destiny, and his person.
or a modification of the original teaching. The church also en-
The .l!.!'YJJlgs are those sayings attributed to Jesus in which
larged parables by providing allegorical additions and expla-
he speaks of himself his work, and his destiny. "Think not that
nations. Parables from the [ewish tradition were also used to
1 have come to abolish the law and the prophets; 1 have come
not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and "For augment the store of parables of Jesus. ., .
The history of the parables in the tradition makes It clear
the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve and
that the original meaning of many of the parables of Jesus ~as
to g!,ve hi~ lif~, as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45) illu~trate
become irrecoverable and that some of the parabolic matenal
the 1 saymgs. Bultmann admits that it is Impossible to prove
does not go back to Jesus but to the ch~rch. Bultma~n con-
~at Jesus could n.ot have spoken in the first person about
cludes with a rule ~c!Lenab.les us to dIscover genumuar- \
himself, But he brmgs such serious considerations against so
many of these sayings that "one can have but little confidence
abies of Jesus:-:We can only count on possessin~ a ~en~ine I
similitude of Jesus where, on the one hand, expreo:slOnIS gIven I";
even ~ r:;gard to those which do not COme under positive
SuspICIOn." to the contrast between Jewish morali ty and piety and the \
. . The sayingI S as a woeh I express the retrospective
distinctive eschatological temper which characterized the
pomt ?f VIeW of the church. Although some come from the
preaching of Jesus; and where on the other hand we find no
iale~t~lan church (Matthew 5:17, for example, points to the
ega ebates of the early church and Matthew 15·24 . ts specifically Christian features.""
to discussions about the Gentile mission) the "1 : lom
. I ' saymgs were MirJl_dLStDl:ie3--Rllltwalln-divides the. narr!tive .J!lJlte~ _
-/ pre d ommant y ~e work of the Hellenistic churches.
of the Synoptic Gospels int~o wain gIDl1PAWlliras!.7.-_s~9J.i~--
'Ih<:..pm:ablg~_a..concise-and simple story which is much like
.a.popular.sto . its, ~ ~ "- ..,..!!ll!Lnistorical narrptjlle.S and.lcgeg.q;;,-~ means by ~tracle
~ Ian ua e an ry.m 1".coJ!c.mt~.Jan~uage,ltLuse.of.gialetlicaL stories" what Dibelius means by "tales, namely, stories of
gal~l~f h'~ s,91Jlo..guy.,
and.!!s.repetition. It is a story told
to c ort Judgm t h .,. lOBultmann finds different figurative Forms ranging from simple com-
is made . en On t e part of the hearer; a judgment
regardmg the story of everyday human affairs and parisons and metaphors to similes rGteichniss~l.. pa~ables [parabelnl and
ii
exemplary stories (Beispielerziihlungen]. Distinctions are :hot wa~
easy to observe, and all of the parables have 1D common e e emen
"Bultrnann Histcru 1 Ih S
"Ibid., pp. 145-46' 0 • ynopllc Tradillon, p. 147. of comparison. ' 205
"Ibid., p. 155. . UBuitmann, HisfOlT/ 01 Ihe SlI"optlc TradItion, p. •
81
.- /
THE DISCPLINE APPLIED BY DIBEUUS AND BULTMANN FORM CRITICISM AND THE LIFE OF JESUS
h ealings and nature miracles in which the miracle consti- TIl ehdistOricityd0bfJesu~h'baptism by John, for example, is not 1,-
t 'I '1'
t iel mam to b e ispute , ut as t e story is told in the Synoptic Gospels
t utcs 1 theme and' IS d escnib e d with' considerable de-
au, " irac es Occur amon th h 1 (Mark 1:9-11) it must be classified as ~~d. ~
miracle is suhordinated ~ e apop t legms, but there the i.e.,not historical but reli~~9.. edifY-igg. It tells of Jesus'
B It to e pomt of the apophthegm
consecration as Messiah and is a faith legend. (When the con-
mir:cI::tnonr' comfpares lthe Synoptic miracle stories with the text is the faith or worship of the community, the result is a
that th G res 0I' [ewis 1 and H e 11ems • tiIC ongm
"
and discovers faith or cult legend; when the context is tile life of some reli-
e ospe stones have exactl th I
Hellenistic miracle stories Th dY. e same sty e as the gious hero, the result is a biographical legend.)
described the h I' .' e con ition of the sick person is Bultmann observes that the legendary motifs in the narra-
, ea mg is recounted th th
the miracle are unfolded. ,en e consequences of tives are of diverse origin. Some materials show the influence
Bultmann asks at what sta h .. of the Old Testament and Judaism, others show Hellenistic
the additi f'" ge t e tradition was enriched by elements, still others have motifs which have grown up within
I Ion 0 miracle stori d
0Jigi!;L is probabl f ones an . concludes that a Palestinian the Christian tradition itself. The place at which the material
4:35-41 (St'll'
j
e forhseve~1 miracle stories. "Judging Mk.
mg 0 t e Storm) b '
came into the life of the church varies: Palestinian, Jewish t
origin seems probable if the e Y Its content, a Palestinian Hellenistic, and purely Hellenistic, Regardless of the ultimate .
consideration The s h Id J wish parallels are taken into origin and time of utilization by the church, the materials were
. ame 0 s tru f Mk
(Feeding Stories) Th h ali e or .6:34-44 or 8:1-9 used to meet the needs of Christian faith and life.
=_' _
will also have co;'e fee
HIE DISCIPLINE APPLIED BY DffiELIUS AND BULTMANN FORM CRITICISM AND UIE LIFE OF JESUS
makes him skel'tieal of its historicity. Of course, he does not tinguished. Whatever materials show the sI'eciJic interest or
doubt that Jesus lived and did many of the kinds of works flle church or reveal characteristics of later development must
attributed to him in the tradition. But he is skel'tieal about be rejected as secondary. An oldest layer is thus detennined,
although it can be determined with only relative exactness.
J the r~port of any specific activity bein a historic~ report and
is quite sure that the narrative material in the tradition cannot
Even this oldest layer may not go back to Jesus. "Naturally
give us insight into the life and personality of Jesus. "I do we have no absolute assurance that the exact words of this
~deed think that we can now know almost nothing concern- oldest layer were really spoken by Jesus. There is a possibility
that the contents of this oldest layer are also the result of a
mg the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian
SOurces show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary
complicated historical process which we can no longer trace ....
and legend~ry; and other sources about Jesus do not exist."'. Bultmann's work on esus, therefore, is realll. a treatment
Bultmann gives assurance that "the doubt as to whether Jesus of the message 0 esus, and "lesus" here, according to Bult-
really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane mann, actually ref",s to t~e com lex of ideas "in the.2.!9e::t ./
~e~ of the S no tic tradition. Bultmann says, By the tradI-
pe~son can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the his-
torical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by tion Jesus is named as bearer of the message; according to I
t~e oldest Palestinian community. But how far that commu- overwhelming probability he really was." But Bultrnann sug- I
'J
gests that "whoever prefers to put the name of e~us' always
mty ~reserved an objectively true picture of him and his mes-
sage IS another question .....u in quotation marks and I~t it sta.nd as an abbreviatlcn f?r the
historical phenomenon WIth which we are concerned, IS free
I
Bul~man~,i~ ~t as skeptical of the sayings as he is of the
) kn
.0:
narratives.
pIC, reo
Little as we know of his lif I e an d persona I'Ity we
e~'~2u~hofhhiSmessage to make for ourselves a consi~tent
et t e sayings in the tradition as well as the nar-
to do 80."46
The comprehensive form critical studies. ?f. Dibelius a~d
Bultmann and their application of form crtttctsm to the life
and teachings of the earthly Jesus continue to influ~nce studies
ratives go back t~ the Christian community which both passed
on today. The discipline and its application to the ~Ife of. Je~tlS
th actual
Ii fsaymgs
J of Jesus an didp ace Its. own teachings on
have been modified by the work of scholars followmg Dfbelius
e ps 0 esus. How is it possible to distinguish between
and Bultmann, however, and the following chapter will treat
th~ ~c~ua~.teachmgs of Jesus and those teachings which were
!;~ I~ 0 ~ dmouth by the church Or modified by the church?
the scholarly evaluation and use of form criticism following
the earliest work in the field.
Gr: kno:vthe ge that the Synoptic Gospels Were composed in
e WI in t he Hellenistic co . h ~Ibid.
oldest Christian grou I' d I mrnunity, w ile Jesus and the
hi' th P rve m Palestine and spoke Aramaic "Ibid., p. 14.
e ps m e process. "Everything in the synopties hi h f '
reasons of languSlge or co t h w c or
Hellenistic Christianity m:;t e~t can ave originated only in
teachin g of Jesus "43 It : excluded as a source for the
terial thus retain~d goe~~::~t toe supposed that all of the rna-
an Aramaie-s ki " Jesus, however, for there was
So, within th~;aalm~.~alestlman. chu~ch after the time of Jesus.
.. ~an matenal different la eIS must be dis.
Rudolf Bullmann Jesus and h
and Erminie Huntre;s Lanter (tN' Word, trans,. Louise Pettibone Smith
:Ibld., p. 13. 0 ew YorK: Sonbner's, 1958), p. 8.
Ibid., p. 12.
"Ibid., p. 13.
CONTINUED USE OF SOURCE ANALYSIS ALONE
of the life and teachings of Jesus and that the Gospels them-
selves must be seen as generally reliable historical documents
III
I because of the sources used by the Gospel writers.
The year before Streeter's book appeared, A. C. Headlam
Early Scholarly Evaluation I published a work, The Life and Teachings of Jesus the Christ,'
which utilized the results of the analysis of the sources of the
and Use of Form Criticism Gospels. Headlam sees himself as a defender of the "gen.
eral credibility of the traditional account of the life and work
of our Lord" against a school of critics which, while accepting
Jesus as a real person and founder of Christianity, holds that
"the greater part of the contents of the Gospel tells us not
what He taught, but what the Christian Church which grew
up after His death thought.'"
Headlam had studied ancient history and was convinced
. New Testament scholars differed widely' thei that, if proper historical documents are used in accordance
tion to fo .. . m ell' reae- with the rules of historical method, then reasonably certain
~ ~ntlClsm. Some scholars continued to em hasize
source Mark as hiISt ory, and virtually historical results may be obtained. His evaluation of the Gos-
ign d criticism,
f . . accepting
. ~
of ~e k o~ C~ltlClsm.Others defended the basic historicity pels as authorities for the life and teachings of Jesus and his
ar an t e other sources of the S 0 tic G I use of the sources illustrate the procedure which many were
were increasingly affected b f ... yo p ospe s but to follow. The historical value of Mark is derived from the
more com letel th ..Y orm cnttcisrn. Others accepted fact that it was written by John Mark, the companion of both t
who acce:ted ~e pe. pr~n~lpl~iHof fo,:" criticism, but those Paul and Peter, who had ample opportunity of acquiring
the method nncIp es ered ill their application of
knowledge of the life of Jesus. The source behind the sayings
common to Matthew and Luke (Q) can be reconstructed with
CONTINUED USE OF SOURCE ANALYSIS 'ALONE a fair degree of certainty, and it gives much information of
the greatest importance. The historical accuracy of Luke and
su~m~d Su~e~:\~;~~I~e:F t:ent~one~ as the SOurce critic who Matthew is not really subject to doubt according to Headlam.
his day in a great book Th e/clen~l c study of the Gospels to We know two of their sources, Mark and Q. We know that
Streeter first pUblishedV~...Qr. !!.s]!els:A Study of Origins. they were good sources, and that Luke and Matthew used
of the work of form criti l~ wor ill 1924 and took no accounr them well. We may assume the same of other sources. Head-
object, and he saw the ,;:~m ..Thfe analysis of sources was his lam concludes then that there are four independent sources,
tant in several respects It ~s. °ts ~ources as extremely impor- and that gradually, from all of the sources, the story of the life
ship, date, and locality of S.lS. illf the study of the author- and teachings of Jesus can be constructed. Nothing should be
important, it also enables u ongm 0 the Gospels. But more ruled out on a priori grounds; nothing should be discarded to
torical authorities for the l~etoo;V~lu~te,,~he Gospels as "his- begin with. The various elements should be combined as the
the range of sources (M k hrist, Streeter feels that work is carried on.
writers very materially b%~dQ, M a, nbdL) used by the Gospel
ens the ase for a historical study 'Arthur C. Headlam, The Life and Teaching of lesw lhe Chrlsf (2nd
ed.: London, John Murray, 1927).
