7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 1/10

/

r

Traditio-Historical Criticism

Traditio-Histo ical Criticism

olly

J

arey

1 Traditio-Historical Criticism: Its Aims Difficulties. and Importance

t

may come

as

a surprise to sorne that the narratives and sayings of Jesus

found in the NT were not jotted down by his disciples at the moment they

played out in history. In fact, it

was

several decades later that the four Gos

pels appeared in their current (final) formo This means that a gap of time

separated the events of the historical Jesus' life, death, and resurrection and

the writing of the documents that witness to them. During this time be

tween Jesus' ministry and the appearance of the NT documents traditions

about Jesus circulated primarily in oral form, being shared among Chris

tians and with non-Christians who were told the gospel message.

Traditio-historical cr-iticism asks what went on in the period before

these documents

were

written. How did our texts come to be as they

are?

What oral traditions He behind the written traditions we now have? How

did the early church influence or shape these stories of Jesus and his fol

lowers?

Traditio-historical criticism thus ineludes study

of

the social and

cultural milieu

of

the tradition embedded in the NT text (whether traced

to the perlod of Jesus or determined to be that

of

the early church) and the

issues that in.fluenced and motivated the NT writers to

indude

these tradi

l

Bo Reicke uses the term "reminiscences" to refer to these traditions, emphasizing

the informal

and

flexible nature

of

oral traditions

The Roots o the Synoptic Gospels

[Phila

Fortress,

1986]).

However, there is sorne debate as to whether oral traditions were

less "f¡xed"

than

their written counterparts (see be1ow).

tions, and asks what message or agenda was served by the wríters' placing

of

these traditions in certain points in the Gospel narratives. Traditio

criticism sets 1ts sights wide, focusing on the history and the

changes behind these traditions contained within NT writings.

t

thus op

erates with the recognition

of

the gap of time between the actual events

and the texts that recount them,

as

well

as

the "life" that these traditíons

had in the early church before being set down in

1.1. Authorial Agenda and Sitz im Leben

Implicit in the enterprise of tradítio-historícal criticism

is

the understand

íng that the NT texts - and specifically the Gospels - are not simply

play-by-play accounts of the mínistry of the historical Jesus. It was not the

intention of the Gospel writers, for instance, to give a complete, unbiased,

or even journalistic view of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, as with all

historícal documents on sorne level, their contents are selected, ordered,

and emphasized based on the - in these cases, especially theological and

'Ístological agenda

of

the authors and their communities.

2

Thus, the

Gospels should be regarded

as

documents derived from a variety of tradi

tions and narrating a story

of

Jesus that has been shaped by the early

church community.3 The NT texts as We now have them, then, are not re

garded as purely historical (as we typically use the term

theya re narratives whose backgrounds are formed by oral traditions that

take as their starting point the life

of

the historical Jesus. This, however,

does not mark these traditions as unreliable accounts

of

]esus. Thís issue

of the reliability

of

early - particularly

or l

traditions will be discussed

in more detaillater in this chapter.

Tradition criticism uses the German phrase Sitz

im

Leben for the set

ting or historical situation in which these traditions were shaped, their

contexts

both

in Jesus' ministry and in the sociocultural context

of

the

communities. Sitz

im

Leben can also refer more specifically

to the role or effect a Darticular tradition had in its historical situation. The

For an insightful discussion of he re ationship between "history" and the Bible, see

Joel

B

Green, "Modernity, History

and

the Theological Interpretat ion

of

the Bible,

SJT

54

(2001): 308-29.

3· Joel B. Green and Max Turner, "Preface," in

Jesus

ofNazareth: Lord and Christ: s-

says on the Hístorical Jesus and New Testament Christology

(ed. Joe

B.

Green and Max

Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans,

1994),

viii-x, here Ix.

1°3

102

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 2/10

I

1 -

r

Traditio-Historical Criticism

Sitz im

Leben of

the community from which a NT writer came and/or to

tate his enemies

is

inconsistent with the historical

fact of

his death at the

which he directed his Gospel might also be detected from the Jesus-

hands of the Roman authorities), the inclusion of accurate or inaccurate

information concerning the Palestinian environment in the first century

traditions

that he uses.

(sayings of Jesus consistent with known practices of that time and region

are more likely to be reliable),

and

indicators

of

development in the Syn

optic tradition.

.2.

Criteria

of

Authenticity

As

is true

of

any set of criteria, this list

is

by no means comprehen

Scholars

who engage in traditio-historical criticism have devised a variety sive. Nor are any

of

the criterÍa without shortcomings. For instance, the

of

criteria for judging the genuineness

of

a Jesus-tradition.

4

Of primary

criterion

of

dissimilarity has been rightly criticized for its unrealistic re

importance is

the

criteríon o dissimílarity

which gives weight to sayings

of

quírement that any teaching

of

Jesus judged

to

be authentic must be sun

Jeslls that display a view or interpretation that

is

unique in comparison to

dered from his socio-cultural context (as if his Jewishness did not have an

that of his

contemporaries

or

the early church.

That

is, this criterion sifts

influence on his teaching

and

mission) or that

of

his followers, when ap

out any

material that

is

common between Jesus

and

the other religious

plied stringently to every fragment

of

tradítion.

6

The value

of

these crite

groups of his time, or between Jesus and his later followers, identifying

ria, however,

is

found in their a im to regulate and, in some ways, to formal

uniqueness

with authenticity.

