Every book in a library belongs to a specific genre, for not all books are written in like ways or for like reasons. Similarly, the books of the Holy Bible are written in various forms for different reasons. The discipline of biblical form criticism originally began as an effort to uncover the oral traditions that pre-existed and served as the foundation for the biblical texts.[1] Over time, its focus shifted to identifying “the forms used by the biblical writers and the setting in life (Sitz im Leben) in which a given text functioned.”[2] The general steps of the discipline’s methodology consist of giving a definition of the genre in question and subsequently conducting an analysis of the structural patterns of a given genre or text, the setting or “social situation” that influenced it, and its overall “purpose and function.”[3] Analyzing one of the many biblical literary genres in this way also “gives insight into the life situation (Sitz im Leben) in which it arises, and the setting in turn illumines the content and intention of the genre itself.”[4]
The history of form criticism as a discipline can trace its roots back primarily to Hermann Gunkel, who employed its methodology to analyze and categorize the various types of Old Testament literature.[5] Gunkel took his inspiration to study the Old Testament in this way from the Brothers’ Grimm application of form-critical principles to historical folk German literature.[6] Gunkel broadly divided Old Testament literature into “prose and poetry” with many various literary forms falling under either of these two umbrellas.[7] He found that certain genres were often indicated by easily identifiable formulas,[8] which also helped characterize the Sitz im Leben of these genres.[9] As a result, Gunkel asserted that biblical literary forms could “provide the data for a literary history of Israel” as the forms evolve or are replaced over time.[10] Some of Gunkel’s important works are The Legends of Genesis and his study of the Psalms.[11]
Another important figure in the history of biblical form criticism is Albrecht Alt, one of Gunkel’s students.[12] He studied in particular the Israelite law codes of the Old Testament. Alt coined the term ‘apodictic law’ as referring to “unconditional (divine) law,” with the prescriptions and prohibitions of the Decalogue as classic examples of this genre.[13] He contrasted these laws with casuistic laws, which are laws that apply under certain conditions. An example of biblical casuistic law is Exodus 21:15—“Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death” (NABRE).[14] Since Alt was aware of casuistic law as a literary genre found in other ancient Near East texts, he postulated that ancient Israel had incorporated and adapted known examples of Canaanite or Mesopotamian casuistic law into their own law codes.[15] Alt believed that apodictic law, for its part, was “singularly characteristic of Israelite religious law,”[16] although more recent archaeological data indicates that this genre of unconditional law was also present outside of Israel in some cases.[17]
In the case of the New Testament, form criticism originally attempted to determine the oral tradition behind the text and to discover what can be traced back to Jesus as opposed to early Church traditions or redactors.[18] Martin Dibelius was the first scholar to officially use the term ‘form criticism’ (Formgeschichte) in his 1919 analysis of the Gospels.[19] Dibelius assumed a Sitz im Leben for the formation of the Synoptic Gospels that centered primarily on the early Christian proclamation of faith in Christ and the early apostolic teaching.[20] This assumption built on the work of William Wrede, who had suggested with other scholars “a process of the passing down and moulding of oral stories about Jesus” prior to the actual “formation of the Gospels.”[21] Dibelius thus held that the Gospel writers collected oral traditions, primarily “‘paradigms’ and ‘tales’” that were influential for the early Church, especially as they related to the Church’s preaching and teaching.[22] Karl Ludwig Schmidt argued in The Framework of the History of Jesus that each evangelist fit his collected material onto a ‘framework’ that represented his unique “theological interests” rather than “the genuine chronology of Jesus’ life”—that is, the framework of each Gospel is the arrangement and decision of each evangelist and is not native to the oral traditions themselves.[23] Vincent Taylor’s form-critical analysis of Mark’s Gospel was the first English-language application of the methodology to one of the Gospels.[24] Finally, Rudolf Bultmann played a monumental role in form criticism of the New Testament, especially with his 1921 work History of the Synoptic Tradition.[25] Bultmann controversially advanced what he termed the ‘demythologization’ of biblical stories as an effort to reinterpret such stories based on a recognition that “they are the objectification of human self-understanding not a scientific explanation of external reality.”[26]
