Such a vast discipline with its many makes the choice of an example that is representative difficult. Luke 5:1-11 has the advantage of a rich history of discussion about its form that reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of the discipline. In examining this passage, we shall note the history of this discussion and show how the discipline wrestles with itself to understand a given text. We will do this by tracing the position of a variety of interpreters about the form of this and note the strengths and weaknesses of their
approach.
Dibelius called the account a The major reason
for the choice appears to be the miraculous catch, along with
the detail about Peter's view of himself. Now Source Criticism had suggested that John and Luke 5:1-11 were related to one another. Dibelius picks up on this and argues that John 21 is the later account, since Peter in Luke 5:8 does not confess his specific sin (and thus would be alluding to his denials); rather, he speaks of sin in general terms. He notes the passage is really a call-word and that it might in reality have been tied to a real catch of fish.
Dibelius's denial that Luke 5 comes from John 21 is a good example of careful observation that is frequent in Form Criticism. However, the tendency simply to assume the results of Source Criticism is not always good. Another assumption crippling the analysis is that similar events mean originally
unified traditions. The possibility that Luke 5 and John 21 were
distinct is not raised despite numerous differences in the events. Differences such as timing, the setting of the fishing, the role of the participants, and the contents of what Jesus says
do not count sufficiently to overcome the belief that similarity is really identity. His treatment also tends to assume that accounts move from simple to more complex forms, since he
Form Criticism I 189
seems to suggest a basic call and event was expanded into a more miraculous form.
discussed the account as a nature miracle,
though he argued that it really is a The reason for this
distinction is not made clear. It evidences how difficult it is to
keep categories distinct if supernatural contents create a shift in
category. He argues that the original tradition was the saying of
Luke 5:10, which has been expanded into its "symbolic actualization," that is, the miracle of Luke 5:4-8. He sees John 21 as the earlier account, though why this is so is not made clear. Perhaps the confession and are considered to be more appropriate in the post-resurrection setting.
The category of nature miracle is an appropriate descrip- tion of what Jesus does here. But again, old assumptions crowd in. The movement from simple to complex accounts fuels the suggestion that originally the simplest form of the tradition had only a saying. In addition, like the previous effort, there is no attempt to deal with the possibility that Luke 5 is distinct from John 21. Despite any superficial similarities, differences are treated as the work of the evangelists, rather than reckoning with the possibility that they are older or even signs of distinct traditions. Others have criticized the choice of "legend" for the account, noting that Peter's person and piety are not the focus of the
Theissen called the account a "gift This is another way to refer in more detail to a nature miracle. The gift miracle has three basic characteristics. 1) The miracle is spontaneous and surprising. This means the miracle worker initiates the miracle. There is no request for it. 2) The miracle is unobtrusive, which means the "how" of the miracle or the actions associated with it are absent. 3) The final demonstration of the miracle is stressed. This means that the consequences are detailed. All of these observations are true of Luke 5:1-11. Jesus does the miracle without lifting a finger. He simply says go out and toss the nets. The fishermen are left to deal with the (too great!) consequences in order to avoid the tragedy of sinking under the weight of the catch. The point of the miracle is that a situation of want is overcome. Theissen makes no mention of John 21 in his treatment. His handling of the text is reflective of more recent Form Criticism. His descriptive
approach is helpful.
190 I L. Bock
5:10b) plus a miracle The miracle serves the saying, which is why the emphasis is on the pronouncement part of the account. The combination was Luke's doing. Again strengths
and weaknesses exist. The assumption that there is no such thing as a mixed form appears to force the conclusion that Luke has taken Mark 4:16-20 and joined it to another tradition to
form this unit. This is not helpful. However, of more value is
the observation, which certainly is correct that the key to the account is the saying, which in turn is set up by the miracle. In other words, Fitzmyer's double classification and description nicely prioritizes the elements within the story and notes that the punch line of Luke 5:10 is pivotal.
Talbert discusses the form of this text in great He argues that the text is a commission account, not a call. A commission account has an introduction (Luke 5:2), a confron-
tation (5:3), a commission (5:4), a protest (5:5), a reaction (5:8-9)
and a reassurance (5:10), and a response (5:11). This is in contrast to the call that has Jesus coming, seeing, calling, and then the person(s) leaving and following.
This classification looks good on the surface, but it seems to suffer from overanalysis and shows that any classification should be examined carefully. For example, to call Luke 5:5 a protest is to undermine the very point of the verse. The verse
really concerns Peter's faith, which despite appearances leads
him to obey Jesus. Peter's remark is not a protest, but the expression of great faith. In addition, Luke 5:3 is hardly a confrontation. Finally, to distinguish between a call and a commission seems artificial.
Tiede briefly handles the passage with some sharp observa- He speaks of an "epiphany-call," by which he means that the passage evidences a divine presence and makes a call to the fisherman to be a disciple. He compares the account in form to Exodus 3, Judges 6, and Isaiah 6. The center of the passage is Peter's faith, which leads to the manifestation of divine presence, which in turn is the basis of a call. The miracle is less crucial except to set up the call, since the miracle's material success is totally when the men leave behind
their nets and vocation for a new call. The action of the account
reinforces the point of the story and the priorities in it.
