My Thanks to Sam for submitting this essay
The Webmistress
Discuss the value of Form Criticism to our understanding of the miracles of Jesus, with particular reference to the Calming of the Storm and the Feeding of the Five Thousand.
In their study of the miracles, critics will aim to consider the historicity of the miracles, the reason for the stories being in the gospels and their theology. In response to these questions, Form Critics consider the literary form of the stories. Using this and concentrating their studies on the period of Oral Transmission (up to about AD65), they attempt to ascertain the Sitz im Kirche (use in the Early Church) and Sitz im Leben (life setting) of the pericopae. Through this analysis, they aim to come to an understanding of the relevance and meaning of the miracles. They seek to rediscover the original words and actions of Jesus, discover the relevance of the story to the Early Church and determining the reason for the story appearing in the form it does.
In questioning the historicity of the miracle stories, the form critics attempt to make comparisons with other forms of literature, particularly parallel miracle stories in other settings. Dibelius would suggest that the miracle stories are in the gospels to prove Jesus’ messianic status and to demonstrate his superiority to heathen Gods and miracle workers. Thus, he claims, "Gentile-Christian narrators would hand on stories of gods, saviours, and miracle-workers, re-cast as applying to the Christian saviour". Therefore, he and other form critics compare the Gospel miracle stories to others that may have been present at the time of writing. The three-fold structure of need, action and reaction, identified by Dibelius in the gospel miracle stories, is comparable to a similar form found in many Hellenistic miracle stories. This may suggest that these stories had influence on the Gospel miracle stories. A more noticeable comparison can be made between the story of the healing of a dead girl by the miracle worker Appolonius of Tyana and the healing of Jairus’ daughter. Bultmann recognised the similarity between Appolonius, who brings the girl back to life with a touch and an incantation, and Jesus, who "took her by the hand and said to her ‘Talitha cum’, which means, ‘Little girl, get up!’"(Mk5:41). Some form critics explain these similarities by referring to ‘storytellers’ who would be employed by the church to create stories about Jesus to show his superiority, making use of comparable stories at the time.
However, as the form critic Vincent Taylor noted, there are problems with this view of the miracle stories. Taylor observed that the miracle stories in the Gospel often played down the miraculous element of the story, especially in comparison to other stories. He also identified that, unlike most contemporary miracle stories, the miracles of Jesus demonstrate his compassion for people. Another important difference is that, whilst the miracle workers contemporary to Jesus used magic implements or special incantations (for instance a special ring and words were used by an exorcist described by Josephus), Jesus used merely a touch or a single word of command. Clearly, there is some Hellenistic influence on the miracles, as identified by the Form Critics, but the impact seems more superficial, having an effect on the use of language rather than the content. Furthermore, it seems likely that many of the Hellenistic miracle stories were an attempt to surpass those about Jesus rather than vice versa (for example, the Gospels predate stories about Appolonius). Whilst these insights were interesting from an historical viewpoint, they, in reality, helped little in exegesis.
As well as comparing the Gospel miracle stories to those in contemporary literature, the Form Critics consider the form of the miracle stories themselves. They use this to answer the essential questions about the stories’ historicity and theology, providing a much more valuable aid to understanding the miracle stories. Whilst most miracles fall into the Form critical group of "miracles proper" (which will be considered shortly), the critics identified certain "pronouncement miracle stories". In these stories, the Form critics would claim that the miracle is designed to enshrine a phrase or teaching of Jesus. In the case of the healing of the man with the withered hand, it can be seen that Jesus’ attitude to the Sabbath and not the healing of the man is the main concern. There is minimal detail concerning the healing, but the controversy surrounding a healing on the Sabbath is emphasised. It is Jesus’ rhetorical question, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?"(Mk3:4), with its implications of a new order of love, superseding the Torah, which is the focus of the pericopae. Some form critics would identify the saying as one of Jesus, but the miracle story in which it is placed as an Early Church creation, designed to enshrine the teaching and use it for polemic purposes, for instance in debates with the local synagogue.
Other than "pronouncement stories", form critics would identify miracles in the category "miracle stories proper"; these are then described as either healing miracles, exorcisms or nature miracles. An important feature of the healing miracles, first noted by Dibelius, is their three-fold structure, where there is initially a description of the problem, followed by Jesus’ action in solving that problem, then the reaction of the crowd or disciples. This discovery enabled the form critics to examine the stories from a literary perspective, considering the length of each section and thereby where the emphasis lies. Furthermore, through comparison between different Gospel accounts and further analysis of form, they attempted to identify accretions, thereby establishing both the Sitz im Kirche and providing an indication of the original words and actions of Jesus.
