A
Summary of Form Criticism
The
beginning of form criticism started between the years of 1914-1918 shortly
after the War.[1] The three main scholars in the field of form
criticism were Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann. While
these individuals were the ones whose work dominated the early field of form
criticism, they based their methodology on the work of previous Bible critics that
dates back to the Enlightenment.[2] Form criticism is the translation of the
German word Formgeschichte. The
literal translation of this word is “history of form”.[3] A traditionally accepted definition of form
criticism is, “a method of study and investigation which deals with the
pre-literary stage of the Gospel tradition, when the material was handed down
orally”.1 As we can clearly see, the goal is to critically assess
the form in which the information was preserved prior to being written down with
the goal of identifying whether it was recorded reliably in order to test the
historicity of the Biblical material that we have today. Form critics have used
this practice to come up with a conclusion that is often unlike what Christians
revere as history. A prominent form-critic by the name of G.E. Ladd explains,
“A close study of these forms led to the
critical conclusion that in its earliest stages, the material in the Gospels
was passed on orally as a series of disconnected units, anecdotes, stories,
sayings, teachings, parables, and so on…This means that the indications in the
Gospels of sequence, time, place, and the like are quite unhistorical and
untrustworthy and must therefore be ignored by serious Gospel criticism”[4]
After
reading that quote, you may be wondering, “What do they believe?” That is an
excellent question that is worth addressing. E.V. McKnight laid out a summary
of the positions that were arrived at through the implementation of form
criticism:
1.
The
“two document” hypothesis was accepted. Meaning, Mark and Q served as sources
for Matthew and Luke.
2.
Mark
and Q, as well as Matthew and Luke, were influenced by the theological views of
the early church.
You may question why this was ever accepted as
a valid theory. Donald Guthrie provides four reasons why there was a
significant rise in the acceptance of form criticism:
1.
The
form critics were able to account for the amount of time from the Synoptic
Gospel events to the writing of the events
2.
The
questioning of the historicity of the Gospel of Mark
3.
The
desire to update the gospels from the first century view to the world of the
twentieth century.
4.
To
position the literary materials in their original setting2
To gather further insight in addition to
Donald Guthrie, it would be beneficial to see what two of the most prominent
form critics concluded after their implementation of the practices of form
criticism. Given that form criticism sets out to account for the time between
the events themselves and the time the document was actually written, their
opinion on whether they think there is evidence that is capable of supporting
or invalidating the stories of the Synoptic Gospels would be useful. The two
form critics that will be looked at more closely are Martin Dibelius and Rudolf
Bultmann.
Starting with Martin Dibelius, the author of Form Tradition to Gospel, A Fresh Approach
to New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Gospel Criticism and
Christology, Jesus, and numerous others, is known to be one of the first
prominent form critics. Dibelius never believed that there was a “purely” historical
witness to Jesus. Dibelius claimed that the first century expansion of the
early Christian church wasn’t due to the historical reliability of the
resurrection but because the people who accepted Christ were content with the story
of salvation.[6]
Rudolf Bultmann is a prominent New Testament
scholar that is known for his work in form criticism and has written many books
on form criticism that include The
History of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus and the World, Theology of the New
Testament, and Jesus Christ and
Mythology. He is known for being very skeptical of his assessment of the
Synoptic Gospels and he concludes that
“one can only emphasize the uncertainty of our knowledge of the person and work
of the historical Jesus and likewise of the origin of Christianity”[7] Bultmann is known to be more responsible for
the field’s thoroughness and maturation than Dibelius or Schmidt because Bultmann
developed form criticism to a more advanced level.2 Bulmann
practiced form criticism with the presupposition that the canonical gospels
were “pre-scientific” and he greatly desired to modernize them.[8] Evolutionary dogma heavily influenced him in
the formulation of his methods.2
It is clear that neither of these advocates of
form criticism placed too much stock in the historical validity of the synoptic
gospels during the practice of their form criticism. While so many Evangelical Christians
place their entire faith in the reliability in the Synoptic Gospels, what
information or mindset has led scholars of form criticism to completely reject the
reliability of the Synoptic Gospels? It is important to highlight the
unnecessary presuppositions that inspired their understanding of the form
critical data in order to comprehend if they are in the objective mindset that
is ideal for historical studies of this magnitude. If philosophic
presuppositions were held at the time of assessing data from form critical
research, what affect did this philosophic presupposition have on the
interpretation of the data? What was the philosophic presupposition that the
data was filtered through? Most importantly, was this presupposition ideal for
conducting objective historical analysis or would it drastically skew the findings? Below, I’ll be closely assessing the most
common and destructive critiques against form criticism.
Common
Objections to Form Criticism
The
most common objections relate to philosophically and scientifically related
presuppositional foundations implemented in the interpretation of their
findings, subjective theorizing about their data, and the categorization of
highly subjective material reveals preconceived agendas. While these are few of
the primary objections to form criticism, they will be enough to provide you
with a foundational understanding of the negative consequences of form
criticism and allow you the opportunity to see numerous reasons why these
methods of form criticism have failed us in the past at uncovering the truth of
the Biblical texts.
