1. The Oral Beginnings of the Gospel Tradition

Little is known about the beginning and history of the gospel tradition before the composition of the gospels; for whatever reason, information of this earliest and critical period of the church is severely lacking.  Nevertheless, it is probable that there was a period in the history of the church when the gospel tradition existed at least in part as independent units of oral tradition.  During the thirty-five years or so from the inception of the church until Mark composed his gospel, these oral traditions and whatever smaller written collections of material alone existed. Luke refers to how "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" passed on information about Jesus ("the things fulfilled among us") (Luke 1:2) (As B. Gerhardsson points out, Luke 1:1-4 is "the most important item of information which is preserved from the first Christian centuries about the pre-history of the gospels" [The Gospel Tradition, 28; see 29-30].)  This group is more than likely the twelve apostles or perhaps a wider group of people (see Acts 1:21-22) (see Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, chap 6).  From what Luke says, it seems that the information about Jesus that they passed on consisted partially of oral tradition: the use of the term "to pass on" (paradi,dwmi) implies that what was passed on was oral tradition (Luke 1:2). (As we shall see, this same group may also have responsible for safeguarding and the passing on of authoritative collections of written traditions.)  That Peter functioned as "an eyewitness and servant of the word" in the church of Rome is the testimony of the early church fathers, for several statements are made in their writings to the effect that Mark derives his source material from Peter's preaching and teaching. It should also be noted that Clement of Alexandria explains that writing gospels was not part of the mission of the apostles; rather, they saw themselves as called to teach orally.  Clement speculates that perhaps the apostles, whom he calls "elders," viewed the functions of the speaker and the writer as incompatible (Eclog. Proph. 27).

    Evidence that oral tradition was foundational to the earliest Christian churches is found in Paul's writings (B. Gerhardsson, The Origins of the Gospel Traditions, chaps. 6-7).  Sometimes it is thought by scholars that Paul was perennially at odds with the Jerusalem establishment and sought to create an alternative form of Christianity among his gentile converts.  But it is clear from his letters that Paul's practice was to transmit to the congregations oral traditions that probably derived ultimately from the original "eyewitnesses and servants of the word." (Again, actual evidence for when and how Paul received traditions about Jesus is lacking.) Paul refers to having passed on traditions to his churches (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1-5; Gal 1:9; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6).  In two places, he actually cites traditions that he passed on. In 1 Cor 11:23-25, Paul reiterates for the Corinthians the tradition of the words of institution at Jesus' Last Supper, different versions of which occur in the synoptic gospels; this unit of tradition obviously had a liturgical function within Paul's churches.  Similarly, in 1 Cor 15:1-7, he cites again a tradition about Jesus' death and resurrection, a sort of condensation of the kerygma.  Interestingly, some elements of this kerygma tradition are not found in the synoptic gospels (e.g., Jesus' appearance to Peter, the twelve or to the 500 brothers at once.) Paul also cites gospel tradition in his dealing with problems in the Corinthian church (1 Cor 7:10, 12, 25 [see Mark 10:1-12 = Matt 19:1b-12; Matt 5:32 = Luke 16:18]; 1 Cor 9:14 [see Matt 10:9-10 = Luke 10:7]) and in 1 Tim 6:13 (Jesus' trial before Pilate).  Thus, in addition to his own teaching, Paul's churches probably received from him oral traditions, most of which found their way into the synoptic gospels. (In Acts 20:35 there is cited a saying of Jesus not found in the gospels.)  That Paul does not cite more of the gospel tradition should probably be explained by the occasional nature of his letters.  In fact, Irenaeus (130-c.200) claims that Paul was a source of tradition about Jesus for Luke:  "Luke the companion of Paul set forth in a book the gospel a preached by him (Paul)" (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1).  In addition, Eusebius says that Paul adopted Luke’s gospel as his own gospel: "And they say that Paul was actually accustomed to quote from Luke’s gospel since when writing of some gospel as his own he used to say, ‘According to my gospel’" (HE 3.4.7.).