The "nature miracle", The Feeding of the Five Thousand, has far fewer differences between the three versions than many of the miracles found in the synoptic gospels. However, Form Criticism can still make a valuable contribution to the understanding of this miracle, encouraging an investigation of the theology behind the miracle rather than a blind acceptance of its truth. Bultmann and Taylor see the origin of the story in the Old Testament, identifying many links, particularly with Moses. The grouping of the men ("by hundreds and fifties" in Mark and "in companies, about fifty each" in Matthew) is a typical Jewish method, seen in Exodus where Jethro tells Moses to dwindle the workers in to groups with sub-leaders. The 12 baskets left over make an unmissable reference to the 12 tribes of Israel, whilst the connection between Moses and Jesus is further extended as Jesus mirrors the miraculous feeding of Moses in the wilderness. These references show the eschatological significance of the miracle story, as Jesus is portrayed as the new Moses, surrounded by Israel, foretelling the restoration of Israel. Through these descriptions, the story presents a picture of the messianic banquet; God is present with his people.
This enlightenment as to the meaning of the miracle given by Form Critics leads onto a realisation of the Eucharistic significance of the story. The story appears to refer to the Eucharist, Jesus’ actions ("looked up to heaven, blessed and broke loaves") strongly mirroring the events at the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist. Through this the Form Critics present a possible Sitz im Kirche, that the story may have been used by the church in teaching about the Eucharist and its significance (this seems the most likely Sitz im Kirche, although Mark’s emphasis of the disciples' incredulous response suggests a dual purpose of exhortation to faith). The clear relevance to the church has led some Form Critics to suggest that this miracle is in fact a dramatisation of an event in Jesus’ ministry, although this is influenced by a predisposition not to accept supernatural events. Caird proposes that "Oral tradition has turned into miracle what was originally an impressive act of prophetic symbolism". Most Form Critics do not accept the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, suggesting instead that the generosity of the boy in giving his lunch prompted similar kindness from others in the crowd. Another suggestion is that the meal was similar to the Eucharist, intended to satisfy spiritual rather than physical hunger.
The Stilling of the Storm causes equal problems for many Form Critics who cannot accept the presence of an example of an intervention by God in the natural order of the laws of nature. This demonstrates the Form critics’ presupposition that any supernatural events were unacceptable. Thus Bultmann maintains in The New Testament and Mythology that "it is impossible to use the electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles". This gives many of the form critics a degree of cynicism when considering the origination of the Stilling of the Storm. Some critics, particularly Bultmann and Dibelius, see the miracle as an early church invention, created from Old Testament texts. They point to Psalm 104, verses 6 and 7:
"The waters stood above the mountains.
At thy rebuke they fled."
The word "rebuke" is the same in both the psalm and the miracle. However, it seems far-fetched that this should have been the basis for the whole miracle. Instead, other form critics suggest it is actually a dramatisation of actual events or a complete early church creation.
Despite the dismissal of the Stilling of the Storm as an early church creation by many form critics, form critical methods can still be used to help in the understanding of the miracle. The Stilling of the Storm shows clearly the 3-fold structure of need, actions and reaction identified by Blomberg, similar to the technique used in Hellenistic miracle stories (eg. in Mk, the ‘need’ is vs 35-38, ‘action’ is vs 39-40 and ‘reaction’ is vs 41). In addition, as noted by Gerhardsson, the miracle has a tightly structured literary form where the end balances the beginning, the penultimate line balances the second line and so on. By considering the nature of the miracle, critics such as Nineham and Bultmann establish possible Sitz im Kirche for the miracle, suggesting how the miracle was used in the early church. Nineham considers the symbolism of the storm itself which he sees as representing the demonic forces (storms being seen by Jews as evidence of creation in rebellion against God) whilst Jesus’ ‘sleep’ is an example of the perfect trust in God that should be held by believers. Thus he suggests a Sitz im Kirche of exhortation to persevere under suffering. Dibelius extends this to suggest that the early church may have used the story to demonstrate Jesus’ Lordship over nature and his superiority to other miracle workers.
Despite the very valuable insights gained, Form Criticism, as with any critical method, had flaws. Most central to these is the presupposition of the inaccuracy of the oral period, assuming that the Early Church had little interest in preserving an accurate record. There is little evidence for this: Luke himself aims to "set down an orderly account" to transmit "the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed" and there are examples of verifiable facts throughout the gospels. Gehardsson and Riesner both suggested that it was clear from many phrases used by Jesus that they were designed to be memorised in the tradition used by many rabbis and their students, particularly since learning by heart was a strong part of the contemporary culture. Furthermore, at the time of the Gospels being written there were still eye witnesses and those who had heard directly from eye witnesses, making it likely that accuracy was, for the most part, preserved.
However, Form Criticism has clearly had a valuable effect on the understanding of miracles, providing insights into their theology and historicity through the study of form and correlations between Gospel material and that from other sources. Most importantly, they have encouraged the critical study of the miracle stories, demonstrating the value and need for interpretation. Whilst there are weaknesses in their method, the form critics have greatly advanced understanding of the miracle stories and revolutionised the way in which they are studied, giving a serious consideration of the importance of the genre within the context of the life of the Early Church.