AN INTRODUCTION TO REDACTION CRITICISM

David Bradnick

Redaction criticism has developed into one of the most innovative, yet controversial methodologies
within the area of biblical studies. The vast majority of biblical scholars recognize its ability to
explain phenomenon relating to the composition of the gospels, but redaction criticism still comes
under fire because of the alleged subjectivity which results from its usage. This paper will: (1)
present a brief history of redaction criticism, (2) explore the basic underlying principles and
methodologies employed within this area of research, (3) explain issues of concern which often
accompany redaction criticism, (4) present a few examples of redaction within the biblical narrative,
and (5) examine a parallel passage of scripture from the synoptic gospels to observe contemporary
scholarship pertaining to redaction criticism.
Before emerging into the dynamics of redaction criticism any further a few definitions should be
examined to familiarize ones self with the term. In the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of
the Bible Osborne writes, Redaction criticism is a literary discipline that studies the way a biblical
author/editor altered his sources to develop his unique theological message. 1The goal of most
such critics is to separate the tradition (inherited from their sources) from redaction (the changes
made by the evangelist).2 M.E. Biddle adds, Redaction criticism analyzes the techniques by which
a redactor (or redactors) assembled, shaped, and supplemented preexistent materials to form a new
work, seeking insight into the literary dynamics of the product. 3 Perrin, a specialist in this specific
area and one of the first to write extensively on the topic perhaps gives the most comprehensive
definition when he writes, Redaction criticism is concerned with the interaction between an
inherited tradition and a later interpretive point of view. Its goals are to understand why the items
from the tradition were modified and connected as they were, to identify the theological motifs that
were at work in composing a finished Gospel, and to elucidate the theological point of view which
is expressed in and through the composition.4 Perrin implies but R.C. Briggs elucidates that
redaction criticism relies upon the existence of three distinct levels of historical development: the
original events, the circumstances in which the tradition was developed and maintained, and the
context in which the gospel received its final form (Sitz im Leben).5 Redaction criticism reaches
beyond a literary analysis in order to uncover the historical situation behind the text and its
theological implications for that community.6
1. A Brief History of Redaction Criticism
Although redaction criticism did not surface within biblical studies as a formalized area of research
until the twentieth century, scholars suggest that redaction within the biblical narrative was
theorized by various individuals throughout the course of critical biblical studies. For example, in
the eleventh and twelfth centuries rabbinic scholars Rashi and A. Ibn Ezra recognized late editorial
1

Grant R. Osborne, Redaction Criticism, in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (ed. Kevin J.
Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2005), 663.
2
Ibid., 664.
3
M.E. Biddle. Source, Form, and Redaction Criticism: Hebrew Bible Redaction Criticism, in Methods of Biblical
Interpretation: Excerpted from the Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. John H. Hayes; Nashville: Abingdon Press,
2004), 135.
4
Norman Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Philadelphia. 1969), vi.
5
R.C. Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today: An Introduction to Methods and Issues in the Study of the New
Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), 115.
6
J.R. Donahue, Source, Form, and Redaction Criticism: New Testament Redaction Criticism, in Methods of
Biblical Interpretation: Excerpted from the Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. John H. Hayes; Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 2004), 141.

