013. Chapter 11 - Form Criticism

Chapter 11 - Form Criticism Origin of Theory The preceding chapter on the Two-source Theory was written in 1936. Now, in revising the book thirty years later, this chapter on Form Criticism is added to give a survey of developments in the field during the recent decades. In his posthumous book, The Synoptic Gospels (1934), James Hardy Ropes expressed profound concern lest the entire critical effort to dissect the Gospel narratives be brought into general disrepute because of the “enormous proportions” and “the bewildering perplexity” of the towering structure of speculations being built up. In his strong protests against the weird, irresponsible speculations that were being heaped up in utter abandon, he was discussing Form Criticism. In 1919 M. Dibelius had published his study of what he considered the history of the forms in which the Gospel narratives had arisen (Die Form geschichte des Evangeliums). In 1921 R. Bultmann had followed a different method, but the objective to carve up the Gospel narratives into tiny segments had been the same. Dibelius had sought to identify the segments by showing how they had arisen out of “quite definite conditions and wants of life.” Instead of proceeding from the background, Bultmann had sought to analyze “the particular elements of the tradition operating on the text rather than the background.” Bultmann makes a devastating admission in his recent work, History of the Synoptic Tradition (1962), when he says that this entire vast maze of speculations has to move in a circle. “The forms of the literary tradition must be used to establish the influences operating in the life of the community, and the life of the community must be used to render the forms intelligible” (History of the Synoptic Tradition, p 5).

Nature The notorious “shell game” of the days of “the wild west” seems to have proceeded in some such dizzy fashion as this: The mysterious unseen object was moved so swiftly from one hidden location to another that the eye was not able to detect the deceitful maneuvers. Thus the Gospel narratives are arbitrarily cut up into tiny fragments which are then used to affirm “certain influences operating in the life of the community” and these imaginary influences are then introduced as solid ground for establishing the original use of violence on the historical narratives “to render the forms themselves intelligible.”

Albright says of Form Criticism, “Only modern scholars who lack both historical method and perspective can spin such a web of speculation as that with which form-critics have surrounded the Gospel tradition.” “The leading exponents of the school disagree completely in their theories as to the relation of the principal categories of form-criticism to the life of the early church and vicious circles are evident throughout their work” (From the Stone Age to Christianity, pp 298, 293f.).

Early Exponents

Earlier writers, Holtzmann, Wrede, Johannes Weiss, Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, and K. L. Schmidt, had. all added their particular contributions to dissecting the Gospel narratives and finding at least a few grains of historical wheat amid what they considered the chaff of “secondary material” added to the “oral tradition” by “editorial review.” In all this random procedure of adding theory to theory one is reminded again of the sarcastic remark of C. S. Lewis that the entire range of human speculation concerning the historical documents is covered by the critics with the exception of the one proposition that these documents might be precisely what they claim to be — faithful firsthand history of actual events recorded by eyewitnesses or by men who had immediate access to the eyewitnesses. The general design of the infinite ramifications of Form Criticism as it starts out to create imaginary forms in which imagined segments of the historical accounts were supposed to have arisen can be seen from the following illustrations.

Dibelius’ Analysis

It will be seen that the outline of Dibelius’ theory which Grobel offers gives only five “pericopes” or “forms,” while Thiessen gives six, the “passion story” being the one which Thiessen adds. Donald Guthrie also gives only five forms, in agreement with Grobel’s analysis (New Testament Introduction to the Gospels and Acts, 1965, p 282). A study of Dibelius’ own statements of his theory confirms Thiessen’s analysis. Dibelius declares, “Even in the earliest period. there existed a fixed model of the Passion story, which could be expanded, but not departed from, because it had been handed down from the beginning” (Jesus, p. 33). “Hence, we may presuppose that before our Gospel there had already been a Passion story which was the earliest connected narrative of the life of Christ” (A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, p. 49). But this still leaves Dibelius with five “forms” out of six that do not present the gospel of redemption in Christ through His death and resurrection. It will be seen that the outlines given by Bultmann and Grant have no “forms” which proclaim this gospel of redemption in Christ. The extreme importance of this fact will be examined later in considering an article written by Lewis Foster.

Bultmann explains what he means by the term “apothegms” by pointing out the Greek origin of the word: “a thing uttered”; hence, a short, pithy, instructive saying. He attempts to distinguish apothegms from “the sayings of Jesus that are not placed in a particular framework.” This entire procedure reminds one of the swiftly changing fancies and tastes of little children cutting Out paper dolls without any let or hindrance to the undertaking. The segments into which the Gospels are cut are supposed to follow certain principles, but the principles are arbitrarily created by the critic out of his imagination as to what the background was. We are told that these “forms” arose out of “the quite definite conditions and wants of life” in the early church. But it never seems to have dawned upon these critics that the most elemental and omnipresent need was for simple, plain, historical accounts by eyewitnesses that would give the church a solid historical foundation for its faith and for the proclamation of the gospel. The colossal assumption of this entire Tower-of-Babel Form Criticism is that the first Christians did not have enough native intelligence to observe and ascertain with assurance historic events and actual instruction and to write down plain, historical events and teaching of what had been seen and heard. And yet these four Gospel narratives are so unique, so majestic, so unassailable in their historic verity that two thousand years of attacks have been unable to destroy them. The attacks have not even been able to draw the concentrated attention of the world away from these narratives. Just as the radicals resolutely refuse to consider the possibility that this may be actual history in the Gospel narratives, so they refuse to consider it possible that we have honest, faithful, firsthand testimony. And yet they contradict and overturn their whole laborious effort of intricate analysis by spending their entire lives on the study of these narratives! If they are collections of myths, why bother?

It is obvious that the fatal weakness of Form Criticism is the same weakness which destroys the Two-source Theory — it has no foundation. To make their case the more hopeless, its proponents are only interested in building the vast, intricate superstructure higher and higher. This was the tendency which Professor Ropes deplored. He feared it would bring ridicule upon their whole speculative system.

How Prove “Myths”?

Before any attempt can be justly made to “demythologize” the Gospel narratives, it must be proved that there are myths in these accounts to be “demythologized.” Before the Gospel narratives can be cut up into all sorts of odd fragments, it must be proved that these are myths, legends, miracle tales, etc. Just how does a radical critic decide with such ease and assurance that this is a myth, that is a legend, and this next paragraph is a mere “tale” about a miracle; and that none of them is part of straightforward, plain, dependable, historical record written by an eyewitness or one in immediate contact with the eyewitnesses? In Book Four, in the chapter on Mythical Interpretation and Form Criticism,” I attempted to consider this problem. Just what proof can the radical critics offer to prove that these accounts are myths and legends? I attempted to analyze and expose the utter failure of some of the characteristic efforts to derive the Gospel accounts from Greek, Egyptian, Persian, and Buddhist sources. One reviewer of this chapter offered the criticism that these efforts to derive the Gospel accounts from these pagan sources are out of date and are no longer attempted. But here is R. Bultmann in his recent work, History of the Synoptic Tradition (1962), attempting to argue that parallels with these pagan myths give him ground for declaring the Gospel accounts mythical (pp. 6, 7). He contents himself with vague generalization and offers no specific examples to prove that the Gospel writers were copying down pagan; myths. But it is the third and most important of his arguments to substantiate his myth-legend charge.

Bultmann’s Cosmology

Bultmann discusses this proposition of proving the New Testament is a collection of myths in his book Kerygma and Myth. He says that he can prove the presence of myths in the New Testament from the fact it declares heaven is up and hell is down. Bultmann declares, “The cosmology of the New Testament is essentially mythical in character. The world is viewed as a three-storied structure, with the earth in the center, the heaven above, and the underworld beneath. Heaven is the abode of God and of celestial beings — the angels. The underworld is hell, the place of torment” (p. 11). Bultmann absolutely falsifies the facts when he declares that the New Testament undertakes to locate heaven and hell. The New Testament does not state that heaven is one hundred thousand miles east of the sun and west of the moon. Jesus said, “I go to prepare a place for you. I will come again and receive you unto myself that where I am there ye may be also.” He does not state where this place is. That is God’s business, and not ours. When Jesus ascended, He went up into the sky and a cloud received Him out of their sight. He declared He would return in like manner. In our own space age these are still the directions in which astronauts launch out into space and return. Jesus declared of the rich man, “In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom” (Luke 16:23). But Jesus did not state where Hades and Paradise are located. He declared that “In all these regions, a great gulf is fixed..,” but still no affirmation is made of their location. There is to be a new heaven and a new earth so that it would seem this earth, after it is renovated by fire, is to have some part in the divine arrangements, but what these are God has not revealed to us.