If

a tradition

Ís

shown to be in agreement

ize a method for evaluating the genuineness

of

a given piece

-of

Jesus

with

other sayings already judged to be genuine ,

then

it abides by the

crite

tradition.

r on

of

coherence. The

criterion o ~ ¡ t i p l e attestation

evaluates authenticity

on the

basis of a saying's presence in more

than one

individual

strand of

tradition

or in rnultiple forms

of

literature (such as parables or passion

1.3. Difficulties and Benefits ofTraditio-Historical Criticism

I

arratives).5

Other criteria in

dude

the accidental inclusion

of

historical

facts

(such as geographical notes or accurate comments on the culture

The study

of

the oral traditions behind the written texts

of

the NT does

which are

not the focus

of

the author,

but

which have been included be

not come without its difficulties. First, many

of

the traditions that lie be

¡

ause

ofhis knowledge ofJesus' milieu; this criterion may indicate the pos

hind the Gospels are often so deftly integrated into their final versions that

sibility

that an eyewitness

was

responsible for this tradition,

and

therefore

it

is

difficult to isolate them with any confidence. This can lead to intolera

that it

is more reliable than if it came from a secondh and source), the in

bly high degrees of speculation with respect both to the identification

of

clusion

of a story despite its difficulties (it must have been regarded

as

in

earlier tradit ions

and

to their significance, since modern scholars are so far

dispensable,

and therefore alfthentic, if it still remains in

the

text even

though it

displays inconsistencies

or

awkwardness), elements of Aramaic

background in

a tradition (since Jesus

and

his earliest followers most likely

spoke Aramaic), the criterion o f reject ion

and

execution (What historical

words and actions of

Jesus

best explain the fact

that

he was arrested and

crucified? A tradition tha t port rays Jesus as doing or saying nothing to agi

4.

These

are

derived primarily from

R.

S. Barbour,

Traditio-Historical Criticism o tiJe

Gospels:

Sorne

Comrnents

on

Current Methods (Studies in Creative Criticism

4;

London:

SPCK, 1972); Darrell 1. Bock, Studying the Historical }esus: A Guide to Sources cmd Methods

(Grand

Rapids:

Baker,

2002),

200-03;

and John

P.

Meier,

A Marginal

}ew

Rethinking the His

torical Jesus

(vol.

1; ABRL;

New

York:

Doubleday,

1991), 168-84.

). Meier, Marginal Jew 174-75, gives as an example the phrase "the kingdom of

heaven/God:

1°4

removed from the settings in which they appeared. Second, traditio

historical work faces the danger

of

circular reasoning, as the proposed his

torical situation derived from the interpretatíon

of

selected passages

of

a

NT text

is

often then used to judge the reliability or genuineness

of

other

portions

of

that same

texto

Third, in an effort to locate

and

interpret these

early traditions, scholars may ignore the flow and direction of the text in

an effort

to

get behind what

is

present in the text to determine what

is

not

presento Fourth, traditio-historical criticisrn, like any other approach that

6. N.

T.

Wríght nuances the criterion b y suggesting tha! authentic Jesus traditions

should display both símilarities and differences with both his Jewish contemporaries and

the early church (what Wright !erms "double similarity and double dissimilarity") Jesus

and the Victory o

God [Minneapolis: Fortress,

1996J, 131-33).

1°5

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 3/10

 

-----.,.

behind-the-text questians,

is

given to fragmentatian,

as

the

it pays clase attentíon to the parts and neglects the

In thís sítuation, both the cotext

and

the context

of

the narrative are

in favor

of

dividíng a once-whole text into smaller units.

Despite the difficulties, however, traditio-historical criticism has

much to offer in the study

of

the NT. Most importantly, it reminds us that

the

Gospels and other NT texts were not created in a vacuum. They were

composed within an early church milieu

of

circulating stories and tradi

tions about Jeslls' life, death, and resurrection

and

addressed issues that

were

important in the life

of

early Christ ians

and

that helped

them

make

sens

e

of their nascent faith.

t

also highlights the importan

ce of

recogniz

the

gap

of time between the historical Jesus

and

the written traditions

about him which

we

now have. These decades provided opportunity for

aditions about Jesus to be spread in the witness of the gospel, passed

down to a later generation, and applied to specífic situations in the lives

of

the

communities in which they circulated. Traditio-historical criticism

aIso

underscores the role

of

a community's social

and

cultural milieu in in

fluendng the documents it produces. Finally, this

method

helps to aid the

modern reader in the interpretation

of NT

texts.

t

does this by reminding

us

that

we

are

so far

removed from their situation, and educates us on

as

pects - both in and behind the text of realities that do

not

initial1y

make sense to us, such as social issues, religious customs,

and

beliefs and

assumptions of the time leading

up

to the writing

of

these texts.

2.

The Development

of

Traditions from Jesus to

the

Gospels

2.1.

The

Synoptic Problem

Although relevant to other NT texts,7 the focus of the majority

of

traditío

historical criticism is on the Gospels and their development from oral to

written documents. More particularIy, traditio-historical criticism has

been

most often applied to the Synoptic Gospels.

8

When dealing with the

7. For example, one can also detect early Jesus traditions embedded in the letters of

paul (e.g., 1 Cor 11:23-

2

5; Phil 2:5-

11

  .

is not without precedent, however.

,lfBultmann,

The

üladelphia: West

8. Traditio-historical criticism of John's

, ' , --1

•.• mins

rer

, 1971), and more recently Richard Bauckham,

Jesus nd the Evewitnesses:

s yewitness TestimOrty (Grand Eerdmans,

2006 .

Traditio-Historical

Criticism

Synoptic Gospels, the significant quantities of simÍlar

or

even verbatim

material quickly become apparent. The presence

of

this similar material in

Matthew, Mark, and Luke suggests sorne type

of

shared so urce

or

sources

among the three. The term the Synoptic problem has been coined

by

scholars to refer to the difficulty that arises when trying to explain the ex

aet relationship between the three Gospels, i.e., how they carne to share

this material. This issue

is

important for the traditio-historical criticism

because it raises central questions - for example: which Gospel(s)

is

(are)

the underlying tradition for the others? How did each writer make use

of

the traditionslsources available to him?

There are numerous theories for explaining the process behind the

Synoptic relationship.9

One option, which

is

held by many NT scholars to

day,

can be summarized in the following manner. Mark appears to be the

earliest Gospel to have been written;

on

this basis, scholars refer to Markan

priority. Further, many scholars explain the common material (bo th in

content and in the general strueture and order

of

the narrative) among the

Gospels

of

Mark, Matthew, and Luke by daiming that both Matthew and

Luke used Mark's Gospel as a souree for thei r own Gospels. The existence

of

1 1

found in both Matthew and Luke

but

not found in Mark suggests

. ¡

to sorne scholars a second shared souree.