Bradnick: Redaction Criticism

activity in the Torah, but this observation along with the contributions of other individuals never
developed into a specialized field of study.7 From the 1920s until the mid-1950s New Testament
studies were dominated by form criticism which viewed the gospel writers/authors as compilers
who arranged their narratives with very little editorial changes. 8 Form criticism typically limited the
contribution of the final compilers of the gospels to influencing the structure of the text, thus
seriously underplaying their significance. A shift in literary critical methods emphasized the role of
the redactors as acting purposefully to create the gospels not only through compiling and arranging
their sources but also through a procedure of editing. 9 Redaction criticism revived the notion of the
biblical authors as the creative compilers of their respective works which had previously been
denied by views obtained from form criticism. 10 While redaction criticism relied heavily upon
source criticisms primacy of Mark and acceptance of Q, it attempted to uncover the creativity of the
evangelists rather than emphasize the various strata of form which preceded the final work. 11 Many
redaction critics continued to see value in form criticism but highlighted the final stage of
development (redaction) as the most important. 12
The work of scholars in source and form criticism provided the foundation upon which redaction
criticism could develop and flourish. A number of precursors provided valuable insights leading to
the innovation of redaction criticism including the writings of: Wilhelm Wrede, Julius Wellhausen,
Benjamin Bacon, and R.H. Lightfoot. Wredes seminal work The Messianic Secret (1901) suggested
that the messianic secret was a Markan theological tool inserted by the author of the gospel
because its usage, from a chronological standpoint, defies a logical progression. In consequence he
suggested that Mark could no longer be read as straight history without incorporating ones own
perspective into the story, therefore the gospel was a creation of Christian dogma. 13 Wrede
developed a perspective of Markan authorship as an impersonal historical process, a view that
would be redeemed by later redaction critics. 14 In 1903 Wellhausen wrote Das Evangelium Marci in
which he identified the sources of the gospels as oral traditions that circulated in small units and
eventually were compounded and redacted multiple times. The evangelist represents the final stage
in this development, creating the gospel genre and revealing elements of early Christian beliefs as
well as aspects of Jesus life.15 Benjamin Bacon developed an anecdotal theory in his work entitled
The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (1910) which viewed the pre-gospel material as a
collection of apologetic anecdotes, thus further shedding light upon the creative methodology found
within the gospels.16 At the 1934 Bampton Lectures R.H. Lightfoot examined Marks theological
underpinnings in relation to the overall structure of the Gospel. Although W. Marxsen coined the
term Redaktionsgeschichte (literally history of redaction), some scholars, like Perrin, regard him
as the first proper redaction critic; however, the advent of World War II delayed further advances in
this area.17 These are a few examples of the direct work of biblical scholars that contributed to the
emergence of redaction criticism, and despite its late emergence we can see the groundwork that
was being laid long beforehand.

Ibid., 135.
Ibid., 141.
9
Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today, 115.
10
Osborne, Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, 663.
11
Terence Keegan. Interpreting the Bible: A Popular Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (New York: Paulist Press,
1985), 29.
12
Ibid.
13
Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism?, 8-12.
14
Ibid., 13.
15
Ibid., 14.
16
Donahue, Methods of Biblical Interpretation, 142.
17
Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism?, 21-24.
8

Bradnick: Redaction Criticism

Following the war three groundbreaking works regarding the synoptic gospels spawned the formal
beginnings of redaction criticism: Gnther Bornkamms Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew
(1963), Hans Conzelmanns, Theology of Luke (1954), and Marxsens Mark the Evangelist (1956).
Bornkamm uncovered unique theological perspectives developed within Matthew on topics such as
Christology, ecclesiology, the Jewish law, and Christian faith. 18 For example, he explored the
Stilling of the Storm pericope by comparing Matt 8:23-27 to its source in Mark 4:35-41, and
Perrin writes, he shows that Matthew actually reinterprets the story as he inherits it from Mark.
Thus Matthew inserts it into a definite context of its own and presents it in such a way as to give it a
new meaning, a meaning which it does not have for the other evangelists 19 Marxsens redaction
criticism of Mark explored four different aspects of the gospel: John the Baptist, geographical
references, the use of euangelion, and Mark 13. He concludes that the Markan account reflects a
community around the year 66 C.E. which has fled from Jerusalem to Galilee at the beginning of the
Jewish War against Rome in anticipation of the parousia.20 Marxsens assertion reveals that the
author/editor of Mark was also theologically motivated, thus influencing the presentation of the
gospel. Finally Conzelmanns writing, which is considered the most important development of the
three, changed the perception of Luke as a historian to a theologian with doctrinal concerns
reflected in his writings.21 Cozelmann argued that Luke replaced Marks imminent eschatology with
a salvation-historical scheme in order to explain the delay of the parousia, an apparently major
concern within Lukes context.22 Its realized eschatology insists that the kingdom of God is already
present and at work within the world, and the gospel works to express this reality. 23
This brief survey portrays a clear movement of progression towards the advent of redaction
criticism as a methodology in its own right. While foundational pieces such as form and source
criticism needed to be in place on the chess board of biblical studies for it to emerge, redaction
criticism has taken center stage as the dominating queen of literary critical methodologies. The next
section will explore in specific detail the implications of redaction criticism on contemporary
biblical studies.
2. The Usage of Redaction Criticism in Contemporary Scholarship
Redaction criticism developed primarily out of the study of the synoptic gospels because of the
groundwork provided by source criticism which revealed the reliance of the gospels of Luke and
Matthew upon the gospel of Mark. The emergence of redaction criticism within Matthew and Luke
was facilitated by the existence of Marks gospel, thus making for simplified comparison.
Contemporary research within redaction criticism has greatly expanded the realm of inquiry to
include deeper levels of investigation within the gospels. Scholars, theorizing that the gospel writers
used similar methods of redaction on their sources, have begun to examine pre-gospel traditions
according to this critical analysis, although it is much more difficult to make concrete conclusions
because there are no extant manuscripts that can be compared. 24 Stein writes, Concerning Mark
and the unique material in Matthew and Luke (M and L), redactional investigation is more
difficult, for whereas in the triple and double traditions we either possess their source (Mark) or can
reconstruct it (Q) with a reasonable degree of certainty, in the case of Mark, M, and L we have much
18