     It seems that even decades after the gospels were written oral tradition was still valued and still circulated. Papias, a contemporary of Polycarp, actually states his preference for oral tradition as against information about Jesus in books: "For I did not think that information from books would help me as much as the word of a living and surviving voice" (H.E. 3. 39. 4).  He took every opportunity to inquire of those who had followed the "elders" (by which Papias seems to mean apostles). Later Irenaeus writes that as a boy he would listen to what Polycarp said about what John the apostle and others who had seen the Lord had said about Jesus' miracles and teaching. (Polycarp is said to have received his information from "the eyewitnesses of the word of life.") Ireneaus says that he would make note of these things, not on paper but in his heart (H.E. 5.20.5-7).  Different from the modern world, oral tradition was greatly valued and not looked upon with suspicion.
 

2. Form Criticism

After a long period of intense investigation into the synoptic question (source criticism), the focus of scholarly activity shifted to the period before the written gospels.  Thus arose gospel Form Criticism, which, as a discipline, investigates this brief, but important period in which the gospel tradition existed at least partially as independent units of oral tradition.
 

2.1. Valid Formal-Critical Assumptions

The following valid methodological assumptions underlie the discipline of Form Criticism:

2.1.1. Before their incorporation into the gospels, the narrative and the sayings material of the gospel tradition, with the exception of the Passion narrative, circulated as self-contained units. As already indicated, there is sufficient evidence that oral traditions existed.  These probably existed as autonomous, single units or perhaps as small collections organized thematically or chronologically. Although little is known of the history of the gospel tradition, evidence for this is the episodic character of Mark and the probable existence of (a) collection(s) of sayings material (with some narrative) used by Matthew and Luke (so-called Q).  Also, the "logia" that Papias says that Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic may have been a collection of isolated and independent sayings of Jesus (H.E. 3. 39. 16).

2.1.2. The gospel tradition can be classified according to its form.

A. Proposed Systems of Classification

Three of the most frequently used systems of classification are those of M. Dibelius (From Tradition to Gospel), R. Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition) and V. Taylor (The Formation of the Gospel Tradition):
 
 

Taylor's classification is to be preferred, since it is simpler and does not prejudge the historical value of the traditions in the way that Dibelius and Bultmann's do ("legends" and "myth"). (There have been other, more recent attempts to classify forms of the gospel tradition, most notably Kelber, The Oral and Written Gospel; K. Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments--Berger offers a more detailed classification.)
 

B. The Forms of the Gospel Tradition

1. Pronouncement Stories are narratives that culminate in a short, poignant saying of Jesus; the narrative actually functions as a frame for the saying.  (It is common today to use the Hellenistic category of Chreia to denote this form [see Sanders, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, chap. 10].)  Taylor explains, "They [Pronouncement Stories] culminate in a saying of Jesus which expresses some ethical or religious precept; the saying may be evoked by a friendly question or other, or may be associated with an incident which is indicated in very few words." (Formation, 63).  The reason that Pronouncement Stories were preserved and told was for the instruction that it offered to the first believers.  Examples of pronouncement stories include Mark 10:13-16 and 12:13-17.

a. Mark 10:13-16
 

b. Mark 12:13-17
 

2. Miracle Stories are narratives in which Jesus' compassion and power are demonstrated through healing, exorcism or control over nature. Typically, a Miracle Story begins with a description of the situation, followed by the miracle, the results confirming the miracle and the response of the onlookers.  The purpose for the creation and telling of Miracle Stories was to present Jesus as compassionate and powerful. Examples of Miracle Stories include Mark 1:23-27; 1:29-31:

a. Mark 1:23-27
 

b. Mark 1:29-31
 

3. The third type of narrative form in the synoptic gospels are Stories about Jesus.  This classification really describes the content and not the form in which it occurs, since there is considerable formal diversity.  Stories about Jesus serve a biographical interest. Examples include Mark 6:14-16; Mark 9:2-10:

a. Mark 6:14-16
 

b. Mark 9:2-10
 

4. In addition to narrative forms, Taylor classifies some gospel tradition as Sayings and Parables.  Although all the traditions classified as such are sayings material, there is nonetheless considerable formal diversity among this material. Some of these sayings may have circulated in the tradition as part of sayings-collections.  Bultmann attempts to find formal consistency by identifying sub-groups of sayings; but even these are partially determined by their content rather than their literary form.

2.1.3. In general, the gospel tradition survived and assumed its present form because it functioned to meet the religious needs of the early church.  It goes without saying that the early church made use of the gospel tradition in its preaching, teaching and worship.  It follows that the tradition was preserved because of and molded by these religious needs.  An obvious example is the tradition of the words of institution:  Although cast in narrative form, they served the liturgical needs of the church (see 1 Cor 11:23-25).  This point was made before the rise of Form Criticism by B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.

