AND JESUS RESEARCH

Arland J. Hultgren

Readers of the synoptic gospels oft en become aware that there are small units within the gospels that have striking similarities in the ways that they tell things. Th e similarities are strong enough to prompt the reader to give names to the units. Some of the most easily recognizable units having similarities are miracle stories, debates between Jesus and opponents, and parables. As soon as a person begins to classify and name materials in this way, that person has entered into the fi eld of gospel research known as form criticism. Form criticism, as applied to the gospels and to Jesus research specifi cally, is a discipline that, at a minimum, classifi es gospel materials according to forms that can be discerned as the vehicles by which the traditions about Jesus were conveyed from the oral stages of transmission into the written gospels, such as miracle stories, parables, and more. In practice, however, form-critical work of scholars has not limited itself to classifi cation. It has gone beyond that to have major signifi cance for Jesus research. In fact, form criticism has had a truly revolutionary impact on Jesus research since early in the twentieth century. With the rise of form criticism, the study of the historical Jesus took on a new vigor. Its practitioners sought new criteria for determining what can be traced back to Jesus as “authentic” mate- rial (meaning traditions from or about Jesus that can be considered as historically accurate as can be expected) and what cannot. Its results have provided a veritable data base concerning Jesus that some have considered the building blocks to use in constructing a picture of the historical Jesus. To be sure, some scholars have regarded form criti- cism as misguided or to have run its course as a method for historical research. Nevertheless, the methods and results of form criticism are constantly being employed as a matter of course in studies about the words and deeds of Jesus. In spite of some challenges to it, there has been no “turning back the clock” to pre-form-critical work in assessing the historicity of traditions from and about Jesus. Th e English term “form criticism” is adapted—not actually translated— from the term coined by the German-language pioneers of the method, 650 arland j. hultgren namely, Formgeschichte. A literal translation of the word would be “form history” or “history of form.” Yet those terms provide only partial insight into actual form-critical work in modern times. When applied to the study of the gospels, it is more helpful to think of form criticism as a discipline that seeks to discern the history of the formation of traditions about Jesus in the pre-literary stages of gospel transmission. Th e basic viewpoint of form criticism is that the traditions about Jesus, both narratives and teachings, circulated in oral form for decades prior to being written down. Th ey were composed, preserved, and formed (shaped, given form) for practical needs in the life and mission of the early church. Th ose processes have left their marks on the traditions, aff ecting the ways that the traditions were told, and those ways can still be discerned in our reading of the gospels today. An awareness of those ways, in turn, has implications for the reconstruction of the actual (or “authentic”) sayings and deeds of Jesus.

1. Th e Origins of Form Criticism

Prior to its use in biblical studies, form criticism originated in—and was practiced fi rst—in the study of folklore. In the fi eld of biblical studies it was taken up and applied fi rst in the study of the .1 It made its appearance most notably in the work of the German Old Testament scholar Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932) in his studies of Genesis and the . In the case of Genesis, he sought to inquire about the origins of its various stories in their pre-literary, oral settings. He classifi ed the materials according to their forms (aetiological legends, ethnological legends, etymological legends, ceremonial legends, geographical leg- ends, and mixed legends) and suggested that the various units were shaped, or given form, through their telling within various settings in the historical and social life of Israel.2 In regard to the Psalms, he clas- sifi ed them into several types (hymns, community laments, songs of the individual, thank off ering songs, laments of the individual, entrance liturgies, songs, blessings, and royal psalms) and proposed that they arose in various liturgical and other contexts.3 Th e work of Gunkel

1 For a brief survey and bibliography, cf. John Barton, “Form Criticism (OT),” ABD 2:838–841. 2 Hermann Gunkel, Th e Legends of Genesis: Th e Biblical Saga and History (New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 25–36. Th e German edition was Die Sagen der Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901). 3 Hermann Gunkel, Th e Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967).