Introducing Redaction Criticism

The methodological break-through after form criticism was Redaktionsgeschichte (redaction history) or redaction criticism.  While building on form critical insights, it reaction to the minimalistic view of the evangelists as editors collecting traditions like pearls on a string.   Morna Hooker has a memorable line in rebuttal: “It will not, I hope, be regarded as a sexist remark if I suggest that only a man could have used the phrase ‘like pearls on a string’ to suggest a haphazard arrangement of material.  Any woman would have spotted the flaw at once in the analogy:  pearls need to be carefully selected and graded.  And gradually it has dawned on New Testament scholars that this is precisely what the evangelists have done with their material” (The Message of Mark [1983], p. 3).  Redaction critics treat the evangelists as authors and theologians in their own right and seek their distinct contribution to the pre-gospel traditions (as largely determined from a form critical analysis).  

Though anticipated by W. Wrede or R.H. Lightfoot, it was Gunther Bornkamm (Tradition & Interpretation in Matthew [1948]), Hans Conzelmann (The Theology of St. Luke, [1954]) and Willi Marxsen (Mark the Evangelist [1956]) who really opened the floodgates.  However, it may be easier to spot Matthew or Luke’s redactional hand based on how they treat Mark (but see the debate on whether this is the case by James McGrath and Rafael Rodriguez here, here, here, here, here, here, here), but it is much more difficult with Mark because the sources are no longer extant.  Premier evangelical scholar Robert Stein’s article “What is Redaktionsgeschicht” JBL 88.1 (1969): 45-56 (Courtesy of Biblical Studies.org) notes what redaction critics look for when they sift Mark’s editorial contribution from pre-Markan sources:  seams (remember form criticism assumes the traditions were handed down as independent units which Mark attached together artificially), interpretative comments, summaries, modification of material, selection of material, omission of material, arrangement of material, introduction (Mark’s prologue), conclusion (original ending at 16:1-8), vocabulary and christological titles (p. 53).

Update: For a major critique of the redactional critical method, see C. Clifton Black, The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate (JSNTS 27; Sheffield: JSOT Press; Sheffield Academic Press, 1989).

Part IV: Wrapping up the Series on Form Criticism

I want to conclude with what I see as strengths or weaknesses of the form critical model.  I believe there is no going back to the patristic view.  Modern historical-criticism challenges it on a number of fronts:  Matthean priority (some enlist Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Hist. Eccl. 6.14.5-6, in support of the Griesbach hypothesis but Stephen Carlson has a good article in response), Matthew writing “in a Hebrew dialect” (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ) (NT Matthew is Greek as is its major source Mark, while so-called Q material is more debatable), Mark as Peter’s ghost writer (especially as Mark depicts Peter the most negatively of the four), that the shift in first person plural in Acts shows it authorship by Paul’s co-worker Luke (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.14.1) (but then what to do with major differences of the Paul of epistles vs Paul of Acts?), the 4th Gospel by the Apostle John (the Beloved Disciple has been identified as everyone from the Apostle, John the Elder, Thomas, Lazarus, Mary, Jesus brother James, or a symbolic figure, and can an eyewitness account for John’s major historical/theological differences from the Synoptic tradition?).  At best the patristic authors may simplify a more complex historical process and at worst they may just be attaching these names to secure these texts because apostolic successsion became important in intra-Christian debates.  So what contribution does form criticism make for understanding the period between Jesus and the gospels.  Here is my checklist:

1. Unless one imagines that Mark, the double tradition (“Q”), special Matthean material (“M”) or special Lukan material was all invented from scratch, there must have been an active oral medium for circulating traditions before they were recorded by the evangelists (cf. Paul’s references to passing on/receiving tradition and handing on “words of the Lord”; Luke 1:1-3 on the many compiling accounts just as delivered by the first witnesses & assistants of the word; Papias on the “living voice” as superior to books; the fact that oral variants of Jesus sayings/deeds continue into the 2nd century, etc).  This is what we would expect for a largely non-literary, oral-culture.
2. Many traditions may have circulated independently as isolated sayings or anecdotes about Jesus (though with possible exceptions of the Passion narrative, perhaps a kerymatic outline of Jesus ministry, a few other longer oral/written sources) before grouped together in topical arrangements.
3. At least some oral units can be classified according to form (aphorisms, parables, pronouncement stories, etc).  This can aid exegesis; for instance one should not read every element of a parable allegorically unless the evangelists give explicit license to read them in such a way (the Parable of the Sower or of the Tenants in Mark) or  get hung up about the background details of a pronouncement story when the focus is on the central pronouncement of Jesus.  And while there may not be one form per one Sitz im Leben, form criticism rightly calls attention that the words and deeds of Jesus were not preserved for merely interest sake but for the needs of preaching, worship, instruction, debates with outsiders, etc.
4. The diversity within the Synoptics, not to mention other gospel sources, means there must be some theological creativity and embellishment in the oral period or by the evangelists themselves.  However, without the assumption of originally “pure forms” or set “laws of tradition” (e.g., law of increasing distinctiveness), we may have to be more cautious then some of the earlier form critics in postulating what we can know about the shape or evolution of the pre-Markan traditions.

While I think there is much of value in form criticism, I would be on the more conservative end of that spectrum.  To sharpen the model:

1. The awareness that living eye-witnesses or those connected with them did not just vanish from the scene, at least in the first generation between Jesus and the the composition of the earliest gospels.  Eye-witness testimony is not exempt from historical-critical scrutiny and cross-examination, but we need to engage studies on memory (for some studies, see Dale Allison, Anthony Le Donne, Judy Redman cf. her blog, though some question whether memory studies just replay older form critical debates in a new guise).
2. There needs to be more room for the possibility of written sources, which is not disproven by the imminent eschatological expectations of (some?) early Jesus communities.  Whether one accepts the more detailed reconstructions of a historian like Maurice Casey or just finds it inherently plausible that there was some note-taking before the composition of the gospels, I will leave that to readers to decide.
3. I tend to think that the oral/written traditions behind the Synoptics preserve the gist of who Jesus was, whatever the debates about the authenticity or not of this or that saying or episode and some creative storytelling.  Many of Jesus’ teachings or halakhic debates in his own context were no longer immediately relevant to the issues facing an increasingly socially-mixed Christ communities.  For instance, Paul is not able to just conjure up a word from the Lord to settle his dispute against proselyte conversion to Judaizing ways but must rely on his own apostolic credentials and, in the example of 1 Cor 7, Paul must negotiate between the Lord’s strigent commands on divorce with his own opinion on a new situation involving marriages with a believer and non-believing spouse.

Part III: Alternative Models to Form Criticism

The form critical emphasis on the role of anonymous Christian communities in the period between Jesus and the gospels replaced the older consensus on the tradition authorship of the canonical Gospels by apostles (Matthew, John) or apostolic assistants (Mark, Luke) (see, for example, Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 3.1.1).   However, before I wrap up a concluding post on form criticism, it should be stressed that there are other models on the scholarly spectrum that range all the way from support of the patristic view of the gospels as rooted in eyewitness testimony to those who like Bultmann find much more theological creativity and embellishment in the pre-gospel traditions.

The Scandinavean School (Harald Riesenfeld, Birger Gerhardsson):  Beginning with Jesus as the Messianic Teacher and overseen by the Apostolic college in Jerusalem, the emphasis is on the controlled transmission of the sacred tradition by authoritative teachers and the requirement of strict memorization by their pupils on the analogy of handing down oral tradition in rabbinic literature and ancient education methods generally.  The forms of the Jesus tradition (aphorisms, parables, etc) and constant repetition was an aid to memory and the Jesus tradition was kept literarily isolated (note it is hardly present from Acts to Revelation) which meant it could be shaped/edited but not permitted to be supplemented with teachings under one’s own name or inspiration.  The torch for a formally controlled transmission process by eyewitnesses has been passed to Samuel Byrskog  (cf. Peter M. Head‘s review article) and Richard Bauckham (cf. Chris Tilling ’s extensive overview).

