Norman Perrin-What Is Redaction Criticism

Guides to Biblical Scholarship
Dan 0. Via, Jr., Editor, New Testament Series
Volumes Now Available

What Is Form Criticism?
by Edgar V. McKnight
What Is Redaction Criticism?

by Norman Perrin
Volume Forthcoming
Literary Criticism of the New Testament
by WiUiam A. Beardslee
VVhat Is
Redaction
Criticisn 1?
by
Norman Perrin
Fortress Press
Philadelphia
COPYJIICHT @ 1969 BY FORTRESS PREss
Biblical quotations from the Revised Standard Version

of the Bible, copyrighted 1946 and 1952 by the Divi-
sion of Christian Education of the National Council
of Churches, are used by permission.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 72-81529
1096C69 Printed in the U.S.A. 1-181

Editor's Foreword
In New Testament scholarship insights, concerns, and

positions may not change as much or as fast as they do in the
natural sciences. But over the years they do change, and
change a great deal, and they are changing with increasing
rapidity. At an earlier period in the history of New Testament
scholarship the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)
were thought to be relatively uncomplicated documents which
had been put together without careful planning and which
told a rather straightforward story. Today the synoptics
are understood to be enormously intricate products contain-
ing subtle and ingenious literary patterns and highly devel-
oped theological interpretations. The three volumes in this
series deal respectively with literary criticism, form criticism,
and redaction criticism, and their purpose is to disclose some-
thing of the process whereby these disciplines have gained an
enlarged understanding of the complex historical, literary,
and theological factors which lie both behind and within the
synoptic Gospels. The volumes on form and redaction criti-
cism will deal exclusively with the synoptic Gospels, while
the one on literary criticism will deal selectively with all the
areas of the New Testament
Literary criticism has traditionally concerned itseH with
such matters as the authorship of the various New Testament
books, the possible composite nature of a given work, and the
identity and extent of sources which may lie behind a certain
document. More recently, however, biblical scholars have
been paying attention to the criticism of fiction and poetry
and to aesthetics and philosophy of language. Therefore the
WHAT IS REDACTION CRITICISM?
literary criticism of the New Testament has begun to reflect

an interest in questions such as the relationship of content
to form, the significance of structure or form for meaning,
and the capacity of language to direct thought and to mold
existence itself. The volume on literary criticism in this series
will be sensitive to both the older and the newer aspects of
the discipline.
The purpose of form criticism has been to get behind the
sources which literary criticism might identify and to describe
what was happening as the tradition about Jesus was handed
on orally from person to person and from community to com-
munity. Form criticism has been especially concerned with
the modifications which the life and thought of the church-
both Jewish-Christian and gentile-Christian-have introduced
into the tradition, and form critics have worked out criteria for
distinguishing those strata in the Gospels which reHect the
concerns of the church from the stratum that might be thought
to go back to the historical Jesus. It has been shown that the
church's vital life not only exerted a creative inHuence on the
content of the tradition but also contributed formal charac-
teristics, making it possible to classify much of the material
in the synoptics according to literary form. Form criticism
has concerned itself largely with investigating the individual
units-stories and sayings-in the synoptic Gospels.
Redaction criticism is the most recent of the three disciplines
to have become a self-conscious method of inquiry. It grew
out of form criticism, and it presupposes and continues the
procedures of the earlier discipline while extending and in-
tensifying certain of them. The redaction critic investigates
how smaller units-both simple and composite-from the oral
tradition or from written sources were put together to form
larger complexes, and he is especially interested in the forma-
tion of the Gospels as finished products. Redaction criticism
is concerned with the interaction between an inherited tradi-
tion and a later interpretive point of view. Its goals are to
understand why the items from the tradition were modified
and connected as they were, to identify the theological motifs
that were at work in composing a finished Gospel, and to
elucidate the theological point of view which is expressed in
vi
EDITOR'S FOREWORD
and through the composition. Although redaction criticism