Ibid., 27.
Ibid., 26.
20
Ibid., 38.
21
Ibid., 29.
22
Osborne, Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, 663-664.
23
Ibid., 664.
24
Craig Evans. Mark, 8:27-16:20 (WBC 34B; ed. Bruce M. Metzger; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 10.
He writes, Comparison of Matthew and Luke illustrates how these evangelists freely located the materials drawn from
the Sayings Source (Q). Why should we assume that the Markan Gospel is any different?
19

Bradnick: Redaction Criticism

more difficulty in reconstructing what their sources were like. 25 In cases where sources no longer
survive evidence within the writing it self, like literary seams must be used in order to identify these
modifications.26 Literary seams are places in which two pericopes have been spliced together by an
editor in such a way that a careful reading can identify a lack of grammatical or chronological flow
within the text. An example would be the gospel of John in which scholars have identified numerous
sources from which the gospel is composed as a result of literary seams. 27 Other examples of intratextual evidence would include differences in writing style and repetitions. 28 Q itself has also
undergone scrutiny as scholars have attempted to discern various levels of traditions within the
sayings gospel.29
While the initial and primary concern of redaction criticism has been focused on the synoptic
gospels, nearly every faucet of the biblical narrative has been scrutinized through this method of
inquiry. F. Winnett and J. Van Seters challenged traditional views of the Pentateuch by proposing
that its components may be described more accurately as redactional layers rather than as
documentary sources, emphasizing the dynamic process of growth behind the final form. 30 Gerhard
von Rad is recognized as a pioneer of this approach to the Old Testament, suggesting that the
Yahwist should be viewed as a highly creative religious and literary genius for his modifications
of the sources he used. Von Rad also recommended viewing the entire Pentateuch as a whole in
which the redaction of the final compiler added theological insight. 31
In the early stages of redaction criticism it was assumed that the theology of the authors/editors
were only contained within the areas of change, but revisions have been made to this school of
thought as it has been realized that portions kept in tact reveal just as much about the theological
positions of the evangelists.32 Theological implications of these preservations as well as redaction
are not only limited to specific pericopes, rather one must take into account their overall
contribution to the entire literary work.33 Osborne writes, The redactional changes are quite helpful
as a control on how the evangelist has shaped his material, but the theological emphases come from
studying the theological threads that are woven together to form the whole tapestry of the individual
Gospel.34 The development of redaction criticism provides multiple levels from which biblical
narratives can be examined, thus revealing a deeper level of complexity to the composition of the
gospels and a stronger and more diverse appreciation for their literary and historical value.
3. Critiques of Redaction Criticism
Redaction criticism, for some, may bring into question the historicity of the gospels, positing that
the authors/editors of scripture generated their own theological views, resulting in their own
productions at the expense of historical narratives. Osborne responds to these critics in saying:
expansion, omission, working, and rearrangement are aspects of styles; in and
of themselves, they do not necessarily mean that the author is uninterested in
25

Robert H. Stein, Redaction Criticism: New Testament in Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5; ed. David Noel
Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 648.
26
Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today, 118.
27
Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (2nd ed.; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000), 165.
28
Ibid., 164-165.
29
Donahue, Methods of Biblical Interpretation, 142.
30
Biddle, Methods of Biblical Interpretation, 136.
31
John Barton, Redaction Criticism: Old Testament in Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5; ed. David noel Freedman;
New York: Doubleday, 1992), 645.
32
Osborn, Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, 664.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid., 665.