Informally-Controlled Transmission Process (James Dunn, NT Wright):  Building on the insights of Kenneth Bailey into a modern Middle Eastern village,  when a respected elder or prominent member of the community recites the tradition the community itself exercises control over how it is retold from their communal memory and decide how much flexibility in permitted in the retelling (e.g. poems/proverbs should be left unchanged while there is room for flexibility with parables or stories as long as the “punch line” is preserved).  That is, the core of the story ought to remain even as the details may vary on the retelling.  This model can allow for the tradition to be preserved even when “eyewitnesses” were not always available (see Dunn’s article contra Gerhardsson & Bauckham) and Dunn, in particular, argues that many discrepancies in the Synoptics are always due to literary redaction but are different oral retellings.  Update:  Thanks to Ron Price in the comments below, I learned of some strong critiques and subsequent debate over at Xtalk group on the Historical Jesus & Christian origins here and here.  I think there is still plenty of room to debate the reliability of oral tradition and how much it preserves versus how much it creates, but it does call into question some of Bailey’s anecdotal evidence used in support of this model.

Eschewing the focus on exclusively oral sources, Maurice Casey has striven to find written Aramaic sources behind Mark and the so-called Q material.  His method is to argue Aramaic was the lingua franca in 1st cent Israel (Latin was the language of Roman imperial power, Greek penetrated Palestine through Hellenization but he contests its extensive use by the majority populace, Hebrew was a living literary language to read scripture), find translation errors or signs of Semitic interference in the Greek (observing most billinguls do not have full command of either language and have difficulties translating from one culture to another) and ensure his reconstruction of the Aramaic substratum is sufficiently idiomatic and reflects a 1st cent Jewish perspective and explains the evangelist’s translation choices.  There may be some external evidence for Aramaic sources from Papias assumption that Mark was Peter’s hermeneutes (translator?) and Matthew compiled the logia in a Hebrew dialect (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ) to the references in patristic literature to an original Semitic gospel.

In one of the better articles in R. Joseph Hoffman‘s Sources of the Jesus Tradition, Justin Meggitt applies his knowledge of popular culture in the Roman Empire to illuminate the role of myth-making (mythopoesis) among the vast non-elite population.  Although aware of sophisticated scholarly debates on the term  ”myth”, he narrowly defines it as “a story about a popular figure that includes material that is neither true nor probable” (p. 62).  He argues myth-making was not conservative but open to major changes, improvisations & contradictory versions and most took the heroes/gods existence for granted.  He also argues that the role of women as cultural transmitters in passing on tales to children in the domestic sphere is often neglected despite NT evidence (2 Tim 1:5) and that the polegenic character of early Christianities and that individuals were unconcerned to sift fact from faction (e.g., note Papias who provides our first traditions on Mark and Matthew also includes extravagant tales in his ”Exegesis of the Lord’s Logia”) shows the oral transmission of the tradition was a less restrained process.

Those are four different models, either leaning towards more careful preservation of the tradition or towards more theological creativity in the period between the historical Jesus and the Gospels.  So before I wrap up what I think are the strengths and weaknesses of form criticism in light of all this discussion, I want to ask what you think is the best model for understanding the transmission of the pre-gospel traditions and the reliability of the Gospels?

Secret Mark Conference Part II

In a previous post, I highlighted the York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium Series on Secret Mark organized by Dr. Tony Burke and Dr. Phil Harland.  I was not able to attend the event, but there are several links available about the conference (which I learned via the blog Salainen Evankelista).  First, you can see summaries and reflections from the anonymous blogger of Synoptic Solutions, from Evangelical Textual Criticism (at first left blank, but now the “secret” has been unveiled part 1, part 2, part 3), from journalist and religious studies student Sarah Veale at X, Y and Zen and guest post from Ph.D. candidate at Concordia University in Montreal Calogero A. Miceli at Apocryphicity as well as from Dr. Tony Burke (part 2, part 3) and some thoughts on some of the blog reviews of the conference by Larry Hurtado (and Follow-up).  There are also pictures of the presenters on the Facebook group.  I look forward to reading these papers of the conference when they are officially published, though Dr. Craig Evans has already published his article at the website “Bible and Interpretation” in which he makes his case that there is reason to be suspicious that “Secret Mark” is a forgery perpetuated by Morton Smith (I learned of this article via).  While I lean slightly towards authenticity (I think Scott Brown makes a good case, though I am not sure if the evangelist had anything to do with it and if the text is not just a window into the interests of later readers of Mark in Alexandria), Evans arguments are worth considering and I wish that against the odds the text could be rediscovered to settle this debate once and for all.