]0

explain this

common

material,

scholars have posited a source called

Q

(an abbreviation

of

the German

word for source, Quelle which

is

believed to have contained sayings ofIe

.:

sus, sorne

of

which are found in Matthew and Luke.

lO

One

of

the difficulties in this reconstruction

is

that, to date, no docu

¡ ,

ment has been found that fits the suggested deseription

of Q. Q,

then, is

purely hypothetical, derived from comparisons and interpretations

of

the

Synoptic material. Although sorne scholars have gone so far as to eonstruct

a

Q

document from

al

the sayings believed to have been

induded

in an

original but lost source, this effort is at best an edueated hypothesis

of

9.

See, e.g.,

R.

H. Stein, Synoptic Problem:' in

DJG 784-92.

10. Another traditíon behind the Synoptic is an

Ur-Marku5

( orig

inal Mark ), whích indllded other sayings (not by Jesus) and narratíves shared by Matthew

and Luke but not fOllnd in the final version of Mark. This opera es llnder the as

sumption that

Qwas

Pllrely a sayings source.

See

Leif E.

Vaage

and John

S.

Kloppenborg,

Early Christianity,Q and Jeslls: The Sayings Gospel and Method in the Study of Christian

Origins,

Semeia

55 (1991):

2.

11.

Although an early Christian sayings source does exist, the Gospel ofThomas, it ap

pears to have been written later than the canonical Gospels and contains sayings that are not

present in them.

107

106

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 4/10

what t ~ s

document

may

have

looked like.

12

This reconstruction

of

the

Synoptlc

relationship is

not without its crities. Sorne

NT

scholars chal

the

existence

f Q, or disagree concerning the order of Synoptic de

pendence. Along this Une, other proposals have (1) regarded Matthew

Or

Luke

as the

first of the Gospels to have been written, with Mark using this

first Gospel, whether Matthew or Luke, as a source,

and

then either Mat

thew

or

Luke

using Mark, or (2) identified Matthew

as

the first written

Gospel, with

Luke

using Matthew (but not Mark), and then Mark using

both Matthew and Luke to compose a shorte r version for his commun ity.

2.; 1.

Cospel of John

~ h e n dealing with early traditions in the Gospels, the Gospel

of

John raises

ItS own Set of unique questions. lt is clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke

share

.Sorne

type of relationship, but where does John's Gospel fit in the

equatlOn? Although

all

four Gospels share sorne events and display a similar

general strUcture of Jesus'life, death, and resurrection, John's Gospel stands

~ p a r t

frorn the others, not least in both style and content.

13

The

differences

n John. are clear1y visible, but what does that mean for the traditions t hat

u n d e ~ g t r d

it?

Generally

regarded as the last of the Gospels to be written,

~ h n

15 rnore

explicitly

theological and christological, and

the

use

of

tradi

tlOns

to Suit the author's agenda is more transparent than in the Synoptic

G o s ~ ~ l s .

On the ane hand, this poses difficulties in the application

of

t ~ a d : t l O h i s t o r i c a l criticism, due to the smoother integration of early mate

nal

n

John's Gospel. On the other hand, the (almost certain) composition

of the Cospel in the latter part of the first century helps this enterprise, as

we

know rnore about the Sitz

im

Leben

of

the early church after the destr uc

. 12. See, e.g., James M. Robinson, et al., eds., The Critical Editioll Q; Synopsis Inc/ud-

lIlg the ~ o s p e / s ol Matthew and Luke Mark and Thomas with Eng/ish Gernwn, and

Frellch

Trans/at/on h have speclI ated that the mate

 

s

Q

and Thomas (Leuven: Peeters, 2000). Ot ers

nal

ldentifil d

with

Q

was never co

 

ecte

d

mto a smg e wrJtten

1 . d

ocument. See Martin

Hengel,. 1'he

Four Cospels

and

the

Qne

Gospel

ofJesus Christ: An Investigation the Col/ection

and Or ln ofthe

Cal10nical

Cospe/s (Harrisburg,

PA:

Trinity, 2000), esp. 169-207· James D. G.

Dunn Q as Oral Tradition;

in

The Written Gospel red. M. Bockmuehl and

D.

Hagner;

Cambndge

C b

.

P

1

6 )

th

t Q

I

. I d

  am ndge Unlversltr ress,

2005

, 45- 9 , argu.es a

ongma

y Clreu ate

was fluid, and consisted of multiple collections rather than a single collection.

13. Por

example,

John's Gospel

contaíns \engthy monologues from Jesus (e.g.,

John

14-17),

an<t

his

relationship 10 his Father is made more explicit than in the Synoptics (e.g.,

10:29-30).

108

r

1

l

i

I

I

Traditio-Historical Criticism

tion of the temple in Jerusalem than before this pivotal evento Part of the

task

of

traditio-historical criticism when applied to the Gospel of John,

then, is to uncover early traditions that parallel or modify those used by the

Synoptic Gospels, as well as to postulate reasons for the changes of these

shared traditions and the presence

of

new/different traditions.

2.] .

Oral Tradition and Form Criticism

There is sorne debate as to the process of the transmission of traditions

about Jesus before they were included in the Gospel material. The impor

tance

of

orality in the sharing of traditions in the andent world is difficult

to refute. The majority

of

the early church was iUiterate, as was the rest

of

the population at that time, w.ith sorne estimates of illiteracy as high as 90

percent. Therefore the only aceess that most early Christians had to the

stories of Jesus was through their retelling in a public setting. However,

scholarly opinion differs as to how long these stories and sayings were

shared orally befo re they began to be put down

on

papyrus. Added to this

difficulty

is

the faet that this process from orality to

the

writing down

of

Jesus traditions was certainly a gradual one. We must not imagine that the

early church embraced the written word only to reject the oral transmis

sion of tradition as inadequate. There was a span of time (the length

of

which is also debated) when both oral and written Jesus-traditions existed

si

de by side.

