Full Text for The Historical Critical Method as Employed in the Study of the New Testament (Text)

THE SPRINGFIELDER June 1971 Volume 35, Number 1 The Historical Critical Method As Employed In The Study Of The New Testament I 3 THE FIELD of contt.n~lwi-ar\- Se\\- Tcsta~ncnt schol;lrhl~ili .i~lki modern theological 1i teraturc, 'thc c1rsignatiol~ '.I~istc!t.i~,~l ci-i t method" is a technical t~~~~rcssion referring to s tipc: of' Xc\\ J-c~it;t- mrnt stud!. which cnlbraccs, btdcs lanSu,\gc Ical-nin2, tflc ill\ chti- gatij-e procecl~ires of textual criticism, litvr,~r\ critic.i>111, I~ihro!.ic,~l criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism. ;~ntl \I l~,it Il,!, c.r\ recently been termed Sncllkl-itik or content c,ritic.isn~. C:\nlo:ly tllc.&. the discipline with which this palm- prol)ost$h to tl~,il ;it :rrL,ittLr length is for111 criticisnl.). Ii'hiIe the \.:rrious cli.icip1inc.~ 111,i\ l~c considered sepnratel~; faithful practitioners of rJlc1 Ili5toric;il i.~.jtic;lI method norrn;ill\ eniplo! thc nforcmt>ntionctl in\i$stigil~i~.c tt.cl11licl~1c.i; in conjunction. An\- scholarl\.. exegetical stud\. of tIlc hc.11- Iest;ln~c~it nlust obviousli begin n-ith n mastcry of thc Greck 1angu;ii~c. in \\ tiic.11 it \\-as lrritten. A nest requisite is a Rihlc. ztuclcn t's c:~l~:tcit\-. b\- following the scientific canons of tcstual or lo\\cr criticisl~l to (,.;tali- lish as carcfullv as possible the correct tvst of the Kc\\. I-c.,t,!lll~>nt Scripture; that is, the test n-hich confornls most closcl\ to ttic oriZi~lal autographs of these Scriptures. The techniques in\.ol\ ctl in this process art. \\.ell knon.11. Their use implies an acq~i;iintanc~. 11ot old\. with the accepted test critical rules but also n-ith thc st'\-c'ral kinds of !ariation signs in the test, the corresponding s\~~bols ;~pl~,~ring ill the critical apparatus, i~nd the genera1 scl~cmc of notatio~l follo\\.erI by the compilers of this ~Iyparatus in a scientific. edition of tl~c \<,\I. -1estament like that of Eberhard and Ertvin Ycstlc.. Then comes the npl~lication of the rest of thc criticisms ;rforc.- mentioned. .At this point it will bc useful to dr:i\~- a clistinctiol~. 011 the one hand, it lnav bc stated that el-cr! Sc\v Tcst~~~ilcnt sclloli~s- evers conserl-a tive included -is interested in man\ of tllc cj~rcstjons with which these criticisms concern themsel~.cs. Ft.cr\ consc.r\.;tti\,c necessarilv ~llakcs use in his exegetical \sorli, for csampIc. of a Iiincl of literari and forn~ criticism. On the othrr hand, \\-c shot~ltl rccog- nize that when the disciplines of literar!., fonu. rcdilction, and con- tent criticisn~ arc referred to in contemporar! theological Ii tcrat~ir~, they designate investigatiw procedures as emplo\ed hy scholars of varying degrees of liberal orientation, who operate wit11 ccrtnin ration- alistic, anti-Scriptural presuppositions and \.arious arhitrar!.. un\i.ar- ranted assumptions in their study of the Biblicill te~t-ils will be shown presently. Such critics practice what mnv from the consi.rva- tive point of vien- be c;llled "radical" historical'rriticism, and ns a rc'3~1lt 00 \ 101~1li (' to Ilibl~tal tmts in their interpretation of the Sew r~~\t'~lllcllt ~cl~l~>l~lrcs. [);in (1. \'iil pojllts to the lllairi in\-estigati~e interests of tradi- tic-~~l'il litt.r,~l.!. criticism it1 the sunlmar\ statelllent: ILitt.r;i~.! critiuisl~l has traclitionall\ concerrled itself ivith such ~n;ltti.rs '1s thc ;luthorship of thc val-ious Sew Testament books, tht possible comjmsite nature of 3 given \vork, and the identity :111(i t'xtcnt of ~ourc.cs \\.Ilich ma! lie bchind a certain document.' C'~O>C'~!. 'tshtrciatecl \\ ith litcrnry criticjsln is historical criticism, \\-11ich furtllcbr ~ILI ~>IIC~S tllt' (1~ic';tion of the authorship of a xi\-en Bihlical clocu~nc~~t~ ii~\t.stigating in partic~~lai- the possibilit!. of historicall\ iclclitif! irlg thc \\.ritcr; consitlcrs the nccLlracv of the historical data pw>c.n tc'cl \i itl~jn ,! Eiblc book; studics ngrccnlcnts and di~ngrc~mcnts bc.t\\r.~,n ;I Sc.riptur;ll cl(xumc.nt ant1 t11e ivorks of secular \\.ritcrs. rl-ficrc~ 5~1~11 ;ire ;~\:~il;~blc; ;lnd rt-fcrs to fi~~clings in the fielcts of col~~~~ir:~ti\.c: rcligioli .~nd arch;+coI(~~!. \vllcn tht'sc c>an illurnincltc historical 1n:ltrhrial in the Scriptural tczt." 111 tllc' arcit of litcrar!. criticism, ~nani. critics, influenced b\ consitlcr;ltions lilic changes in vocabular!- o; st~le or author's pint of licit.! rcpctitions it1 the Scriptural text, supposed logical hiatuses ;mil logical ~ligrcssions, and other phtrriolnena, are Icd to clenv the authorship [\-hich the Scriptures plainlv assign to \.arious bods of tllc Biblr.. C'ertain critical scholarshib, for cxample, rejects the l'auline iluthorship of Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles; the Petrille :iuthorshil, of 3, Pt.tcr; the integrit!. of Romans and 2 Cbrinthians; ;~ncl so 011. \Inch scholarly attention is given the so-calletl Syiloptic I'roblern, iihich is posccl by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels display both ;1 basic ~intl \uhstantial similaritv, on the one hand, and also 111;1n\ clibfcrt.nces in detail. on the other. The qucstioris arise: ho\\- ;Ire thc thrcc. Gospels to he related historically? Ho\\- are the ~~l:rrkc.d silnilarities ancl differences to be explained? ,Among the solutiorls \vhich scholars offered, t~vo predominate in t11at the\. achicved \vide acceptance among Sc\\ Testament stu- clcnts, The first solution advanced n~as the contribution of t~vo mcn 11). the nanlc of Rcrnarcl \Veiss and H. J. Holtzmann shortly aftcr the t~lrrl of this century (1901). It is the so-called TISO- Soi~rcc H!