Philosophic
and Scientific Presuppositions
The
claim that form critics have used philosophic or scientific presuppositions
when assessing data is not uncommon. In fact, it is likely the strongest
argument against form criticism. I’ll begin with a quote from Donald Guthrie
concerning how Rudolf Bultmann’s presuppositions negatively impacted his
historical work:
“Bultmann’s disillusionment led him to seek an
approach to the Gospels which would emancipate him from the need for historical
demonstration. Only so could the simplest, in his opinion, ever come to faith.
He was further prompted to his non-historical approach by his commitment to
existential philosophy”8
It
is believed that form criticism is the product of historical skepticism derived
from source criticism, which was ultimately laid out by the philosophical
foundation of the Enlightenment.2 It has been deemed that
much of the findings of form criticism are found while maintaining
philosophical presuppositions. Eta Linnemann remarks on the difficulty of
having “prejudgments” made prior to performing form criticism:
“A more intensive investigation would show
that underlying the historical-critical approach is a series of prejudgments
which are not themselves the result of scientific investigation. They are
rather dogmatic premises, statements of faith, whose foundation is the
absolutizing of human reason as a controlling apparatus”[9]
From a historian’s point of view, it would be unwise
to enter into an investigation of history with presuppositions that would alter
the findings in a search for truth. For example, if I was a historian on a
search for truth about the lives of the founding fathers of America and I went
into this search with the presupposition that all of these individuals were the
products of fiction, I would have to compromise the truth value of my
historical findings in order to manipulate the evidence to make it appear as
though the evidence we have isn’t reliable enough to place our trust in.
Clearly, this is an extreme example but one that illustrates the point that
what these form critics have done over the last century with the New Testament
Synoptic Gospels is comparably absurd.
Form criticism is also rooted with the assumption
that evolution is the process of progression from the simple to the complex.2
Kebler describes Bultmann’s form-critical analysis in the following:
“It [Bultmann’s concept of the development of
the synoptic tradition] was a process as natural as that of biological
evolution: simplicity grew into complexity…, an effortless evolutionary
transition from the pre-gospel stream of tradition to the written gospel”[10]
The form critics, similar to evolutionary
biologists, posit the concept of gradual change over time. In this case, they
felt that the synoptic text were compiled by the early church and were not the
testimony of eyewitness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. The form
critics assume that the early church did this to suit their own purposes and
not for historically accounting for the life of Jesus Christ.2
During
the period of time that oral tradition preserved the information contained in
the Synoptic Gospels, which is roughly 30-40 years, the form critics would be
merely speculating as to how this information was somehow transformed into a
legendary or mythological tale. It is noted by Guthrie that, “The very fact
that our historical data for the first thirty years of Christian history are so
limited means that form critics inevitably had to draw a good deal of
imagination, although none of them were conscious of doing so”.8 Essentially,
these conclusions drawn by the form critics aren’t historical at all. When you
take into account that the presuppositions traditionally accepted by the form
critics do not allow for the possibility of an objective historical conclusion,
it would be unreasonable to say that the findings of these form criticisms were
the result of honest historical research.
Subjective
Theorizing
I.J.
Peritz discusses the subjectivity of conducting form criticism:
Form criticism thus brings face to face with
the obligation either to acquiesce in its faculty method and conclusions or to
combat them. What is involved, however, is not the alternative between an uncritical
attitude and criticism, but between criticism and hyper-criticalism. A critical
view of the Gospels does not claim strict objectivity. It is hard to tell
sometimes where poetry ends and history begins. It is highly probable that
there is no underlying strictly chronological or topographical scheme; and that
they are not biography in “our sense.” But this is far from admitting that we
have no reliable testimony from eyewitnesses: that the Church from its Christ
of faith created the Jesus of history, instead of from the Jesus of history its
Christ of faith”[11]
When we view this observation, we can see that the
form critics aren’t being entirely forthcoming in their presentation of their
subjective interpretation. Form critics attempt to turn the story on its head
by saying that the Christ of faith came after the Jesus of history. It seems as
though that the form critics are a little too “hypercritical” of the historical
evidence we do have and hence make the whole process of withdrawing information
from the Synoptic Gospels impotent. Robert Mounce makes a valid assessment on
the subjectivity on form criticism by analyzing the inconsistencies found
across the board in the field of form criticism:
“Form Criticism sounds like a scientific
method. If it were, you would find consistency of interpretation. But the
interpretations of a single saying vary widely. Not only are interpretations
widespread but form critics often can’t agree whether a pericopae is a miracle
story or a pronouncement story – the two can be woven together. One would
expect consistency in historical reconstruction if Form Criticism were a true
science”[12]
While many form critics parade form criticism around
like a sophisticated method of retrieving historical knowledge, by pealing back
the layers of subjective analysis and speculative guesses we can confidently
conclude that form criticism is largely unscientific. While they all undeniable
agree that Jesus’s disciples were too ignorant and uneducated to effectively
document the life of Jesus, we can all identify their method of criticism is
founded on their imaginative analysis filtered through numerous presuppositions
of historically subjective information.2
Preconceived
Agenda when Interpreting
Based
on the above philosophical and scientific presuppositions of the form critics
when entering into their historical analysis of the Synoptic Gospels, we can
say with confidence that they are likely interpreting the collected data with a
preconceived agenda.2 Form criticism is distinct from many
other methods of historical analysis in that it can be largely considered to
promote subjectivity in its findings. By comparison, grammatico-historical
methods of interpretation are much more objective in its findings as they
accept the findings of the Bible without prejudice. The reason for this
distinction is that form criticism is largely based on the presuppositions of
the form critic. In addition, the large
amount of information that is still unknown about the oral period gives the
form critic the freedom to wildly speculate.2
This
is evidently clear when it comes to the acceptance of miracles. We see that
Dibelius and Baltmann weren’t open to the possibility of miracles within the
Synoptic Gospels. From the beginning, we see that they are entering into the
analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with the presupposition that the literature is
false. Gutrie notes that, “Both Dibelius and Bultmann reject the miraculous and
therefore the historicity of the gospel accounts of miracles. This is not so
much the basis of ‘form’ as on philosophical and theological grounds”.8
Their philosophical and theological presuppositions weren’t allowing
their mind to be open to where the evidence took them so they had to find
another way to make sense of the evidence.