The issue

of

orality

is

an important one for traditio-historical criti

cism because the oral transmission of Jesus-traditions formed the back

ground for their later transmission in written formo This means that the

spread of the Jesus story by mouth had sorne effect

on

how it was spread

hand. Questions concerning the role that the eyewitnesses of Jesus played

in securing and passing on reliable tradition about his teachings and min

istry are

of

particular recent interest.

14 

[n addition to discussion about the time of the transition from

the

primacy of oral traditions to that of written tradi tions, there are also sev

eral suggestions concerning the settings and modes in which these tradi

14· See, e.g., Martin Henge\, Eye-Witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospe\s:

Form

Criticism, Community Tradition and the Authority of the Authors, in

The

Written

Gospe/ (ed. M. Bockmuehl

and

D. Hagner; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005),

70-96;

and Bauckham,

Jesus

and the Eyew itnesses.

109

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 5/10

y -

r

¡

Traditio Historieal Criticism

tions

were transmitted. On

one

end of the spectrum are the form

of

whom

Rudolf Bultmann is representative.

15

Bultmann regarded the

transmission of oral

Jesus

traditions as a fluid proeess. Aceording to him,

¡he

early church was not interested in preserving early

traditions

about

but

was

rather the source of these tradi tions.

The

kerygma or early

chUIch preaching of

the gospel

message, was responsible for the

traditions

we

find

in

the

Gospels.

Bultmann's theory reflects his skeptí

cism concerning the portrayal of the historieal Jesus

in

the Gospels, a

,keDticism grounded in his view that the earliest Christíans were not con

with the, life and teachíngs of

Jeslls of

Nazareth

but

rather with

how

traditions concerning lesus were relevant for their own eontexts and

historical sítuations.

In contrast to this form-critical view of tradition-transmission, other

have posited a more structured setting for the transmission

of

early

jeslIs traditions.

16 

Drawing

from

the system of tradition-transmission used

by the rabbis, they champion the

view

that the most likely context for the

sharing of early Jesus traditíons was pedagogical. This involved formal

by the early church leaders, and the learning of sayings of Jesus by

memorization.

Distancing hilllself

from

both the unstruetured kerygmatie setting

proposed by

the

forlll erities, and the struetured pedagogieal settings sug

gested

a b ~ v ~ , Kenneth

Bailey urges

~ a V h e . t J t a l t r a n s T . ~ : s i o n .of the early

17

tradltlOnS took place in ari '.nfonnal eontrolled envlfonment.

the oral translllission of tradltilms in eontemporary Middle East vil

o

¡age

life as a refere?ee point,

he suggests

that the earliest Christ ian

eommu

nity allowed

for the

fluidity and tlexibility of oral transmission whíle still

valuíng its

aeeuracy

concerning events andsayings attributed to Jesus.

emphasizes the importánce of the communíty for the preservation

of tradition, not its invention

contra

many of the early form erities).

Sorne

of

the ffiOst·reeent work to

be

done

on

the issue

of

the setting of

tbe transmíssioll..of

Jt;sus

trMitions comes from Richard Bauekham.

18 

In-

Tradition New York: Harper and

15. Ruclolf Bultmann,

The

History

oWt 1.7/-;

16.

E.g., Birger Gerhardsson,

Memory and

Manuscript Oral Tradition and Written

TrtlllSmission

in abbinic

Judaism

and Early

Christianity (Uppsala/Lund: Gleerup,

1964),

and

Rain

er

Riesner, Jes

us

als Lehrer WUNT 2:7;

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,

1981).

17. Kenneth

E.

Bailey, lnforrnal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gos

»

Themelios

20 1995):

4-11.

18. Bauckham, JeSu.s

ami

¡he Eyewitnesses.

11

terested specifieally in the role that the eyewitnesses of Jesus played in the

eventual compositio n of the Gospels, Bauekham examines the evidences

forward by the form erities, Gerhardsson, and Bailey, and discusses

their strengths and weaknesses. Crucial to his argument is his challenge of

the assumption ehampioned

and

made pervasive by form eriticism)

that

the Jesus-tradition deve10ped over a lengthy period

of

time before aehiev

written form in the Gospe1s. His judgment that eyewitnesses played an

important role in the transmission of these traditions leads him to regard

the setting as more formal than either Bultmann or Bailey allowed, while

still avoiding the problems that Gerhardsson's proposal ereates.

19 

AH of these proposals are coneerned in sorne way with the nature of

versus

written

traditions. Sorne views uf orality in NT seholarship

have made assumptions

about the

reliability

or

aeeuraey

of

oral tradition

based on its

room

for flexibility. These are contrasted with a view

of

writ

ten texts as more aeeurate and reliable, making them more privileged as

historieally trustworthy. However, this contrast is superficial and simplis

tic. First, oral

traditions

were not regarded as inferior

in

the

ancient

world;

rather, oral transmission was eommon and aecepted. In

addition,

trust in

the stability

of

the written word is misplaeed, sinee written words can be

altered just as spoken ones, as redaetion eritieism has shown all

too

well.

With referenee

to

the reliability of

orál

traditions, Bailey

has shown

that

there are indeed parameters

and

rules

that must

befo}lowed in the trans

mission of oral traditions in a culture that values them.

However we view the proeess of their transmission, an interest in the

oral

traditions

eoneerning Jesus is at the eore of the enterprise of traditio

historieal criticismo Implicit in this study is the belief that - r egardles s of

how we identify or interpret them - oral traditions eonstitute the link

between Jesus of Nazareth

and

the writings that tell his story.20 

3.

An

Exercise in Traditio-Historical Criticism:

ohn

4:1-42

Having summarized the aims, diffieulties, and importanee of traditio

historieal criticism, and having diseussed its role in the study of the Gos

19.

Gerhardsson's theory was faulted for his anachronistic applicatíon

of

later rab

binic practices to the early church's oral transmission

of

Jesus traditions and his failure to

account for the presence of the appare nt freedorn of the Gospel writers to alter or rnanipu

late Jesus trad ítion to highligh their distinctive christologies.

lO.

Reicke, Rnots 23.