Karl Barth’s Attack

Further attempts to prove the existence of myths in the New Testament by charging that the process was one of borrowing from pagan religions, as I point out in the chapter “Mythical Interpretation and Form Criticism,” are found in the writings of Karl Barth. At two points the Neo-radicalism of Karl Barth can be approached in a practical manner so that the conclusions will not be obscured by his abstruse, confused, contradictory, philosophical speculations. These points are baptism and the resurrection of Jesus. Many people were so elated that Barth had declared that baptism is immersion and cannot be sprinkling or pouring, they failed to see that in his treatment of baptism Barth had denied the inspiration and truth of the New Testament accounts and, by the test which Jesus Himself applies, had assailed the deity of Christ.Barth declared that baptism was a pagan ritual by which novitiates were initiated into the Greek mystery religions and that this pagan ritual was taken over by the Christians. The immediate question is, Who perpetrated this fraud? Was it John the Baptist? Was it Jesus of Nazareth? or the apostles? Or are our New Testament accounts so far removed from history that we cannot tell anything about anything? On pages 192, 193 of his Commentary on Romans he cites the pagan deities, Mithras, or Isis, or Cybel of the Greek mystery religions. He says,

What we have been saying throughout and wish to drive home here also, is supported by the fact that baptism as a rite of initiation, is no original creation of Christianity, but was taken over from “Hellenism.” There is a good reason for this. The Gospel of Christ was not concerned with inventing new rites and dogmas and institutions. Everywhere it can be seen quite naively borrowing religious material already in existence. That word “naively” is heavy with meaning. It is a compound of dishonesty and deceit amalgamated with stupid ignorance. Someone is supposed to have sneaked the ordinance of baptism from a pagan religion in Greece and then got up in public and solemnly affirmed that the baptism of John was not from men, but had been miraculously and directly revealed by God. He is supposed to have been of such low mentality that he did not realize this was lying. Furthermore, the myriads of enemies of Christianity in Judaea, Greece, and Rome are supposed to have been of such low intelligence that none of them detected and exposed the hoax. The critical question is, Who perpetrated this fraud? Not only does this radical theory utterly destroy the historical declarations of the New Testament and the claims of Jesus, but there is not the slightest evidence to prove any connection between the pagan mystery religions of Greece and the baptism of John or Christian baptism. The same sort of arguments are used to substantiate the theory of evolution that man descended from lower forms of animal life. It is argued that an animal such as a monkey has eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and other organs which man has; therefore….The differences are entirely ignored, but these make a vast chasm separating man from all animals.

Attack on the Resurrection

Form Criticism is fundamentally an attack upon the historical verity of the New Testament accounts. It would change history into folklore. Barth is not so radical as Bultmann is; they have often crossed swords. But the same deadly attack upon the historical truth of the Gospel accounts is seen in Barth. He has a shell game of his own particular variety. He changes historic facts over into philosophical concepts and then affirms the ideas as true, while denying that they are historic facts. His assertions concerning the resurrection of Jesus illustrate this: “We have already seen that the raising of Jesus from the dead is not an event in history elongated so as to remain an event in the midst of other events. The resurrection of Jesus is the unhistorical relating of the whole historical life of Jesus to its origin in God” (Commentary on Romans, p. 195). “The resurrection is not an event in history at all” (Commentary on Romans, p. 30). Yet some Christian leaders have tried to be popular by endorsing Karl Barth’s declarations that the resurrection of Jesus is true as an idea; they close their eyes to his denial that it is a fact of history. The natural destination of such thinking is the current humanism which denies there is any such person as God, but affirms that god is a useful idea which should be kept in man’s mental furnishings. In the same way many Christian people have persuaded themselves that they are popular by adopting Form Criticism while closing their eyes to the facts of its elemental denial of the historic truth of the New Testament account. Bultmann, holding that legend and historical narrative are the same, declared himself a complete skeptic. In his books Jesus and the Word and New Testament Theology, however, he declares that he can find some kernels of historical facts amid the legendary material.

“Q” and Ur-Mark

Form Criticism not only cannot furnish any basis for its charge that the Gospel accounts contain myths and legends, it cannot furnish any proof of the existence of the ultimate basis for its numberless segments. That ultimate basis is the existence of “Q” and Ur-Mark. Here is the same stone wall against which the Two-source Theory went to pieces. We have seen in the preceding chapter the utter failure of all efforts to prove the existence of these basic “sources.” If these two cannot be proved, what becomes of the hundreds of tiny sources which are presumed to rest upon these two imaginary documents? For confirmation of the fact that Form Criticism rests upon the Two-source Theory the defense of “Q” by Dibelius is enlightening (Jesus, pp. 21, 22). In late December of 1946 the annual meeting of scholars associated together in The Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis was held in Union Theological Seminary, New York City. A young scholar read what was evidently a summation of a recent Ph.D. thesis on The Priority of Mark. Here is another Irresponsible Speculation basic element of the theory, Form Criticism, which must be proved and which cannot be proved. A spirited discussion among the scholars followed. Morton S. Enslin of Crozier Theological Seminary and Henry J. Cadbury of Harvard Divinity School were the chief antagonists. Enslin, following the lead of Professor Ropes, was denying the existence of “Q.” He said, “Let us kill ‘Q’ right here. I will preach the funeral.” Cadbury was reluctant to abandon these basic elements of their whole scheme of speculation. He said, “We have been enjoying a holiday in Form Criticism. Now we need to go back for serious study to see whether we can establish the existence of ‘Q’ and the priority of Mark.” It would be hard to coin a more revealing description of flimsy, fantastic Form Criticism than the words of Professor Cadbury, “We have been enjoying a holiday in Form Criticism.” What a wild holiday of irresponsible speculation it has been! Professor Ropes had pointed out that the net result of the one hundred years of speculation in the field has been limited almost entirely to “Q.” And then he proceeded to smash “Q.” He tried to turn back the tide of speculation to the theory that Matthew copied from Mark and Luke from Mark and Matthew. We have seen in the last chapter how Plummer made very plain that this theory is impossible. But the succession of failures does not seem to have daunted the theorists who rush on to new fields of speculation. The Time Element The third element which stands squarely in the path of Form Criticism theorists is time. This was one of the fatal weaknesses of the Two-source Theory. It is much more deadly for Form Criticism, which supposes much more detailed growth of formless tradition over a much longer period into gradual forms of imagined accounts. This sort of process simply could not take place in the lifetime of eyewitnesses or those who had been in contact with eyewitnesses. When we read the frank admission of Professor Ropes that the Gospel narratives “were relatively ancient documents in a.d. 125” (The Synoptic Gospels, pp. 102-104), we see how impossible it is to conjecture such a long development of “tradition” which is supposed to have mixed pagan tradition with vague accounts handed down through generations. Even Dibelius admits that the Rylands fragment of John’s Gospel is from the period a.d. 100-140 and points out it “does not differ by a single word from our printed Greek texts” (Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, p. 13). If we take the earliest date Dibelius admits (a.d. 100), then we have in our possession a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John which was made within about a decade of the time the apostle John wrote the book. Dibelius admits that the Gospel of John was written about a.d. 100 (Jesus., p. 22). The date a.d. 125, which Ropes names for the Rylands manuscript, only allows some twenty-five years to have elapsed since the writing of the Gospel of John and some seventy-five years to have separated the writing of the Synoptics from this period of their universal circulation among the churches. Form Criticism acts on two false premises: (1) the supposition that there is no historical testimony upon which the Gospel narratives rest; (2) the supposition that there is no limit to the amount of time they have for their elongated theory of tradition-development.

