CHAPTER XI

REDACTION CRITICISM

Stephen S. Smalley

New Testament critics in the last century were preoccupied with the
sources of the Gospels, chiefly the synoptic Gospels. At the beginning of this
century they turned their attention to the first stages in the history of the
Gospel tradition, to the original form of the teaching of Jesus. 1 Tradition
criticism, as we have seen, was a special case of form criticism. Today, in a
relatively new approach to the analysis and study of the Gospels, the centre
of interest in New Testament criticism is moving from source criticism and
form criticism to an examination of what happened at the final stage in the
composition of the Gospels. Redaction criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte) has
come to birth. 2
These critical methods belong together, and any sharp distinctions drawn
between them must necessarily therefore be artificial. They arise out of each
other, and can be used to complement each other in the study of Gospel
origins. It is important to recognize this as we consider redaction criticism
on its own.
What is redaction criticism? The term "redaction" in Gospel criticism
describes the editorial work carried out by the evangelists on their sources
when they composed the Gospels. 3 It has been suggested by Ernst
Haenchen 4 that "composition criticism" would better describe the study of
this process. In fact, however, "redaction" and "composition" criticism,
although close together, are strictly speaking different disciplines. One
(redaction criticism) is the study of the observable changes introduced by
the Gospel writers into the traditional material they received and used. The
other (composition criticism) examines the arrangement of this material, an
arrangement which is motived by the theological understanding and inten-
tion of the evangelists. And some scholars expand the term "composition"
in this context to include the construction of wholly new sayings by the
Gospel writers, which are then (so it is claimed) attributed by them to
Jesus. 5 It is possible that in the future composition criticism will need to be
distinguished from redaction criticism, just as redaction criticism is current-
ly distinguished from form criticism. But meanwhile, and for convenience,
the term "redaction criticism" can be understood as the detection of the
evangelists' creative contribution in all its aspects to the Christian tradition
which they transmit.

181
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

Why is it necessary at all in the study of the Gospels to move beyond

form criticism into redaction criticism? Since both disciplines are concerned
with the editing and shaping of the tradition about Jesus, although at
different stages, need they be separated? The answer to these questions is
straightforward. There is an important difference between the approaches of
form criticism and redaction criticism in the method used and the con-
clusions reached, as well as in the fact that they are concerned with different
stages in the history of the Christian tradition.
Form criticism (especially in its older versions) tends to view the Gospels
as collections of material which originated as independent units (an assump-
tion that itself needs qualification), and the evangelists as little more than
"scissors and paste" men who gathered these units together with a special
interpretative slant in mind. Redaction criticism, on the other hand, looks at
the Gospels as complete documents, and sees the evangelists as individual
theologians (even "authors") in their own right. Form criticism deals with
the origins of the Gospel tradition, redaction criticism with its later stages.
Redaction criticism thus builds on form criticism, in the sense that form-
critical method enables us to detect the work of the evangelists themselves
more clearly. The newer discipline of redaction criticism moves away from
form criticism, however, in that it sets out to discover the theological uni-
queness of the evangelists in relation to their sources. To this extent redac-
tion criticism is not a real part of form criticism. But once the two have been
separated, it is important to notice that redaction criticism does not then
become simply a study of "the theology" of the evangelists. 6 It is rather a
consideration of the creative way in which these writers have handled their
sources at the final stages of composition.
Any saying or narrative in the Gospels may have taken shape originally
in three basic "settings" (Sitze im Leben): first in the teaching of the
historical Jesus, then in the life of the early church, then in the thought of the
evangelists. 7 In the third setting, the Gospel writers' own understanding, a
new and decisive forward movement in the transmission of the Gospel tradi-
tion becomes apparent. From the moment when the Gospels as such come
to birth, the oral period of the Christian tradition fades out, and individual
writers (perhaps in the context of a "school" or even church) take over from
an otherwise anonymous community. By looking carefully at the individual
comments of the evangelists, their editorial links and summaries, and
generally at the selection, modification and expansion of the material they
use (when Matthew or Luke, for example, is compared with Mark), it is
possible to discover how each writer understood and interpreted (as well as
edited) the tradition he received. This is red action criticism. 8 We shall
consider the practice, the presuppositions and the implications of this
method after a brief glance at its history.

