The Form Criticism Approach to Bible Study

As indicated in the initial article that I wrote on Biblical criticism, when many Christians encounter the word "criticism" in relation to Bible study, they become defensive, and in some cases, even antagonistic and hostile.  The word "criticism" conveys to them the message of denigrating or "putting down." It even suggests to some believers that criticism is a "speaking against."  Once again, I would like to suggest that "criticism" in our study is not an element of negativity nor should it lead anyone to believe that it is an enemy of the faith.  Criticism means "evaluation," or "judgment," something that we all do in one way or another when we read the Scriptures.  We ask questions, we arrive at conclusions, and we make judgments based on those conclusions.  That happens with any type of literature that we read, and the Bible is no exception to the rule.

In this article, I would like for us to consider what is called "Form Criticism."  In a very direct way, form criticism deals with the various literary forms which the oral tradition assumed as it was passed
from mouth to mouth.  In a more indirect way, it deals with the issue of the oral traditions themselves.  This raises some serious questions for our Bible study.

Many Bible readers either are not aware or ignore the fact that before the Bible was written, there was a series of traditions that had been handed down orally in the faith community,  both Jewish and Christian.  That of course poses problems for Protestant Christianity, which against Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, stresses that the Scripture is primary over tradition.  Extreme conservative Protestantism (fundamentalism) tends to ignore the roll of tradition altogether.  Our Protestant sisters and brothers fail to realize what our Catholic and Orthodox sisters and brothers acknowledge, i.e. that tradition preceded the writing of the Bible, and that the Bible itself, is, in many ways a tradition.
Those Protestant Christians who have a negative view of tradition tend to quote those Scripture passages in which Jesus censures the Pharisees for placing tradition over "the Word of God." They assume that Jesus was positing a "Scripture vs. tradition" paradigm.  They also wrongly assume that Jesus was denying in a total way, the role of tradition in the life of the faith community.

Jesus was doing neither.  Jesus was chiding the Pharisees because they were, in fact, breaking their own rules.  They were distorting and twisting the traditions which lead to the writings of the Torah, as well as to the remaining writings of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).  Subsequently, they ended up distorting the theological orientation and thrust of the Scriptures themselves.

For the sake of brevity, I will say that Form Criticism deals with the form and structure of the written record, which in turn, was based on the oral tradition.  Neither the oral tradition nor the written record demonstrate any excessive concern for chronology and sequence.   In the Gospel accounts, we find that themes and issues of Jesus's life and ministry are of paramount concern, not the order in which certain things occurred.

For us as students of the Bible, we can ask:

1.  What is the time gap between the oral tradition and the written record of Scripture?

2.  How did the writers of Scripture put their writings together after sifting through the oral traditions?

3.  Do the forms and structure of the books of the Bible color its message?

I invite you the reader to do this research for yourself and then to share your findings with us.
I also invite you to share with us your view of the importance or non-importance of Form Criticism.

Bon voyage,

Juan Ayala-Carmona