Redaction criticism

Tonyg

Member
The purpose of this threat is to discuss the pros and cons of redactive criticism. Here is one YouTube video which I found to give some beginning insight into the topic. Note that at the YouTube website when this video is at the top the complete text of the video is displayed in the copy below the video. There are at least five and maybe more concerns that are listed at the end of the video.

 

Tonyg

Member
Redactive criticism assumes that Matthew and Luke use Mark's gospel as their foundation and therefore are not unique autonomous generations of the writers.

It's a somewhat self-defeating claim noting that John's gospel is admittedly different and apparently does not use Mark's gospel as its source.

As I understand it, redactive criticism assumes that the differences and additions within the gospels of Matthew and Luke are made to convey the editors theology to the persons to whom he is apparently sending the gospel, rather than simply sometimes a different choice of words or adjectives.

It is a common teaching among fundamentalists even that each of the gospels contains a different theme and purpose. For example Matthew is sometimes referred to as the gospel which emphasizes Christ as king.

And those differences in theme and purpose are well accepted.

And it is well within reason to consider that perhaps Mark was the first gospel upon which the other writers may or may not have read or depended on for their foundation.
 
Top