The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Revised ed 0060611723

Citation preview

RUDOLF BULTMANN

THE HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION Translated by JOHN MARSH Principal of Mansfield College, Oxford

Revised edition

HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London

THE HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION

Translated by agreement with Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, Gottingen.

© 1963 in this translation by Basil Blackwell, Oxford. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any mannerwhatsoeverwithoutwritlenpermission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information address Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 10 East 53rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10022. Published Simultaneously in Canada by Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited, Toronto.

THE HISTOR Y OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION. Copyright

FIRST HARPJo:R & ROW PAPERBACK EDITION PUBLISHED IN H176. ISBN:

0-06-06-1172-3

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER,

62-7282

76 77 78 79 80 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

In Memoriam WILHELM HEITMULLER

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE To translate this important work of New Testament into English has been a labour, but a labour of love, and of appreciation for much that lowe to Professor Bultmann. I was privileged to be in his lectures and seminar at Marburg in 1931-2, and he made a very considerable impression on me then, for which I have been increasingly grateful. It has been one of the misfortunes of the English-speaking world that this outstanding contribution to Form Criticism has not been put into English before. I hope that, despite the faults of the translation, many more English readers will now discover Bultmann at first hand. I cannot do other than thank Messrs. Blackwell, and particularly Mr. Schollick, for their not inconsiderable patience, and three of my pupils at Mansfield College, Oxford (Messrs. McPherson, Moth and Wren) for their kindly help in preparing the index of Gospel references. JOHN MARSH

Mansfield College, Oxford

Pagesfor which additional material is given in the Supplemmt are distinguished by an asterisk alongside the page number

CONTENTS THE MATERIALS AND THE TASK

I. The Tradition of the Sayings of Jeaua A. APOPHTHEGMS 1. CONTROVERSY DIALOGUES AND SCHOLASTIC DIALOGUES

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Occasioned by Jesus' healings Otherwise occasioned by the conduct of Jesus or the disciples The Master is q1Mstioned (by the disciples or others) Questions asked by opponents

2. BIOGRAPHICAL ApOPHTHEGMS

3.

16 21

26

27 38

THE FORM AND HISTORY OF ApOPHTHEGMS

39 39 54 55

Controversy Dialogues Scholastic Dia1cgues Biographical Apophthegms The Form and History of the Apophthegm in General

B. DOMINI CAL SAYINGS I. LOl'HA (JESUS AS THE TEACHER OF WISDOM)

(a) The form of the Logia in general (b) The Synoptic Material (c) Form and History of the Logia 2. PROPHETIC AND ApOCALYPTIC SAYINOS

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Preaching of Salvation MiTllltory Sayings Admonitions Apocalyptic Predictions The History of the Tradition

LEGAL SAYINGS AND CHURCH RULES

(a) Surv~ and Ana!Jsis (b) The History of the Material 4. 'I' SAYINGS SUPPLEMENT

5.

12 12

ADDENDUM

(a) (b) (c) (d)

3.

II

61

69 69 69 73 81 108

log III

118 120 12 5

13° 13°

145 15° 164-

SIMILITUDES AND SIMILAR FORMS

166

(a) SuTV~ and Ana!Jsis (b) Form and History of the Material

166

D. The Tradition of the Narrative Material A. MIRACLE STORIES I. MIRACLES OF HEALING 2. NATURE MIRACLES

179

3.

THE FORM AND HISTORY OF MIRACLE STORIES

(a) (b) (c) (d)

B.

&orcisms cif Demons Otlrer Healings Raisings from tire Dead Nature Miracles

HISTORICAL STORIES AND LEGENDS

244

I. ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIAL

245 245 262

(a) From tire Baptism to the Triumphal Entry (b) The Parsion Narrative THE HISTORY OF THE TRADITION OF THE PASSION

(c) The Earter Narratives (d) Tire Infancy Narratives SUPPLEMENT

m.

284 291 301

2. CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE MATERIAL SUPPLEMENT:

275

Summary cif tire Technique cif the Story

302

307

The Editing of the Traditional Material

A. THE EDITING OF THE SPOKEN WORD J. THE COLLECTION OF THE MATERIAL AND THE

COMPOSITION OF SPEECHES 2. THE INSERTION OF THE SPEECH MATERIAL INTO THE NARRATIVES

B.

32 2 329

(a) Mark (b) Mattlrew

333

329

(c) Luke

334

THE EDITING OF THE NARRATIVE MATERIAL AND THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS

337

I. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK

338

2. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW

351

3.