Part II: The Development and Presuppositions of Form Criticism

Upon the discovery of Markan priority (which I accept as the best solution to the Synoptic Problem), Mark became the darling of Liberal Protestant questers.  With an early narrative account (and eventual discovery of a Sayings Source underlying the double tradition of Matt/Luke), they could ward off the radical approach of D.F. Strauss or F.C. Baur and uncover a rationalist’s historical Jesus stripped of theological embellishment (for one review/critique of the origins of the Markan priority hypothesis, see H.U. Meijboom, A History and Critique of the Origins of the Marcan Hypothesis 1835-1866).  So what lead scholars from seeing Mark as the “interpreter of Peter” (cf. Papias, cf. H.E. 3.39.15) and guide to the Jesus of history to the form critical skepticism of Bultmann who writes, “I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist” (Jesus and the Word) (but note he was reacting against excesses of 19th century romantic & psychologizing bios of Jesus and his book has quite a bit to say historically about the message of Jesus)?  I will discuss developments leading to form criticism and note some objections in italics.

• Flight from History:  Albert Schweitzer’s Quest for the Historical Jesus refutes Liberal Lives of Jesus and stresses only 2 options:  thoroughgoing eschatology or scepticism.  William Wrede’s The Messianic Secret represented the latter route as he argued the overriding secrecy theme in Mark was a theological creation to cover up a nonmessianic Jesus.  Also note Martin Kähler’s The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, objecting to the enterprise of questing after Jesus as a mere object of historical inquiry when the biblical Christ had a lasting historical impact and relevance for faith.  This may be a false dichotomy as there are no uninterpreted facts; the Gospels do not purport to be objective but are theological interpretations of the historic Jesus event.
• Deconstructing Mark’s Chronological Framework: K.L. Schmidt’s Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu argues that, with the exception of the Passion narrative,  independent oral units were collected together in topical arrangements (e.g., controversy stories in Mk 2:1-3:6, parables in Mk 4:1-34, eschatological sayings in Mk 13) and attached by artificial editorial seams (e.g., note how often Mark connects passages by “and immediately…”, a reference to going beside the Sea to teach or to withdraw, or vague time references to that morning, evening, one Sabbath, etc.).  Many oral traditions may have been passed down individually and grouped together topically, but there may also have been a basic outline of the ministry starting with the baptism and ending on the fateful last trip to Jerusalem for Passover where the Temple demonstration inevitably set in motion events leading to Jesus death (Mark 11; contra John 2). 
• The early Christians were unliterary persons expecting the imminent end of the world, so there was no motive to record anything of historical interest in the oral period (the analogy for the spread of the Gospel traditions is often along the lines of folk literature).  The Evangelists were also not creative authors but reduced to compilers collecting traditional oral units like pearls on a string (cf. Schmidt).  Since the Gospels cannot be classified as literature (“Luke” reached out to the world of culture [cf. Lk 1:1-3] but was constrained by tradition in writing the gospel but more an author when writing the second volume of Acts), they have no comparable literary genre but simply the kerygma (preaching) narrativized (cf. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel).  The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows a community can hold an imminent eschatological expectation and still be interested in writing. Classics scholar George Kennedy urges NT scholars to take seriously the practice of ancient note-taking (hypomnemata) before published memoirs (apomnemoneumata) in the composition of the gospels and in the notice of Papias.  Maurice Casey has attempted to identify Aramaic sources underlying Mark 2:23-3:6, 9:11-13, 10:35-45 and 14:12-26.  Finally, the analogy to folk literature does not take serious the shorter historical time gap between Jesus and the first evangelists or the gospel genre as bioi (cf. Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels: A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biographies) and the notion of the evangelists as mere compilers has been disproven by the developments of redaction and literary criticism of the Gospels.
