Miracles and Biblical Criticism

My thanks go to Rachel who has submitted this essay!

This is a study essay, exploring the issues in much more depth than would be possible within the 45 minutes of exam time. The author is a strong candidate who completed this essay in the second term of Year 12.

Note the flow of ideas, the effective use of examples from set miracles to illustrate points made, and the good evaluation of scholarly views and assumptions. Effective evaluation can raise your essay marks by two or more grades.

The Webmistress comments:

a) Assess the contribution made by form criticism to an understanding of the miracle stories in the synoptic gospels. Illustrate your answer by reference to at least two miracles which you have studied. (15)

b) To what extent has redaction criticism provided further understanding of the miracle stories? (10)

You are invited to show that you understand and can evaluate Form Criticism. Note 'at least' in the title. You are invited to comment on more.

Note the evaluative element of the (b)

The main aim of the form critics was to establish what was happening to the traditions of Jesus during the oral period of transmission, and in doing so try to establish the theology of the miracles (why they were included in the gospels) having done this they tried to strip the layers of early church accretions (adaptations and additions ) in order to return to the "historical Jesus" and so establish the historicity of the miracles.

Rachel gets straight to the point, giving an effective summary of the aims and objectives of Form Critics.

The form critics particularly Bultmann distinguished three main types of miracle stories. Firstly pronouncement miracle stories, in which a saying by Jesus is the main focus and not the miracle itself which simply provided a context in which to set the saying. For example the healing of the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath (Mk3:1-6) is primarily revealing Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath rather than recording the miracle. The second category of miracle was the miracle story proper which can be sub-divided into two categories. The healing miracle with a three fold structure containing a description of the setting, the cure and then the result or the patients response, which Bultmann likened to miracles be Hellenistic wonder workers in both format and features, as Bultman considered the miracles in the gospel to "form no integral part of the Gospel narratives..and form no integral part of the original good news of salvation". (D Senior). However, as shall be considered later the miracles in the gospels are not really comparable to Hellenistic literature. Nature miracles was the second type of miracle stories proper and again Dibelius identified a three- fold structure which is particularly apparent in the stilling of the storm and the walking on the water. The final category of miracle was the summaries of miracles, which are defined by D Senior as being "generalisations based on the individual stories rather than memories of numerous miracles really worked by Jesus". There are many examples of summary paragraphs particularly in Mark's gospel, for instance in Mk 1:34 where Jesus is described as healing "many of those who were sick with all kinds of diseases."

A useful section on the method of categorizing miracles used by Form Critics.

Rachel has used good examples to support her points.

Nice Quote.

Work of Dibelius mentioned.

Each of the form critics held slightly different views about the miracles and their purpose and origin and therefore each gave their own individual answer as to why the miracles were included in the gospels. Bultmann believed that the miracle stories were part of the whole culture as people believed in miracles and expected them of any important leader. Bultmann justifies this view by reference to some miracle stories in the gospels which have parallels in Hellenistic literature. For instance there is a record of a healing by Appolonius of Tyana, a well- known miracle worker around at the time of Jesus. On one occasion Appolonius offers to interfere when a girl is being taken to her funeral - on the day she was supposed to have been married. He touched her and whispered incantations and the girl reportedly returned to life. Bultmann compares this story to the healing miracle where Jesus interrupts a funeral and raises the widow of Nain's son. Therefore Bultmann would conclude that the miracle stories were included in the gospels because they were proof of Jesus' messiahship and divine power, and proove his superiority over pagan miracle workers.

Good explanation of Bultmann's work.

Nice reference to contemporary Hellenistic 'parallels'

However, the Hellenistic stories actually date much later than the gospel stories and stylistically the Hellenistic accounts and the accounts found in the gospels show significant differences, as Browning observes in his commentary of Luke's gospel: "miracle in the bible are distinguished in both character and purpose from the prodigies described I pagan writings… and from magical displays of contemporary thaumaturges" Some of the main differences alluded to are; the subduing of the supernatural elements of the miracles in the gospels, also the fact that in the gospels there are not miracle stories which are merely "ostentatious displays of special powers" (Drane.) On the contrary when the Pharisees asked Jesus to perform miracles to satisfy their curiosity he told them that this kind of spectacle was in no way connected with his ministry. Vincent Taylor on the other hand takes a more conservative approach and suggests that one of the main reasons for miracles in the gospels is to display Jesus' compassion for the people he healed. For instance in Mark's account of the feeding of the five thousand Jesus' response to the crowd one of compassion and pity "He saw this large crowd and his heart was filled with pity for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd" (Mk. 6:34). However both the views held by Bultmann and those held by Taylor are flawed by the assumptions that they make.