has been most closely associated with the Gospels, there is
no reason why it could not be used-and actually it is being
used-to illuminate the relationship between tradition and in-
terpretation in other New Testament books.
While each of the volumes in this series deals separately
and focally with one of the methods of critical inquiry, each
author is also aware of the other two methods. It has seemed
wise to treat each of the three kinds of criticism separately
for the purposes of definition, analysis, and clarification. but
it should be quite clear that in actual practice the three are
normally used together. They are not really separable. A
New Testament scholar, in interpreting any book or shorter
text or motif, would allow all three of the critical disciplines
to contribute to his interpretation. An effort to demonstrate
this inseparability might be made by taking a brief look at
Mark 2:18-20:
18Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and
people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the
disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"
19And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests fast while the
bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom
with them, they cannot fast. 2°The days will come, when the
bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in
that day.
This passage appears not only in Mark but is also a part
of that substantial portion of Mark which serves as a source
for Matthew and Luke ( cf. Matt. 9:14-15; Luke 5:33-35)
(literary criticism). Its outstanding formal features are a
brief narrative ( 18) that provides a setting for a saying of
Jesus (19a) which takes the form of a question and which
is the real interest of the passage (form criticism). The ques-
tion of fasting and the use of wedding imagery suggest a
Jewish point of origin. At the same time we see a break with
fasting and the attribution of joyful significance to the pres-
ent-today is a wedding-rather than waiting for the future.
These features suggest a modification of the Jewish setting.
On the other hand, there is nothing, at least in 18-19a, which
expresses the church's faith in Jesus' resurrection or the theo-
logical interpretation of Jesus' mission which grew out of that
WHAT IS REDACI10N CRITICISM?
faith. This particular relationship to Judaism, on the one

hand, and to distinctly Christian theology, on the other, gives
to 18-19a a good claim to reflect the situation of the historical
Jesus. However, 20 (and perhaps 19b) seems to grow out
of a setting later than Jesus' own. Here we see the church
basing the practice of fasting on Jesus' death (form criticism).
Our text is included in a collection of stories all of which
present Jesus in conflict with the Jewish authorities (2:1-
3:6) and which are concluded by the statement that Jesus'
enemies took counsel how they might destroy him. Mark
may have found the stories already collected, and a predecessor
may also have added the concluding statement. But we do
not know why the predecessor might have added it, while we
can imagine why Mark would have. Jesus' death was very
important for him, and it assumes a prominent place in his
Gospel (redaction criticism).
If we might call the form of the Gospel as a whole a
comedy which overcomes tragedy-the defeat of death by
resurrection-we may then grasp the significance of our brief
passage in that larger pattern. The slight allusion to Jesus'
death anticipates the more direct hint in 3:6, which in tum
prepares for the definite predictions of Jesus' death which
begin at 8:31, predictions which are fulfilled in the final
chapters of the Gospel. At the same time the resurrection is
anticipated by the theme of the joyousness of today, which is
further deepened by the note of irrepressible newness that
appears in 2:21-22 (literary criticism). Our short text con-
tributes to Mark's presentation of the reasons for Jesus' death
-he challenged the established religious order-and Mark's
understanding of the significance of Jesus' death and resur-
rection-a new, festal day has dawned offering to man free-
dom from compulsive ritualism (redaction and literary
criticism).
It is hoped that the three volumes in this series will give to
the interested layman new insight into how biblical criticism
has illuminated the nature and meaning of the New Testament.
DAN 0. VIA, JR••

