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

Literary Criticism of the Bible

I think that it is very safe to say that very few readers of the Bible recognize or even pay any attention to the various literary styles in which the Bible was written.  The tendency is to read without even asking the question "What type of literature is this?"  I could be entirely wrong, but I suspect that the reason for this is because most Bible readers consider Scripture to be a book of faith, and not a literary document per se.  The only two alternatives for them would then be, the Bible as a literary document vs. the Bible as a theological document.

This writer does not make that distinction.  As a member of the faith community, I acknowledge the Bible as a document which informs, and to a certain extent, forms and shapes our faith.  The Bible, along with tradition, experience, and other branches of knowledge, is the foundation and the root of what we believe and practice.  At the same time, the Bible comes to us in  various literary genres, as will be apparent to those who take the time to focus on the literary makeup and content of Scripture.

Some believers may think that to acknowledge the different types of literature that appear in the Bible, will result in either not considering the Bible to be a divinely inspired document, or as a book whose content and message has no relevancy for our time.  Subsequently, they may even believe that to take the literary approach to the Bible, will result in erosion of the basic tenets of the Christian faith.  This writer does not believe that.  If anything, it is apparent to me, that to consider the Bible a divinely inspired document does not cancel or rule out the utilization of different types of literature.
In addition to that, it testifies to the sovereignty of God to employ different approaches and methods to convey the divine message to us. 

It is hoped that when we acknowledge the diverse literary genre in Scripture, that our faith would be strengthened.  In that spirit, then, I call your attention to the various type of literature that is in the Bible.

1.  Prose- Prose is the ordinary language that describes events, people, places, and things.  It comes in narrative form.  It is the type of language utilized in the field of history and the social sciences. If we could describe it in street terms, I would call it "straight up." It is sequential, and in most cases, a literal description of events that have occurred.

2.  Poetry-  Many portions of the Bible are written in poetic terms.  Examples of these are the Psalms and the Song of Solomon.  The Song of Solomon is full of romantic language which describes the love between a man and woman from a divine standpoint. 

3.  Legend- A legend is the story of something that may or may not have happened, but which nevertheless contains a lesson to be learned.

4.  Myth-Normally, a myth is taken to mean something which definitely did not happen, but like in the case of legend, contains a lesson to be learned.  In the case of religion, a myth is a sacred story about something that may or may not have happened, but that points beyond itself to a higher principle which can inform the faith.  Some religionists,  Bible scholars, and theologians consider the stories of the snake in the Garden of Eden, Balaam's donkey speaking to him, Jonah being swallowed by a fish, the virgin birth of Jesus, and even the resurrection, to fall into this category.

The questions for you, the reader, are the following:

1.  Does acknowledging the various literary forms in the Bible amount to a denial of its divine inspiration?

2.  Will acknowledging the various literary forms in the Bible strengthen or weaken your faith?

3.  Does it really make any difference, at the end of the day, what type of literature appears in the Bible? 

Please share with us where you stand on these issues.  Your input is very valuable.

Grace and peace,

Juan Ayala-Carmona

Linguistic Criticism of the Bible

One of the many issues that people ignore when they read and study the Bible is that of language.
They disregard or ignore the fact that the Bible was not written in the language in which they are reading.  They also fail to take into account that biblical language comes in a variety of ways.

In this article, I would like to call the attention of the reader to the issue of language in the Bible.
Let me begin by focusing on the biblical languages themselves.

1.  The bulk of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people.
There are isolated passages in the Old Testament which were written in Aramaic.  Aramaic was the language spoken in Babylon, and without any doubt, the Jews were exposed to it during their seventy year captivity in Babylon.  Aramaic, just like Arabic and Hebrew, was part of a family of languages
known as "Semitic."  The similarity between them is the same as the similarity of the Romance languages, i.e. French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish.

2.  The New Testament was written in Greek.  At the time that the New Testament was written, there were two types of Greek.  One was referred to as "Attic" Greek which was spoken by those who were members of the upper echelons of society.  The other was known as "Koine" Greek, and was spoken by the average every day person.  The words "Koine" means common, and accurately reflects the fact that the common person spoke Jesus's time spoke it, as a result of the Greek Empire's military conquest and cultural influence in the Middle East.

Some may want to ask as to why it is important for us to know about the linguistic origin of the Bible.  The major reason, I would say, is because in many instances, there is a gap between the original languages and the languages in which we read the Bible today.  For example, in the translations which we read in English, Spanish, German, and other languages, we are told in the first chapter of Genesis that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  In our modern day translations, "God" appears as singular.  But in the original Hebrew, the word for God is "Elohim" which literally translated means "gods."  Why does the name God appear as plural in Hebrew and the other Semitic languages?  It is because Semitic people spoke of God in terms of God's many attributes such  as glory, majesty, power, and sovereignty.  The uninformed and unstudied person could easily arrive at the conclusion that the Old Testament supports the idea of belief in many gods.