Excellent evaluation section here. Problems with Form Critics' assumptions highlighted by reference to the work of other scholars.

Most significantly when assessing the theology of the miracles the form critics did not take into account the role of the evangelist, seeing them merely as "Scissors and paste editors" (Stanton.) rather than theologians in their own right. Instead the form critics concentrated mainly on the role of the early church in shaping the miracle stories in the gospels. In doing so the form critics helped explain how the miracle stories would have been used within the early church and made many suggestions about the historical accuracy of the miracles, although in doing so also revealed some of their prior assumptions and biases which render some of their conclusions inaccurate.

Strengths and weaknesses of Form Critics assessed.

When examining a miracle story such as stilling of the storm, form critics would assess the length and shape of the story in order to assess its purpose within the early church. Firstly it is clear that the stilling of the storm falls into the 3-fold form as proposed by Dibelius - it has a clear need, action and response. Secondly it clearly falls into the category of a nature miracle (rather than a healing or an exorcism) The longest version of the story is found in Mark, it is 120 words long, Luke's account is only 94 words and Mathew's version is the shortest containing only 73 words. According to the laws of tradition formulated by the form critics the shortest account is the earliest, as more detail tends to be added over time. This law appears to contradict this law, as Mark's gospel is generally considered by biblical scholars to be the oldest , and indeed has to be the oldest if the four source theory is correct and yet Marks version of the stilling of the storm is the longest. However, Vincent Taylor actually challenged this law of tradition by telling a story to some of his students and asking them to tell it to others. After some time the original story became shorter, and so Taylor concluded that in fact longer stories were more original - a view which seams to be justified by the length of the varying accounts of the stilling of the storm.

However, in other miracles the original law of tradition seems to hold true, suggesting overall that it is inappropriate and unsuccessful to try to apply inflexible rules to the miracles as form and length cannot necessarily reveal much about the origins of the miracle story.

Good account of Dibelius' method of analysing the internal structure of miracles.

Evaluation of the methods of Form Critics.

Another fault of the form critics in assessing the miracle stories is the fact that they assume that the church did not want to record historically accurate information. Consequently when examining the walking on the water (Mk 6:45-53) they argue that it was an invention by the early church in order to prove Jesus' thaumaturgical power and show his superiority to pagan miracle workers, as it is linked to some Old Testament text. Some of the vocabulary in Ps. 104: 6-7 is similar to the story. "When you rebuked the waters they fled; they rushed away when they heard your shout of command" (Ps.104:7) To a form critic this would show that the walking on the water was created by storytellers who used Old Testament text as a basis for miracle stories. However, many people find this suggestion unpersuasive, arguing instead that the evangelist dramatised the event by deliberately invoking words of the psalm.

I would refer to the Lucan Prologue (Luke Ch1:1-4) to challenge this assumption.

Good use of example from set text.

Furthermore the form critics would assume that the miracle stories have been transmitted very accurately or reliably. They concluded this from their knowledge about how other forms of literature were transmitted orally, for instance fairy tales which changed over time as their purposes changed. However two other scholars, B. Gerhardssen and R. Riesner actually challenged this view about the accuracy of the oral tradition. They concluded that Jewish Rabbis often learnt things by heart with the students, and that this was in fact a key learning technique. Therefore people at the time of Jesus were used to memorising things, and so it is quite possible that the accounts of Jesus' sayings would have been memorised and passed on accurately. In addition Gerhardssen and Reisner concluded that Jesus' teachings were actually phrased in a way that they were easily memorable. For instance in the sermon on the mount the repeated use of the phrase "Blessed are the…for they shall…" emphasised the points Jesus was making and so made the speech more memorable.

Helpful reference to work of Gerhardssen and Riesner to challenge assumptions of some Form Critics.

Furthermore it is clear that all over the world and in many different cultures information has been passed down by word of mouth. For instance Prince Judah was the first person to write down Jewish tradition - the Torah, and up until that point it had existed by being memorised and passed down through the generations. Similarly there is a tradition in Islam of learning the Qur'an off by heart, those Muslims who achieve it then enjoy special recognition and status. All this evidence suggests that the assumption made by form critics that a period of oral transmission severely flawed the accuracy of the miracles is not entirely justified.

Good background knoweldge.

A further flaw of form criticism is the fact that the scholars did not accept that any information in the gospels which contradicted the laws of science as they knew them could possibly be accurate - therefore they did not believe the miracles performed by Jesus really happened. This view gave rise to many "natural" interpretations of the miracle stories. H.A. Guy succinctly expresses the form critical attitude to the miracles in his book "the synoptic gospels": "In each case a quite reasonable account of the situation can be given without the hypothesis that Jesus had control over the forces of nature" The form critical interpretations of the feeding of the five thousand provides a classic example of the various "natural" explanations which can be applied to miraculous events. It has been suggested that Jesus and his disciples set the example of sharing their provisions and the multitude followed suit, alternatively Schweitzer suggests that "the whole narrative is history except for the statement that they were all filled". Further explanations include the possibility that the feeding was a spiritual feeding and consequently everyone felt spiritually rather than literally satisfied.

