Redaction criticism

Redaction Criticism, also called "Redaktionsgeschichte", "Kompositionsgeschichte", or "Redaktionstheologie", is a critical method for the study of Bible texts. Redaction criticism regards the author of the text as editor (redactor) of his source material. 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 has shaped and molded the narrative to express his theological goals.

How a Modern Redaction Critic Detects Editorial Activity

There are several ways in which redaction critics detect editorial activity, including:

1. The repetition of common motifs and themes (e.g., 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 he rarely uses or attempts to avoid using. If the wording reflects the language of the editor, it points toward editorial reworking of a text, while if it is unused or avoided language, then it points toward being part of an earlier source.

Drawing conclusions

From these changes, redaction critics can sketch out the distinctive elements of an author/editor's theology. If a writer consistently avoids reporting, e.g., the weaknesses of the Twelve, even when he has 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, either because of his own presuppositions, or because he perhaps is trying to reinforce the legitimacy of those chosen by Jesus to carry on his work. Through tracking the overall impact of this editorial activity, one can come away with fairly strong picture of the purpose of a particular writing.

Pros

1. 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 is largely still recoverable.

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 to which he is writing.

4. It shows that historical narratives in the Bible are not primarily concerned with chronological accounts of historic events, but have theological agendas (though this does not require one to believe that the accounts are completely fictionalized either)..

Cons

1. In Gospel studies, it assumes Markan priority, which, while widely agreed, is not unanimously agreed.

2. The logical extreme of strengths (1) and (4) above, i.e., that perhaps the author is "too" creative.

3. Sometimes it is asserted 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 see only what an author has modified as being the important aspects of his theology, while ignoring the possible importance of those things which he has preserved.

5. Sometimes, redactions 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 a lack or surplus of information, an omission for the sake of brevity and fluidity, an addition for clarity or background information, or other reasons.

6. Redaction Criticism has determined in advance what it will discover and therefore it is not a question of whether the writer will be found guilty but how and when he will be condemned. This stems from the redactionist's three main criteria, "distinctiveness," "multiple attestation," and "consistency," which presuppose that tradition about Jesus contains much that is un-historical.

Modern Founders

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

Resources

Perrin, Norman. "What is Redaction Criticism?" Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.