What Is Form Criticism? (Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Test)

I~-

..··w'

What Is

Forni Criticism? by

Edgar V. McKnight

1---'

r.:1III

.J'-1.. Fortress Philadelphia

Press

_.._-

Editor's Foreword

Biblical quotations from the Revie d Bible, copyrighted 1946 and 19S/ Stand~r? Version of the Education of the N tl 1 by the Division of Christian permission, a iona Council of Churches, are used by

Copyright © 1969 by Fortress Press All rights reserved No

art of hi

duced, stored in a c'err' Pit is publication may be reproby any means, electronic. mechan or transmitted in any form or or otherwise, without c~amcal, p.h~tocopying, recording, owner. pnor permission of the copyright

the

L"b I rary of Congress Catalog Card No. 71-81526 ISBN 0 -8006-0180-7 Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth 6468B77

Printing Printing Printing Printing Printing

1970 1971 1973 1975 1977

Printed in U.S.A.

In New Testament scholarship insights, concerns, and positions may not change as much or as fast as they do in the natural sciences. But over the years they do change, and change a great deal, and they are changing with increasing rapidity. At an earlier period in the history of New Testament scholarship the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were thought to be relatively uncomplicated documents which had been put together without careful planning and which told a rather straightforward story. Today the Synopties are understood to be enormously intricate products containing subtle and ingenious literary patterns and highly developed theological interpretations. The three volumes in this series deal. respectively with literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism, and their purpose is to disclose something of the process whereby these disciplines have gained an enlarged understanding of the complex historical, literary, and theological factors which lie both behind and within the Synoptic Gospels. The volumes on form and redaction criticism will deal exclusively with the Synoptic Gospels, while the one on literary criticism will deal selectively with all the areas of the New Testament. Literary criticism has traditionally concerned itself with suc1imatters as the authorship of the various New Testament books, the possible composite nature of a given work, and the identity and extent of sources which may lie behind a certain document. More recently, however, biblical scholars have

v

FOREWOlUJ

~n paying a.ttention to the criticism of fiction and poetry an to aesthetics and philosophy of Ian Th literary itici f th guage. erefore the an ' en .C1Sm0, e New Testament has begun to reflect f mt~est ~ ~uestions such as the relationship of content to orm, e .SIgnificance of structure or form for meanin and ac e:::,at:. lanrage to direct thought and to moll' exisb .~. e vo ume on literary criticism in this series will dis s,ensl,ltiveto both the older and the newer aspects of the Clp me.

;? ;~

i

The pUi'J.'Ose,of form criticism has been to get behind th ~;t;;'fs w~ch lite~ary criticism might identify and to describ: on or ~as f appenmg as the tradition about Jesus was handed munitya y /om pe~?~ to person and from community to com. orm criticism has b~s eciall . ,,/ Jhe modific.ations which thee !if ~,With both Jewish::(;hristian and-- . and ~o~ ht of the ~urchinto the tra4itim> and forr!ent?~-C nstian- ~ve introduc d for distinguishin ' th cntics have worked out criteria the concerns of ~ o~e s~a~ in the Gospels which reflect thought to b e c urc om the stratum that might be that the ch~~h'::t~ I~e historical Jesus. It has been shown on the content of the I: ';::~ OnI~ exerted a creative influence characteristics makin . a ?n ut also contributed formal terial in the S' 0 ti g It possible to classify much of the macism has con:m~ ~ according to ~te~ary form. Form eriti.> vidual units-stories :~f lar.gely ~Ith mvestigating the indio Redaction cr'" n say-mgs-m the Synoptic Gospels. tohave 'b~l; the ,,?ost recent of the three disciplines out of form criticism -::;s~~ous method of inquiry. It grew procedures of the earlie di I. resuPP?ses and continues the sifying certain of th rThlSclp me ';hile extending and intenem. e redaction iti . v' sm all er units-both' I cn c mvestigat~how tion from Writt~lffiP e and composite-frQ!!! the oral tradl- _I -~ources w~re put tozeth f comp exes, and he is es --~~! JlLQrmJlIrger the-GOsPels as fini~ Cl~ y mterested. in the f'?!illation of cemed with the . t p~cts. Redaction criticism is cond 1 m eractlon between an . h . d an a ater interpretive pOint of . mente tradition . I stand why the items from the trad;e~Its goals are to under· V .!1e.ctedas the}' were to'd' n were modified and conwere at work ~ ,osin I e~nZ th~ogiCal motifs that p g a finished pe~an 'd I, WIG--=-:-.. I.U elUCl ate

or

vi

;:il -; -

--------..

FOREWORD

the ~calpoint of vi'O.wwhich is expressed in and through the composition. Although redaction criticism has been most closely associated with the Gospels, there is no reason why it could not be used-and actually it is being used-to illuminate the relationship between tradition and interpretation in other New Testament books. While each of the volumes in this series deals separately and focally with one of the methods of critical inquiry, each author is also aware of the other two methods. It has seemed wise to treat each of the three kinds of criticism separately for the purposes of definition, analysis, and clarification, but it should be quite clear that in actual practice the three are normally used together. They are not really separable. A New Testament scholar, in interpreting any book or shorter text or motif, would allow all three of the critical disciplines to contribute to his interpretation. An effort to demonstrate this inseparability might be made by taking a brief look at Mark 2:18-20: "Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast. but your disciples do not Iest]" "And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. "The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

This passage appears not only in Mark but is also a part of that substantial portion of Mark which serves as a source for Matthew and Luke (of. Matt. 9:14-15; Luke 5:$3-35) (literary criticism). Its outstanding formal features are a brief narrative (18) that provides a setting for a saying of Jesus (19a) which takes the form of a question and which is the real interest of the passage (form criticism). The question of fasting and the use of wedding imagery suggest a Jewish point of origin. At the same time we see a break with fasting and the attribution of joyful siguificance to the present-today is a wedding-rather than waiting for the foture. These features suggest a modification of the Jewish setting. On the other hand, there is nothing, at least in I8-19a, which expresses the church's faith in Jesus' resurrection or the theological interpretation of Jesus' mission which grew out of that faith. This

oii

,'" FOREWORD

particular relationship to Judaism, on the one hand, and to distinctly Christian theology, on the other, gives to 18--19a a good claim to reflect the situation of the historical Jesus. However, 20 (and perhaps 19b) seems to grow out of a setting later than Jesus' own. Here we see the church basing the practice of fasting on Jesus' death (form criticism). Our text is included in a collection of stories all of which present Jesus in conflict with the Jewish authorities (2:1-3:6) and which are concluded by the statement that Jesus' enemies took counsel how they might destroy him. Mark may have found the stories already collected, and a predecessor may also have added the concluding statement. But we do not know why the predecessor might have added it, while we can imagine why Mark would have. Jesus death was very important for him; and it assumes a prominent place in his Gospel (redaction criticism).

