Evaluation 44
Evaluation
Popularity does not make anything right. As with any other method, we must take a critical look at redaction criticism before we endorse it as a method of gospel study. We begin with five criticisms of the discipline. 68
1. Redaction criticism depends for its validity on our ability to distinguish tradition and redaction. We must have a pretty good idea about the sources that a given evangelist has used before we can begin speaking about his modifications to those sources.
Almost all redaction critics have assumed the validity of the two-source hypothesis in their research—that Matthew and Luke both used Mark and another source, Q, in writing their gospels. Those who question the accuracy of that hypothesis will also, of course, have to establish a different basis on which to do redaction criticism. Advocates of the two-gospel hypothesis, for instance, will have to speak about Mark’s modifications of Matthew and Luke rather than Matthew’s modifications of Mark, and they will be able to do redaction criticism of Matthew only with great difficulty. But even if we assume the general reliability of the two-source hypothesis, our difficulties for redaction criticism are not eliminated.
First, as we have argued, in some places the direction of dependence hypothesized with the two-source theory may be reversed. Some places in Mark, let us say, may depend on a version of a story that found its way eventually almost intact into Matthew’s gospel. In such a situation we would have to speak of Mark’s changes of Matthew rather than Matthew’s changes of Mark. Second, Matthew or Luke may sometimes depend on a version of a story independent of, but parallel to, Mark. Again, then, what a redaction critic would label "Matthean redaction” (of Mark) may be tradition that Matthew is simply passing on. Third, since we do not possess a copy of Q, arguments about whether Matthew or Luke has redacted Q are necessarily uncertain. Scholars generally think that they can identify, by various factors, what the original of Q probably was, and they base their redactional judgments on that supposition. But the process is necessarily subjective and leaves room for much disagreement. For instance, with respect to the difference between "poor” (Luke) and "poor in spirit” (Matthew) already mentioned, can we be sure that Luke has socialized Q, rather than Matthew spiritualizing it? In this case, perhaps we can suspect that Luke is the one responsible, since his change conforms to an obvious emphasis in his gospel. But the decision is often much more difficult and is fraught with possibilities for error. All this goes to say that redaction critics often need to be much more cautious about claiming that one evangelist has changed his source. We may not be able to identify redactional elements as often as, or as certainly as, we might like.
2. Redaction critics too often assume that all the changes an evangelist makes to his tradition are theologically motivated. Many no doubt are; but many others, and particularly minor changes affecting one or two words, are stylistic in nature. In other cases, even major additions may be due not to theological concerns but to historical interest; we cannot omit simple historical purposes from the intentions of the evangelists. 69
3. Redaction critics have sometimes equated "redactional emphases” with the evangelist’s theology. What is determined to be redaction shows us what is distinct about a particular gospel in comparison with the others or with its sources. We may often legitimately conclude that what is redactional, since it is what an evangelist has deliberately changed, is particularly significant to that evangelist. But it is certainly not the whole of, or perhaps even representative of, his theology. To assume so would be to assume that the tradition an evangelist takes over is not of interest to him or part of his theology. This is manifestly absurd. It would be as if, in comparing the writings of
Calvin and Beza, the theologies of each of these men were determined only on the basis of what was unique in each one. The common emphases of Matthew, Mark, and Luke far outweigh their distinctives, and a holistic picture of what each teaches must take both into account.
4. The identification of the setting of a particular gospel on the basis of the author’s theology is often far more specific than the data allow. That the additions of Matthew to both Mark and Q involving the Mosaic law and Old Testament quotations demonstrate that Matthew was writing in a setting and to an audience that needed teaching on this matter is evident. And that the tenor of these additions may even allow us to make some guesses about the particular problems of the community in which Matthew was writing is also clear. But the details of setting that some redaction critics hypothesize are often castles built on sand. They usually depend on only part of the evidence (hence different critics working on the same gospel come up with conflicting settings) and draw conclusions far more specific than the evidence allows.
5. Redaction criticism is often pursued in such a way that the historical trustworthiness of the gospel material is called into question. It is not so much that redaction criticism seeks to prove the unhistorical nature of the changes introduced by the evangelists. Rather, many redaction critics assume that the evangelists would have little concern about it. Thus, as Marxsen puts it, "Within this approach, the question as to what really happened is excluded from the outset.” 70In this sense, redaction criticism is a true descendant of radical form criticism. Mark, Matthew, and Luke, according to many redaction critics, had no more interest in historical accuracy than did the early Christian community as reconstructed by Bultmann and Dibelius. So typical is the antihistorical bias of many of the best-known redaction critics that redaction criticism, like form criticism, has earned for itself the reputation of being a method that attacks the historical reliability of the Gospels.