University of Virginia
viii
Contents
CHAPTEB
I THE ORIGINS OF A DISCIPLINE 1
From Reimarus to Wrede: The Rise and Fall of the
Marean Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Form Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
An Anticipation of Redaction Criticism:
R. H. Lightfoot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
II THE FLOWERING OF THE DisCIPLINE . . • • • • • • • • • • . • • 25
Giinther Bomkamm and the Gospel of Matthew . . . 25
Hans Conzelmann and the Gospel of Luke . . . . . . . . 28
Willi Marxsen and the Gospel of Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
III REDAcnoN Cmn:CISM AT WoRK: A SAMPLE • • • • • • • • 40
The Incident at Caesarea Philippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
The Marean Narrative: Mark 8:27-9:1 . . . . . . . . . . 41
The Prediction of the Passion: Mark 8:31 . . . . . . . . . 43
The Teaching about Discipleship: Mark 8:34-37 . . 44
The Climactic Warning: Mark 8:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Climactic Promise: Mark 9:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
The Narrative as a Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
The Matthean Narrative: Matthew 16:1~28 . . . . . . 57
The Lucan Narrative: Luke 9:18-27 62
IV THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCIP~ ••••..••••••• 64
Redaction and Composition .................... . 65
The Theological History of Earliest Christianity ... . 67
Life of Jesus Research and Life of Jesus Theology .. 68
The Nature of a "Gospel" . . . . . . . . .............. . 74
GLOSSARY ••••• •• •• •• ••••• ••• •• •• ••• •• ••••••• •• . . • • 80
.ANNOTATI:D BIBLIOGRAPHY 82
The Origins of a Discipline
Redaction criticism is an attempt to represent in

English the German word Redaktionsgeschichte, which Willi
Marxsen1 proposed as the designation for a discipline within
the field of New Testament studies, a discipline that has come
very much to the fore within the past two decades. It is
concerned with studying the theological motivation of an
author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangement, edit-
ing, and modification of traditional material, and in the com-
position of new material or the creation of new forms within
the traditions of early Christianity. Although the discipline
is called redaction criticism, it could equally be called "com-
position criticism"2 because it is concerned with the composi-
tion of new material and the arrangements of redacted or
freshly created material into new units and patterns, as well
as with the redaction of existing material. To date redaction
•w. Mansen, Der Eoongelist Markus (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ru_precht, 1 1956, 11959), p. 11 (English translation: Mark the Evan-
gelist [New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969], p. 21 ). The
English translation of Marxsen's book uses "redaction history" for
Redaktionsgeschichte and "form history" for Formgeschichte. These
literal translations ignore the convention of building on the model pro-
vided by the English term "literary criticism," a procedure that has
resulted in the term "form criticism" gaining widespread acceptance and
that would seem to recommend the term "redaction criticism" for the
newer discipline. Marxsen's translators testify to the force of this con-
vention when they call the practitioners of Formgeschichte "form
critics" ( p. 16 )I
"In fact the term Komposltionsgeschicht6 (composition criticism) has
~?een P!'Opose~ for the discipline by E. Haenchen. Der Weg ]esu (Ber-
lin: AHrid TOpelmann, 1966), p. 24.
l
WHAT IS REDACI'ION CRITICISM?
criticism has been restricted to the synoptic evangelists, the

authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, although
there is no theoretical reason for this limitation. To the
extent that we can determine the traditional material that
he has used, we could do a redaction-critical study of Paul
or of John, the fourth evangelist. (The £rst instance of a
successful redaction-critical study of John is noted below on
P· 85.)
The prime requisite for redaction criticism is the ability
to trace the form and content of material used by the author
concerned or in some way to determine the nature and extent
of his activity in collecting and creating, as well as in arrang-
ing, editing, and composing. The most successful redaction-
critical work has been done on the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke, since in these we have one major source which each
evangelist used, the Gospel of Mark, and can reconstruct a
good deal of another, the sayings source "Q." But similar
work can be done wherever the use of traditional material
can be determined or the particular activity of the author
detected, and it is interesting to note that redaction criticism
really began with work on the Gospel of Mark for reasons
that are noted below (see pp. 7 ff.).
In the field of New Testament criticism, the discipline of
redaction criticism is the latest of the three major develop-
ments which are the subjects of the volumes in this series:
literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism.
Though the distinctions between the three disciplines are
somewhat arti£cial, they do call attention to the fact that the
critical work has proceeded by stages and that one type of
work builds upon the results of another. Form criticism and
redaction criticism in particular are very closely related to one
another. They are in fact the first and second stages of a
unified discipline, but their divergence in emphasis is suffi-
cient to justify their being treated separately. The present
writer, however, would be the first to admit the artificiality
of this procedure, especially since in a previous work he in-
cluded in what he called "the form-critical approach" to the
Gospels elements from both form and redaction criticism,
2
TilE ORIGINS OF A DISCIPLINE
with no attempt to distinguish them from one another u