'Streeter, The Four Go5Pel.i: A Study of On gIN, p. 22. IIbid., p. ix.
88 89
!
/
CHALLENGES TO FORM CRITICISM frame them, you construct a frame to fit the pictures; but if
you have in hand a set of pictures and a frame, not designed
. Although Streeter and Headlam wrote after the work of men
to fit one another, you must fit them as best you can, and the
like Wr~de, Schweitz:r, Schmidt, Dibelius, and Bultmann, they
result may be something of a botch,"? The "botch" seen in thel
wer.e.still basmg their work upon nineteenth century presup·
Gospel of Mark is evidence that Mark had a traditional out- \ v
> positions. After the work of the earliest form critics however
it c~uld .not simply be presupposed that Mark was ~ssentiall~
a histoneal presentation of Jesus of Nazareth which when
line or frame with which he attempted to work. Dodd moved
from the evidence in Mark itself to show that it is not intrin-
sically improbable that an outline of the ministry of Jesus in
s~pplemented from the other sources, would represe;t a re-
chronological order would be transmitted in the oral tradi-
liable history of the life and teachings of Jesus. Such a thing
tion. The primitive kerygma in Acts 10:37-41 and 13:23--31,
must be proved, and the basic postulates of the form critics
for example, gives fragments of an outline of the life of Jesus.
must be disproved. It is not surprising, therefore, that scholars
Dodd suggested that Mark attempted to present all of his
attempted to refute the postulates which would deny to them
materials within the traditional outline but the outline was at
the use of the sources as authorities for reconstructing a life
the same time too meager and too broad. It was far too
of the earthly Jesus.
limited to provide a setting for all of the narratives, but it also
. In 1932 C. H. Dodd challenged the assumption of form criti-
referred to some phases of the ministry for which Mark had
CISm regarding "The Fram 'work of the Gospel Narrative." In
no detailed narratives. In addition, some of the materials at
particular, he dealt with tne work of K. L. Schmidt. Dodd
Mark's disposal were already partially grouped topicaIIy in-
ackno.wledged that "Professor Schmidt seems to have made
stead of chronologically. Dodd suggested that Mark solved
out his case. that the main stuff of the Gospel is reducible to
this problem by a compromise between a chronological and
short narrative. ~!:s, and that the framework is superimposed
~on ~es~ units, Dodd denied, however, that the order of topical order.
The conclusion Dodd drew is that "we need not be so scorn-
~ lumts IS ar?ltrary and that the framework is only an arti- ful of the Marean order as has recently become the fashion. , .
fiCia construction.
According
id . to - Dodd,
~ , th ree d'ff
J erent types of materials are
there is good reason to believe that in broad lines the Marean !.
order does represent a genuine succession of events within
eVI enced
.I m Mark· . m d epen den.Lt!!"ts,
. . larger complexes of
which movement and development can be traced:' But it is
I
.matena s, and an outline of the entir~I'nlstry of-~-;-
it 'tlf~ 'I Jesus. ~VI- clear that Dodd acknowledged a great measure of the pre-
ence eru out ine-urthe -epl,;re'li' • t -
major interest of D dd D dd· mrs ry, a course, was the supposition of Schmidt and the form critics as far as the nature
I' . a . a put together some of the gcn-
of the tradition is cor:cemed. EV~ .if it is acknowledged that
etra Ithzmgthsummarieswhich Schmidt saw used in Mark to link
Dodd proved his point (and this IS not generally acknowl-
oge er e separate episodes (th . 1 •
39.2:13. 3'7b-19. 4'33-34 ese mc ude 1:14--15,21-22, edged), the Gospel of Mark cannot be used as history in the v'
so:caIIed g'eneral: .' ; 6:7,.12-1~, 30) and found that the same way that it was before the advent of form criticism.
Izmg summaries give a ti I' Dodd himself admitted that "we shaII not place in it [Mark]
narrative of the Galilean mi . . . con muous out me
is it the work of the G Imls.try. !hlS IS not accidental, nor' the implicit confidence it once enjoyed." <
and the units us . ospe writer himself, else the framework T. W. Manson, a noted English New Testament scholar and
do. "Now if oue~ m t~e framework would fit better than they teacher, whose career continued until his death in 1958, re-
y ave III hand a set of pictures, and desire to mained throughout his lifetime much more confident of the
~.'O.~
'Thl, is the tltl. of an rtl I b
43 (1932) 396-400. It Dodd app.arI~g In E.pos/tory TIme.
York, Scribn.r·, 1952), pp~ l:.~rlnted lD New 7enamenl Sl.dle. (No'; 'Ibid .• p. 9.
'lbl<l., p, 11.
'Dodd, New TOIla_ Sludiel; p. 3. 'Ibid.
40 41
EARLY SCHOLARLY EVALUATION AND USE
CHALLENGES TO FORM CRITIGISM
historicity of the Gospel tradition than did the form critics. ments which were at least as subjective as the presuppositions
Manson's first and most important work, The Teaching of of the form critics. His arguments persuaded only those who
lesus,' is an admirable study of Jesus' teaching from thc per- needed no persuasion, and, indeed, Manson's grudging conces-
spective of source analysis. It was first published in 1931 and sions seen here and there really serve to underline the need
it was written as if form criticism did not exist. In later lec- for a broad application of the method of fonn criticism to the
tures and essays Manson supported thc critical presuppositions
Synoptic tradition, .
used in this work. He justified the use of the Gospels as "re- More recently two Scandinavian scholars, Harald Riesenfeld
spectable historical material" and attacked the arguments of and Birger Gerhardsson, have attempted to pro:~ .false the
the form critics one by one. postulate upon which the discipline of .fonn cntiCiSm. most
Manson's reaction to the view that the framework of Mark depends that the formation of the material took place ill the
was artificially constructed to contain the independent units later Ch~istian community. They attempt to demonstrate .that
of the tradition was simple: "The title of the Marean frame- Jesus delivered fixed material, both teachings and narratives,
work to be regarded as respectable historical material is as to his disciples to hand down to others. .
good as that of any detailed story in the Gospel."lO In light of
Manson's general defense of the authenticity of the Marean
Harald Riesenfeld stated the basic arguments III :m address
delivered at the opening session of the congress on ':h.e Four
framework, it is important to note his grudging concession to Gospels in 1957" at Oxford." He admi:" tha~ fonn cnti~ had
the form critics. He admitted that "it is no longer possible to made some permanent achievements in the~r r~search. they
regard the Marean framework, in all its details, as a rigid and made a formal analysis of the individual umts m the Gospel
unalterable scaffolding, into which everything must somehow material. These units originally circulated in an oral fo~ but
be fitted .. , . Many concessions may have to be made to the . d own, first in small groups off inde-
were eventua IIy wntten di
disruptive criticism of Mark."ll
endent units and then in our Gospels. The elemen~ 0 tra -
Manson also disputed the idea that the church created the P
tion were influence d b y th e lif eo. f the church which passed
tradition in its present form to serve its needs. He scored the them on or gave them their final written fonn. But Riesen:fel~
fonn critics for not seeing that early Christians could have holds that when fonn criticism went further an~ .explame e L-
preserved and selected stories of Jesus not merely to meet their the beoinnino of the Gospel tradition by the ac~~ty of th
needs but because of "plain admiration and love for their eo
early church it went astray. H e asse rts that the orizinal
eo
'C-. source c-
hero,"12
of the Gospel tradition was not preaching, catechetithcal ffiSeotru I
M.i!"son's overall judgment on form criticism is that the tion or controversy but that "ht e bezi egumm 'gof e spc
dis;cipli;,e .sho~~d deal. strictl.y with the jor~oC~_v'l!"~":'_ tradition lies with 'Jesus himself."" Riesenfeld ~t~empts to
J!IlI~, In fact ,f'Fonn-cntiC'Ism had stuck to its proper busi-
establish this by iden~i£ying th~ ?riginda~~:=:o'::'~; J~w~~
ness, It would not have made any real stir. We should have Christian tradition WIth the ongm an . d I
taken i~ as we take the forms of Hebrew poetry or the forms tradition In Jesus' day Jewish tradition was transrnitte m
of. ~USlCal composition."lS Manson's defense of the pre-form dan ith firmly established laws. There was not a
accor ance WI al d necdotes
critical approach to the Synoptic Gospels was based on judg- va ue uncontrolled diffusion of stories, t es, an .a ,
g , . I ontrolled transmission of material from a
b ut a ngorous y c
(2~ ~ ~Cnsob' .Tdhe.Teachln~of Jes~: Studies of its Form and Content
0' am n ge: Cambndge University Press 1935)
h bbi assed on a
master to a specially chosen student Tfoe ra ~ ~e watched
W"T· W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistle. (Philadelphia'
~stmm.ter, 1962), p. 6. . body of material fixed in content an d rm, an
Ibid., p. 26,
ulbid,p.6. G I Tradition and Us Beginnings: A Studit
ulbld. "Harald Riese~eld, Theh°ht9V~, (London' A. R. Mowbray, 1957),
'n the Limits of Formgesc IC e .
"Ibid., p. 23.
