Common Approaches to the Analysis of Biblical Texts

Common Approaches to the Analysis of Biblical Texts Source criticism, redaction criticism and form criticism

Source Criticism • Source criticism tries to identify previous written texts that may have been incorporated into the final form of a book. • These are not the same as ‘background’ texts that have been influential on the writer (e. g. , the various Old Testament texts that are echoed or alluded to in the New Testament). • Rather, they are hypothetical texts that were ‘edited together’ into the final work, possibly in multiple stages.

Source Criticism • For example, many scholars think there was a ‘sayings document’ (often referred to as Q) that was used by the early church, that contained the teachings of Jesus. • Scholars who believe this argue that both Matthew and Luke used this source independently, which is why their gospels agree word for word at certain points. • But there are other ways to explain the agreements, such as Luke using Matthew as one of his sources.

Source Criticism • As another example, some scholars think that John’s Gospel was edited into a final form from several different sources. • The Prologue (John 1: 1– 18) seems to be very poetical in style and is often seen to be adapted from a hymn. • The gospel also seems to have an ending at John 20: 30– 31 … but then tells another story! Was the story of John 21 added to a version of the gospel that finished at John 20? • If so, who added the final chapter? Was there a single author who wrote the whole thing, or various authors and editors?

Redaction Criticism • ‘Redactor’ is a technical word for an ‘editor’ • Redaction criticism tries to identify the way that sources have been edited together into a final form. • It looks for ‘seams’ between sources, where they have been stitched together. • It also looks for ways in which the sources are consistently altered to fit the editor’s agenda. • As an example, compare Mark 10: 52 (‘your faith has made you well’) with Luke 18: 42 (‘your faith has saved you’). This is seen by many as reflecting Luke’s thematic emphasis on the language of salvation.

Form Criticism • Form criticism analyses the hypothetical developments of traditions in their pre-textual (oral) stage, before they were written down. • In other words, it theorises about how stories might have developed when they were passed on by word of mouth, before they were ‘fixed’ in shape by being committed to writing. • Form criticism tends to assume that during this oral stage, stories (or other kinds of tradition, like songs) were elaborated to articulate the beliefs and experiences of the community. • i. e. , beliefs were projected onto the story, often involving mythological or symbolic elements

Form Criticism • Form criticism emerged from the study of folklore, the oral traditions passed down by society. • The Brothers Grimm, for example, were folklorists, and their collections of fairytales were publications based on their work of interviewing peasants and recording the stories they told. • Actually, most of those stories circulated orally in multiple different versions: Red Riding Hood doesn’t always survive … • The publication of Grimms’ Fairy Tales made a particular version the one generally used. It ‘fixed’ the story in a particular shape.

Form Criticism and the Gospels • The study of folklore identifies certain stereotyped ‘forms’, story elements that can be associated with specific beliefs or values. • Elements of the gospel stories were analysed in these terms: miracles of healing, miracles of nature, stories of conflict, stories of interaction with spirits, and so on. These are ‘forms’. • These were considered to reflect the beliefs of the community, articulated in mythological terms. • For example, if they believed God would help them deal with chaotic circumstances, they would elaborate the story of Jesus with a description of a storm being calmed by his commandment.

Form Criticism and the Gospels • This approach meant that the gospels were really considered as collections of stories about Jesus, compiled from the traditions of early Christian communities. • The idea that each gospel had an author was replaced with the idea that they were edited from written sources that had emerged from oral tradition. • This also opens the door for some discussion about other gospel collections that did not find their way into the Bible (the so-called ‘apocryphal gospels’). • Finally, it considers the historical Jesus to be a very different figure, with a very different story, to the ‘Jesus of Faith’ described in the gospels

An Alternative View on the Gospels • Against this view, others argue that the period between the death of Jesus and the composition of the canonical gospels (20– 50 years) was too short to be compared to folklore that developed over centuries. • Also, there may be evidence that eyewitnesses of the events in Jesus’ life contributed to the regulation of the transmission of stories about him within the Christian community, correcting incorrect versions of those stories. • Finally, there is some evidence that the gospels are modeled on the genre of Greek or Roman ‘biographies’ that tell a coherent story about the life and death of a single notable person • If correct, these views challenge the form critical approach.

Points for Discussion • What do you think about the approaches (like form criticism) that assume the stories of Jesus were elaborated during a period of oral transmission? • Does it matter if parts of the gospel stories are ‘fiction’? What is at stake? • What do you think about the possibility that gospel writers/editors might have used earlier written sources? Does that compromise the historical value of the gospels? • How important should any of this be to us when we read the Bible?

Further Reading • For an accessible discussion of the source critical debates around the gospels, see: • Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994; reprinted London: T&T Clark, 2004) • Go to http: //www. markgoodacre. org/maze/ • As a basic challenge to Form Criticism and an assertion of the historical value of the New Testament Gospels as biographies: • Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. 2 nd edition released in 2017 with additional discussion) • A tough but rewarding read!