Schmidt’s Fragmentation

There were three publications in 1919-1921 which made these years explosive in the development of the Form Criticism. K. L. Schmidt, a student of Dibelius who was using ideas he had secured from Dibelius, not yet published by him, held that the order of “pericopes” of Mark is “casual and arbitrary.” In other words he was cutting up the Gospel of Mark into fragments to suit his theories and announcing that these segments or pericopes were not arranged in chronological order by Mark or in any other discernible order. This left Schmidt free to rearrange or separate at his personal convenience.

Dibelius’ Form Criticism

Dibelius’ own exposition of his theory appeared the same year (1919) in Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (The Form History of the Gospels).This title gave the name “Form Criticism” to the development which the Two-source Theory had now taken. It was still the Two-source Theory, for it was the same basic method and objective. They still faced the dilemma that they had not yet even proved the existence of “Q” and Ur-Mark. But they rushed on from this unfinished task to a new and wider field of speculation. The hostile critics, who were seeking to carve up the Gospel narratives and prove they were not history but myth, are described by K. Grobel as being in a “stalemate” at the close of the last century (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, “Form Criticism,” p. 320). Now “stalemate” finds two opposing armies or forces in collision where neither can gain a decisive victory. The radical scholars were indeed in a variety of opposing camps, and none was able to convince the others of the truth of his own particular theory. Unable to prove even the existence of “Q” and Ur-Mark, they now proceeded to take a holiday from serious theorizing by multiplying at liberty all sorts of fantastic views of an incredible number of sources. Dibelius divided his pericopes (cutout sections or “forms”) Paradigms into five forms — paradigms, novelle, legend, paranesis, and myth. Of these he considered the paradigm the most important: “those concise, self-contained and edifying (not worldly) stories concentrated about a striking saying or deed of Jesus.” These stories which centered in a deed or saying of Jesus, since they were used in Christian teaching, are our surest source of information about Jesus, according to Dibelius (Jesus, pp. 31, 32).

Paranesis

He considered paranesis the next in importance. These consisted of exhortatory words of practical guidance in personal ethics and community self-discipline. Dibelius held that these may have been created by the church because they were needed and may or may not have come from Christ. In other words the first Christians falsely attributed to Jesus all sorts of sayings and teachings which they felt they needed. The low state of morals which is everywhere assumed by this theory illustrates how carefully slander may be created by a theorist. The only other alternative is to imagine that the first Christians were so stupid that they did not know it was wrong to lie. And these Christians have given to the world the noblest exaltation of truth in the New Testament and in their lives which the world has ever known!

Novelle

Novelle is the French word for novel. With this title Dibelius hurls his charge of fiction-writers at the authors of the Gospel narratives. He held that they were relating some “wonder” and giving details to satisfy worldly curiosity. He calls these “floating stories” about Jesus — some examples — might contain some kernel of historical data which has been exaggerated. He cites the account of the Gerasene demoniac and that of Jairus’ daughter as examples of a floating story. He calls them “tales.” Dibelius undertook to introduce geographical sources into his theories and to separate Palestinian from Hellenistic. When he talks about Hellenistic stories, even though ever so vague, he is implying Greek myths have entered into the creation of the fanciful account found in the Gospels.

Legend A further “pericope” or “form” was called “legend.” “By this term is meant a narrative written in an edifying style and telling of extraordinary things about a holy man or a holy place” (Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, pp. 43ff.). He cites as an example of a “legend” Jesus as a boy of twelve in the temple. He holds that this is a fabrication brought forth to create a religious hero. He says that even myths may have some kernel of history which has been inflated, but he insists that its interest is in the theological idea advanced (A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, pp. 40-42; Jesus, pp. 32, 33).

Myth Deity The mythological interpretation imputing deity to Christ, Dibelius says, arose partly from false interpretations which Christians forced upon Old Testament Scriptures (A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, pp. 46ff.). He attempts to maintain that this mythological interpretation is found particularly in John’s Gospel (A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, pp. 95ff.).

Bultmann’s Analysis In 1921 R. Bultmann published his Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition (History of the Synoptic Tradition). As Dibelius had divided up the Gospel text into various odd fragments to suit his imagination, so Bultmann attempted to put the material in the Synoptic Gospels into various forms. He used the term “apothegm” as parallel to Dibelius’ “paradigm.” He used the term “miracle tale” as a variation of “novelle.” The Palestinian and Hellenistic division of tradition became the basic idea in Bultmann’s analysis. His extreme skepticism led him practically to identify legend and historical narrative, although he admits there may be some historical facts in the legendary material. He held that the connected account of the life of Christ had already been lost before Mark was ever written; hence, the Form Criticism theorist maintains that no one can now properly write on the “life and teaching of Jesus” concerning which we have fragmentary, exaggerated, and uncertain remains. Bultmann’s constant call to remove the myths from the Gospel accounts he called “demythologizing the New Testament.” The Greek word kerygma means “preaching.” He attempted to separate the preaching about Christ in Acts and the Epistles (in other words, the faith of the early church) from the actuality of the historical material recorded in the Gospel accounts. The Eyewitnesses

It is immediately evident that the fatal weakness of the lack of time in the Two-source Theory becomes even more desperate for Form Criticism. It is plain that this entire scheme is built upon the untenable theory of the nineteenth century skeptics that the Gospel narratives were written late in the second century. Sir Frederic Kenyon expressed the conviction that the Rylands fragment would have produced a sensation in the middle of the nineteenth century if it had been found and identified at that time because it would immediately have forced the abandonment of the prevailing theory of the late date of the Gospel narratives. But not even all the quotations by early Christian writers of passages from the Gospel narratives and manuscripts such as the Rylands fragment have been able to bring the Form Criticism theorists down from the balloon ascension of their imaginations to the hard earth of historical facts. Bultmann says that by the time the Gospel of Mark was written (which he holds was written first, instead of Matthew) any connected account of the life of Christ had been lost. But the writing of Mark was in the fifties, or at the latest, sixties. Even the radicals admit it must have been written in the seventies. Now this last date is only forty years after the crucifixion. Persons twenty years old at the time of Jesus’ ministry would now be sixty; those forty years old would now be eighty. How could the connected account of Jesus’ life, its basic purpose and achievement, possibly be lost in so short a time with thou. sands of eyewitnesses still alive and testifying to what they saw and heard? Bultmann lives in a dream world of his own creation.

Herman Gunkel (1862-1932) is generally held to be the first scholar to apply Form Criticism to the Bible. Herder, Wellhausen, and Norden had done preliminary work in this field before the time of Gunkel. From about 1830 forward the literary criticism of the Synoptic Gospels had been developing the Two-source Theory. Lachmann (1835), C. H. Weisse, and C. G. Welke (1838), H. J. Holtzmann (1836) and B. Weisse (1886) are some of the key names and dates. Since 1900 German scholars have led the way in assuming a gradual development of “gospel tradition” before the writing of the Gospel accounts. Streeter, Grant, and Parker have had a large part in theories of multiple sources of material common to Matthew and Luke, and not in Mark. If the Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses or did not have immediate access to eyewitness testimony so that they could record history (not to mention the solemn promises of Jesus that they would be miraculously inspired to recall what He had said to them and to proclaim the assured facts to the world), if some unknown and uninformed persons were left to collect what scattered bits of information were floating around, then it would have been comparatively easy for the theorists to move from two sources to many. If Matthew wrote his account of the birth and infancy of Christ after he had been in direct contact with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and if he had been guided by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote, then there is solid basis for Christian faith. The same conclusion is inescapable in regard to Luke’s account. The differences in the accounts are the results of their different interests and plan, and of divine guidance. But if these are late writings by persons so far removed from history that they can only scrape together little bits of popular tradition, then it is plain the theorists can assume different “sources” for the infancy accounts in the two narratives. But observe this monstrous inconsistency in the theorists. Most of the radicals will admit that Luke wrote Acts and the Gospel of Luke. This instantly places Luke in contact with eyewitnesses. How, then, can they talk about “tradition” and “sources”? Instead of Luke’s declaring that he had copied from written “sources,” he affirms exactly the opposite; he had carried on his own direct investigation by interviewing the eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). In spite of this inconsistency, however, the critics built up their ever-mounting theory. A third cycle of “tradition” was imagined and called “L”; Moffatt, Bussmann, and Crum held that Luke used this “source.” Streeter held that Luke had combined “Q” and “L” into a Proto-Luke before it was combined with Mark. V. Taylor, W. Manson, and Parker agreed with this theory, but the idea of a framework from Proto-Luke instead of from Mark was rejected by many.

