Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 127:508 (Oct 1970)
Article: Implications of Form Criticism for Old Testatnent Studies
Author: Herbert M. Wolf

BSac 127:508 (Oct 70) p. 299

Implications of Form Criticism for Old Testatnent Studies

Herbert M. Wolf

[Herbert M. Wolf, Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.]

During the present century, biblical scholars have become increasingly enamored of the form-critical method of Bible study. Described by the Germans as Gattungsforschung or Formgeschichte, form criticism involves the classification of the type or genre (Gattung, form) to which a given literary unit belongs. This includes a study of style, terminology, subject matter, the outline of the work, and the cultural background or situation in life (Sitz im Leben, occasion) which gave birth to the pattern or form. Hermann Gunkel provided the major spark for form criticism through his studies of Genesis (1901) and Psalms (1926–32). His work was at least a refreshing change from the deadening influence of source critics.

Although this pioneer labored in the Old Testament field, form criticism has been adapted and applied to New Testament work by Dibelius and Bultmann. Part of the controversy in present form-critical studies arises from its diverse development in Old as opposed to New Testament investigations. The significance of form criticism can be seen by its inclusion in recent biblical introductions and by Abingdon’s announcement of a five-year study by a team of scholars to culminate in a definitive Interpreter’s Handbook of Old Testament Form Criticism.

Distinctions between Old and New Testament Form Criticism

The unsavory connotations brought to the evangelical mind

BSac 127:508 (Oct 70) p. 300

by the term form criticism stem largely from the work of radical form-critics of the Bultmann school. Their method denied the historicity and supernatural character of the Gospels by positing a “creative community,” the early church, which created a tradition about Jesus which was secondary at best. Small units or sayings were circulating and were molded by the needs and interests of the early church. These units were then combined by redactors who were not concerned about the facts of Jesus’ life as such.1

Behind this radical approach lies a close tie with oral tradition. The “sayings” or “units” comprising the tradition circulated orally before their inclusion into the written record. This emphasis upon oral tradition goes back to Gunkel, who sought to trace literary types to a preliterary stage of development.2

In more recent years, however, form-critics within the Old Testament sphere are stressing written forms, since ...