Form and Redaction Criticism

Form and Redaction Criticism - The Basics

Form Criticism

Redaction Criticism

Examines traditions about Jesus as they developed during the period of Oral Transmission (c 30-65 AD)

Examines the role of the Evangelist as author, theologian and editor of written sources used for the composition of their gospels.

Aimed - to determine why the early Church preserved traditions in the gospels.

- to establish how the Early Church might have used the pericopae (units of tradition) within community life (Sitz in Kirche). Possible examples could be teaching, liturgy, preaching, apologetic, polemic.

- to establish the origin of the individual pericopae. Which ones originate within the church communities, or date back to Jesus (Sitz in Jesu) - albeit with some adaptation and possible additions?

Aimed to identify the ways in which the evangelists used their written source material - selection, editing, arrangement and omission. (Sitz in Evangelium)

- Having done this, they believed they could then identify the characteristic emphases of each evangelist, thus identifying their particular interests, christology, ecclesiology.

- They could then learn something of the communities for which the evangelist wrote - readership, ethnic grouping, Sitz in Kirche etc.

Methods - separating pericopae from each other and from their gospel context.

- Then, examining the internal literary structure or Form of the pericpopae to see how it had 'developed' in the process of oral transmission within the church community.

- Then, comparing it with 'parallel' literary forms (either in structure or content) such as OT literature, hellenistic, or Qumran literature, to try to identify common strands of thought.

Methods - To examine pericope within the context of the whole Gospel (Vertically) and against parallel pericopae in other Gospels and possibly OT (Horizontally).

- Compare for signs of editorial addition, selection, omission.

- Having identified editing, draw conclusions about the reasons why evangelists have presented the material as they do.

nb This method relies heavily on the correctness of the 4-source theory.

Assumes - that the evangelists were little more than 'cut and paste' editors of received material, with little editorial input.

- that the material was mainly transmitted orally, rather than being written down.

- some Form Critics (eg Bultmann, Dibelius) assumed that the Early Church was not interested in preserving accurately information about Jesus, but rather in transmitting their own faith experience.

- that all types of literature, eg myths, legends etc developed in the same way wherever they were found.

Assumes - that the Four-Source theory is correct (see Source Criticism)

- that the evangelists were reliant on written sources for their information.

- that the evangelists were more concerned with presenting their own theological picture of Jesus than with recording accurate information about him.

- that the evangelists had a 'free hand' in compiling and organising their information.

- that there is significance in quite slight variations between written 'sources'.

Examples of Form Critics: R Bultmann; C H Dodd; M Dibelius; J Jeremias.

Examples of Redaction Critics: W Marxsen (Mark); H Conzelmann (Luke); G Bornkamm (Matthew); J Drury (Parables)

Strengths: It asks the right questions - the Early Church was the reason why Jesus traditions survived, and its role was vital.

Some sensible observations have been made about the ways in which the Early Church used material - eg the parable of the Good Shepherd is used in different contexts by Mt and Lk, suggesting that the Form Crits are correct in their conclusion that the stories were circulating separately, like 'pearls off their string'.

Interesting conclusion about the 'Sitz in Kirche have been drawn, albeit, we need to be discerning about which we accept and which we don't.

Strengths: It took seriously the role of the Evangelist and author and theologian, and in applying techniques used for other literature, produced interesting insights into the Evangelists' message.

It viewed the traditions about Jesus within the context of the gospel, which enabled themes to be identified, adding to an appreciation of what the evangelist was trying to communicate.

It was possible to gain useful insights into the evangelist's communities and readership, based upon the used of the material and the emphases it contained.

Weaknesses: Some FC's were unnecessarily sceptical about the reliability of traditions in the gospels, particularly miracle traditions. Some FC's approached traditions having already made up their minds which could be historical and which could not be.

Some assumptions were overly bold. EG That the EC was not interested in preserving historical information about Jesus accurately; that types of stories always developed in similar ways.

Too much was made of the criteria for deciding which traditions went back to Jesus and which didn't(eg, dissimilarity, different sources, ets, - see Stanton).

Weaknesses: This method is highly reliant on the 4-Source Theory (See Source Criticism section). If the 4-source theory falls, so does much of Redaction Criticism.

This method does not concern itself with material that has no obvious written source, which means that valuable insights might be lost.

Stemming from the above, Redaction Criticism tends to down play 'historical accuracy' as a reason for the inclusion of material, and some of its adherents take, perhaps, an unnecessarily sceptical view of the reliability of the texts.

