Introduction to Redaction Criticism - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Introduction to Redaction Criticism

Description:

It thus presupposes the results of source and form criticism, and builds upon them. ... and its organization but also at the network of relationships that resulted. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:749
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 10
Provided by: hebrewscri
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Introduction to Redaction Criticism


1
Introduction to Redaction Criticism
  • OT-Hermeneutics

2
Introduction
  • "Redaction criticism is the most confusing and
    contradictory of all the methodologies used in
    Old Testament studies today. Yet the studies that
    claim to employ this method are proliferating
    rapidly and their results are being hailed as a
    radical revision of literary criticism in
    biblical studies. . . . " John van Seters

3
Definition
  • "Redaction criticism is a method of biblical
    study which examines the intentions of the
    editors or redactors who compiled the biblical
    texts out of earlier source materials. It thus
    presupposes the results of source and form
    criticism, and builds upon them." John Barton
  • N.B. van Seters argues that OT Redaction
    Criticism does not derive from either source nor
    form criticism. It is instead an inappropriate
    borrowing from New Testament Synoptic studies.

4
What does it do?
  • "Redaction criticism tries to deal with the
    authentic and the inauthentic together, without
    blurring uncritically the difference between
    them."Terence Collins
  • "Redaction criticism seeks to establish the way
    in which a body of literary material has been
    arranged, adapted and shaped into a book. The
    shaping process is often referred to as redaction
    (editing), and the people responsible for it are
    called redactors (editors)." Terence Collins

5
What does it do?
  • "Redaction criticism looks not only at the
    process of selection of the material and its
    organization but also at the network of
    relationships that resulted. It observes the
    relationships that bind together into a new unity
    all the parts of the work. Consequently it
    includes both a historical and a literary aspect
    in its analysis, but it shifts the focus of the
    historical inquiry from the life and times of the
    prophets themselves to the life and time so the
    people who produced the books about the prophets
    . . . ." Terence Collins

6
Elements of Redaction Criticism
  • 1. "Strictly speaking, it makes sense to practice
    redaction criticism only when it is certain that
    a book is composite in character." Barton
  • 2. The Siglum "R" is quite often used to
    designate the Redactors active.
  • 3. Redactional additions can help "avoid an
    awkward breat in the text," or "can have a
    profound effect on the meaning of the passage in
    which they stand." Barton

7
John van Seters's Criticism
  • 1. "The invention of the redactor by 19th
    century biblical scholars as a way of explaining
    the literary form of the Pentateuch, particularly
    in the Documentary Hypothesis, must be viewed as
    an anachronism and a grave mistake. Recognition
    of this fact makes the Documentary Hypothesis of
    independent documents combined by editors quite
    untenable."
  • 2. "This judgment also applies to the rise of
    redaction criticism in New Testament studies,
    which depends directly upon Wellhausens
    introduction of his style of literary criticism
    into his study of the Gospels, with the
    Evangelists viewed as redactors."

8
John van Seters's Criticism
  • 3. "The recent proliferation of redactors in
    literary criticism in which they are combined
    with, or replace, authors simply compounds the
    error of the 19th century to the point of
    absurdity."
  • 4. Likewise, the recent tendency in text-critical
    study to view the process of text transmission as
    merely part of the whole redactional process
    from the creation of the final form of the text,
    the work of R, to the major recensions and then
    to the canonical version of the Masoretic Text
    is a mistake (contra Tov 1992155-197). It merely
    repeats Wolfs error of the text history of
    Homer.

9
John van Seters's Criticism
  • 5. "The method of inner-biblical exegesis
    advocated by Fishbane (1985) is also called into
    question. This is because he erroneously links
    the rabbinic exegetical tradition with the
    Masoretic scribal tradition and then reads both
    anachronistically back into the process of the
    composition of the biblical books in the form of
    learned scribal redactors."
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com