182
 REDACTION CRITICISM

I. How it arose
Redaction criticism came to the fore after the second world war, and is
associated in the first place with the names of three prominent German New
Testament scholars: Giinther Bornkamm, Hans Conzelmann and Willi
Marxsen. 9 These critics worked independently of each other on the three
synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Luke and Mark respectively. It was Marxsen
who gave the common approach which resulted from these studies the Ger-
man name of Redaktionsgeschichte. 10
Giinther Bornkamm's work on the Gospel of Matthew marks the rise of
redaction criticism. As a pupil of Rudolf Bultmann, he proceeded from
form-critical assumptions to the further stage of analyzing Matthew's own
theological outlook and intention as this is to be discerned in his handling of
traditional material. In two articles which were later included in the volume
now translated as Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 11 Bornkamm
set out his conclusions about the first evangelist and his work. The earlier
essay 12 is a study of the episode of the stilling of the storm in Matthew
8:23-27, and attempts to show how Matthew treated the source from which
he derived this pericope (Mk. 4:35-41). The new context and presentation
given to the incident, Bornkamm claims, reveal the independent meaning it
has for the evangelist. The miracle thus becomes to him "a kerygmatic
paradigm of the danger and glory of discipleship". 13 The other essay of
Bornkamm 14 deals with the construction of the discourses of Jesus in
Matthew, and discusses the extent to which these are controlled by the
evangelist's own understanding of the church, the end, the law, Christ
himself, and the inter-relation of all four. Together, these two studies reflect
Bornkamm's dominant conviction that Matthew is a distinctive redactor; an
"interpreter of the tradition which he collected and arranged". 15
Hans Conzelmann's work as a redaction critic has been concerned main-
ly with Luke-Acts. His book Die Mitte der Zeit, first published in 1954, and
translated into English as The Theology of St. Luke, 16 marks a watershed in
Gospel studies and an important advance in the method of redaction
criticism itself; for it is an analysis of Luke's unique role as a theologian.
Perhaps Dr. Norman Perrin goes too far when he concludes that as a result
of Conzelmann's work, "Luke the historian becomes a self-conscious
theologian, and the details of his composition can be shown convincingly to
have been theologically motivated." 17 Not everyone would dismiss so easily
the historical basis from which Luke writes in both his Gospel and Acts. IK
But undoubtedly Conzelmann has helped us to discern Luke's special con-
tribution to a proper understanding of the biblical history of salvation
(Heilsgeschichte), which is presented and developed by the third evangelist
in three distinct stages: the periods of Israel, Jesus and the church. The
problem which Luke answers by this scheme, with its greater degree of
"realized" eschatology, is alleged to be the so-called delay of the parousia. 1"
However we view some of Conzelmann's assumptions and final conclusions,

183
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

he has at least helped us to see more clearly than ever the extent to which
history and theology, not one or the other, co-exist in Luke-Acts.
The third redaction critic in chronological order whose pioneering work
in this field must be mentioned is Dr. Willi Marxsen, whose book Der
Evangelist Markus (1959 2 ) 20 contains four studies of the second Gospel
which use the redaction-critical method. Like Bornkamm, and indeed
Conzelmann, Marxsen accepts the method and conclusions of form
criticism as a basis for his work. But once more, like them, he goes beyond
this to emphasize the important contribution made by Mark himself when
he collected together the independent units of the evangelic tradition and
wrote them up into a Gospel as such, characterized by his own theological
outlook. 21 That outlook is seen particularly, Marxsen claims, in Mark's
treatment of such features as the tradition about John the Baptist and the
geographical references in his narratives. (Galilee, for example, is "obviously
the evangelist's own creation". 22 ) Throughout, Marxsen sees the second
evangelist as a theologically motivated redactor, whose doctrinal inter-
pretations become clearer when the use by Matthew and Luke of the Mar-
can tradition and its interpretations is considered.
One of Marxsen's more important contributions to the whole discussion
of redaction criticism is his clarification of the threefold setting of all Gospel
material (in the teaching of Jesus, in the life of the early church and in the
writing and intention of the evangelists), of which mention has already been
made. In this as in many other ways, Marxsen laid down methodological
precedents which other redaction critics have followed. 23
These three scholars, Bornkamm, Conzelmann and Marxsen, have been
succeeded by others in redaction-critical studies of the synoptic Gospels.
For Matthew, Bornkamm has been followed (among others) by Gerhard
Barth and H. J. Held, both pupils of his. 24 (Two other pupils, H. E. Tode 5
and F. Hahn, 26 have also used this· method in the more general area of New
Testament christology.) For Mark, Marxsen has been followed among
others by the two English-speaking writers J. M. Robinson 27 and E. Best, 28
and by the Swiss schotar E. Schweizer. 29 And for Luke, Conzelmann has
been followed by H. Flender. 30 Redaction criticism has not been applied so
frequently to the study of St. John's Gospel as to the Synoptics, but a start
has been made in the work ofJ. L. Martyn/ 1 B. Lindars 32 and W. NicoV 3

11. How it works

An example of redaction criticism at work may help to clarify the pur-
pose and value of this method, as well as its results. 34 Before we begin, it will
be useful to spend a moment longer recapitulating the principles of redaction
criticism. We can then see these at work in our example.
The best way of examining the distinctive contribution of any evangelist
to his sources is to investigate the precise method by which he has brought
together and handled the materials available to him. 35 This means looking
carefully at the "seams" by which the sources are joined together, the sum-

184
 REDACTION CRITICISM

maries, modifications, insertions and omissions made, and in general the

selection and arrangement of the material. It may also be illuminating to
consider the evangelist's vocabulary, his theological standpoint (especially
as this is discernible from his christology and his use of titles for Jesus), and
finally the introduction and conclusion to his Gospel. These lines of ap-
proach will not necessarily be of equal value or yield equally important
results; but together they will provide a firmly based method by which to
carry out any redaction-critical investigation.
We will confine our present sample to the Gospel of Matthew, and con-
sider in this light first the Gospel as a whole, then a pericope within it, and
finally a single logion. The method of redaction criticism, we hope to show,
can be used in each case for the purpose of understanding and illuminating
the evangelist's approach. Each example, moreover, will reveal the way in
which source criticism, form (tradition) criticism and redaction criticism
belong together and can be used together in the study of the Gospels.

1. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

One view of the problem of the four Gospels 36 will suggest that the writer
of Matthew has composed his Gospel by editing the sources Mark, Q and
M. But we can see that by the selection and arrangement of his material he
has imposed his own understanding and interpretation of the kerygma on
the underlying tradition with which he is working. This gives rise, for exam-
ple, to Matthew's characteristic christology (Jesus as both king and servant;
cf. Mt. 1:1; 12:15-21, et al.), his attitude towards the law (transcended and
yet remaining in force; cf. 5:38f.; 5:17-20, et al.), and his presentation of
the gospel itself (exclusive but also universal; cf. 15 :24; 8:5-13, et al.). 31 In
general, the evangelist works with the theme of fulfilment in mind. Evidently
he writes to present Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah who has absorbed the
functions of Moses and gone beyond them. 38 Taking full account of the
character of his over-all redaction, therefore, we can hazard a guess at the
position and needs of his audience. It is possible that he wrote for a cell-type
Jewish-Christian group under pressure from orthodox Jews for alleged an-
tinomianism, and that this accounts for some of the distinctive Matthean
ambivalences of which we have just taken note. 39

2. A PERICOPE FROM MATTHEW

The same technique can be applied to one section of the first Gospel, with
similarly illuminating results. Take, for example, the account of the
transfiguration in Matthew 17: 1-8. Source-critical analysis tells us (on one
view, at least) that this comes from Mark 9:2-8. Redaction criticism reveals,
by a comparison of the two narratives, the editorial changes which Matthew
has made and further study may suggest the theological reasons for these
modifications.
Matthew handles his Marcan source for the transfiguration individually,

185
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

and in line with the theological understanding evident throughout his

Gospel. First, he presents Jesus "after the manner of Moses". 4° For
example, he alters Mark by referring to Moses before Elijah, thus making
the Mosaic reference more emphatic (Mt. 17:3). He adds to the description
of the actual transfiguration the detail that the face of Jesus "shone like the
sun" (verse 2), recalling the appearance of Moses after receiving the law on
Sinai (Ex. 34:29-35). He alone of the synoptic evangelists describes the
cloud which over-shadowed the group on the mountain as "bright" (f!!wu:tv~
verse 5), thus reminding his readers of the Shekinah glory in the Israelite
wilderness. Matthew also draws attention to the fact that after the
transfiguration Jesus remains alone after Moses and Elijah have dis-
appeared; he adds in verse 8 avrov (p6vov} to the Marcan version. Jesus is
now seen as the unique teacher (verse 5b) and also the new Moses.
But, as W. D. Davies points out, 41 although the new Moses/new exodus
theme is undoubtedly present here and elsewhere in Matthew, it is ultimately
restrained. For Matthew sees clearly that Jesus in his uniqueness finally
supersedes Moses. At the climax of the transfiguration narrative, for exam-
ple, Matthew adds to the words of the bath qol in Mark 9:7 ("This is my
beloved Son; 42 listen to him"), the phrase "with whom I am well pleased".
This echoes Isaiah 42:1 as well as Psalm 2:7, 43 and reminds us not only of
Matthew's particular (servant) christology, but also of his individual
soteriology, since this redaction suggests that Jesus was the one destined to
bring law to the nations (as in Is. 42:4). Thus the first evangelist's motiva-
tion in his report of the transfiguration is not merely one of reverence,
despite his mention of the disciples' "awe" immediately after the command
of God to listen to his Son has been heard. 44 He writes out of a particular
christological understanding, and with the needs of a particular audience in
mind.

3. A SAYING IN MATTHEW

The method of redaction criticism may also be used, finally, for the ex-
amination of individuallogia within the Gospel of Matthew. We may con-
sider briefly, as one instance, the crux interpretum Matthew 16:16. Peter's
confession at Caesarea Philippi, according to Matthew's account, reads
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Mark (8 :29) has "You are
the Christ", and Luke (9:20) "(You are) the Christ of God."
One explanation of these variations is to say that Matthew has simply ex-
panded Mark. (This assumes, of course, that Peter did not make different
confessions on the same occasion.) In that case, the expansion was either
the result of a Q tradition containing both elements of the confession (Christ
and Son of God), and reflected in the Lucan version, or due to a straight-
forward explanatory redaction on Matthew's part. 45 Knowing his approach
as we do, it need not surprise us if Matthew at such an important moment as
this should heighten as well as deepen his christology, and remind his
readers of the real and exalted status of the central figure in his Gospel. 46