Contents

CHAPTER L

N'e~~i~~;~;;'t ·F~~·.C~ti~~ ~~

'h,'......... Th e !-E~gelndt~W~;k ar les '_'.

If we might call the form of the Gospel as a whole a comedy

, r

I

I

which overcomes tragedy-the defeat of death by resurrection-we may then grasp the significance of our brief passage in that larger pattern. The slight allusion to Jesus' death anticipates the more direct hint in 3:6, which in turn prepares for the definite predictions of Jesus' death which begin at 8:31, predictions which are fulfilled in the final chapters of the Gospel. At the same time the resurrection is anticipated by the theme of the joyousness of today, which is further deepened by the note of irrepressible newness that appears in 2:21-22 (literary criticism). Our short text contributes to Mark's presentation of the reasons for Jesus' death-he challenged the established religious order-and Mark's understanding of the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection-a new, festal day has dawned offering to man freedom from compulsive ritualism (redaction and literary criticism). It is hoped that the three volumes in this series will give to the interested layman new insight into how bihlical criticism has illuminated the nature and meaning of the New Testament. DAN O. VIA,

JR.

University of Virginia

1 3

THE ORIGI!§..QI[.FOll~LS::!,,!,CIS.M ~. The Necessity for the Discipline: Developments ill Source Criticism and Ieife ot [esus ~es,earch d' .. £ The' Possibi ity""fOrthe Discipline: Q!!cl
the soiderings melt. in both cases the sections ~llfall apart. . Formerly it was possible to .book through,~lickets . . . which enabled those travelling ill the Interests of Life-of-jesus construction to use express trains, thus avoiding the inconvenience o~ hav-

ing to stop at every little station, chang~, and run the nsk ~f missing their connexion. This ticket office IS now closed. There IS a station at the end of each section of the narrative, and the connexions are not guaranteed.12

The works of ohannes Weiss~'!..-and....Juli!!!!. We1J!1ause~::V'. served to stren en the view that Mark is not, mere histo~ and to call attention to the activit)' of the early Christian community b"the fomJation-of Mark. .. dy By the early part of the twentieth century the .cDtical of the Synoptic Gospels had arrived at the followmg posittons: (1) The "two document" hypothesis.- was acc~£te~ ~ark \l.D~. \// Q served as sources-for Matthew and LUlie. (2.)...Both Mark .../fi ';'"d Q, as well as Matthew and Luke, were influenced by the

:.ru

----......

~_.-

"Albert Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of qod: The SeC1'~ of /eS1J8' Messiahship and Passion, trans. Walter Lowne (New York. Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1914). 331--32 "Schweitzer Quest of the Historical/estIS, pp. . V denhoeck "johannes Weiss, Das iilteste Evangelium (COttingen: an nod'Ruprecht, 1903). E I' Marel (Berlin' Reimer) was uJulius Wellhausen Das vange lurn lari eel published in 1903, ";d in the next five years oommen es appear on Matthew, Luke, and John.

9

/

'" TIlE ORIGINS OF FORM CRITICISM

' !h~ot()giSal views of the early church. (3 )__~~rk.A!'_d_~ con-:: ,~-ta!!.l~!Lnotonly early authentic mat~ri~sbut also materials_of later d~e. Therefore, the discipline of source criticism did ~ ~6ot bring scholars to pur~ historical sources which allowed them to arrrve at an unbiased primitive view of the earthly Jesus. Some other tool was necessary! But what tool could be used to pry beyond Mark and Q into the preliterary stage of the Synoptic Gospels? THE POSSIBILITY FOR THE DISCIPLINE, GUNKEL'S STUDY OF LEGENDS

A s,tudy of the early oral stages of a literature known to us only 10 a l.ater wntten form sounds like an impossibility I But the truth IS that studies had been undertaken which would enable .scholars to pry back into the preliterary stages of the Synoptic Gospels. The scholar who made the greatest direct ~ c?ntnbution by showing the actual possibility of fonn criti--:4\ ~Ism.was lk!rpann Gunkel, an Old T estJ,menLscholar..-He -iphed-form eritieism to the first book of tbJ'JliblJ'J G~esis. he fu:st.fhle.lJ09ks_Qfthe .Old.Testament (kno\m.colkcti';;;ly as the -7 Pentateuch) . many ways the Gospels ~-_ ..~ para 11I e 10 of the 1L( e~esJa!!leAt. Although tradition attributes them to ~es as tradition attributes the Gospels to the apostles), a careful study of the materials indicates that they assumed their Pdresentform over a long period of time and that a number of '; no longer extan t , were used in the composition ,f' ofocuments th boc ks

r;o,!:;-.~"") '"'jl.,.t

,J . "I' ~"~ '"
"Teacher we know that you are true. and care or no man, fr~odu

do not re' ard the position of men, but truly teach the way 0 . y them, Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? S.houIhdwe.dPa th " len' their hypocnsy e Sal to em, or should we not? But o~g . d 'let me look at it.· ~>;!.;t ::u~h:h:n~~Sf..~I;'~ s:d So ili~~::~?seJ~u:n:~;,,~ inscription is this?" They sal~ or: Caes:..r's and to God them "Render to Caesar the gs zed t the things that are God's." And they were ama a .

ili::t

bun

The following units (with parallels in other Gospels at times) are also judged to be pure paradigms. Mark 2:1-12, 18-22, 'Dlbelius, From TradUlon to e;"spel, p. 25.

