Redaction Criticism

      Redaction criticism (a term translated from the original German) is a fancy term used to describe the activities of an editor who is using earlier source materials and incorporating them into a manuscript. Most people who have ‘surfed the web' in search of commentaries on the Bible (as just one example) will be familiar with the controversy that exists surrounding contradictions and inconsistencies in Biblical manuscripts. These contradictory passages exist because the Bible consists of multiple earlier sources that encapsulated the view points and theological theories of often widely divergent religious factions. When an individual is discussing these types of mutually exclusive passages they are actually practicing a preliminary analysis in the tradition of the redaction critics.

      Editorial activity in the Bible is most clearly evidenced when we make note of these curiously conflicting passages, and whenever such conflicts are found in the Bible it is a sign that a redactor has been at work attempting to blend together source materials. This activity in and of itself is interesting. Why was it considered necessary to incorporate these divergent sources into a single composite work that we know of as the Bible?

      As a simple example of what I mean, you can consider the redaction done on the two versions of the story of David and Goliath. (If you are unfamiliar with the source traditions incorporated into the Samuel manuscripts, I would encourage you to follow the link and consider carefully the evidence presented, and then return to this page and carefully consider the following points.) Here we have two original stories that had very little in common and for reasons peculiar to both the redactor and the social situation, the stories were cut into small fragments, and then edited together into a single composite tale. The existence of the original sources can be determined by making note of the contradictions present in the final work. It is a consistent pattern in Biblical manuscripts that wherever such internal inconsistencies are found, it is always clear evidence for both the presence of sources and the later activities of a redactor.

      Now in the case of a far left journal and a far right journal both giving different accounts of certain event we would be aware of the activities of a redactor working with source materials, we would know something of the agenda of these editors and of their target audience. Normally you would not find later editors with an agenda of their own attempting to edit these two disparate commentaries into a single composite work (which, after the editing process is complete one could then argue represents the final, conclusive truth.) Rather what we have are two sources, side by side, and this represents a debate then, and not a final answer that is no longer in dispute.

      We must ask ourselves why the two stories of David and Goliath were not simply preserved side by side in the Bible. Why do we see a consistent pattern in the scriptures of disparate elements being cut to pieces and then combined in this way? What was the agenda of the editors and what social situation was present at the time that would explain what we are seeing here?

      Now given the mythology that developed around these works (they have been held to be the ‘inerrant and authoritative Word of God') it would seem then that such editing was hardly coincidental. Preserving disparate sources side by side encourages autonomy while having a ‘single voice' which speaks with ‘authority' encourages deference to authority figures, and thus it seems more than simply convenient that the editorial technique (submerging sources materials) enables (to a degree) the establishment of centralized authority in religion, while the alternative, conflicting sources, unedited, side by side, would not aid in establishing the myth of the Divine and Authoritative Word. Later priests and preachers would derive their own authority from the ‘authority' of this ‘Divine Word' and it was also these priests who were responsible for editing and collecting these manuscripts (that there was a great deal of self interest involved on the part of the priests who collected and edited their own book should be obvious, and thus we cannot ignore the interests of religious powers when considering the editing of sources in the book which will then be used as a power source and a source of authority over long ages afterwards. The polemical connection here between editing and later claims to authority and power are quite clear and not much more needs to be said about it than that.)

      This being the case a study of this editorial technique reveals something of the agenda of the redactors, and the fact that both the Jewish and later Christian traditions are noteworthy for being patriarchal authority systems, and the fact that such a social structure would not be encouraged by diverse unedited sources sitting in the open, side by side (encouraging diversity, rather than compliance to what purport to be authorities), all of this strongly suggests that the agenda of the redactors and the end result (patriarchal systems of religion) were closely related, and thus by studying the way sources were edited and manipulated in the Bible we can certainly, in this case, deduce the agenda of these editors.