186
 REDACTION CRITICISM

Ill. Some Presuppositions

The critical method we have been reviewing, and illustrating in terms of
Matthew's Gospel, rests on a number of presuppositions. It is important to
recognize these, and to be aware of the fact that the conclusions of redaction
criticism (like those of form criticism) are to some extent subjective, and
should not therefore be accepted uncritically. We shall consider two major
presuppositions belonging sometimes to redaction criticism.
· (1) Form criticism relies, as we have seen elsewhere, on the so-called
"traditio-historical" approach, which can involve two basic assumptions
about the sayings of Jesus. The first is that the christology of the New Testa-
ment, including the Gospels, does not spring from the authentic teaching of
Jesus himself, but from the response to Jesus made by the first Christians.
The second is that the genuine teaching of Jesus preserved by the evangelists
(a relatively small deposit) can be isolated from the large quantity of
material created in the early church by identifying and removing the ad-
ditions made to that teaching at various stages of the church's development.
The traditio-historical approach is also used in redaction criticism, which
(as we have seen) stems from form criticism. In this case, the same basic
assumptions are sometimes made. The only difference is that the whole
process is now used to investigate the additions made by the evangelists to
the already interpreted tradition they received, in the final stages of writing
their Gospels. And the conclusion, we are not surprised to learn, may now
be that any saying of Jesus which could have been created by the
evangelists, or shaped by them, was so created or shaped. It is possible to
recognize the particular contribution of each Gospel writer, it is further
claimed, once their own way of thinking, as distinct from that of earlier
Jewish and Hellenistic Christianity, has been identified. To recover the
authentic words of Jesus these different layers, beginning with the one for
which the evangelists themselves were responsible, can simply be stripped
off. 47
Clearly these assumptions are open to question if they are to serve as the
only basis for the conclusions of the redaction critics. No one doubts that an
important influence was exercised on the formation of the Gospel tradition
and the final composition of the Gospels by the background of the authors
as well as their audience. But the presuppositions about the basic nature of
the Christian tradition and its transmission which have been mentioned are,
as we have seen elsewhere, suspect. 48
(2) There is a tendency on the part of some who use the method of redac-
tion criticism to assume that the special contribution of the evangelists can
be discovered only when they depart from their received sources, or do not
depend on them at all, rather than when they reproduce them without altera-
tion. This assumption leads Norman Perrin, for one, to conclude that redac-
tion on the part of the evangelists involves something other than preserving
the historical tradition about Jesus. For Perrin, the "old way" of regarding a

187
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

narrative in the Gospels as historical (he uses Mk. 8:27-9: 1 par. as his
main sample), is set over against a redaction-critical approach to it. 49 But
the use of the Christian tradition as it stands, without editorial shaping, may
be just as much an indication of the evangelist's theological outlook. In such
a case we must assume that the tradition expressed his intention and un-
derstanding so clearly that alteration was unnecessary. 50 We do not need,
that is to say, to equate "redaction" in the Gospels with unhistorical
theologizing. It can involve the use of sources as they stand. 51

IV. Some Implications

Provided that we are aware of the hazards inherent in the method of
redaction criticism, especially when sceptical and subjective presuppositions
form a starting-point, it can prove to be a very useful aid to the understan-
ding of the Gospels. It is not intended, and should not be used, as an end in
itself, or simply as an academic exercise. On the contrary when it is properly
used it has many advantages, as we shall see, and some far-reaching im-
plications for any reading of the Gospel material. Three of these must now
be mentioned.

l. THE JESUS OF HISTORY DEBATE

First, redaction criticism impinges on the "Jesus of history" debate. 52 The

"new quest" for the historical Jesus has made us aware that any search for
the central figure of the Jesus tradition must be allied neither to the extreme
of history alone nor to 'that of faith alone; it must maintain a balance (as the
evangelists do) between them both.
The method of redaction criticism is clearly of importance to this question
of Christian origins. For we are bound to recognize that the Gospels were
written from within a circle of faith, by those who in a particular first-cen-
tury environment became convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ
of God, and that he had risen from the dead. Inevitably, therefore, the
evangelists reported the Jesus tradition from their own understanding, and
coloured it with their own outlook.
Such a view, when honestly advanced, affects the Christian faith at its
central point. Have we any reason to suppose that the evangelists' redacted
version of the tradition about Jesus is at all historical? If they red acted part,
could they not have redacted all of it; leaving us with a picture of Jesus
which is interpretative and therefore informative, but essentially an un-
historical product of the human imagination? How do we know, in fact, that
any continuity exists between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith?
The suggestion that no continuity of this kind exists largely depends for
its validity on the assumption that the evangelists themselves were unaware
of the distinction between history and faith, and were prepared to disregard
the former completely in the interests of the latter. We are not, in fact, com-
pelled to believe that this was the case. 53 If the Gospel writers were, on the

188
 REDACTION CRITICISM

contrary, sensitive to what was historical and what was kerygmatic (as there
are real grounds for supposing), 54 it is unlikely that they would have treated
their traditional sources for the words and works of Jesus with anything but
respect. All the more would respect have been shown by the evangelists, in-
deeed, if (as is probable) eyewitnesses were still around. These con-
siderations lead us to the second implication of the redaction-critical method
to be considered.

2., THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOSPELS

The second implication arises out of the first, and in many ways it has
been anticipated. Redaction criticism has an obvious bearing on the issue of
the authority of the Gospels (and indeed of the New Testament generally). If
the evangelists have redacted their tradition, can we be sure that the Gospels
are not (as the followers of Bultmann would say) simply products of the ear-
ly church, which have been written in the light of the post-Easter situation to
meet the demands and answer the questions of that day?
In answer to this important challenge, three points may be made briefly.
These are in addition to the suggestions offered in the previous section in
support of an historical rather than an existential approach to the Gospel
tradition.
(a) First, although we now recognize the theological content of all four
Gospels, it is becoming increasingly clear that theology and history belong
together (as we have noticed) at all stages in the transmission of the Jesus
tradition. So far from abandoning one or the other, all the evangelists ap-
parently drew out the theological implications of the history which they
recorded. This can be illustrated very easily from the contemporary debate
on the Fourth Gospel, with its discovery that there is a greater element of
reliable, historical tradition in John (its high theological content notwithstan-
ding) than criticism ever previously allowed. 55
(b) Secondly, as we have seen, the redactional element in the Gospels is
not necessarily opposed to the historical and traditional. Redaction can
mean the use of the tradition as it stands, without any redactional editing.
An example of this may be found in an early section of Mark's Gospel
(2:1-3:6). 56 Form criticism tells us that here Mark has assembled originally
independent units of material, the primary setting of which in the teaching of
Jesus was probably unknown to the evangelist as it is lost to us. Redaction
criticism then shows us how Mark has interpreted these incidents according
to his own theological understanding of the person and work of Jesus. The
key to this is to be found in the concept of authority; for the authority of
Jesus here is constantly questioned and constantly vindicated (2:6f., lOf., et
al.). Indeed this (a significant comment on Mark's christology) is the only
link in a collection of pericopes, each of which could otherwise stand
anywhere in the Jesus tradition. But while we can in this way discover
Mark's specialized approach to his material, we are also made aware of the
fact that his contribution lies not in altering the tradition (which mostly con-