-pothcsis (or, T\vo-Document Theory>, 11-hich suggests that >lark is thy oldcst Gospel and Jlatthcw and I+uke used his \vork as sourcc in constructing their Gospels; that in additior~ to Xlark, >Iiitthc~v and Luke draiv on another source, labeled Q (from thy Gcrn~an word Qzrelle, "source"), now lost, which was n collec- tion of tIlc sa!ings of Jesus; and that the apostle 3latthew may have ht>cn the author of this doculnent Q. The othcr and later solution is the Four-Source Hypothesis, originated by B. H. Strecter in 1924, ;old der.elopcd as an aclrance upon the Tno-Source, SO as to account for facts not esplai1~rd by the latter. This Four-Source Hypothesis pro\,ides t\\-o adclitional ~oul-ccs for l\l:~ttIic\\-. oiic: i,:h~lt.ii \I, to: material peculiar to I\lattht\\.. ant1 the sccc!:!c! dc~c~i!ic:li >ii!~!j/\ .i\ 1. nlatcrial prcscr\.cd b\ oral trdclitioii. 1>rol);1lil? .I: .\I;: itit ji. 11i: t: :L~;C\ similai-1)- provicles :idditional sourccs for I rikc., .!11:,~:?:.i- (lrr- Lri::: !ii I. 1 I IabeIed L, for iilate.riLil pccrrliar to I-LI!~~, plus ,ill oi,il t !-.ti.il!ir)ii \\ ;'::tt.ridls for theb first tn-o c.h;iptLrs (c!f t!lc- Crilb!): 1. It should I>e j~crtccl t11;lt both tficsc tllcoric> rt...r I;,,t\ i!\ L!ilti!l co~ijecturc., cfespitc thvir n-idch acccsptiinc.c. ilnd ,!ll(il-(I\.!! i)\ :li)ti~!ii!l\ <.;11>11itt be rlc.finitcl\- dt*tcrnii~.~cil. Fur111 C~'r.ifi~,is~~~ Stucicnts of tile .Xc\i rc?t;inicnt- corlscri .iri\ c ~cIir)l.~t-> 111~ luklcd --mar bc >aid to pr:+cticc ;I certain t!ptl of f01-171 ci-itici?:i:, ::l~c.il. a lwc~~~~~in~ry procrclurc ill thc intrrprctation cif ;l I:il,lic.tl tc'xt. thL.\ lc.gitinintc.l\ ?cck to icl~ntif\ 11nd classiF\ its litc~-~tr\ t\jxs-:t\ i~crctrt. lcgxl 1n~trcr1a1, ptxri~f>~c,. :~~xk;~lv~~tic, J~istorica! i~;irr,~ti\c. .111d \o for~li -and to applv to thc rc$p~ti\-c literar!. t\yc5 Alpprolx-i,~tt.. t.rtlt.,? c~f interpretation. As the cksignation "fonn ci-iticism" is c.c~~c.l-.iIl\- employed ill current literature rzn thc Sen ?-c.>titmcnt, t~o\\-c*\t~t-. it signifies radical form ci-itic~tl proccrfurc. Radicd form criticism. or F~I-~JI_SCS~'II~C'~I~C'., hiis ~OIIC.~'I.I~C'CI i~err- Testanit.rlt for111 criiicisnl accepts in gcn- era1 the main result< of litcrarv critjcisnl, the solutioils ilic lattc~r app1it.s to the litcrar! pruhlenl-of: thc source%> of thc C;mpcI>. iitid moi-es fronl these bazkn-;lrd in time in an endc;~\or to cl~*tc~-~liil~c [fie prc-literar!. oral trltdi tions ;inel tfic jnflucnc~cs 1vhic.11 111o~1 IiIct1 tl~t,~~. Its purpose Itas hcc~ii to gct 1)ehincl the sourem n.hic.11 litct-iir~ critic i>~n identifies and "to clcscribc.," ,is \'ia puts it, "~vh~it Itas I~appc-niri~ .is the tradition about ~CWS I\-;IS hancletf on orall! fro111 person to person and from cornmunit!- to canlnl~rnity." Tn n \\.orel, Form critjcis~n lids bccw cspcciall!. co11c.c.rncct \\-i tli the ~;ioil ificit- tions \\-hiell the life :rnct thought of thc cl~urcli-1)oth jc\si~l~- Christian and gentile-Christian-I1a1.c introrlucetl into tile tl.;ldi- tion, and form critics ha1.c IF-orkcd out critcriii for disting~iis1i- ing those strata in the Gospcls \vhich rcflect tllc concerns of tlw ch~rrch from the stratrrili that might bc tholrgfit to go bncl; to tllc. historicill Jesus. : To aid then] in their analytic: ivork tliesc critics hare joi~wtl iii ti~u historical critical consirlcratiort of the narratives and sa!.iny of othcr literatures, such as thosr of tlic Jewish rabbis, of Greccc, Pcrsia. iildia n~icl ( hi11i1. 10 tiisco\.cl- common laws ill t21c transnlission of oral trailitiorl ill- folI.101-t: \\.hich arc ~ISSUII~C~ to be operati\-e also in the clc\~cIol~~i~c~~t of thc (~;os]>el tradition. :Is for the evangelists, they arc to l~i. c.tjn,i(i~~-cbtl. according to tllc 1-icn. of form critics, not as aut11~tr.i;. h~rt :!s coll1bc.tor.s anci cditors. In the \\.ords of E. Basil ~~~cIIIcI~'~ c*xpl:!:l;lt 1011 : Tllcir \~ot-l; consistccl in collecting, choosing, gl-oupi~ig, re- sli,~l?ing a~ltl I~i~ntling do\\-~~ the traditions. They had nothing to c/o \I it11 thc. originid mouldi~~g, for the\. took over material \\hicl~ l,.icl a form ancl \\.hich csisted i~; indepwdent, self- c.olltlii~lc(I units.; .\I) i~;li~ort,int go;~l of form critic:~l stud! of thc Gospels is to j>ro\ iclc l:il~lr \~~rclc'~~ts \\ it11 \\-hat fol-m critic Frederick C. Grant calls "a bct:ci. u~~cl~.ssf;~~lclillg of JC'SLIS' o\vn authentic ~vol-tls, as \\.ell as ;I cr.lcarcr. tcst !'or cIistinguisllin,q his own I-critsblc utterances from later ;tcc'~-ctio~l. ;111c1 i~lt~'t-;~rc't,!tiorls, nc1dc.d in thc course of liancli11~ clo\\-n ..- tl~c t~-;~(lit ioi-,. I.oullilinc fathcal-s of the form critical scllool of Se\\- Tcstamrnt stud\. ;Ire \1;1it in I~li belius ant1 Ii belius' and Uultmann's] impact upon tllr I:nglisl-~-spc,iki~~g \\-orlrl of biblical scholarship, it slio~ilct bc notcxl that it \\as 1)ibclius \\.ho niadc thc major impact in the ni~lctcc,n tllirties ant1 for ti;^, hut th:~t Bult111ann is the morc in-~p~ti~~it ti~urc' tala\.. . . . It is Bultmnnn's ~ncticulous analvsis of tl~c. t~.;~clition tc.st'b!- test that has bc.ttc.r stood the test of t I I~c.'' Ih*c,~~~sc. of this \\c ,liall no\\- fwus our attention on an rinul~sis of 13uItnlann's for111 c t-i tic;lI procedure.' ;I f'lctor that set tllc stage for form criticism \\.as a g,ro\\.ing skc.pticis~n in scholarly circlos after thc Two-Sourcc Theory \\-as ail\.;~nc,ctl tllitt 1\J:#rk, \\-hilo its priorit\. among the Gospcls \\-as still :~ssunid. \\;IS geriui11elv historical throughout. \\'rutlc and \\.cl- hu~rscn and otlic.rs ;irKuc;l that Alark's Gospel consisted of a number of nLlrr:lti\es ancl s;~!.itigs of Christ 1i.hic.h \lark had bouncl togcthcr in n single t'r;~tnc.