Strengths and Weaknesses of Redaction Criticism

Created by: B.B.Revision
Created on: 01-03-23 21:33


	Strengths and Weaknesses of Redaction Criticism
	Advantages Helps to highlight the evangelists' individual contributions to the Gospels and shows us their particular emphases Unlike Form Criticism, it treats the gospels holistically, meaning that the bigger picture of the gospels isn't so easily missed It helps us to hear the voice of the evangelist within the Gospel accounts, helping us to see what each Gospel says about Jesus and, as a result, glean a fuller picture of Jesus than we do using maximalist harmonisation It makes it easier to evaluate the historicity of the Gospels, as we can make the assumption that material which goes against a writer's redactional emphases is much more likely to be the true words of Jesus, instead of an addition by the evangelist	Disadvantages Redaction Criticism requires that we hold a common view about Source Critical concepts such as Markan Priority; while the majority of scholars agree with Markan Priority, a not insignificant minority prefer Matthean Priority and, as a result, Redaction Critical study divides into different camps, which often struggle to engage It leads to too much focus on the changes made by the evangelists and neglects the significance of the fact that relatively little editing may have occurred It can appear to over define groups within early Christianity, when in fact there was a remarkable amount of consensus over core beliefs Bauckham argues that it treats the Gospels like New Testament epistles, when in fact they should be seen to be aimed at a more general readership. He even argues that this is evidenced by the fact that the Gospels were interdependent on one another, which means that the earliest ones must have been circulated around the churches. This also combats a common assumption made by Redaction Critics that the Christian Communities were quite isolated from each other, when in fact they were part of a network of churches. This means that searching for the 'Third Sitz im Leben' may be quite misleading
	Evaluation While Redaction Criticism can be very useful for helping one to gain a holistic picture of the Gospels, and may also be more readily accepted by those who view the Gospels from a traditional Christian perspective, due to the fact that it helps one to see what each individual Gospel says about Jesus, rather than assuming a position of maximalist harmonisation (that all the Synoptic Gospels tell exactly the same sequence of events and should be combined into one story), showing that each account is valuable as the preserved Word of God, and is a useful tool in determining the historicity of the Gospel, this method of Biblical Criticisms relies heavily on a consensus of thought between scholars about questions related to Source Criticism, meaning that deviation in thought at an early stage in the process of critiquing the Gospel can lead to the drawing of different conclusions about the Gospels. Furthermore, it is too heavy-handed in its division of the various churches in 1st Century A.D., which results not only in an incorrect perception of the Early Church, but also in a flawed view of their relationship with each other , positing that they scarcely communicated and had their own idiosyncratic theologies, which simply is not true. As this means that the search for the 'Third Sitz im Leben' is much less likely to be successful or relevant, Redaction Criticism is not very useful for understanding the synoptic texts.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Redaction Criticism

Advantages

Helps to highlight the evangelists' individual contributions to the Gospels and shows us their particular emphases
Unlike Form Criticism, it treats the gospels holistically, meaning that the bigger picture of the gospels isn't so easily missed
It helps us to hear the voice of the evangelist within the Gospel accounts, helping us to see what each Gospel says about Jesus and, as a result, glean a fuller picture of Jesus than we do using maximalist harmonisation
It makes it easier to evaluate the historicity of the Gospels, as we can make the assumption that material which goes against a writer's redactional emphases is much more likely to be the true words of Jesus, instead of an addition by the evangelist

Disadvantages

Redaction Criticism requires that we hold a common view about Source Critical concepts such as Markan Priority; while the majority of scholars agree with Markan Priority, a not insignificant minority prefer Matthean Priority and, as a result, Redaction Critical study divides into different camps, which often struggle to engage
It leads to too much focus on the changes made by the evangelists and neglects the significance of the fact that relatively little editing may have occurred
It can appear to over define groups within early Christianity, when in fact there was a remarkable amount of consensus over core beliefs
Bauckham argues that it treats the Gospels like New Testament epistles, when in fact they should be seen to be aimed at a more general readership. He even argues that this is evidenced by the fact that the Gospels were interdependent on one another, which means that the earliest ones must have been circulated around the churches. This also combats a common assumption made by Redaction Critics that the Christian Communities were quite isolated from each other, when in fact they were part of a network of churches. This means that searching for the 'Third Sitz im Leben' may be quite misleading

Evaluation

While Redaction Criticism can be very useful for helping one to gain a holistic picture of the Gospels, and may also be more readily accepted by those who view the Gospels from a traditional Christian perspective, due to the fact that it helps one to see what each individual Gospel says about Jesus, rather than assuming a position of maximalist harmonisation (that all the Synoptic Gospels tell exactly the same sequence of events and should be combined into one story), showing that each account is valuable as the preserved Word of God, and is a useful tool in determining the historicity of the Gospel, this method of Biblical Criticisms relies heavily on a consensus of thought between scholars about questions related to Source Criticism, meaning that deviation in thought at an early stage in the process of critiquing the Gospel can lead to the drawing of different conclusions about the Gospels. Furthermore, it is too heavy-handed in its division of the various churches in 1st Century A.D., which results not only in an incorrect perception of the Early Church, but also in a flawed view of their relationship with each other , positing that they scarcely communicated and had their own idiosyncratic theologies, which simply is not true. As this means that the search for the 'Third Sitz im Leben' is much less likely to be successful or relevant, Redaction Criticism is not very useful for understanding the synoptic texts.

Get Revising

Strengths and Weaknesses of Redaction Criticism