But this is an unfair generalization from the way many pursue redaction criticism to the method itself. Nothing about redaction criticism per se is antihistorical. Indeed, as we will argue below, redaction criticism has some very positive contributions to make to our interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels. Why, then, do so many redaction critics come to conclusions that question the historical credibility of the Gospels?
One major reason is an assumption among many redaction critics that an evangelist cannot be both theologically motivated and historically accurate. We are often presented, explicitly or implicitly, with the choice between historical and theological. Yet there is no reason why an evangelist cannot have both concerns. That Matthew, Mark, and Luke have redacted the gospel traditions that came to them is beyond doubt. And for some redaction critics, it appears, this is enough to justify the conclusion that, in tampering with the tradition, the evangelists have tampered with history. But this is not necessary at all. Rearranging, adding, omitting, and rewording need not detract from the historicity of the event or teaching concerned. For instance, newspapers will frequently rewrite for their own readers news-service reports that they receive, but their rewrites need not affect the accuracy of the report. Major speeches will sometimes be summarized in a few words, or excerpts will be taken from them. In doing so, different newspapers may focus on different emphases in the same speech. We do not accuse these newspapers of inaccuracy in doing this; nor should we accuse the evangelists of historical inaccuracies if they summarize, excerpt, or reword Jesus’ own sayings. That they have done so seems clear, as a comparison among the evangelists at almost any page in a synopsis shows. But their failure to preserve the ipsissima verba Jesu (the authentic words of Jesus) does not mean that they have tampered with the ipsissima vox Jesu (the authentic voice of Jesus). As long as the evangelists’ redactional modifications are consistent with what actually happened or with what Jesus actually said—even if they select, summarize, and reword—historical integrity is maintained. 71
The question, then, boils down to the intentions of the evangelists as these can be determined from their express statements and their actual redactional work. Did they intend to write their gospels with a concern for historical accuracy? Or did they theologize the message of Jesus with little interest in whether it really happened that way or not? Redaction criticism, in itself, cannot answer these questions. And redaction critics themselves come to radically different conclusions about this matter. Some are convinced that a careful study of the modifications introduced by the evangelists shows no tampering with historicity. They separate redaction from tradition in order to understand the message of the Gospels better, without supposing that the redaction has any less historical foundation than the tradition. 72Thus, for instance, they may conclude that Luke has redacted Jesus’ beatitude "Blessed are the poor” to include an economic focus by pairing it with his "Woe to you rich,” while Matthew has redacted the same saying as "Blessed are the poor in spirit” to emphasize the spiritual dimension.
But as long as Jesus intended both—and it is quite likely that he did, given the Old Testament concept of the poor—then it would be unfair to accuse either evangelist of an unhistorical tampering with the words of Jesus. Many instances are, of course, more difficult, and only a text-by-text scrutiny of the data is finally adequate to demonstrate the case one way or the other. Our point here is simply that redaction criticism need not be destructive to the historical accuracy of the Gospels and that redaction critics who assume that the evangelists had no concern for history in their redactional activity have not proven their point.
The problems of redaction criticism, then, are problems of exaggerated claims, false assumptions, and inappropriate applications. Pursued properly, redaction criticism offers the promise of real help in interpreting the Gospels. Specifically, the discipline of redaction criticism has several positive elements.
1. By focusing on the final, authorial stage in the production of the Gospels, it offers immediate help to the interpreter and theologian. In this respect it contrasts favorably with both form and source criticism, both of which, in their concern with the prehistory of the gospel tradition, are important for the historian of early Christianity but of only minimal help to the interpreter. Redaction criticism looks at the level that deserves most of our attention: the final literary product, the gospel.
2. Redaction criticism reminds us that the evangelists wrote with more than (though not less than) historical interest. They were preachers and teachers, concerned to apply the truths of Jesus’ life and teaching to specific communities in their own day. This theological purpose of the evangelists has sometimes been lost, with a consequent loss of appreciation for the significance and application of the history that the evangelists narrate.
3. Redaction criticism recognizes, and increases our appreciation of, the multiplicity of the Gospels. The story of Jesus has come to us not in one super gospel but in four gospels, each with its own distinct and important contribution to make to our understanding of Jesus. While creating occasional problems at the historical level, this fourfold gospel should be appreciated for the richness of perspective it brings. "Jesus is such a gigantic figure that we need all four portraits to discern him,” 73and redaction criticism helps us to appreciate the artistry and meaning of each of those portraits.