Here is helpful form critical work. The form is defined and the parts are placed in order of priority. In addition, parallels
are noted that show other examples of the form.
Form Criticism I 191
Finally we look at Berger's handling of the He complains that the title "miracle story" is a modern category
and that often miracles can be placed in other categories more easily. Again, such a complaint depends on what one wishes to do with the account once it is placed in the category. If "miracle
story" is a way to deny historicity, then his complaint has
merit. It also is true that miracle accounts can often fit elsewhere. However, it also is the case that the category miracle stories and their can be descriptively helpful, as Theissen's work shows.
Berger argues that the issue of an account like Luke 5 is Jesus' spiritual power and evinces the fellowship that he had with the disciples and shows the prominence of Peter. He speaks of a or mandate account, and also speaks of a "call history." unlike his predecessors, will use several categories at once. The mandate is an account in which there is an order by a superior to an inferior that is to be obeyed. Here is the call to cast the nets and the call to commission. The call history has precedent in 1 Kings 19:19-20 and is like Mark 1:19. Again, parallels are noted. He argues that the miracle is less important than the call and also speaks of subforms within the account, such as dialogue and "religious self witness," the latter describing Peter's exclamation that he is
a sinner (Lk 5:8).
Many strengths are seen here. There is an absence of traditional historical speculation. The account is related in terms of form to other similar texts. There is a willingness to recognize mixed types. He prioritizes the parts to each other. He recognized the problem with the title "miracle story," though there may be an here. There is much here to work with in terms of exegesis.
One sees in the example a certain flexibility of category and a playing around with category titles. This is inevitable in a descriptive process where one is searching to be more precise. Now what could be the Sitz Leben of such an account? How would it function in the church? Two motives seem clear. First, the account would explain the roots of the early disciples involvement in the church. How did they come to be called? What did they see in Jesus? The account shows the knowledge and authority of the one whom the church confesses as Savior.
Second, the account articulates the mission of the church. The disciples are to be "fishers of men." They are to cast nets into
192 I Bock
the world and seek to rescue people from death. In this
perspective, Peter is not just the first disciple, he is the exemplary disciple. All disciples share his call and can identify
with his mission. The account seems to suggest these two emphases. As long as one does not deny that the origins of the
tradition go back to the participants, this search for the Sitz
Leben in the church need not be a problem and in fact can help show the way to methods one might use to teach the account today.
SUMMARY
Form Criticism is not the center of New Testament exegesis. It is but one humble tool among many. It has the potential to be a blunt instrument that is not helpful in the task when it is used for things for which it was not designed. On the other hand, the descriptive features of the discipline and the hunting for parallels can be helpful in describing the focus, elements, and structure of a text's argument. In the hands of a skilled exegete who uses the tools of interpretation in a way that fits what they are capable of, Form Criticism can be a fruitful aid to understanding and to exposition.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beasley-Murray, George R. Preaching the Gospel From the
London: 1965.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1968.
Dory, W. G. "The Discipline and Literature of New Testament Form Criticism." Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 257- 321.
E. E. "New Directions in Form Criticism." Jesus in Theologie. Ed. G. Tubingen:
1975, 299-315.
France, R. T. "The Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus." History, Criticism, and Faith. Ed. Brown. Downers Grove, Varsity, 1977.
Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christian- ity. Trans. E. J. Sharpe. Lund: 1961.
Form Criticism I 193
E. V. What is Form Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.
T. W. The Teachings of Jesus: Studies of Form and Content. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931.
NOTES
major ground breaking studies appeared in 1919. Though we will refer to updated, translated editions, the key studies were in
German. Martin Dibelius, Die and L.
der Jesu, were both released in 1919.
Two years later came the comprehensive and influential study by Die Geschichte der
history and nature of Source Criticism is the topic of the previous essay.
in this study, Dibelius described his aim this way: "The right to read the Gospels from the standpoint of their form is the objective of the present volume." Later he says, "Further, the categories allow us to draw a conclusion as to what is called the Sitz
Leben, i.e., the historical and social stratum in which precisely these
literary forms were developed." Finally, Dibelius again states, "The ultimate origin of the Form is the primitive Christian life itself." The English title of Dibelius's work, From Tradition to Gospel, summarizes the discipline's concern nicely. The quotations are from pp. 6, 7, and 8 of Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, 2d ed., trans. L.
(London: James Clarke & Co., 1971 trans. of 1933 The Dibelius metaphor of the evangelists as "collectors" can be found on pp. 3 and 59. The emphasis on the gospel as "sociological" products, not as individual creations, can be found on p. 7.
The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 3d trans. J. Marsh (New York: Harper, 1963 trans. of 1958 3-4.