Another example of the language gap is the twenty-third Psalm.  Most of our English translations begin with "The Lord is my Shepherd."  The original Hebrew begins with "Yahweh is my shepherd."
The reason why the English language translators used the word "Lord" instead of "Yahweh" is because they knew that the Hebrew/Jewish people were reluctant to pronounce God's name, because of the fear of taking God's name in vain.  So even though they read the name "Yahweh," they would not pronounce it and instead replaced it by the Hebrew word "Adonai," which is translated as "Lord."
That is the reason why the word "Lord" appears in the English and other translations.

One final example of the importance of language is the word "first-born" which we find in the first chapter of Colossians.  We find Jesus referred to as the "first-born" of all creation.  Some faith communities, such as the Jehovah's witnesses have used this passage to try to prove that Jesus was created by God, and did not always exist as believed by the vast majority of Christians.  How do we then solve that problem?  In this case it is solved by looking at the Greek language.  We find that there are two words for "first-born" in Greek.  One is "protogenes" which literally means "first-born," or the "oldest."  The other word for "first-born" in Greek is "prototokos" which means "inheritor"
The word which appears in Colossians 1 is "prototokos," in which Paul is clearly stating that Jesus is the "inheritor" of all creation.

The importance of language in Bible study then is clear.  We must be familiar with what the Bible says in the original languages and how that is translated or possibly even mis-translated into the languages we speak today and read the Bible in.  If we are honest and serious students of the Bible, we will make every attempt to become familiar with the Bible in its original language, so that we can then determine how the biblical message is applicable for our time.  If we do not have the to opportunity to take a course or engage in extensive study of the biblical languages then we can do either one of three things:

1.  Obtain from a Bible or other religious book store a Hebrew and Greek lexicon so that we can look up biblical words in their original languages and see the meaning and translation of these words.

2.  Examine the various translations in English or other language in which we read and study the Bible.  The comparison of these translations will give us a broader picture of how we can understand the biblical message.

3.  Obtain different copies of Bible commentaries.  When we compare the various approaches and perspectives of the commentators, we can also look at the Bible in a broader context.  A word of caution would be not to take any commentator's word as "Gospel truth," but at the same time,
reading the commentaries will make us the beneficiaries of the research of Bible scholars.

I hope you have fun as you engage in studying the Scriptures in their original languages.
Bon voyage!

Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona

Biblical Criticism- Dating the Books of the Bible

One of the elements involved in the approach known as the "higher criticism" of the Bible is the issue of dating the individual books and themes.  Biblical scholars are divided as to at what point in history certain books were written.  For example, some would say that the first half of the book of the prophet Isaiah was written prior to the Babylonian Exile, and that the second half was written after the Exile.  Subsequently we end up with a "first Isaiah," and a "second Isaiah." In other words, we have either two writers named Isaiah, or another person using the name "Isaiah" for the second half of the book.  Those who subscribe to the two Isaiah theory base themselves on two things:

1.  The style of writing in the first half of the book is different from the second half.

2.  The second half makes reference to situations that only someone living during or after the Exile would be familiar with.

The weakness of this assumption lies in thinking that a single individual is not capable of employing more than one style of writing.  Another weakness is that those who think this way do not believe that God could enable the writer to foresee the social, economic, and political conditions of Israel after the Exile.  In other words, the element of inspired predictive prophecy is rejected outright.

We encounter the same issue in the New Testament. Some scholars would say, for example, that John's Gospel account was written contemporaneously with the events described, i.e. during or shortly after the events.  Other scholars would post-date the account into the second century.  Those who believe the latter base themselves on the thrust of the book, which appears to mitigate against the influence of the Gnostics, a (supposedly) second-century group who believed that Jesus was not really a full human being.

A question for those who believe in the message of the Bible is the following: At the end of the day, does it really make any difference as to what point in history the individual books of the Bible were written?  Does the date of writing affect our faith, our relationship to God, and to how we practice our religion?   Does the date of writing affect how we think theologically?

Please share with us your thoughts on this matter. Tell us if, in your opinion, any of this makes any difference and why it does or doesn't.

Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona

The Word of God in the Words of Humans

It is customary for many churches to include in their worship services the phrase "Thanks be to God" when the reader of a particular Scripture passage says "This is the Word of the Lord"
at the end of their reading.  In others churches one hears the response of "Thanks be to God and to His name be glory and praise," or "Thanks be to God for giving it to us, and to God's name be glory and praise."  I have also heard the response "Thanks be to Thee oh Christ."