Geographical Imaginations A wild debate ensued among the theorists as to whether Matthew had a Judaistic source such as “Q” and “L.” Some scholars still held to (Easton, Bacon, Scott). Others sought to split “Q” up into different sources. We have already given much space to the effort of Ropes to call his colleagues back from their fantastic imaginings to a more simple effort to say the Gospel writers copied from one another instead of creating such an incredible melee of imagined sources. Having created such a vortex of different cycles of tradition, the originators of the confusion undertook to suppose geographical localities or conditions as the motifs of these various “sources” they had imagined. To name a city or a section as the place where a “source” grew up is supposed to add an aura of geographical verity to a “source” which has been created out of thin air. It was this turn given to the theorizing that led to the general division of Palestinian and Hellenistic as the two great backgrounds. This was a familiar division which was readily adapted when no let or hindrance attached to their fancy.

Theory vs. History

K. Grobel, writing in the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Article, “Form Criticism”), describes the consensus among the theorists as they start with the dictum that “folk memory operates with small units.” Hence, the separation of these units is the first task of the analyst. The units which are floating around at about the same time and are similar “in structure, length, tendency, rather than content,” make up the “forms” or “categories.” “Tradition is never preserved for its own sake with conscious antiquarian intent, but only because some need or interest of the community presses it into service. In such service it stays alive as oral tradition as long as that practical interest remains alive.” “The forms themselves, apart from their content, have a history which in broad outline can be discerned — a pre-literary history. This is justification for speaking of ‘form history.” The first question that arises is, who says that the Gospel narratives are “folklore” and on what basis? Is there nothing but folk memory to be had in the recording of the affairs of mankind? Is there no such thing as history? Did such a person as Xenophon never live? Did he not accompany Cyrus on his great military campaign against Artaxerxes and record the things he saw, heard, experienced in his Anabasis? Did Thucydides not carry on his careful, systematic research and record actual history of the thirty years’ war between Sparta and Athens? Why should Matthew and John have had to pick up floating scraps of folklore and publish these instead of writing directly of the things they had themselves seen and heard? Why should Mark and Luke, in constant association with the eyewitnesses, depend on anonymous bits of writing that were in circulation?

Denial of Divine Plan The second fundamental assumption which is in complete contradiction to the facts is that there was no leadership, no definite plan, no guiding hand. The folk memory simply operated in haphazard fashion, gradually collecting all sorts of popular rumors. The accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John grew up like Topsy and hence are to be turned turvy. The Gospel accounts, we are asked to believe, grew like a snowball that rolled down the hill of its own weight (?) and in the end was a shapeless mass which reflected merely the terrain over which it had travelled. There was no person who had the guiding purpose and plan that produced the New Testament.

Denial of God This is an unwarranted denial of all that we read in the Scripture. Jesus selected and trained twelve leaders who were carefully instructed so they could deliver His message and program to the world. He promised them miraculous inspiration which would enable them to recall what He had said to them, which would lead them into all necessary truth, and which would empower them to speak infallibly for Him. In the Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament we have the history of how these very promises were fulfilled. These were the leaders, together with Paul, whom God selected and Christ commissioned, and other leaders trained by the apostles, who preached the gospel far and wide in that very generation and wrote down the first three Gospel narratives in that very generation. As if to seal the case, the apostle John was spared to the next generation and wrote his books toward the close of the century. Instead of there being no leadership, here was the chosen trained leadership God had prepared. Instead of God’s divine plan for man’s redemption being left to folklore which “is never preserved for its own sake with conscious antiquarian intent,” John seals the case by declaring, “These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31). The elemental assumption of Form Criticism is really a denial of God Himself. He is the One who provided the leadership, the plan, the divine guidance. We come again to atheistic evolution, which is the presumptuous and absurd effort to explain the universe and its contents and inhabitants without God. Matter and motion are all that are admitted, and even this cannot be explained. The evolutionist begins with an unintelligent beginning. In like fashion Form Criticism, the child of the theory of evolution, insists that we have only folklore growing up without any guiding personality or plan.

Attack on Miracles

Why is it that Form Criticism theorists such as Dibelius and Bultmann insist that the Gospel narratives are to be considered folklore? It is because they contain the accounts of miracles. Look at their charts. See how the attack upon the miracles stands out in their “forms”: “myths,” “legends,” “miracle tales.” What lies back of this attack? The assumption that a miracle is an impossibility. But why an impossibility? There is but one answer — because there is no such person as God. All there is which must be admitted is matter, motion, and laws of nature. This is not to say that all of these men are conscious atheists. It is rather that they live in a contradictory dream world where in their confusion they refuse to face the facts of history and of their own logic. The absurd “God is dead” movement, which is their latest fad, bears witness to the increasing boldness with which many of these Form Criticism theorists now boast of their atheism. Even when they cannot explain their own existence, they refuse to take into account the existence of God. He is the Leadership, the Divine Planner, the Guiding Intelligence. But could not God have willed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John use written sources of all varieties arising out of unknown The Divine Plan origin? If that had been the divine plan, it would have contravened intelligence itself. Jesus clearly declares that the leadership of the church is to be of His own choice and training and empowered with miraculous ability to prove by miracles their divine appointment and authority. What stupidity must be assumed in back of keeping the chosen qualified witnesses silent while anonymous nonentities started vague rumors which gradually exaggerated into accounts of miracles? It was the chosen plan that every person saved by the grace of God should be on fire to tell everyone the wondrous news; and in pursuing this commanded course it was natural that many would seek to write to relatives and friends and give to them the good news of man’s redemption. But Luke 1:1-4 shows clearly that such written accounts were in a different category from the divinely inspired accounts of the apostles and their chosen associates.

Natural Elements This does not mean that the Gospel narratives were written in a vacuum. Let any college professor who will, try this experiment. Choose some memorable occasion — even such an ordinary affair as a college picnic, when professors and students join in turning aside from the steady grind of hard study. Give no intimation of what you plan, but after some days suddenly ask the students in a given class to write an account of that picnic. See that the students are so placed that there is no possibility of consultation or copying. There will be a very great similarity in the accounts, and there will be some surprising differences in subject matter and emphasis. The weather, whether glorious or miserable or so uncertain as to have kept everybody on edge, the beautiful world of nature that always invites the cloistered soul, the jolly fellowship of college students in “the golden days of our happy youth,” the athletic contests, the hearty meals, and similar subjects will be discussed over and over. This is natural for these are persons with similar background, ideals, objectives, and reactions. Moreover, even though the students were without any intimation that such an essay would be required, they would have exchanged comments and ideas about the affair many times during the day itself and the days that immediately followed.

Tradition vs. History This is exactly what happened when the church was established at Pentecost following the ascension and in the days that followed. The other apostles heard Peter preach at Pentecost. They must have heard one another proclaim the gospel countless times in private conversation and in public proclamation. Their unity of faith, purpose, and experience would alike guide them to recall and emphasize many of the same things in the same way. This is not an appeal to “oral tradition.” It merely is the recognition that the Gospel narratives were not written in a vacuum. What right does anyone have to apply that word “tradition” to what an eyewitness records out of his own personal experience or what the associates of eyewitnesses record out of their immediate testimony? That word “tradition” is only a sly way of moving the Gospel accounts over into the late second century. The word implies something handed down from one generation to another over a long period of time which has rendered obscure and uncertain what the source really was and what the facts are.