Bradnick: Redaction Criticism

history. This radical skepticism is fueled by a presupposition that theology must

exclude history-claiming that if a writer is producing a theological point, that
must involve a lack of interest in history. Yet there is no basis for such an
assumption. It has long been realized that no one can study history without an
interest in its implications for the current situation. 35
Strong adherents maintain that the theology of the gospel writers addressed the problems and needs
of the early church, and at the very least this aspect of history can be recovered from redaction
criticism.36 Proponents of this method hope that redaction criticism will reveal a greater
understanding of early Christian history in two ways: (1) by segregating theological insights
developed by the author/writers, critics will be able to uncover the purely historical aspects of
scripture and (2) by examining the theological assertions developed within the gospels a clearer
picture of the early Christian community will emerge. 37 Ultimately redaction criticism attempts to
separate the multiple layers of revisions made to scripture, thus recovering history and theology
from scripture. In the case of the gospels this would include traditions reaching back to the historical
Jesus, background information about early Christian societies that carried the oral traditions, and the
situation out of which each gospel developed and was addressing.
Scholars are not nave about the challenges that this offers, for example Perrin writes:
we must come to recognize that the words of R.H. Lightfoot were fully and
absolutely justified: the Gospels do indeed yield us only the whisper of Jesus
voice. This means in practice that we must take as our starting point the
assumption that the Gospels offer us directly information about the theology of the
early church and not about the teaching of the historical Jesus, and that any
information we may derive from them about Jesus can only come as a result of the
stringent application of very carefully contrived criteria for authenticity. 38
Nearly forty years later the contemporary situation does not seem to be any clearer as scholars are in
debate questioning the amount of history that can be gleaned from redaction criticism and its
subjectivity. Some, like Osborn, question the length to which redaction critics make inferences,
suggesting that their conclusions are essentially guesswork. In the case of the gospels he asserts that
they were not intended for specific communities but rather were written for the larger church,
therefore to make specific assertions is nothing more than speculation. Barton explains, Redaction
critics normally have to reconstruct the redactors sources from the text as it now stands, and then
discover why the redactor changed these (hypothetical) sources to produce the present form. It can
easily be seen that it is impossible to check the accuracy of this whole reconstruction against any
external controls.39 Other scholars such as Donahue, Raymond Brown, and T. Weeden are more
optimistic arguing that the gospels were written to and within specific context, and the theology
expressed through redaction also expresses the issues of concern within these communities. The
overall value of redaction criticism is nearly universally affirmed within the field of biblical studies,
but the extent to which history can be reveal is hotly debated and appears to be an unrelenting issue.
4. Examples and Markers of Redaction Criticism
The Anchor Bible Dictionary lists several basic examples of redaction criticism; the first being link
passages in which the redactor attempts to integrate two separate passages into one smooth
35

Ibid.
Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today, 132.
37
Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism?, 39.
38
Ibid., 69.
39
Barton, ABD, 645.
36