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 6/10

-- ---..-

pels particularly, we now take up the ta5k

of

applying this type of criticism

to

John 4:

1

-42. The aim of this section

i5

to discuss some of the findings of

those who

have

applied

traditio-historical criticism to this passage, asking

the types of questions that might fall under the jurisdiction of traditio

historical

criticismo

4:

1

-42 recounts encounter with a Samaritan woman at a

well. Leaving the regio

n of Judea and heading back to Galilee, Jesus has to

pass

through Samaria. Stopping to rest at a well, Jesus asks a nea rby woman

to draw

him

sorne

water.

Astonished that he would address her, given her

ethnicity

as

a

Samaritan

and his as a

Jew,

her questioning of this action

a conversation about living water and wotship in S/spirit and

truth. In

the course

of the conversation, she realizes that Jesus

is

a prophet

and perhaps the Messiah, and goes to tell the people in her city of their en

counter. In the mean

time,

Jesus disciples return with food, which provides

Jesus

with an

opportunity

for

an object lesson on the food

of

mission

 

work.

The story ends

with a report

of

the success

of

the woman's witness,

as

U

many

Samaritans come

to

believe in

Jesus as the Savior

of

the world.

~

~

g

,

3·1.

Detecting

Early

Traditions

 :

1 .

'

' ~ . ~ ~

What portion(s) of

this passage

belonged to an earlier tradition, and what

. ¡

can be attributed to the writer's own composition? This

is

the first

and

•

n:ost .important question asked of any text when traditio-historical crití

cIsm

IS

applied. Traditio-historical critics scour NT and related passages

looking for clues that would. help them to identify traditional material wo

ven into the Gospel by the writer, as well as (perhaps) entire stories that

might ,have

been

shaped by earlier traditions. Factors that may indicate a

. break 10 the writer s own composition and the adoption of an early tradi

tion can include an

awkwardness

in the flow

of

the narrative or the inclu

sion

of

material that

is

distinct from the aims

or

style

of

the Gospel as a

whole.

With regard to the identification of traditional material in

4

2

,

we can

refer

to

the

findings of two earIy but prominent tradition

Rudolf Bultmann and

C.

H. Dodd.

21

Bultmann saw early tradit ion behind

a significant portion of the passage. Traditional material includes:

21.

These

older studies

were chosen due to theír very different approaches to the

question

of

the hístoricity of the Gospel of John.

r

Traditio·Historical Criticism

• the background commen ts concerning the Samaritan city of

as the location for Jacob's well (4:4-9),22

• Jesus' display of supernatural knowledge (4:16-19),

• the account of the woman's witness to her neighbors 4:28-30), and

• the statemen t describing the Samaritans' hospitality ( , .• \ 23

He

also thought that early tradition form ed the basis for 4:20-26, due to its

content concerning Sam aritan practices (which parallels the interest

of

well in 4:4-9), and the introduction of the concept of the Messiah in

4:

2

5.

24

He

al

so argued that the link

of

the concept

of

Messiah with Jesus'

ability to disp'lay supernatural

knowledge follows

1:35-51.

Bultmann

thought that 1:35-51 derived from the Signs Source;' a source believed by

some scholars to have contained narratives of Jesus' performance

of

mi

raculous wonders and to have been in circulation at the time of the wríting

of the Gospel and used by John.

25

Thus, this Signs Source is indirectly be

the woman's statement in 4:25.

I

According to C H. Dodd, the introductory portion of the story in 4:1

3 is awkward in both syntax

and

in relatíon to a previous statement in 3:22,

which indicates

that

Jesus did baptize followers. These factors point to the

incorporation

of

an earlier trad ition that Jesus baptized, which a later edi

tor has redacted, making it a mudd led statement. He argues, then, that

this itinerary material is precanonical, reflecting an early tradition that em

phasized Jesus' withdrawal from Judea and his coming into Galilee.

26 

Dodd

also sees the presence of the rather distínctive agricultural section in 4:31-38

as the writer's a ttachment of an entirely independent

and

self-sustained tra

dition to the story

that

precedes it. In addition to the lack

of

connections in

content with the story

of

the Samaritan woman, the focus

of 4:31-38 on

ag

ricultural íssues (harvesting, laborers, fmit) is uncharacteristic of John's

Gospel, being more akin to the interests of the Synoptic GospelS.

27 

22. Bultmann exdudes from thís 4:8, which he believes i5 an addition of the Gospel

writer due to the mentíon of the disciples Gospel Jo/m, 175 .

23· Bultmann regards the surrounding material (4:39, 41-42) as the composítion of

the wríter of the Gospel, due to thein terest of these verses in Christian mission (and theTe

fore a reflection

of

his community's Sitz im

Leben) Gospel John, 175 .

24. Bultmann,

Gospel John, 180

25. Bultmann, Gospel John, 113,

180.

26. C.

H.

Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Pres5,

1965), 237.

He also finds this tradition in Matt

4:12.

Bultmann also agrees

that this is an edítor's redaction Gospel

John, 175 .

:27.

Dodd, Historical Tradition

391.

112

113

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 7/10

r

------.

3 2 Determining

Authenticity

Moving beyond the identification of early traditions in NT texts, traditio

historical criticism evaluates whether the traditional material in the Gos

pe! reflects

authentic sayings of jesus. In the case

of

4:10, 23, for instance,

the twofold observation that none of the other

NT

Gospels contain similar

t e a c ~ i n g s

ofJesus

concerning "living water"

and

that these themes are em

phaslzed throughout john's Gospe! (e.g., Jesus as the transformer of ordí

nary

Water

used

for

ritual cleansing; see 2;1-U; 7:37-39

28

)

may indicate that

these are a johannine construction.ln  contrast, the multiple attestation of

agricultural

sayings of

jesus (in the Synoptic Gospels

and

in 4:31-38) sug

gests the

historicity

of

this

portíon of the narrative.

3·3

Comparing

Gospel Traditions

1

/ . ~

Dodd's observatíon that

4:31-3

8

contains content that is uncharacteristic of

1M

this Gospel leads

to

another

issue

that traditio-historical criticism ad

,+;

dresses,

namely,

the

comparison of Synoptic

and

Johannine traditions.

