When we look at the Synoptic Gospels, we find many similarities in the portrayal of the character, mission, and ministry of Jesus. Indeed, a large number of episodes and pericopes are paralleled in each of the three Gospels. However, key differences are often discernible in the way each Gospel author presents the same event. Sometimes we see differences in setting, chronology, or theological emphasis, for example. Redaction criticism seeks to discover the reasons why the author-redactor constructed a given episode with the specific interpretation and framework that he or she chose.[1] Thus, redaction criticism as a discipline builds upon and corrects the weaknesses in the methodology of form criticism, which has a tendency of isolating its formal analysis to the neglect of the larger story or context.[2] This type of biblical criticism, especially as applied to the Synoptic Gospels, became more prominent after World War II as scholars became increasingly aware that the kerygmatic context of the Gospels was more important for understanding them than attempts at historical analysis.[3] Redaction criticism is commonly applied to the Synoptic Gospels because it is possible “only where identifiable sources are present within a composition,” but it is also applicable to any episode which is recounted in multiple ways.[4]
Although redaction criticism in its fullest sense is a relatively modern biblical discipline that blossomed in the mid-20th century, its methodology has precursors in the work of several earlier scholars. Hermann Samuel Reimarus was an 18th-century scholar who was one of the first to recognize that the Gospels do not primarily “recount history, but are the result of the disciples’ reworking of the story of Jesus” from a theological and kerygmatic standpoint.[5] In the following century, David Friedrich Strauss made this insight more explicit in his work Life of Jesus Critically Examined when he characterized the Gospel descriptions of Jesus as ‘myth’ and highlighted “the creative element” present in the Gospels.[6] Likewise, William Wrede’s theory of the ‘Messianic Secret’—namely, that the writer of Mark’s Gospel sought to portray Jesus as purposely concealing his messianic identity—is another example of a claim that foreshadows redaction-critical analysis of Mark’s Gospel. Wrede suggested that Mark’s ‘Messianic Secret’ was “a product of Mark’s own interpretive editing of traditional materials” and thus was grounded theologically rather than historically.[7]
From a methodological perspective, redaction criticism of the Synoptic Gospels seeks to uncover the “unique theological views” and “emphases” and “purposes” of each evangelist as well as the Sitz im Leben which characterizes the composition of each gospel.[8] Thus, redaction criticism ‘proper’ arguably had its start in 1954 with Willi Marxsen’s coining of the term 'Redaktiongeschichte.'[9] With his forthcoming work Mark the Evangelist, Marxsen soon expanded the understanding of Sitz im Leben in the Gospels to include “the setting in the work and purpose of the evangelists” beyond simply the setting in Jesus’ life and in the early Church.[10] An additional pioneer in the discipline of redaction criticism was Hans Conzelmann. He analyzed Luke’s theological perspective over and above the evangelist’s role as a historian.[11] From this starting point, he explored the theological reasons behind why Luke’s Gospel only records Jerusalem appearances of the resurrected Christ.[12] Similarly, Günther Bornkamm conducted redaction-critical analysis of Matthew's gospel, asserting the exegetical principle that "[f]aith in Jesus Christ, the Crucified and Resurrected, is . . . [the] very foundation" of the gospel tradition.[13] For example, Bornkamm suggests that Matthew records the episode of Jesus stilling the storm on the Sea of Galilee not simply as "a straightforward miracle story" (as does Mark)[14] but as also containing a theological "reference to discipleship."[15] He bases this conclusion partly on the fact that Matthew situates the episode partly after a pair of parables on the topic of discipleship, which contrasts with the contextual presentation of this same episode in Mark and Luke.[16] Finally, although of lesser importance, apocryphal gospels and similar works have also been subjected to redaction-critical analysis by scholars like John Dominic Crossnan.[17]
Let us consider some cases in the Synoptic Gospels for which redaction criticism may be applied. In a redaction-critical analysis of the story of the sons’ of Zebedee request to Jesus, the author of the Gospel of Mark is not worried that the readers might perceive the apostles in a negative light. As Mark records this episode, James and John come to Jesus and request rather audaciously to sit at the right and the left of Jesus in His kingdom. The author of Matthew, unlike Mark, tries to protect the image of the apostles. The Gospel of Matthew has the mother of James and John making the request to Jesus on behalf of her sons rather than the apostles asking themselves. From a theological perspective, the reason for these differences is that Matthew and Mark had different audiences and different goals for their texts. Matthew was writing to a later audience that possessed a more exalted view of the apostles.