189
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

sists of evidently primitive "pronouncement stories" suiting his theological

purpose) but in combining its separate elements and providing for them a
context and therefore a particular meaning. 57 The authenticity and authority
of the tradition at this point are thus not diminished by the Marcan redac-
tion, but increased. 58
(c) Thirdly, it may be suggested that in order to establish the authority of
the sayings of Jesus (at least), we are not necessarily confined by the
Gospels themselves to the pre-resurrection logia. The word of the risen Jesus
spoken through the evangelists can still be authoritative. To this extent the
editorial activity of the evangelists can be regarded as a medium of revela-
tion rather than an obstacle to it.
As an illustration of this point, we may consider the famous saying of
Jesus about divorce in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (= Lk. 16:18; cf. Mk.
10: llf.). Only the Matthean version of this logion contains the exceptive
clause :n:aeeKro~ A.6yov :n:oevela~ (19:9, fl~ e:n:'t :n:oevett;z), and the question of the
origin of this phrase therefore naturally arises. (Even in Paul the prohibition
of divorce remains absolute; see 1 Cor. 7:10-13.)
One view is that Matthew has carried out a straight redaction, reflecting
his accommodation to the Christian legislation of his day. As there was
hardness of heart in Israel (Mk. 10:4f.), so there could be in the new Israel.
But equally Matthew may be making explicit what was assumed by Jesus
and the other evangelists, that divorce was made necessary by Jewish law
when sexual irregularity was discovered among partners before or after
marriage. Betrothed couples could separate when unfaithfulness was
suspected, as in the case of Joseph and Mary (Mt. 1: 19); and strict Hebrews
insisted on divorce when marriage within the forbidden degrees of kinship
was uncovered.
In any case Matthew is reporting and upholding the principle laid down
by Jesus, that marriage is a God-given ordinance within creation, and
therefore to be regarded as hallowed. But his explanatory redaction, we can
now see, draws out for his readers both the importance of the original
teaching of Jesus, and also the sole but inevitable grounds for departing
from it- grounds which were already recognised and accepted by the Jews.
In no case may we claim that Matthew's redaction weakens the authority of
the teaching he preserves, or departs from the mind of Christ. 59
In the light of all that has been said, it is possible to take account of the
fact that the Gospel writers have redacted their basic tradition, and still
come to the Gospels with confidence in their essential authority and
trustworthiness. For the redaction of the Jesus tradition in accordance with
the perspectives of the writers and the community surrounding them does
not remove the discoverable historical basis on which that tradition rests.
Nor does it prevent the post-Easter words of Christ from being heard and
transmitted. 60

190
 REDACTION CRITICISM

3. THE INTENTION OF THE EVANGELISTS

The final implication of redaction criticism for the study of the Gospels
concerns the intention of the evangelists. Again, this question arises out of
some of the issues already discussed in detail.
The work of redaction critics such as Bornkamm, Marxsen and
Conzelmann has helped us, as we have seen, to appreciate the theological
themes and concerns which motivated the evangelists when they wrote their
Gospels. Just as form criticism enables us to detect the shaping of individual
sayings of Jesus or pericopes about him in the course of their transmission,
so redaction criticism makes it possible to uncover this process of shaping in
each of the Gospels as a whole.
This point can be developed in one further direction. By examining the
theological perspective of an evangelist, and the way he has selected and
used his material, it is also possible to suggest why he wrote his Gospel in
the first place. We have already applied this test to Matthew. The aim of the
other Gospels may be similarly investigated. On the basis of a redaction-
critical approach it may be guessed that Mark wrote his Gospel for
would-be or present disciples, to supplement Paul's kerygma; 61 that Luke's
intention was the kerygmatic and didactic presentation of gospel history for
the benefit of mostly non-Christian Gentile readers; 62 and that John wrote
for an audience that was in the end as wide as it could be, to enable his
readers to "see" that Jesus was the Christ, the revealing and glorified Word
of God, and so to live. 63 Broadly speaking the intention in each case is
evangelistic, but redaction criticism focuses attention on the precise inter-
pretation and therefore presentation of the kerygma by the four writers,
which gives their theology its individual character. 64 In fine, we no longer
need to spend time trying to "harmonize" the Gospels. Their differences, un-
covered by the redaction critical approach, stand as a positive pointer to the
distinctive outlook of their writers, and their unique understanding of and
witness to the Jesus tradition.