EARLY SCHOLARLY EVALUATION AND USE CAUTIOUS USE OF FORM CRITICISM
over the approved pupils to see that it was memorized well. A pupil of Riesenfeld, Birger Gerhardsson, in his book Mem-
"The ideal pupil was one who never lost one iota of the tradi- ory and Manuscript, carried forward Riesenfeld's work by
tion."16 presenting in great detail the evidence from Judaism and early
Riesenfeld relates the method of transmitting Jewish tradi- Christianity which supports their case." The first half of the
tion to the Christian community by using Paul's writings to book is a helplul discussion of how both written and oral
show that Paul was the bearer of a Gospel tradition, that Paul Torah was transmitted in Judaism. The second half of the
was carefully taught a Christian tradition. He suggests that the book uses the writings of Paul, Luke, and the early church
time spent by Paul in Jerusalem with Peter after the three fathers to try to find evidence of a transmission of tradition in
years in Arabia was used in the examination of Pau!. The early Christianity similar to that in Judaism
chief concern of these weeks was the testing of Paul by Peter The theory that Jesus taught his disciples in such a way as
to see "whether he, Paul, during his term 01 preparation, had to ensure a mechanical transmission of the tradition ignores
really made the tradition of the words and deeds of Jesus his the probability that Jesus did not envision the interval between (-
own, in the form, that is, which these words and deeds had his death and parousia (second coming) that the later church
assumed by that date."IT envisioned. It also ignores the unquestioned influence of the
-This..::hol¥lr,ditiQll.J.l:Clli:ding.lo.. Bj~~nf~I(Lwas not used resurrection faith upon the tradition, and the part played by
primarily in the missionary preaching or the community in- Christian prophets in the transmission of the material. More-
struction, although the mission preaching pointed and led to over, it fails to explain sufficiently the variant reports of single
it and the instruction presupposed it and related itself to it. sayin"s of Jesus which are contained in the Gospels. If Jesus
The traditional material was used in the Christian assemblies, madehis disciples learn the sayings by heart, why the different
forms? Even if the existence of a "Christian rabbinate" were
for it was conceived of as a New Torah (law) and it was used
as the Torah was used in Judaism. established (and it is certainly not established by Biesenfeld
and Gerhardsson), there is no guarantee that the entire Syn-
The tradition, the New Torah, comes from Jesus himself.
The fact that the tradition about Jesus possessed a special optic tradition in its present form goes back to the earthly
[csus, Form criticism is still a necessary method for studying <-
character as Holy Word in the early church can be explained
o~ly by ~e fact tl~at this tradition was derived from Jesus the Synoptic tradition,
himself. Not only IS .thlS true of the teachings of Jesus, it is CAUTIOUS USE OF FORM CRITICISM
~o true of ~e tradition 01 Jesus' deeds, for "there are indica-
tions ... which lead to the conclusion that Jesus also spoke Cautious acceptance and use characterized the attitude and
with his ~is~ples about deeds and their signmcance."18 practice 01 most New Testament scholars re.garding form ~ti-
.Some slgnil!cant. qualifications to his thesis are added by
_ Rl~enleld. HIS claim, he says, is not that the Gospel tradition
cisrn, This was true of American and particularly of English
New Testament scholars, Burton Scott Easton was one of the II
existed :rom the very first just as it is in the Synoptic tradition, earliest American scholars to have evaluated form criticism.
or tha~ It can be traced back to Jesus as it now stands. "It is In December, 1927, he gave a series of lectures at the General
self-evident that the moulding of the tradition-e.g. by the Theological Seminary, New York, in which he dealt with form
collectmg and group'm g 0 f' illdivid tVI ua I pen .copes through Its
. crtticism."
transformations and also through its a ddit! Some 01 the units of the tradition, in the estimation of
. I Ions-came ab ou t
gra dually m the life of the primitive Church:'I. "Btrger Cerhardsson, Memon) and Manuscript: C?ral Tradition a~
Written Tmdition in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, trans. Eric
"IbJd., p. 18.
"Ibid., p.19. J. Sharpe (Lund, C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961). r., Y k
"Burton Scott Easton, The Gospel Before the Gospe.. (New or,
:Ibid., p. 26.
IbJd., p. 27. Scribner's, 1928).
45
44
/
Easton, may be classified as to form. The form known to sets forth a method of determining whether the sayings attrib-
Dibelius as paradigm and to Bultmann as apophthegm is an uted to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition were spoken by Jesus
O~VIOUS form; the miracle story is also a "definite type of story himself or originated in the early church. Beliefs certainly
WIth abundant parallels throughout the ancient world every- I held by the early church are to be isolated. "Then, if we find
~here";22 and the parable is a highly distinctive form of teach-I these freely placed in his mouth by the Synoptists, we must
mg. But attempts to classify other narrative and teaching rna- agree that the tradition is largely of apostolic creation. If, on
~eria:, have not proved helpful, and form critics violate the the other hand, we find that our witnesses are chary of seeking
rule when .they classify in any way other than by form. such authentication for their own beliefs, we are equally bound
"When Dibellus speaks of 'myths,' for instance, he violates this to conclude that the tradition was carefully guarded."" Easton
rul~, for the myth has no set form of any kind. The name de- concludes that "where beliefs of the Synoptic period can be
s~nbes not the outward Structure but the contents of a narra- distinguished with certainty from the teachings of Jesus, we
tive."2S find the former more scantily supported by sayings placed in
The ~alue of discovering the form is not nearly so great in his mouth,"'. and that as far as the sayings are c-mcerned "the
the estimation of Easton as it is in the estimation of Dibelius primary historic value of the Synoptists is not for their own
,,?d Bultmann. The very form which a narrative takes, para. age but for the tradition of the teachings of Jesus ...••
dlgm and tale, for example, is taken by Dibelius to indicate The narratives as well as sayings go back not to the early
date and historical value. But Easton, while agreeing that church but to the earthly Jesus, in the view of Easton. When
~er~ are different tendencies in the paradigms and tales, says, it is remembered that discipleship in the movement initiated by
Neither need be the outgrowth of the other, ... why might Jesus had a personal emphasis, that the disciples were personal
:t the preacher, the storyteller, and the teacher be one and believers in Jesus, even "the so-called 'mythical' sections in the
his: same person?"" Form criticism as a tool to establish the tradition cease to be a problem."" At the most the stories simply
tory of the tradition, therefore, has a very limited utility "It "heighten the impression that the Jesus of history actually pro-
can tell us that the f h . . . duced."·'
lt I . manner 0 p rasmg IS conventional and
I can. expiam the conven tiIOns. I t can tell us why a certain ' Vincent Taylor very cautiously evaluated ~orm. criticism as
:~d.mg was used, ,,:,hy certain details were added or omitted. a legitimate tool in lectures given at the University of Le~ds
in 1932." He does not see the discipline as a totally negative
~'th It c~ tell US-WIthin limits-something of the use to which
e material was put . Bu t th e stu d y of forms as [orms cannot tool at all. In fact, he declared, "Form-Criticlsm seems to me
~ us further."" The discipline of form criticism "cannot to furnish constructive suggestions which in many ways con-
gIve us even the relative ages of the special forms it Id t'fi firm the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel tradition.""
andtheblt a Ii rt mennnes, It is obvious that Taylor has to modify the basic ~~s~Jat~
ld h .so ~ e ages le totally beyond its reach Nor can it I 1
and procedures of the earliest exponents of form criticism 10
ai
AIOur istorical estimat e 0 f th e contents of any .story "••
tori t~ou?~ .Easton denies that form criticism as such is his-
"Ibid., p. 88.
. ~ cnticism, he does not deny the validity of th hi t . al "/bid., p. 109.
criticism enga d l b e IS one
eism ge m y the form critics. Indeed "form-criti- "'Ibid.
m/bid., p. 162.
may prepare the way for historical criticism."" Easton
:~~~ent Taylor, The Formation af the Gospel Tradition (London:
"Ibid., p. 67.
"Ibid., pp. 61-62
NIbid., p. 80. •
Macmillan, 1933; 2nd ed., 1935).
form criticism does not weaken the judgmdentht
di . T I
"'Ibid., p. vi. In the preface to the second e jtton ar or says
of ,Ft,uC. ~~.Jtt~atp~~~
that
48
- ,
ord?r to come to his conservative results, Although he is in .::J:.p..rgdigm~ . is too general and is too exclusively associ-
b, asie that th e ear I'lest tra d ition consisted of small atcd with the theory that the stories were formed under the
I agrcement
d uni
ISOate units he ds eviidence 0 f longer connected blocks of
finos influence of preaching," and '!!IJOphthegmata is literary rather
matc ',I d'
than popular and, by concentrating attention-ioo much on the
thou~~a,,~ a~rms ,that Mark is no "formless collection," al-
.by I' e ou me IS less complete than has been supposed" final word of Jesus, it almost invites a depreciatory attitude to
v-:Gosp ear I rer the narrative element."41 Taylor suggests the term "Pronounce-
b critics
k .36 Taylor traces the historical material> in the
e ac to eyewitnesse Th . H ment-Stories," This leaves the possibility of ol'igin open and
must be qualified' ev ' s', e Ul ~ence of eyewitnesses it emphasiZes the main element, a pronouncement of Jesus on
back to P ter' " erythmg m Mark s Gospel does not go
some aspect of life, belief, or conduct. Taylor also sees good
been madee erths tesbmony . "B u t w h en all qualifications have
reason to assume the existence of another popular narrative
in the fa , ti e presence of person' a Itt'es Imony IS . an element
form, called "miracle stories" by Bultmann and "tales" by
. ~ma -ho process which it is folly to iznore ",. If the
fa rm cntlcs woden the' H b • Dibelius. He chooses to use Bultrnann's term "miracle stories,"
in the opinion of Ta ~or "I~ ~enc~ of eyewitnesses are right, The general expression "Stories about Jesus" is uscd by
lated to heaven im~ d.' t \ e /sclples must have been trans- Taylor for the remaining narratives about Jesus, for the ma-
Taylor's vi 'L f ela.e yater the Resurrection.""' terial has no definite structural form. Although there is no one
lew 0 rne origin of th t di -'
view of Dibelius d B I e ra ttion differs from the narrative form for these stories about Jesus, the narratives do
the tradition altho:ngh itud:~~~' The church did not originate have some common characteristics, "In almost all cases Jesus
and deeds of Jesus and a I t~ the re~olleclIons of the words stands in the centre and usually secondary characters are not
needs of daily life th pp Y em to Its needs. The practical named or described. Conversations take place between two
.
mg the faith and ' th e necessity _ of unde rst an dimg an d exp Iain- persons, or between Jesus and a group; in a few stories only,
kimdle rccollections ' e dnecessity of defe n dimg tIf' ie ait I1 " would like the Penitent Thief, are three speakers introduced.T"
deeds in the first ass;~'bF~o~rt the relating of !lis words and Taylor suggests that these speeches show that practical aims
the tradition, it did not lCS.I ~s the church did not originate rather than narrative interests were responsible for thc forma-
"ideal" elcment entered ~:~~t~: ter the tradItion, At timcs an tion of the stories. He also suggests that the formative proccss
misunderstood and d fJ tradition, circumstances were of the stories about Jesus is more one of shortening than one
' wor s 0 esus I d b
o f those passing along tl t d-' co Ore y ideas and beliefs of embellishment. Since "this is exactly what ought to be the
' le ra IlIon But" h . I'
th at W h lch we might . w at lS t lIS beyond history of genuine historical tradition .. , the result - .. of a
' h reasonably expect? A
W h IC implies the unt t h' ' , .. " reconstruction study of the formal aspect of the Stories about Jesus is to
. rus wort mess of th
tra d.i bon is wanting in r b bT . e greater part of the strengthen confidence in their historical value."<la
records."" p 0 a Iity and IS not just to the Gospel Little justification is found for Bultmann's classification of
Some "forms" in the tradi!" the sayings of Jesus into proverbs, prophetic and apocalyptic
does not feel that all of th Ion are found by Taylor, but he sayings, laws and community regulations, "I sayings," and
basis of forms The d': materials can be analyzed on the parables. "The terms do little more than describe stylistic fea- <:....
which oral tradition ~:~ IBm or apophthegm is a form "in tures; they do not denote popular forms into which an indi-
not satisfied with th ra y elothes itself."1. But Taylor is vidual or a community unconsciously throws sayings,"" The
e names used b Y D'b ' and Bultmann
I elius parable, howevcr, is a form which is important. Taylor sees
-Ibid., p 41 . parables as circulating orally, singalarly or in pairs, and later
:Jbid,. P: 43:
Ibid., 41
p,
:lbid., 37:
p. "Ibid., p. 30.
