Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Redaction Criticism 1.1. Description
Redaction Criticism 1.1. Description
Redaction Criticism 1.1. Description
1. Introduction
1.1. Description
The term Redaction Criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte) was coined by W. Marxen to denote the
method whereby a researcher investigates how an editor or author expresses his theological outlook
by means of the arrangement and editing of pre-existing traditional material. Traditional material is
literally that which is handed on to the author in whatever form these may have taken; these sources
could include oral sources, written sources and complete gospels. The assumption is that some
changes to the sources are theologically motivated and significant. Often these theological
assertions that are redactionally woven into the gospel are subtlely and tacitly directed to a situation
in the community that the author intends to address. N. Perrin defines the discipline of Redaction
Criticism as the determination of 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. (What is
Redaction Criticism, 1).
In the heyday of Form Criticism, it was assumed that the writers of the gospels were mere compilers
of tradition; in writing their gospels they added nothing theologically significant to the erstwhile
isolated units. With the advent of Redaction Criticism, however, this assumption was challenged:
The gospel writers became authors in their own right, expressing their distinctive theological
outlook by means of their redaction of the tradition. Bornkamm explains, The Synoptic writers
show—all three and each in his own special way—by their editing and construction, by their
selection, inclusion and omission, and not least by what at first sight appears an insignificant, but on
closer examination is seem to be a characteristic treatment of the traditional material, that they are
by no means mere collectors and handers-on of the tradition, but are also interpreters of it Thus, as
Marxen explains, there are actually three settings in life to be considered when interpreting the
gospels. Not only must one distinguish the first setting in life of a (authentic) tradition deriving
from Jesus’ ministry from the second setting in life, the use to which the early put this tradition, but
must also distinguish both from a third setting in life: The situation of the writer of the gospels, who
are as much authors as they are collectors of tradition.
Redaction Criticism had its beginnings in Germany in the late 1940’s, but precursors to the
application of method can be found among the works of earlier scholars. Most studies on the
gospels since that time have includes a redactional-critical component as standard methodology. It
has become an indispensable aspect of any study of the gospels or part thereof.
Redaction Criticism assumes the results of Source Criticism and Form Criticism. First, before one
can determine how a gospel writer handled his sources, one must determine what these sources
were; this means that the redaction critic must adopt some theory of the nature of the literary
relationship (or even lack thereof) of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the
relationship between one or more of the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John. If these literary
determinations are wrong, then the whole redaction-critical enterprise will be flawed, since the
sources that the redaction critic assumes were used by an author were not actually used. Second,
Redaction Criticism assumes the form-critical premise that originally the tradition circulated as
isolated and independent units and that they can be classified formally corresponding to a Sitz-im-
Leben of the early church.
1.2.2. It is important to stress that the redaction critic looks for patterns of changes in a particular
gospel. A single change to a source can prove little, but if it can be shown that there is a pattern in
the handling of the sources, that the changes reveal a prevailing theological intention, then it is
probable that there change is redactional as opposed to stylistic or some other reason; in other
words, one can rightly suspect that a theological motivation is behind changes.
1.2.3. Redaction Critics have usually insisted on the need to take into account the social history of
the community in which the author of a gospel was writing in determining his redactional aims,
especially the history of conflict between the community and other groups and conflict within the
group. Many redactional aims are not only theological but also sociological in the sense that the
author attempts to oppose one social construction with another. In its extreme forms, the
practitioners of Redaction Criticism become reductionistic, so that all theological formulations are
assumed to be tendentious, mere cloaks for social apologetic (expressions of "the will to power").
Thus what Redaction Critics attempt to do is reconstruct the social context in which a particular
gospel was written (Marxen’s third "setting in life"), in order to understand more clearly the
author’s purposes in writing; knowledge of the former helps in identifying the latter as they occur in
the gospels.
