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 or her 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.

Methodology

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 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, while if it is unused or avoided language, then it points toward being part of an earlier source.

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).

Examples of redaction criticism

Epistle of Romans

For ten years before writing the letter (approx. 47-57), Paul had travelled round the territories bordering the Aegean Sea evangelising. Churches had been planted in the Roman provinces of Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. Paul, considering his task complete, wanted to preach the gospel in Spain, where he would not ‘build upon another man’s foundation’. This allowed him to visit Rome on the way, an ambition of his for a long time. The letter to the Romans, in part, prepares them and gives reasons for his visit.

In addition to Paul’s geographic location, his religious views are important. First, Paul was a Hellenistic Jew with a Pharisaic background, integral to his identity. His concern for his people is one part of the dialogue and runs throughout the letter. Second, the other side of the dialogue is Paul’s conversion and calling to follow Christ in the early 30s.

The resulting evangelistic activity dominated the later years of Paul’s life. The letter therefore interweaves the concerns of Paul the Pharisee and the follower of Christ. Third, Paul’s missionary work caused opposition from Jews and fellow Jewish Christians. The main issue (as evidenced by the Council of Jerusalem) was whether or not Gentiles were subject to the Mosaic Law (which was also debated in first century Judaism, see Noahide Law for the conclusion of Rabbinic Judaism). Some interpret that another issue was whether Jewish Christians should continue to carry out laws placed on the covenant people regarding things such as food laws and circumcision.

The disagreement was partly between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, including figures such as Peter (see Incident at Antioch), Barnabas (who sided with Peter), and James the Just (who issued the Apostolic Decree), see also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism. Paul’s upcoming visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection from the gentiles was therefore an attempt to help maintain the unity of the Christian movement. The letter to the Romans written during this time includes Paul’s hopes and fears regarding his visit to Jerusalem and the relationship between Gentiles and more traditional Jewish Christians.

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 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, either because of the editor's presuppositions, or because the editor was perhaps 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.

Benefits

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 recognizes the possibility 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 not historically factual).

Controversy

1. In Gospel studies, it assumes Markan priority, which, while widely agreed, is not unanimous.
2. The logical extreme of strengths (1) and (4) above, i.e., such methodology may unwarrantedly imply that the author is too "creative" and 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), 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 unnecessarily presupposes that the tradition about Jesus contains elements that are un-historical.

Resources

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