.1 bid., p. 38. "Ibid" p. 166.
lbill., p. 29. a/bid,
"Ibid., p. 31.
48 49
- - ,.
Taylor is very critical of B It to, th~ o~gmal parables. But n;ore emPEasis, ~~n the Eerso!!,ali9'...!~nd ~~~n Qt.the ind~- lif;'V
ticity of th bl u mann s s cepticism of the authen- Vl~Yll~§'ts than !i~~arh!!J f.Q.fmcritics, and L,ghtfoots I I
of the auJ:e~:i~~ty ;f a~: i~ gene~al Taylor is more confident interest in the total purpose of the evangelists led him to apply
Bultmann He aclm I d ynth°ptlCsaymgs than Dibelius or form criticism to the Gospels in a different way than the earlier
of the co' . ow e ges at there was a creative power scholars. The purpose of Mark, according to Lightfoot, is not
mmumty and that the tr dlti h
in its transmission B t " b .a 1 IOn as been influenced simply or chiefly biographical; it is doctrinal. Although Mark <-
. t . II ,u su stantiallv the sayin"s traditio . deals with history and contains materials which are important
h ISonca y trustworthv," d" c» ,1 1 n 15
Jesus is far better pres~' ~nth the tradition of the words of in a study of the life of Jesus, his chief purpose is "to show
and with much greate rve an we have any right to expect, the history in the light in which he himself sees it, and wishes
r accuracy than is't b fl'
record of the words of ' a e ounc m the his readers also to regard it ... to interpret the history and to
? limited tool'" T I ' any great teacher of the past."" "A set forth, .. its meaning and significance,"" Lightfoot became
IS ay or s evaluation f f
remind. us that a to I ' thi a arm criticism. But he a pioneer in yet another method of Gospel study, redaction
,itations may be. 0 15 some lIng to b e usee,d w h atever its
lim criticism.
-. Form criticism received a cha . . THE STUDY OF PARABLES,
1!ghtfoot at the Univers' f mpion in England in R. H, A PRODUCTIVE USE OF FORM CRITICISM
~laiffiS1lie TI1e'"(YF"cnlf~~15~~~~d. AI.though Lightfoot-dis- The ultimate judgment on form criticism comes from its
m the Bampton Lect P f t e claims of form criticism value for a study of the Synoptic tradition and the life of Jesus.
urcs a 1934 he ' tr d '
of th e form critics t hi in 0 uced the insights The application of the method of form criticism to the par-
I tu 0 15 countrymen 4' d' I'
ec res and later works h . ,an m t lIS series of ables by C, H, Dodd and Joachim Ieremias has proved partic-
of Mark. e apphed the method to the Gospel
ularly productiVe. These men combined form criticism with
In a later work Li htf insights growing out of earlier work on the parables, especial1y
cism "will help us to loot questioned whether form criti- the attempts to define careful1y the exact nature of the par-
. raw nearer to the t I '
gaspe Is, in His historical m 'f ' cen ra FIgure of the
the ch h am estatlOn "H Th' . t b ables of Jesus.
urc preserved the IT dT . 15 IS rue ecause Before the modem critical period of biblical study, parables
interests but for religio ,a 1 IOn not primarily for historical were interpreted as allegories; but Adolf Jiilicher challenged
of f us mterests The m t I·L '
. -2rm criticism, then is the w " _.-!'~.va u""le asp.ect this approacll decisively in a work climaxing earlier critical
VIdual stories to th;~l'f 'f- _.Y!Y.}.! s-",eksto relate the l'··'i- labors and serving as a landmark for Dodd, Jeremias, and all
"'T' -~_ ' e a
a'!!!...used them to oi 't-'--
the ch II h' - - .. ill.'
_ .. mc - w 'ch Rreserved them
th ~ls --""-'" ve , s message to th Id-'--'-- later scholars." Jiilicher denied that the parables are al1egories
e gaspe can be t;--- ~,-:-' e war ,"In this way in any sense. The different people, events, and other items in
carefully guarded a ~s ... wItl'm limits which need to be the stories of Jesus do not refer to realities outside of the
bl ' mIrror of th h
pro ems and the difficulties f ~ opes and aspirations, the stories. The individual items are not symbols which demand I•
The fact that the t d" ,0 e early Church."" interpretation. The stories are similitudes, comparisons drawn I
ra Itlon had . t II
rangement before being t d V1r ua y no order and ar- by Jesus from daily life to make his message plain and vivid.
se own in th G
:Ibid., pp, 110, 113, e ospels brought Jiilicher also emphasized that a parable has one 20int of com-
Robert Henry L' h f
(London- Hodd Ig toot, HistOTy and I
parison, and his actual method tended to make the point of
"Robert Hen~rtn~Jtoughton. 1935) nterpretation in the Gospels
Clarendon p Ig oot, 1'11e Gasp l OM 4IILightfoot,History and Interpretation in the Gospels~.P: 98.
"Ibid., p.{02~'1950), p. 105, e e$Sage of St. Mark (Oxford: 501\. Jijlichcr, Die Gleichnisreden jesu (2 vols.~ Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1888, 1899).
50 51
I,
rAYlOl2 U"J'
EARLY SCHOLARLY EVALUATION AND USE THE PARABLES: A PRODUCTIVE USE OF FORM CRWCISM
~:chofa~able a general religious truth, Concerning the mean- general theme of Jesus' message and therefore as the logical
g e parable of the talents for exampl J ··1' h general context for the parables. A glance at the parables them-
'We must vo f • e, U ic er says, selves supports this conclusion. Many parables are introduced
· II tI te or the broadest possible application fidelity
in a rat God has entrusted to us "ei The pa bl f th with a formula which mentions the kindom of God, and others
leads to the . d ., ra e 0 e sower which do not use the formula are definitely related to the king.
,Iu gment that much labor may be lost and yet a
g 00 d h arvest may be reaped . kind dom. Jesus' understanding of the kingdom, then, is shown by
The parable of th hidd • many' of religious work. Oodd to be essential to the study of the parables. This under-
alwa s sacnf e I en treasure teaches that one should
standing of the kingdom may be gained through explicit and
wait~,g ;e';a:s ~;:~~:: ~~:tdo~o:s~~:J2~' The parable of the unambiguous teachings and then applied to the parables. Dodd
genclCs. The parabl f lIe prepared for emer- concludes from this study that
, e a the amp and b h I h I
eventually truth will OUt.'2 us e teac es that
. , . in the earliest tradition Jesus was understood to have proclaimed
C. II. Dodd accepts the conclusion f J"\" I h that the Kingdom of God, the hope of many generations, had at
are not basically aile 'aries' b 0 u ic rer t at parables
last corne. It is not merely imminent; it is here. . .. The sayings
distinction must not ~
"it is likely that detail~
by their . • r. I
:~I
~
,e
'd ut he warns that too rigorous a
f~r in a parable of any length
inserted winch are suggested
which declare the Kingdom of God to have come are explicit and
unequivocal. They aTC moreover the most characteristic and distinc-
tive of the Gospel sayings on the subject. They have no parallel in
specia appropnaten t h
and if the uppllcation I esls ate. application intended, Jewish teaching or prayers of the period. If therefore we are seek-
, anon IS correct d b ing the differentia of the teaching 01 Jesus upon the Kingdom 01
then see a seconda " y ,:,a e y the hearer, he will
true parable is not s7rist'lgmficanllcem these details."," But the God, it is here that it must be found."
. cyan a egory and h d il
stnctly subordinate t the mai any suc etui s are The individual parables must be interpreted within the eon-
, a re malar en 1 ' f h
not destroy the unit of I ' lp laSIS ate story and do text of [esus' proclamation of the presence of the kingdom,
"julicher and his 1 IY, t re story. Dodd acknowledges that and the specific teaching of each parable must be related to
a owers then h d
teaching us how to tak the fi ) ave one great service in Jesus' distinctive view of the kingdom. Some help may be
· e re rst step t d h
mg of the parables It' t owar s t e understand- given by the framework within which a parable was passed
'. IS a accept the t .
lif e, and form our l'udgn1ent upon It. "54 s ory as a pteee of real down and within which it is contained in the Gospels, but it
Dodd does not follow the view f' "I'
meaning of a parable is a broad 0
parables must bear upo th
t: .lCher, however, that the
) re 19lOUS generalization. The
may well be that the present application of the parable is not
original and gives us no help. In some cases "we may have
confidence that the application of the parable came down with
n e actual't . ,
taught and the applt ti h SI uatron m which Jesus the parable itself in the earliest tradition," but "on the other
, rca ens t erefo b
particular setlings in who I' th re, must e related to the hand there are grounds for suspecting that in many cases the
• IC 1 e sto . d .
mterpreter must diseov tI . nes were elivered. The application was not a part of the earlier tradition, but was sup-
'fi
specl c application which
er le seltmg of
ld
bl
a para e and the plied by the evangelist, or by his immediate authority:'·
was in that particular 't wt.ou suggest itself to a person who We may ascertain which parables have been passed down
"h SI ua IOn Dodd th f
!ish t e general orientation of h ' ~re ore, tries to estab- with their original applications in the light of the relationship
we might have the context in ~~.teachmgs of Jesus" so that of the application to the actual situation in Jesus' day. The
placed. The kingdom f G d' lch the parables are to be parable of the children in the market place (Matt. 11:16-19
o 0 IS established b D dd
"Quoted In C. H. Dodd Y 0 as the and parallel passage, Luke 7:31-35), for example, has an ap-
Yo~kJI:,S,"ribner'. 1961) p' T12h.Parabl.. of the Kingdom (rev ed' New plication relating the parable to the frivolous attitude of the
he. pp 12-1"1 ,. . . 'I
-,bid" v.
-lbt<t" p.9. -Ibid., pp. 33-34.
·,p.12. -Ibid., p. 16.