they are here being distinguished.a
We noted earlier that the most successful redaction-critical
work had been done on Matthew and Luke, but that the ear-
liest work was done on Mark. The reason for the latter is
that redaction criticism had its roots in the rejection of the
so-called Marean hypothesis. We shall now attempt to trace
the background and development of this "Marean hypothesis"
at the very considerable risk of oversimplifying the issues
involved.
FROM REIMARUS TO WREDE:
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE MARCAN HYPOTHESIS•
The story really begins with Hermann Samuel Reimarus, a
professor of oriental languages in a Gymnasium in Hamburg,
who lived from 1694 to 1768 and was very much a man of
the Enlightenment. Living in a seaport which had close com-
mercial contacts with English ports, he became aware of the
work of the English Deists and was much influenced by them.
Thus he came to accept a rationalistic view of religion, in
which the essential truths were those of the existence of a
wise and good Creator and of the immortality of the soul.
These truths he held to be discernible by reason and to
constitute the basis of a universal religion which could lead
to happiness. Reimarus's natural, rational religion was irrec-
oncilable with a revealed religion such as orthodox Christian-
ity, which, because it could never be intelligible and credible
to all men, could never become a universal religion. During
his lifetime he wrote and published a number of works advo-
cating his naturalistic Deism, but his major work was a de-
fense of it against its immediate rival, orthodox Christianity:
a four-thousand-page manuscript entitled Apologie oder
Schutzschrift fur die vemiinftigen Verehrer Gottes (An Apol-
-N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: .IWper
& Row, 1967), pQ. 15-32; hereafter cited as Rediscovering.
•For more detail on what is to follow, see A. Schweitzer's famous and
brilliant The Quest of the Historical]esw (New York: MaCI¢1!an, 1961
[=1910]); hereafter cited as Quest. A briefer suzvey and discussion
of the issues down to the presentJillc is given in Perrin, Redl&cooerlng.
pp. 207-48, 262-66 (annotated ograPby).
8
ogetic for the Rational Worshipers of God) which he refr~ed

from publishing. After his death, however, G. E. Lessmg
( 1729-81), a German Enlightenment man of letters, came
across the manuscript and from the town of Wolfenbi.ittel
published parts of it as "Wolfenbi.ittel Fragments by an Un-
named Author." There were seven of these fragments, and
their purpose, especially that of the sixth and seventh ("Con-
cerning the Resurrection Story" and "On the Purpose of Jesus
and that of his Disciples"), was to discredit the origins of
Christianity. Reimarus attempts to show that Jesus was an
unsuccessful political messianic pretender, that the disciples
were disappointed charlatans who invented the early Chris-
tian faith rather than go back to working for a living after
the debacle of the crucifixion, and that they stole the body of
Jesus in order to have an empty tomb to support their story
of a resurrection! But Reimarus's work is more important than
his. own conscious purpose, or even than his own conclusions.
Reimarus was in fact the first great Enlightenment historian
to work on the Gospel narratives, and his importance lies in
the effect that his work has had on our understanding of the
nature of those narratives. Reimarus has shown that, if we
accept the Enlightenment view that history is ..what actually
happened," then the Gospels are not historical, since many of
their narratives reflect concepts that were developed long
after the events they purport to narrate took place. Reimarus
shows the necessity of assuming a "creative element in the
tradition" to which are to be ascribed "the miracles, the stories
which turn on the fulfilment of messianic prophecy, the uni-
versalistic traits and the predictions of the passion and the
resurrection."~~ So far as redaction criticism is concerned, it
is this "creative element in the tradition," as Albert Schweit-
zer calls it, which concerns us, and in calling attention to it
Reimarus is the father of our discipline, as he is of Life of
Jesus research altogether.
The mantle of Reimarus descended upon David Friedrich
Strauss (1808-74) whose Dll$ Leben ]esu, kritisch bearbeitet
(English translation: The Life of Jesus, CriticaUy Examined
'Schweitzer, QueBt. p. 24.
4
THE ORIGINS OF A DISCIPLINE
[1846]) published in two volumes in 1835 and 1836 really