Unless some of us participate in these responses automatically or by rote, these responses are intended to indicate that the phrase "This is the Word of the Lord," is reflective of the belief in the Church that the words of Scripture are not merely human words, but rather words which communicate the mind and will of God in the life of the community and of individual believers.
In essence, then, it is reflective of the notion that the Bible is the "Word of God."


While this writer (yours truly) believes that the writers of Scripture did not take it upon themselves to write, but rather that it was God's initiative that prompted them to write,
that God utilized the human resources of culture, language, and life circumstances in order to convey the message that God wanted us to hear.  In other words, this action of God, which some call "divine inspiration," took place and was mediated in human history.  By this is meant that the message which God wanted us to hear was not given in a historical vacuum, but rather in a
particular cultural and historical context.  Subsequently, we end up with divine or divinely inspired words filtered through the language of frail humans.


The above mentioned, then, leads us to another approach to reading the Scriptures.  This approach is called "Higher Criticism," in contrast to the approach that we had previously examined, i.e. "Textual (or Lower) Criticism."  There is nothing really higher or lower about these approaches to biblical studies.  The terms "higher and lower" just point out the differences in approaches.  Textual Criticism, as we have seen, compares the various manuscripts (hand-written copies of the original documents) to determine which of the manuscripts most closely and accurately describe the contents of the original documents on which the Scriptures were written.  Higher Criticism (some refer to this approach as the historical-critical method)  raises questions of authorship, date, purpose of writing, sources of information, and styles of writing used by the writers of Scripture.


In this article, we will deal with the question of authorship.  We ask questions such as did Jeremiah really write the book which carries his name or was it written by someone else that attributed it to Jeremiah?  Did Matthew write the Gospel account that has his name or did someone else write it in order to give it authority, prestige, status, and validity?


The fundamental question for us is does it really matter who wrote the particular books of the Bible?  Is our faith affected or diluted by the particular author?  Does it really matter if Mark's Gospel account was written by Mark or Pancho Pasteles (Joe Blow)? 


Please share with us your perspective on the importance or non-importance of who the author was that wrote the particular book of the Bible.  Is this issue important for Christian faith and godly living?  Tell us why you think that it is or it isn't. 


Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona

This is the Word of the Lord -"Thanks be to God"

                                                            Biblical Criticism






For the next several weeks, I will write brief articles on a topic that all members of the faith community should have some knowledge of.  These topics are not designed exclusively for  biblical scholars and theologians.  Nor are they designed exclusively for those who have an academic and intellectual interest in the field of biblical studies and religion as a whole.  These articles will be written as an invitation to the average person who is interested in developing an informed faith.


The topic of biblical criticism is intimidating to those who hear the word "criticism." They tend to associate the word "criticism" with speaking against or "putting down."  Biblical criticism is neither.
The word "criticism" in the case of biblical studies refers to the task of asking questions and making
evaluation and judgment about what we read.  Many people believe that biblical criticism will result in questioning the validity of what "the Bible says," and losing faith in its message.  This writer has experienced just the opposite, i.e. having his faith in the biblical messages affirmed and strengthened.


The first aspect of biblical criticism that I invite you to consider is what is called "Textual Criticism."
Some refer to it as "Lower Criticism," which is not as extensive as "Higher Criticism," an approach
to biblical studies that we will examine later on in this series.


Simply put, textual criticism is the art of reconstructing and recovering the original text of the Bible.
Since the original documents of the Bible are no longer in existence (they have perished due to the delicate materials on which they were first written, i.e. animal skins, vellum, parchment, etc), hand-written copies (manuscripts) were produced to keep the original contents intact. However, we come across the reality that:


1.  Some  manuscripts are older (and in some cases short in length).


2.  Some manuscripts are more recent (and in some cases longer in length)


3.  Some of the translations that we use today are based on the older manuscripts, and
others are based on the shorter manuscripts.


Textual criticism, then, is the task of comparing the various manuscripts in order to determine which ones most accurately reflect what the original documents of the Bible contained.  It is the art of recovering the original biblical message.


I now invite you, the reader, to tell us how you think textual criticism will affect your faith.
Do you feel intimidated by this process?  Are you more inclined to "not want to do all that
work," and just simply rely on the translations that we have available and avoid all that razzle -dazzle?  Will textual criticism strengthen your faith?  These are just some of the questions that can be raised by this issue.  Please tell us where you stand on this topic.


Brother, colleague, and friend,


Juan A. Ayala-Carmona