Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FAITH AND THE HISTORICAL JESUS §5.3
fluences of Greek philosophy. Barth replied that Harnack was reducing Christianity
to the human level; theology was concerned rather with the transcendent
God and his approach in Christ, not with the religious life as exemplified in Jesus.
Taking up 2 Cor. 5.16, Barth affirmed that we know Christ no longer according
to the flesh: this is the Jesus with whom critical scholarship is concerned, and
over whom it disagrees; rather it is the Christ of faith with whom we have to do,
who confronts us now in the Word of God. This debate had a decisive influence
on Bultmann, who abandoned the Liberalism in which he had been trained and
embraced Barm's kerygmatic theology. 28
Bultmann's principal contribution to our story lies in his development of
what quickly became known in the English-speaking world as 'form criticism' , 29
In this he was building on the work of two immediate predecessors. Julius
Wellhausen had demonstrated that in each of the Synoptic Gospels one can distinguish
between old tradition and the editorial contribution of the Evangelists. It
is the editorial work and concerns of the Evangelist which have given each Gospel
its present form, whereas the earlier tradition consists chiefly of single brief
units. 30 K. L. Schmidt had gone on to examine the connecting links which join
together the separate episodes in Mark's Gospel. He concluded that almost all
the references to time and place are to be found in the verses which connect the
single narratives into the larger whole; that is, they are part of the editorial work
of the Evangelist. It also follows that the original tradition was made up almost
entirely of brief, single units which lack note of time or indication of place; that
is, which lack historical reference. The impression that Mark gives of being a
continuous historical narrative is given entirely by the editorial links. 31 These
conclusions became foundational for Bultmann: (i) the distinction between earlier
tradition and editorial work, (ii) the nature of the earlier tradition — single
units, and (iii) the lack of historical interest within the earlier tradition. 32
28. Robinson, New Quest 46.
29. The English term is not a translation, but is modeled on the parallel of 'text criticism'
and 'source criticism'. The German term Formgeschichte was coined by M. Dibelius, Die
Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (1919), ET From Tradition to Gospel (London: Nicholson
and Watson, 1934) and denotes the 'history of the form', thus focusing much more on the process
than on the forms themselves. The difference in emphasis had unfortunate consequences.
30. Summed up in his Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer, 1905):
'The ultimate source of the Gospels is oral tradition, but this contains only scattered material.
The units, more or less extensive, circulate in it separately. Their combination into a whole is
always the work of an author and as a rule the work of a literary artist (Schriftsteller)' (43).
31. K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesus: Literarkritische Untersuchungen
zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919).
32. Bultmann acknowledges his debt to Wellhausen and Schmidt in his 'The New Approach
to the Synoptic Problem' (1926), Existence and Faith (London: Collins, Fontana, 1964)
39-62 (here 42-44).
74