"I THE DISCIPUNE APPLIED BY DIBELIUS AND BULTMANN

23-28,3:1-5,20--30,31-35; 10:13-16; 12:13-11; 14:3-9. Other less pure paradigms include: Mark 1:23-27; 2:13-11, 6:1-.Q; 10:17-22, 35-40, 46-52; 11:15-19; 12:18--23, Luke 9:51-56; 14:1--{j. From a study of the paradigms themselves Dibelius finds .!~ess~.ntial characteristics: (I) independence from the literary ,:,ntext, (2) firevity-:aif't s!rI)£liC:iD'~li'[trse as.examples ill a sermon, (3) religious rather than artistic coloring and style~ (qr::a.@.~ctic style often causing'th~' words of J eSlls to" ~and. ~ut S.l.~!!~ly, and (5) an ending in a thought useful for I'~g~s!!: wg..:". word or act of Jesus,01'''the reaction of the onlooke!:~

=

Jalf', . The tales in the Gospels are stories of Jesus' miracles which originate in their present form not preachers but WIth storytellers and teachers who related the stories from the life of Jesus "broadly, with colour, and not without art," Indeed, ·'1itera.':-!i4tYl",i!Lre'portin~miraelfy, a-fea~e which we nllsse'! on the whole from. Paradigms, ... appears inthe T,tles-' with a certain regularity."lO The style of the tales compares WIth the style of similar stories from ancient to modern times: First ~omes the history of the illness, then the technique of ~e miracle, and finally the success of the miraculous act. 'Tales belong to a.higher grade of literature than paradigms."!' . The first tale ill Mark is the healing of a leper (Mark 1.40-45). (The miracle recounted in 1:23-27 is a paradigm, not a tale.)

,~rrh

~~d a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, you will, ~ou can make me clean." Moved with pity, he stretched"out hI.s hand and touched him) and said to him, "I will;

bf clean. And Immediately the leprosy left him and he was made c edan.'dAndhhiesternly charged him, and sent away at once answto'''S I'at you say nothing to anyone' but go ' m, ee t sh ow yourself ' t . and 0 fIer for your cleansing what " Moses d d to th e pnes

him

Cornman e

I

for a proof to the people." But he went out and be-

ga~Jo ta~ freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus co d DO I anger openly enter a town, but was out in the COWltry· an peop e came to him from every quarter. ' 'Ibid., p. 70. Hlbid.,p. 82. ulbid., p.I03.

22

LITERARY FORMS AND THEIR

srrz

1M LEBEN

Other Synoptic tales are found in the following units: Mark 4:35-41; 5:1-20, 21--43; 6:35--44, 45-52; 7:32-31; 8:22-26; 9: 14-29, Luke 1: 11-16. The tales are similar to paradigms in that they are individual stories complete in themselves." But in almost every ?ther way they differ. The tales are much longer than paradigms, and they contain a greater breadth of description due to storytellers and teachers "who understand their art and who love to exercise it."13There is also a "lack gUk ..QQ!.iJ).nal QJQtiQes..rmd

~ad.':'!!!....r..~i.!£!!! ..}?'L~t':'!!!!!!f.of J!!.EE....9!_ g~"!'!a~.Ea!1J{14 in the tales. The conclusions do not contain material useful for preaching such as we find in paradigms. Clear~y the tales do not playa part in the sermon ~ d~ the paradIgms. They exist for the pleasure of the narr~elf. -Tales or~~ted!.~accordi?g to D~belius, ~n three .ways: by .....Ef..IJding p~ra:I..ig!,~. by" mb:o~UClI~.~.J~elgp .J!',!h~,_.or ..!!y borrowi!J.gJo!.~~~~Lfhe process of extending para. igms was somewhat automatic when the paradigms were set free from their context in a sermon. The storytellers and teachers, "men who were accustomed to narrate according to the plan of the usual miracle-stories or in the style of. current anecdotes.T" introduced a richer miracle content mto the paradig~ and they employed all the usual ?arrat.ive elem~nts to make the tales lively. Also, brief paradlgmahc narratives were extended by employing motifs perhaps strange to the original paradigm. For example, Dibelius feels that the story of Jesus walking on the water (Mark 6:45-52 and pa.rallel passage, Matt. 14:22-33) may hav~ resul.ted from th.e. introduction of an epiphany motif (mamfesta:lOn of ~e divine on earth) into a primitive narrative of Jesus mten:enmg helpful.ly in a difficulty caused by winds and waves. At times non-Christian stories were simply taken over as wholes. f th healin of the woman with the issue and the account 0 e. gouse of Jairus is an exception. liThe at· lalSIJ:lg from the dead In the I t ly destroy the structure of the tempt to separate them wou 1d comp e e. ., lb·d 72 .!he

main, together with the subsidiary narrative. ulbid., p. 76. ulbid., p. 79. ulbid., p. 99.

I.,

p.

.

I..

"-I

THE DISCIPUNE APPLIED BY DIBELIUS AND BULTMANN

/

~gends. Legends, "religious narratives of a saintly man in whose works and fate intereSt is taken ';'-a;:;'-;;e-iil-ih,;cnurcrr to satisfy .. double-d';-;ir;:}he'deSire t;-=~ow something of the ~.E:'an vlftueunc!.J"t of the hol)L.Illi:JLJlna-wo'"ii'Wn ill )lj ,.l~ry_oiJesu~and th~ desire which gradually developed to ~know ~.!!LlnJl1'i~11mJhis_way. The story of Jesus when he IS twe ve years old (Luke 2:41-49) is the story of Jesus which show~ most clearly the qualities of legend. It l~ natural to think of legend as entirely unhistorical, and Dibellus a?knowledges that the religious interests of the narrator may lead to an unhistorical accentuation of the miraculous~l~oa glorifyi~g of the hero and to a transfiguration of his li~e. . Yet, Dibeltus stresses that it would be wrong to dcny ~Istoncal content to every legend in the Synoptic Gospels. A narrator of legends is certainly not interested in historical confirmah.on, nor does he offer any opposition to increasing ~,e material by analogies. But how much historical tradition he ania:,~n ill a legend depends on the charactcr of his tradition On y.

iMyth.