1.2.4. The application of the methodology of Redaction Criticism will vary depending upon one’s
view of the historical reliability of the traditions in the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John. The
conservative application of the redaction-critical method takes as its point of departure the
assumption that the gospel tradition is historically reliable; on this assumption, the researcher will
search for the redactional aims of a gospel writer while holding to the historically reliability of the
gospel tradition. In such cases, never will it be suggested that the author falsifies history in the
expression of his redactional aims. Those who do not adopt the assumption of the historical
reliability of the gospel tradition, however, are free to conclude that in any given case the author
may have created gospel traditions or historically falsified existing tradition to suit his redactional
purposes. In extreme cases, a Redaction Critic may conclude that little of what a evangelist wrote
reflects historical reality, but rather primarily provides insight into the social history of the author’s
community.
Mark 4 Matthew 8
35 On that day, when evening had come,
he said to them, "Let us go across to the
other side."
36 And leaving the crowd, they took him 23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed
with them in the boat, just as he was. And him.
other boats were with him. 24 And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so
37 And a great storm of wind arose, and that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he
the waves beat into the boat, so that the was asleep.
boat was already filling. 25 And they went and woke him, saying, "Save, Lord;
38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the we are perishing."
cushion; and they woke him and said to 26 And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O men of
him, "Teacher, do you not care if we little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and
perish?" the sea; and there was a great calm.
39 And he awoke and rebuked the wind, 27 And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is
and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" And this, that even winds and sea obey him?"
the wind ceased, and there was a great
calm.
40 He said to them, "Why are you afraid?
Have you no faith?"
41 And they were filled with awe, and
said to one another, "Who then is this,
that even wind and sea obey him?"
G. Bornkamm examines the Matthean redaction of the pericope of the Stilling of the Storm (8:23-
27). He argues that the author of Matthew has not simply taken over the pericope from Mark (4:35-
41), as in Luke (8:22-25). Rather, by his placement of the pericope and modifications to its
wording, he has infused it with theological significance not found in Mark and Luke. Matthew
places the pericope of the Stilling of the Storm in a section consisting of the presentation of the
Messiah of word (5-7) followed by the Messiah of deed) (8:1-9:35). The meaning of the pericope is
not exhausted as a nature miracle demonstrating the power of the Messiah. By placing the pericope
after two other pericopes concerning discipleship (8:19-22), the author of Matthew is able to use the
Stilling of the Storm to make a further point about discipleship. In the two previous perciopes the
verb "to follow" (avkolouqe,w) occurs (8;19, 22). The same verb occurs at the beginning of the
pericope of the Stilling of the Storm: "And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him"
(Matt 8:23) Although its use in Matt 8:23 is literal, because of the association of "follow" with the
previous two uses used to mean "to be disciples," the account of the Stilling of the Storm can take
on symbolic meaning. Matthew’s point is that to "follow" Christ is to have faith in him, unlike the
disciples who feared for their lives. The transposition of the actual miracle of the stilling of the
storm and the rebuke of the disciples is also significant: Jesus expects his disciples to exercise faith
in the face demonic powers, symbolized by the threatening elements of the storm. (In Mark, Jesus
rebukes the storm before he addresses the disciples in their unbelief.)
Bornkamm claims that changes made by the author of Matthew to the wording of his Markan
source confirms his redactional reconstruction. In Matthew the disciples cry out, 'Save (us), Lord;
we are perishing' different from Mark 'Teacher, do you not care that we are about to perish' (4:38).
Bornkamm sees the disciple’s exclamation in Matthew, unlike Mark, as a prayer and their
addressing Jesus as 'Lord' is a confession of discipleship.
B. Bornkamm undertook another longer redactional study of Matthew (ET "End Expectation and
Church in Matthew"). This work and his 'The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew' were published
along with two larger Matthean redactional studies by two of Bornkamm’s students, G. Barth and
H. J. Held (ET Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew).
2.1.2. An Example of Redaction Criticism of Luke
The first and still best-known redaction-critical study of the Gospel of Luke was undertaken by H.
Conzelmann. Conzelmann rejects the traditional view that Luke was a historian; he argues rather
that Luke is more of a theologian. Using Mark as his source, Luke introduces the theological idea
that salvation history has three phases: The time of Israel ending with John the Baptist; the time of
Jesus, which is the "center of time" The church looks back to time of salvation in the appearance of
Jesus and forward to the parousia. Conzelmann places much significance on Luke 16:16,
formulated by Luke as an expression of his salvation-historical understanding: "The Law and the
Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been
preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it." Similarly, Luke 13:31-35 gives voice to the same
salvation-historical perspective, for the three phases of salvation history are contained in this
passage: prophets; Jesus’ death and resurrection; Jesus’ parousia.