\\.ork. TIlc narr;iti\.es and sa\.ings, it 11.3s said, COLI~~ for the most p;irt IIC tr~1stcc1 for their accurac'v but not their contexts ~~ncl tllc gcncral fr;~rnc\vork of the Gospel \\.'hich, it was pres~rmed, thc c\.aiigclist had i~rtificiall\. supl>Iied. just as AJatthc\\- and Luke \vc.rc! rcgardcd as having adaptc.d and altered the Alarcan narrative for their rcspecti\c purposes in penning their Gospels, so it was thot~ght that Jlark had done the same with his sources. So 1-alicl information on the life ;111d activity of Christ, accorclinyl\. \\ii4 set forth in the .\Jarcan account. Thc cliargc \\.:is f~1rtl1c.t. 1ii;iclv tlint Rlark's Gospel reflected not onl!. prinli ti1.e tr~~ditio~l :: i t.11 yr~~atcr or lesser accuracy) but that the \\,riter hncl also i~lsertccl into it c.1~- ments of later tradition, beliefs about C:hrist, for c~s;lt~ll>Ic~. I\ liii.11 11 crc. originated h!- the Church after Jesus hat1 hcen t:1hc11i fro~n rlic.~ii ;!lit1 which the Lord Himself hacl never taught. A first step in Bult~nann's form critical in\.cst ig'lt io11 \vils to distinguish in s s~stcnlatic \\-a? bctlveen thc traditional ~liatcrial which the evangelists ~lscd ant1 their editorial ;~dtIiticms. In his css:i!, entitled "The Studv of the S!.noptic Gospels" hc. stati's: It ma!. be seem cj~iite clearly that thc original tl-i~dition 11 ;I> in,rclc$ up aln~ost entircl!. of brief si~iglc units < sa\-ings or sliort nar rli- tires), and . . . all rcfcrences to time i11l;l pli~cc. \\l~ich .;cr\.c to connect up the single sectiolis into a li~rgc c,ontt.\t ;I~C thc~ cditorial work of thc evangelists. According to the llarburg scholar, yracticalIy rill refcrcnccs to tinw and pIace in the Gospels are to be regarcled ils u11;lutht.ntic. But ei7en the original tradition itself \\.as not, in 13ultrnann's estimation, in all its parts equallv reliable. It \\.as necess;tr\. rlc~t, he felt, to concentrate attention on the traditional illi~terii~l ;in11 i1sccl.r- tain its historicity. Rultmann suggested that this could he unclcrtaken, if the New Testament student \voulcI recogni7c that "espcciall! in primitive literature, literary expression . . . makes usc of n1ol.c or lcss fixed forms, ~vhich have their on.11 la\vs of style." He rt.itsonecl that. "since," in his \vords, "the for111 IYOL~~ naturaIl\. oppose itself to ;111!~ serious alterations," the conclusion could be dran-n that "it \\.ill bc possible to cleter~nine in the incli\klual sections he lie the^- thc appro- priate form \vas purely expressed or sorne\vh;lt revised. and so one should be able to determine the age of the section." The next principle of Bultmann's form cri ticill st~id!,, is $1-en by this scholar as fo1lon.s: A third proccclure of for111 critical study is to fajlliliari/c oncac~lf not only with "the appropriate la~i-s of style of a spccificd litcrar!. form" but also \\ ith the la\\rs by which the further tie\ elopment of nlaterial takes place, i.e., a certain orderliness in change h!, which a body of tradition is alwavs controlled in its growth. Lull-s o j Popular Snrrtlti~~e Forlnzrlutio~l The la\ts governing the fonulation of popular narrati\.c and tradition are inclicatcd by Bultniann and illustratctl in the Svnoptic material. The first is that the narrators do not gi\.e 11s long unified accounts but rather small single pictures, incli\.idual scenes narrated with the utli~ost simplicity. These always occupy but a brief space of time; apart from the Passion Xarrative no event or proceeding is narrated which covered more than two days. As a rule only two speaking ci~,~l-;\ct~l-~ ;il)p(b;ll- in these scenes, or at most three; in\iol\~d j>l-o~~c'~Iili~\ ;11.c' I)C'!OIICI tlic POI\.C~S of the simple story teller. \\'l;c,~-c- -!.c.)~~l)i or cron.ds :ire prcscnt, the!- treatcd as a unit. .\.I >i!ch II;!I.L.;I~~IC,S ~;ISS fro111 ~iinuth to mouth, or \\-hen one 11 I-itcr t,!l;cs tllc.111 o\cr from anothcr. thcir fundamental char- ;ictcr rt'rnitiri. thc Samc, but tht. clctails arc subject to the control of ~,II~L \- ;in'! ;trcs 11suall!- mitdc II~OI-c explicit and definite. L-s;r~i~l~lc.~ circcl ;ire 3131-k 9: 17. \\.hich reports that a father Irrought Iiih ilt.moni;ic son to Tcsus, pa here as irl Luke's parallel account (9: 3h : it i3 ;icltlitiori;ill! stilted that he \\.as an only son. Similnrl!., tilt. pa13icil 11;ilirl Ilc,ii~cl, according to 31i11-1; 3: 1. is designated as thc right 11;intl in ILuhc 6: 6; so also thc scvcrcci car of the high priest's scr\ ,ilit \\ liicll ih ~~lc~ltionud in 1131-k 14 : 47 is rcfcrrccI to as thc right char in I-LI~L 22; 50. \\ith regard to thc ;jttack on this senant in Getli,rln;i~~~* B111t 111~111n ;~cIrls: 011c III,I\ ohicr\~~ in t11~ ;lccount of this SCCIIC' \\.Iiich 3ppcJ;ir-s i11 tl~e C;osfittl of John nnothcr important la\\- at irork: though the S\ tiopti~ts do not nmne vither t11el senan t or the disciple 11-ho htr-uck I~ilii, john gi\-cs the namcs. \lalchus and Pctcr. -4rlothe1- tc~iclcnc!- to chal-acteri~r more dcfinitc.ly mill- be seen ill a C_;05pcl ]la,-rittor's preference "to gi\-e in direct clis&ursc \\.hat his source ga\,c ir~directl!.." Thus, a rnc.~-1. I-efcre~icc to thc fact that PCtcr ur>b~-:ticled Christ in _\lark 8: 32 is csnanded in 3lattheiv's account ! 16 : 2 2;. r\ hcre Pctcr is reported :is sa!jng, "Ee it far from Tltcc.. I_o1-tl! " Thc tfiirci Iii\~-, as Bultmann sees it. is "the inclination to impose a wlicniatic iclea ot thc course of Jcsus* acti\it!-." He calls attention to tlie f;ict, for cssaml>le, that "the opponents \I-ith whom lesi~s c11g;tgcs ill di>l>ilti~tio~l arc almost invariablv scribes and Pharisees, \rho intcrrogatt. HI 111 with 1na1icious intent," and claims that this is irnhistoric.