Attitude of some Form Critics to 'supernatural'

Other biblical scholars criticise these assumptions made by the form critics, saying that "physical fact ought not to be taken for symbolism, if and where God has made it into physical fact" (Dr. Farrer in the kerygma and myth). They argue that miracle appears in all four gospel sand is the only one to do so, and if there had been a natural explanation why then did the disciples give the feeding such importance in their gospels. Furthermore if it had been an invention of the early church surely the "story tellers" would have made Jesus share bread and wine rather than bread and fish.

However, perhaps more importantly than disputing the form critics approach to miracle, is the contribution the form critics made to understanding the role of the early church in shaping and preserving the miracles. If it was not for the form critics it is possible that the eucharistic significance of the feeding of the five thousand may have been missed. It was form critics who first observed that the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand in the synoptic gospels was reminiscent of a story in the old testament during the exodus where Moses grouped people in 50's and 100's in order to appoint leaders over smaller groups. Therefore the miracle is symbolic of Jesus being surrounded by Israel - he is the new Moses.

Rachel has correctly identified a key contribution of the Form Critics to understanding Gospel texts, and with an excellent miracle example, too.

In conclusion form criticism has greatly increased our understanding of the miracles in the synoptic gospels, not only the theology behind them but also in relation to their usage within the early church and their preservation during the oral period of transmission. It is possible to summarise by saying that knowledge of form helps exegesis, but cannot fully explain the nature and purpose of the miracles as within the form critical method are assumptions which flaw the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the form of miracles. Redaction criticism can therefore be used in order to provide further understanding of the miracle stories.

A comprehensive review of the contribution of Form Criticism to the study of the Synoptic miracles, with effective examples, and insightful evaluation.

I would award Rachel 12/13 for this section.

b) Redaction criticism is a form of biblical criticism which developed as a protest against seeing the evangelists as mere "scissors and paste editors", and so focuses on the contribution of the evangelists to the gospels. The redaction critics aim to discover the evangelists own perspective, through examining pericopae and comparing them with parallel accounts in the other gospels (reading horizontally) and secondly by focusing on the gospels as literary wholes (reading vertically)

Again, Rachel assures the examiner that she has understood the demands of the new section, and addresses those demands straight away.

G. Bornkamm, in 1948 published one of the most significant redactional critical studies of the stilling of the storm in both Mathew and Marks gospels. Some of his main points illustrate the way in which redactional criticism can draw attention to the characteristics of miracle stories within different gospels, and supply possible reasons resulting in the redactional differences. Firstly, in Mark Jesus is called "teacher", whereas in Mathew he is referred to as "Lord" a messianic title which suggests that one of Matthew's concerns is to emphasise the divine nature of Jesus and his power. Another small but significant difference is Matthew's use of the word "seismos" in reference to the storm. This term is strongly associated with the power of evil in the Septuagint and therefore Jesus' power to subdue the storm in Mathew becomes representative not only of his power over nature but also his power to subdue all of the forces of opposition to God. In this way it can be seen that the stilling of the storm is an apocalyptic image of the coming of God's kingdom where His will shall "be done on earth" and all the powers of evil will be overcome.

An excellent place to begin an examination of Redaction Criticism - with Gunther Bornkamm's seminal paper on Matthew's version of 'The Stilling of the Storm.

Good example of 'horizontal redaction'

I would have observed that use of apocalyptic imagery is typical of Matthew's treatment of his gospel material here, possibly with other examples.

One of the other key differences in the two accounts of the stilling of the storm, which is found to be a common theme throughout Marks gospel is his very blunt portrayal of the disciples. In the stilling of the storm they are very accusatory of Jesus and ask "Do you not care that we are perishing?", this contrasts markedly with the plea for salvation in Matthews version: "save us we are perishing". It would therefore seem reasonable to conclude that Mathew emphasises the role of the disciples in this miracle in order to teach his readers about what it means to be a disciple. As Borkamm himself concludes "Mathew interprets the journey of the disciples with Jesus in the storm and the stilling of the storm with reference to discipleship and that means with reference to the little ship of the church." In other words Mathew's emphasis on discipleship is possibly be a reflection of his sitz im kirche - his church could be facing persecution, or possibly its members could be becoming too complacent and so needed reminding of the possible hardships that being a disciple of Jesus entailed

Again, I'd want to mention that such treatment of themes is repeated throughout the Gospel.