      Redaction criticism is the study of how individual authors (and editors) used source materials and in the case of the Bible, it also involves the study of how individual authors imposed their own theological slant and ideology upon these sources, and of how their work represents both their own personalities, interests, and beliefs and those of their intended audience. A study of how sources were interpreted and edited can reveal something of the social situation the text was meant to address. The agenda of the redactor can be revealed if we can determine something of the nature of the original source materials on which the author relied and how these sources were arranged, edited, manipulated and worked into an overall frame work.

      Redaction criticism began as a methodology for studying the synoptic gospels, since it was obvious that there was a relationship that existed between the gospels in that they relied on common source materials. By examining the way sources are used by the redactor in each of the individual works individual differences in ideology among the authors of the Synoptic Gospels can be revealed.

      A simple example of the application of the techniques of redaction criticism can be done outside the gospel traditions by comparing how one event is reported differently in what might be called a ‘far right wing' journal and a ‘far left wing' journal. While the actual events being reported might be identical, the interpretation of the facts will be found to be radically different in each of these reports, and a redaction critic would make note of these differences and in this case, even those untrained in the formal techniques can determine the ideological position of the author and something of their agenda and also of the target audience.

      Similarly a comparison of the three Synoptic Gospels with their obvious similarities in source materials and their equally obvious differences in interpretation and ideological slant reveals something about the individual evangelists and in particular in the case of an analysis of the Gospel of Matthew, can reveal a great deal about the issues that were of concern (or even a source of controversy) within a certain early religious community. The numerous editorial revisions of the Gospel of Matthew result in the end in a manuscript that is rife with internal inconsistencies, the result of later redaction on a manuscript that was shorter than what is the case post-redaction, and this makes the study of Matthew particularly interesting as an example of the application of redaction criticism.

      A comparison of the gospels is also productive, since what emerges are unique individuals, each with their own particular agenda which is revealed when we consider the different slant they put on earlier source materials during their compilation and editing of these earlier sources. Redaction criticism incorporates not only the manipulation of sources but also the addition of editorial commentary (in the case of the David and Goliath story, there are obvious lines of editorial commentary added in an attempt to reconcile the disparities between the two accounts - ‘David used to return to care for the sheep' as one example, or, ‘David played the harp for Saul as before,' as another example. See the page on David and Goliath if you are unfamiliar with what I mean, here.) This practice was not limited to the Jewish Testament but also appears again and again in comparison of the gospels.

      As one simple example you can consider the editing of the story of the baptism of Christ in Matthew's gospel. In Mark's account of the Baptism we are first told that John used to baptize people as part of a ritual symbolic of their repentance from sins. Then, with no commentary, we are simply told that Christ came and was baptized by John. This is not a problem in Mark's account. Later in the same gospel, a man will ask Christ, ‘Good teacher, what must I do to be saved,' and get the answer, ‘Why do you call me good. No one is good except God.' So that Christ, not being good, participated in the Baptism does not create any problems in the Gospel of Mark, and goes by with little apologetic comment.

      Now it is characteristic of religions that as time passes the religion begins to incorporate elements of fantastic mythology, and it is also typical that the central figure becomes a god. For example, the Buddha actually rejected a belief in the various gods of his time, instead espousing a practical philosophy of living. In later centuries the Buddha became a divine being, a god like figure who was pre-existent in a heavenly realm and then, out of compassion, decided to incarnate as a human being to save humanity. The similarities to developments in Christian theology are quite striking. So it is the case that in Matthew's gospel we find increasing fantastic mythology and again and again Mark's parables concerning ‘dim-witted disciples' who understood nothing are edited in Matthew's account so that we have disciples falling down to worship their god, Christ having been elevated already at this point to the status of a type of divine being, as is so typical of later developments in most religions. The simple theology of Mark's gospel and the dependence of Matthew upon Mark, as well as the emerging mythology of the Matthew version both help us to date the manuscripts (Mark first, Matthew written at a later date).