== ==

D~belius is convinced that the story of Jesus is not o mythologICal origin; the £..aradigms, the oldest witness of teprocess of formation of the tradition, do not tell of a mytho;gl~a~.~ero: __ A Christ mythology, evident in the letters of a~:b ;. ans~ late ,in.the process of the tr'l,dition's formation. . 1 e ,1~SJU ges that only to the small~tent is the Svnop'. tic tradItIOn of a mvtholo«t I h ' =-,gJ~,! c_amcter. The only narratives wh lCh d escnlbe a mytholog' I " ti b t ica event, a many·sided interacOn e ween mythological but not human persons"" are the records of the ba tismal miracle, (Mark 1:9-11 and arallel PIalssages),~mptation of [esus (Mark 1'12-13 andPparal e passages I, ana fh-- -",,--.-.:.:: . • passages). ~ e t.!;,!s.!!J~1!lation(Mark 9:2-8 and parallel o

Saying.. Although D'b I' terra1orthe"'S t' G I e IUS emphasizes the narrative rna. ynop IC ospeIs, he does deal with ~SJ\Y!!1gs_ "Ibrd .• p. 104, "Ibrd., p. 108. "I bid., p. 109 "Ibid., p, 271:

-

---------------~==~~=------

LITERARY FORMS AND THEm SITZ 1M LEBEN

....Q!J esus.

He finds preaching, especially catechetical instruction, as the place of formulation of such teachings, but he presupposes a law different from the law concerning narrative material to be at work in the sayings of Jesus. Just as the Jews of J esus' day took the rules of life and worship more seriously than they took historical and theological tradition, so the Chrts-j; ( tians treated the sayings of Jesus more senously than the nar- ~ ratives. The sayings of Jesus were important, for they dealt with Christian life and worship, and, when the early Christian teachers transmitted the early exhortation, the words of Jesus were naturally included. Dibelius reminds us in this connection that "all the sayings of Christian exhortation were regarded as inspired by the Spirit or by the Lord. Thus all of them appeared as exhortations 'in the Lord', if not as exhortations of the Lord."2. As the sayings of Jesus were transmitted, however, some modification took place. The tradition emphasized and strengthened the hortatory character of the words of Jesus and thereby altered the meaning and emphasis of words which were not originally hortatory. There was also a tendency to include ehrtstological sayings so as "to obtain from the ,words of Jesus not only solutions of problems o.r rulesJor ones own life but also to derive from them some Indications about the , d 1 "21 nature of the Person who had uttere t rem,

TheFormsof~ Bultmann does a detailed analysis of all the Syooptic material within the two generalAjvj.

TO FORM

CRITICISM

. Although Streeter and Headlam wrote after the work of men like Wr~de, Schweitz:r, Schmidt, Dibelius, and Bultmann, they wer.e.still basmg their work upon nineteenth century presup· positions. After the work of the earliest form critics however it c~uld .not simply be presupposed that Mark was ~ssentiall~ a histoneal presentation of Jesus of Nazareth which when s~pplemented from the other sources, would represe;t a reliable history of the life and teachings of Jesus. Such a thing must be proved, and the basic postulates of the form critics must be disproved. It is not surprising, therefore, that scholars attempted to refute the postulates which would deny to them the use of the sources as authorities for reconstructing a life of the earthly Jesus. . In 1932 C. H. Dodd challenged the assumption of form critiCISm regarding "The Fram 'work of the Gospel Narrative." In particular, he dealt with tne work of K. L. Schmidt. Dodd ackno.wledged that "Professor Schmidt seems to have made out his case. that the main stuff of the Gospel is reducible to short narrative. ~!:s, and that the framework is superimposed ~on ~es~ units, Dodd denied, however, that the order of ~ lumts IS ar?ltrary and that the framework is only an artifiCia construction. According id . to - Dodd, ~ , th ree d'ff J erent types of materials are eVI enced m Mark· . . larger complexes of .I . m d epen den.Lt!!"ts, .matena s, and an outline of the entir~I'nlstry of-~-;it 'tlf~ 'I Jesus. ~VIence eru out ine-urthe -epl,;re'li' • t major interest of D dd D dd· mrs ry, a course, was the I' . a . a put together some of the gcnetra Ithzmgthsummarieswhich Schmidt saw used in Mark to link oge er e separate episodes (th . 1 • 39.2:13. 3'7b-19. 4'33-34 ese mc ude 1:14--15,21-22, so:caIIed g'eneral: .' ; 6:7,.12-1~, 30) and found that the Izmg summaries give a ti I' narrative of the Galilean mi . . . con muous out me is it the work of the G Imls.try. !hlS IS not accidental, nor' and the units us . ospe writer himself, else the framework do. "Now if oue~ m t~e framework would fit better than they y ave III hand a set of pictures, and desire to

~.'O.~

'Thl, is the tltl. of an rtl I b 43 (1932) 396-400. It Dodd app.arI~g In E.pos/tory TIme. York, Scribn.r·, 1952), pp~ l:.~rlnted lD New 7enamenl Sl.dle. (No'; 'Dodd, New TOIla_ Sludiel; p. 3.

40

CHALLENGES TO FORM CRITICISM

frame them, you construct a frame to fit the pictures; but if you have in hand a set of pictures and a frame, not designed to fit one another, you must fit them as best you can, and the result may be something of a botch,"? The "botch" seen in thel Gospel of Mark is evidence that Mark had a traditional out- \ v line or frame with which he attempted to work. Dodd moved from the evidence in Mark itself to show that it is not intrinsically improbable that an outline of the ministry of Jesus in chronological order would be transmitted in the oral tradition. The primitive kerygma in Acts 10:37-41 and 13:23--31, for example, gives fragments of an outline of the life of Jesus. Dodd suggested that Mark attempted to present all of his materials within the traditional outline but the outline was at the same time too meager and too broad. It was far too limited to provide a setting for all of the narratives, but it also referred to some phases of the ministry for which Mark had no detailed narratives. In addition, some of the materials at Mark's disposal were already partially grouped topicaIIy instead of chronologically. Dodd suggested that Mark solved this problem by a compromise between a chronological and topical order. The conclusion Dodd drew is that "we need not be so scornful of the Marean order as has recently become the fashion. , . there is good reason to believe that in broad lines the Marean order does represent a genuine succession of events within which movement and development can be traced:' But it is clear that Dodd acknowledged a great measure of the presupposition of Schmidt and the form critics as far as the nature of the tradition is cor:cemed. EV~ .if it is acknowledged that Dodd proved his point (and this IS not generally acknowledged), the Gospel of Mark cannot be used as history in the v' same way that it was before the advent of form criticism. Dodd himself admitted that "we shaII not place in it [Mark] the implicit confidence it once enjoyed." < T. W. Manson, a noted English New Testament scholar and teacher, whose career continued until his death in 1958, remained throughout his lifetime much more confident of the

!.