Redaction criticism also enables many conclusions to be drawn about the individual characteristics of miracles in each of the different gospels and the way in which they reflect the evangelists theology. In Matthew's gospel miracles begin to occur in the birth narratives and feature very prominently , they include the star, messages in dreams and angels. However most of the miracles are collected together in chapters 8 and 9. The miracles are positioned just after a set of teachings which show Jesus as the authoritative teacher, therefore "Jesus' authority interprets the will of God and so his miracles confirm his teachings" this shows that the positioning of the miracles gives them a particular Christological interpretation. The miracles in Mathew tend to focus not only on Christology but also on faith, for instance in his account of the walking on the water he adds a short section about Peter walking on water and the subsequent results of his lack of faith. At the end of the miracle Mathew writes that Peter returned to the boat lead by Jesus which redaction critics would suggest reflects not only Matthew's emphasis on faith but also on discipleship. This is because at the end of Mathew's gospel there is no mention of what happened to peter after his betrayal of Jesus. Therefore redaction critics would suggest that this miracle is also symbolic of Peter returning to the Church (symbolised by the boat) after he had lost his faith and betrayed Jesus. Mathew's emphasis on the importance of discipleship is also clear in his account of the stilling of the storm, where the disciples are shown to be utterly dependant on Jesus for salvation in their cry of "Lord save us"

Example of 'vertical' redaction - that is, looking at the material in its gospel context, and seeing what the evangelist is bringing out of the material through its context.

. Redaction critics have identified that the miracles of Luke reflect some characteristic themes running throughout his gospel. For instance his emphasis on women, is shown by the inclusion of the healing of the woman with a stoop (Lk. 13:10-17). Similarly he reinforces the wonder of miracles of healing a man covered with leprosy (Lk. 9:39) and emphasises the epileptic boy's symptoms. This again reflects Luke's special concern with the outcasts from society.

I think that the comments about 'outcasts' need a little more explanation. Rachel needs to say that women and men who suffered from certain illnesses and disabilities, were barred from full partic

In Mark most of the miracles show that God's kingdom has arrived in Jesus. For instance in the exorcism Jesus is shown to act as in order to rescue mankind from the grip of Satan and his evil power, and in doing so shows the way in which God's kingdom will act on earth when all the forces of evil will be subdued. Redaction critics have also found that by reading vertically the miracles of Mark only have significance in the context of faith. For instance in the miracle of the healing of the woman who flowed with blood Jesus tells her that "Your faith has made you well". M. Hooker explains this by stating that "To proclaim the miracles apart form a context of faith is to proclaim them simple as mighty wonders the kinds of signs the Pharisees demanded and not as examples of his saving power". Or to summarise Mathew wants to portray the miracles in a context of faith in order to give them the significance which they are due.

Another aspect of the miracles in Mark identified by redaction critics and form critics is the theme of messianic secret. Frequently Jesus tries to prevent those who have been healed from spreading the news, for example in Mk. 1:43-45 Jesus command s a man cured from leprosy to go and offer a sacrifice but "not to tell anyone about this" Despite some of the conclusions drawn about the miracles in Marks gospel the fact that it is much more difficult to analyse Marks gospel as there is no original material with which to compare it is still one of the main faults of redaction criticism. In a few passages it is possible to state with reasonable confidence that the words originate directly from Mark, for instance in Mark 13:14 there is a small note added in brackets to the reader asking them to "be sure to understand what this means". It is also at times possible to identify some frequently used words and phrases within Mathew which are although redactional differences are mainly just stylistic and are not particularly theologically significant. For instance the Greek word "Euthus" (meaning immediately) is used 43 times in Mathew and is his way of "linking originally independent traditions into a continuos story" (Stanton).

I would have mentioned the work of Wrede - in many ways, the first Redaction Critic - and his work in the early years of this century.

In conclusion redaction critics were not concerned with whether or not the miracles actually happened, but rather on the theology behind the miracles. Although both of these issues were dealt with by the form critics, the form critical analysis of the theology of the miracles was fundamentally flawed in its failure to recognise the evangelists as theologians in their own right and so the inevitable omission of the third sitz im leben - the sitz im evangellium. Therefore the redaction critics have added significantly to our understanding of the miracle stories although the redactional critical method does have some faults which limits its usefulness. These faults being mainly its reliance on the four source theory, and the fact that it sometimes focuses excessively on minor changes within the test and does not appreciate the major similarities.

There needs to be more exploration of the shortcomings of Redaction Criticism, and explanation of what Rachel means by excessive focus on minor changes.