Bultmann
wanted to “demythogize” the New Testament in order to make it relatable to
modern people.[13] However, there appears to be a strong
antisupernatural bias by taking this position. It limits what you are allowed
to accept as historically true. Given that Bultmann used this presupposition
when practicing form criticism, he immediately chalked up Jesus’ baptism,
temptation, transfiguration, miracles, and resurrection as legendary.2
Bultmann described these narratives as “instead of being historical in
character are religious and edifying”.[14]
Both
Dibelius and Bultmann held that these miracles accounts are unhistorical and
can be classified as myths. However, are there grounds for making that type of
claim solely by using form criticism? Given the nature of form criticism, it
would be impossible to make an objectively historical case for mythological
Hellenistic concepts to have influenced the Synoptic Gospels without relying
upon presuppositions already predetermined to those findings. Unless they were
already convinced that the Synoptic Gospels were influenced by Hellenistic
concepts, form criticism wouldn’t have been the vehicle to lead them to that
conclusion.
Ironically,
Bultmann himself doesn’t find the miracles in the Synoptic Gospels to be
comparable to the ones found in Hellenistic traditions, “In general, however,
the New Testament miracle stories are extremely reserved in this respect [in
describing cures], since they hesitate to attribute to the person of Jesus the
magical traits which were often characteristic of the Hellenistic miracle
worker”.[15] Given that Bultmann concedes that the
Hellenistic mythological miracle workers were largely different from the
miracle working found by Jesus, what would inspire such a loyalty to the theory
that Jesus had been plagiarized by Hellenistic sources? It appears that their
loyalty to theories that easily explain away large amounts of genuine
information with little evidence requires the person doing the dismissing to
have a strong bias in the opposite direction if he is going to knowingly
dismiss information without good objective reason.
Conclusion
On the surface, form criticism may appear to
be a genuine practice of Biblical evaluation with the intention of gathering
deeper insight into the Biblical text. I would caution you from placing stock
into the findings of form criticism. Form criticism is not oriented towards
objectively seeking truth from the Biblical text. Form critics enter the
practice of performing their form criticism with philosophical and scientific
presuppositions. Their conclusions cannot be genuinely historical because they
will inevitably reflect their bias presuppositions of the Biblical text.2
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that
objectivity is possible when analyzing the Synoptic Gospels. The
grammatico-historical method has done so by safeguarding hermeneutics by
highlighting the need for objectivity.2 It is done in other
methods of historical study but it doesn’t seem to be relied upon in form
criticism. Positing conspiracy theories of the early church formulation of
these stories and/or how the Jesus story evolved from Hellenistic sources fall
tremendously short when evidence is weighed and viewed objectively without negative
presuppositions.
[1] E. Basil
Redlich. Form Criticism (Edinburgh:
Nelson & Sons)
[2] Thomas
L. Thomas & F. David Farnell, The
Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications) Chapter 5
[3] Josh
McDowell. Evidence for Christianity (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, Inc) Chapter 15
[4] George
E. Ladd. The New Testament and Criticism (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)
[5] Edgar
McKnight. What is Form Criticism?
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress)
[6] Martin
Dibelius, Form Tradition to Gospel
(New York: Scribner’s Sons)
[7] Rudolf
Bultmann and Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism
(
[8] Donald
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press)
[9] Eta
Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the
Bible, Methodology or Ideology?
(Grand Rapids: Baker)
[10] Werner
Kelber, “The Oral and the Written Gospel”
(Philadelphia: Fortress)
[11] Ismar
J. Peritz, “Form Criticism as an
Experiment.” Religion in Life 10 (spring 1941)
[12] Robert
Mounce. Personal interview conducted by Josh McDowell, July 2, 1974
[13] David
Atkinson and David Field, New Dictionary
of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology (England: Inter-Varsity Press)
[14] Rudolf
Bultmann, History of Synoptic Tradition
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson)
[15] Rudolf
Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic
Gospels” in Form Critcism (Cleveland, OH:World)
No comments:
Post a Comment