sets the stage for "the Marean hypothesis." The effect of
Strauss's work-as of Reimarus's-is to call attention to "a
creative element'' in the Gospel narratives. For him, these
narratives are to a large extent expressions of "myth," i.e.,
they express religious concepts derived from Judaism or
Hellenism, from the Old Testament or Christian experience.
In their present form they cannot be understood as historical,
nor can a residue from them be rescued as historical by ex-
plaining away the element of the miraculous in them. The
Gospel narratives are essentially concerned with purveying a
Christ myth and this fact has to be recognized about them.
Reimarus had refrained from publishing his work, but not
so Strauss! He wrote for immediate publication and upon
publication he became the center of a storm of controversy,
remarkable both for its bitterness and its barrenness. "Scarcely
ever has a book let loose such a storm of controversy; and
scarcely ever has a controversy been so barren of immediate
result.''6 So far as the rise of redaction criticism is concerned,
however, the impact of Strauss's work was far from barren-
even though the results were not immediate. The long-term
effect of his work was to call attention to the role of religious
conceptions or "myth," in the formation of Gospel materials.
In the twentieth century Rudolf Bultmann, who was con-
sciously indebted to Strauss, would utilize Strauss's insights
to make his own contribution to the development of redaction
criticism.
A more immediate result of Strauss's work was the promul-
gation of the "Marean hypothesis.'' In effect what happened
was that Strauss's efforts made an impact on New Testament
scholars of a liberal theological persuasion-an impact which
was very strong but which left them feeling pulled in two
different ways at the same time. On the one hand, they had
to accept the force of a good deal of his argumentation: The
Gospel narratives were to a large extent the products of myth.
On the other hand, however, they were unprepared to aban-
don the idea of knowing Jesus "as he actually was.. and settle
•Ibid., p. 96.
5
WHAT IS BEDAC'l'ION CRITICISM?
for a Christ myth. In their dilemma they seized upon a newly

developed literary-critical insight, namely, the view that
Mark was the earliest Gospel and a source used by Matthew
and Luke. This idea, developed through successive works
by C. Lachrnann (1835), C. G. Wilke, and H. Weisse (both
1838), reached its climax in 1863 with H. J. Holtzmann's
epoch-making Die Synoptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursprung
und geschichtlicher Charakter (The Synoptic Gospels. Their
Origin and Historical Character) :r From this point on it came
to be an accepted canon of Life of Jesus research that Mark
was the earliest of the Gospels, that it was the closest in
point of time to the original eyewitnesses, and that it could
be used with confidence as a historical source for knowledge
of the ministry of Jesus. However much we may have to
recognize that Matthew and Luke, as later productions of the
church, have been influenced by theological conceptions, etc.,
Mark, the earliest and nearest to the events themselves, re-
mains comparatively free from such theological conceptions
and is a reliable source for historical knowledge of Jesus. Al-
though not himself a direct representative of the German
tradition, B. F. Westcott penned words in 1851 which char-
acterize the spirit of that age of scholarship: 'lhe Gospel of
St. Mark, conspicuous for its vivid simplicity, seems to be
the most direct representative of the first evangelic tradition,
the common foundation on which the others were reared."
Further:
In substance and style and treatment the Gospel of St. Mark