This is a good section, though, and I would give it 7 marks.

My thanks go to Rachel who has submitted this essay! This is a study essay, exploring the issues in much more depth than would be possible within the 45 minutes of exam time. The author is a strong candidate who completed this essay in the second term of Year 12. Note the flow of ideas, the effective use of examples from set miracles to illustrate points made, and the good evaluation of scholarly views and assumptions. Effective evaluation can raise your essay marks by two or more grades.	The Webmistress comments:
a) Assess the contribution made by form criticism to an understanding of the miracle stories in the synoptic gospels. Illustrate your answer by reference to at least two miracles which you have studied. (15) b) To what extent has redaction criticism provided further understanding of the miracle stories? (10)	You are invited to show that you understand and can evaluate Form Criticism. Note 'at least' in the title. You are invited to comment on more. Note the evaluative element of the (b)
The main aim of the form critics was to establish what was happening to the traditions of Jesus during the oral period of transmission, and in doing so try to establish the theology of the miracles (why they were included in the gospels) having done this they tried to strip the layers of early church accretions (adaptations and additions ) in order to return to the "historical Jesus" and so establish the historicity of the miracles.	Rachel gets straight to the point, giving an effective summary of the aims and objectives of Form Critics.
The form critics particularly Bultmann distinguished three main types of miracle stories. Firstly pronouncement miracle stories, in which a saying by Jesus is the main focus and not the miracle itself which simply provided a context in which to set the saying. For example the healing of the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath (Mk3:1-6) is primarily revealing Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath rather than recording the miracle. The second category of miracle was the miracle story proper which can be sub-divided into two categories. The healing miracle with a three fold structure containing a description of the setting, the cure and then the result or the patients response, which Bultmann likened to miracles be Hellenistic wonder workers in both format and features, as Bultman considered the miracles in the gospel to "form no integral part of the Gospel narratives..and form no integral part of the original good news of salvation". (D Senior). However, as shall be considered later the miracles in the gospels are not really comparable to Hellenistic literature. Nature miracles was the second type of miracle stories proper and again Dibelius identified a three- fold structure which is particularly apparent in the stilling of the storm and the walking on the water. The final category of miracle was the summaries of miracles, which are defined by D Senior as being "generalisations based on the individual stories rather than memories of numerous miracles really worked by Jesus". There are many examples of summary paragraphs particularly in Mark's gospel, for instance in Mk 1:34 where Jesus is described as healing "many of those who were sick with all kinds of diseases."	A useful section on the method of categorizing miracles used by Form Critics. Rachel has used good examples to support her points. Nice Quote. Work of Dibelius mentioned.
Each of the form critics held slightly different views about the miracles and their purpose and origin and therefore each gave their own individual answer as to why the miracles were included in the gospels. Bultmann believed that the miracle stories were part of the whole culture as people believed in miracles and expected them of any important leader. Bultmann justifies this view by reference to some miracle stories in the gospels which have parallels in Hellenistic literature. For instance there is a record of a healing by Appolonius of Tyana, a well- known miracle worker around at the time of Jesus. On one occasion Appolonius offers to interfere when a girl is being taken to her funeral - on the day she was supposed to have been married. He touched her and whispered incantations and the girl reportedly returned to life. Bultmann compares this story to the healing miracle where Jesus interrupts a funeral and raises the widow of Nain's son. Therefore Bultmann would conclude that the miracle stories were included in the gospels because they were proof of Jesus' messiahship and divine power, and proove his superiority over pagan miracle workers.	Good explanation of Bultmann's work. Nice reference to contemporary Hellenistic 'parallels'
However, the Hellenistic stories actually date much later than the gospel stories and stylistically the Hellenistic accounts and the accounts found in the gospels show significant differences, as Browning observes in his commentary of Luke's gospel: "miracle in the bible are distinguished in both character and purpose from the prodigies described I pagan writings… and from magical displays of contemporary thaumaturges" Some of the main differences alluded to are; the subduing of the supernatural elements of the miracles in the gospels, also the fact that in the gospels there are not miracle stories which are merely "ostentatious displays of special powers" (Drane.) On the contrary when the Pharisees asked Jesus to perform miracles to satisfy their curiosity he told them that this kind of spectacle was in no way connected with his ministry. Vincent Taylor on the other hand takes a more conservative approach and suggests that one of the main reasons for miracles in the gospels is to display Jesus' compassion for the people he healed. For instance in Mark's account of the feeding of the five thousand Jesus' response to the crowd one of compassion and pity "He saw this large crowd and his heart was filled with pity for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd" (Mk. 6:34). However both the views held by Bultmann and those held by Taylor are flawed by the assumptions that they make.	Excellent evaluation section here. Problems with Form Critics' assumptions highlighted by reference to the work of other scholars.
