We begin with the five basic categories that originally emerged from the discipline. Then we will briefly consider the new Form Criticism and its approach to classification.
Paradigms / Apophthegms / Pronouncement Stories These accounts have five characteristics according to
First, they are stories that are rounded off. By this Dibelius means that the high point comes toward the end, either through a word or deed of Jesus. This is the reason
Taylor preferred the name "pronouncement story," which
certainly is a better Bultmann had a different name for
these accounts and divided them into "controversy" dialogues
when opponents were present, "scholastic dialogues" when disciples were present, and biographical apophthegms where there is much more narrative detail present and where there is simply an event in which Jesus It should be noted that Bultmann regarded the controversy and scholastic texts as similar.
182 I Bock
simple. There is little extra detail. Third, there is religious
coloring in the account. This means that expressions describing actions have a religious tone to like "he preached to them" (Mk 2:2) or "he was grieved at their hardness of heart" 3:5). Fourth, the goal of the narrative is the didactic point that concludes or summarizes the account. It is the word from Jesus that counts. In short, it is a story with a punch line. Fifth, the account is useful for preaching purposes. Here one crosses from descriptive into historical categories. is why the accounts are preserved. For the origin of these accounts is in the polemic atmosphere of the church (contro- versy dialogues) or in the desire simply to teach (scholastic dialogues) or for preaching (biographical apophthegms).
Some illustrations of such accounts are Controversy dia- logue: Mark 2:23-28 (Plucking Corn on the Sabbath); Scholastic Dialogue: Mark 10:17-31 (The Rich Young Man); and Biographi- cal Apophthegm: Luke 10:38-42 (Mary and Martha). Each account ends with a punch line and drives toward it. In the controversy, there is inherent conflict that is resolved in Jesus' remark. The tension in the scholastic dialogue is more a probe into what is so or how one should view something. The biographical account simply tells something that happened to Jesus that elicited a key saying. It is easy to see how the category, though broad, is a helpful description of the kind of account and its emphasis.
Tales / Novellen / Miracle Stories
These accounts are slightly more complex. The accounts are complete units in themselves and also have clear character- Bultmann again has subgroupings like Exorcisms, Healings, Raisings from the Dead, and Nature Miracles. The basis of the names are not really the form but the nature of the miracle. A more recent attempt at such analysis is that of Gerd Theissen.24 Theissen speaks of Exorcisms, Healings, Epiphanies Rescue Miracles, Gift Miracles, and Rule Mira- cles. Again, the nature of the miracle dictates the title and is helpful in focusing on the thrust of the passage.
The characteristics are that the accounts are self contained, that they are descriptive, that details of the story are told with pleasure, that the malady is specified, and that there is a note of the healing's success. There is a lack of devotion in the account
Form Criticism I 183
that religious language is lacking and often there is an absence of teaching by Jesus, which makes this category distinct from the previous category of paradigm. Part of the
pleasure in the account is the detail given to the nature of the the means of healing, and the public reaction to the
miracle.
Numerous examples exist: The Leper of Mark 1:40-45
(Healing); The Stilling of the Storm in Mark 4:35-41 (Nature Miracle); The Healing of Daughter and the Stilling of the Flow of Blood in Mark 5:21-43 (Healing and Raising from the Dead); and The Demons and the Swine in Mark 5:1-20 (Exorcism). One can look at any of these accounts and trace the sequence of the traits.
Sayings / Parenesis or Exhortations / Parables Here is the most varied category. This group of accounts deals with the individual teachings of Jesus that are not tied to a controversy or a simple event. In other words, they describe his Again, there are subgroupings. Dibelius had max- ims (Mt 12:34b: Out of the Abundance of the Heart; also called proverb or gnome); metaphor (Mk 4:21: a Lamp Put under a parable (Lk 15:1-7: Lost Sheep); prophetic call (Mt 5:3- 12: Beatitudes); short command (Mt 18:10: Do Not Despise Little Ones); and extended command (Lk 6:27-49: Sermon on the Most of these names are straightforward. The most difficult is the prophetic call, which is really a word of blessing or warning that comes from God through a prophet about what God will do or what will happen.