2.1.4. Based on these assumptions, Form Criticism as a discipline sets for itself a threefold task in its investigation of the synoptic gospels.

A. First, it attempts to classify the gospel tradition formally. It analyses all pericopes and assigns each to a formal category.

B. Second, Form Criticism seeks to identify the "Setting-in-Life" (Sitz-im-Leben) in the early church to which a form is attached.  It seeks to uncover the religious needs of the church and identify how the forms of the gospel tradition functioned to meet those needs.

C. Third, Form Criticism seeks to trace the history of the tradition of pericopes from their origins to their inclusion in the synoptic gospels.  Although fraught with the peril of speculation, the form critic aims to determine how and why a specific pericope developed as it was passed down orally (see K. Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments; E. Sanders, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 133-34).
 

2.2. Invalid Form-Critical Assumptions

To varying degrees, however, most practitioners of form-criticism, work from other, invalid methodological assumptions.  The most extreme of the form critics in this regard is R. Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition; id., "The New Aproach to the Synoptic Problem," JR 6 (1926) 337-62) and his followers.  These assumptions are as follows:

2.2.1. The religious needs of the early church not only shaped the gospel tradition but also gave rise to it.  In other words, a saying or a narrative tradition was created in order to meet a religious need in the early church.  The source of the creation of these post-Easter gospel traditions was Christian prophets who spoke in the name of the risen Christ; early Christians allegedly did not make a distinction between the earthly Jesus and the risen Christ. Form critics consider that the 30-40 year gap between Jesus and the written gospels was sufficient time for the church to create all manner of unhistorical traditions about Jesus and unhistorical sayings of Jesus.

    What evidence exists, however, does not support this position.

A. First, although there were early Christian prophets, the evidence suggests that they did not identify the earthly Jesus with the risen, who was speaking through them.  There is no example of an early Christian prophet speaking in the name of Jesus; Agabus, for example speaks by the (Holy) Spirit (Acts 21:11; 11:28).  Moreover, the few examples in the New Testament of the risen Christ's speaking (Matt 28:17-20; 2 Cor 12:9; Rev 3:20; 16:15) imply that the church did distinguish between the earthly Jesus and the risen Christ (See Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and its Beginning, 25-26; Gerhardsson, "Der Weg der Evangelientradition"; D. Hill, New Testament Prophecy; J. Dunn, "Prophetic `I'-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances Within Early Christianity," NTS 24 (1978) 175-98; D. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World).

B. Second, the fact that the early church did not attribute to the earthly Jesus sayings designed to address problems that arose in the early church suggests that the church was not in the habit of creating sayings of Jesus in order to meet its religious needs.  Problems, such as the conditions under which gentiles could be incorporated into the church, were resolved without recourse to a saying of Jesus (Acts 15).  Along the same lines, when dealing with the question of divorce, Paul cites a saying of Jesus to address one aspect of the problem, but admits that he has no word of the Lord to address its other aspects (1 Cor 7:10, 12) (Gerhardsson, The Origins of the Gospel Traditions, 35.)

3. Third, although in general the gospel tradition was useful to the early church, some apparently non-usable teachings of Jesus were retained and passed on. These include traditions that are difficult (but not impossible) to reconcile with the theology of the early church (see, for example, Mark 10:18; Matt 10:5-6; Mark 9:1) or obscure sayings and parables (see Matt 11:12; Mark 9:49-50).  In addition, the most common Christological title used of Jesus in the synoptic gospels is "son of man," but this title is not used in the early church.   These data suggest that the religious needs of the early church did not give rise to the gospel tradition; rather, Jesus' sayings were accorded an intrinsic value, so that in some cases they were preserved and passed on, even without being useful. (Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and its Beginning; Gerhardsson, "Der Weg der Evangelientradition; Stein, The Synoptic Problem, 188)

4. Fourth, the gospel tradition in many cases created the religious need in the church rather than the need's creating the gospel tradition (Stein, The Synoptic Problem, 177-78).  For example, Jewish Christians had no "need" of pericopes that defend a particular stance towards the Sabbath (see Mark 2:23-28 or Luke 14:1-6) before becoming Christians; after their conversion they would adopt Jesus' views on the Sabbath, as reflected in the gospel tradition.  Thus, the motive for the church's creation of gospel tradition disappears.

