Redaction criticism and higher criticism are two approaches biblical scholars use to study and analyze the text of the Bible. Redaction criticism focuses on how the biblical texts were edited and compiled, while higher criticism examines the historical origins and development of the biblical texts.
Redaction Criticism
Redaction criticism looks at the Bible as a work of literature that has been intentionally edited and compiled by authors, editors, and redactors. The term “redact” means to edit, revise, or put materials together. Redaction critics study the seams within biblical books where different sources or traditions seem to have been brought together.
Some key aspects of redaction criticism:
– Looks at the editing and compiling process of biblical books. Sees them as literary works.
– Tries to identify earlier source materials that were used and brought together.
– Studies how redactors shaped and arranged sources to communicate their theological ideas.
– Focuses on things like repetitions, doublets, inconsistencies as signs of different sources.
– Examines vocabulary, themes, and theology of proposed sources.
– Looks at how New Testament writers redacted and used Old Testament writings.
For example, redaction critics might examine Genesis and identify the seams between supposed earlier sources like the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomistic materials. They ask questions like: How were these sources edited and brought together? How do the redactors reshape stories or facts to communicate their messages? What inconsistencies point to earlier source materials?
Overall, redaction criticism sees the editing and compiling of texts as a creative process that shapes meaning. It focuses on the contributions of redactors in forming the biblical books.
Higher Criticism
Higher criticism, also known as historical criticism, aims to study and reconstruct the historical origins, authorship, dates, and development of biblical texts. Some key aspects and goals of higher criticism:
– Tries to determine when and where biblical texts were written, by whom, for whom, etc.
– Seeks to reconstruct the social, political, cultural background that influenced the writing.
– Examines texts for clues about origins – language, vocabulary, style, theology.
– Tries to trace how texts grew and developed over time through editing and redaction.
– May speculate on hypothetical earlier sources behind present biblical books.
– Develops theories on origins and compositional history of texts.
For example, higher critics might examine a book like Isaiah and observe how the style and tone seems to shift between the first and second halves. They then develop theories of multiple authorship across two historical periods. Or they might try to date Daniel based on its apparent reactions to Greek dominance.
Overall, higher criticism uses historical analysis and reconstruction to trace out the origins and development of biblical texts over time. It moves behind the final forms to hypothesize earlier stages and influences.
Comparison of the Two Approaches
While redaction and higher criticism overlap in many ways, some key differences emerge:
– Redaction criticism focuses directly on the editing process. Higher criticism infers editorial activity but aims to get behind it.
– Redaction criticism takes interest in the redactors and how they shape texts. Higher criticism looks past redactors to earlier sources.
– Redaction criticism engages the final form of the text. Higher criticism tries to peel back its layers.
– Redaction criticism does literary and theological analysis. Higher criticism uses more historical methods.
In practice, many scholars blend aspects of both approaches to analyze biblical texts. But in broad strokes, redaction criticism asks how redactors shaped the final texts while higher criticism asks how the texts arose in the first place. They form complementary lenses for studying and interpreting the biblical writings.
Examples and Discussion
Here are some examples that illustrate key principles and methods of redaction and higher criticism:
The Flood Narrative (Genesis 6-9)
Readers long noticed duplications in the flood story – two of each animal (6:19-20 and 7:2-3), two sendings of the raven and dove (8:6-12), two divine names (Elohim and Yahweh).
Redaction criticism sees this as evidence of two source traditions, the Priestly (P) and Yahwist (J) materials, woven together by a redactor. The redactor adapted and combined them to communicate themes like judgment, salvation, and God’s faithfulness.
Higher criticism uses these duplications to hypothesize about the component sources and their historical origins. It speculates that J represents early Hebrew traditions while P reflects later priestly traditions and vocabularies.
The Book of Isaiah
Scholars have long noted differences in style and emphases between Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66. The two sections seem to address different historical settings.
Redaction criticism studies how Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66 were brought together into one book. It notes connections like Isa 1 anticipating later themes. The redactor shaped the combined work to speak to Judah’s situation.
Higher criticism uses the evidence to hypothesize that First Isaiah (ch.1-39) arose in the 8th century BCE while Second Isaiah (ch.40-55) emerged from the 6th century context of Babylonian exile. Multiple authors across historical eras contributed to the book of Isaiah.
The Synoptic Gospels
Matthew, Mark, and Luke share much material, often verbatim. But they also have unique content and variations.
Redaction criticism studies how the gospel writers redacted shared traditions as well as special material to craft distinct theological portraits of Jesus for their communities. It notes emphases like Matthew’s kingdom focus.
Higher criticism believes Mark was written first based on its primitive style. It hypothesizes Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke. These later gospels shaped their own accounts and added unique material like birth narratives.
Theological Concerns and Controversies
Redaction and higher criticism have prompted debate within theology and the church. Concerns include:
– Are these methods controlled by naturalistic assumptions? Do they undermine faith in biblical inspiration?
– Do claims of complex composition oversimplify or misconstrue the coherence of biblical books?
– Do speculative reconstructions of sources and origins go beyond the evidence?
– Does the quest to identify human origins diminish divine revelation in Scripture?
Some suggest redaction and higher criticism can aid interpretation when used critically and in balance with other approaches. But others argue they intrinsically compromise important doctrines of revelation and biblical authority. There are disputes over their validity and value.
Conclusion
In summary, redaction criticism analyzes how biblical materials were edited into their final forms while higher criticism tries to reconstruct the origins and development of texts. Redaction focuses on the contributions of compilers while higher criticism looks to sources behind the present books. There are debates about their methods and impact. Yet both approaches offer lenses for studying Scripture as a collection of writings that developed over time. They prompt Christians to reflect on the natures of inspiration, revelation and biblical authority.
