Talk:Form criticism

I don't understand much about this topic but is the German tanslation correct? I presume the correct translation should be "Sitz im Leben" Hottiger 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
This article now has major hallmarks of religious bias rather than an accurate representation of the evolution of the concept to the present day. Citing Pitre, who actively confuses faith and scholarship, does not add credibility to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20E2:400:C0E4:6399:2C88:EA43 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The basic definition here is different from the other sources I've checked. hope someone knowledgeable enough to untangle this could look at it. Reinistalk 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Though it could be made a little friendlier, the definition is accurate, and not really different in substance from the three cited above, in my opinion. Beckersc0t


 * No, it's actually complete bollocks. Reinistalk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition that you have cited from Encyclopaedia Britannica is the most accurate. The original artical did reflect this, I think. Why have you deleted my example? What was 'nonsensical' about it?

--Train guard 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Literary vs. Biblical form criticism
Has anyone bothered to notice that there are two very different definitions of form criticism - biblical form criticism is interested in the literary genre, the identification of sources, and the political and sociological agendas they represent. literary form criticism, more commonly called formalism is almost the polar opposite - it treats the text as completely independent of the author and looks from within at form: style, literary devices, structure, etc to deduce the text's meaning. Egfrank 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This Article Needs Serious Updating
This article on Form Criticism needs serious updating. It is filled with inaccuracies and does not give a proper picture of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkbrewer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

removed Oral Tradition section
Deja vu. The same duplicate material, again. Seems to be a feeder to Oral tradition and the historical Jesus, self promotion of sole author deleted/restored article. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Form criticism is nothing like deconstruction
I revised to remove the strange comparision of form crit to deconstruction. If someone has an authority for comparing the two, then revert and include that authority. But deconstruction does not "attempt to rediscover the original kernel of meaning" - it challenges the very possibility that language can mean anything. --Tbanderson (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

detail & cites needed
The statement:

"Pronouncement stories, scenes that culminate with a saying of Jesus, are more plausible historically than other kinds of stories about Jesus"

should probably have some sort of justification or citation.

The statement:

However, "Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying Bultmann's Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect."[6]

should probably be in a criticism section, and should actually state which assumptions are being challenged, or it has no material value here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.197.187 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Insinuation as Evidence
Under the heading Evangelists we see the following quote:

"However, "Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying Bultmann's Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect."

This seems like an effort to inject a given opinion as fact. Specifically the opinion of W. H Kelber and the implication here seems to be that Bultman stacked the deck; yet there is not even a speck of evidence offered to substantiate this.

Since scholars often disagree and that such disagreement often help illuminate or extend our knowledge, it makes sense to include a section putting that in its proper context and perhaps summarizing SPECIFIC criticisms by say Dunn or Bauckham as opposed to insinuating something.

" a whole spectrum of main assumptions" ? seriously!? Degrees of main assumptions?

Which assumptions? The signifigance of determining the proper literary type? Even Mike Licona accepts this idea or at least to the extent that he suggests that Matthew 27:52 is poetic rather than a literal event. Similarly, Dunn's criticism of the "life situation" approach seems more about its application than its main assumptions. I doubt one can find assumptions more crucial to Form criticism along the "spectrum of main assumptions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.243.230 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)