I

h ~ t

is

the relationship

between

the Jesus stories

and

sayings in the Syn

optlc Gospe!s and

those

in

john?

What traditions are all four Gospels us

ing? What traditions are distinctive to John's Gospel? Traditio-historical

c,riticism is

interested

in comparing the tradi tions used

in

both

the

Synop

he o s p e l s

an,d John's

Gospel in order to detect which tradi tion s were for

matlVe for communitie;which otherwise produced

independent

Gospels.

We have already n!?ted that the 'sort of agricultural i magery

found

at

the end of

John

4

is more

common to the Synoptic Gospels than it is to

John's

GospeJ.29 

In

d d i t i o n

severa! of the words used in this sectíon are

found in the Synoptics, but

are

present nowhere else in John (e.g., the

v ~ r s

JTCeípw, speiro

"sow;'

and eepí(w,

therizó

"harvest," and the

noun

K O r t O ~

kopos "labor").

On the basís

of

Jesus' redefinition

and

elaboration

of the concepts of

food

and familial relationships, Dodd sees a faint paral

le! in form

between

John4:31-34 and Mark3:31-35. An even stronger paral

lel, however,

is

found

in Matt 4:1-4

and Luke

4:1-4,

where Jesus also refuses

an offer of food

in favor

of obeying God's cornmandments. In a similar

28. Note also ¡he link

in

John

4 and

John

7 between "living water" and "S/spirit:'

. 29. Cf., e.g., Matt

¡r.15.

20

; 9:35'38; 12:33-37; 13:1-43;

Mark 4:1-20,26-3

2

; 11:12-14, 20-

2

5;

12:1-1:2;

Luke 6:43-45;

8:4-

1

5;

13:6-9, 18-19·

Traditio-Historícal Críticism

way, when offered food by his discíples, Jesus refuses, because his n ouri sh

ment comes from doing the will

of God

(John

4:34). Dodd

believes thes e

similar characteristics indicate the derivatíon of all three passages from a

common tradition.

30

Traditio-historical scholars are also quick to note any narratives or

sarings in John that are not present in the Synoptíc Gospels and vice

versa). This issue has relevance for tr aditio-hi storical criticís m beca use

one

of the possible explanations for distinctive material in any Gospe1 is that

the material comes from an entirely different tradition not available to the

others. Regarding the

story

of Jesus and the Samaritan

woman

as a whole,

it is clear that t he other three Gospels do not include this in their works.

However, although this particular story is not found in the Synoptic Gos

pels, we have seen that certa in e1ements of the narrative have likely been

derived from tradition common to the other Gospels. Whether the story of

Jesus' encounter with this Samarítan woman comes from an early tradi

I

tion that was available to the writer of the Gospel of John

and

not

to

the

1

other Gospels

is

dífficult to determine. The fact remains, however, that the

writer of John chose to include this narrative in his Gospel, while it

is

ab

;

l

sent from the others.

Even though

the

Synoptic Gospels

do

not contain the story found in

John

4:

1

-4

2

, we can compare elements

in

the four Gospels that are relevant

to this particular passage and that might shed light on their treatments of

more general issues. For instance, how do the Synoptic Gospels' views of

Samaritans compare with that of the Gospel

of

John? Neither Matthew nor

¡

Mark demonstrates much

of

an interest in Samaritans, a lacuna that would

indicate that the issue of Jewish-Samaritan relations was not a concern for

their respective communities. In the Gospe! of Matthew,

the

exception is

Matt

10:5,

which recounts Jesus' sending

out

of the disciples on their first

mission and rus instructions for them not to go into any Samaritan towns;

this does not appear to display particular animosity toward Samarítans,

however, since he also instruct s

them

not

to go near Gentiles, as their focus

is

to be entirely upon Jews here. Luke's presentatíon is generally positive,

though it is

true

that, in Luke 9:51-55, a Samari tan village refuses to extend

hospitali ty toward Jesus. Note, however, how Jesus rebukes James and John

for their desíre

to

retaliate by calling fire

down

from heaven. Consistent

with the Evangelist's positive portrayal of non-Jews, three out

of

the four

passages that mentíon Samaritans present them as models of the type of

30. Dodd, Historical Tradition 326-27.

115

14

 . ..

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 8/10

Traditio Historical Críticism

behavior demanded by God. The we ll-known parabIe of the Samaritan

in

Luke 10:

2

5-37

presents a Samaritan who outshines a priest

and

a Levite in

for a Jewish man left for dead. Given as an answer t o the question,

Who

is my neighbor? the parable calls for the bre aking down

of

the walls

that divide and judge according to ethnicity, proving that those who might

initíally be regarded as godly (Jewish religious leaders) are not necessarily

so,

while others who would automatically be excluded from God's peopIe

by Jewish social norms can, in fact, act according to his greatest commands

10:27). [n

another positive characterization

of

a Samaritan,

Luke

tellS the story ofJesus' healing

of

ten lepers near Samaria, and is in

tentional in highlighting that the only one to show gratitude to Jesus

is

a

Sarnaritan

(17:16). Lastly,

in Acts

8:4-25

the wr iter discusses the success of

the early Christian miss ion to the Samaritans, as the preaching and teach

ing of Philip, Peter, and John result in belief

and

repentance.

In contrast to the interest of the writer

of

Luke-Acts in Jewish

Samaritan relations, in the Gospel of John the only story concerning Sa-

is found in John 4. However, this sto ry

and

other passages in the

f

Gospel

suggest sorne affinities with Luke's treatment of this issue. First, the

Sarnaritans in John 4 are presented in a positive light,

as

the woman's wit

ness to her neighbors about Jesus eventually leads to their recognition of

JesuS

a one sent

by

God. Second, just as Luke portrays the actions of rep

resentative Samaritans

as

standing over against thei r Jewish counterparts,

I

o

also

does the writer

of

John portr ay the Jews as falsely representing

people to the world (John 8:31-59), even hurHng

an

insult at Jesus by

calling

hirn a Samaritan and linking this with th eir belief that heis demon

possessed. A l t h o u g ~ the S ~ n ; a r i t a n ~ o m n a: .the well hears.Jesus' words

and believes them, the Jews stand 1 OppOSltlOn to everythmg he repre

sents.