Bradnick: Redaction Criticism

narrative. In Exodus 3:14- 15 the redactor attempted to make statements from two different sources
appear as successive rather than alternative words of God by linking verse 15a: God also said to
Moses, which was not required by either of the original sayings but is needed once the sources
are merged.40 Hosea and Ecclesiastes contain interpretative additions that do not merely serve to
shape the structure of a passage or book into a comprehendible whole, but they also work to
promote a specific interpretative perspective directing the reader how to understand the writing.
John Barton understands that the redactional addition of verse 14 to the end of Ecclesiastes makes
the overall effect of the book much less skeptical and unorthodox than it would otherwise seem
while the addition to Hosea converts a collection of prophecies into a kind of wisdom book of
generalized advice.41 The gospel of Luke presents another example of interpretative additions
following Jesus temptation in the wilderness. It states And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit
into Galilee while Matthew and Mark make no mention of the Spirit, making it clear that Luke
wants to emphasize the role of the Spirit in the ministry of Jesus. Again in Luke 5:17 the redactor
adds to his Markan source the words, and the power of the Lord was with him to heal Noting
these theologically motivated additions Stein writes, By carefully observing how Luke handled his
sources, it becomes clear that the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus and the disciples and the power to
heal associated with this are important Lukan emphases. 42 Explicit insertions, although easier to
discern, are no less influential upon the text in which they are found. These insertions, found
especially in narrative passages, are direct statements of address made from the implied author to
the implied reader. The redactor of the story offers his own comments on the narrative, thus
introducing his own interpretation of the transpired events. 43 The final form of redaction given in the
Anchor Bible Dictionary is related to the arrangement of the text. The book of Psalms provides
examples of thematic structures throughout its content where a number of psalms are grouped
together according to topic (e.g. Pss 145-150). Barton suggests that the book of Judges also displays
an explicit example of such redaction through a highly schematized arrangement in which the
redactor is primarily responsible for the way in which the reader interprets the stories. He writes,
The stories about various (originally purely local) tribal heroes are arranged schematically, so that
each illustrates the same pattern: the Israelites sin, are subjugated by their enemies, cry to God, and
are saved by the intervention of a judge, after which they enjoy a period of rest lasting twenty,
forty, or eighty years44
In the Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of Scripture Osborne suggests eight basic
categories that redaction criticism looks for when analyzing that changes that the evangelists
enacted when redacting texts:
(1) One may identify what has been added to the traditionor subtracted from it,
and then draw a theological conclusion(2) One may study the seams (transitions),
introductions, and conclusions to ascertain how the author arranges the pericope
(3) One may observe changes in the arrangement of the material(4) One may
recognize changes in the setting or placement of a story(5) One may identify
changes in the words used(6) One may discover how two traditions are combined
in a single episode(7) One may see how the evangelist provides explanations for
readers(8) One may find changes in order to avoid misunderstandings. 45
Even this brief analysis of the various components of redaction criticism shows the complexity into
which this field of study has developed. In the next section this paper will examine a specific
40
41
42
43
44
45

Barton, ABD, 646.

Ibid.
Stein, ABD, 648.
Barton, ABD, 646.
Ibid., 647.
Osborn, Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible, 664.

Bradnick: Redaction Criticism

pericope using these criteria in order to draw some conclusions regarding the redactional activity of
the authors/writers of the synoptic gospels on this particular section of scripture.
5. A Case Study in Redaction Criticism: The Pericope of Peters Confession of Christ
Now that a basic understanding of the definition and principles of redaction criticism has been
explored, this paper will engage in an expanded examination of a pericope common to the synoptic
gospels, Peters confession of Christ (Mark 8:27-9:1, Luke 9:18-27, and Matt 16:13-21). By using
these passages as a case study the hopes of the author are to further explicate the techniques
involved in redaction criticism, thus giving the reader an even deeper appreciation for the value,
complexity, and challenges of redaction criticism.
In Mark 8:29 the fundamental theme of the gospel is addressed when Jesus poses to Peter the
prolific question, But who do you say that I am? 46 There is a consensus that the author of Mark
takes the interpretive task upon himself to address confusion regarding how a messiah could have
been subdued by such a debilitating and dishonorable death. 47 Mann, for example, recognizes its
deliberate structure as three fold: to expose the identity of Jesus, explain the meaning of his
crucifixion, and to invite others into Christs service. 48 The vast majority of scholars recognize the
interpretive purposes of redaction within this passage, but its level of authenticity is questioned.
Fitzmyer, representing a heavily redactional view, believes that this section is primarily the work of
the evangelist,49 but others, like Evans, opts for an acceptance of its historical grounding citing
Marks lack of embellishment regarding the messianic recognition of Jesus as evidence for its
historicity.50 He believes that it was quite likely for Jesus to understand his impending fate should he
continue down this path, but having said this Evans does not deny a subtle level redaction. He
writes, But Jesus prediction has undergone a series of important developments: (1) the wording of
the prediction has been drawn into closer alignment with the events of the Passion week(2) the
prediction has been removed from its original passion setting and relocated to earlier settings(3)
the prediction has been expanded into a series of predictions. 51 Evans makes clear that this view is
not to downplay the importance of the messianic recognition of Jesus as this is still the fundamental
goal of the gospel. In support he writes, But the historicity of the pericope does not mean that it has
little theological or literary significance for Mark. On the contrary, the passage has been deliberately
positioned as the turning point in the narrative.52
While Evans leans heavily on the side of historicity, Perrin represents a moderate view, suggesting
that this pericope oscillates between the historical setting with Jesus and a later date addressed by
the author of the gospel. He believes that the first question is original to the context of Jesus, but the
second inquiry reflects the situation of the early church because the titles involved are from the
Christological vocabulary of the early churchthis purpose is specifically a Marcan purpose; it
represents Marks understanding of what the risen Lord has to say to the church of his day. 53 Peter,
confessing Jesus as the Messiah, perceives this mission in terms of a divine man Christology,
and consequently Jesus emphatically rejects this understanding. 54 The conclusion is inevitable:
Mark presents a false understanding of Christology on the lips of Peter, a true understanding on the
46
47