52 58
-~-,--------=--=--=--=--=-----
'" -(
EARLY SCHOLARLY EVALUATION AND USE THE PARABLES: A PRODUCTIVE USE OF FORM CRITICISM
Jews to Jesus and to John. "There is no good reason for doubt- faithful or unfaithful, wise or foolish."'" However, when the
ing this application. If in the ministry of Jesus the Kingdom of crisis had passed, "they were adapted by the Church to enforce
Cod comes, as in the ministry of John its coming had been its appeal to men to prepare for the second and final world-
heralded, ,then our at:enti?n is drawn to the egregious folly crisis which it believed to be approaching."··
of such childish behaviour m the presence of the supreme crisis Joachim Jeremias also applies form critical Rrinciples to the
of history."" parables in a productive way. He feels that WIth the parables
Illustrative of parables which have been reapplied is a series one "may be confident that be stands upon a particularly ~~
of parables of crisis (the faithful and unfaithful servants Matt historical foundation. The parables are a fragment of the ongl-
24:45-51 and parallel passage, Luke 12:42-46; the waili~g ser- nal rock of tradition."·' Jeremias, writing twelve years after
v,,?ts, Mark 13:33-i37 and parallel passage, Luke 12:35-38; the Dodd's work on the parables, acknowledged his debt "for stim-
thief at night, Matt. 24:43-44 and parallel passage, Luke 12: ulus and instruction to C, H, Dodd's fundamentally important
39-40; and the ten virgins, Matt. 25:1-12). In their present book.".' Although he does feel that the one-si~ed natur~ of
context in the Gospels they refer to the second advent of Christ Dodd's conception of the kingdom-the emphasIS. on the king-
and are used as exhortations to be prepared for that crisis. dom as present (realized eschatology)-:-resulte,d m a~ unwar-
J ')Dodd feels that here definitely are parables which have been ranted contraction of the eschatology in Jesus teachwgs and
I L~eap~lied b~ the. church because the church's situation, not colored Dodd's interpretation of the parables, Jeremias is con-
fident that Dodd's approach will result in "nothing less than a
Jesus sltua~on, IS p~e~upposed by the parables. The early
chUl.ch saw.ltself as hvmg in the interval between two crises return , , , to the very words of Jesus himself,"·> ,
the mcarnation , and th e secon d a db' The major contribution of Jeremias is t? carry out"Dodd s
vent; ut the saymgs of Jesus'
wer.e utte:ed in a different context, in the context of a brief methodology in a detailed and comprehenSive way, to dot the
period of mtense crisis-the crisis of the cominz of God's king- i's and stroke the t's of Dodd's exposition,"" In doing thiS~. ./
dOdmT . hhechurch reapplied the parables with both homiletical Jeremias finds definite principles of transformation of the par- ""
an esc atological •motiv . tt "a general and permanent abIes by the church which must be counteracted before a re-
" J es: I gave
application ,to saymgs originally directed toward an imrnedi- turn to Jesus is possible, When the laws of transformati.on. ~re
at~ ~nd particular situation" and gave to sayings "which were applied to the parables and the influence of the primitive
ong~ally associated with the historical crisis of the ast an church counteracted, "the total impression of the parables has
appltcation to the expected crisis of the futur"OS p, been immensely simplified .... Many parables ~xpress one and
the same idea by means of varying symbols, The different
1~ the case of the parables which have bee:~eapplied such
t elements in the parables which conveyed different messages
"':,I ~tp~:ablesd of crisis, we must carefully scru~ize th~ par-
when the parables were read allegorically ~re seen to be sec~n-
a e l.se , afn attempt to relate it to the complex of ideas in
the mm ds 0 Jesus and his he d dary, "As a result, a few simple essenllalldeas stand out with
of his Own .. '. arers an to Jesus' interpretation increasing importance, It beco~es clear t~at Jesus wa~ never
bi ministry which IS reconstructed by his explicit and
tired of expressing the central Ideas of hIS message in con-
~a.m Ignfous sayings in the tradition. When the parables of
Cr1S1S are reed from their tifici I stantly changing images,"·'
light of J ' . . ar CIa context and interpreted in
esus mission and message it will b th th
were origin II' d ' e seen at ey -Ibid., pp, 138-39.
\, ,~ y mten ed to enforce Jesus' appeal to men "to
/ reoogmze at the Kingdom of God was present in all its mo-
:l~~~him Jeremia, The Parables of !""", fi
tran,. S)' H.
tr. 01 6th CerrolUl ed.; New York, Scnbners, 1963 , p. ,
ke (rev. ed.
I~·
·~7
FORM CRITICISM AND THE CURRENT QUEST DEVELOPMENTS INFLUENCING THE CURRENT QUEST •
but Jesus Christ as he is encountered in the proclamation."' . , . ty as Lord of the community
There was, therefore, a lack of interest in the history of Jesus of Easter, that is'l m~15 maJ~sof Easter cannot be adequately
on the part of Bultmann, and the scholars following Bultl~ann and that, converse y, e even t t from the earthly Jesus ....
rejected the quest of the historical Jesus in even a modified comprehended if it is looked a ap~rl of the tradition do not
. ' th f t that the materia s .
way. Likewise, e ac. "the fabric of a history in
give enough Information to weave lned i detail". should
d If t u1d be determine in
THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL DEVElOPMENTS which cause an e ec c~ k f' terest in the earthly Jesus.
INFLUENCING THE CURRENT QUEST not lead to a complete a~ d~ ~ a failure to take seriously
Today there continues to be an interest in the historical Ignoring the earthly. Jesus ID lCa:~ the identity between the
Jesus among non-Bultmannian scholars, though their research the primitive Christian condcerndw, looks the fact that "there
h 'I' t d Lor an over
has been modified by the results of critical scholarship, in- exalted an d umi ia e 'd't' which the historian
" f the SynoptIC tra I IOn
cluding form criticism. What is surprising, however, is that are still pIeces 0 . 'f h wishes to remain an
I d authentic! e
a "new quest" of the historical Jesus has developed among the has to acknow e ge as f Kasemann in his address was
II'" TI concern 0 a
disciples of Bultmann, If a date can be given for the beginning historian at a. b it of the life story of Jesus,
U:~~:I
1C
of this new quest it is October 20, 1953, when Ernst Kiisemann "to show that, out of th~ SO Yreaching stand out in rela-
gave a lecture on "The Problem of the Historical Jesus"' at a certain characteristic trait 'PI' Christianity united its
tively sharp relief, and ~~at pnml ive
reunion of students of Bultmann. Kiisemann acknowledged
that the Gospels were not written to give mere historical in- own message With these.. quest then grows out of
..I . I lW.ce=t" nf -a..new " ,
formation about Jesus. The New Testament presents Jesus as _The...theJJJ.uglca,
. ' :r- I
f the churc 1 itseu.its If The Gospel is not lust
the Lord of the believing community, "not as he was in him- the proclamation 0 but it is not just the proclama-
self, not as an isolated individual:" Kasernann even questions the story of the earthly Jesus" t t and exalted-Lord.
th I . I reexis en '
whether the formula "the historical Jesus" is appropriate or tion of a my 0 oglCa -p "1 ' thts concern of the kerygma
R bi says t IS I
legitimate, because "it is almost bound to awaken and nourish James M. 0 mson " it f Jesus which necessitates
the illusion of a possible and satisfying reproduction of his [proclamation] for the :iSt~~;I~Iis;ensable historicity of Jesus
'life story:"' a new qllest. For how ca , aintaining the irrelevance
d hil t the same time m hi
The fact that the New Testament is not concerned merely be affirme ,w I e a ith him would mean, once t 15
with Jesus as an isolated individual but as Lord of the com- of what a historical en~ounterd:~ to the rise of modem histori-
munity, however, does not permit the question about the Jesus has become a real posslbliJ.ty .. the irrelevancy of the re-
?'" A ition mamtammg h
of history to be ignored. Primitive Christianity itself was not ography po~~ t fail to lead to the conclusion that t e
minded to "allow myth to take the place of history nor a heav- suits of the quest canno uld e ually well be only a myth, for
enly being to take the place of the Man of Nazareth .... Primi- Jesus of the kerygma co q 'g of his historical person
one has in fact declared the meanm
tive Christianity is obviously of the opinion that the earthly
Jesus cannot be understood otherwise than from the far side irrelevant/"" f II wed the lead of Kiisernann.
d ts of Bultmann 0 0 d .
Other stu en J s' message as evidence ill
"Bultmann expressed this opinion in an essay on ....The SignifIcance of Ernst Fuchs concentrated upon esu
the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul'~ in 1929 reprinted in
Ghwben und Verstehen, 1 (2nd ed.; 1954), 208. Quoted' from Stephen 'Ibid" p. 25.
Neill.
Oxford,The Interpretatian
1964), p, 271.
of the New Testament 1861-1961 (New York: 'Ibid" p, 45.
tIn English translation in Ernst Kasemann, Essays on New Testamem 'Ibid" p. 46. I] (London'
tr':.')",W, J, Montague (London: SCM, 1964), pp. 15-47.
Th,emIbides, 'Ibid. . New Quest of the Historlco esw •
",p. kV. 'James M. Rohm,on, A aft 'ted.s A New Quest.)
'Ibid. SCM 1959), p. 88. (Here er C1
"'Ibid.
58 59
----==--~ '--/
FORM CRITICISM Moo'D THE CURRENT QUEST DEVELOPMENTS INFLUENCING THE CURRENT QUEST
his action. Jesus' conduct as a whole gives evidence of who he Jesus was, and it is not interested in the content and ch~r.ac~er
is. His conduct and teaching imply an understanding of his of Jesus' history. The use of historical research to legitimize ('
relation to God. This implicit understanding becomes explicit the kerygma is a denial of the nature of the kerygma.
in the kerygma of the church." Gerhard Ebeling asked, "Who Bultmann's refusal to let the Christ of the kerygma be col-
shall forbid us to ask the question concerning the historic ored by the concrete picture of the earthly Jesus is supported
Jesus? This defeatism has no justification ... either as regards by a statement in his address in 1959:
the state of the actual historical sources available to us or in
relation to the possibility of historical understanding in gen- It is often said most of the time in criticism, that according to my
interpretation ~f the kerygma Jesus has risen in th~ kerygm~.. 1
eral."12 Giinther Bornkamm pressed the question, "How could accept this proposition. It is entirely correct, assummg. that .It IS
faith of all things be content with mere tradition, even though properly understood. It presupposes that the kerygma lts,:,lf IS Un
it he that contained in the Gospels? It must break through it eschatological event. and it expresses the fa;t t~at Jesus IS rea y
and seek behind it to see the thing itself .... It cannot be seri- resent in the kerygma. that it is his word which mvo!ves the hea.rer
ously maintained that the Gospels and their tradition do not fn the kerygma. If that is the case, then all specu~atIonconcemmg
the modes of being of the risen Jesus, all the narratives of th,:,empty
allow enquiry after the historical Jesus. Not only do they allow, tomb and all the Easter legends, whatever elements o~ hlstonc~l
they demand this effort."" The new quest has met with a fa- fact they may contain, and as true as they may be ~n their sy~bohc
vorable response not only among the stndents of Bultmann but form are of no consequence. To believe in the Chnst present In the
also among a variety of scholars in different countries with dif- ,<
kerygma is the meaning of the E aster f'th"
m .
ferent theological and critical presuppositions. Bultmann's disinclination to enter into the new quest has
Rudolf Bultmann responded to the new questers in a paper not halted the project. However, the reservations expressed
read before the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences on July 25, by Bultmann have influenced the work of ~ther ~cholars '. A
1959." He declared that he had not denied the continuity be- careful distinction is made between the vano.us kinds .of in-
tween Jesus and the kerygma. The continuity is between the formation in the New Testament, and care IS taken m de-
historical Jesus and the primitive proclamation, not between scribing the exact significance of the historical lmowledge of
the historical Jesus and the Christ. "The Christ of the kerygma Jesus. James M. Robinson, for exam~le, ~ad declared ~at
is not a historical figure which conld enjoy continuity with " odern historiography mediates an existential encounter WIth
the historical Jesus. The kerygma which proclaims him is a m
Jesus, an encounter also me dtlate d b y th e ke rygma."" Although
.
historical phenomenon, however. Therefore it is only the con- the historical Jesus does not prove that the kerygma .IS t;;ne,
tinuity between the kerygma and the historical Jesus which Robinson said, the historical Jesus does confront us WIth ac-
is involved."" The kerygma presupposes the historical Jesus; . an d a seIf W hiich , like the exorcisms , may be understoodb
tion I
without the historical Jesus there would be no kerygma. But, either as God's Spirit (Mark 3.29; Matt. 12.~8), .or Beelzebu
Bultmann said, the kerygma only presupposes the fact that (Mark 3.22), or insanity (Mark 3,21). The historical Jesus co~;
"Ernst Fuchs. Studies 0/ the Historical Jesus, trans. Andrew Scobie fronts us with existential decision, just as the ke~gma does.