I

'Ibid .• p. 9. 'lbl in the e ac to eyewitnesse Th . H must be qualified' ev ' s', e Ul ~ence of eyewitnesses back to P ter' " erythmg m Mark s Gospel does not go been madee erths tesbmony . "B u t w h en all qualifications have . an element in the fa , ti e presence of person' a Itt'es Imony IS . ~ma -ho process which it is folly to iznore ",. If the fa rm cntlcs woden the' H b • in the opinion of Ta ~or "I~ ~enc~ of eyewitnesses are right, lated to heaven im~ d.' t \ e /sclples must have been transTaylor's vi f ela.e yater the Resurrection.""' lew 0 rne origin of th t di -' view of Dibelius d B I e ra ttion differs from the the tradition altho:ngh itud:~~~' The church did not originate and deeds of Jesus and a I t~ the re~olleclIons of the words needs of daily life th pp Y em to Its needs. The practical . mg the faith and ' th e necessity _ of unde rst an dimg an d exp Iainkimdle rccollections ' e dnecessity of defe n dimg tIf' ie ait I1 " would deeds in the first ass;~'bF~o~rt the relating of !lis words and the tradition, it did not lCS.I ~s the church did not originate "ideal" elcment entered ~:~~t~: ter the tradItion, At timcs an misunderstood and d fJ tradition, circumstances were ' wor s 0 esus I d b o f those passing along tl t d-' co Ore y ideas and beliefs ' le ra IlIon But" h . I' . w at lS t lIS beyond th at W h lch we might ' h reasonably expect? W h IC implies the unt t h' ' , .. " reconstruction . rus wort mess of th tra d.i bon is wanting in r b bT . e greater part of the records."" p 0 a Iity and IS not just to the Gospel 'L

A

Some "forms" in the tradi!" does not feel that all of th Ion are found by Taylor, but he basis of forms The d': materials can be analyzed on the which oral tradition ~:~ IBm or apophthegm is a form "in not satisfied with th ra y elothes itself."1. But Taylor is e names used b Y D'b ' and Bultmann I elius -Ibid.,

p

:Jbid,.

Ibid., :lbid.,

41

P: 43:

41 37: .1 bid., p. 38. p, p.

lbill., p. 29.

48

.

CAUTIOUS USE OF FORM CRITICISM

.::J:.p..rgdigm~ . is too general and is too exclusively associatcd with the theory that the stories were formed under the influence of preaching," and '!!IJOphthegmata is literary rather than popular and, by concentrating attention-ioo much on the final word of Jesus, it almost invites a depreciatory attitude to the narrative element."41 Taylor suggests the term "Pronouncement-Stories," This leaves the possibility of ol'igin open and it emphasiZes the main element, a pronouncement of Jesus on some aspect of life, belief, or conduct. Taylor also sees good reason to assume the existence of another popular narrative form, called "miracle stories" by Bultmann and "tales" by Dibelius.

He chooses to use Bultrnann's

term "miracle stories,"

The general expression "Stories about Jesus" is uscd by Taylor for the remaining narratives about Jesus, for the material has no definite structural form. Although there is no one narrative form for these stories about Jesus, the narratives do have some common characteristics, "In almost all cases Jesus stands in the centre and usually secondary characters are not named or described. Conversations take place between two persons, or between Jesus and a group; in a few stories only, like the Penitent Thief, are three speakers introduced.T" Taylor suggests that these speeches show that practical aims rather than narrative interests were responsible for thc formation of the stories. He also suggests that the formative proccss of the stories about Jesus is more one of shortening than one of embellishment. Since "this is exactly what ought to be the history of genuine historical tradition .. , the result - .. of a study of the formal aspect of the Stories about Jesus is to strengthen

confidence

in their historical

value."

In this collection of sayings Jesus ranges his own mission in the prophetic succession. But are these sayings authentic? Do they rellect Jesus' conviction concerning himself or the church's convi~tion about Jesus? The church did interpret Jesus as the M?"uc servant-prophet, and the alleged sayings of Jesus using this category must be eliminated as church constructions. But the sayings in Matthew 23 present Jesus as a prophet in more general, non-Mosaic terms. "This material should not, therefore, be eliminated with the other titles as formations of the rost-Easte~ community."" These sayings, therefore, give us important msight into Jesus' concept of himself. "The finality of the judgments pronounced over Israel at the end of each of thes~ sa~?s (vv. 31, 36 and 38) indicates that Jesus thought of his rmssion not only as belonging to the same class as that of. t~e OT prophets, but as representing the final prophetic mISsIOnto Israel, and of his own rejection (and possible martyrdom) as the culmination of Israel's rejection of the word of Yah~e?"·. These sayings show us that "Jesus thought of his own mlSSlo~ n.ot Simply as one in the prophetic series, but as :he final mISSIon, bringing God's last offer of salvation and Judgment. ..... cIbid., p. 126 -Ibid., p, 129' -Ibid. '