V. Some Conclusions
Our discussion of redaction criticism as a method of studying the Gospels
has made one point clear at least. It has both advantages and disadvantages.
We may summarize the disadvantages as follows. (1) The traditio-critical
criteria on which the redaction method normally depends are often open to
question because of the assumptions involved in them. (2) It is too often
presupposed that redaction on the part of an evangelist means "com-
position", in the sense of invention. This is unwarranted. (3) Redaction
critics are at times too subtle and subjective in their approach to the
Gospels, and in their assessment of the evangelists' motives and methods.
This is the reason for the wide variation in their results; although this need
not surprise us with a discipline still in its infancy. 65 Caution is obviously
needed in the analysis of any editorial activity, particularly when, as in the

191
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

case of the Gospels, we are not always sure who the "editor" is, or the exact
nature of his sources. 66
On the other hand, there are positive advantages to be gained from using
this approach. (I) It treats the Gospels whole, and is a useful method for dis-
covering the exact contribution of the evangelists to their traditions. In this
way it is an extremely fruitful aid to exegesis, which helps us to perceive
more clearly the evangelists' many-sided witness to Christ. (2) It also helps
us to see precisely how the evangelists handled their sources, with or without
shaping them. (3) We can also detect more easily by this method the inten-
tion of the Gospel writers, and see the reason for the existence of four
variations on one theme; four Gospels illuminating one gospel from different
stand points.
Clearly we must use redaction criticism in any serious study of the
Gospels. But we must use it with care. It is not a question of redaction or
history in the New Testament, but both. If we accept that, the method of
Redaktionsgeschichte can be a positive aid to understanding the four
Gospels, and using them intelligently for Christian preaching and teaching.
By this method also further light can be thrown on the crux of the whole
matter, the origins of Christianity itself.

NOTES

I. SeeP. Benoit, Jesus and the Gospel, vol. 1 (E.T. London 1973), pp. 11--45.
2. The flowering of redaction criticism was in fact anticipated long ago by New Testament
scholarship in both Germany and the English-speaking world. F. C. Baur, for example, in
Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter (Tiibingen 1851), saw Mark
as a (non-historical) late compilation dependent on Luke and Matthew, written to reconcile
the differences, reflected in the other Synoptists, between the Gentiles and the Jews. Early in
this century W. Wrede's study of Mark, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Gottingen
1901; E.T. The Messianic Secret, Cambridge and London 1971), suggested that the so-called
"messianic secret" in Mark was a dogmatic intrusion and not an historical account. Cf. also
the latter part, on "the editing of the traditional material", of R. Bultmann's form-critical
3
study, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Gottingen 1958 ), pp. 347fT., esp.
393--400 (E.T. The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Oxford 1963, pp. 321fT., esp. 368-74).
From England, the work of R. H. Lightfoot, in his famous Bampton Lectures for 1934
(published as History and Interpretation in the Gospels, London 1935) foreshadows redac-
tion-critical method. We also have redaction criticism under another name, no doubt, in the
work of B. W. Bacon (e.g. Studies in Matthew, London 1931), N. B. Stonehouse (e.g. The
Witness of Luke to Christ, London 1951), P. Carrington (e.g. According to Mark: A running
commentary on the oldest Gospel, Cambridge 1960) and A. M. Farrer (e.g. St. Matthew and
St. Mark, London 1966\ See J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists,
(E.T. London 1968), pp. 31--46.
3. The method of redaction criticism can also be applied to the study of other parts of the
New Testament, notably Acts and Revelatiqn.
4. E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin 1968 ), p. 24.
5. So N. Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? (London 1970), p. 66. See the whole section
on "Redaction and Composition", pp. 65-7.
6. Dr. Ernest Best's redaction-critical essay, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan
Soteriology (Cambridge 1965), falls into this trap in its declared aim of "understanding the
Markan theology", and by taking Mark himself to be essentially an "author and theologian"
(see pp. xi f.).

