Definition and Analysis of Redaction Criticism

1. Definition and Analysis of Redaction Criticism

2. Definition: a discipline of historians designed to uncover from a written source the particular contributions, whether these be in collecting, arranging, adding or omitting, of the author to the traditions he utilized in order better to understand his theological viewpoints.

3. redaction.n. The process or result of modifying or editing a text. • redaction criticism.n. The discipline that seeks to recognize the alterations made by the Evangelists to the written sources they possessed as well as the theological perspective that was driving their composition. In addition, a redaction critic may propose a setting for the emergence of the Evangelist’s own views. The term translates the German Redaktionsgeschichte. Sometimes referred to as composition criticism (Germ. Kompositionsgeschichte), a term that emphasizes the Evangelist as author and not mere redactor.

4. As Dr. Carson brings out in his article, RC has been used in many ways and says, "... one cannot escape two facts: redaction criticism is here to stay and it means different things to different people" ("Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool," in idem , Scripture and Truth [GR: Zondervan, 1983], pp. 119-42, here from p. 123).

5. First, RC assumes written sources and seeks to discover the contributions of the Evangelist to those sources. RC assumes sources, the ability to trace those sources, as well as the ability to trace redactional alterations. • Second, RC is concerned with the theological motivation for these alterations. Redaction critics always want to know why Matt or Luke has changed Mk. When a change is discovered, redaction critics are always looking elsewhere to see if this change is typical for Matt. If typical, why? • Before I go on, let me detail what scholars are talking about when they speak of redaction; what are the kinds of things done? Here is a list, with an example or two, of the kinds of things the redactors did to their sources. What we are dealing with are observable phenomena with probable motives. • Conservation: thus, Matt has transmitted most of Mark as he wrote his gospel. • Conflation: thus, an evangelist can combine his sources. good example of this is how Matt has combined Mark and Q to relate the Temptation narrative (cf. Matt 3:1-4:11). I have argued this regarding Matt 10:23. Another term for this is transposition (cf. Matt 23:37-9 and Luke 13:34-5). • Expansion: Luke can proceed by way of conflation (adding one tradition to another) or he may choose to expand a section: thus, Luke has added Luke 1-2 to the basic Markan framework. This is adding a tradition to another. • Omission: Matt or Luke may choose to omit a given tradition in Mark (for whatever reasons): thus, Matt "omits" Mark's details about digging in the roof when he reports the story of the paralytic (cf. Mark 2:4; Matt 8:2). • Absorption: I use this term to refer to the affect of redaction upon a given tradition. Thus, when Matt adds, omits, etc., the affect is that the tradition upon which he has worked now has been absorbed into his theological views. Thus, when Matt uses a term that term is absorbed into his view. • Explication: sometimes an author will clarify an ambiguity; thus, Mark adds a clause to explain ritual purity (Mk 7:3-4) and one to draw out the implications of Jesus' action (Mk 7:19); Matt changes a "Son of Man" to "I" (cf. Matt 10:32 and Luke 12:8) in order to explain. • Alteration: sometimes an author may change his source to avoid misunderstandings; thus, many think this is what Matt has done to Mk regarding whether Jesus was unable to heal or restricted due to human non-responsiveness (cf. Mk 6:5 and Matt 13:58). Another example is the well-known trouble with how the Rich Young Ruler addressed Jesus (cf. Mk 10:17-8; Matt 19:16-7 and Luke 18:18). Sometimes the alteration may result in a different form: cf. Lk 6:46 with Matt 7:21.

6. Third, RC is further concerned with composing a theology of each Evangelist. Not only does it concern itself with individual alterations, it is also concerned with the patterns of changes throughout the gospel to discover an over-all theology. • Finally, RC is concerned with the early church setting for this theological viewpoint. A redaction critic may go so far as to suggest a Sitz im Leben from which Matt's or Luke's own views emerged. The narrowness of the Sitz im Leben has recently been challenged in a book called The Gospels for all Christians in which several articles argue that the original audience for the gospels was much larger than might first be supposed.

7. Before I go on, let me detail what scholars are talking about when they speak of redaction; what are the kinds of things done? Here is a list, with an example or two, of the kinds of things the redactors did to their sources. What we are dealing with are observable phenomena with probable motives. Conservation: thus, Matt has transmitted most of Mark as he wrote his gospel. Conflation: thus, an evangelist can combine his sources. good example of this is how Matt has combined Mark and Q to relate the Temptation narrative (cf. Matt 3:1-4:11). I have argued this regarding Matt 10:23. Another term for this is transposition (cf. Matt 23:37-9 and Luke 13:34-5).

8. Expansion: Luke can proceed by way of conflation (adding one tradition to another) or he may choose to expand a section: thus, Luke has added Luke 1-2 to the basic Markan framework. This is adding a tradition to another. Omission: Matt or Luke may choose to omit a given tradition in Mark (for whatever reasons): thus, Matt "omits" Mark's details about digging in the roof when he reports the story of the paralytic (cf. Mark 2:4; Matt 8:2).

9. Absorption: I use this term to refer to the affect of redaction upon a given tradition. Thus, when Matt adds, omits, etc., the affect is that the tradition upon which he has worked now has been absorbed into his theological views. Thus, when Matt uses a term that term is absorbed into his view. • Explication: sometimes an author will clarify an ambiguity; thus, Mark adds a clause to explain ritual purity (Mk 7:3-4) and one to draw out the implications of Jesus' action (Mk 7:19); Matt changes a "Son of Man" to "I" (cf. Matt 10:32 and Luke 12:8) in order to explain.

10. Alteration: sometimes an author may change his source to avoid misunderstandings; thus, many think this is what Matt has done to Mk regarding whether Jesus was unable to heal or restricted due to human non-responsiveness (cf. Mk 6:5 and Matt 13:58). Another example is the well-known trouble with how the Rich Young Ruler addressed Jesus (cf. Mk 10:17-8; Matt 19:16-7 and Luke 18:18). Sometimes the alteration may result in a different form: cf. Lk 6:46 with Matt 7:21.

11. Bibliography: Redaction Criticism in DJG; D. A. Carson, “Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and J. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 119–42; H; W. Kelber, “Redaction Criticism: On the Nature and Exposition of the Gospels,” PRS 6 (1979) 4–16; W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (New York: Abingdon, 1969); S. McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (GNTE 2; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 83–95; E. V. McKnight, “Form and Redaction Criticism,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 149–74; G. R. Osborne, “The Evangelical and Redaction Criticism: Critique and Methodology,” JETS 22 (1979) 305–22; idem, “Redaction Criticism,” in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. D. A. Black and D. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991); N. Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969); E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary As Guides to Redaction in Mark (SNTSMS 33; Cambridge: University Press, 1978); J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968); S. Smalley, “Redaction Criticism,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. H. Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 181–95; R. H. Stein, “What Is Redaktionsgeschichte?” JBL 88 (1969) 45–56; idem, “The Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a Markan Redaction History,” NovT 13 (1971) 181–98; idem, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) 231–72. • PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies • GNTE Guides to New Testament Exegesis • JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society • SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series • JBL Journal of Biblical Literature • NovT Novum Testamentum