359

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE

CONCLUSION

368

SUPPLEMENT

375

ABBREVIATIONS

379

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

381

INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES CITED

456

GENERAL INDEX

461

THE MATERIALS AND THE TASK

W

HEN Synoptic criticism reached the conclusion that Mark was the oldest Gospel and that it also lay behind the structure of Matthew and Luke, the critics, happy about their conclusion, quickly and readily jumped to another, and found in Mark's presentation of the life of Jesus-' perhaps with some adjustment in detail '1-the actual course of historical events. The great epochs and changes of the Galilean Ministry and the final catastrophe in J erusalem-according to Holtzmann's typical judgement 2 -could be shown to be the well-ordered and consistent principles of Mark's presentation. The backbone of the historical development was the: revelation of the Messiahship step by step, or even the developing confession of his Messiahship by Jesus himself. It was Wrede's work on the Messianic Secret which did most to call into question this traditional attitude which went far beyond what could be established by a cautious analysis of Mark, such as Weizsacker had undertaken. Wrede's work constituted a quite annihilating criticism of a seemingly clear picture of historical development in Mark. This picture is an illusion; Mark is the work of an author who is steeped in the theology of the early Church, and who ordered and arranged the traditional material that he received in the light of the faith of the early Church-that was the result; and the task which follows for historical research is this: to separate the various strata in Mark and to determine which belonged to the original historical tradition and which derived from the work of the author. Johannes Weiss, who set himself this task, in his work The Earliest Gospel (1903), had considerable confidence in what Papias has to say about Mark being the interpreter of Peter. He therefore thought he would be able to discover fairly easily beneath the work of the Evangelist a certain amount of reliable historical material, namely, Peter's reminiscences. Since then it has become generally recognized that the problem is much more complicated, the strands of traditional and editorial material more numerous, the conditions under which • Wrede, TIll Musilmie Seer", Igol, p. II. Cpo O. CuIlmann, R.H.Ph.R., 5, 192 5, pp. B. S. Easton, Th.t Gos/Nl biforl 1M Gospels, 1928, pp. 3ff. E.g. lAMb,"h d6r his/lw.-kril. Einililung ill d4s N. T.·, 1886, pp. 368f.

45~ff.;

THE MATERIALS AND THE TASK

2

the material was shaped very different, and the modifications more widespread than J. Weiss had believed. E. Wendling's I ingenious attempts at analysis of Mark have admittedly not met with general acceptance, and certainly his claim to have discovered sources is untenable. For all the brilliance of many of his literary and critical observations, and however right he was to undertake his analysis, his ignoring of the Synoptic problem, his mechanical idea of the wayan editor works, his unjustified use of his knowledge of literary history as if it were itself literary criticism, has prejudiced his whole work. The most important and far-reaching work in the field of Synoptic research since Wrede, has been done by Wellhausen. 2 His work is more comprehensive than Wrede's for he has shown how the theology of the early Church has influenced the traditional material, not only in Mark, but also in Matthew and Luke, and therefore in Q, which, like Mark, lies behind·them. Wellhausen stated very clearly the fundamental assumption that the tradition consists of individual stories or groups of stories joined together in the Gospels by the work of the editors; and he also showed how pieces of primitive tradition alternated with secondary material,3 but he did not reach a final, comprehensive and detailed conclusion. But he did see the complexity of the problem, though he could go no further than to say: 'it is not enough to think that it was simply an oral tradition that the editors used •... And there is no reason to dismiss the suggestion offhand that once the Mark we know was written down it was itself the subject of editorial review. In any event, the most important thing is to recognise that unquestionably secondary material has found its way into the tradition. Whether it is literally secondary is quite another question. The first thing we must do is to stop looking for the pure U r-Markus and fixing the various stages of its redaction.' 4 In these circumstances it was inevitable that the analysis of the Synoptics into literary sources should give way to an attempt to apply to them the methods ofform-criticism which H. Gunkel and his disciples had already applied to the Old Testament. This involved discovering what the original units of the Synoptics were, both sayings and

us

Ur-Marcus, 1905. Die Entsttlwng Marcus-Evang.liums, [goB. His commentaries on Mark, Matthew and Luke, 1903-4 (Mk.1 1909). EinUitung in die droi ~~Tij iva ytvr]Tal Ws 6 BIOcXOl