Divine Inspiration The similarities and differences which arise naturally out of the same background and occasion as focused by different personalities are seen in the Gospel narratives. But there is more than this. There is the divine inspiration of the writers through which God Himself guides and directs the writers. The protest is raised, “If God and divine inspiration are introduced into the discussion, then there is no problem.” What a confession! And must God be ruled out so that there will be a problem? If so, we can be sure it will remain an insoluble problem. This view cannot be brushed aside with the caricature-epithet “dictation theory of inspiration.” Christ promised His divinely appointed leaders miraculous inspiration for the proclamation of the good news to the world. Certainly the very words could have been given, when God so willed. That the human personalities also express themselves in differences in style is constantly manifest. R. H. Lightfoot thinks clearly when he says that a choice must be made between verbal inspiration of the Gospel narratives and the critical theories of “sources” such as “Q” and Ur-Mark or Form Criticism (History and Interpretation ofthe Gospels, pp. 10, 12). Those who think they can adopt these rationalistic theories and still believe the promises Jesus made to His apostles that they would be divinely directed in their proclamation are like the evolutionists who talk such nonsense as “theistic evolution.” What sort of theism is compatible with the theory of evolution? Pantheism!

Theory of Evolution and Form Criticism The space age with its explosive efforts to secure a nearer approach to the moon and other planets has confronted the atheistic scientists again with the enigma of life. How can they explain the fact that this small planet on which we live has atmosphere, moisture, and the other elements necessary to life and also immense numbers of varieties of life crowned by the existence of man? How is it that the sun, moon, and stars serve so admirably the necessities of our life here on this earth? Having denied the existence of an intelligent Creator, all that they can conjure up is “the million to one chance” combination of matter and force that produced on our planet the essentials for life and the existence of life itself. And where did they even get this matter and force? In my book The Everlasting Gospel there is a chapter entitled “Whence the Church — by Evolution or by Revelation?” This is the same issue faced in Form Criticism. As we consider the mysterious majesty, the unique authority, the sublime contents, and the profound influence of these books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, whence the Gospel narratives — by Evolution or Revelation? “God has spoken unto us in his Son” (Hebrews 1:1-4).

Streeter’s Four Document Hypothesis The “stalemate” which developed at the turn of the century in the struggle of contrary theories as to two “sources” proceeded to bring forth Form Criticism. Instead of either Dibelius or Bultmann being able to win unanimous support among the radical theorists, a variety of other fanciful arrangements has been proposed. Notable among these is Streeter’s Four Document Theory. The chart illustrates its nature. Streeter held that there was a document he calls Proto-Luke, which Luke himself made out of a combination of “Q” and the new material now found in Luke’s Gospel (The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins, pp. 201ff.). Luke is supposed to have made a second effort, revising his early work, when he had secured a further source of the Infancy stories and had Mark’s Gospel in hand to guide his rearrangements (The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins, pp. 217ff.).

While Ropes, Enslin, Chapman, and others deny the existence of “Q,” Streeter denies the existence of Ur-Mark and affirms “Q.” The four sources he affirms for Matthew and Luke are these: (1) Mark and “Q” were used by both Matthew and Luke; (2) Streeter then imagines a source for Matthew associated with Jerusalem; he calls this “M”; (3) The Proto-Luke Streeter associates with Caesarea, as well as a source he calls “L”; (4) Matthew is supposed to have had some sort of a source which Streeter associates with Antioch, and Luke had a written source of Infancy stories. But is this not five or six sources, instead of four? Streeter claims simplicity as the particular strength of his theory. Presumably to have advanced a five document hypothesis would have been embarrassingly similar to the five “forms” or “categories” of Dibelius and Bultmann with their infinite fragments of documents under each category. But what sort of simplicity can Streeter claim for his theory? He supposes that Luke chanced upon a defective copy of Mark in which by accident a scribe had omitted all the sections from the feeding of the five thousand to the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. Hence, although Luke is supposed to have copied Mark’s account, he does not have all these sections. Plummer denounced as “a desperate expedient” this weird theory which Reuss invented. It did not suddenly change from an act of desperation to simplicity when Streeter adopted Reuss’ theory. The Babel of Confusion

Streeter’s theory has gained no significant support from other scholars. Nor did the extreme imaginations of Dibelius and Bultmann acquire any general acceptance. The stalemate which descended at the close of the last century upon the Two-source Theory combatants with their contradictory versions has now overtaken more than half a century later the Form Criticism advocates. The last two decades have brought forth no new theories of any consequence. The radical scholars still wrestle with one another over the very existence of Ur-Mark and “Q.” This same fantastic theory that Luke, the master historian, did not even investigate enough before he copied it to know that he had secured a defective manuscript of Mark has been adopted also by Wendling (1905), Bacon, Moffatt, Goguel, Bussmann, and Crum. Their desperate efforts to save the source theories reveal the spectacle of a drowning man grasping at a straw.

Streeter’s Prologue to Luke

If Streeter’s Four Document Theory is inserted into the magnificent preface to the Gospel of Luke, what comes forth? “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning these matters which have been fulfilled among us, it seemed good to me to copy down long sections of these written accounts and to combine them with certain other written works, but my first effort at producing a satisfactory account of the life of Christ was very unsatisfactory and I have had to make a second attempt. I was especially moved to do this when I came across some stories someone had written about the birth of Christ and when I read the Gospel which Mark had published and which I immediately copied.” The brusque manner in which Luke brushes aside the written efforts which many had been making to tell their relatives and friends about Christ is most impressive. He rests upon his own independent investigation of the eyewitnesses, tracing the historic events to the very beginning and securing absolute assurance of the firsthand, indubitable quality of the testimony. He records the promises of Jesus that His chosen witnesses were to have miraculous guidance, and he testifies to the actual fulfillment of these promises. The Elemental Issues

Besides the choice which Lightfoot affirms, there is actually one that is more elemental. It is not only a choice between miraculously inspired apostles and their associates on the one side and imaginary theories of copied mythical documents on the other. It is a choice between the honesty, veracity, and intelligence of eyewitnesses and of those who had immediate contact with eyewitnesses, and nondescript editors collecting written fragments of anonymous origin and inflating mere natural events into miracles via myths, legends, and miracle tales. What honesty is left for the New Testament writers who copied from written documents produced by others before them to whom they gave no mention, and instead pretended to write with unique authority on the basis of their personal knowledge and research directed by miraculous assistance of the Holy Spirit? What veracity can still be credited to them if they shamelessly inflated into prodigious miracles what had been ordinary occurrences? What intelligence is left to the writers who could not write down what they themselves saw, beard, and experienced, but had to copy the written work of some nonentities? What intelligence is left to the early Christian leaders who were in touch with apostles but copied from composite works of unknown authorship? H. C. Thiessen says concerning the theory that Matthew and Luke used Mark and “Q,” “That theory degrades the evangelists Matthew and Luke to the position of slavish and yet arbitrary compilers, not to say plagiarists” (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 127). Form Criticism is an even more complete denial and degradation. Thiessen quotes Kerr as saying the same thing: “Matthew and Luke are charged with plagiarism” (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 127). Alford says:

It is inconceivable that one writer borrowing from another matter confessedly of the very first importance, in good faith and with approval, should alter the diction so singularly and capriciously as, on this hypothesis, we find the text of the parallel sections of our Gospels changed. Let the question be answered by ordinary considerations of probability, and let any passage common to the three evangelists be put to the test. The phenomena presented will be much as follows: First, we shall have three, five or more words identical; then as many wholly distinct; then two clauses or more, expressed in the same words but differing order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical; then a clause not only distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth, with recurrences of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidents, and transpositions. Nor does this description apply to verbal and sentential arrangements only; but also, with slight modification, to that of the larger portions of the narratives, Equally capricious would be the disposition of the subject matter. Can an instance be anywhere cited of undoubted borrowing and adaption from another, presenting similar phenomena? (Greek Testament, pp. 1, 5, 6).