The

positive portrayals

of

Samaritans in

both

Luke-Acts and the

Gospel of John may reflect situations in their respective communities

where the acceptance

of

Samaritans,

and

their ability to model Christian

were

points

of

discussion

and

debate.

Comparison can also be

made

concerning th e form o r style in which

traditio

ns

are incorporated into each Gospel. For example, how does the

deliveryofJ

esus

' sayings in the Synoptic Gospels

and

John differ? Scholars

have long

observed the presence of large portions of dialogue in

Gospel, which contrasts with the generally more staccato delivery

of

his

in the Synoptic Gospels. In sorne ways, the sayings in the Synoptic

Gospels appear

to

enhance

or

fill

out

the narrative events of Jesus' life,

whereas

in John's Gospel Jesus' sayings often appear to be the focal point,

116

and the narratives primarily serve as settings for dialogue. Due to the na

ture of the delivery of early tradití on in John's Gospel, it is sometimes diffi

to discern these traditions, since they are often more integrated into

dialogue than the Synoptic Gospels.:

n

In the case o[}ohn

4:1-42,

the

dialogue between the Samaritan woman and Jesus drives the first portion

of the narrative (4:7-26), while the latter part is dominated by his sayings

on labor the discipIes' commen ts have significance primarily in

setting the stage for Jesus' monologue).

4

The Question of the Johannine Community

We

have

summarized two major views on the hz im Leben

of

John's Gos

pel, and its influence

on

the historieal reliabílity of the traditions from

which it draws its portrait of Jesus. Sorne argue that it was the writer's

community that was responsible for the composition

of

the GospeI, a

community founded by the Beloved Disciple, whose views are now re

flected in the GospeL Ultimately, they argue that the Gospel conveys more

about this Johannine communit y than it does the historicaIJesus.

32 

On the

other hand, sorne argue that a versjon of the Gospel was composed rela

tively early, with the corollary that it reflects genuine historical circum

stances about Jesus.

33 

This latter view does no t require the denjal that the

Gospel was shaped by its community, but rather seeks to reclaim the early

and reIiable nature of..the traditions

of

Jesus contained withjn its pages.

34 

31.

So Walter Schmithals,

introduction

to The af Jahn A Commentary by

Rudolf Bultmann (Philadelphia: Westminster,

1971),

4. Schmithals seems to overemphasize

the differences between the two when he describes John's Cospel as an artistic composi

tion in contrast

to the

Synoptics. His description

of the

differences

in

John's use

of

tradi

lional material is helpful, also some\'{hat Because

of

his ¡heme John

leaves aside most

of the

Synoptic material; he treats with particularly great freedom th e ma

terial

of

the tradition;

he

unhesitatingly takes over traditions

that

have come from outside

Christianity,

and

cardes

out

his redactional reconstructions

on

a

much

grander scale

than

the Synoptists (5).

32. E.g.,

J.

Louis Martyn, Histary and Theology in the Fourth Cospel (3rd ed.; Louis

ville: Westminster John Knox, 2003).

33. E.g., Cary M. Burge, Situating John's Cospel in History;' in ]esus in Johannine

Tradinan (ed.

R.

T. Fortna and T. Thatcher; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 35-46,

and Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

34. Burge helpfully summarizes this position: 1 have

no

complaint with the

notian

Ihat a Johannine Cammunity existed and that the concerns of this community inspíred the

7

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 9/10

One of the factors that lends support to this mediating view is the presence

of an

apparent interest and knowledge of pre-7

0

Palestinían Judaism in the

Gospel of John.

35

One

of

the obvious questíons regarding the

Sitz im Leben

of the tradi

tíon behind John 4:1-42 concerns the state of Jewish-Samaritan relations

during

the

first century. The Gospel writer has already hinted at this at the

end

of John

4:9

with

hís statement tha t

Jews

were

not on

fríendly terms with

Samaritans: "Jews do not have dealíngs with Samaritans"; this aside ex

plains the

woman's

astonishment at beíng addressed by Jesus. With regard

to

the Sitz im

Leben

of John's community, what purpose

would

this state

ment

serve?

Bultmann arg

ued

that the enmity between Samaritans and

Jews would have been common knowledge to the wríter's audíence even

without thís gloss, the story callíng attention to Jesus' request as an aban

36

donment of the Jewish viewpoint" on Jewish-Samaritan relations. If thís

is

the

case,

does this statement serve as a matter of emphasis, highlighting

;/

the radical nature of Jesus' approach? Another reason for the presence of

{/ :

this statement

may

be that the

w ~ i t e r s

aim

is

to take the focus off of her sta

1 '.'¡'':

tus as awoman, afact to which she poínts in her initial question and an is

.

R:J

' iI t

sue

to which

the disciples

return later in the narrativ e

(4:

27). Added

support

e l ~

t..f,J

for this proposa

is

that the writer immediately leaves this issue by turning

.

his focus on the "living water" discourse in John

4:10-15·

Bultmann thinks

this abrupt switch in topic is strange, considering that the relationship be

tween Jews

and Samaritans

was

such a significant issue for

the

early

church.

37

However,

contra Bultmann, it may be the case that the writer's

stark

statement in John

4:9b

and his lack

of

elaboration

on

the issue indi

cate that this problem (tension between Jews -

and

in the Johannine com

munity, Jewish-Christians - and Samaritans) had already been worked

out

in

his community

by

this time, and therefore serves as a re minde r for

his audience of the historical situation during the time of Jesus.

Another important indicator of the

Sitz

im Leben of the community

construction and shape of the Fourth Gospel. But if this perspective leads us to conclude

that

[the Fóurth Gospell has

lost

touch with the historical events

of

Jesus' pre- Easter ife it

must be rejected. While it is true that every gospel was influenced

by

the needs of its original

audience,

it does not follow that

this

influence negated a historkal appreciation for Jesus'

lue"

("Situating

John's Gospel:' 37)·

35.

See Raymond

E. Brown,

The

Gospel according

to

¡ohn: l Xll (AB 29; New

York:

Doubleday, 1966),

Iix-lxiv.