~l. \\'c ma\- no\\- prwccd to a consideration of the \.ario~rs literrlr!. fornls {ctistihct literary types) which Bultmsnn clisccr~~s ill the u\-iingclic material and his remarks about each. The first Iiterar!. ty1'c f3ultnlann c:~lls ~~iir-tzcle stories. He feels that tlicsc clid not actui~ll!. occur; that thev possess a closc rcscmblancc. to thc Hellenistic miriiclu narratijcs, aftgr \\.l~ich thc! may in his cstimate ha1.c been patttsrncd. Thcb folio\\-ing characteristics of this litcrar!. form may be noted. L-sui1111 the narrati\rr is given in three parts. In the first the condition of: the patient is described, frequently with an ernphasis ul~n the gr~rjt!- of the illness or its long duration. In the second the account of the healing itself is yrovidcct. Thc peculiar manipula- tions of the healer are often mentioned, as in >lark 7: 33; 8: 23. T)pical is that thc heaIing words pronounced are given in an - unkno\\!n foreign tongue (co111 (>arc "'Talitha k~~mi" in \1:11-1; , : 4 \. Another characteristic is that not infrcclucnt1\ thc. stor\ >t,ite\ tililt no one \\.as present at thc perforinance of the ~nis;rclc p~:ol)c~-, ;I\. for example, in llark 7: 33 i~ncl 5: 23. In thc tliircl p;~rt of t11c n,l~-r,r~i\c* unmistakablc c\ridcnce of tlic heanling is 2ii.c.n: \\.it~~c.sscs of:cn c.\~~I~ci~ll in wonder and the person IicaIctl gi\-cs sonic. c,lc.~r dc~~lo~istt-:~tioti of the fact that hc has incleccI bccn hclpcd. To the second litcrari t\,pe \\.liicli 12ultm~ul1l eliscc)\c.l- Iiu applies the designation apot~~rg;?~r. (All al>uthc~111 h\ dctiliiti~t~ is a terse, instructib-c sa!i~lg; a maxini). ~ultnl;lni~' cl;~riific.q &IS apothegms the sayings of Jesus "\\-hiclr ha\-t. been l~nr~clce/ clo\\ri in association \\.it11 a littlc' scene>. in I\-hicli accui-cling to the trL~clitlo~i the\- \yere originall\- spokcn." To this groupilly l~~lo~~g thr. c (,:it ro- ver& recortlctl in. tllc S\noptics (for csnmplr*, \1:1rk 7 : 1 - 12, 7- 25), conrersations with cngcr inquirers (>lark 10: 17-2 2 ' ; .11i[1 scenes of il biogral>hica1 ciiar;ictcr (>lark 6 : 1-6 '. Bultmann traces the prcscncc of al>othc~g~~is ;l)otll tllcs S;I\ it)?.; of Christ ancl the scents mvntionccl ;is o:.cn3ioiiil1g thc~li': tc; ~lii, creative acti\.it!. of either tlic Je\\-ish or thc Hcllc~iistic. c11~11-c.li. 1-or cxamplt.: the JIarcan accounts of the disciples' rcfus;il to t'ast , t llc.i~- rubbing out kcrnels of grain on thc Sabbeth, aricl tf~c,ir no11 -ol~scst.\ ,111c.c of I-itual \\.nshiiig before mcr~ls, and jcsus' rcsponsc to tlic rc~ult~~~it contro\.orsv \\-it11 Je\\-ish critics of these action.; of the) t\icl\t. ;IS recordctl in 2 : 1 S- 19, 23-26; '7 : 1-8, arc csl~laillc.ti in this \\-.I!-. Bul tmann : ilyp:irt.iitlv the situatioti is to bc untlerstood onl\. AS folio\\-s: thcsc traditions first nroso in the C:liristia11 col~~n~;lnit\. ;11ic1 ;II-C . . to bc. csplaiticd 1>y its situation. The. 'tliscipl~~s, I.L.., thc primiti\.c Chricti;an cli~ircfi, ha1.c broken with tlic- old c~lstolii4 in this matter, and thcy arc defending tl~i~~iiscl\cs ;~g~(i~i~ist criticisn~ b!. nienns of thc stories, through \\!~icli tlic.\. rn;\l\c their :~plw;~l to a sa\ing of Jesus. Those nl~othc~ms \\llicli arc of a biographical chilractc.1- ;11.c. like- \vise for thc n10.st part ~'rc;~tions of tllc c.o~ilmu~lit\, SIIICC' tli~'! gi\.c cspressioli to \\hat C:hristians hat1 t.l>c'ric~~~~ccl of thc>ir >laster or \\.hat he had cxpt.ricncec1 at the hnntls of his ~~coplc. It is accordingl\- clcar that tllc, calling of thC discil>lc.s in 31;1rk i. 16-20 rcfccts no historical situation; thc stor! corn1)lc~tclt- 111c.k~ rnotii-ation nlitl ps\-chologicill probabilit)-. 'Thc scc~~c. sets forth s~n~l~olically ant1 pictiirc~squcly the commoii cspcric>nce of tht disciples as they \\.ere raiscd by Icsus' \\.oriclc.rf~~l po\\.cr OLI~ of their pre\.ioi~s qpl~crcs of Jifc. It is 111 this \\a\- that 1r.c must also cxplaili ,\lark iii. 3 1-3 5 (Jcsus' true rclat i1.c~) ; sii. 4 1-44 (the n.ido\r.'s ~nitc) ; Lukc is. 5 7-62 (\.;trious follo\\.crs) ; s. 3 8-12 (>lacy and Martha). E~en the scent. in \;v;~rcth (SIark vi. 1-6): rn;)!, perhaps not reflect a particular historical c\ unt. hilt 1, r,tthc.r n s)rnholical yicturc, scttjng forth the ntti- t~~clc ot 11lc pc.oj,lc- ;IS a \\.hole to tlic preaching of Jcsus. ~J~I~~IIILIIIII 3iliglcs gut ;IS a third literary t\pe in Synoptic I iii I \ - of 5. He jn tlocluces liis discussion of this c;~tl'gol.\- of' li~~l tcr-it~l \\~itll 5ti1 t~'111cli ts e~spressi~ig his skepticisnl as to tliu Iiistoric.it\. of IniIn! of thc sayings of Christ, 11s far as lie is con- c.cl.nt~i1, \\ hc.1'~) tllc tratiitional \\~olds rclr,ci\.o their mcani~ig from their corltc*st /co~li~~;~rc I-ukc 12: 57-59), thcre tllcy are old and authentic. 011 tlie otllel- hand, \\.hcrc "tlie original occasio~~ and the historical co111lc.c.tiol1 of tllc \\orcls ilrc unkon\\-n, and tlie c.ontcst in \vhicl~ the c~\~;t~l or- of ih~ <'hl-istian cornmunit!-. They ma). be addccl, 13ult11~li11l feels, 11s tilt‘ c,\.a~~gclists c.rpc.riCnccd i~~terprc.tations of otk~ei. b~i\ . in . <\ (:I- t(,L~~l~i~~gs of IC'SUS. '1-11c. I,tst litcr;~r\ t\pc \\.l~ich I'liiltmi~nn c.1nims to disco\.cr in tho $1 IIO~I ic. G03~)c15 t~c .rc.t'c.l-s to as Icgcrlrl.s rllztl nl~ tlzs. (11-c. mi\\- note j>~ll-c.litf~ctic.i~ 1, tll,~t 'I Ii:gc.ncl, I,!. cliction;ir!. ildinition. is "an 'unau- thc>ntic.;~tc.tl stor) fro111 carlicr tin~es, prcscr\,cd h\ tradition ;IIICI ~O~LI- larl!. tl~oirglit tO bc. historical"; a myth, "ri traditional stor\. USLI;IIJ\ t'ociisi~l~ or1 tl~c rlcctis of gods or hcrocs. . . . It purports to be historical. +. - - - . . . Tliub, ;I 11i\ tli ni:t\ bc i-c~ardcd as n spccial tvpc of lcpcnd.] 