It is no defense of the Gospel writers to say that they lived in a primitive time, when, morals being low and undeveloped, it was not realized that it was wrong to publish someone else’s work as your own, or to pretend to possess firsthand information or miraculous power, or to attach some famous person’s name to your book in the hope of increasing its circulation and influence. These men knew so much more about honesty, veracity, and noble ideas, having studied under the Divine Teacher, that all the world has sat at their feet in the study of these four narratives during two thousand years seeking guidance and inspiration in the pursuit of noble living. The “Q” Myth

Lewis Foster, writing in the Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society of January, 1965, in an article entitled “The ‘Q’ Myth in Synoptic Studies,” has pointed out that the entire concentration of the ministry of Jesus was upon the future proclamation by the apostles of the good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. This was the essence of Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost and of every other sermon recorded in Acts or reflected in the Epistles. The hypothesis that such a document as “Q” existed in the early decades of the church and exercised such a profound influence and yet had no content concentrated on the gospel itself which was the passionate proclamation of every Christian on every occasion, is itself such a monstrous contradiction of all that the New Testament declares, it falls of its own weight. The radical scholars have given the most precise definition of the content of “Q”; it is the similar sections of Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark. They cannot find in these verses any presentation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God. And yet they claim that here is the early and decisive document which preceded the Gospel narratives. The New Testament, on the contrary, declares that this message of salvation was the constant and universal proclamation of the early Christians.

Applied to Form Criticism This argument falls with deadly force upon Form Criticism. Here is Dibelius’ outline of the “categories” or “forms”: (1) Passion story; (2) Paradigm; (3) Novelle; (4) Legend; (5) Paranesis; (6) Myth. In five out of these six forms where is there any place given to the original proclamation of the gospel which proceeded from Pentecost? Here is Grant’s outline: (1) Myths; (2) Legends; (3) Miracle Tales; (4) Paradigms; (5) Apothegms (F. G. Grant, The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth). This also is silent on the dramatic good news of redemption from sin by the death of the Son of God to which the Christians called the attention of all. The theory muzzles the passionate proclamation of the first Christians.

Dibelius makes public admission of this fatal weakness in his theory when he includes “passion story”; in this he underscores the fact that he had not been able to remedy the weakness, for he lists five out of six forms which do not contain this message of salvation. It stands out that while many eyewitnesses were still living who had been present when Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God and the Jewish leaders had charged Him with blasphemy and attempted to kill Him for this claim on many occasions, it is not a matter of mythical interpretation imputing deity to Christ. It is a historical fact backed by firsthand testimony. While many witnesses were still living who had seen the Jews compel Pilate to pass the death sentence upon Jesus, as they blurted out their real charge that He claimed to be the Son of God, it is not possible to talk about written sources which developed a mythical interpretation imputing deity to Christ. It is historic fact and the eyewitnesses were still available when the Gospel narratives were written. The resurrection appearances had included five hundred at one time who were made eyewitnesses. While dependable eyewitnesses still remain, mythical interpretation cannot be assumed. It is proved historic fact.

It is plain concerning Dibelius’ outline of Form Criticism that he still has five “forms” which are silent concerning this heart of the gospel message. Luke declares that the written documents which had preceded his writing had been written concerning “those things which are most surely believed among us” (a.v.); “those matters which have been fulfilled among us” (a.s.v.). These matters were the redemption achieved by the divine Son of God in His death and resurrection. This is the soul and body of what they had to tell. These five unchanged “forms” in Dibelius’ theory contravene all the facts. They still leave the theory with a deadly malady. All it can do is limp off the stage.

Streeter’s Dilemna

Streeter’s Two-source Theory — Form Criticism hypothesis is also dealt a devastating blow by this same argument. The heart of his theory is “Q.” He has to suppose that such a document was written at a very early period, a document which ignored the death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God. Since the content of “Q” is so definitely affirmed, there is no escape. Where is the central theme of the gospel which was the concentrated proclamation of those early years? How could any written document arise from Christians in this period who were on fire with evangelism and not be concentrated on this central proposition? Form Criticism is a passing fancy arising in a perverse dream world in which the dreamers stubbornly close their eyes to the facts and the evidence of history.

Thiessen’s Position

It was in 1943 Thiessen’s excellent work Introduction to the New Testament came from the press. The eleventh printing of the book was published in 1960. He devotes a chapter of twenty-nine pages to the Synoptic Problem. It gives a splendid summary of the history of the Two-source Theory and of Form Criticism. He rejects both theories and affirms his faith in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. But he presents as his own view that “oral tradition is the base for the Synoptic accounts and he is willing to admit that the Gospel writers may have used some written accounts so far as they were reliable (pp. 126, 127). In this last admission he is like a general on the battlefield who allows his line to give ground in certain sections, fearful that he may not be able to hold the entire terrain. His position on page 127 is contradictory, for after having admitted that Luke may have used some of the written documents to which he refers in his prologue and that “although Matthew and Mark did not say anything about ‘sources,’ — we may yet suppose that, to some extent, they too used them” (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 126, 127, 155), he then proceeds to charge that such a use of Mark and “Q” by Matthew and Luke would have been plagiarism. This leaves Thiessen’s position deplorably weak. He is willing to admit use of little “sources,” but not a big one.

Since Matthew was an eyewitness and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, why should he need to copy into his book what someone else had written? Such an assumption denies his intelligence and assails his inspiration. If Luke copied from some of the written documents to which he refers in his prologue (while he does not openly charge them with inaccuracy, he certainly intimates they are inadequate), then why did not Luke acknowledge this fact? How much honesty does this allow Luke? What else but plagiarism? Why should Luke place in such sharp contrast his own personal Investigation of the witnesses as against these inadequate written documents, if he used any of them at all? Why should he give such profound emphasis to the exactitude and assured accuracy of his own personal investigation and of his recording of the facts if he copied the written work of these others? Earlier in his discussion Thiessen argues that Luke would not have spoken in such derogatory fashion of the Gospel of Mark as to include it in the documents which “many have taken in hand to draw up.” He says, “He does not seem to include our canonical Mark in these earlier narratives. This is implied in his statement that he attempts to present an accurate account of the events of the Life of Christ. It does not seem possible that Luke would imply that Mark’s account was inaccurate” (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 116). And yet Thiessen turns right about face and at the close of his discussion says that it was possible for Luke to have copied some of these documents! It would be an intolerable affront to Mark to classify his Gospel with documents which Luke sees fit to copy! Thiessen’s book is so full of faith and valuable information that it is a great pity that he yields thus to the source theorists and leaves himself in hopeless contradiction.

Matthew’s Eyewitness Testimony

Although Thiessen rejects the source theories in bulk, he is willing to buy some of them in parcels. He says of the apostle Matthew:

Since he was an apostle, and since all that is in his Gospel, save chapters 1-4, the story of the cleansing of the leper (Matthew 8:1-4), the account of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-17), and the incident of the paralytic borne of four (Matthew 9:1-8), occurred after his conversion and call, we think it strange to suppose that he should have to resort to “sources” for the information that he had received firsthand (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 116). But on page 121 he says: As contrasted with these other views, the true view gives primary consideration to the divine aspect in the composition of the Synoptics. It grants that the authors may have used “sources” for some of the materials in the Gospels but holds that they used them under the guidance and control of the Holy Spirit. This means that sometimes they used materials that had come to them from the immediate apostles of our Lord, and in the case of Matthew, materials that had come from his own observation and experience; that at other times they probably adopted parts of the oral tradition concerning the life and work of Christ that had come to their notice; that at still other times they appropriated a part or all of an account that was already in circulation in writing; but that over and above all the Holy Spirit quickened their memories as to the things they had heard and seen and guided them in the selections they made and in the editing and arranging of the materials.

Now this is the very position which he rejects on page 127 as reducing Matthew and Luke to the role of plagiarists, if it is done in bulk.