192
 REDACTION CRmCISM

7. Among form-critical scholars, J. Jereqnas in Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Zurich 1947), p. 15

(E.T. The Parables ofJesus, London 1963 , p. 23), distinguishes usefully between the original
context of a dominical discourse (in this case the parabolic teaching) ~d its subsequent set-
ting. See also C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London 1936}, pp. 111-53.
8. See further R. H. Stein, "What is Redaktionsgeschichte?", JBL 88 (1969), pp. 45-56, for
a useful historical survey, and an explanation of the method. See also on the discipline in
general D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (London, 1970\ pp. 214-9; and J. Rohde,
op. cit.
9. N. Perrin, op. cit., p. 25, points out that just as the work of three German theologians
gave rise to the method of Redaktionsgeschichte after the second world war, so the work of
three other German theologians (K. L. Schmidt, M. Dibelius and R. Bultmann) gave rise to
the method of Formgeschichte after the first world war. We have already noticed, however,
that this method in its final form was anticipated in the work of F. C. Baur, R. H. Lightfoot
and others (see note 2).
10. W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus (Gottingen 1959\ p. 11; E.T. Mark the
Evangelist (New York and Nashville 1969), p. 21. The subsequent page references are to the
English edition.
11. G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, Uberlieferung und Auslt~gung im
Matthiiusevangelium (Neukirchen 1960; E.T. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, Lon-
don 1963) = Tradition. The subsequent page references are to the English edition.
12. G. Bomkamm, "The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew", in Tradition, pp. 52-7.
13. Ibid., p. 57.
14. G. Bornkamm, "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew", in Tradition, pp. 15-51.
15. Ibid., p. 49. See also J. Rohde, op. cit., pp. 11-13, 47-54.
5
16. H. Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit (Tiibingen 1964 ; E.T. The Theology of St. Luke,
London 1960). The subsequent page references are to the English edition.
17. N. Perrin, op. cit., p. 29.
18. See, for example, C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London 1961), pp.
9-26; also I. H. Marshal!, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter 1970), esp. pp. 21-76.
19. H. Conzelmann, op. cit., esp. pp. 13lf. But see S. S. Smalley, "The Delay of the
Parousia", JBL 83 (1964), pp. 42-7. On Conzelmann's work generally, see J. Rohde, op. cit.,
pp. 154-78.
20. See note 10. For a study of Mark's theological (esp. christological) activity as a clue to
the nature of "Gospel" as such, see N. Perrin, "The Literary Gattung 'Gospel' - Some
Observations", Exp.T 82 (1970-71), pp. 4-7.
21. W. Marxsen, op. cit., pp. 18-23, et al.
22. Ibid., p. 59.
23. See further J. Rohde, op. cit., pp. 113-40; also N. Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?,
pp. 33-9.
24. See Tradition, pp. 58fT. Note also E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (Got-
tingen 1973; E.T. The Good News according to Matthew, London 1976); J. D. Kingsbury,
Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (London 1976):. 2
25. Cf. H. E. TOdt, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Uberlieferung (Giitersloh 1963 ;
E.T. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, London 1965).
26. Cf. F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte imfriihen Christentum (Got-
2
tingen 1964 ; E.T. The Titles of Jesus in Christology, London 1969). Note also R. H. Fuller,
The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London 1965), for a similar theological ap-
proach in this area from beyond Germany; and cf. the useful review article of this book by I.
H. Marshal!, "The Foundations of Christology", in Themelios 3 (1966), pp. 22-34.
27. J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (London 1957).
28. E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion.
29. E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Markus (GOttingen 1967; E.T. The Good News Ac-
cording to Mark, London 1971; the subsequent page references are to the English edition).
Cf. also for studies in Markan redaction, D. Blatherwick, "The Markan Silhouette?", NTS
17 (1970-71), pp. 184-92; R. H. Stein, "The Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a
Markan Redaction History", Nov.T 13 (1971), pp. 181-98; F. Neirynck, Duality in Mark:

193
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (Louvain 1972); R. P. Martin, Mark:
Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter 1972), esp. pp. 84-162.
30. H. Flender, Heil und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas (Miinchen 1965; E.T. St.
Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History, London 1967). Cf. also I. H. Marshall, Luke:
Historian and Theologian (Exeter 1972).
31. J. L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York 1968)~ also id.
"Source Criticism and Redaktionsgeschichte in the Fourth Gospel", in D. G. Miller and D.
Y. Hadidian (ed.), Jesus and Man's Hope, Vol. I (Pittsburg 1970), pp. 247-73. Cf. also M.
Wilcox, "The Composition of John 13:21-30", in E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (ed.),
Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (Edinburgh 1969), pp.
143-56.
32. B. Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel (London 1971); id., The Gospel of John (London
1972).
33. W. Nicol, The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and Redaction (Leiden 1972).
34. See also N. Perrin's redaction-critical analysis in What is Redaction Criticism?, pp.
40-63.
35. Cf. R. H. Stein, "The Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a Markan Redaction
History", loc. cit.
36. In these days of the "new look" on John, this is a more acceptable description of the in-
ter-relation of the Gospels than "the synoptic problem". SeeS. S. Smalley, "The Gospel of
John in Recent Study", Orita 4 (1970), pp. 42f.
37. Cf. the study of Matthew's theology in D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (London 1972),
pp. 60-72.
38. Cf. W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge 1964), pp. 92f.
39. So C. F. D. Moule, "St. Matthew's Gospel: Some Neglected Features", in F. L. Cross
(ed.), Studia Evangelica 2 (TU 87, Berlin 1964), pp. 91-9, esp. 92-4.
40. Cf. W. D. Davies, op. cit., p. 56.
41. Ibid. For this whole section, see pp. 50-6.
42. 0&6; eaTI'v o vt'Ot; pov dy<lmJTot; may also mean (as in RSVm8 )"This is my Son, myl(or
the) Beloved".
43. Cf. the bath qol in Mt. 3:17, at the baptism of Jesus.
44. In Mark, the mention of the disciples' reaction is made after the transfiguration and sub-
sequent vision; in Luke, it comes after the descent of the cloud. Notice, however, the use of
Kve•e in Mt. 17:4 (Mark has 'Pa{J{Jit and Luke 'ExtOTaTa).
45. For another explanation of the conjunction of "Christ" and "Son of the living God" in
Mt. 16:16, see 0. Cullmann, Petrus, Jiinger-Apostel-Miirtyrer: Das historische und das
theologische Petrusproblem (Ziirich 1952), pp. 190-206 (E.T. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Mar-
2
tyr, London 1962 , pp. 176-91). As always when using the method ofredaction criticism, the
source-critical presuppositions involved (in this case, the use of Mark by Matthew) will to
some extent affect the conclusions reached.
46. See further G. M. Styler, "Stages in Christology in the Synoptic Gospels", NTS lO
(1963-64), pp. 404-6. Despite his heightened christology, Matthew does not give to this inci-
dent the same climactic significance as Mark.
4 7. On the other side see B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Uppsala 1961), esp. pp.
324-35. Gerhardsson argues for the place and importance of (Jewish-Christian) tradition in
the primitive transmission of the Gospel material.
48. For a critique of the assumptions involved in the tradition-historical approach, see
further D. Guthrie, op. cit., pp. 208-ll; also I. H. Marshal!, "The Foundations of
Christology", loc. cit., pp. 29-34. See also D. R. Catchpole's article in this volume.
49. N. Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?, p. 40.
50. See I. H. Marshal!, Luke: Historian and Theologian, pp. l9f.
51. The dangers involved when redaction critics base their conclusions on presuppositions
such as those outlined, are highlighted in Dr. Norman Perrin's work, Rediscovering the
Teaching of Jesus (London 1967). Using the redaction-critical approach, Perrin formulates
three stringent and questionable criteria for establishing the authentic elements in the
teaching of Jesus (dissimilarity, coherence and multiple attestation), and on this foundation