One can also make use of redaction criticism in the synoptic gospels concerning John the Baptist. Mark places John the Baptist’s story at the beginning of his account, prefacing it only with the words: “the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk 1:1, RSV2CE). The Lukan author, however, more explicitly sets John the Baptist’s ministry within the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pilate’s governorship, and Annas and Caiphas’ high priesthood (Lk 3:1-2). The Lukan author may have done so “intending readers to view [John the Baptist] in the light of both civil and religious history.”[18] Further, each of the synoptic gospels include the reference to the prophet Isaiah's words, which John the Baptist is seen as fulfilling. One difference between the accounts given by the synoptic writers is that, while Matthew and Mark state that the people of the region come to John, the author of Luke’s gospel suggests instead that it is John who goes out to the people of region. Perhaps this alteration by Luke emphasizes the theological point that God was active in seeking the salvation of his people. Likewise, it is noteworthy that—in comparison to many parallel episodes recorded in Mark and Matthew—Luke often includes or adds an element of prayer which is not recorded by the other evangelists.[19] This suggests that Luke placed high theological importance on prayer.
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants/Husbandmen is featured in all three synoptic gospels. Each of the accounts are very similar to one another, although they do have their own unique qualities. One such unique feature is Mark’s order of events of the treatment of the vineyard owner’s son. Mark writes in his Gospel, “they took [the son] and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard” (12:8). What is noteworthy is that first the son was killed and then he was taken out of the vineyard. Contrast this with the accounts of both Matthew and Luke, in which the son is first cast out of the vineyard and then killed: the tenants “cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him” (Mt 21:29, Lk 20:15). In light of redaction criticism, we rest on the assumption of Markan priority—that is, Mark and Q are sources used by Matthew and Luke. Thus, perhaps Mark was straightforwardly relating Jesus' words, whereas Matthew and Luke reinterpreted this parable in light of theological reflection in order to more explicitly relate a foreshadowing of Christ's death to their respective audiences, since Christ was crucified outside of Jerusalem. Thus, redaction-critical analysis might conclude that for Mark this is just another parable but for Matthew and Luke this is not only a parable but also a foretelling of Christ's death.
Redaction criticism has helped scholars draw out deeper meaning and new insights in certain parts of Scripture, especially the Synoptic Gospels. However, some scholars have pointed out inherent weaknesses in the discipline and critiqued its results. One of the first problems raised by critics is that of "widely divergent results" because this implies that the methodology of redaction criticism is inherently flawed.[20] Further, redaction criticism is forced to reject the possibility that a biblical author "simply accepted a tradition without alteration."[21] Similarly, the value of any and all insights gained by redaction criticism as applied to the Synoptic Gospels depends entirely upon the correctness of the hypothesis of Markan priority in the chronology of gospel authorship.[22] Finally, some critics argue that redaction criticism focuses so heavily on the author-redactor's role in giving meaning to the text that it neglects "the role of the reader in creating textual meaning."[23]
Bibliography
Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch. "Lk 3:1-2." Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament: Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010.
Soulen, Richard N. and Soulen, R. Kendall. Handbook of Biblical Criticism: Fourth Edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.
[1] Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism: Fourth Edition, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 178.
[5] David R. Law, The Historical Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed, cited in ‘Redaction Criticism Survey’ on Moodle, 1; and, Soulen and Soulen, Handbook, 180.
[6] David R. Law, The Historical Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed, cited in ‘Redaction Criticism Survey’ on Moodle, 1; and Soulen and Soulen, Handbook, 200.
[13] 'Redaction; Bornkamm on Stilling Storm' on Moodle, 1.
[14] Ibid., 2.
[15] Ibid., 3.
[16] Ibid., 1-2.
[18] Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, “Lk 3:1-2,” in Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament: Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 111.
[20] 'Redaction Criticism Survey' on Moodle, 2.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Soulen and Soulen, Handbook, 179 and 206.
No comments:
Post a Comment