Just what would “oral tradition” know about the life of Christ which an inspired apostle did not know — an apostle who was directly inspired as was Matthew to write his Gospel? Why should he have to “appropriate a part or all of an account that was already in circulation in writing,” when he himself was an eyewitness and miraculously inspired of God to write this record he has given to the world? And who says that Matthew was “converted” at the time that he was called to leave all and give Jesus all his service? When the four fishermen were called by the Sea of Galilee to leave all and give Jesus all their time and energy, they had already believed on Christ and had been helping Him in His Judaean ministry for nearly a year. Instead of supposing that Matthew was not an eyewitness to anything that Jesus had said and done before he was called to give up his tax-collecting work, the opposite is implied in his ready acceptance of this revolutionary change. Matthew certainly was not an eyewitness of the scenes during the early Judaean ministry, but he does not record any of these. Nor was he a witness of the scenes surrounding the birth of Jesus or the transfiguration and some of the resurrection appearances, but he had immediate access to the chief persons involved in these scenes. Why should he have to copy from the written account of someone else who was trying to produce a life of Christ? He was not a witness of what took place in the wilderness when Jesus was tempted of the devil, nor of the secret prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. He could have learned from the three — Peter, James, and John — of their experiences in the garden, and he could have learned from Jesus of the secret experiences in the wilderness and in the garden, but it seems highly probable that Jesus’ experiences in these two secret events were made known to Matthew and the other apostles by direct inspiration. It hardly seems probable that Jesus would have discussed His prayers in the garden with them. The supposition that Matthew copied from other written accounts already in circulation is not compatible with his honesty, his intelligence, or his divine inspiration. In addition to “The ‘Q’ Myth in Synoptic Studies” three other recent essays are significant. Two of these are by British scholars: “Synoptic Criticism Since Streeter” by O. E. Evans of Manchester College,. The Expository Times, July, 1964; and “Agreements between Matthew and Luke,” A. W. Argyle of Oxford, The Expository Times, October, 1963. The last of the four articles is “A ‘Skeleton in the Closet’ of Gospel Research,” W. A. Farmer, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Biblical Research, VI. The following conclusions are offered on the basis of these articles: The Stalemate

(1) The “stalemate” that K. Grobel describes as prevailing at the turn of the century still prevails. Among the theorists every man’s hand is raised against his neighbor. The words since Streeter suggest that here is the beginning of an epoch which still continues. This is the gist of the position of the two British scholars: Evans, endorsing Streeter’s theory; Argyle, offering hostile criticism of it. No new theory or theorist of significance has arisen in the last three decades. Dr. Vincent Taylor is selected by Evans as the leading exponent of Streeter’s theory, the main defender of Proto-Luke. Any reader who felt that my sarcastic rewriting of the preface of Luke’s Gospel (page 109) so as to include Proto-Luke was exaggerated should consider the following description of Proto-Luke by Evans: “only a preliminary draft which Luke did not consider fit for publication until it was later supplemented from Mark” (“Synoptic Criticism Since Streeter” by O. E. Evans of Manchester College,. The Expository Times, July, 1964, p. 299). Evans finishes his survey of the present state of the confused conflict with this quotation from Taylor: “It may well be that the theory with a future is a Three-Document Hypothesis which posits the use of Mark, ‘Q’ and ‘M,’ supplemented by oral sources in the ‘L’ tradition, the birth stories of Luke, and the narratives peculiar to Matthew.” Evans remarks that this is nothing more than a minor modification of Streeter’s position. (2) A second conclusion is the manifest passing of Form Criticism. Having enjoyed its little day of glory, it is bowing off the stage. None of these recent writers on the present state of the conflict give Form Criticism any place in their discussion. All four concentrate on the questions of the priority of Mark and the existence of “Q.”

End of Form Criticism This confirms the judgment of J. H. Ropes in his book The Synoptic Gospels that Form Criticism is too fantastic to deserve serious consideration; and the estimate and prediction of J. H. Cadbury in 1946 that the critics had merely been “enjoying a holiday” in Form Criticism and should now return to a serious effort to see whether they can prove the priority of Mark and the existence of “Q.” This is the very course which the discussions have actually followed. Form Criticism was an escape from the responsibility of trying to prove the twofold basis for the Two-source Theory. Now they face the original obligation. The skeleton in the closet of Gospel research which W. R. Farmer exposes and puts on exhibition is the fact that the priority of Mark has never been proved. It has never been proved that the early Christian scholars were in error in affirming that Matthew wrote first, followed by Mark and then Luke; finally toward the close of the century in the reign of Domitian, John wrote his Gospel. The theorists have never proved that Matthew copied from Mark. It is curious to see a succession of radical scholars dodge the responsibility of proving the priority of Mark by the uniform stereotyped declaration that it is not necessary to prove it. Why not? Who has ever proved it? Evans cites it as a fact that since Streeter’s time the priority of Mark has been regarded as virtually closed. He quotes Vincent Taylor’s commentary on Mark (1952): “Significant of the stability of critical opinion is the fact that, in a modern commentary, it is no longer necessary to prove the priority of Mark” (Taylor, Commentary on Mark (1952), p. 11). But this is the same declaration which Ropes had made two decades earlier that he was assuming the priority of Mark which it was not necessary to prove. Farmer in dragging out this skeleton from the closet shows that one radical scholar after another had been affirming this same thing through this century. F. C. Burkitt in 1906 had declared the priority of Mark was an axiom; there was no need to prove it. This was repeated by H. L. Jackson in 1909 and by Moffatt in 1911.

Martin Noth, a German theologian, affirms, “In New Testament studies in Germany — at least in West Germany — the ‘Bultmann School’ everywhere stands in the foreground” (Developing Lines of Theological Thought in Germany, translated by John Bright, Fourth Annual Bibliographical Lecture, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1963, page 10). But the cessation of discussion of Form Criticism in other countries reveals the lack of interest and the demise of the theory. An exception to this decrease of interest in Bultmann is the assembly of scholars who met in New York in 1964 for several days of discussion concentrated exclusively on Bultmann.

(3) Foremost in the reflections on these four survey articles is the fact that such vigorous challenges are now being offered both of these “assured results,” the priority of Mark and the existence of “Q.” Ropes was the pioneer among the recent radical writers in challenging the existence of “Q.” Enslin and many others have followed his lead. Farmer cites the following writers, all of them radical, who have recently assailed the priority of Mark: Butler in England in 1951; Parker in America in 1953; Vagany in France in 1954; Ludlum in America in 1958.

Priority of Mark

These have vigorously denied that Mark was used by Matthew. Evans declares that Dom. B. C. Butler’s book, The Originality of St. Matthew, marks the significant reopening of questions regarded as closed since Streeter’s time. “The ‘Q’ Myth in Synoptic Studies” assembles a devastating array of evidence against the existence of “Q.” Argyle argues for the position which Ropes had urged — that Luke used Matthew. Argyle objects to Streeter’s “Q” hypothesis because “a further hypothesis had to be invented for its support.” He argues that “the further hypothesis introduces confusion; it raises doubt whether ‘Q’ could have been a single document.” He cites Bussmann’s theory of “two ‘Q’s’ one of which he calls ‘T.” Argyle ends his article by assailing “Q.” He says that Streeter’s consideration was “prejudiced from the outset, and that his arguments were vitiated by occasional exaggerations and inaccuracy and that some of the evidence was not considered at all.

Roman Catholic Scholars

(4) The manner in which radical Roman Catholic scholars have entered into the wild discussion in recent years is noteworthy. This change is given special mention by these four writers. It has been general knowledge that for the last fifty years the younger priests coming forth from the Roman Catholic seminaries have been filled with the theory of evolution and have been standing up in combat with the older and more conservative priests. The elections of the last two popes have witnessed a fierce struggle between the radicals and conservatives, in which the radicals prevailed. But Pope Paul has recently issued warnings against too rapid a discarding of their “traditions” lest an actual schism take place in the Catholic Church. The sessions of the Ecumenical Council have been devoted generally to matters of Roman Catholic tradition. A person must read the books written by Roman Catholic scholars to discern how the Catholic Church has become infiltrated by unbelief and how many Catholic scholars have abandoned the inspiration of the Scriptures. It was natural for Catholic scholars who had adopted the theory of evolution to proceed to accept the Two-source Theory. Farmer cites the fact that the president of the Roman Catholic Biblical Commission in 1959 endorsed the Two-source Theory. Evans speaks of the part a Dominican scholar, B. C. Butler, has played in assailing the priority of Mark, but he asserts that no non-Catholic scholar has followed his lead in this. He remarks that Dr. Austin Farrer rejoiced in Butler’s demolition of the “Q” hypothesis, but defended the priority of Mark, But let no one imagine that this Roman Catholic scholar, B. C. Butler, is taking a conservative position and defending the inspiration of the Scriptures. He is merely shifting from one radical position to another. Here is the position which Butler presents in rejecting Streeter on the priority of Mark: He accepts the testimony of Papias that Mark wrote at the direction of Peter, but he holds that Peter was using Matthew’s Gospel as an aid to his memory! Now compare this for a moment with the solemn promises of Jesus that He would send the Holy Spirit upon them to guide them to all truth and to bring to their remembrance all He had said to them. That Peter could not even recall the events he had witnessed and had to direct Mark to copy what Matthew had written reduces these promises of Jesus to a ridiculous travesty.