74

--._.-

EXAMPLES

Norman Perrin has studied the Synoptic tradition from the viewpoint of form criticism, and his book, simply entitled Rediscoverina the Teaching of JesWl," is a full-scale study of the teaching Jesus. In some respects the work of Perrin is a continuation of the work of Jeremias (Perrin's teacher), for Perrin takes the kingdom of God as the central aspect of the ( teaching of Jesus and the parable as the major vehicle for the teaching. He places the parables in the context of Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom in first century Palestine and discovers the various aspects of the kingdom with which Jesus was concerned. But Perrin supplements the parables with numerous isolated sayings and similes of Jesus which serve to broaden the base for an understanding of Jesus' teaching and to sharpen the interpretation of specific teachings of Jesus. Perrin's treatment of several isolated sayings will illustrate his method, Perrin studies Luke Il: 20 and parallel passage, Matthew 12:28, to see what help it might give in understanding Jesus' teaching on the kingdom (cf. Fuller's view of this verse, above, page 69). He looks first at the larger setting and finds it to be at least as old as Q since both Matthew and Luke use the saying and setting, although in different. ways. Is "flnger~ ~r "spirit" original? Since "spirit" is a favorite Lukan word It IS difficult to conceive of him changing it to "finger; hence 'finger" must have been original. Is the entire complex of sayings in Matthew 12:25-30 (Luke Il: 17-23) original or have individual sayings been collected? Verses 27 and 28 may be omitted from the section and it reads much more smoothly and makes perfect sense. So the original tradition must have been Matthew 12:25, 26, 29, and 30, to which verses 27 and 28 were later added. Do verses 27 and 28 belong together originally? It seems inconceivable that they originally stood together since the ,:"nnection of the ~o ve~es makes the work of the Jewish exorcists as much a manifestation of the kingdom as Jesus' exorcisms: Hence, Perrin arrives at ~ isolated saying existing originally ill much the same form as It is in Luke Il:20: "But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you,"

J

"Norman Perrin, Rediscovering Harper, 1967),

1M Teaching

qf

J- (Now York:

75

~I

FORM CRITICISM AND THE CURRENT QUEST

)

)

Did Jesus say it or is it a creation of the church? Perrin claims, with Bultmann, that the saying "is full of that feeling of eschatological power which must have characterized the activity of Jesus."" It cannot be attributed to contemporary Judaism or to the church, for the use of "kingdom of God" in reference to the eschatological activity of God and the use of the verb "to come" in connection with this are not characteristic of Judaism or of the early church. "Further, the relating of the presence of the Kingdom to the present experience of a man is an emphasis unparalleled in [udaism/" The conclusion t~en is that ':Luke 11.20 represents a saying attributed to Jesus in the tradition, the authenticity of which may be regarded as established beyond reasonable doubt."67 This s~ying is very ,~elpful ~n understanding Jesus' teaching on the .kmgdom, for the claim of the saying is that certain events m the mmlstry of Jesus are nothing less than an exper;~nce of ~e Kmgdom of God." The saying shows also that the expenence of the individual, rather than that of the people as a .whole, has become .the focal point of the eschatological activity of G?d .. : . This concentration upon the individual a?d hIS expenen~ ISa striking feature of the teaching of Jesus, histoncally considered, and full justice m-ist be done to it in any interpretation of that teaching."'. . Matthew 11:12 (and parallel passage, Luke 16:16) is an unportant saying: Matthew 11:12 ~rom t~e days of John the Bat'tist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence

and men of violence take it by force.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom 01 God is preached, and every one enters

it Violently.

This al? is a Qsaym' g. 1sth eatM th ean or Lukan form more origi~ L~e.~~~n fonn gives evidence of being edited drastically u~. e Idea of one epoch ending with John and the p rase to preach the good news of the Kingd f G d' both Lukan, and the • .. on; 0 0 are everyone enters It VIOlently smooths out

h

"Ibid., p. 64"Ibid. "Ibid., p. 65.

"Ibid, p. m.

76

EXAMPLES

the linguistic and theological problems of the Matthean saying."" Hence, the Matthean form is to be preferred as more original, The saying reflects an estimate of John the Baptist, and the saying's authenticity can be judged by comparing it with the history of the tradition of John the Baptist in the church. The history of John the Baptist tradition in the church is the history of a continuous playing down of the Baptist, and since the saying in Matthew 11:12 reflects a high estimate of John the Baptist, it is to be attributed not to the church but to Jesus. A high estimate of the Baptist and a dependence of Jesus upon the Baptist "are inconceivable as products of a Christian community concerned to exalt its Lord and engaged in rivalry with a Baptist sect."60 The saying, then, is an authentic saying of Jesus which "looks back upon the Baptist as one whose ministry marks the 'shift of the aeons'" and envisions "an aeon of conflict, of victory and defeat, of achievement and disappointment, of success and failure."?' The saying may have been originally inspired by the fate of the Baptist and to this extent the present editorial setting may be correct. The saying confirms "that the time of God's activity as king is now, and that the form of this activity can be envisaged in terms of conflict. But it also adds a strange, new note: the conflict can issue in defeat as well as victory. The outcome of the battle may be sure, but the casualties are going to be real, not sham."'" Scholars remain convinced that a full scale biography of Jesus cannot be written; but they are not generally skeptical ( today about tbe possibility of a historical study of the earthly Jesus. Although scholars are more confident of rediscovering the original teachings of Jesus, they have also used fonn criticism for recovering historical events in Jesus' life. Reginald H. Fuller, for example, has given a rather full outline of the authentic Jesus tradition in which he traces major events in the life of Jesus from the baptism to the burial, gives a detailed outline of the message of Jesus (his teaching on the kingdom, Slbid., p, 75. sIbid. ~Ibid., pp. 76-77. -Ibid., p. 77.

77

-~- ~-::-:----:-----:---====---

p

FORM CRITICISM AND TIlE CURRENT QUEST

deman~ f.o~radical obedience, and teaching about God), specifies actiV1ti~ of ~esus, and even. lists authentic teachings of Jesus regarding his fate." Fuller s outline of authentic narrative ma~e.ri:Ush.ows the positive results achieved by the use of form criticism m a study of events in the life of the earthly Jesus. I Form criticism as carried out by scholars today is proving \, t? be a yrofitable and positive tool for a study of the Synoptic tradl~o~ and ~e life of Jesus. Its negative and skeptical \ characteristics contmue to be important became of the nature , of the tradition, but form criticism has succeeded in helping us to determine a great many authentic elements in the Gospel tradition of the life and teachings of Jesus. "Redginald H. Fuller.

(Lo n

00:

A Critical Introduction to the New Testament Duckworth, 1966), pp. 99-102.

