Redaction criticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redaction Criticism, also called Redaktionsgeschichte, Kompositionsgeschichte, or Redaktionstheologie.
Contents |
[edit] What is Redaction Criticism?
A recent critical method for the study of the Bible, especially the Gospels and other books whose contents have overlap, is redaction criticism. Redaction criticism is a historical discipline which is concerned to discover the intended purpose of the final author or editor of a book. Unlike its parent discipline, Form Criticism, redaction criticism does not look at the various parts of a narrative to discover the original form. Instead, it focuses on how the author or editor has shaped and molded the material in his sources to express his literary goals for the work, i.e., the reasons he is writing his work. Redaction criticism sees the author or editor not as a mere "cut-and-paste" collector of stories, but as a theologian who is trying to meet his theological agenda by shaping the sources he uses.
[edit] 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. bam
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)..
[edit] 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.
