http://www.scribd.

com/my_document_collections/2896352

Redaction Criticism

The basic idea in redaction criticism is learning to read horizontally – by comparing

Gospel accounts of the same event with one another.

 The word redaction is another word for “editing” so redaction criticism

generally assumes that one gospel had edited another gospel, to emphasise
particular theological points. Hence, to do redaction criticism, you must
presuppose some version of the Synoptic Problem.

o I assume Markan priority, and that both Matthew and Luke used
Mark, but in using him, they edited him.

o The differences between the Gospels are not something to be feared,

but rather celebrated.

o In its easiest application, redaction criticism studies the differences

between Matthew, Mark and Luke, when they record the same
episode.

The differences can be of multiple kinds:

1. Sometimes a story is expanded with additional details

2. Sometimes a story has details omitted

3. Sometimes the Gospel writer seeks to explain something that is left

unexplained in other sources.

4. Sometimes a tradition might be altered slightly to clarify a potential

misunderstanding

5. Sometimes, a particular detail is different

7. Sometimes, the tradition is set within an entirely different literary context

http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2896352

To summarise:

 Look for the distinctive wording/details used in a particular Gospel

 Look for the distinctive placement of the tradition in the larger context of the
Gospel (the literary context/arrangement)

 The differences in words/details and literary placement can sometimes

provide an indication of the peculiar theological viewpoint of the Evangelist.

Some cautions about redaction criticism:

1. Not every difference is theologically significant or indicative of a particular

viewpoint. The best types of redaction criticism focus on recurring patterns of
changes, not one or two isolated instances. To do redaction analysis well, you
have to know the whole Gospels, not just the passage under study.

2. Many changes in wording do not result in substantial changes in emphasis or

meaning

a. Here we need to remember that the Gospels are documents in

translation, and we don’t have the exact words of Jesus. Ipsissima Verba,
Ipsissima Vox.

b. It is clear that by ancient standards of reportage, the Gospels (and

Acts) often summarise the gist of a speech, rather than give a verbatim
quotation. This can lead to different accounts, even at different lengths,
without indicating substantial change in emphasis.