Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

There are still a few odd persons who worship at the altar of Rudolf Bultmann and the religion of form criticism; once ago we took a look at some of his presumptions here and now, with insights from Herzog's Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God [124ff], we will look at how new research, of which Bultmann obviously could not have been aware, has confounded the atomistic slice-and-dice work of himself and other form critics who saw a conspiracy behind every verse and the early church in Jesus' mouth. Our passage for display is Mark 2:1-12:

2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. 2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. 3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. 4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. 6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Because Bultmann assumed that everyone thought like a 20th-century German rather than like a first-century Palestinian, he (and subsequent writers) could make hide nor hair of what was going on, and divided the above into sections, supposing that 5b-10 were once a single story, while 1-5a and 11-12 were incongrouous, and that some early church idiot spliced them together after serious editing, or else as Bultmann figured, the miracle story was original and the debate was layered like spolied butter on top of it (on the grounds that Jesus nowhere else pronounces forgiveness of sins, other than Luke 7:47! -- a point refuted by Jeremias, incidentally, who replied that Jesus "spoke of forgiveness in a number of guises"); or as others thought, it was the reverse. Either way critics have played Veg-o-matic with the text in an effort to explain the incongruities they perceived, which included these among others.

We need not dispute that there are certain literary transitions that seem strange (notably v. 10). But these are non-theological issues; at the core of the dispute is the claim that forgiveness of sins is in the parameters of the early church and had no place in the earthly ministry of Jesus. Beside the immensely begged question, the social sciences answer this charge, and Herzog puts the pieces together for us. To begin, who are the scribes? They are "retainers, probably in some way representing the interests of the temple in Jerusalem...From their point of view, the temple is the only place where sins can be given and purity restored. This is the exclusive right of priests using the sacrificial system. To protect that monopoly is their likely intent in this clash." Jesus they see as an "interloper" putting himself in the place of a priest.

Now understand as well that the role of the scribes in the temple apparatus may be placed in the context of a client-patron relationship in the ancient world. God was the "patron" and His devotees were the clients. People like the scribes viewed themselves as brokers, an intermediary, and they and the priests viewed themselves as the sole brokers for God's patronage. Thus when "Jesus declares God's forgiveness of the paralytic's sins (debts), he steps into the role of a reliable broker of God's forgiveness, and by simply assuming this role, challenges the brokerage house in Jerusalem called the temple."

But there is more. Poverty-stricken peasants, especially one like the paralytic, were caught in a Catch-22. They could not afford the temple tax which the gatekeepers imposed. Hence they could not have access to God's grace and healing; hence they were not able to work to make money to pay the tax...and around went the vicious circle. And now insert the concept of forgiveness and how it relates to the healing: The priests and scribes would see a man who is "a living embodiment of the judgment of God" suffering either for his own sins or those he inherited from his parents. Thus he "is permanently excluded from the redemptive media that are the temple and Torah, since he is unable to make pilgrimage to it, and even if he could, could not enter its precinct or offer sacrifices." Think here in terms of the "unclean" caste in Hindu society who are thought to be suffering what they deserve, and so no one will do anything for them. Jesus bypasses the entire system, and this is what makes the scribes upset. Jesus heals the man in two ways: he forgives his sins, thus restoring him to his social status; and he heals his disease, thus restoring his physical status. Rather than being an incongruity, the forgiveness of sins "conveys what an ancient Mediterranean villager would expect to hear." Not only so, but Jesus has hurled an "honor challenge" to the scribes and the entire temple setup, declaring done what they have conspicuously failed to do.

One more minor example is worth notice, from Mark 11:15-19 [135ff]:

15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; 16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. 18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine. 19 And when even was come, he went out of the city.

Bultmann chopped 15b-17 out and called it original, while 15a and 18-19 were regarded as "editorial additions". In addition he chopped 17 off of 15b-16, arguing that 17 does not serve as a proper climax to the story, for it seems to be addressed to "Jews at large" rather than the retailers. Thus Bultmann saw an "ideal scene" that was unhistorical as related.

Herzog begins with a fascinating note from Derrett, who suggested that Jesus was here following Levitical procedure for "examining and condemning a leprous house" (Lev. 14:34-53). The steps were to 1) remove all vessels that had been contaminated (v. 15); 2) prevent any "unstoppered" vessels from entering the house (the action of v. 16!), and 3)removing and destroying furniture (v. 15 again); 4) dismantling the house stone by stone (the prophecy in the Olivet Discourse that one stone will not be left on another).

But now for the coherence of v. 17 in context. The temple of course had a treasury (once raided by Pilate to fund an aqueduct, per Josephus) and tribute was collected to support it. As noted above, this system caused a Catch-22 for the poorest people. Ignorance of this point caused theorists like Bultmann to resort to creative explanations for the insertion of v. 17; i.e., it was for the purpose of justifying inclusion of Gentiles in the church! When we get out of the wacky world of Bultmann, however, we find our answer. V. 17 is a compilation of Is. 56:7 and Jer. 7:11. (As noted elsewhere, creative use of such texts was an honorable activity.) Jeremiah lived in the time of Jehoiakim, who "constructed a new palace for himself using conscripted labor" (Jer. 22:13-17) and "did nothing to prevent the oppression and exploitation of the people of Judah." Jeremiah's message, like Jesus', was to those who oppressed the poor and used the temple as a sort of talisman, assuming that if they were inside the temple or had it around, they would be safe from judgment. Both Jesus and Jeremiah were addressing "internal oppression and violence", in Jesus' day, meaning as well those who oppress and exploit the poor by adding to their funds off of the backs of the poor. And there may be greater irony, for in Jesus' day, the poor often turned to the sort of "social banditry" that Jesus' words allude to. In essence Jesus may be wryly suggesting that the REAL "bandits" are those who take money from the poor! At the same time, Is. 56:7 is in a context of ministry to outcasts, which of course fits the theme of Jesus' ministry and his advocacy of people like the paralytic. Rather than being foreign to the context, v. 17 fits in the situation perfectly.

8/19/05: Now a new example from Herzog's newer book Prophet and Teacher [129f]. Here is the passage of concern:

Mark 7:1-15 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. 14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

Bultmann was all a-gaga over the question in v. 5 not being answered until v. 15 and thus claimed that the "artificiality of the composition is clear as day." But Bultmann was simply unaware of the form in which challenge and riposte was performed. In such conditions, an immediate and direct answer to the question was the last thing that would be offered, for to put it in modern terms, it would be like dignifying your opponent by implying that his question deserved an answer. As Herzog notes, in this setting, the "proper riposte to a hostile challenge is not to answer the question but to attack the one who asked it, and this is exactly what Jesus does. Where the modern reader finds discontinuity, the ancient reader finds continuity."

In short, we have here clear examples of how Bultmann's lack og knowledge of the social world of the NT caused him to reach an erroneous conclusions about the origins of these stories. (For a parody of Bultmann's treatment of oral tradition variations, see here.)