• Form critics classify the various units according to form and try to uncover their original “Sitz im Leben” (situation in life) in the primitive communities (see last post).  They also argue for strict laws of development in how traditions grow and expand by observing how Matthew and Luke  treat their sources Mark and Q and how later accretions and additions became added to the original pure forms (e.g. the examples in the  last post about the addition of the saying about the church resuming fasting after the Bridegroom is taken away or how a pronouncement story becomes a miracle story or legend, etc).  The form critical contribution must be tempered with the fact that of their categories are not intrinsic to the Gospels (not emic terminology) but are the scholar’s own creation, much of the gospel material does not fit into a single category (Bultmann, “Synoptic Tradition,” pg. 4 acknolwdges mixed forms but does not see it contradicting the form critical premise) and it can be disputed that each separate form belongs to a single Sitz im Leben.  E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition debunks any set laws of tradition as traditions may either grow or shrink or become more or less detailed over time.  Finally, can we extrapolate from how Matthew/Luke treat prior written sources (not to mention some of the differences may be due to oral variants rather than deliberate redactional changes as noted by James Dunn) with how an earlier evangelist may have treated their oral or written traditions?
• Rudolf Bultmann in particular argued that the traditions were not only shaped and edited in the oral period but also invented in various Sitze im Leben.  Thus, many pronouncement stories involving a conflict between the Pharisees and “the disciples” reflect the controversies of the Palestinian church with their opponents over issues of Sabbath, fasting, food laws, ritual purity, etc.  Others like the “I-sayings” were the creation of Hellenistic Churches as Christian prophets spoke in the name of the risen Lord (cf. Rev 16:15).  Vincent Taylor represented the more cautious approach of British scholarship to form criticism, positively accepting many of its contributions but especially challenging Bultmann on this point (“If the Form Critics are right, the disciples must have been translated to heaven immediately after the resurrection” – Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 41) while Dennis Nineham forcefully argued that Taylor follows an a priori assumption of the involvement of eye-witnesses based on church tradition that is incompatible with the form-critical a-posteri analysis of the formal and stereotyped individual units that reflect a long history of impersonal communal use.  The presence of living eyewitnesses or those connected with them in a relatively small movement, the existence of written sources, newer developments in the study of oral transmission or social memory (especially remembering the gist even if the details differ) and the fact that the words of the Lord possibly were distinguished from one’s own inspired utterance or opinion (e.g., 1 Cor 7) may be restraining factors on the creativity of individuals or communities.

I hope I have been fair in noting a sample of some of the arguments for and the objections against form criticism, though with the disclaimer that a blog post is a rough collection of informal notes and no substitute for reading the books/articles listed here.  In the next post I will look at alternative proposals to the form critical model before I conclude with what I think are the main strengths and weaknesses of form criticism, but I want to turn it over to readers to ask what you see as some of the enduring contributions of form criticism and what do you think has been refuted by later scholarship?

Form Criticism Part I: The Forms and their Sitz im Leben

As mentioned before, one of the goals of Form Criticism is to classify the units in the Gospels according to their form and discover their “Sitz im Leben” (situation in Life) in the earliest congregations, whether in missionary preaching, myth-making, catechetical instruction, worship, debates with opponents, church discipline, etc.  My friend and former professor Tyler Williams provided this useful handout on Hermann Gunkel’s contribution to a Form Critical analysis of the Psalms.  It would not be long before New Testament scholars applied the new method to the gospels and I will focus on the categories of Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann and Vincent Taylor. 