RC's draw at times, some quite sweeping conclusions, based upon comparatively small variations in texts.

Form Criticism	Redaction Criticism
Examines traditions about Jesus as they developed during the period of Oral Transmission (c 30-65 AD)	Examines the role of the Evangelist as author, theologian and editor of written sources used for the composition of their gospels.
Aimed - to determine why the early Church preserved traditions in the gospels. - to establish how the Early Church might have used the pericopae (units of tradition) within community life (Sitz in Kirche). Possible examples could be teaching, liturgy, preaching, apologetic, polemic. - to establish the origin of the individual pericopae. Which ones originate within the church communities, or date back to Jesus (Sitz in Jesu) - albeit with some adaptation and possible additions?	Aimed to identify the ways in which the evangelists used their written source material - selection, editing, arrangement and omission. (Sitz in Evangelium) - Having done this, they believed they could then identify the characteristic emphases of each evangelist, thus identifying their particular interests, christology, ecclesiology. - They could then learn something of the communities for which the evangelist wrote - readership, ethnic grouping, Sitz in Kirche etc.
Methods - separating pericopae from each other and from their gospel context. - Then, examining the internal literary structure or Form of the pericpopae to see how it had 'developed' in the process of oral transmission within the church community. - Then, comparing it with 'parallel' literary forms (either in structure or content) such as OT literature, hellenistic, or Qumran literature, to try to identify common strands of thought.	Methods - To examine pericope within the context of the whole Gospel (Vertically) and against parallel pericopae in other Gospels and possibly OT (Horizontally). - Compare for signs of editorial addition, selection, omission. - Having identified editing, draw conclusions about the reasons why evangelists have presented the material as they do. *nb This method relies heavily on the correctness of the 4-source theory.*
Assumes - that the evangelists were little more than 'cut and paste' editors of received material, with little editorial input. - that the material was mainly transmitted orally, rather than being written down. - some Form Critics (eg Bultmann, Dibelius) assumed that the Early Church was not interested in preserving accurately information about Jesus, but rather in transmitting their own faith experience. - that all types of literature, eg myths, legends etc developed in the same way wherever they were found.	Assumes - that the Four-Source theory is correct (see Source Criticism) - that the evangelists were reliant on written sources for their information. - that the evangelists were more concerned with presenting their own theological picture of Jesus than with recording accurate information about him. - that the evangelists had a 'free hand' in compiling and organising their information. - that there is significance in quite slight variations between written 'sources'.
Examples of Form Critics: R Bultmann; C H Dodd; M Dibelius; J Jeremias.	Examples of Redaction Critics: W Marxsen (Mark); H Conzelmann (Luke); G Bornkamm (Matthew); J Drury (Parables)
Strengths: It asks the right questions - the Early Church was the reason why Jesus traditions survived, and its role was vital. Some sensible observations have been made about the ways in which the Early Church used material - eg the parable of the Good Shepherd is used in different contexts by Mt and Lk, suggesting that the Form Crits are correct in their conclusion that the stories were circulating separately, like 'pearls off their string'. Interesting conclusion about the 'Sitz in Kirche have been drawn, albeit, we need to be discerning about which we accept and which we don't.	Strengths: It took seriously the role of the Evangelist and author and theologian, and in applying techniques used for other literature, produced interesting insights into the Evangelists' message. It viewed the traditions about Jesus within the context of the gospel, which enabled themes to be identified, adding to an appreciation of what the evangelist was trying to communicate. It was possible to gain useful insights into the evangelist's communities and readership, based upon the used of the material and the emphases it contained.
Weaknesses: Some FC's were unnecessarily sceptical about the reliability of traditions in the gospels, particularly miracle traditions. Some FC's approached traditions having already made up their minds which could be historical and which could not be. Some assumptions were overly bold. EG That the EC was not interested in preserving historical information about Jesus accurately; that types of stories always developed in similar ways. Too much was made of the criteria for deciding which traditions went back to Jesus and which didn't(eg, dissimilarity, different sources, ets, - see Stanton).	Weaknesses: This method is highly reliant on the 4-Source Theory (See Source Criticism section). If the 4-source theory falls, so does much of Redaction Criticism. This method does not concern itself with material that has no obvious written source, which means that valuable insights might be lost. Stemming from the above, Redaction Criticism tends to down play 'historical accuracy' as a reason for the inclusion of material, and some of its adherents take, perhaps, an unnecessarily sceptical view of the reliability of the texts. RC's draw at times, some quite sweeping conclusions, based upon comparatively small variations in texts.

Return to Biblical Criticism Base Page