Glossary

CHRISTOLOGy-A theological interpretation of the person and work of Christ. DOGMA-Ateaching or body of teachings concerning religion formally and authoritatively proclaimed by a church. ESCHATOLOGy-A teaching concerning last things. the end of the world. Apocalyptic eschatology views the end as brought about by God's intervention, whereby he destroys the ruling powers of evil and restores the righteous to life in his kingdom. EXlSTENTIAL-COncernedwith an individual as ragicalll( free and, responsible. See Existentialism.

EXlm-~-;:;;;"::A

philosophy centered upon the analysis of the

existence of individual human beings, stressing the freedom and responsibility of the individual, the_ uniqu~~ess of an ethical or religious situation, and the su"blective experience of

anliiCITvla:ual'Tu thatsitu-atioD.-- ,~"" _.' -- JEW1S--;C-';'S~.:"iteTa;;g to ili';-:prlmitive Christianity of the Jews. In the earliest period of the Christian movement. Jewish followers of Jesus Christ did not cease being Jews, but interpreted Jesus in light of their Jewish heritage. KERYGMA...., The apost9.!ic_p:rlllI.9..JW1gJ;'()_l}~gJ esus Cl!!:!!!MESSIAH,

OT

CHRIST-The

Hebrew term "messiah" means "anointed

one" and refers to the expected king and deliverer of the Jews. "Christ- is a translation into Greek of the Hebrew term "messiah:' SYNOPTIC GOSPELs-Thefust three Gospels of the New Testament, so called because they take a common view of the events in the life of the earthly Jesus. TRADmON-The process of handing down informatioD,beliefs, and customs from one generation to another and the information, beliefs, and customs thus handed down.

79

78

ANNOTATED WEISSE,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHRISTIAN

Hartel,

Die evangelische Geschichte kriti9ch bearbeitet. 2 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf und

HERMANN.

und philosophisch

1838. Weisse points out that Mark represents was the common source for the narrative

ment which

Annotated Bibliography

of Matthew combined

and Luke and theorizes that Matthew

with this source

another common

a documaterial

and Luke

source of sayings

of Jesus. WILLIAM. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstiindnis des Markusevangeliums. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Huprecht, 1901. Second edition [unrevised}, 1913. Third edition {unrevised}, 1963. Wrede attempts to demonstrate that Mark was shaped by the dog.

WREDE,

matic theory of the Messianic Secret, that the historical and dogmatic elements are combined in Murk by the claim that

Jesus concealed the fact of his Messtahshrp. THE ORIGINS OF FORM CRITICISM

ALBERT. Das Messianitats-und 'Leidensgeheimnis, Etne Skizze des Lebens [esu, Tubingen und Leipzig: 1901. English translation by WALTER LOWRIE, The Mystery of the Kingdom of Cod: The Secret of Jesus' Messi~hshjp and Passion. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1914. ___ . Von Reimerus zu Wrede. Tubingcn. Mohr, 1906. English translation by W. MONTGOMERY, The Quest of the Historical Jesus. London: A. and C. Black, 1910; paperback ed., New York: Macmillan, 1961. A record of the attempts from 1778

SCHWEITZER, REIMARUS,

"

J unger.

SAMUE V On d em Zwecke [esu und seiner h' L. oc em Fragment de· W If bu I I Edited b G. s 0 en iitte se 'ten Unge-

HERMANN

. N

nannlen.

. J orn-IOLD EPHRAIM Gf , EI . Lessmg '..'1718 Th'l.~was t hI'e argest o

t re seven

fragments

of Reimarus

Brunswick' and most important published b Lessin LESSING.

anobnYhmed°usly in a journal. The second half of the book wa~ pu ISl of Brief CIn 't'EnglIsh I R as Fragments f Tom Reimarus, Consisting n tea emarks on th Ob' f . Disci les ce seen L e sect 0 Jesus and hIS p as seen In the New Testament Edit d b C VOYSEY.

London:

William

.

1

e

y

to 1901 to write a life of Jesus, demonstrating that scholars failed to reach the historical Jesus because they read their own ideals into the sources. Schweitzer emphasizes particularly that liberal scholars missed the eschatological and that Jesus was an apocalyptic fanatic who, disappointed in his expectation of God's intervention, attempted to force the eschaton by

~IU.ES

Lexington, Kentuck . Al s, and Norgate, 1879, Reprinted, tion, 1~62. y. nencan 1heologfcal Library AssociaDAVID FRIEDRICH D Leb 2 vols. Tlibingen- C 0 en lesu, kritisch beosbeitet; lation of fourth ~dition' (l~:3der, 1835, 1836. English tra~sof Jesus Critically E ,} by GEORGE ELIOT, The LIfe Brothers, 1846. Straus xa~me . 3 vols, London: Chapman is out 01 the questi s shows that, generally speaking, John

F a.:

STRAUSS,

of

Jesus.

on

as

a

source for historical

as Mark, Mark reproduc

80

and

Luke

agree

~~l w edi~they bave the same order e e tra tion closest to the original.

Cottingcn:

Vanden-

hoeck und Ruprecht, 1903. \Veiss treats Marean sonrces and, although referring to the "Apostolic" source, anticipates the work of the form critics in that he sees the influence of the church on the development of the units of tradition.

understanding

BAUR,FERDINANDCHRISTIAN K" h kanonischen Evangelien' T'~~'lSC e Untersuchungen uber die confirms the conclusion' f ~ mgen: L. F. Fues, 1847. Baur O torically valuable t d't rbauss that Jonn possesses no his· ra I IOn a out Jes b h John was not intended t b h' us, ut e stresses that o e a Istoncal account LACHMANN, KARL. "De Ord' . . . ticis,"' Theologische Stu:t::n n:tionu:n m evangeHis synopw Lachmann concludes th t. Krihken, 8 ( 1835 ), 570 jf, with each other in order a . I Sll1C~ Matthew

his own sufferings. WEISS, JOHANNES.Das iilteste Evangelium.

JULIUS. Das Evangelium Alard. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1903. ___ . Das Evangelium Matthaei. Berlin: G. Rcimer, 1904.

WELLHAUSEN,

_. ___

Vas Evangelium Lucae. Berlin: C. Reimer,

1904.

. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1905. In these works on the Synoptic Gospels Wellhausen

attaches

great importance

to the activity

of the church

in the fonnation of the primitive tradition and anticipates some of the work of. the form critics.

