Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!aecom!diaz
From: diaz@aecom.UUCP (Daniel Diaz)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: An Introduction to Redaction Criticism
Message-ID: <2002@aecom.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 22:39:18 EST
Article-I.D.: aecom.2002
Posted: Thu Oct 31 22:39:18 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 10:27:18 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 39

***********
As Christians involved in our own fields of specialty, we are often ignorant
of the battles raging in theological circles. Although some of the ranting
involves matters of doubtful interest to laymen, the debate over Redaction
Criticism is one which theologically serious laymen may want to look into.
The recent 'Christianity Today' (vol 29,no 15, 10.18.85) is a good place to
start with a well-written assessment of this controversial theological tool.

In brief, Redaction Criticism (RC) involves an attempt to reconstruct the
mindset of a Biblical author by observing the manner in which he edited his
source materials. We know, for example, that Luke's Gospel records some of the
words and actions of Jesus in a slightly different way than the other three
Gospel writers. Biblical scholarship also tells us that the Gospel writers
sometimes used the same sources in composing their narratives. RC attempts to
understand WHY an author chose to report what he did in the way he did.

So why the battle? Well, it seems that some scholars are using RC to 'show'
how some Biblical authors used 'theological fiction' in their accounts.
In making a theological point, they invented a non-historical event to
convey their thought. Some say Matthew did this in his account of the
slaughter of the young boys by a terrified Herod the Great. This has made
some Evangelical theologians nervous, causing them to discard RC altogether.
Other conservatives, while rejecting some of the conclusions of more
'liberal' thinkers, have seen value in RC as part of appreciating the
way the Holy Spirit used human creativity in the construction of the
scripture.

I think serious students of the Bible would appreciate the way RC helps
us steer away from homogenizing the Gospels into a single account to
appreciating the fact that they tell the same story in different ways.
Luke had a different theological purpose than John, and their use of their
sources was therefore 'purposeful'. If anything, this increases
rather than lowers my appreciation of the scripture. The article is a useful
introduction to this controversial area of Biblical scholarship.

-- 
          Dan Diaz, Department of Biochemistry
                    Albert Einstein College of Medicine
                    Bronx, New York [..!philabs!aecom!diaz ]