Bultmann's names differ but represent similar categories. First, he has Logia (or Wisdom), which equals
maxims (Mk 3:24-26: A Kingdom Divided Against Itself). Second, he speaks of Prophetic or Apocalyptic Sayings, which equal the prophetic call as well as include parable and metaphor. This category is further subdivided into preaching of salvation (Lk 7:22-23: The Blind See, etc.); minatory sayings, which are threats of judgment or woe (Lk 6:24-26: Woes to the Rich); admonitions, which are warnings and include many parables (Lk 12:42-46: Parable of the Stewards); and, last of all, apocalyptic predictions (Mk 13:5-27: Olivet Discourse).
Bultmann speaks of Legal Sayings and Church Rules. Some of these are metaphors or prophetic sayings as
184 I Bock
well. These are sayings that set down limits on life or that indicate where authority lies. Here he includes The Sin Against
the Spirit in Luke 12:10; the Instruction on Reconciliation in Matthew and the Divorce Pericope of Matthew 5:31-32. Fourth, he speaks of "I sayings." These are mission statements about why Jesus has come or has been sent or how
he acts. They usually start with "I have come" (Mk 2:17: Not to
Call the Righteous but Sinners); or "I am sent" 4:43: To Preach the Kingdom); or "I have (Mk 1:17: You Fishers of Men). Any saying where Jesus speaks of his activity belongs here. the separation of sayings into such groupings is helpful.
The fifth and final subunit under sayings are the simili- tudes. Here appear hyperbole (Mt 5:29-30: Plucking out the Eye); paradox (Mk 10:39: The One who Seeks His Life Will Lose It); metaphor (Mt 7:13-14: The Narrow Gate); and similitudes proper, which are the extended metaphors that also are known as parables (Lk 18:1-8: The Nagging Widow). Such parables can be short (Mt 13:33: The or long (Lk 15:11-32: The Prodigal Son). Through such descriptive and distinguishing categories Form Criticism shows its strength and its value for study. The categories are an and descriptive aid to the inter-
Legends / Stories about Jesus
In this category, the story is told to exalt a saint or great It will be distinguished from the next category, myth, in that the figure's greatness in a legend does not include divine qualities. used the title "Historical Stories and legends." The name "legend" is unfortunate because in English it suggests that the accounts are false. To comment on historicity is not the intent of the though it is true that for many form critics most of the accounts in this category are embellished beyond the historical realities. alter- nate name, "Historical Stories," is also a problem since he does not mean to suggest by that title that the stories are true historically. Either title is simply intended to describe an account that is interested in the life and adventures of Jesus for its own sake, without being concerned to recount his sayings or other such things. The problem of title caused Taylor to prefer the simple "Stories of Jesus." It is the best title for the category.
Form Criticism I 185
These accounts are interested in revealing the person of Jesus or those around him. They underline how God has
marked the life of these individuals. The story of Jesus as a Twelve Year Old in Luke 2:41-52 is an example of such an account, though here the saying of Luke 2:49 also has an
important role to Bultmann lacks Dibelius's category of
myth so his section includes what Dibelius called legend and also what Dibelius called myth. Thus, The Voice at the Baptism
(Mk 1:9-11 and parallels), The Triumphal Entry (Mk 11:1-10 and
parallels), Peter's Confession (Mk 8:27-30 and parallels), and The Transfiguration (Mk 9:2-8 and parallels) are among the accounts that fall into this category for Bultmann. Apparently, Bultmann found it difficult to sort out when "supernatural elements" were or were not present or else he decided a distinction in these two categories was not possible because so many of the accounts had supernatural touches.
In fact, this category is the most elusive of all because in many cases the text could be put elsewhere as well. Dibelius puts The Synagogue Speech of Luke 4:16-21 here, but is this not a prophetic call and a mission account? One senses that accounts end up in this category because they are too
charged. Even so, the category, rightly understood, is helpful in pointing out that the person of Jesus is the issue in these accounts. Usually something about his person, something is revealed in these accounts and is the point of the unit.