"Criticism," 1:822.
axioms are rarely listed in the early works. Rather, they are introduced in the opening remarks. So Dibelius, From Tradition to
Gospel, 1-36, where he stresses the role of preaching as a major
formative factor. Cf. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1-7. Bultmann has one sentence on p. 3 that summarizes the approach: "The following investigation therefore sets out to give an account of the history of the individual units of the tradition, and how the tradition passed from a fluid state to the fixed form in which it meets us in the Synoptics and in some instances even outside of them."
this list, see David "Tradition History," in New
Testament Interpretation, ed. by I. Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerd- 1977), 174-77. A detailed article noting some eleven criteria is Robert Stein, "Criteria for Authenticity," in Gospel Perspectives ed. by
194 I Darrell Bock
R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: 1980). The article is excellent for its though it fails to distinguish when a criterion authenticates the exact wording of a saying versus only the conceptual thrust of the saying.
P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
Berger, in die UTB 144 (Tubingen: Franke, 1987), 63-67, traces Herder's influence.
33-34, 56.
"Jordan, der (Leipzig, 1911). Guttgemanns, Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criti-
cism, trans. by W. Doty (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979 trans. of 1971 ed.
with author's additions in 1978), 235-48, evaluates Gunkel's role. His prolific work was Gunkel's work on Genesis was published in 1901.
Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London:
1949 reprint of 1935 ed). The original volume was published in 1933 and came from lectures given in 1932.
41. On the other hand, he says on p. 20, "I have no doubt that the value of form criticism is considerable." He speaks of a "tool with limited powers" here. If one may play with this picture a bit, one thinks of a standard screw driver that has been made into a Phillips screw driver and is no longer able to work with normal screws as a result. In this sense, the critics have argued that Form Criticism overstepped what the texts were capable of yielding.
the essay on Redaction Criticism that follows in this volume. one can mention the study of E. Guttgemanns and E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) for the issue of the rules of transmission. Sanders especially showed that accounts both get simpler and more complex with time. There is no "rule" that applies. In addition, the examination of oral tradition in Judaism revealed the potential for very stable tradition; so H. The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits of Form Criticism (London:
Mowbray, 1957) and B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral and
Written Transmission in Rabbinic and Early Christianity (Lund:
Gleerup, 1961).
Pastoral- 78 (1989): 278. This article is an overview by a German New
Testament scholar reviewing developments in New Testament study for pastors. He speaks of the Form Criticism of Bultmann and Diebelius as past, at least in terms of reconstructing the oral tradition; the assumption about the makeup of the Christian community; and the pursuit of He notes that Form Criticism today is more interested in rhetorical issues and synchronic comparison than with diachronic study, by which he means they engage in contemporary
Form Criticism I 195
comparison with other New Testament works and outside
rather than reaching back through the tradition history. In other Form Criticism is moving in a descriptive, literary direction. Berger, Formgeschichte des Testaments (Heidelberg:
& Meyer, 1984).
treatments of Form Criticism in discussing the history of the movement also launch into a discussion of the New Quest for the historical Jesus, a movement started in Germany by Bultmann's students, who thought he was too negative on issues of historicity. This movement evidences the frustration with Form Criticism, but technically it is not part of the discipline itself and thus is not discussed here. Its presence is only to be noted.
From Tradition to Gospel, 37-58. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 30.
The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 11-69. From Tradition to Gospel, Bultmann, The History
of the Synoptic Tradition, 209-44. Bultmann preferred the name "miracle
story," as did Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 119-41. Theissen, The Miracle Stones of the Early Christian Tradition, trans. by Francis McDonaugh, ed. by John Riches (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983 ed. of 1974 German
From Tradition to Gospel, 233-65. He called them
or Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic
Tradition, 69-205. He spoke of "Dominical Sayings." Often the
material in this category was also described as present in the source Q. list of example passages here is mostly ours, since Dibelius does not supply a clear list for each category.
have also attempted to subject the parables to a more comprehensive examination of form. By far the most famous attempts are: C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, rev. ed. (New York: 1961 ed. of original ed. in 1935) and J. Jeremias, The Parables
of Jesus, rev. trans. by S. H. Hooke (New York: Scribner's, 1972 ed. of 1954 original). Here one can speak of kingdom parables, parables of the return, parables of discipleship, parables of mission, or parables about God. Again, the are determined by the topic at hand within the parable.
From Tradition to Gospel, 104-32. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 244-317.
raises the problem of "mixed forms," which will be addressed in our example below.
D. New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove,
1970 211, point 1.
From Tradition to Gospel, 266-86. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments.
196 I L. Bock
category as well as the subsequent ones come from Berger,
des Neuen Testaments. The subgenres of this category are
described on pp. The translation of his titles are my since his work is currently available only in German.
is a rough translation of what is a difficult German term. Berger is clear on p. 18 of his work that injunction, or advice is the issue here. The subgenres are discussed on pp. 117-220.
difficult term is present. The name comes from the Greek which means "to point out something to someone" or "to show, demonstrate." Berger's description is on p. 18. The subgenres are on pp. 221-359.
Berger's choice of terms makes translation difficult. The burden of these texts is to lead the reader to a decision about a disputed matter. See pp. In fact, Berger spends little time here, pp. 360-65.
From Tradition to Gospel, 113.
The History of the Synoptic Tradition, pp. 217-18 and
230.
Das Erster Herder's Theolo-