48

Donahue, Methods of Biblical Interpretation, 264.

Donahue, Methods of Biblical Interpretation, 265.
C.S. Mann. Mark (AB 27; New York: Doubleday 1986), 339.

49

Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I, I-IX (AB 28; Garden City: Double Day, 1986), 772.

50

Craig Evans. Mark, 8:27-16:20, 9.

Evans, Mark, 8:27-16:20, 10-11.
Ibid., 10.
Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism?, 39.
Ibid., 56.

51
52
53
54

Bradnick: Redaction Criticism

lips of Jesus.55 From these statements it is clear that Perrin holds the original historical setting and
the redaction of the evangelist in tension, offering a third perspective on the passage.
Although these are not the only views regarding this pericope, they do represent the various degrees
of historicity and redaction ascribed to Mark 8:27-9:1. The consensus among these scholars is that
the Marcan narrative has been redacted in some way, but the extent of this redaction remains
unanswered. Mark apparently had a theologically motivated agenda centering on the messiahship of
Jesus, perhaps giving us a glimpse into Marks contemporary context, but it also exposes a certain
level of subjectivity that is implied within redaction criticism.
One major characteristic regarding Luke 9:18-27 is not to be found in the pericope itself but the
prior content of the gospel. The evangelist chose to omit material found in Mark 6:45-8:26 known
as Big Omission.56 The missing text creates a problem within the flow of the narrative in which
the gospel writer generated a new setting for the exchange between Jesus and Peter. The nonsense
of the opening verse makes Perrin suggest that Luke is deliberately combining the situation of Mark
6:46 with Mark 8:27.57 Fitzmyer further observes that it connects the confession of Peter with the
feeding of the five thousand with the question posed by Herod in Luke 9:9. In Peters dialogue with
Jesus Luke answers Herods question, but who is this about whom I hear such great things? 58
One could surmise that Lukes arrangement of the text brings portions of the narrative into
theological relation with one another, thus emphasizing the identity of Jesus for the reader.
Another prominent feature of Lukes version is the omission of the dispute between Jesus and Peter.
Perrin suggests that Marks portrayal was part of a literary device by which he makes an essential
christological point which Luke is not interested in making and therefore omits this portion 59
Expanding upon this idea Johnson writes, In Luke, Peters confession is both less dramatic than in
Matthew and Mark, and less ironicthe sayings on discipleship appear less as a correction than as a
logical development of Jesus self-designation as a suffering Son of Man. In context, we would
think that the Twelve formed the audience for these sayings, but Luke notes that they were said to
all, allowing these saying on the cost of discipleship apply directly to the readers of the Gospel. 60
If this is correct, then we have a case of redaction through deletion in which the evangelist
purposefully extracts text in order to make a theological conclusion. In this instance perhaps the
author/editor of Luke was attempting to address his contemporary context by encouraging those
who were disappointed by the delay of the parousia. In any case here we have solid evidence for
redaction, but there still remains a subjective element in that interpreters assume the intentions of
the author can be discerned.
Matthews retelling of this story initially appears to have more in common with Mark than does
Luke, but a closer look at the text reveals a significant amount redactional activity. In the words of
Hagner, Matthews artistry is thus again to be seen in its pericope, both by means of certain
alterations of his Markan source and through his presentation of his special material. 61 Rather than
remove material regarding the interaction between Jesus and Peter, Matthew inserts dialogue that is
unique to this gospel (Matt 16:16b-19). By placing the words, God forbid, Lord! This shall never
55