1 he Icgcnrls ;111tl n-t;th> in-thc Cl;ospc.ls arc fahric;ltio.ns \\-llich ha\-e 1,ec.n (,.i\.cn tl~c'ir f'or~;~ '*ill thc jntcrcsts of the1 cultus" ant1 "for purposch of ccli~~ci~tio~~." s:1\3 13ultnlan11. For eramplc: the originill ly:lssion S;ll-;-,~ti\c., tl~c t~;>c,~l point of the earl\- Cliurcli's proclanlation. ~wssil~ly consistc~cl in ;I rcl;lti\.cl\. bricf report of Tcsus' arrcst in Gethscmanc, his c~onclcn~nation h\. thC Jc\vish court slid hv Pilate, thc trvk to C'al\;\r!., ilnd hi.; cr~;cifision iintl tlcath. But ~n a short tinlc otlier cpisc~)clc>s \\-crc ntltlc'd to this account, such its, suggests Rultma~~n, tlic picttll.~ of Tesus ;\ntl the jvceping \vonlen of Jcrusalcm on thc 1-ia I)oloro.sa : I.ul,c 23: 27-3 I), thc suicide of judas (Jlatthc\v 27: 3- 10). ant1 thc sctting of iL \vatch nt tllc grave (JIatthc\v 27: 62- 06 >. Con~misnts IJltltnlnnn : It is iiot c~r~l! pio~~s fii~~c!. \\hich is at \\.ol-k here, hut also the ap~.)Io~etic. illtcrc.st. This is espc~ciallv noticcnhlc ill tlic cfiort of the c?-angclists to shift thc hlamc. from thc Comnn i~uthoritics to tlic: !L'\\.S. ;IS ~.g., in the account of Pilatc \\.ashing his hancls , \latt. rr\.ii. 24-25). I:ult~~~;ln~l cl;lssifies its onc of the major Sen Ti.st;uiicnt m\ ths the s! lopt tic. rc.~~~~-~-c.ction n;lrr;~ti\.e, He \\rites: It is c,cjifi~ll\. clci~r tliat thc Resurrection Sarri~ti\-c. I1:ts t~ccn composc.d ir; t11c j~~tercst of faith and unclcr the infliicncc of cle\ ou t i~ll:igilii:tion. Thc Easter stor! of .\lark is unfortutiatcly onl!- ii f'ra~nz~l~t; for thc episode of the \vomen at thc graw (s~i. 1-3;. nlust originally haire been follo\vcil bv an account of ~;o~~ic. appcarancu to Pet&- of lesus (n~ltl to thc otl~rr discip1r.s) in Galilee. This ending has been lost, itntl n111c.h l:\tctr ;\ \i10- stitute \\:as supplied (s\-i. 9-20> in sonic uf the nl;ln u\c.t.ipts. AlatthCn- and Luke 21at.c n series of Rcsurrcctioll Y;~rl-;~tii t.4. ;~nd if one adds those qivcn in lohil, it \rill llr clci~r lie\\- ;~cti\ 1% thc Christian ilnagi~lation hns bccn. Categorized ns "c~~lt-legends" are also thc follu\\ing ~cript111.c ~tc- counts: the narration of thc Last Supper in thc s\noptics: thc baptismal narratiie; the transfiguration nurrati\-c; tllc ll,tr~-~ttlic~ of Jesus' temptation; the narratile of thc cntrt of Jesus into JCI us,!lc*~n; the narratiie of the birth of Christ. Resir its of B lilt J~INNJI~LZH Forni (.1riti(-ii 111 \\'ith thcsc remarks on the :~llcged Icge~~ds containctl ill the Synoptic Gospels \vc conx to thC cot~clusion of our brict' con~iclct-;L- tion of thc basic principles of form criticisnl a11tl thc procccli~r-t.\ of one of its most noti~blc prnctitiollcrs, 12urlolf Ilult~liat~n. \\ I1,it. in Bultmann's estimation, are the results of tht. apl~lic;~tinn of tlir forn~ critical ~ncthml to the stud\. of theso C;ospcIs? klcs i\ritc\s: It is through the mecliunl of the oolnnlunit! . . . that thc fiyurc of the historical Jesus :lype:lrs. Though \ye c'~linot 11011 tlctine \\.ith certaintv the extent of the 3uthc1ltic ~vorcls of J~SCIS, are nevertheless able to distinguish the \-arious le\-cls of tr,\cli- tion; ant1 \\-hen, b\ a process of c.arcful historical in\ cstiiytion, we clistinguish the secontlar\- lrivcrs in thc tl-adit ion. \\ hi~t results is not, like the peeling of a;, onion, ;L rctluction to 110th- ingncss-since the farther one goes the ncarcr onc con1c.s to the centc\r, which holds t5c. secret of its historical \w\\cr. . . . On one poi~~t one rllit~t rest colltellt: the character of les~ls. tllc i i\ icl picture of his personality ;~nd his lifc. cannot 11o\\- be clci~rly made out; but. \\.hat is more importr~nt, the contc~lt of his mcssagc is or \\.ill be e\.er more clcarly rc~ogni/~thl~. llio~tgh one ma\. ad111it the fiict that for 110 single. \\.ortl of ICsus is it Imssiblc. to ljroducc pnsiti\-c c\.idrnc.c. of its authtk~iticit\-, still onc ma\ point to :I \\.hole scrics of ~\.ords found in tlic oltlc~st stratit~ii of tratli tion \~11ic11 do $1-c us a consiste~~t rcpl-chcntat ion of t he historical mcssagc of Tesus. These arc thc. ~~roplictic \\.ortls, echoing the cnlI to repentance [such as] : 'For \\,hosoc.\-er \\.ill sa\.e his lifc shall losc it; But \\.hosoc\.er shall losc his life [for m\ s;ilic ailti the ~ospel's] , the sanlc shall sa\.c it' (11ar-k \.iii. 3 5 ). 'kt thc dcncl bur\. their dcatl: but go thou i~ntl pt-c*;lcll the kingclom of Cod' (Lukc is. 60). 'So man, Iia\.ing put his h:\nd to the plough, nlltl looking hack. is fit far thc Kingdom of Goct' {Luke is, 67). <;1-itici5 ?tt of 8z~lt tt~uii)li~zii Fortti Criti~*is/tl No\\: to a brief t~\ aluation of the principles, proceclures, and resrdts oE form criticisnl. The radical, Bultniannia11 form critical ~~lcth(xl of S\.r~optic stucly is opcm to a number of serious objcctions. '1-hc tirht is it\ url(lcrl! ing rationalistic anti-siipernaturalisnl. according to \\.liicl~ :,I1 divine intcr\,cntion and operation in human affairs are out-of-hancl rc.icctcd. l'\ankl\. blasphcmoiis, for example, is its relega- tion of :11l st:~t;~iiic~lts ])o-taininF to tllc deity of the Lord Jesus Christ to tllc. rc.;ilm of the I])\-tholog~ciil. 'This anti-supernaturalism, as It r s;l\s, "py~,~~diccs liintoricnl cnquiry anrl is tlleologically ant1 h~.ic.ntiticall\ out-of-clntc, for it rests on thc rationalistic concept of it c,losc.tl ~lrli\.>rsc and a rigid co1lccj3t of natural la\\.." .:I second f~~r~tlamc.lit:rl objcction to form criticism is its rcfusal to judge fairly tlic \\rittcil S!-rloptic rccords anti give them the honest hearink accordccl ot1lc.r historical 1itc.1-aturc. The approach to these records is 1ri;i1.1;~~1 r;~thc'l- I)\. nn ~~nrcasonahlc bias agiiillst their rrliahilit\. and ;~n c'xtr-crllc. sul~jc'cti\.i;rn in tlic cst:~hlishmcnt of standards for tllc rccoyrlition of \\hat is supposedl!. ~~nauthcntic in the Biblical ac- c.ounts. \\'c III;I\. rcksnrd tl~csc as tllc hasic uncIer1ying fallacies of the. for111 critic,~l 111ctlic~I. .