Luke 13
31 At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants
to kill you."
32 And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today
and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.
33 Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be
that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.'
34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often
would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you
would not!
35 Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he
who comes in the name of the Lord!'"
The reason that Luke formulates this tripartite salvation-historical scheme was the delay of the
parousia and its deleterious effect upon the worldview of the early church. The Gospel of Mark
presents the earlier position that there would be a short, theologically irrelevant interval between the
resurrection and parousia; when the parousia does not occur, according to Bornkamm, Luke
modifies the theology of the early church, so that the period of the church, equivalent to the
Kingdom of God, becomes an on-going and undefined interval of time.
2.2.1. A Precursor to the Redaction Critical Approach to Mark: W. Wrede, The Messianic Secret
Prior to Wrede’s work (Das Messiasgeheimnis, 1901; ET The Messianic Secret), most scholars
looked upon the Gospel of Mark as the most reliable access to the historical Jesus, unencumbered
by later ecclesiastical dogma. Methodologically, it was assumed that the Gospel of Mark was more
or less historically reliable. Wrede disputed this assumption, anticipating the development of
Redaction Criticism that "Mark" wrote his gospel with a theological agenda.
Wrede points out that there were instances in the Gospel of Mark in which Jesus is portrayed as
guarding his true identity: 1. He commands demons not to disclose his identity, but to be silent
(1:25, 34; 3:12); 2. He commands witnesses of his miracles to be silent about what they saw (1:43-
44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26); 3. He also enjoins silence on his disciples concerning the necessity of his
suffering and death as the son of man (8:30; 9:9); 4. Sometimes, he tries to keep his whereabouts
secret, so that the crowds cannot find him (7:24; 9:30-31); 5. He speaks in "parables" to the crowds
and gives private instruction to his disciples, to which are given the "mystery of the Kingdom of
God" (4:1-12, 33-34). Before Wrede, scholars sought to explain these instances in which Jesus
guards his true identity as Jesus’ deliberate attempt at not being misunderstood as the political
Messiah of popular conception. Related to this theme of secrecy is the consistent portrayal of the
disciples as misunderstanding Jesus, in spite of all of Jesus’ attempts to the contrary (6:52; 8:17-21).
Again, it was assumed that the disciples’ traditional Messianic views prevented their understanding
Jesus’ teaching about himself.
W. Wrede proposes a different view of the origin and nature of the Gospel of Mark, one that would
undermine the assumption of historical reliability. He hypothesizes that the theme of secrecy was
introduced into the traditions about Jesus as an expedient for the purpose of reconciling two
conflicting christologies. The older christology interpreted Jesus as becoming the Messiah only at
his resurrection (see Acts 2:36; Rom 1:3-4). The newer christology, however, held that Jesus had
thought of himself as the Messiah before his resurrection and had acted as such. "Mark" was an
advocate of the latter christology. The problem, however, was to explain why no one knew Jesus to
be the Messiah until after his resurrection. Thus Wrede proposes that the reconciling view evolved
that, although he was the Messiah, Jesus did not want to be known as the Messiah until after his
resurrection, except perhaps by his disciples, who never understood his true identity until after the
resurrection along with everyone else. This he terms "the messianic secret." Wrede finds the key to
his hypothesis in 9:9: After his transfiguration, Jesus warns Peter, James and John not to tell anyone
of what they witnesses until after the resurrection.
According to Wrede, evidence of the secondary nature of the secrecy motifs in the traditions about
Jesus is the contradictions that resulted with its introduction. He argues, for example, that it makes
little sense for Jesus to teach the crowds at all, if his goal is to keep his identity a secret. Thus arose
the paradoxical assertion that Jesus taught in parables, in order that the crowds not understand. In
Wrede’s view, the purpose of Jesus’ use of parables is to be more easily understood. Also, Jesus
heals Jairus’ daughter but absurdly tries to keep it a secret and Jesus enters Jerusalem royally all the
while wishing to conceal his identity.