194
 REDACTION CRITICISM

reaches the doubtful conclusion that the parables of Jesus in their earliest form, the kingdom
of God sayings and the tradition of the Lord's Prayer can be accepted as a genuine part of
the dominical teaching, but little else. For a critique of Perrin's general method, and its
results, see M. D. Hooker, "Christology and Methodology", NTS 17 (1970-71), pp. 480-7.
The commentary by Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, important as it is, exemplifies
the likelihood of subjectivity in redaction criticism. See further G. N. Stanton's article in this
volume.
52. See F. F. Bruce's article in this volume.
53. Against e.g. N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 234-48.
54. See further. C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament: An Inquiry into the
Implications of Certain Features of the New Testament (London 1967), pp. 43-81, for a
positive discussion of the continuity between the Jesus of history and the Lord of faith.
55. See, inter alios, J. A. T. Robinson, "The New Look on the Fourth Gospel", inK. Aland
(ed.), Studia Evangelica, Vol. 1 (TU 73, Berlin 1959), pp. 338-350, reprinted in J. A. T.
Robinson, Twelve New Testament Studies (London 1962), pp. 94-106; also S. S. Smalley,
"New Light on the Fourth Gospel", Tyn. B 17 (1966), pp. 35-62.
56. This passage is part of a complete section of the Gospel, Mark 1:1-3:6.
57. The saying in Mk. 2:20 (with its mention of the bridegroom being taken away) is
probably an exception, and may derive from a later setting. For Mark's redactional use of
this verse, see R. P. Martin, op. cit., pp. 184-8. See also the treatment of this passage (seep·
tical, however, in the form-critical conclusions on which it is based) in E. Schweizer, op. cit.,
pp. 59-77.
58. It is possible that the "assembly" in Mk. 2:1-3:6 was wholly or in part pre-Markan (set'
2
V. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, London 1935 , pp. 177-81), in which
case we cannot be sure about the redactional interests which guided this early Sammler. But
even if the collection were pre-Marcan, it is likely that Mark took it over unchanged because
it fitted his interests so exactly.
59. See further on this passage D. Hill, op. cit., pp. 124f., 280f.; also R. Bultmann, op. cit.,
E.T. pp. 132, 148.
60. On the general issue of New Testament authority, see R. E. Nixon's article in this
volume.
61. Cf. R. P. Martin, op. cit., pp. 140-62, esp. 161f.
62. As it happens, T. Schramm's study, Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas: Eine Literarkritische
und Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Cambridge 1971) sounds a note of caution in
the use of Redaktionsgeschichte for discovering the intention of Luke. See also C. H. Talbert,
"The Redaction Critical Quest for Luke the Theologian", in D. G. Miller and D. Y. Hadidian
(ed.), op. cit., pp. 171-222.
63. Cf. S. S. Smalley, "Diversity and Development in John", NTS 17 (1970-71), pp. 289f.
64. See further, C. F. D. Moule, "The Intention of the Evangelists", in A. J. B. Higgins (ed.),
New Testament Essays (Manchester 1959), pp. 165-79; reprinted in C. F. D. Moule, The
Phenomenon of the New Testament, pp. 100-14.
65. This is clear from the most cursory reading of J. Rohde's book, Rediscovering the
Teaching of the Evangelists.
66. Cf. C. F. D. Moule, "The New Testament", in F. G. Healey (ed.), Preface to Christian
Studies (London 1971), pp. 50f.

195
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Synoptischen Evangelien (Diisseldorf: Patmos-Verlag 1968).

D. F. STRAUSS, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (London: SCM
Press 1973; originally pub. 1835-36).

Best read: Barbour.

CHAPTER XI

REDACTION CRITICISM

D. GuTHRIE, New Testament Introduction (London: Tyndale Press 1970 3 ),

pp. 214-219.
J. L. MARTYN, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York:
Harper and Row 1968).
N. PERRIN, What is Redaction Criticism? (London: SPCK 1970). A
valuable introduction, if used with care.
J. RoHDE, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists (London: SCM
1968). An interesting survey of recent work on the Gospels, revealing the
diverse nature of the conclusions reached by redaction critics.
R. H. STEIN, "What is Redaktionsgeschichte?" JBL 88 (1969), pp. 45-56.

Best read: Perrin.

CHAPTER XII

HOW THE NEW TESTAMENT USES THE OLD

R. BwcH, "Midrash", Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplement, Vol. 5 (Paris

195 7), cols. 1263-81.
F. F. BRUCE, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: Tyndale
Press 1960).
P. BoRGEN, Bread from Heaven (Leiden: Brill 1965).
D. DAUBE, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone
Press 1956).
J. W. DoEvE, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen
1954).
379