\cLxt it ~110~1lcI 11c ~lotcd that 111i111\. of thc statcd assunlptions of fol-lll ~1.iticis111 ,~I-c. i~rl~itr;~ril!. ~~tiibli~hc'Ci ;~nd ;~ltogrther un\varrantc.cl. ljahil I:ccllich calls ;ittention to a nulllbrr of thesc. A fen- arcb intli- catctl helo\\-. 011~3 is that tiuring the pre-litcrar!., formative 1x.riotI of orill tl-~lditiorl "thc. nnrrati\.cs nrld sayings, n.ith the exception of the I'iissioll .\;~rrati\c, circulated mainl!. as sincrlc ancl sclf-contained -. dc.t;~c.l~c~cl ~~nits, c.;~cli conrplctc in itsc1f'-to clte Recllich's s~lininary of tfli5 fornl critical principlc." 71-ogc~tl~cr \vith this ougllt to bc 11ic.nt ionc.(l ;I seconcl ~~n\varrantcd assunlption, narnc.11- that thc con- texts in \\.llich the units of traclition are sct in the Gospels iirc c.ditori;~l additions and tllcrcfore unauthentic. On the contrar!., as rcgnl-cls the. Gospc.1 ~larrati\.cs Eedlic.11 points out, for cramplc: rhcrc. ,ire sectiolls in the Gospcl , of llark j \vhich bear e\.iclcnce iri thc~n~c~l\-cs that they 'ach formed a complete serics before tllc\. rcacllccl tlie c\.angelist. The first section \vllich is a com- J)l~t~ ~lnit of stories is that \\,hicli co\,ers i. 3 1-39. It is ilitrin- si~,illl\. il~~l,ossiblc to tliscarcl the editorial mattcr or to refuse to sc.c* this section the prrsonal rcrninisccncc.~ of an eye\\-itncss, \\.ho \\-as unclouf~tcclly Simon Peter. The connecting links nlakc a conlpIctc> storv of a day's work. The notcs of time arc. too definite to be artificial or literary. The\ rcatl likr it consecuti\,e narrative, honestlv rcportcd a110 I-cl:c..~tccl. The narrator gi1.c.s the impression of having been t11t.t-c I\ hen tht. things hapyenccl. '4 tllircl unjustitiab1e assumption of for111 eriticisnl is that all tllc 1n;iterinl of ihe Gosprls can be classified according to various ., fornls." C:crtainl\ this subject matter can be di\,itlccl into narra- tivcs arid sar-ings. But a11 of it cannot bc. classified according to form, beciiuse forb is not present in all the material. It ma! he ndnlittecl tflat Bultmann's apothegms ancl miracle accounts contain forms, but beyond these there arc. inany narrati\,es \r-ithout ;in\. cii\;t!ll~l!\ c t': ,!.I:). I - "These," says Redlich, c. hcen 1-arioi~sl\. ~l~it;,itit.ii ;li <.c trc:; :)._; :r, their contents or accorcling to tllc sLrbjectircl j~trl~rl~;;lt ::i L..ici~ icir-11: critic," but not iiccorclirlg ro their forms. Pronii:ic!~t in [hi, qrc,~:;?ing are the legends and ~nr th3. Once itpilin. I:cctlii.l1: The terms icg5:cl~d iuld rn\ th arc objcction:rblc to 111 :li?i! >ii:ci[,n:? for the\ art: j~dg~:~cnts'of the histol'ic \.iil~~c' Oi ;i)c r:;:i-r.;i;:.~c~~ ailcl arc of clispal-.\gir~< chiiriict~r. T~CV i~lb<) iit~pl~ ~11~i~ ?!IC ecents inciudecl in them serlc. no sote~iolo~Ic~11 i~Llrj~<~>c'. If .% form criticism de,lih u.ith forins 'ind attcbnipt> to cl.i?-~tj it::.!^^, and to trace tht. hi?tor! UF fori11s i111~1 to (~ISCC;\C'I- 111' ~~I.OCCI~I~? of their gro\~th, thcir 111~'thuci is regular. But to LIX, tc,t'~:~\ \\ !:i~ 11 pass an initial iuclynlcnt on the historicill ;:ii~', :)t thc :L.< , . and to classif! thcrn not .lccorcling to for-n~ 11~1: ,~ci:~ll-cl:::?; 10 illc* critic's own \.ica\\- of thiir 1-cr-;~ci t~., is \.cr\ i t-t-c~~i~l.!r- .tll,i iir: i~r,t;- fiitblt.. For111 critic.is111 thCji hccomcs ~1 iirclcl~lrnt ot :ruii t 01- falr;it\,, and not a scicnt itic lnc~thorl of' rc,hc.;irc 11. :\ fourth unrs;lrr~iritccl foml criticiil ;~ssi~nil~iic~~~ i4 t!~.:!, ii~ tl~c \~ords of Kcdlich. "Tfw lital t';lctors /,thest. nla!. ;iii(, 5ix tc rr>ii.:l rl;[k "Sitz in1 LeT~e)r,'' that is. the life situ;~tion> \\-hicl~ c,r.!\cb rise to ,111rl preser\.cd thrscb forins art. to he. fotii~d in thc pr:~ctic.:l intcrc 4t. of tllt' Christian coinmunit?-." f:cdlich's criticisnl o;' thi> as>~tniptio!l i, .ii folIoi\-s. Hc speaks n-ith rcynrcl to thc. sai~ings: . . . thc jift situation night just as rcatlil! hc. tot~ncl in ~C~LI? Hitl~sclf . . . tIlc ca~l~rnunit\- prescr\.cd the sLi\ inys hi~~irtsr ti1i.1- \\.cLrc \vital ancl ;~t~thorit;lti\-e pronoirnce~rncr~t~ of Jcbiii. i'.li11 gikcs clcfinitt. c'\idc.rlct. that this IY~IS thc ~a.\~. .!nci i~c. j c.,irc.ful to ~listin~~~ish betrr-ccn the \vords of Jesi~s ;lntl I~ih o\i n it i<.t:~. . . 'But to tIlc5 rcst sit\. I. not thc Lord.' 'So\\- conccrni~i~ tr.;iI>s I hi1i.e 110 conln~n~dni~nt of tlw 1-ortl: but I $1 c nl\. . . juilgl,1:'nt' (1 C'OI-. i ii, 20, 1.3, 25.;:. Foml criticisn~ in strercsins tllc infl~~t'nc~ of thc. prirniti\c c.c:rn- munit\- is blind to thc influcncc of jcsus ah ;i 1:al)bi .ill11 a prophl.t. 011 thc clnc h;ind, it rnnkcs thc co~uru~~nit\ ;{ crc;~ti\c. body, of n-11ic.11 there is littIc or no tracc in thc \cis ~-lc~?t;i~l~c~nt. The prin1itir.c Christims werc not all Rabbis nor AII SoIon1c:ns. On the other hand. it is not rccognizccl that lc~sus \\-.IS not :i teacher who pCrpc*tu;lll\- rcyc~atcrl the sameb ~r~;tsit~is or n1c.n:c:- rim1 i1~111rcs~cs 1vhic11 kle tlclivcrcd ~vithoir t 1-ariiitioi~. is likely to ha\-c rcpcatcct the si~mc s;l\ing in cfiifcrcnt form ;\ild const;u~tl! variccl His discourses. Martin Fr:infi~~ann'~ \~orti> arc ,~lso pertinent 3t thib pnint: Fornl critics attri bilk to thc "cornmunit) " ii c rcatii poit cur which is reaII\. in~rcdible; I\ hilt. the Gospels thcmst.11-cs rulcl thc~ ljool, of .\c:ts \\-it11 one \oicc proclaii~i that Jesus the Christ c ~.~';\t(.~~l-c.h somc1llo\\. rrci?tcd thc Christ. The net result of their st~~tli is t11c collclusion th;~t t11c Gospels, \vhich incorporate the tr;lcl i t ion 01: tlle Christian c.o111il~unit\-, tell 11s a great deal about tllc f',~itll of tl~c c'~rI!. Cllristinn con]l&~nit!.. but little about 1(%5115 of \'!