(London, SCM, 1964), pp. 11-31. After Bultmann's 1959 statement, however, Robinson reformu-
t~Zeilschrift ~i1r T!wollJgie und Kirche (1959). Additional number,
p. ';0 -. Quoted In Nelli, The Interpretation of tlie New Testament. lated his position and dropped much of the emphas~ on. an
Gunther Bornkarnm, Jesus of Nazareth. trans. Irene and Fraser ith the historical Jesus through modem hlstoriog-
~9<6~u)skeywith James M. Robinson (London: Hodder and Stoughton.
encoun t er WI • • IJ but
, Pfl' 9. 22. ra h Christians are to proclaim not the historica esus .
;'/RudO of Bhltmann. "The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Histori- th~ {~rygma, but it is also important to implement the claim
Ca esus, T e HistOrical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, ed. and trans.
P;' 1L~:aaten and Roy A. Harrisville (New York: Abingdon, 1964), "Ibid., p. 42. 90
"Ibid., p. 18. "Bobtnscn, A New Que", p. .
"Ibid., p. 77.
60 61
7'
of the kerygma to be proclaiming a risen Lord who is identi- son assumes more than historic significance. For the Christian,
fied ~th the earthly Jesus by participating in the present criti- it is possible to say, "Christ died for my sins in accordance
cal historical study of Jesus. According to Robinson's later with the scriptures," but this is not the result of historical re-
formulation, the historical study of Jesus is not of the hasic search-it depends upon recognition of Jesus as the Christ, as
task of preaching but in our situation it is necessary for the the one who bestows well-being (or salvation) on one.
well-being and improvement of preaching.'. The historical knowledge which we can gain from the Gos-
Norman Perrin, a scholar who oomes to the quest as a pels cannot mediate an existential encounter with Jesus, but
student of .T. W. Manson and Joachim Jeremias, finds it help- it is significant to faith. "In a tradition which 'believes in Jesus',
ful, followmg Bultmann, to distinguish between three differ- historical knowledge can be a source for the necessary content
ent kinds of .knowledge: historical knowledge, historic knowl- of faith ... without thereby becoming the main source of that
edge, and faith-knowledgo, Historical knowledge is the objec- content."22 The main source, of course, is the proclamation of
'> tive factual kn?wledge concerning the earthly Jesus. "'Histori-
cal knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth might be held to include
the chnrch, "a proclamation arising out of a Christian experi-
ence of the risen Lord/?" Knowledge of the historical Jesus
the fact tha~ he accepted his death as the necessary oonse- can also "act negatively as a check on false or inappropriate
quence of hIS proclamation of the Kingdom and of his 'table- faith-images, or aspects of a Iatth-tmage."? Because the claim
fellowship of the Kingdom' with 'tax collectors and sinners', of the Christian church is that the risen Lord is none other (
and that he went to the cross with a sure oonfidence that it than the earthly Jesus, "we may and we must use such histori-
wo~ld ultimately serve, and not hinder, the purpose of God." cal knowledge of Jesus as we possess to test the validity of
ThIS kind of knowledge is not unique to Jesus. It is similar to the claim of any given fOnTIof the Church's proclamation to
the knowledge that "Socrates accepted his death as a neces- be Christian proclamation."" Perrin also declares that histori-
sary oonsequence of his own innermost convictions and drank cal knowledge of the teaching of Jesus is relevant for modem
the hen:lock with a serenity arising out of the courage of those Christians. If a modem believer responding to the proclama-
COllVlctIons."20 tion of the church stands in a relation to God parallel to the
. Historic knowledge is historical knowledge which beoomes ancient disciple who responded to the proclamation of the
earthly Jesus, then the teaching of Jesus to the disciple is also
s~Illfic~nt to us in our present situation. The historical knowl-
applicable to the modem believer. Of course, the practical
~ ge 0 ho;-, .Jesus accepted the cross can become historic
.1Owledg<;If It assumes a direct significance for the present problems remain of crossing the barrier of ~vo tho.usand y~ars
~~e. ,Agam, historic knowledge is not unique to Jesus. The and a quite different world view. But Jesus teachmgs are un-
istorical knowledge of Socrates' acceptance of the hemlock porlant for Christian faith and life.
may .become historic knowledge. PRESUPPOSITIONS AND
is ~alth-knowledg<; is "knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth which METHOD Of CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS
. kngnificantonly in the context of specifically Christian faith The scholars who are engaged in the current quest agree by
i.e.
d owledge of. him 0 f a kiind d ependent upon the acknowl- '
and large upon a set of presuppositions and a method which
e gement of him as Lord and Christ,"'1 F ith-kn I d makes a study of the earthly Jesus possible. The work of the
moves bey d hi . a, owe ge
tributed t o:h istoric knowledge because special worth is at- source critics is accepted: Mark was the earliest Gospel and
a e person concerned and knowledge of that per- was used by Matthew and Luke along with another source
"James M. Robinson "Th R
of .f!ibk and Religion,' 30 t19il'2)n~~ebate on the New Qnest," ]ourrwl -Ibid., p. 244.
Norman Perrin R d18 .' • -Ibid.
Harper and Row iOO7) pcav en tlu. ng Teaching of ]""" (New York: -Ibid., p. 246.
~Jbld'Jp. 234. • ,. 23. 6
-/bld., pp. 247-48.
62
r - -- ,.,.....---.,..----=-----=---==---=---=---=--
/'
(Q) which is basically a sayings source earlier than Mark. of Dibelius and Bultrnann as modified by later studies is the
Matthew and Luke each also had a unique source or sources. method used at this point. The principles of the transfonnation
I
But the material now written in the Gospels existed earlier in of the parables by the churcb outIi~ed in detail by Jerel~ias t..
an .oral form in independent units (except for the passion nar- are helpful in a study of the tradition. The test of multiple •
rative ), and the overall framework in which the units now attestation found helpful in a study of the sources helps here
exist is a creation of the Gospel writers. The oral tradition also, for when a teaching or purportedly historical fact occurs
in more than one form the possible authenticity of that teach-
passed through or was created by the church as it developed r ing or fact is increased. If, for example, a piece of factual in-
from an Aramaic-speaking Palestinian community.
The presuppositions of modem scholars, then, demand that formation occurs in a paradigm, parable, and isolated saying,
the independent unit be the beginning point of study. Source I it may be assumed that the fact was not created for the forms
criticism must first be applied to the unit of tradition. When but existed before the forms were created.
a unit occurs in all three Synoptic Gospels, Mark is to be taken What next? It cannot be assumed that the earliest form of
~s ~he earliest written form of that unit, and attention may be the unit of tradition which has been studied with the methods
limited to Mark's version of the tradition. When a unit of the I of source and form criticism is authentic. The unit may go
tradition occurs in Q, the unit may be carried back even fur- back to Jesus, but it may come from the church which trans-
ther. But it is necessary to reconstruct the original Q fonn mitted the tradition. How may we distinguish between au-
from the later forms in Matthew and Luke. At times the Mat- thentic and inauthentic material?
thean fonn of the Q unit is more original and at times the I Joachim Jeremias, who never completely gave up the earlier
Lukan form IS more original. The tendencies of the two Gospel quest of the historical Jesus, has joined with the scholars who
wnters. must be considered as the more original form of Q is are engaged in the current quest and gives suggestions which
determined. It is incorrect, however, to assume that a unit in may help distinguish between authentic and inauthentic mao
Mark and/~r Q is necessarily more primitive than a unit in the terial. He warns that the current quest is different from the
matenal unIque to Matthew or to Luke since all of the material quest of the nineteenth century. "Our aims have become more
-,, S
passed successively modest, because the mistakes of the 'classical' quest of the his-
... th through Palestinian and H e 11ems
. tiIC sages.
t
torical Jesus serve as warnings to us not to want to know more
ource cnticism, en, may assist in deter " th Ii t
ltt f f mmmg e ear es than we can know; that is already a point of inestimable
~n. en arm,o a .un.it. Source criticism may also assist in a
limited way in venfymg the historicity of tradition. Since the worth."2. Jeremias stresses two tests to distinguish. between
sources may be regarded as relatively independent when the authentic and inauthentic material. If a saymg attributed to )
Jesus has Aramaic traits it may be considered authentic; if a '"
~~~tent ~ a unit is repeated in two or more sour"';s, the pos- ! saying reflects the Palestinian world it may be considered au-
. e ised enticity of the tradition may be regarded as being
mcrease . thentic, Of course, the sayings of Jesus himself would have
been spoken in Aramaic and would reflect. ~alestinian condi-
Once the unit has been studied from the perspective of the
tions, but so would sayings of the Palestinian church after
] ,;,,~en s~urces, form criticism in its strictest sense is applied
Jesus. Jeremias himself admits, "It must of course be reme",'·
o e unit of tr~dition. The history of the tradition must be
traced to determine the earliest form of the unit. Sa in s of bered that the earliest Christian commumty spoke Aramaic
too; so not every Aramaism is evidence of authenticity. At any
J~us'hfo:;xampl.e, passed successively through the pJes~ian
rate, however, we are drawing nearer to Jesus himself when
~ ~rc : . e [ewish Hellenistic church, and into the Gentile
we succeed in rediscovering the pre-Hellenistic fonn of the
che echmsticchubrch. Additions and modifications of the later
tr ur " must fee e seen and d ltd e. Th e tendencies in the -Joachim Jeremias, The Problem of the Histor/<;al [eeus, trans. Norman
ansuussion 0 the material must be discounted. The method Perrin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964). p. 15.
