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 ]