Most significantly when assessing the theology of the miracles the form critics did not take into account the role of the evangelist, seeing them merely as "Scissors and paste editors" (Stanton.) rather than theologians in their own right. Instead the form critics concentrated mainly on the role of the early church in shaping the miracle stories in the gospels. In doing so the form critics helped explain how the miracle stories would have been used within the early church and made many suggestions about the historical accuracy of the miracles, although in doing so also revealed some of their prior assumptions and biases which render some of their conclusions inaccurate.	Strengths and weaknesses of Form Critics assessed.
When examining a miracle story such as stilling of the storm, form critics would assess the length and shape of the story in order to assess its purpose within the early church. Firstly it is clear that the stilling of the storm falls into the 3-fold form as proposed by Dibelius - it has a clear need, action and response. Secondly it clearly falls into the category of a nature miracle (rather than a healing or an exorcism) The longest version of the story is found in Mark, it is 120 words long, Luke's account is only 94 words and Mathew's version is the shortest containing only 73 words. According to the laws of tradition formulated by the form critics the shortest account is the earliest, as more detail tends to be added over time. This law appears to contradict this law, as Mark's gospel is generally considered by biblical scholars to be the oldest , and indeed has to be the oldest if the four source theory is correct and yet Marks version of the stilling of the storm is the longest. However, Vincent Taylor actually challenged this law of tradition by telling a story to some of his students and asking them to tell it to others. After some time the original story became shorter, and so Taylor concluded that in fact longer stories were more original - a view which seams to be justified by the length of the varying accounts of the stilling of the storm. However, in other miracles the original law of tradition seems to hold true, suggesting overall that it is inappropriate and unsuccessful to try to apply inflexible rules to the miracles as form and length cannot necessarily reveal much about the origins of the miracle story.	Good account of Dibelius' method of analysing the internal structure of miracles. Evaluation of the methods of Form Critics.
Another fault of the form critics in assessing the miracle stories is the fact that they assume that the church did not want to record historically accurate information. Consequently when examining the walking on the water (Mk 6:45-53) they argue that it was an invention by the early church in order to prove Jesus' thaumaturgical power and show his superiority to pagan miracle workers, as it is linked to some Old Testament text. Some of the vocabulary in Ps. 104: 6-7 is similar to the story. "When you rebuked the waters they fled; they rushed away when they heard your shout of command" (Ps.104:7) To a form critic this would show that the walking on the water was created by storytellers who used Old Testament text as a basis for miracle stories. However, many people find this suggestion unpersuasive, arguing instead that the evangelist dramatised the event by deliberately invoking words of the psalm.	I would refer to the Lucan Prologue (Luke Ch1:1-4) to challenge this assumption. Good use of example from set text.
Furthermore the form critics would assume that the miracle stories have been transmitted very accurately or reliably. They concluded this from their knowledge about how other forms of literature were transmitted orally, for instance fairy tales which changed over time as their purposes changed. However two other scholars, B. Gerhardssen and R. Riesner actually challenged this view about the accuracy of the oral tradition. They concluded that Jewish Rabbis often learnt things by heart with the students, and that this was in fact a key learning technique. Therefore people at the time of Jesus were used to memorising things, and so it is quite possible that the accounts of Jesus' sayings would have been memorised and passed on accurately. In addition Gerhardssen and Reisner concluded that Jesus' teachings were actually phrased in a way that they were easily memorable. For instance in the sermon on the mount the repeated use of the phrase "Blessed are the…for they shall…" emphasised the points Jesus was making and so made the speech more memorable.	Helpful reference to work of Gerhardssen and Riesner to challenge assumptions of some Form Critics.
Furthermore it is clear that all over the world and in many different cultures information has been passed down by word of mouth. For instance Prince Judah was the first person to write down Jewish tradition - the Torah, and up until that point it had existed by being memorised and passed down through the generations. Similarly there is a tradition in Islam of learning the Qur'an off by heart, those Muslims who achieve it then enjoy special recognition and status. All this evidence suggests that the assumption made by form critics that a period of oral transmission severely flawed the accuracy of the miracles is not entirely justified.	Good background knoweldge.
