A Response to Hughes Paper Classical Form Criticism: Its Basic Elements and History

David Bradnick

Hughes paper on form criticism presents a concise and informative description of the topic while
presenting the material in a logical structure which encompasses the classical definition of form
criticism, New Testament and Old Testament categories of genres, an historical survey of the
topic, and a critique on the strengths and weaknesses of this field. Hughes skillfully uses a variety
of sources from which to construct an overview of form criticism, often employing pioneers in
the field such as Bultmann, Redlich, and McKnight while also including contemporary authorities
within the discipline, displaying the current state of form criticism. While I applaud Hughes for
investigating and describing the genesis of form criticism, he seems to miss or at least downplay
the limitations of a few older sources to speak to the contemporary context. Form criticism some
forty years ago was limited in that it could not predict the future endeavors of literary-critical
methods within biblical studies; therefore Hughes application of these sources slightly skews the
present state of this discipline. For example he writes, form criticism is form criticism
whether or not it applies to the Old or New Testament, but New Testament form criticism mostly
examines the sayings of Jesus and His community while Old Testament form criticism analyzes
the oral traditions of the Hebrew community. While the early period of New Testament form
criticism primarily focused on the sayings of Jesus, later undertakings would expand the scope of
its investigation to a myriad of materials, thus incorporating nearly every facet of the biblical
narrative. I would caution Hughes on the manner in which he uses sources, ensuring that the
historical context in which they were written is taken into account in order to avoid an
anachronistic portrayal of the subject manner.
Having said this, I must compliment the author on his intentionality to elucidate for his readers
the application of form criticism towards secular texts (i.e. Aristotle). This example, which
extends outside the biblical text, places the significance of form criticism in its larger context,
thus illustrating the scope of this discipline in the scholarly realm. The methodologies employed
by biblical scholars are not isolated procedures unique to the religious world. In fact, it is often
quite the opposite as biblical studies has incorporated literary critical techniques from other
fields, bringing a new perspective to the scriptures, and Hughes serves his readers well by
implying this scholarly sharing of resources.
At one point is his paper Hughes discusses the death of classical form criticism but speaks little
about the development of this discipline in the later half of the twentieth century. By doing so he
downplays the continued importance of form criticism within biblical studies and neglects to
mention the evolution within this field of research. In addition he bypasses the foundation that
form criticism established for future areas of investigation such as redaction criticism. Also,
Hughes did not mention the limitation of form criticism to analyze the importance or the function
of a particular genre within the context of the larger literary work, a task later performed by
redaction criticism; therefore, this paper could have been strengthened by mentioning these
developments, even if only a few brief comments were made, realizing the space limitations
provided.
There are many exchanges and a great deal of dependence among the various disciplines within
literary criticism, as a result it is difficult to talk about one without mentioning the other. This
challenge is evident throughout Hughes paper which at times blurs the task of form criticism
with source, redaction, and historical-criticism. For example, on page eight Hughes writes,
Because of the subjective nature of form criticism, it also disregards eye witness accounts. For

Bradnick: Response to Hughes

instance, writers of the Gospels are considered compilers instead of authors. Certainly scribes
used methods to pass on oral and eye witness accounts, yet the form-critical discipline fails to
address this subject. I would suggest that the task of discerning authorship would be more
accurately appropriated to source criticism or perhaps the discipline of historical-criticism which
employs methodologies such as form criticism in order to develop such conclusions. Form
criticism is limited to issues of discernment within the text itself, and one should be careful when
assuming that it extends beyond the text to make conclusions, although it can be a valuable tool
towards these ends.
In another section of the paper Hughes goes on to write, [The degradation of eyewitness
accounts] is why form criticism almost completely eliminates the Gospel of John due to its
inconsistencies with Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In response I would recommend a similar caveat
as above in that Hughes goes beyond the realm of form criticism in his critique, and perhaps his
apprehension of the historical-criticism has emerged. In this case the task of form criticism is not
to accept or reject the testimony of any particular gospel, since it can be applied to any genre of
literature regardless of their relation to eyewitness accounts. Hughes assessment of John appears
to be in contradiction with the various categories of genre which he describes at the beginning of
his paper. Despite these discrepancies, the author does grasp the limitations of form criticism and
displays this understanding when elaborating upon the inability of form criticism to determine
historicity. He even includes a quote from Bock which states, [Form criticism] should not be
designed to help us determine the historicity of the events it analyzes, but in the hands of a
skilled exegete who uses the tools of interpretation in a way that fits what they are capable of,
form criticism can be a fruitful aid to understanding and to exposition. These previous moments
of laxity mentioned above certainly apply to the task of literary criticism as a whole but are
questionable within a paper on the topic of form criticism.
Hughes slight trepidation toward form criticism becomes apparent throughout the course of the
paper, especially within the introduction and conclusion. He starts by saying, Although the
methods of the discipline remain intact, its value and interpretive devices result in discrepancies
throughout the theological world (Hughes 1), and later he adds, Thus, form criticism aids the
interpreter when used properly in its descriptive sense, but can also be destructive when applied
to the validity of the text (Hughes 9). Hughes does not give specific examples of these
discrepancies, neither does he explicitly present the proper methodology to employ. What
seemingly underlies the authors concern is what he sees as the compromising of scripture should
literary criticism question the historicity of an event that he deems as foundational to his
theological enterprise. Hughes sincerely presents his theological views in a fair and respectable
manner, and as a result he is able to incorporate his voice into the discussion in a subtle yet
principled way that honestly takes into account the primary issues regarding form criticism. In
general, Hughes presents a fair and accurate assessment of form criticism. The balance and poise
which he brings to the interpretive table displays a mature and candid summary of the primary
issues, a key quality for responsible scholarship. The closing statements applied by Hughes are
quite fitting and displays his grasp of the topic, including its implications for the task of
interpretation. [end]