}6.

Bultmann,

Cospel af John 17

8

-79.

37. Bultmann, Cospelo[John 179· He Iists

as

examples Matt 10:5; Luke 9:5

2

-55; 10:25-37·

118

Traditio-Historical

Criticism

at the time of the writing of the Gospel may be found in the discussion of

Jesus and the Samaritan woman concerning proper worship in John 4:20

26.

The widely accepted theory that the Gospel of John reflects a situation

of conflict concerning his Christian community and religious

Jews

may

have sorne relevance here. At issue was the fact that Jewish Christians were

being expelled from the synagogues due to their worship of Jesus

as

Mes

siah, thus sparking discussion about the importance

of

participation in the

synagogue (and other Jewish cultic practices) for followers

of

Jesus. The

dialogue between the SamarÍtan woman and Jesus about worship shows

that the place of worship is insignificant compared to the nature of wor

ship as that which is done in "S/spirit and truth." Just as the debate be

tween Samaritans and Jews at the time of Jesus concerning the place of the

true Temple was not deemed important by him, the same shou ld be said

for his later followers an d the ir Jewish oppo sition. It could al so be signifi

cant that the Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed by the time

of

writ

ing, and thus the discourse may also have been designed as a message of

comfort to Christians. This event was not as devastating as it might seem

because, according to Jesus, true worship of God need not take place in

designated places such as

the

Jerusalem Temple or at Gerizim. Thus, the

meaning of Jesus' statement in John

4:23

- that the time is coming and is

already in sorne sense here wh en worship will be in S/spirit and truth"

is that this worship is not to be identified with a particular location.3

8 

An additional clue to the

Sitz im

Leben of the Johannine community

may be found in Jesus' treatment of the Samaritan woman, which would

have stood in stark contrast to what was expected of him (as the woman's

reaction indicates). Christia ns, as followers of Jesus' teachings and exam

pIe, must have understood this passage

as an

implicit exhortation for the

acceptance of Samaritans into their rnidst and an intentional Samaritan

(Gentile?) mission. This narrative might also be an indication of the suc

cess of early Christia n miss ion to the Samaritans.

39 

Another link to this

early Christian attitude

of

urgency (4:23a)

and

Christian mission is presen t

in the harvest discourse of 4:34-38, which appears tobe a reference and ex

hortation to Christian miss on. Thus, by the indusion of these sayings in

38.

It is, in faet, to be identified with Jesus himself, as he has now replaced or embodied

the importance

of

Israel's promised land and festivals, feasts, and other rituals;

see

Gary M

Burge,

«Territorial Religion, Johannine Christology, and the Vineyard

of

John 15, in lesus

oi

Nazareth Lord ami Christ: Essays

on

the Historical

¡esus

and New Testament Christology

(ed.

Joel B. Green and Max Tumer; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 384-96,

esp.

388-90,394

39. Martyn, History ami Theology 109

119

 

7/24/2019 Traditio Historical Criticism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/traditio-historical-criticism 10/10

4:23, 34-38, the writer connects these early traditions with the current

•

Christi an situatíon. The significance for John's readers: the Christian mis

sion to Samaritans (and Gentiles) was cornmissioned by Jesus himse!f.

Other

traditio-historical concerns might b e pursued. These inelude

the presence of OT/Jewish traditions t hat have been incorpor ated into

passage together with the likelihood that Jesus would have known and

made use

of

these in his own ministry, for example,

as

well

as

the use

of

these early traditions by the Gospel writer in order to deyelop his Own

unique christology (e.g., Jesus as Mosaic prophet and Jewish Messiah). But

this is enough to

give

atast e of the interests and questionsof this approach

to NT study.

4. Suggestions for Further Reading

An excellent entry into the strategy of traditio- historical criticism in Gos

pe! studies

ís

the earlier work

of

R. S. Barbour,

Traditio-Historical Criticism

of

the Gospels: Some Comments on Current Methods

(Studies in Creative

Criticism

4;

London: SPCK,

1972),

easily digestible with under

50

pages

of

texto His discussion on the criteria for judging the genuineness ofJesus tra

ditions is especially he!pful, as i5 the more recent work of Darrell 1. Bock,

Studying the Historícal Jesus A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 2002), in his chapter on tradition criticismo

The works

of

two of the founding fathers

of

form criticism and

it5

perspectíve

on

the oral transmission

of

Jesus traditions

as

informal are

foundationa! for understªnding

the

current state of traditio-hístorical

criticism: Martín Dibe!ius,

From Tradition

to

Gospel

(Cambridge: Clarke,

1971), and Rudolf Bultmann,

The History

of

the Synoptic Tradition

(New

York: Harper and

Row

1971). A number of key assumptions of this early

form-critica! enterprise were questioned by Graham Stanton in Jesus of

Nazareth in

New

Testament Preaching

(Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1974) and by

E.

P. Sanders in The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). Birger Gerhardsson,

Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition nd Written Transmission in Rab

binic Judaism an d Early Chrístianity

(UpP5ala/Lund: Gleerup, 1964), places

the transmission of oral Jesustraditions in a more structured, pedagogical

• : ~ t t i r i ~ taking as his starting point the example of rabbinic schools. A

. work that alsoinvestigates the transition from ora! to written traditions in

tbe NT and emphasizes the differences between the two modes of trans

120

Traditio Historical Criticism

roissíon

is

Werner H. Kelber,

The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Herme

neutics

of

Speaking and Wríting in the Synoptic Tradition Mark Paul an d

Q (Philade!phia: Fortress,

The recent work of Richard Bauckham,

Jesus nd the Eyewitnesses:

The

Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

(Grand Rapíds: Eerdmans, 2006),

challenges current views regarding the unre!iability of the Gospe!s (partic

ularly John) in presentíng historically accurate portrayals

of

Jesus' life. In

this enterprise,

he

argues that the understanding of the early church that

the Gospel traditions

of

Jesus were grounded in eyewitness testimony ex

ercised a more formal control oyer the transmission

of

these traditions,

thus making thero more re1iable than is often belieyed.

121

I

I