Redaction criticism

Redaction criticism, also called

Redaktionsgeschichte,
Kompositionsgeschichte or
Redaktionstheologie, is a critical
method for the study of biblical texts.
Redaction criticism regards the author
of the text as editor (redactor) of the
source materials. Unlike its parent
discipline, form criticism, redaction
criticism does not look at the various
parts of a narrative to discover the
original genre. Instead, it focuses on
how the redactor shaped and moulded
the narrative to express theological and
ideological goals.

Methodology
There are several ways in which
redaction critics detect editorial
activity like the following:

1. The repetition of common motifs

and themes (for example, in
Matthew's Gospel, the fulfillment
of prophecy).
2. Comparison between two
accounts. Does a later account
 add, omit or conserve parts of an
earlier account of the same event?
3. The vocabulary and style of a
writer. Does the text reflect
preferred words for the editor, or
are there words that the editor
rarely uses or attempts to avoid
using? If the wording reflects the
language of the editor, it points
toward editorial reworking of a
text, but if it is unused or avoided
language, it points toward being
part of an earlier source.

Redaction Criticism History

Although redaction criticism (the
possibility of the various gospels
having different theological
perspectives) has existed since
Antiquity, three modern day scholars
are regularly credited with this school's
modern development: Gunther
Bornkamm, Willi Marxsen and Hans
Conzelmann[1] (see Bornkamm, Barth
and Held, Tradition and Interpretation
in Matthew, Marxsen, Mark the
Evangelist, Conzelmann, Theology of St
Luke).

Conclusions
From the changes, redaction critics can
sketch out the distinctive elements of
an author/editor's theology. If a writer
consistently avoids reporting, for
example, the weaknesses of the Twelve
Apostles, even when there are earlier
sources that provide lurid details of
their follies, one could draw the
conclusion that the later editor/author
held the Twelve in higher esteem
because the editor had
presuppositions, or because the editor
was perhaps trying to reinforce the
legitimacy of those chosen by Jesus to
carry on his work. By tracking the
overall impact of this editorial activity,
one can come away with a fairly
strong picture of the purpose of a
particular text.
Advantages
1. It emphasizes the creative role of
the author.
2. Redaction critics from disparate
traditions and presuppositions
can still find wide agreement on
their work since the purpose of an
author/editor largely can still be
recovered.
3. It can show us some of the
environment in the communities to
which works were written. If an
author is writing a Gospel, he is
probably trying to correct or
reinforce some issue in the social
 setting of the community in which
he is writing.
4. It recognizes the possibility that
historical narratives in the Bible
are concerned less with
chronological accounts of historic
events but with theological
agendas (but that does not require
one to believe that the accounts
are not historically factual).

Disadvantages
1. In Gospel studies, it often
assumes Marcan priority, a
position with wide but not
unanimous support.
2. Such methodology may
unwarrantedly imply that the
author is too "creative" and thus
give a false account of the
reliability of the text.
3. Sometimes, it is wrongly asserted
on the basis of redaction criticism
that what has been added or
modified in a text is unhistorical
when it could simply be the
addition of another source or
perspective.
4. There has also been a tendency to
overemphasize only what an
author has modified as being the
important aspects of his theology
 even though such modifications
are usually peripheral to the
message but to ignore the
possible importance of those
things that he has preserved.
5. Sometimes, redaction critics make
too much out of minor differences
in detail. Is every instance of
omission or addition of material
theologically driven? It could very
well be from reasons like a lack or
surplus of information, an
omission for the sake of brevity
and fluidity, or an addition for
clarity or background information.
See also
Historical criticism

Resources
Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth
and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition
and Interpretation in Matthew (1963).
Hans Conzelmann, Theology of St
Luke (1960)
Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist:
Studies on the Redaction History of
the Gospel (1969).
Norman Perrin, What is Redaction
Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1969.
References

1. Erickson, Millard J. (1999). Christian

Theology (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Books. p. 99.
ISBN 0801021820.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Redaction_criticism&oldid=1180546266"

This page was last edited on 17 October 2023,

at 09:34 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0
unless otherwise noted.