Further illustration of how unbelief has infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church is seen in the work New Testament Introduction (1958) by A. Wikenhauser. This author adopts the current fad of cutting up the Gospel narratives into sources, and he does the same thing in the Book of Acts. He says of Luke, “But there can hardly be any doubt that he also used other people’s writings in the first third of Acts, though it is impossible to determine with certainty their extent or form” (p. 329).

He follows closely Bultmann’s analysis of Form Criticism. He accepts the theory that Matthew and Luke used Mark and “Q” (pp. 263ff.). He strongly affirms that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. He praises Form Criticism as a “useful means of illuminating the dark period when the gospel material was transmitted orally” (p. 271). He affirms that the first and most important premise of Form Criticism is fundamentally correct — the Synoptic Gospels are compilations (p. 272). He does not accept Form Criticism’s rejection of the Gospel accounts as historically false or that the miracles are merely stories borrowed from Judaism and Hellenism. But he accepts the process of cutting up the Gospel accounts into sources. The first twenty-five years of the history of the church bring us into the period when the Gospel narratives were being written. To call this “the dark period when the gospel material was transmitted orally” is utterly perverse. This quarter of a century was the light period when the historic facts of the gospel were being presented by eyewitnesses, led by the miraculously inspired apostles and their associates. These inspired leaders themselves worked miracles to prove the truth of their testimony. And one of the foremost of these witnesses, the apostle Matthew, wrote the first of these inspired accounts. What justification is there for calling this “a dark period” which has to be “illuminated” by cutting the Gospel narratives into imaginary sources?

Unanswered Questions

(5) The radical scholars have still been unable to offer any reasonable explanation of why Luke, if he copied from Mark, omitted all the entire account from the feeding of the five thousand to the good confession of Peter. Plummer’s challenge on the basis of this piece of evidence is still very powerful. Furthermore, the deadly attack on “Q,” that it imagines a document such as this with no presentation of redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus, remains unanswered. “The ‘Q’ Myth in Synoptic Studies” cites the “feeble” attempt of Streeter to say that there are two reasons for this: (1) The gospel of redemption by the death of Christ was not so important as Paul made it. But on the contrary, the Gospel accounts also make it just as central. Among the other books of the New Testament this emphasis is universal, with the sole exception of the Book of James, whose references to redemption in Christ through His death and resurrection are basic throughout but not stated in specific detail. But James was not writing an account of the ministry of Jesus, such as “Q” is supposed to be. James was merely sending out a sermon on practical Christian living. (2) Streeter’s second argument was that the cross could be taught orally and hence could be omitted from a written record. But why should it be omitted from a record of the life of Christ? One half of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are devoted to that fateful final week.

Crank

Three of these four surveys of recent critical research and discussion quote the biting estimate of Streeter that if Luke copied from Matthew, then the changes he made are so odd and erratic that Luke “must have been a crank.” Now this means that Streeter is hurling this charge of mental derangement at fellow theorists, for they all make the Gospel writers mere puppets on the ends of the strings that they attempt to manipulate. Was this not a surprising breach of courtesy for a sedate scholar? Should he not have said “lacking in intelligence” instead of insinuating mentally deranged? The dictionary defines “crank” as a “person with a crotchet or a mental twist; one given to fantastic or impracticable projects; one possessed by a hobby; one over-enthusiastic or of perverted judgment in respect to a particular matter; a monomaniac.” Lost in the darkness of their own making and wandering around in circles, the radical scholars strike out wildly at anyone who confronts them. The Skeleton

Farmer’s article, which gave bold promise in its title of the skeleton in the closet, is a distinct disappointment in the failure of the writer to take any decisive position. He denies the priority of Mark and asserts clearly that this theory has never been proved, but he is very timid and cautious in stating the evidence or in making known his own position. Occasionally he gives forth some staunch declaration as “a new concept of oral tradition as being like logs flowing along in a stream or river, from the banks of which each evangelist could drag to shore whatever he needed to build his gospel.” Again he says that the Two-source Theory “works like a dream, and that is what it largely is, dreaming. In the world of dreams, one is conditioned but not limited by the realities of existence (as in the case of the existing gospels).” Toward the close of his article he strikes a glancing blow at the critical issue of the time element. He points out that the radicals hold “Matthew was written after the eyewitness period.” But he does not pursue this argument to show that the claim is absolutely false. The eyewitness period lasted at least until the close of the first century. John’s Gospel seals this all-important fact. Even the radical scholars admit that the Synoptics were written nearly three decades before this. Dibelius’ admission that John’s Gospel was written at the close of the first century has been cited in this present discussion (p. 98). Farmer gives a sarcastic jab at the radical theorists in his closing sentences when he says, “In those days (the days of Hilgenfeld versus Holtzmann) the date of the composition of a gospel was decisive in determining the authenticity of the whole of its contents. With the advent of Form Criticism the situation changed.” It is typical of a halfhearted position that he does not drive home the time-element argument. An Epitaph

If the reader will turn back to page 110 and read again Alford’s analysis of the amazingly intricate and mysterious similarities and differences in the Gospel accounts, it will be seen that while Alford is much too courteous and reserved to resort to such a blunt epithet as “crank,” this is practically what he is saying: If a person argues that the complex problem of the similarities and differences of the Gospel accounts can be solved by any theory which supposes the writers copied from one another or from common sources, then that person is advocating a theory which is not intelligent. Reflecting upon this hard epithet, “crank,” which Streeter has hurled by implication at his colleagues who argue that Luke copied from Matthew (the leading exponent of this theory is James Hardy Ropes), one is inclined to feel that with this epithet Streeter himself has written the permanent epitaph of all the Two-source, Three-source, Four-source, Form Criticism theorists The New Approach

Some years ago a cartoonist published in the daily newspaper a cartoon which excited much interest and amusement. The cartoon had the caption “The professor enjoys his neighbor’s flowers.” This was the only explanation the author gave, but it was sufficient. It was very plain what had happened and what was happening. Here was a gorgeous flower garden with its wonderful riot of color and its symmetry of form and fashion. It extended along a considerable part of a city block and was immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. The only obstacle which separated the passer-by from the flower garden was a stout iron fence. The iron fence was not ponderous and the pickets were far apart. Any person could thrill to the amazing beauty of the garden every step of the way. But had the learned professor availed himself of this plain view? Oh, no! He had disdained such a vulgar procedure. He had kept his head stiffly turned aside and his eyes fixed in the other direction until finally he had come to the end of the block where there was a great iron gate. It was solid and offered no view of the flowers except through the tiny keyhole. Stooping here in laborious effort, could be seen the professor, bowed over, sighting with one eye through the keyhole: “The professor enjoys his neighbor’s flowers.” This was “The New Approach” to the flower garden. The Two-source Theory and Form Criticism are far worse than such pedantic folly. They make malicious attacks upon the deity of Christ. They charge the Gospel writers with deliberate falsification. This is “The New Approach to the New Testament” that the Two-source and the Form Criticism theorists present. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:22, Romans 1:25). “Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said unto him, Are we also blind? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin; but ye say, We see; your sin remaineth….For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind” (John 9:40, John 9:41, John 9:39).