SCHOLARS	FORMS
MARTIN DIBELIUS (From Tradition to Gospel)	Paradigms, Tales, Legends, Exhortations, Mythological Stories, Passion Narrative
RUDOLF BULTMANN (History of the Synoptic Tradition)	Apophthegms (subdivided into controversial, scholastic or biographical), Dominical Sayings (subdivided into Logia, Prophetic, Legal, I-sayings and Similitudes), Miracle Stories (Healing, Nature Miracles), Historical Stories & Legends, Passion Narrative
VINCENT TAYLOR (The Formation of the Gospel Tradition)	Pronouncement Stories, Miracle Stories, Sayings and Parables, Stories about Jesus, Passion Narrative

The problem confronting the researcher is that his or her own etic classification system has the potential to distort as much as the illuminate the NT data.  For instance, what really is the difference in form between what Dibelius classifies a “Tale”  (worldly stories about Jesus, particularly his miracles, passed on by special class of story-tellers), a “Legend” (a narrative about a saint) and a Myth (action of a god)?  Is “Historical Stories and Legends” or “Stories About Jesus” really a distinctive form or a grab bag of a bunch of diverse narratives of varying historical value from the infancy, baptism, temptation, confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi, Transfiguration, Triumphal Entry, etc?  What remains of value is the distinctive form of a Paradigm/Apophthegm/Pronouncement Story (I agree with Taylor, pg. 30, that  “pronouncement story” best captures the central feature), a brief anecdote with few background details but centers on a significant pronouncement of Jesus (in response to a conflict, an inquirer or a situation that arises).  For instance, in Mark 11:13-17 (Thomas Saying 100), opponents attempt to trap Jesus about paying tribute which he skillfully outmaneuvers with the ambiguous retort “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (see Loren Rosson’s posts on different interpretations of this passage)   Dibelius held the Sitz im Leben of the “Paradigms” was the missionary sermon and their main purpose was as example stories that end with a concluding thought of Jesus useful for preaching (Dibelius adds that the sermon was the only vehicle for preserving authentic Jesus traditions by unliterary persons expecting the imminent end).  Bultmann judges that controversial/scholastic apophthegms emerged from debates of the Palestinian church with Jewish opponents (e.g., note “the Pharisees” often question the conduct of “the disciples” with regards to Sabbath or purity) or internal debates over various matters in the church, while the life situation of the biographical apophthegms was in the preaching to the congregations and giving them an example to emulate.  Taylor sees the original function in the edification of believers gathered at the assembly or in debate/apolegetics directed towards outsiders.  For the rest, I will look at how various passages (NRSV) in Mark are classified according to their form.  For this, I rely on Bultmann since he seems  to have the most detailed analysis and to please the Bultmann fanclub in the biblioblogosphere (cough, Jim West).

Apophthegm (Pronouncement Story)

Controversy/Scholastic = Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, ‘Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ Jesus said to them, ‘The wedding-guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. (Mk 2:18-19) (V. 20 “the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day” is often judged an addition since it reflects a post-Easter identification of Jesus as the bridegroom and his impending death and rationalizes why the church resumed the practice of fasting [cf. Bultmann, pg. 19; but contra Taylor, pg 34-35])

Biographical = Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’  (Mk 3:31-35)

Dominical Sayings

Logia = But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first. (Mk 10:31)

Prophetic/Apocalyptic Sayings = And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’ (Mk 9:1)

Legal Sayings/Church Rules = He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’  (Mk 10:11-12)

‘I’ = I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’ (Mk 2:17b)

Similitudes = He also said, ‘The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come.’ (Mk 4:26-29)

Miracles

Healing = They came to Bethsaida. Some people brought a blind man to him and begged him to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village; and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, ‘Can you see anything?’ And the man looked up and said, ‘I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.’ Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. (Mk 8:22-25)

Nature = A great gale arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, ‘Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?’ He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, ‘Peace! Be still!’ Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. He said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?’ And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, ‘Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?’ (Mk 4:37-41)

Historical Stories and Legends

=  In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’  And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him. (Mk 1:9-11) (Note Dibelius classified Mark’s account of the baptism as a “myth” because he viewed it as an epiphany scene with the personal vision given to Jesus of the spirit coming down as a dove and of the heavenly voice revealing Jesus divine nature)

Mixed Forms

How would you classify the following passage: a miracle story that revolves around the faith of the paralytic and the miraculous healing, or a pronouncement story about the controversy over Jesus’ authority to forgive sins and his central proclamation in response to his critics?