      In keeping with this evolving mythological theology we find Matthew editing Mark's account of the baptism story by adding a line to the account during the editorial revision of the source material Matthew was using (Mark in this case). John recognizes the Christ immediately, and insists that he is less than Christ, so low in fact that he just should not baptize Christ, a god like figure after all, but rather their roles should be reversed and Christ should baptize him. Christ then tells him to go ahead with the baptism just for the sake of appearances. This is a fine example of redactional activity and the reworking of an earlier source by a later redactor through the inclusion of single line of editorial commentary, and the small revision clearly fits into the pattern of an emerging high Christology in the Gospel of Matthew (the pattern of making these small revisions is consistent across the entire manuscript) and is very revealing of the redactors theological position, and brings clearly to light the differences between the ideology of Mark and the ideology of Matthew.

      Even more curiously, it would seem that the story of the baptism in Matthew's gospel is out of place when the manuscript is considered as a whole, and thus the baptism account of Matthew was itself probably a later addition to the original manuscript and is thus itself an indicator of a period of later redaction of Matthew (this gospel being itself a redaction of Mark). John recognizes the Christ instantly, and refuses to baptize. Later on, John will be in prison and sends disciples to enquire ‘are you the Christ or should we wait for someone else.' He simply did not know. Such contradictions within any biblical manuscript are always the evidence for later editorial redaction, and so it would appear to be the case that the baptism story was probably not original to Matthew's gospel.

      The individual evangelists also imposed their own theological interpretation not just through this type of editorial commentary but also through the careful sequencing and arrangement of source materials. For example, the Gospel of Mark is composed of chiasmus, parables arranged in a step like sequence, and also incorporates a second technique of juxtaposing parables. The result of this literary form is that the real meaning of the gospel of Mark cannot be appreciated without an understanding of the structure of the document (to read the manuscript without knowledge of the arrangement of the material then is to miss a good deal of the point). The first six chapters incorporate a particulary strong attack on the Torah, and much of this is most apparent when examining the structure of the document. Consequently, in Matthew's gospel, where the critique of the Torah is muted (and the critique of religious authorities is pushed forefront) we find that Mark's chiasmus in the first six chapters is broken up in Matthew's version and Matthew's gospel does not begin to closely parallel Mark's account until chapter 14. As well Matthew destroys some of Mark's chiasmus when the point is not a point Matthew wishes to make. (Mark's chiasmus of the cursing of the fig tree, wrapped around the story of the cursing of the temple system and the pigeon sacrifice is destroyed in Matthew's redaction, where the cursing of the fig tree becomes a single parable, and thus about the power one has to curse vegetation ‘if you have faith' rather than about the cursing of the temple system itself.) In this matter the study of redaction criticism, and the way evangelists have arranged and then manipulated and changed their original sources tells us much both about Mark's agenda and then the agenda of Matthew who came later (and did not share Mark's ideological outlook as is obvious in so many ways in the redactional changes Matthew made to Mark's account).

      Redaction criticism is closely related, even dependant upon source criticism, since the conclusions one comes to about editorial activity and its significance is dependent on a large part on determining the original sources on which an author relied. So in considering the above matters, we can conclude, if we assume Markan priority, that Matthew represents a kind of reactionary response to some of what we find in Mark, and indeed the redactional analysis seems to support the source analysis in this case, which suggests that Mark came first, in a circular pattern of reinforcement. However, if one should be able to establish that Matthew came first then it would be the case that Mark was even more radical than he appears to be, his attacks on the Torah were inspired by anger at Matthew's more orthodox approach, and he also detested high Christology (then the saying ‘why do you call me good' and the baptism of sinners, including Christ, would be radical rejections of emerging Christology). However, this seems less likely than that Matthew was reacting to Mark (and normally we find a low theology in the beginning stages of a religious movement, followed by increasing mythology, and this pattern supports the conclusion that Mark has priority and Matthew came later in this instance.)