64
65
EXAMPLES
FOR..'d CRITICISM AND 'llIE CURRENT QUEST
comparable with the teachings of contemporary Judaism and
tradition."27 Jeremias's linguistic and environmental criteria the early church; but what of the material which cannot be
must be applied along with other tests, but applied in conjunc- so tested? Carlston suggests that material which cannot be
tion with these other criteria they prove to be very valuable tested by the criterion of distinctiveness be judge~ as authen-
in rediscovering the historical Jesus, tic if it "will fit reasonably well into the eschatologically based
Rudolf Bultmann, in his treatment of the parables, gave demand for repentance that was characteristic ?f Jesus' m.es-
criteria which enable us to judge that a saying is authentic. sage, and . • . will reflect or fit into the CO~~ItlOns .<SOCIal,
"We can only count on possessing a genuine similitude of Jesus political, ecclesiastical, linguistic, etc.) prevailing durmg the
where, on the one hand, expression is given to the contrast earthly ministry of Jesus, rather than <or, in some cases,. as
between Jewish morality and piety and the distinctive escha- well as) conditions which obtained in the post-resurrection
tological temper which characterized the preaching of Jesus; church."" This criterion can be applied only after the central
and where on the other hand we find no specifically Christian message of Jesus has been established by other criteria. The
features,"28 This may be stated positively in a form which is criterion may be stated thus: Material ma~ be acc~pted as
found useful by all students of the earthly Jesus: we may be authentic if it is consistent with the material established as
sure that sayings attributed to Jesus are authentic when they authentic by the test of distinctiveness.
differ from contemporary Judaism or from the proclamation
of the church, This criterion of dissimilarity or distinctiveness 1 EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF FORM CRITICISM
) is, of course, a criterion which leads to minimal rather than to A number of critical works on the life and teaching of Jesus
maximal results. Jesus could have used much from the Old have been produced by scholars using some form of the pro-
Testament and the Judaism of his day, and much of the teach- cedure outlined above. The scope and method of modern form
ing useful to the early church could well have corne from criticism will be illustrated through some of these works· An
Jesus himself. But students of the new quest judge that it is early new quest treatment of Jesus was given by ~lillther
safer to follow the skeptical methodology than to accept every- Bomkamrn." It is instructive to compare Bornkamm s w.ork
thing that is in doubt. Reginal Fuller says that "on some points with Bultrnann's Jesus and the Word which ap~eared th~
Jesus could have agreed with the post-Easter church" and that
years ear Ite,r . Bultmann confined his presentation""
to Jesus
th
"Jesu~ mi,¥ht also ?ave quoted or used with approval Rabbinic "word" and even here he confessed that Jes,:", means e
teachmg. Yet, this skeptical method provides a safer course message of the oldest layer of the Synoptic tradition which may
than a principle of accepting whatever tradition may be doubt- not be the message of the earthly Jesus-although. ~ul.trnann
ful. "It may result in a reduction of the available historical believed that it was. Bornkamm acknowledges that It IS Impos-
data, but at le.ast it should be reliable enough as far as it goes; sible 10 attempt critically a detailed descnption of the course
and actually It turns out that it does go far enough for our of Jesus' life biographically and psychologically. But he d~
purposes.""
clares that in tbe tradition "the person and work of Jesus, in
" Another criterion, a criterion of consistency or coherence,
th elf. unnus. t akrable lilll'queness and distinctiveness,
. are shownds
,;as suggested by C: E. Carlston to compensate for the nega- forth with an originality which again and agam far excee
tive aspec,t of ,the. cnterion of dissimilarity or distinctiveness, •• and disarms even all believing understandmgs and. mlerpreta-
Bultrnann s criterion of distinctiveness helps with the tradition tions. Understood in this way, the primitive tradition.of Je;us
:lbid., pp. 17-18, is brim full of htstory.?" Hence Bornkamm, after a discussion
EllBult.mann, HIstory of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 205.
Yorre~n~bld I), F '9IiBI2,e,),
The New Testament in Current Study (New albid .. p. 34. h
ItO: C!I ner s, 1 , p. 33. -Bomkamm, 1....,. of Nazare! .
. Charles Edwin Carlston, "A Positive Criterion of Authenticity?" -Ibid., p. 26.
Biblical Re8ea,ch, 7 (1962), 33-44,
66
..
FORM CRITICISM AND THE CURRENT QUEST EXAMPLES
of the relationship between faith and history in the Gospels Mter discussing the biblical concept of miracle as sign of "the
and the cultural and religious environment of Jesus, offers a intervening action of God" rather than "something that hap-
~ha.pter in which he tries "to compile the main historically pens contrary to nature," Fuller asks, "Did Jesus do miracles?"
mdisputable traits, and to present the rough outlines of Jesus' The rabbinic Tractate Sanhedrin affirms that Jesus was
person and history."" charged with practicing sorcery, and "supports the claim that
Although "the childhood and adolescence of Jesus are ob- Jesus performed exorcisms."" An analysis of the sources also
scure for us from the historical point of view" we may assert confirms the picture of Jesus as a miracle worker, for with the
exception of the special Matthean material, all of the sources
th~t "t~e home ~f Jesus is the semi-pagan, despised Galilee.
HIS native town IS Nazareth. His family certainly belonged to contain references to Jesus' healmgs.
The most valuable evidence for Jesus' healings, however, is
the [ewish part of the population which, since the times of the
Maccabees had reattached themselves to the temple cult in the reference to exorcism and healing in Jesus' own words.
Jerusalem and the legal practices of Judaism." He was the son "If these sayings are authen:ic, they cont~in pre~~ nearly fi,:~-
hand evidence that Jesus did perform miracles. Form critt-
of Joseph the carpenter. Mary was his mother and we know
cism is therefore applied by Fuller to the sayings of Jesus. The
the names of his brothers. Jesus' mother tongue was the
Aramaic of Galilee, and the scene of his ministry was small Beelzebub saying is the best attested:
\ towns I:ke B~thsalda, Chorazin, and Capernaum." But if it is by the Spirit (Luke: finger) 01 God that I cast out de-
Jesus baptism by John is "one of the most certainly verified mons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (Malt. 12:28
occurrences of ~is life." We cannot say bow long Jesus' minis- and parallel passage, Luke 11:20). . .
try lasted,. but we learn a great deal about his preaching, the This saying occurs in Q and IS supporte~ .mdl~ectly by M~k
conflict WIth hIS opponents, his healin« and the additional help 3:22. Fuller applies the criteria of authentiCity dlscuss~d earlier
he granted the suffering, and the p~werful influence which to the saying and finds that "it does not reflect the f.81thof .the
went
hi bforth from
. him. The people flock to hi'm. D"ISCIPesI f0 IIow church for it makes no explicit assertion that Jesus IS Messiah.
im, ut hIS enemies also arise and increase," The tradition Moreo~er, it speaks of the Reign of God as already in so~e
~ll~vs us to ~ee that "the last decisive turning point in his life sense breaking in. So it is completely different from anythmg
tIS e fresolntfon to go to Jerusalem with hiIS diISCIPes
. I m . or d er one would expect from Judaism, where the Kingdom of Cod
o c?n ront the people there with his message in face of the was a purely future expectation." The saying, therefore, cannot
commg kmg~om of God. At the end of this road is his death have been attributed to Jesus by the church. "We may safely
on the cross. Bomkamm declares that "these mea e indis- assume that it is a genuine saying of Jesus himself."'·
putable facts comprise a verv t d I Th gr , Concerning Jesus' answer to John in Q:
. thi . - J grea ea . ere is Iittle enough
m ti IS e~ume~tlOn, and yet it contains most important infor-
The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed
rna 10~ a out e life story of Jesus and its stages.""' and the deaf hear and the dead are raised up, and the poor have
fO~~~~~al H. Full:r s~bjected the miracles of Jesus to a good news preached to them. And hlessed is he who takes no
study 10 hIS work Interpreting the Miracles."' offense at me (Matt. 11:5-6; Luke 7:22-23),
Nlbid., p. 53.
:Ibid., pp. 53--54. Fuller says that it is different from any:h.ing in. contemporary
Ibid., pp. 54--55. In addition to th h Judaism and does not contain the explicit Christology of the
sonality sketch of Jesus Bo nk de one c apter consisting of a per-
cusston of Iesus' dis~i fes :nd amm , ~votes one chapter each to a dis-
suffering and death.
of Jesus.
Tbe rem' Jdsus fJililtney to. jerusalem resulting in
am er 0 e book 15 given to the teaching "'Ibid., p. 23.
"Heglnal H. Full Int . "Ibid., p. 25.
minster, 1963). er, erpretmg the Mlrae'" (PMadelphia: West. "Ibid., p. 27.
69
68
FORM CRITICISM AND THE CURREN'I QUEST EXAMPLES
early church, "so there is no reason why this too should not be centurion of Capemaum (Matt. 8:5-13). Fuller surns it up by
an authentic saymg of JesUS."41 saying that the tradition that Jesus did perform exorcisms and
f The saying of the blessedness of the disciples (reconstructed healings (which may also have been exorcisms originally) is
rom Luke 10:23-24 and Matthew 13:16-17), very strong, "but we can never be certain of the authenticity
of any actual miracle story in the gospels. While a few of them
Blessed are the eyes which see what you see, may rest upon specific memory, most of them have probably
And the ears which hear what you hear'
For r tell you ' been shaped out of generalized memories,""
that many prophets and kings desired to see The presupposition and methods of the current quest are
what you see, also used by Fuller in The Foundations of New Testament
and did not see it· Christology, a book concerned partly with "what can be known
and to hear what you hear of the words and works of Jesus, and with what these words
and did not hear it, '
and works disclose about his own self-understanding."" The
has the .. tr Synoptic tradition is full of "christologically impregnated ma-
in . J idaisi song consciousness of fulfilment which is lack-
g m u aism and characteristic of Jesus and the same ab- terial" which must he studied to determine Jesus' self-under- c;
sence of the ~xplicit Christology of the post-resurrection standing. The bulk of the material consists of narration, how-
c~ur~ Th: .say;~g, therefore, satisfies the form-critics' criteria ever (the infancy narratives, the baptism, the miracle stories,
the temptation, Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, the
;oe~: s~~:;~ :f ~t~e:ti~n is also ca~e? by Fuller to the
transfiguration, the passion narrative, the resurrection stories),
Luke 13:32 (L) ("G ay;g ~haracteflstIc of Aramaic verse.
demon 0 an te that fox, 'Behold, I cast out and this fact makes our task of recovering the history of the
. s and perform cures today and tomorrow ' ") als . earthly Jesus somewhat easier, for "on any view, these stories
a saymg which is generally regarded .. : a ;S took shape after the resurrection." They reflect not Jesus' self-
conclusion is that "th -id . as authentic, Fullers understanding but the christological beliefs of the post-resur-
) ti f e en ence in favor of the gene 1 tr di
0TnhoJesus'l exorcisms is little short of overwhelmingr~ .. a - rection church, hence, "it is not historical skepticism, but
in th e actua narratives of J esus 'h ea Iings (both the .miracles sound critical method to assign these stories in their present
e pronouncement stories and mi I . shape (whatever factual basis they may have) to the theology
approached from a form criti I irac e ~tofles proper) are
concludes that the narratives ~t per:pc,:tive by Fuller. He
of the community."·7
A small body of christological material in the Synoptic say-
from the Palestinian churches an~esus ,~lfacles came mainly ings of Jesus is left from which to discover Jesus' self-under-
questions the idea that these id Iare Ideal scenes," But he standing. Fuller concentrates first on the more characteristic
nothing. "Is it not mare lik I ha scenes are created out of parts of Jesus' teaching to probe the self-understanding which
upon their store of gener~I~ Ydt at the early Christians drew that teaching implies. Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom, an
ticularly since these st . lW .. memory about Jesus?"44_par-
ones orijrinated j th P event that is already happening precisely and concretely in his
munity. The possibility. b-' in e alestinian com- own work and words, implies a Christology. Jesus' call to
lS not even ruled t th
a story preserves the m f . ou at occasionally decision, exorcisms and healings, ethical teaching, understand-
ular are mentioned S' em~ry 0 an actual incident. In partie-
irnon s moth . I ing of God, teaching about God's providential care, and under-
the paralytic (Mark 2'1-12) er-in- aw (Mark 1:39-41), standing of his death (seen in Luke 13:32 and Mark 14:25,
(Mark 7:24-30) blind B . ,the Syrophoenician woman
, artimaeus (Mark 10:46-53) d th which pass the tests of authenticity), ail imply a Christology.