A further flaw of form criticism is the fact that the scholars did not accept that any information in the gospels which contradicted the laws of science as they knew them could possibly be accurate - therefore they did not believe the miracles performed by Jesus really happened. This view gave rise to many "natural" interpretations of the miracle stories. H.A. Guy succinctly expresses the form critical attitude to the miracles in his book "the synoptic gospels": "In each case a quite reasonable account of the situation can be given without the hypothesis that Jesus had control over the forces of nature" The form critical interpretations of the feeding of the five thousand provides a classic example of the various "natural" explanations which can be applied to miraculous events. It has been suggested that Jesus and his disciples set the example of sharing their provisions and the multitude followed suit, alternatively Schweitzer suggests that "the whole narrative is history except for the statement that they were all filled". Further explanations include the possibility that the feeding was a spiritual feeding and consequently everyone felt spiritually rather than literally satisfied.	Attitude of some Form Critics to 'supernatural'
Other biblical scholars criticise these assumptions made by the form critics, saying that "physical fact ought not to be taken for symbolism, if and where God has made it into physical fact" (Dr. Farrer in the kerygma and myth). They argue that miracle appears in all four gospel sand is the only one to do so, and if there had been a natural explanation why then did the disciples give the feeding such importance in their gospels. Furthermore if it had been an invention of the early church surely the "story tellers" would have made Jesus share bread and wine rather than bread and fish. However, perhaps more importantly than disputing the form critics approach to miracle, is the contribution the form critics made to understanding the role of the early church in shaping and preserving the miracles. If it was not for the form critics it is possible that the eucharistic significance of the feeding of the five thousand may have been missed. It was form critics who first observed that the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand in the synoptic gospels was reminiscent of a story in the old testament during the exodus where Moses grouped people in 50's and 100's in order to appoint leaders over smaller groups. Therefore the miracle is symbolic of Jesus being surrounded by Israel - he is the new Moses.	Rachel has correctly identified a key contribution of the Form Critics to understanding Gospel texts, and with an excellent miracle example, too.
In conclusion form criticism has greatly increased our understanding of the miracles in the synoptic gospels, not only the theology behind them but also in relation to their usage within the early church and their preservation during the oral period of transmission. It is possible to summarise by saying that knowledge of form helps exegesis, but cannot fully explain the nature and purpose of the miracles as within the form critical method are assumptions which flaw the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the form of miracles. Redaction criticism can therefore be used in order to provide further understanding of the miracle stories.	A comprehensive review of the contribution of Form Criticism to the study of the Synoptic miracles, with effective examples, and insightful evaluation. I would award Rachel 12/13 for this section.
b) Redaction criticism is a form of biblical criticism which developed as a protest against seeing the evangelists as mere "scissors and paste editors", and so focuses on the contribution of the evangelists to the gospels. The redaction critics aim to discover the evangelists own perspective, through examining pericopae and comparing them with parallel accounts in the other gospels (reading horizontally) and secondly by focusing on the gospels as literary wholes (reading vertically)	Again, Rachel assures the examiner that she has understood the demands of the new section, and addresses those demands straight away.
G. Bornkamm, in 1948 published one of the most significant redactional critical studies of the stilling of the storm in both Mathew and Marks gospels. Some of his main points illustrate the way in which redactional criticism can draw attention to the characteristics of miracle stories within different gospels, and supply possible reasons resulting in the redactional differences. Firstly, in Mark Jesus is called "teacher", whereas in Mathew he is referred to as "Lord" a messianic title which suggests that one of Matthew's concerns is to emphasise the divine nature of Jesus and his power. Another small but significant difference is Matthew's use of the word "seismos" in reference to the storm. This term is strongly associated with the power of evil in the Septuagint and therefore Jesus' power to subdue the storm in Mathew becomes representative not only of his power over nature but also his power to subdue all of the forces of opposition to God. In this way it can be seen that the stilling of the storm is an apocalyptic image of the coming of God's kingdom where His will shall "be done on earth" and all the powers of evil will be overcome.	An excellent place to begin an examination of Redaction Criticism - with Gunther Bornkamm's seminal paper on Matthew's version of 'The Stilling of the Storm. Good example of 'horizontal redaction' I would have observed that use of apocalyptic imagery is typical of Matthew's treatment of his gospel material here, possibly with other examples.
One of the other key differences in the two accounts of the stilling of the storm, which is found to be a common theme throughout Marks gospel is his very blunt portrayal of the disciples. In the stilling of the storm they are very accusatory of Jesus and ask "Do you not care that we are perishing?", this contrasts markedly with the plea for salvation in Matthews version: "save us we are perishing". It would therefore seem reasonable to conclude that Mathew emphasises the role of the disciples in this miracle in order to teach his readers about what it means to be a disciple. As Borkamm himself concludes "Mathew interprets the journey of the disciples with Jesus in the storm and the stilling of the storm with reference to discipleship and that means with reference to the little ship of the church." In other words Mathew's emphasis on discipleship is possibly be a reflection of his sitz im kirche - his church could be facing persecution, or possibly its members could be becoming too complacent and so needed reminding of the possible hardships that being a disciple of Jesus entailed	Again, I'd want to mention that such treatment of themes is repeated throughout the Gospel.