      As dependent as redaction criticism is upon the results of an analysis of sources it can be of limited value when no such information about sources is available. For example, there is clearly literary relationship between Matthew and Mark (structural similarities, which cannot be coincidental, and even word for word correspondence, which also cannot be coincidental). Now if Mark was a source for Matthew, what source did Mark use. The gospel of Mark is a highly structured document, and we find here the literary form of chiasmus and also juxtaposition of parables, which indicate that in no way is this a ‘biography' or a literal history in any sense of the word. Therefore, it is either the case that Mark was the source of his own parables, and history then in Mark is only history in the broadest sense of the term (Christ may have sacked the temple but it is doubtful that he conveniently cursed a fig tree first and then went back to check it later so as to have ‘history' fall so neatly into a chiastic literary form).

      Similarly it seems highly unlikely that Christ would break bread twice (and the disciples would twice be to stupid to understand what happened) and all this forming brackets around the theme of ‘unclean foods' and ‘nullifying prophets' and a lecture on disciples being to dim witted to understand that ‘nothing you eat can make you unclean'. The literary function of the second bread incident, following on this allusion to the protests of the Jewish prophets and their nullification by the pharisees, and the stupidity of the disciples on this matter can then be clearly understood as a literary device, a commentary then embedded in this chiastic structure on the general stupidity of people when it came to understanding that prophecy simply meant what it said on matters dealing with the Torah. The story of breaking bread then is clearly not referring to a historical incident, and certainly the dim witted stupidity of the disciples, a theme of the central locus of the chiasmus and then reiterated in the second bread breaking incident can be understood to be symbolic polemic on the conflict between religious tradition and its rejection of the radical stream of Jewish prophecy and its rejection of the Torah, which is what Mark is alluding to in this particular chiasmus. All this summarized with a discussion on a boat about ‘bread' concluding with the admonition that one should not eat the bread prepared by the scribes and pharisees, which neatly summarizes the point about ‘nullifying prophets' and instead promoting priestly traditions found in the central locus of the chiasmus.

      Mark's gospel is peppered through with chiasmus, and they are evident not just on the level of individual chiastic structures but in the overall structure of the document which can be thought of as one large parable and one large chiasmus. Life just isn't so conveniently structured that it falls into place repeatedly into this literary form as it does in repeatedly in Mark's gospel. So as for history, we can say that perhaps Christ taught that one should not regard the Torah regulations, also broke the Sabbath, and sacked the temple among other things, so that there was history behind the parables in Mark's gospel, but the gospel itself is not history, but rather a collection of parables on a theme which Mark made up. The source of Mark then would be Mark, but if it was true that Mark relied on an earlier source material of collected parables then it is truly remarkable how Mark creatively employed this source material freely arranging it into chiasmus as he saw fit. The most sensible conclusion to my way of thinking is that Mark, if he was capable of exhibiting such independence and use such a free hand, was equally capable of writing parables himself, which is more than likely just what he did. So ‘history' in the gospel of Mark is only history in the most general sense, and the chiasmus of Mark's gospel, much of which is destroyed in Matthew's gospel for obvious theological reasons, is another evidence that Matthew's gospel is of later date and represents a redaction of Mark, who more than likely was his own source.

      Redaction criticism and the closely related technique of source criticism are two extremely important techniques to understand and employ in order to get some sort of handle on the actual meaning of Biblical texts, dependent as this is on the agenda of both later editors and individual authors (and given that the intent of original authors can often be hidden and submerged by later redactors, as is clearly the case in the redaction of sources in the Samuel manuscripts.) Given that the Bible is so notorious for containing contradictions, and given that these contradictions are the direct consequence of the incorporation of conflicting sources, and given the constant polemical appeals of what are purported to be religious authority figures offering salvation ‘from hell fires' and so on, based not of course on their own authority, but on the authority of books their own priestly ancestors edited and then canonized, and the importance of redaction criticism to the cause of both truth and freedom from imposed dogmas and authorities should be obvious.

The Campaign to Impeach George W. Bush
Click here for more information


Related pages:

Samuel, David and Goliath - redaction of sources in the Jewish tradition

Commentary on Matthew's gospel - Index

A commentary on Mark's gospel

John the baptist and the baptism of Christ

The structural dependence of Matthew's gospel on Mark in chart form

Synoptic gospels compared in parallel columns