8/4/2019 Theology Essay

1/2

Phuong Dinh L

SJH

Theology Essay:

Explain how Redaction Criticism works, and assess its strengths and weaknesses.

Redaction Criticism (RC) is the study of how writers of the gospels arranged and edited the

original material to express their theological beliefs often in direct response to a situation in the

community they were addressing. Original material can include oral and written sources, and even

complete gospels, and are what the authors had to start with. As defined by N Perrin, RC is used to

uncover the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangement,

editing and modification of traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation

of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity.

RC began in Germany in the late 1940s - the term was coined by W Marxen

(redaktionsgeschichse). Before, gospel writers were mistakenly seen as mere compilers, but RC showed

them authors with distinctive theological outlooks expressed through redactions. This means there are

in total three settings in life for gospel academics to distinguish between: the authentic tradition, how

it was interpreted by the early and finally, how the gospel writers modified it. RC has since then becomean indispensible aspect of any form of gospel study.

RC assumes the results of Source Criticism the literary relationship between Mark, Matthew

and Luke and Form Criticism the idea that the traditions are independent and unique entities that

can be classified. This is why if either of these is wrong, any insights gained from RC would then be faulty

as the author didnt actually use the sources we assumed he had.

Redaction critics identify the gospel authors contributions (i.e. redactions) through several

different aspects. First of all, he could look at the source the author used and find a pattern of materials

selected from that one source. This will provide a big indication of the authors theological views for

example, if the author omitted certain traditions of a source of same theme, this may imply that the

particular notion works against the authors theological emphasis. Significant omissions or additions, for

example Matthew and Lukes alterations to Marcan source, arent always theologically motivated but

they can be; so can changes in wording. If the order of the materials have been rearranged, identifying

these patterns is also important in deducing the authors purpose. This field is also called Composition

Critical Analyis and is categorised as a sub-division of RC. Finally, transitions between traditions are

usually written by gospel authors, so analysis of factors such as word-choice and content can help

identify the authors theological purpose.

In general, redaction critics have to search forpatterns of changes in a gospel a single change

can simply be due to stylistic causes, but consistent adjustments on materials of the same theme allow a

stronger base to believe that there was a theological reason behind it. They also take in account the

social history of the targeted community of the gospel, especially history of conflicts with other groups

of different beliefs, as many aims are not necessarily theological but rather sociological. In addition, note

that there are two approaches to RC: some redaction critics take the view that all gospel contents are

historical, even if theyve been interpreted slightly differently to reflect the authors view, while others

believe that authors may have falsified some traditions in order to prove their point.

8/4/2019 Theology Essay

2/2

Phuong Dinh L

SJH

Easier cases of RC would be that of Matthew (Mt) or Luke (Lk). Usually, this is done with the

assumption of Marcan priority. Since Mark is a major source for both Mt and Lk, it is somewhat easy to

differentiate between the original tradition and the redaction.

Take the pericope of the Stilling of the Storm in Mt 8:23-27. Matthew did not merely transfer

the unit from Mk 4:35-41 as Luke did (Lk 8:22-25) but modified it in several. First of all, it was placed

together with Messiah of Word (Mt 5-7) and Messiah of Deed (Mt 8:1 9:35) to place emphasis on

discipleship. The word change also carries theological significance. Similarly to the two pericopes

preceding it, the word follow was used (his disciples followed him Mt 8:23). Although different

from the previous two cases in that this time the word carries a literal meaning, follow can have the

symbolic meaning of having faith in Christ in stark contrast to the faithless disciples who fear for their

lives. The word Lord is used to show discipleship, and the sentence Save, Lord; we are perishing (Mt

8:25) reads like a prayer to Jesus, as opposed to the gentle reproach in Mk 4:38 Teacher, do you not

care we are about to perish. Finally, the change in order of the material shows Matthews focus on

discipleship: they are epxetced to exercise faith in the face of demonic powers (through the storm),

while in Marks version, Jesus rebuked the storm before addressing the disbelieving the disciples.

It is more difficult to carry out RC of Mk because the distinction between tradition and redaction

is almost impossible to make, as there is not pre-Markan existence of the original sources for

comparison. However, from the assumption that Mark wrote all the seams connecting the pericopes

these are labeled Summary Statements by K Schmidt we can infer Marks style of writing and

vocabulary choices. The other way to carry out RC is to assume the knowledge pre-Mark, i.e. the

understanding of Jesus and the early church in the period of time before Mk was written. From this, the

history of the traditions can be traced. The theologian Wrede was the first to argue that Mark wrote his

gospel with a theological agenda.

Despite the apparent benefit of RC in helping theologians to discover the aims of each gospel

writer, thus enabling them to determine the authentic tradition from Jesus ministry, RC has some major

flaws that can rather weaken its findings. Redaction critics are usually foolishly optimistic about being

able to distinguish between the original tradition and redactions this is only straightforward in the case

of triple tradition (Mt and Lk uses Mk); the Markan style and preferred vocabulary inferred from the

Summary Statements cannot be sure to have come from Mark, and is too small a sample to be of value.

The assumptions of Source Criticism and Form Criticism are also very problematic, as this means RC is

based on shaky foundations and thus diminish its credibility. Also, there isnt evidence to draw

conclusions on historical and social settings of the writer and the community in this early period but

these are then used to explain the motivations of gospel authors. Finally, redaction critics groundlesslypresume that authors were loose with the tradition, frequently altering it to suit their purposes; even if

this was true, then it can be inaccurate to assume the changes may not be accidental or stylistic one

cannot just take for granted that such changes are theologically motivated without sufficient evidence,

which in most cases, it lacks.