▁in ▁its ▁development . ▁ ▁Religion ▁scholar ▁Bur ke ▁O . ▁Long ▁sums ▁up ▁the ▁contemporary ▁view ▁by ▁obser ving ▁that , ▁since ▁or al ▁tradition ▁does ▁not ▁follow ▁the ▁same ▁development al ▁pattern ▁as ▁written ▁texts , ▁laws ▁of ▁or al ▁development ▁cannot ▁be ▁arrived ▁at ▁by ▁studying ▁written ▁texts . ▁ ▁Add itional ▁challeng es ▁of ▁form ▁criticism ▁have ▁also ▁been ▁raised . ▁For ▁example , ▁bib lic al ▁studies ▁scholar ▁Werner ▁H . ▁Kel ber ▁says ▁form ▁criticism ▁throughout ▁the ▁mid - tw enti eth ▁century ▁was ▁so ▁focused ▁toward ▁finding ▁each ▁per ico pe ' s ▁original ▁form , ▁that ▁it ▁dist ract ed ▁from ▁any ▁serious ▁consideration ▁of ▁memory ▁as ▁a ▁dynamic ▁force ▁in ▁the ▁construction ▁of ▁the ▁g osp els ▁or ▁the ▁early ▁church ▁community ▁tradition . ▁What ▁Kel ber ▁refers ▁to ▁as ▁form ▁criticism ' s ▁" ast ounding ▁my op ia " ▁has ▁produced ▁enough ▁criticism ▁to ▁rev ive ▁interest ▁in ▁memory ▁as ▁an ▁analyt ical ▁category ▁within ▁bib lic al ▁criticism . ▁Kn ier im ▁says ▁Sitz ▁im ▁Leben ▁has ▁been ▁challeng ed ▁by ▁studies ▁that ▁demonstrate ▁a ▁text ▁type ▁" does ▁not ▁automatically ▁reve al ▁the ▁setting ." ▁Another ▁example ▁concerns ▁the ▁H ellen istic ▁culture ▁that ▁surrounded ▁first - century ▁Palest ine . ▁Form ▁criticism ▁assumed ▁the ▁early ▁Church ▁was ▁heavily ▁influenced ▁by ▁that ▁culture . ▁However , ▁in ▁the ▁ 1 9 7 0 s , ▁E . ▁P . ▁Sand ers , ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁G erd ▁The issen ,