The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Revised ed

463 Pages·1963·30.559 MB·English

by  Rudolf Bultmann

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.
THE HISTOR Y OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION. Copyright © 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 informa
tion address Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 10 East 53rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10022.
Published Simultaneously in Canada by Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited, Toronto.
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 II
1. CONTROVERSY DIALOGUES AND SCHOLASTIC DIALOGUES 12
(a) Occasioned by Jesus' healings 12
(b) Otherwise occasioned by the conduct of Jesus or the disciples 16
(c) The Master is q1Mstioned (by the disciples or others) 21
(d) Questions asked by opponents 26
2. BIOGRAPHICAL ApOPHTHEGMS 27
ADDENDUM 38
3. THE FORM AND HISTORY OF ApOPHTHEGMS 39
(a) Controversy Dialogues 39
(b) Scholastic Dia1cgues 54
(c) Biographical Apophthegms 55
(d) The Form and History of the Apophthegm in General 61
B. DOMINI CAL SAYINGS 69
I. LOl'HA (JESUS AS THE TEACHER OF WISDOM) 69
(a) The form of the Logia in general 69
(b) The Synoptic Material 73
(c) Form and History of the Logia 81
2. PROPHETIC AND ApOCALYPTIC SAYINOS 108
(a) Preaching of Salvation log
(b) MiTllltory Sayings III
(c) Admonitions 118
(d) Apocalyptic Predictions 120
(e) The History of the Tradition 125
3. LEGAL SAYINGS AND CHURCH RULES 13°
(a) Surv~ and Ana!Jsis 13°
(b) The History of the Material 145
4. 'I' SAYINGS 15°
SUPPLEMENT 164-
5. SIMILITUDES AND SIMILAR FORMS 166
(a) SuTV~ and Ana!Jsis 166
(b) Form and History of the Material 179
D. The Tradition of the Narrative Material
A. MIRACLE STORIES
I. MIRACLES OF HEALING
2. NATURE MIRACLES
3. THE FORM AND HISTORY OF MIRACLE STORIES
(a) &orcisms cif Demons
(b) Otlrer Healings
(c) Raisings from tire Dead
(d) Nature Miracles
B. HISTORICAL STORIES AND LEGENDS 244
I. ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIAL 245
(a) From tire Baptism to the Triumphal Entry 245
(b) The Parsion Narrative 262
THE HISTORY OF THE TRADITION OF THE PASSION 275
(c) The Earter Narratives 284
(d) Tire Infancy Narratives 291
SUPPLEMENT 301
2. CONCERNING THE HISTORY OF THE MATERIAL 302
SUPPLEMENT: Summary cif tire Technique cif the Story 307
m. The Editing of the Traditional Material
A. THE EDITING OF THE SPOKEN WORD
J. THE COLLECTION OF THE MATERIAL AND THE
COMPOSITION OF SPEECHES 322
2. THE INSERTION OF THE SPEECH MATERIAL INTO THE
NARRATIVES 329
(a) Mark 329
(b) Mattlrew 333
(c) Luke 334
B. 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. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE 359
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 pre
sentation 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 eru
salem-according to Holtzmann's typical judgement2-could be
shown to be the well-ordered and consistent principles of Mark's pre
sentation. 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 Weiz
sacker 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, 1925, pp.
45~ff.; 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.
2 THE MATERIALS AND THE TASK
the material was shaped very different, and the modifications more
widespread than J. Weiss had believed. E. Wendling's ingenious
I
attempts at analysis of Mark have admittedly not met with general
acceptance, and certainly his claim to have discovered sources is un
tenable. 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 fun
damental 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 alter
nated with secondary material,3 but he did not reach a final, com
prehensive 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 recog
nise 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 off orm-criticism which H. Gunkel and his disciples
had already applied to the Old Testament. This involved discover
ing what the original units of the Synoptics were, both sayings and
us
I Ur-Marcus, 1905. Die Entsttlwng Marcus-Evang.liums, [goB.
2 His commentaries on Mark, Matthew and Luke, 1903-4 (Mk.1 1909). EinUitung in
die droi <Tsltn Evang~lim, 1905; 21911.
a This had already been observed by D. F. Strauss and the Tuebingen school; cpo esp.
Ed. Zeller, VDrtr. u. Ahh., 1865, pp. 448ff. There was a noteworthy reaction in the work of
K. Holl, Urchrislenlllm u. Religionsg.schichtt, 1925, pp. 23ft". In a justifiable desire to lnat the
cont~nt of the ~ynoptic tradition as a unity Holl too readily identified the spiritual with
the l~terary ~ty and so contested the opinion that the Synoptic tradition originated in
particular umts.
• Einloitung in die drei mien Evang.lien2, p. 48.