/'ll~ctll.!,' ;I fifth uniuMiablc assulnptio~i of' form criticism ma! be j-'llr;~s~:cl ;LS 1:cdliCI) ~LI~S it : "Thc oriSi1i;ll for111 OF the tradition inac Ilc ~.ccc,\c~-ccl ;!ntl its histor\. tr,lc.c~cl. 1)cforc being \\:ritten do\\-n, hi. cli3ro\c.rinl; thc l;~\\s of the tr;)tlition." Frnn~mann speaks to this \ ic\\. in tllis \I\ : In j~-,~~icc. then c~i~pllasis of for111 criticis111 is a11 on the Christian eo~~!~~lu !lit\ '1s tllc crcsntor ancl hcarer of the Gospcl tradition; tllc f.1~ t Ot' tllc apostolatc, tllc fact that Ic>sus Hinlself prepared nlc.,! ro I,cx ~iitiicsscs to f~3iill \\ it11 cli\-iiiC1\. gi\.cn autl~orit\. and ci~~~il~l~cti tlic~rl for tf~i'ir t;~sk hy His gift of thc illumining ant1 ~Y~~I~N)\\L'L~I~S Spirit, this fact i3 fargel\-, if not cntircI\., . iqllorc\d. .~ 1'11c- tciic.!lillg tri~dition of thc. CIIL~~ js trcated as if it \\-crc c~~~ll~lc.tcl\ 1~i1r.illlc.1 to thc- foll;lorc nntI thc m\th making of ill1 ~'rill~iti\ c. col~lnl~~nitics, ancl clnssific'atio~ls tlcri~cd from 11011- l'clli.sti~~i;~~i folklorc arc al~plietl to tht. Gospcl matcrinls \\.itllout t-c.g,ll-cl for tllc, ul~ccrtnint\. of thcsc c~lassifications and \\ithout (luc'+tior~ing tl~cir :lpplicabi1it~ to the Gospel matcri:lls.'! 1:ctiil~tion criticirm is ;~nothcr cliscil~linc j\,ithin thc historicnl c.1-i tic:il ~l~c?llc~tl, olic that has comc to thc fore \\ ithin thc past t\\.cnty ! IS. C'lo~c.l\ i15sociatccl \\.it11 thc Gospclr, it ?re\\- out of ;111<1 rc~~l~:li~ls c.Iorcl\ rc.latc>tl to fort11 CI-iticism. \'ia sa\ 5 that I-c~laction critic-is111 "l~~-c~~~l)posc'~ ant1 conti11uc.s thcb prwc~cturcs of ih~ c;irlicr clisciplillc. foi-111 criticism3 nllilc cxtct~clin~ l:ancl intcnsifiin~ c'crti~in .. ., of tlle~~i. .- l'vrrir~ states that form criticism ctlld rc.tl;lctihn criticism "arc in fi1c.t tlic firht ;lncl sccond stages of a ~lniticcl cliscipli~~c, but tllcii- cli\c~-?c.ncc ill cn~ph:lsis is s~~fficicnt to jurtif! tl~cir bcinp trcatcd st.par;ltcI\..". :\ccortling to the samc autflor, rctlnctiorl crt~cism is ~-'artic~ul;c~l! c~oi~c.crnccI \\.it11 stucl!ins t11c theological inoti\-at ion of it11 author ;IS this is re\-ciilcc! in thc collcction, arrangC~llcnt, editing, and n~oclifica- tion of tri~tlitional lnatcrial, and in the composition of new 111;itcri;lI or thc. creation of ncn- forms \\.itllitl the tratlitiolls of c;ll-I!- ( hristiallit\.. ;llthougf~ the discipline is callcd redactio~l criticisnl, it could eclually hc callect "con~l-'osition criticism" he- cauw it is cnncc.rnt.c-1 \\.ith the coniposition of new material and tlle arrnngcliic'nts of rcclacted or frc.slil\, rrc;ltcd 111l:tcl-ial into Ilrn units i~nd pattc1-11~. 2s \rcll as with thc redaction of cvisting ~llatcriiii, : Via asserts that its goals are to understand 11.h) tlie item5 from tlic trnditioli ,\I)o~li ,LI\ were modified and conncctetl as the). \\ere, to iclc~it~l! tll(* 1i;co- logical motifs that 11 crc at 11 ork ill coliiposiug ,I ti1ii4iicti C1(:4;1c I, and to elucidat~ the thcologicnl point of \ ic\\ \\ ll~cli i4 c'\1~ L -exll in and through thc coiiilmsi tion. : ' As might be expected (because of its rcliitioil to forr;i csitic.iy~il: the backgrounds of redaction criticism arc tracctl to men lil,c Reimarus, Strauss, Holtrmann. \\-rCcle, \\'cllhausc~~i. ;,ncl tlicti Schmidt, Dibelius, and Bultmann. Sincc redaction criticislll i4 hilid to have "developed more clircc~ly from thc I\-ork of' Bultm;~ri~i tI1;11i from that of Dibelius,"'" Bultllli11111 is regarclcd as "the trLlcb t';~tlic.l- of redaction criticism."" The full flon-uring of this clisc il>litic C.J tiic in Germany irnri~ediatol!. after the Scco~ul \\-orld \\,~r-. l-l~!.c:c sclioIars, laboring indelwnclcntI! of one a~~otllc~ b~~t in tl~c' slnlc- direction, produced materials \\.lijc.h milrkcd tllc hefii~itii~ig of I.~Y\;IC.- tion criticism. The!- \\.ere Guenthcr Bornkamm. fliili3 C'~II/~.II~~;LI~ ti, and ll'illi Jlarxsen, who \vorkecl on the Gospels of \l;~ttIic.\\ . ! i~lic: and 3Iark, respecti\,ri\-. Xlarssen ga\c. thc nc\i. nlo\cnichlit its Gerlnan name, ReLiaJ:t iotzsgescllic41te. Hans Conzelmann's Tlreolog! of St. 1,zrt:e, tirst l>~~bli~liccl in German in 1954, is perhaps thc most inil>ortant of' the \\.orl;s 131-0- duccd bv the Aerirrktio~zsgescJ~ic-lrte Schttle. In it C.'o~i/clliii~liri endcal-or;d to rlcmonstrate that, \\.hcrc;rs L.uhc has gc~nc~-all~ hc~.ri rcgarded bv scholi~rs as the hi~torii~n of earl! Christianit~ . his C;03j~cl can be s1io;w to lio\.c been theologirall\ motiratcd. ~o-rih c~oni~iic~iits: To gi1.e but 011~ example, the resurrcction npl~c~iics ill tlie Lucan writings take pIace in lerusalcm in con trnst to the i1nprc5~- sion gi\-cn elsen-2icrc in the Scit- Testament that tlic~ ti~kca jl1:rcc in Galilee. C:onzelman11 shan-s that this gcogral)llic;ll rc.t'c,rc~icc* is not historicirl reminisccncc~, ;I col~clusioli I\-liicli raise13 tl~~cs- tions as to the actual locale of tliesc apl~~arii~icc.. I-~~lies !s 111 no \\.a!. m~ti\.i~t~d hi- a dcsirch to cserc,isc historical crccL1r;lc\. IILI~ entircl! bj- his tllc~lo~i~i~l co~lc~pt of tlic role of lcru\irlc.~ii ill tlic history of sal\.ation. '' According to Con~elniann. I_ucan tIit.ology cndca\.ored to illis\\ ell- tlic problem of the delai, of C:lirist's parousia. \\.hereas tlic earl\ c.li1.11-~.11 thought that the tikc hct\ieen Christ's ascension rllicl his 'l>i~r.o~~si;i would bc of short dirrr~tion, it \\-as Luke's purpose in the co~iil~ilaticrn and con~position of materials for his Goslwl to she\\- that the it~tc~-im ivould be an indefinite period. ll'hile all students of the Tcstr~mcnt Gosl?c*l> rccoy~li/c that t11c S?.~loptics itnd JoIi11 11i2\.