Ibid.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I, I-IX, 770.
57
Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?, 62.
58
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I, I-IX, 771.
59
Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?, 62.
60
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke. (SP; ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1991), 154-55.
61
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (WBC 33B; ed. Bruce M. Metzger. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995),
464.
56

Bradnick: Redaction Criticism

happen to you on the lips of Peter, the evangelist softens the implications of this confrontation. 62
Interpreting this addition Harrington writes, Whereas in Mark Peters confession is rejected or at
least corrected, in Matthew it serves as the basis for Jesus blessing of Peter. 63 As for the source of
this material he writes, We are most likely dealing with a pre-Matthean tradition that Matthew
inserted into the text [Some] argue that the tradition arose in the Church at Antioch where Peter
was looked upon as the founding apostle of the Church there. Thus the story would reflect an
attempt to establish Peters authority by tracing it back to Jesus time. 64 Evans suggests that the
redactional activity of Matthew and Luke displays a discomfort that these later writers had with
Marks version of the story, thus bolstering its authenticity as a tradition reaching back to the
historical Jesus.65 (on the contrary, if they were looking to soften the stupidity of Peter as
represented by the text, or even highlight his worth, why would the redactor include the
events of his stupidity shining through at all?????)
Perrin sees more activity within Matthews version than other scholars, labeling it as a complete
reworking of the Markan narrative, whereas Marks predominant concern is Christological,
Matthews primary concern is ecclesiological. 66 He writes, Matthew is not here interested in a
realistic question which will initiate a Christological discussion, as is Mark; he is interested in the
formal proclamation by Jesus of the existence of the Christian church and Jesus as its authority
along with Peter as its leader.67 Other scholars support this view by appealing to anachronistic
terms such as ekklesia as an indicator of the conceptions and self-consciousness of the later
church,68 but they add that the gospel of Matthew is not void of all Christological concerns. Like
the other synoptic gospels the question regarding the identity of Jesus is a major concern, but
Matthew differs from Mark by presenting Jesus as the Son of Man. While the first question implies
an identification of Jesus with this title, the second inquiry makes an explicit connection of Jesus
with the Son of Man.69 Hagner adds, Matthews interpretive expansion, the Son of Man, defines
the Messiah as more than a human figure, as someone who is uniquely a manifestation of God, the
very agent of God who somehow participates in Gods being. 70 Also Matthews addition of the
name Jeremiah in response to the disciples perhaps has theological implications as well because
Jeremiah was thought by some to be a key figure in the coming of the eschaton. 71 This brief analysis
of this gospel reveals multiple areas of redaction that adds theological emphasis to topics not
addressed within the source gospel of Mark. Similar to Luke it appears to have an eschatological
concern but takes a different approach by incorporating unique dynamics within the text.
As this paper comes to an end it is apparent that redaction criticism adds new dynamics to the
reading and study of the biblical narrative. These unique perspectives have introduced a deeper level
of examination to biblical studies, broadening our understanding of the complexity integrated into
the composition of the bible. This paper has revealed that redaction criticism does not always
provide indisputable insights into the world of the biblical writers, but it is apparent that its benefits
have been invaluable to the advancement of biblical studies. [end]

62

Evans, Mark, 8:27-16:20, 12.

Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. The Gospel of Matthew (SP. ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1991), 249.
64
Ibid. 249.
65
Evans, Mark, 8:27-16:20, 12.
66
Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?, 58.
67
Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?, 60.
68
Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 464.
69
W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Matthew (AB; Garden City: Double Day, 1971), 194.
70
Ibid., 468.
71
Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 467. In addition a number of obvious parallels between Jesus and Jeremiah include the
preaching of judgment against the people and the temple, as well as sermons on suffering and martyrdom
63