5. Fifth, it seems likely that the formation of the gospel tradition in part originated with Jesus, not with the early church. Although there are no explicit indications in the gospels, probably Jesus, in conformity with the practice of teachers in the ancient world, required that his disciples memorize teaching material, possibly making private notes (see B. Easton, The Gospel Before the Gospel; Christ in the Gospels; H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings; B. Gerhardsson,  Memory and Manuscript; id., The Origins of the Gospel Traditions; R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer).  Also Jesus probably carefully crafted his teaching material so as to be poignant and easily committed to memory (see C. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord; J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 14-29).  (From the fact that the disciples request that Jesus teach them how to pray [Luke 11:1], one could infer that it was Jesus' practice to give teaching material for memorization to his disciples.)  In fact, without such teaching material, it would have been impossible for the disciples to have gone out two-by-two to announce the Kingdom of God, as is described in the synoptic gospels (H. Schuermann, "Die voroesterlichen Anfange der Logientradition").    Similarly, when the they went out to announce the Kingdom of God, the disciples no doubt would recount eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ compassion and power (“Miracle Stories’), so that this is the beginning of the some narrative traditions about Jesus.

2.2.2. The creation and transmission of the gospel tradition was an anonymous, unconscious and spontaneous process. Like folk traditions, it was the product of a community over time.

Unfortunately since little is known of the creation, preservation and transmission of the gospel tradition wildly divergent theories have arisen, all claiming the support of what evidence does exists. (These range from the position that almost nothing of the gospel tradition is historical [at least nothing that is recognizably Christian] to the hypothesis that the tradition is historically reliable until proven otherwise.)  Nevertheless, it seems that the gospel tradition is wrongly compared to folk tradition; not all oral tradition is of this kind. In first century Judaism (and among Hellenistic philosophers/teachers), it was common for teachers to have his students commit material to memory or make notes of it. In this way vast amounts of legal and other material were transmitted accurately through many generations.  Alterations to the tradition may have been made, but these were conscious and deliberate.  The gospel tradition should be understood on analogy to this ancient process of the oral transmission of teaching material. (Gerhardsson finds the closest analogy to early rabbis and their students, whereas Schuermann sees a closer resemblance to a prophet and his disciples.)  Besides, it must be noted that the period during which the gospel tradition would have existed in an oral form would have been no more than forty years; contrary to the form critics, this is too short for the type of development that occurs in the passing on of folk traditions to occur (see Guettgemanns, Some Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism, 119-50).

    What some form critics overlook is the role that authoritative eyewitnesses played in the early church. As already indicated, there is sufficient evidence that there existed men called "eyewitnessess and servants of the word" who transmitted authoritative tradition to the early church (Luke 1:1-4).  This group no doubt included the disciples, and possibly consisted solely of them. The disciples would be qualified to assume this role, not only because they had been present for most of the events depicted in the gospels, but also because they had been entrusted by Jesus with teaching material and may have even possessed private, written collections of Jesus' teaching.  As "eyewitnesses and servants of the word," the disciples would be in a position to control the transmission of the gospel tradition during the relatively few years in which it circulated orally among the churches. (As Gerhardsson points out, in refutation of Kelber, oral tradition does not necessarily mean flexibility as determined by the audience; rather oral tradition can be as fixed [or even more so] than a written text [The Gospel Tradition, 28-39.) (That even Paul deferred to their authority is clear from Gal 2:1-2; Acts 15); he probably also received gospel tradition from them.)   As Riesenfeld put it, the gospel tradition was "esoteric" in the sense that access to it was controlled by a defined group within the early church (The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings, 18). (See B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript; id., The Origins of the Gospel Tradition; E. Ellis, "New Directions in Form Criticism.")

    It is sometimes objected that if the gospel tradition was so faithfully transmitted, the differences between versions of the same pericope cannot be explained (Sanders, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 130-33).  But such differences in the can be explained adequately in several ways:

A. Most differences in the triple tradition result from the changes made to Mark by Matthew and Luke (see "The Synoptic Question"). The only differences that can be said to have existed in the oral tradition or the smaller, written collections are those in the Passion and Resurrection Narratives (Mark-Matthew; Luke; John), those between Matthew and Luke in the double tradition and those in the doublets found in the triple and double tradition.  But many of these could likewise be ascribed to the redactional activity of the gospel writers, who made alterations to oral tradition or the short, written collections of material.  Surely, since Matthew and Luke make such changes to the pericopes of Mark's gospel, the four gospel writers could easily make changes to other sources of gospel tradition when composing their gospels. (We should note that in the synoptic gospels, there tends to be far greater agreement in the words of Jesus.)