= And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ‘Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, ‘Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”, or to say, “Stand up and take your mat and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic— ‘I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.’ And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this!’ (Mk 2:4-12)

Form Criticism Bibliography

Before I launch into the series on Form Criticism,  I want to provide a short bibliography for those who want to research the subject in more depth than can be done on a blog.  These are the sources I consulted, from both proponents and detractors of the presuppositions and methodology of form criticism, and so will refer back to it in the next few posts (and if you know of good books/articles for consideration let me know in the comments):

• Bauckham, Richard.  Jesus and the Eyewitnesses:  The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
• Blomberg, Craig L. “Form Criticism.”  Pages 243-50 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green et al.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
• Boring, M. Eugene.  Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; Mark: A Commentary.  The New Testament Library. Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, London, 2006.
• Bultmann, Rudolf Karl.  The History of the Synoptic Tradition.  Translated by John Marsh; New York:  Harper & Row, 1963.
• Byrskog, Samuel.  Story as History, History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History.  WUNT 123.  Tubigen: Mohr, 2000, reprinted Leiden: Brill, 2002.
• Casey, Maurice.  Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• Dibelius, Martin.  From Tradition to Gospel.  Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf; Cambridge: James Clarke and Co, 1971.
• Dodd, C.H.  “The Framework of the Gospel Narrative,” Expository Times 43 (1931-1932): 396-400.
• Dunn, James.  Jesus Remembered.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
• Gerhardson, Birger.  Memory and Manuscript.  New Edition; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
• Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ.  London: SCM; Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000.
• Kümmel, Werner Georg.  Introduction to the New Testament.  Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
• Kennedy, George.  “Classical and Source Criticism.”  Pages in The Relationship among the Gospels: an Interdisciplinary Dialogue.  Edited by William Walker; Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978.
• McKnight, E.V.  What is Form Criticism?  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.
• Nineham, D.E.  The Gospel of St Mark.  The Pelican NT Commentaries.  Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963; “Eye-witness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition, I.”  JTS 9 (1958): 13-25;  “Eye-witness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition, II.”  JTS 9 (1958): 243-252;  “Eye-witness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition, III.”  JTS 11 (1960): 253-264.
• Sanders, E.P.  The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
• Schmidt, Karl Ludwig.  Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung.  Berlin: Trowitzch, 1919 (sorry, unlike Dibelius and Bultmann this one was never translated into English, but the title reads “The Framework of the story of Jesus: literary-critical studies on the oldest Jesus traditions”)
• Stein, Robert H.  The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction.  Nottingham: InterVarsity, 1987.
• Stuhlmacher, Peter (ed.).  The Gospel and the Gospels.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991
• Taylor, Vincent.  The Formation of the Gospel Tradition.  London: MacMillan, 1933; The Gospel According to St. Mark.  New York:  St Martin’s Press, 1966.

• Travis, Stephen H.  “Form Criticism.” Pages 153-164 in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods.   Edited by I. Howard Marshall; Carlisle:  Paternoster Press, 1979.

   

Introducing Form Criticism

Just as I had a series reviewing Source Criticism and the discovery of Markan Priority as the best solution to the Synoptic Problem, I want to turn my attention to the Form Critical pursuit of the pre-literary oral traditions that were later incorporated into our Gospels.  Formgeschichte (form history), better known as Form Criticism, was dominant in the first half of the twentieth century and is the attempt to classify the various units (or pericopae) of the Gospels according to form (parables, aphorisms, pronouncement stories, miracle stories, legends, etc.) and to trace these traditions back  to an original Sitz im Leben (situation in life) in the early Christian communities (i.e. what function the tradition had in the preaching, worship, catechetical instruction, community organization or discipline, controversies with the synagogue, etc).  This wll be a four-part series:

Part 1: The Forms and Their Sitz im Leben

Part 2: The Development and Presuppositions of Form Criticism

Part 3: Alternative Models to Form Criticisms

Part 4: Concluding Observations