| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Form criticism as a method ofbiblical criticism classifies units ofscripture by literary pattern and then attempts to trace each type to its period of oral transmission.[1] "Form criticism is the endeavor to get behind the written sources of the Bible to the period of oral tradition, and to isolate the oral forms that went into the written sources. Insofar as this attempts to trace the history of the tradition, it is known as tradition criticism."[2] Form criticism seeks to determine a unit's original form and the historical context of the literary tradition.[1]
Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932),Martin Noth,Gerhard von Rad, and other scholars originally developed form criticism forOld Testament studies; they used it to supplement thedocumentary hypothesis with reference to its oral foundations.[3][page needed][failed verification]Karl Ludwig Schmidt,Martin Dibelius (1883–1947) andRudolf Bultmann later applied form criticism to theGospels.
While enjoying near-dominant support in both Old and New Testament studies during the 20th century, form criticism has been the subject of increasing criticism in the academic community in recent decades and its influence on the field is waning.
Form criticism begins by identifying a text's genre or conventional literary form, such asparables,proverbs,epistles, orlove poems. It goes on to seek the sociological setting for each text's genre, its "situation in life" (German:Sitz im Leben). For example, the sociological setting of a law is a court, or the sociological setting of a psalm of praise (hymn) is a worship context, or that of a proverb might be a father-to-son admonition. Having identified and analyzed the text's genre-pericopes, form criticism goes on to ask how these smaller genre-pericopes contribute to the purpose of the text as a whole.
Studies based on form criticism state that theEvangelists drew uponoral traditions when composing the canonical gospels. This oral tradition consisted of several distinct components. Parables and aphorisms are the "bedrock of the tradition." Pronouncement stories, scenes that culminate with a saying of Jesus, are more plausible historically than other kinds of stories about Jesus. Other sorts of stories include controversy stories, in which Jesus is in conflict with religious authorities; miracle stories, including healings, exorcisms, and nature wonders; call and commissioning stories; and legends.[4][5][6] The oral model developed by the form critics drew heavily on contemporary theory of Jewish folkloric transmission of oral material, and as a result of this form criticism one can trace the development of the early gospel tradition.[7]
Following the publication ofAbraham in History and Tradition byJohn van Seters,Der sogenannte Jahwist ("The So-Called Yahwist") byHans Heinrich Schmid, andDas überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch ("The Tradition-Historical Problem of the Pentateuch") byRolf Rendtorff, form criticism's emphasis on oral tradition has waned inOld Testament studies. This is largely because scholars are increasingly skeptical about the ability to distinguish the "original" oral traditions from the literary sources that preserve them. As a result, the method as applied to the Old Testament now focuses on the Bible's literary genres, becoming virtually synonymous withgenre criticism.
Starting from the final decade of the 20th century, Bultmann's theories about the New Testament have been the subject of increasing criticism in the academic community: scholars such asMartin Hengel,James D. G. Dunn,Richard Bauckham andBrant J. Pitre have directly attacked form criticism as an erroneous theory, and have instead argued that the Gospels were written either by eyewitnesses or by authors who had reliable written and oral sources.[8][9][10][11] A different approach was that of Austin Farrer who argued that, while it is not possible to know where St. Mark, the writer of the first gospel, got his information, it is a more economical argument to see in his gospel, the mind of a writer rather than an editor of other people's material of which there is no evidence in the text.[12] Though aspects of form criticism are still in the scholarly mainstream, many now admit that Bultmann's original positions have become untenable,[13][14] to the point that, according toWerner H. Kelber, "Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying Bultmann'sSynoptic Tradition must be considered suspect."[15] Scholars today reject the dichotomy between Palestinian Christianity and later Hellenistic Christianity the form critics posited.[16] There is a consensus amongst scholars studying memory that the form-critical view of the oral gospel traditions as an anonymous and uncontrolled body that can be studied literarily should be dismissed.[17]
among our ranks there are no more form critics that agree with the theories of Bultmann, the pioneer of this interpretation
Bultmann had a disconcerting way of solving problems with a few evasive sentences, his arguments do not hold up, despite having been handed down for generations
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