B. Differences between parallel pericopes in the gospel tradition in Greek could be the result of simultaneous translations into Greek of oral tradition originally formulated in Aramaic (see Gerhardsson, The Origins of the Gospel Traditions, 82; E. Ellis, "New Directions in Form Criticism, 308) (Ellis proposes that the need to translate into Greek could have been the occasion for the creation of written collections of pericopes.)  Different Greek translations of the originally Aramaic gospel tradition would have circulated orally or in written form in the churches. Possibly the so-called Q collections used by Matthew and Luke may each have contained different Greek versions of the same pericope; this could easily explain why the agreement in the double tradition varies so greatly

C. Differences between parallel pericopes in the gospel tradition may be the result of what Gerhardsson calls "interpretive adaptations" (The Origins of the Gospel Traditions, 85).  He proposes that changes were made to the gospel of tradition in for the purposes of clarification for a specific audience.

2.2.3. The forms of the gospel tradition correspond to typical sociological settings (Sitz-im-Leben) in the early church.  That is, for every religious need there is a corresponding form appropriate to meet that need.  This assumption allows Bultmann to identify those typical sociological settings from analyzing the forms of the gospel tradition. (M. Dibelius prefers to adopt what he calls the synthetic method: working from the setting to the corresponding form.)

    This assumption of a one to one correspondence of form to typical sociological setting is too simplistic.  Several important qualifications must be made:

A. Forms may have had multiple uses or religious needs may have been met by many forms.  Evidence of this is that the form critics cannot agree among themselves concerning the use to which the forms of the gospel tradition were put. Dibelius explains the origin of the "paradigms" as arising form the need for sermon illustrations.  Bultmann, on the other hand, divides the "apophthegms" into three types and assigns a separate Sitz-im-Leben to each. It seems clear that it is impossible conclusively to say how each form related to the religious needs of the early church (Sanders, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 136).

B. Contrary to the view of many form critics, there is no such thing as a pure form, from which deviations occur during the transmission process; the idea of a pure form is an ideal construct. It is preferable to say that there are formal similarities among pericopes, which justifies their being grouped together under a common heading.  But to assume that every pericope began as formally pure and over the years deviated from this original purity in the process of transmission is untenable; this is circular reasoning.  (A prime example of the circularity of this methodology is how form critics deal with Mark 2:3-12; since it has the characteristics of both a pronouncement story and a miracle story, it is asserted that this pericope is the result of the combining of two separate pericope, each being originally formally pure [see Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 66-68 or the result of the formal alteration of a miracle story, so that elements of a Pronouncement Story were introduced [see Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 63].)  This is especially true of narratives, since they had their origins in real events:  reality is not always so stereotyped.  It is probable that the narrative material evolved towards its particular form.  But even Jesus' teaching material need not have been originally formally pure. This makes tradition-history much more difficult, because one cannot assume from the outset that any deviation of a pericope from its form is the result of subsequent changes to it in the history of its transmission. (See Sanders, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 127)  For example, B. Mack wrongly assumes that a Pronouncement Stories ("Chreia") began as a saying set in a simple narrative context and that, when placed into a larger literary context (as in the Gospel of Mark), it would undergo elaboration (A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins, 184-92).  There is no necessity that the pure form of the Pronouncement Story would evolve through being elaborated, as Mack suggests. It is just as likely that the alleged elaborated form was the original.

2.2.4. There are laws or tendencies according to which the gospel tradition changed. Knowing these laws enables one to reconstruct the history of the tradition.  That there are such laws has been rightly disputed (E. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition).  It has also been questioned whether the types of changes that occur in oral transmission of tradition are similar enough to those that occur during the written transmission of texts.  This is an important question because Bultmann and other form critics derive their laws according to which the gospel tradition changed from the study of texts (see E. Guettgemann, Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism, 196-211; W. Kelber, The Oral and Written Gospel, 14-32).  This makes tradition-history much more difficult.