019
When we study an ancient text of the Greek New Testament, how can we identify its sources, its possible composite nature, and the author’s contributions to the traditions used in composing it? Scholars call the methods for answering this question “tradition analysis,” and they divide it into three types: source, form and redaction criticism.
Source criticism, developed between 1863 and 1924, asks about a text: How much of the New Testament material was already in existence before the writers set about their task? Source critics assume that a high proportion of the material in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) came from earlier literary sources. The dominant hypothesis explaining the literary relationships among Matthew, Mark and Luke is called the “Two-Document Hypothesis” because it posits the priority of Mark—subsequently used by Matthew and Luke—plus the existence of a sayings source (called “Q”) also used by Matthew and Luke. Alternative theories—which argue either for the priority of Matthew or of Luke—make Synoptic criticism exceedingly complex but still relevant for exegesis. At its simplest, source criticism demands that we take seriously the high degree of originality shown by all these Evangelists, an originality so great that each of the Synoptic Gospels has been viewed as having been written first!
Arising directly out of source criticism, form criticism developed between the two World Wars. Its purpose is to go behind the sources used by the Evangelists to the period of oral transmission (30–50 A.D.) and to isolate and analyze the individual literary units in the Synoptic tradition. These units, called “pericopes,” can be classified into categories such as parables, miracle stories, stories about Jesus, and the like. In addition to such genre classification, form criticism assesses the function of a pericope in the life of the early church. Isolating these units of the early tradition and discovering their usage in the life of the church helps the interpreter gain an appreciation of the sociological and liturgical dimensions of the text. Thus, for example, it is possible that the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30), who asked Jesus to cast the demon out of her daughter, may have been remembered originally in answer to the question, “How did Jesus treat those outside of Judaism?” It is this kind of real-life background in the early church—in preaching, teaching, worship and controversy—that explains why many Gospel pericopes were preserved and recorded. Form criticism, then, though extremely subjective at times, can both clarify the process responsible for the remembering and recording of the text and can lead to a greater appreciation of the text’s life in the experience of the early church.
Redaction criticism is the most recent of the three sub-disciplines in tradition analysis, emerging since the end of World War II. The word “redaction” refers to the editorial activity by which the Evangelists utilized their sources in the formation of our present Gospels. Redaction criticism regards the writers as more than mere compilers of traditions, but as authors in their own right. Redaction critics attempt to demonstrate that items from tradition were selected, arranged and presented to elucidate the theological or thematic point of view of each Evangelist. In reading each of the accounts of Jesus’ temptation by Satan, for example, the interpreter discovers that only Mark’s narrative includes the detail that Jesus was “with the wild beasts” (1:13). Mark’s reference to these animals may well have served to stress to his Roman audience, some of whom at least were facing lions in the arena, that nothing they could experience was foreign to the experience of their Lord.
The ultimate purpose in identifying the form-, source- and redaction-critical elements in the Gospels is to highlight the Evangelists’ use of their material as a means of better understanding what they wanted to communicate to their readers. Source criticism confirms the interlocking character of much of the material found in the Synoptic Gospels. Form criticism forces us to honor the integrity of the pericope as the most basic building block of the Synoptic Gospels and helps us to determine how the Evangelists tried to meet the pressing needs of their own day. Finally, redaction criticism demands that we ask, “What is the place of this passage in the entire book, and how does it contribute to the purpose for which this particular Gospel was written?” By calling attention to the final, written form of the biblical text, redaction criticism provides a useful perspective for the interpreter interested in recovering the theological meaning of the writing. (For a more detailed discussion, see the essays on these topics in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. D.A Black and D. Dockery [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991].)
When we study an ancient text of the Greek New Testament, how can we identify its sources, its possible composite nature, and the author’s contributions to the traditions used in composing it? Scholars call the methods for answering this question “tradition analysis,” and they divide it into three types: source, form and redaction criticism.
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.