~' differing cmphasc~s and ~hil~.ilct~r- istics and that it is helpful for thc interpretation of tlic c\.anyclic. lllaterial to seek out the distinguishing features of each c~\angclist'~ presentation of the life of Christ. objectiol~ to tllc pmctirc of r:ltlic:~l redaction critic.ism nl~~st he cxprcsst.d. Sincc thc Iattchr prcsupposcs unil i.011tirli1c.s tllc. I,[-oc'c'clurcs of forin criticism, it is subject to all the stricttlrc.3 clil-i'c.tc*il ;~g;~inst form criticisni. 'Thc redaction critical assu~lllltion thilt tl:~ ?;c\-c~s;11 c\a~~gc.lists thelnse1i.e~ composed certain ~ortion3 of the Gosj)c'l ;~c.c.ou~~ ts \\.liicI: :IC t~;i11!- ha\ c no basis jn histol-ic.,~l fact i3 tc) t)c' rc'jcc%tcd. ('O)I tt?lt Critic1.i )I1 \Iotlci-ti jll.,~c.titiol~crs of thc historical critical method also make use ot' tllc cIisc.iplinc of content criticism, or Snchkritik. This is a proc'i'clul-c \\hich ;illo\\-s tlic critic arrogantl!. to sit in judpient upon thc Jc\\- -1'cstirlllcnt !5c.ripturCs ant1 flatl\. to reicct as unauthentic or non-normilti\ c. for the churcll todai tliosc portions of ~'rol>lietic and ap~stolic tc~ac~l~illg \\.liic.h are not rc>Sii-ded ns acceptable For inculcation in 1hi5 LI.I\. ;i~~tl ;ixca. I ~ldc.rl\ing thc use of content criticism is, 110 clout~t, ;I \ ic,\f likc tliat czl~rcssctl h\ Ernst Kacsclnann in an cssn\. entitlc~l I',\c,qclti\~.ll~~ I-e,..s~lc-lic rrtlrl Hcsi~l~l~i~~ge)~ and translated is fOllO\\ 5 : In the \c.\\. -lc.3ti~illc.nt language 11.e ;Ire dri\.en to test tlic spirit5 c.\.c~i \\.ithill 5c.1-ipturc itself. \\'e cannot siml>l!- accept a elogllia ol- '1 s\ stel11 o t' cl(~.trinc hut arc placctl in a situation 1-is-a-\.is Sc.ri~)ti~rc \\-hich is. at t11c same time and inscparabl\., both rcsponsibilit~. :inel frccdoni. Onl! to such an attitude. crt11 the \\.ortl of C;;tl rc.\.e;\l itself in Scripture; ancl that \\'ortl, as hih1ic;ll criticis~ii makes plain, has 110 esistcncc. ill tllc realn~ of thc obic.cti\.c-- that is, outside of our act of decision.'!' C'onscr\ .!ti\ c. Eit~licnl scholarship cntcgorically clenouncc.~, and \\.lioll\- a\.oids, tllcs cue~~.c.isc of content criticism in thc st~~d\. of the Kc\\- ic'5tamcmt t~st. 1. 1'. \- of \i;t's .'t:'_rlitor'j Forc\vordW in 1tfhnt Ii For-jrr Criticisnl ; b!. Edgar 1'. .\lct;night ;I'hilar!cll>hia: Fortrcss l'rcss, 1969), ;I \olumc in Fortrcss 1'rc.s~' nc.\\. "C;~iiifcs to Ciblical Scholarship" series, prcparcil particularly for In!-men of thc church. - Ycr!. reccnt litcrar! criticism, i~ccc)l-dirlg to \ ill ( 11. i;, h,~s i,cgun atiditionally to ct:nccrn itsclf \\it11 such qucs- lions ;is "thc ~.cl.itio~lship of content to form, the significarlce of strilc- turi. or fcr111 for ~i~c;~ning, and thc capacit! of Innguagc to tlircct th~ugl~t ancl to ~~~trirltl csistc.ncc. itsvlf." Editor \'ia jnforrns the rcatlcr that the "11c.iic.r aspcct5" of thc cliscipli~lc \\-ill hc tliscussccl in a forthcoming \olur~le in the. "Guitliss to Rihlical Scholarship" scrics, to bc titled I2itc,rtrr-? C'r.itic.iiu~ of tlll' Sc~i' Tcstanr~,rrt. 2. Cf. I.;. Groh~~l, "Uit)lical Criticism," The fntcryrctcr's Diciio,rlrry of the Ijil~lc (hc11- YorIi: ..\l)ingtIn~~ Prcss, 1962), 1, 4 12. 3. .\lcI.st~rr>tc~tt Rcsri,rch by Iirtdolf BI~~~~PIQ~IFZ ~~ii Karl Ii, , 7 essay appearcd in Gcrmnxiy in 192 5 ( Sccr)x~J Edition, ! 4 3P :I:?L~-. : 1 !-I:, title Die Elfor\-chirng drl- S? ~zol~ti~clz~~~~ E~-izil;c'lie~l. l ilc c \\ .., ::.!:I-.- Iated into English in 1934 by Trcdcrick C. Gr,int. ~>:.o:i;?ii! ;'!:. *::!:: "The Stutl! of the Synoptic Gospc:~." ;?nrl ~~uhlishcrt-;:it):?: I? i:!~ .! translated essay of Kari Kuntlsin'j-h)- \Villett. Clark and f.':;:n;>*~!i-% ~II ,! book cntitlcd Forr~~ I'r-iticis:~:. Lrant obt,ti~lcrf ,I rr,r1rx\, c! c I;?\ : ir:piic C;t:-r-c Is,', Grant's translation, pp. ---6. 8. Robert Guntfry, TJZC Cic, ot' tlzc' OLI Tc,itci~~~c't~t in Si. .IlLlttizt i. 5 (, yl i (Lciden: E. J. Bri!l, 1967,. p. 192. 9. Wcdlich, 11. 3';. Thc fnilo\vin--. cit,itions fri~m I:c.riIicl~ .~I-L il3lL!?:i i:) pp. 38-79 of his Forn~ Critii,ictrr, It.; \-'zlltc. ~{IZLI f itt~if~itil.li\. -1 hi, lir~!: icorL is hcIpful for any e\-.iluati~i~~ of the form e:-itic,tl il~c?i~,~ri of \i...t. Tcstarnrnt stutl!.. 10. >!artin Frai~z~nann, T~L, \i.!)rtl (,* tjzc IorJ CP.OI!,: .I !.:;\t !fix:' j-i~,l[ lr~tro~izictio~z to tlzc yc:!. Tt \~!lr, c:II;?Io! thc historical critical niethriri toii;~y. Rultmnn!~'~ student,, t!~ >~>-i-,ill~i'i post-Bultmannians :Ernst Lacscniann, Ernst Flichs, C;c,rllarLl T!-i,.ling. and Guenthcr Eornkamni), havc differcd with their tc.ic1:c.r as to thc extent of jnfor~nation which ma!- he validly derived frrinl the Gi~rpcii concerning thc Iifc and \\.orcls (if Jesus. Bclicving thitt "t!?c:-c~ :I!-c ,ti11 picccs of the S!.noptic tratfitioii nhich the historian I,;]> ro ,iil\nr!~~it c?gc as authcntic if IIY wishcs t:) rcnlain an historian ;tt ~111," thew djscij~lc..; of Rultmann cmGarkc.rl upon ;I "nett cjucst" of thy hi\tc(t.i~,~l Ic\~r,. Thc date for thcq beginning of thi. "nc.~ cjucst" is usuali! s~,t ;ii 0ctnl)c.r 20, 1953, whcn Ernst Ki~tsemann c1cIitercd a Iccturc ~ntitlct! "1 h( I'roblcm of the Eiistoric;~l Jtsus" at a reunion of S~LI~CII~> trt: I%L~:~III~~IIII antl cxprcsseti a rcncwcd interest 111 in\-cstignt~ng thc. c.;trthl!- JLSLI>. The. quotation ab3ve is fram kacscn~nnn's r.ssa!- and citctl in \Icl 0thr.r scholars have joined the post-BuItrn3n1li;inu ir~ thv cur- rent quest. .\rlrlitionnl criteria for distinguishing t,c.tt~~:n n~rttlc!~tic and unauthentic nlatcrials ia thct Guspcls havcx hccn ;idc~~xcc!. ITol- W~III' of thc ncn-c.r idc.;~s, scc. .\Ichnir.ht, pp, 65-67. 12. In Pcrrin. p. \i. 13. Ibid., p. 7. 14. lhi~i.,p. 1. 15. jbid., pp. t i-\.ii. 16. Ibid., pp. 18-19. 17. Zbid., p. 20. 18. Ibid., p. 29. 19. Ernst Kncscmann, E.,srr?. !i;l it- 'rL~stnr~zcnt Tltcn~cs, ,1_011don: 5C\I Prcss, 19643, p. 55.