Form criticism gradually gained acceptance in the Catholic Church as a discipline for biblical analysis. Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu approved the analysis of biblical literary forms and their prudent comparison with genres displayed in written sources from other peoples of the ancient Near East.[27] The 1964 document Sancta Mater Ecclesia from the Pontifical Biblical Commission legitimizes form criticism as an acceptable method of biblical analysis, but cautions strongly against beginning with “erroneous premises” such as did Bultmann with his focus on demythologization.[28] This document also affirms the three-stage process for the formation of the Gospels later expounded explicitly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1) Jesus’ life events; 2) traditions passed down orally; 3) the writing of the Gospels.[29] Despite the Church’s acceptance of form criticism, some scholars have questioned the discipline’s usefulness and coherence. They suggest that it is impossible to truly reconstruct “the oral tradition allegedly underlying the biblical writings” if there even is such an oral tradition.[30] Further, many scholars disagree as to the appropriate methodology of form criticism: some hold that the goal is to “reconstruct the most original form” whereas others believe they should only “consider the form in the present text.”[31] Scholars of the latter view believe that those of the former unnaturally analyze the text as fragmented units.[32] This also means that the classification of forms often has to take content into account when arguably it should not.[33] As a result, more recent scholarship now tends to distinguish between form criticism, which refers to short, fragmented units, and ‘genre criticism’, which considers “larger units.”[34]
Let us briefly survey the various biblical literary forms. There are over 57 different identifiable literary forms in Scripture, to include laws (casuistic and apodictic), treaties and contracts, blessings and curses, oaths, oracles, cultic regulations and priestly professional lore, prayers, legends, lists, drinking songs, war and victory songs, threats, words of judgment, popular proverbs, parables, fables, formulas of salutation, and everyday sayings, among others.[35] Many of these forms, especially those in the Old Testament, feature similarities to forms found in other ancient Near East written sources, thus heightening the importance of form comparison of these sources with those of the biblical texts. In some cases, forms are identifiable by clear patterns they portray. A prominent example of this is evident in the “Biblical Annunciations of Birth” which almost always follow a 5-step pattern: 1) angelic appearance; 2) reverent fear displayed by the person to whom the angel appears; 3) the message from the Lord, often featuring a personal address, an exhortation not to fear, a mandate for the future child’s name, and a description of the child’s destiny; 4) questioning by the person; and, 5) the bestowal of a sign to confirm the person of the message’s veracity.[36] This pattern can be discerned, for example, in the Old Testament annunciations of the births of Ishmael, Isaac, and Samson as well as the New Testament annunciations of the births of John the Baptist, Jesus (according to Luke’s Gospel) and Jesus again (according to Matthew’s Gospel).[37]
Form criticism has played in an important role in biblical scholarship of the last century. A good understanding and classification of forms often aids our understanding of the passage in its literary, social, and historical context, which in turn “can aid correct interpretation.”[38] Nevertheless, scholars have identified some weaknesses inherent to form criticism that seem to indicate its future impact will be limited to analysis of small units within a text rather than to a text as a whole, such as one or more of the Synoptic Gospels. The newer discipline of redaction criticism seeks to correct “form criticism’s fragmentary approach to the Gospels.”[39] We will consider how this is so in our next summary.
Bibliography
Soulen, Richard N. and Soulen, R. Kendall. Handbook of Biblical Criticism: Fourth Edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.
Pius XII. Divino Afflante Spiritu. 1943. Accessed via http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html
Pontifical Biblical Commission. Sancta Mater Ecclesia. 1964. Accessed via http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcgospl.htm.
[3] Soulen and Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism: Fourth Edition, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 70.
[25] Soulen and Soulen, Handbook, 31.
[27] Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, 33-37 (1943, accessed via http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html)
[28] Pontifical Biblical Commission, Sancta Mater Ecclesia, I (1964, accessed via http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcgospl.htm)
[29] Pontifical Biblical Commission, Sancta Mater Ecclesia, II-3 and Catechism of the Catholic Church, 126 cited in ’06 Form Criticism’ on Moodle, 3.
[30] ‘Form Criticism Survey’ on Moodle, 3.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid., 4.
[34] Ibid., 3.
[35] ‘Literary Genres in the Bible’ on Moodle, 1-51.
[36] ‘Annunciation Form’ on Moodle.
No comments:
Post a Comment