Form Criticism Of The Bible

According to Bloomberg (2009), Form Criticism separates the Bible text into categories based on function, “…the Gospels could be subdivided into discrete “pericopae” (self- contained passages) and analyzed according to the form (almost a “mini-genre) of each” (p.92). For example, some forms include parables, proverbs, and prophetic declarations (Bloomberg, 2009, p.92). Because form criticism uses a skeptical framework to interpret Biblical texts, form critics deconstruct or reduce Bible passages until the historical value or historical Jesus becomes evident. In other words, form critics challenged the credibility of the Bible based on the belief that most stories were passed on through oral tradition, embellished, and borrowed storytelling devices or frameworks from other countries like Europe or Africa. However, the Apostle Paul says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Tim.3:16, NIV).
On one hand, Form Criticism questions the credibility of the Bible by suggesting oral traditions were too vulnerable to interpretation or embellishments to preserve accuracy or truth. Whereas Bloomberg (2009) argues that oral tradition preserved, “…Jesus’ words and deeds…” (p.94); suggesting that memorization, eyewitnesses, private notes help maintain accuracy