81

ANNOTATED

h

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.

GONXEL HERMANN Gene' 813. G"ottingen: . Vandenhoeck und Ru ~~cl~' li~l; seventh edjtio~ (a reprint of the third ed. ~ W C::·~he mtrodu?tlOn to Genesis was translated by The Biblical Sa aa~~ published as The Legends of Genesis: Gunk I I' d H~story. New York: Schocken, 1964. . e a~~ ies arm cnttctsm to the units of Genesis and ro",Ides a critical procedure for a study of th it f h S P tic Gospels. e um sot e ynop-

J'

r

SCHMIDT,KARLLUDWIG D R h d arkritische U t' '/ er a men er Gesehichte [esu, Litern ersuc lUngen ZUT .'Zt t j ..b . Berlin: Trowitzsch und S I a es e~ esusu erliejerung. blow to faith in the M a 1919. TIllS book ga,ve the final vidual units fro th afcan ramework, Schmidt isolated indiother scholars cla e lframework and prepared the way for to study the contrib :SI y afnthdstudy the individual units and D u IOn 0 e editor or author of the Gospel. mELIUS, MARTIN. Die F ht h gen: J. C. B. Mohr, lc;:~gesc Ie te des Evange~iums. Tubinman edition (1933) b B' Enghsh translation or second Gerto Gospel. New York. ~h~~;:-'M LEE :-V00LF, From Tradition German edition (1959) co Scnbner s Sons, 1934. The third criticism since Dibell D~tal~San ess,ay by G. Iber on form to a study of the n rati ibelius applies Gunkel's principles In retrospect he is seen ive material of the Synoptic tradition. as a conservative form critic. -. jesus. Berlin' W de Gm jesus. Translated by CHARLES~te~ 1939. English translation, GRANT. Philadelphia' W .' E~"IJmCKand FREDERICKC. tion of Dibelius' fonn' 'tiesrm~er Press, 1949. An applicateachings of Jesns. en ca me ad to a study of the life and

t:

't.

BULTMANN,RUDOLF. Die Gesch' h Gottingen: Vandenhoeck '~~ der synoptischen Tradition. Iarged) edition, 1931 Th'u~ di ~precht, 1921. Second (enedition with supplem~nt Ir e ltion (reproduction of second o.f third eclition by JOH" ~ZRnotes), 1958. English translation tlon. New York' Harper a d ~H, HIstory of the Synoptic Tradiof the entire SYnoptic ~d.ti oW 1963. This was the lirst study criticism. Bulbnann atte ' ~ on rO,m the perspective of Conn tion and to show the f mp to wnte the history of rhe tradiorces at work th d' . f anne d .a.nd transmitted. This b k o.n e .tra Ihon as it was fonn cnticism. 00 J.S basIC to modem day

i

-.

Die Erforschung der . Topelmann, 1925. English tr syntp.tISchen Tradition. Ciessen: "The Study of the S . ans ation by FREDERICKC GRANT Essays on New Test!rlOptiRC Gospels," Form Critic;;m: Tw~ ment esearch Ed't d b G RANT. New York. W'll . ley FREDRICKC ol .. . ,ett, Clark and C 1934 ..' pop ar expoSItion of the meth d I be 0., . TIllS IS a e In the History of the Syno t' aTad a. rated much more fully pIer ilIOn.

82

ANNOTATED

___

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. jesus. Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926. English translation by LOUISE PETITIlONE SMITH and ERMINIE HUNTRESS LANTEHO, lesus and the Wo·rd. New York: Charles Scribner's: Sons, 1934; available in paperback, "Scribner Library," 1958. A treatment of the message of [esus based on Bultmann's understanding of the history of the Synoptic tradition:

STREETER, BURNETT HiLLMAN. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924, Revised edition, 1930. A comprehensive summary of the results of the study of the Gospels to his day. His original contribution is the "four doeument" theory of Gospel origins. EARLY SCHOLARLY

EVALUATION

AND

USE OF FORM

CRITICISM

FASCHER,ERIC. Die formgeschieht/lche Method. Giessen: Topelmann, 1924. A history and evaluation of form criticism as it had developed to 1924. Fascher stresses the limitations of form criticism and declares that form criticism itself does not establish the authenticity or lack of authenticity of units of the tradition. EASTON, BURTON SClYIT. The Gospel Before the Gospels. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928. A cautious American introduction to form criticism. Like Fascher, he stresses the limitations of fonn criticism as a historical tool. MANSON,T. W. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931. The study of Jesus' teachings based on the view that the earliest written sources are basically historical. ___ . Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Edited by MATTHEW BLACK. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. A collection of lectures of Manson given between 1939 and 1953. In these lectures Manson affirms his belief in the historicity of the Gospels. DonD, C. H. "'The Framework of the Gospel Narrative; Expository Times, 43 (1932),396-400. Reprinted In New Testament Studies. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952. Dodd attempts to show that the arrangement of the units in Mark is based at least in part upon a traditional framework of the history of Jesus. TAYLOR,VINCENT.The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan, 1933. Second edition, 1935. A cautious introduction to fonn criticism which acknowledges its usefulness as a limited tool. LrCIITFOOT, ROBERT HENRY. History and Interpretation Gospels. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935.

In

83

the

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

-.

Locality and Doctrine and Stoughton, 1938.

in the Cospels, London:

Hodder

The Gospel Message O f S M k Press, 1950. In thes k t ar. Oxford: Clarendon criticism to the E ,: ~vor S ~lghtfoot both introduces form to use the disciplinnegtIS ctpeakmg academic world and begins Gospel writers Thi 0 iscover the theological message of the . IS aspect of th di ." f "red . e iscipune 0 form criticism h as become known as re action criticism:' RmsENFELD. HARALD. The Gos el '. . .. A Study in the Limit f!.'F Tradition and it« Beginnings: Mowbrny and Co.,m~;5~ .ormgeschichte." London: A. R. the Gospel rrad iti . Rtesenfeld attempts to show that 1 on was deny d f J the tradition was pa Ide rom esus himself and that tradition. ssec own carefully as was the rabbinic -.

BIRGER Me and Written Tra~