The problem with this classification points to a warning about form that needs attention. Sometimes there is the complaint that one should not classify texts by The value of the complaint depends on what is meant by "content." is disturbed that some classifications look at the supernatural content in the account and call the result legend or myth as a result, when in fact the account differs little otherwise from a pronouncement story, a miracle story, or a saying. The validity of the complaint at this level is certainly correct. Form cannot be used to determine historicity unless a clear set of formal characteristics are present and clearly established as part of the form, such as in the case of a parable. Only then can a form be marked off as non-historical. In fact, the claim was that legend and myth theoretically could contain historical material, but often that was not in reality the case. Thus the warning is a real one. The terms "legend" and
186 I Bock
"myth" cannot be used to indicate historicity. If that is what they intend to then other terms might be better and such as "embellished accounts." This is why Taylor's "Stories about Jesus" is the best title for this category. All titles should be clear and used as as descriptive categories of literary emphasis and focus. Issues of historicity have to be tackled at other levels by other approaches. Here is a case where Form Criticism can attempt to do too much with ton
little.
On the other hand, the classification of form by content can be helpful in determining within a larger category and can be helpful in describing the point of focus in an account. So the of miracle stories and parables are helped when this procedure is applied. As always, defining terms and procedures carefully is the key, and generalizations should be examined carefully to see whether they have been established, rather than asserted.
Myths
The last category is Dibelius's These accounts deal with the "many sided doings of the gods." Here we move from Jesus the teacher to Jesus the divine figure. Again, the intent of the title is not necessarily to make a historical judgment, but the name is unfortunate in that it suggests the account is false
when normal English usage is applied to the meaning of the
term. In fact, many form critics do believe these accounts are embellishments about Jesus, but that was not the intent of the title. It is really a way of saying that God or Satan deals directly with Jesus in these accounts and that these encounters, in turn, point to the mystery of his person. So Dibelius has only a few events here. For him the Baptism, the Temptation, and the Transfiguration belong here. Once again, if the category name were not a problem, the description would prove helpful. Perhaps the name "Direct Supernatural Encounter Stories" would be a more neutral name to offer.
The New Form Criticism Forms and Multiple
When one turns to the treatment of Berger, many of the old
categories are gone, though they really have received new
Form Criticism I 187
In addition, Berger covers the passages of the entire Testament. He does not limit himself to the Synoptic Gospels. He also is clear that his version of the discipline is
distinct from tradition history. This separation is positive, though it means that the concerns of the "new" Form Criticism the emasculation of much of what was Form Criticism for Dibelius and Bultmann. This is something Berger is aware of and In short, the literary features of Form Criticism remain, but the issues of history and tradition are largely removed. This surgery on Form Criticism probably strikes some as no longer being Form Criticism, but what it represents is a slimmed down version that allows the tool to do what it does best, which is to describe.
Berger has four basic categories. The first is
("Collected This is largely discourse material. Here he has pictorial texts, which include metaphors and sentences, speeches, apophthegm, and argumenta- tion, which are the controversy texts, whether apologetic, instructive, or diatribe. Second comes the Gattun- gen ("Behavior Here are found, among many others, parenesis, warnings, house rules, martyr warnings, blessings, woes, and community rules. Third come the
("Demonstration These are texts about things, persons, or events that are to lead the reader to admiration or repulsion. Here we find acclamations ("you are worthy," "this one is"), hymns, prayers, proclama- tion, "I sayings," visions, apocalyptic genres, miracle accounts, travel accounts, martyr accounts, conflict accounts, example accounts from the disciples, and summaries. We move into events or their significance in these accounts. Finally are the Gattungen ("Decision These are apologetic texts in one way or another that explain why something is done or how one should look at a matter. It should be noted that individual texts for Berger can fall into many categories at the same time, a departure from the older version of Form Criticism, which tended to hunt for the "pure" form and regarded most mixed forms as evidence of a position later in the given tradition's historical development.
What Berger gave up in leaving history behind he added by introducing numerous new categories on the literary side. Such detailed and thorough analysis is to be appreciated, but one Wonders whether the simplicity of the old classifications has
188 I Bock
been lost in the plethora of options now provided and in the multiplied categories within which a text can function. None- here is Form Criticism at its descriptive level carried out to its logical and detailed end. Only time will tell whether the pursuit of this degree of detail is helpful or whether a retreat to more general categories is advisable.