"Ibid. .28 ' an e
"'Ibid: p . Albid., p. 39.
:1Ibid
bid.•
.•
p. 29.
p. 32.
"Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundatfom of NOfD Te"omomf Chrlri%llll
(New York: Scribner's, 1965), p. lB.
Mlb/d., pp.l02r-l03.
70 71
6
FORM CRmCISM AND THE CURRENT QUEST EXAMPLES
'\ The proclamation, teaching, and deeds of Jesus may imply (4) a rebuke of Jesus by Peter and a rebuke of Peter by Jesus.
( a Christo logy but they are not directly christo logical. How- Fuller shows that the command to silence is a typical Marean
ever, there are some sayings of Jesus in which a direct Chris- theme and it must be eliminated as an addition by Mark in
to~ogy is asserte.d. Fuller's treatment of some important sayings keepi~g with the theme of the "Messianic Secret." The passio~
~I ill~tra,;e his method of determining their authenticity. prediction in verse 31 must be credited to the church, and It
Messiah (Creek: Christ) is an important term used by cannot be taken as belonging originally to the passage. Verse
the church in interpreting the meaning of Jesus. In Jesus' day 32 is to be credited to Mark, not to Jesus, for it forms a link
there were political and military messianic ideas in vogue between the passion prediction and the rebuke of Peter by
among the Jews, and it is frequently asserted that Jesus di- Jesus. This leaves a pronouncement story consisting o~ three
~est~. the term "Messiah" of its Jewish associations, "spiritual- parts: the question of Jesus as to who they say he IS; the
ized ~t, and us,:d it of himself. Fuller examines the Synoptic answer of Peter, "You are the Christ"; and the pronouncement
material to see If.J esus understood himself to be and taught by [esus, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are no.t on the si~e
th.at he '':oas Me:"ah. The Q material has no sayings of jesus of God, but of men:' Hence, Jesus rejects messiahs hlp as a
With the Ch'?"t as a ~.elf-designation. Mark 9:41 is the only merely human and even diabolical tem.pta~o~:'48 .
such passage in Mark: For truly, I say to you, whoever gives Fuller sees Jesus as conceiving of hIS ministry III tenus of (
you. a cul; of water to drink because you bear the name of eschatological prophecy, so it is instructive to see how Fuller
Christ, will hy no means lose his reward." But this verse is treats the material in tbe Synoptic Gospels which show Jesus
obviously secondary. dependent upon a saying which does as a prophet. Fuller establi;hes tbat some of Jesus'. contempo-
not mention "Christ," such as Matthew 10:42: "And whoever raries regarded him as a prophet, even as a specific prophet
gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water be- redivivus (reborn), The report that Jesus was John the Baptist
cause h~ is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his or Elijah redivivus occurs in Mark 6: 14--15 and 8:28. Since
rewar~. So ~esus did not explicitly claim to be Messiah, but there is no evidence that the church ever mterpreted jesus as
~ere IS One Important passage in which the title "Christ" is john the Baptist redivivus or even as Elijah redivivus, "it
gIVen to Jesus by others and his reaction recorded. Can this would seem then that on traditio-historical grounds, Mark 6: 14
passage: Mark 8:27-33, be used to support Jesus' acceptance and 8:28 should be taken as genuine historical rerniniscence.T"
of the title of Messiah? It has also been established that there were prophetic charac-
teristics in the style and content of jesus' ministry. Further-
27 And Jesus went on with h' di . I to t he villages of Caesarea
Phil' d h SClpes,
'f~%;'? a;: 1 more, sayings of Jesus in Mark 6:4 and Luke 13:13 com.par.e
t , IS
that ae e way he a.'ke~ his disciples, "Who do men say the fate of Jesus with that of a prophet, and they clearly indi-
Eli' n they told him, John the Baptist; and others say
[ah, and others one of the prophets." ,. And he asked the "But cate that "he understood his role in prophetic terms in so far
~:.~~
r~:
rl; that I emf" Peter answered him, "You '::e the
8l~d he be e charged them to tell no one about him.
as it involved rejection and martyrdom:"·
The heart of the question "Did jesus understand himself as
, gan to teach them that the Son of man must suffer a prophet?" is arrived at in a collection of sayings in the Q
h
k
:'::'~h tbin~~ and e rejected by the elders and the chief priests
.JW n I',.~n be killed, and after three days rise again "And material.
..~s~ tum~ p ai y. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him 29<'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees. hypocritesl for you ~1Jild the
"Ge~ behin~g andsseeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and saieL tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the nghteous,
" me, atanl For you are not on the side of God but '.saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not
f
Omen. '
"Ibid., p. 109.
~ passage has several elements in it: (1) Peter's confession "Ibid., p,127.
a command to silence, (3) a prediction of the passion: "Ibid.
7.2 73
------------=-======------_._-- --._.-
> of his rmssion not only as belonging to the same class as that
of. t~e OT prophets, but as representing the final prophetic
tradition must have been Matthew 12:25, 26, 29, and 30, to
which verses 27 and 28 were later added. Do verses 27 and
mISsIOnto Israel, and of his own rejection (and possible mar- 28 belong together originally? It seems inconceivable that they
tyrdom) as the culmination of Israel's rejection of the word originally stood together since the ,:"nnection of the ~o ve~es
of Yah~e?"·. These sayings show us that "Jesus thought of his makes the work of the Jewish exorcists as much a manifestation
own mlSSlo~ n.ot Simply as one in the prophetic series, but as of the kingdom as Jesus' exorcisms: Hence, Perrin arrives at ~
:he final mISSIon, bringing God's last offer of salvation and isolated saying existing originally ill much the same form as It
Judgment. ..... is in Luke Il:20: "But if it is by the finger of God that I cast
cIbid., p. 126 out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you,"
-Ibid., p, 129'
-Ibid. ' "Norman Perrin, Rediscovering 1M Teaching qf J- (Now York:
Harper, 1967),
74 75
~I
Did Jesus say it or is it a creation of the church? Perrin the linguistic and theological problems of the Matthean say-
claims, with Bultmann, that the saying "is full of that feeling ing."" Hence, the Matthean form is to be preferred as more
of eschatological power which must have characterized the original,
activity of Jesus."" It cannot be attributed to contemporary The saying reflects an estimate of John the Baptist, and the
Judaism or to the church, for the use of "kingdom of God" in saying's authenticity can be judged by comparing it with the
reference to the eschatological activity of God and the use of history of the tradition of John the Baptist in the church. The
the verb "to come" in connection with this are not character- history of John the Baptist tradition in the church is the his-
istic of Judaism or of the early church. "Further, the relating tory of a continuous playing down of the Baptist, and since
) of the presence of the Kingdom to the present experience of the saying in Matthew 11:12 reflects a high estimate of John
the Baptist, it is to be attributed not to the church but to Jesus.
a man is an emphasis unparalleled in [udaism/" The conclu-
A high estimate of the Baptist and a dependence of Jesus
sion t~en is that ':Luke 11.20 represents a saying attributed to
Jesus in the tradition, the authenticity of which may be re- upon the Baptist "are inconceivable as products of a Christian
garded as established beyond reasonable doubt."67 community concerned to exalt its Lord and engaged in rivalry
This s~ying is very ,~elpful ~n understanding Jesus' teaching with a Baptist sect."60
on the .kmgdom, for the claim of the saying is that certain The saying, then, is an authentic saying of Jesus which "looks
events m the mmlstry of Jesus are nothing less than an exper;-
back upon the Baptist as one whose ministry marks the 'shift
) ~nce of ~e Kmgdom of God." The saying shows also that of the aeons'" and envisions "an aeon of conflict, of victory
and defeat, of achievement and disappointment, of success and
the expenence of the individual, rather than that of the people
as a .whole, has become .the focal point of the eschatological failure."?' The saying may have been originally inspired by
the fate of the Baptist and to this extent the present editorial
activity of G?d .. : . This concentration upon the individual
setting may be correct. The saying confirms "that the time of
a?d hIS expenen~ ISa striking feature of the teaching of Jesus,
God's activity as king is now, and that the form of this activ-
histoncally considered, and full justice m-ist be done to it in
any interpretation of that teaching."'. ity can be envisaged in terms of conflict. But it also adds a
strange, new note: the conflict can issue in defeat as well as
. Matthew 11:12 (and parallel passage, Luke 16:16) is an victory. The outcome of the battle may be sure, but the casu-
unportant saying: alties are going to be real, not sham."'"
Scholars remain convinced that a full scale biography of
Matthew 11:12 Luke 16:16 Jesus cannot be written; but they are not generally skeptical (
~rom t~e days of John the Bat'- The law and the prophets were today about tbe possibility of a historical study of the earthly
tist until now the kingdom of until John; since then the good
heaven has suffered violence Jesus. Although scholars are more confident of rediscovering
news of the kingdom 01 God is
and men of violence take it by the original teachings of Jesus, they have also used fonn criti-
preached, and every one enters
force. it Violently. cism for recovering historical events in Jesus' life. Reginald H.
Fuller, for example, has given a rather full outline of the au-
This
al? is a Qsaym' g. 1sth eatM th ean or Lukan form more origi- thentic Jesus tradition in which he traces major events in the
~ L~e.~~~n fonn gives evidence of being edited drastically life of Jesus from the baptism to the burial, gives a detailed
h u~. e Idea of one epoch ending with John and the outline of the message of Jesus (his teaching on the kingdom,
p rase to preach the good news of the Kingd f G d'
both Lukan, and the • .. on; 0 0 are
everyone enters It VIOlently smooths out Slbid., p, 75.
"Ibid., p. 64- sIbid.
"Ibid. ~Ibid., pp. 76-77.
"Ibid., p. 65. -Ibid., p. 77.
"Ibid, p. m.
77
76
p -~- ~-::-:----:-----:---====---
79
78
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gunk I
.
I' r
The Biblical Sa aa~~ published as The Legends of Genesis:
d H~story. New York: Schocken, 1964.
e a~~ ies arm cnttctsm to the units of Genesis and ro-
A treatment of the message of [esus based on Bultmann's
understanding of the history of the Synoptic tradition:
",Ides a critical procedure for a study of th it f h S P STREETER, BURNETT HiLLMAN. The Four Gospels: A Study of
tic Gospels. e um sot e ynop-
Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924, Revised edition, 1930. A
SCHMIDT,KARLLUDWIG D R h d comprehensive summary of the results of the study of the
arkritische U t' '/ er a men er Gesehichte [esu, Liter- Gospels to his day. His original contribution is the "four doeu-
n ersuc lUngen ZUT .'Zt t j ..b .
Berlin: Trowitzsch und S I a es e~ esusu erliejerung. ment" theory of Gospel origins.
blow to faith in the M a't. 1919. TIllS book ga,ve the final
other scholars t:
vidual units fro th afcan ramework, Schmidt isolated indi-
cla e lframework and prepared the way for
to study the contrib :SI y afnthdstudy the individual units and
EARLY SCHOLARLY EVALUATION AND USE OF FORM CRITICISM
84 85
~
. ..... •
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
86