Redaction criticism also enables many conclusions to be drawn about the individual characteristics of miracles in each of the different gospels and the way in which they reflect the evangelists theology. In Matthew's gospel miracles begin to occur in the birth narratives and feature very prominently , they include the star, messages in dreams and angels. However most of the miracles are collected together in chapters 8 and 9. The miracles are positioned just after a set of teachings which show Jesus as the authoritative teacher, therefore "Jesus' authority interprets the will of God and so his miracles confirm his teachings" this shows that the positioning of the miracles gives them a particular Christological interpretation. The miracles in Mathew tend to focus not only on Christology but also on faith, for instance in his account of the walking on the water he adds a short section about Peter walking on water and the subsequent results of his lack of faith. At the end of the miracle Mathew writes that Peter returned to the boat lead by Jesus which redaction critics would suggest reflects not only Matthew's emphasis on faith but also on discipleship. This is because at the end of Mathew's gospel there is no mention of what happened to peter after his betrayal of Jesus. Therefore redaction critics would suggest that this miracle is also symbolic of Peter returning to the Church (symbolised by the boat) after he had lost his faith and betrayed Jesus. Mathew's emphasis on the importance of discipleship is also clear in his account of the stilling of the storm, where the disciples are shown to be utterly dependant on Jesus for salvation in their cry of "Lord save us"	Example of 'vertical' redaction - that is, looking at the material in its gospel context, and seeing what the evangelist is bringing out of the material through its context.
. Redaction critics have identified that the miracles of Luke reflect some characteristic themes running throughout his gospel. For instance his emphasis on women, is shown by the inclusion of the healing of the woman with a stoop (Lk. 13:10-17). Similarly he reinforces the wonder of miracles of healing a man covered with leprosy (Lk. 9:39) and emphasises the epileptic boy's symptoms. This again reflects Luke's special concern with the outcasts from society.	I think that the comments about 'outcasts' need a little more explanation. Rachel needs to say that women and men who suffered from certain illnesses and disabilities, were barred from full partic
In Mark most of the miracles show that God's kingdom has arrived in Jesus. For instance in the exorcism Jesus is shown to act as in order to rescue mankind from the grip of Satan and his evil power, and in doing so shows the way in which God's kingdom will act on earth when all the forces of evil will be subdued. Redaction critics have also found that by reading vertically the miracles of Mark only have significance in the context of faith. For instance in the miracle of the healing of the woman who flowed with blood Jesus tells her that "Your faith has made you well". M. Hooker explains this by stating that "To proclaim the miracles apart form a context of faith is to proclaim them simple as mighty wonders the kinds of signs the Pharisees demanded and not as examples of his saving power". Or to summarise Mathew wants to portray the miracles in a context of faith in order to give them the significance which they are due. Another aspect of the miracles in Mark identified by redaction critics and form critics is the theme of messianic secret. Frequently Jesus tries to prevent those who have been healed from spreading the news, for example in Mk. 1:43-45 Jesus command s a man cured from leprosy to go and offer a sacrifice but "not to tell anyone about this" Despite some of the conclusions drawn about the miracles in Marks gospel the fact that it is much more difficult to analyse Marks gospel as there is no original material with which to compare it is still one of the main faults of redaction criticism. In a few passages it is possible to state with reasonable confidence that the words originate directly from Mark, for instance in Mark 13:14 there is a small note added in brackets to the reader asking them to "be sure to understand what this means". It is also at times possible to identify some frequently used words and phrases within Mathew which are although redactional differences are mainly just stylistic and are not particularly theologically significant. For instance the Greek word "Euthus" (meaning immediately) is used 43 times in Mathew and is his way of "linking originally independent traditions into a continuos story" (Stanton).	I would have mentioned the work of Wrede - in many ways, the first Redaction Critic - and his work in the early years of this century.
In conclusion redaction critics were not concerned with whether or not the miracles actually happened, but rather on the theology behind the miracles. Although both of these issues were dealt with by the form critics, the form critical analysis of the theology of the miracles was fundamentally flawed in its failure to recognise the evangelists as theologians in their own right and so the inevitable omission of the third sitz im leben - the sitz im evangellium. Therefore the redaction critics have added significantly to our understanding of the miracle stories although the redactional critical method does have some faults which limits its usefulness. These faults being mainly its reliance on the four source theory, and the fact that it sometimes focuses excessively on minor changes within the test and does not appreciate the major similarities.	There needs to be more exploration of the shortcomings of Redaction Criticism, and explanation of what Rachel means by excessive focus on minor changes. This is a good section, though, and I would give it 7 marks.

Return to RATS Base Page