is essentially a transcript from life. The course and the issue of
facts are imaged in it in the clearest outline. If all other arguments
against the mythic origin of the Evangelic narratives were want-
ing. this vivid and simple record, stamped with the most distinct
impress of independence and originality • . • would be sufficient
to refute a theory subversive of all faith in history.s
'On these works see Schweitzer, Quest, pp. 121--36 203-5 and any
~history of the synoptic problem, e.g., P. Fenu:, J. Behm, W. G.
Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. A. J. Mattil, Jr.
(New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), RP· 37-42.
~.F. Westcott, Introduction to the SfUdu of the ~els (New York:
Macmillan, 1882 [= 1851] ), pp. 213, 369.
6
In this reaction to Strauss we find, first, that Mark is being
accepted as the earliest Gospel on sound literary-critical
grounds, and, secondly, that, as the earliest Gospel, it is
accepted as a reliable historical source. This second point,
however, is not based upon any argument from recognizable
academic criteria but upon the simple assumption that, as the
earliest and nearest to the events, it must be historical, an
assumption supported by references to the realistic character
of the narratives or the like. This is the Marean hypothesis:
that Mark is both the earliest Gospel, a source used by Mat-
thew and Luke, and a reliable historical source; as. such it
provides the basis for a Life of Jesus. The earlier reliance
upon Matthew and John as the work of the apostles whose
names they bear was replaced, under the impact of the work
of Strauss, with a reliance upon Mark, the earliest of the Gos-
pels and the one with the historical order and the realistic
narratives.
The first stirrings of what came to be redaction criticism
are to be observed in the context of a discussion of precisely
this understanding of Mark. The starting point for redaction
criticism is a debate about the Marean hypothesis. It is not
about the fact that it is the earliest of the Gospels-that has
remained the opinion of mainstream critical scholarship from
Holtzroann to the present-but about the assumption that, as
the earliest, it is a reliable historical source. In particular
it is a debate about the contention that this ..vivid and simple
record.. is the major argument against "the mythic view of
the Evangelic narratives." This brings us to Wilhelm Wrede
( 1859-1906), who sounded the death knell for this kind of
view by demonstrating that a major aspect of the Marean
narratives was precisely the "mythic" and, in so doing, opened
the door for the entry of redaction criticism upon the scene.
Wrede's contribution to our discussion is his book Daa Mes-
siasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (The Messianic Secret in the
Gospels), which was published in 19<>19 and is not so much
1G0ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Unchanged second and third
editions were published in 1913 and 1963. An ED.glish translation has
recently been BllDOunoed but not yet published.
7
WHAT JS REDACTION CRITICISM?
a contribution to a discussion as a bombshell! Few books

have bad such a drastic and far-reaching consequence in a
given field of study as this one; so far as Gospel studies and
Life of Jesus research were concerned, nothing would ever
be the same again. Wrede showed once and for all that it
was impossible to read Mark as a vivid, simple record unless
one read as much into Mark as be read from it, and be showed
that the narratives in Mark are permeated through and
through with a theological conception-that of the Messianic
Secret-which necessarily was of post-Easter origin. In other
words, those whom we shall call the "historicizers," those who
read Mark as fundamentally a historical record, were bringing
their history to Mark rather than taking it from him, and they
were also closing their eyes to a major feature of the actual
Marean narratives.
The arguments of Wrede's book are necessarily detailed,
involving as they do careful observation and exegesis of the
whole Gospel of Mark and comparison of text with text
throughout the Gospel. For this reason it is impossible to
summarize his arguments; their true force is cumulative and
can only be grasped by reading them in their entirety. But a
sample of the way he argues must be given in order to illus-
trate the newness and force of what he was doing. We shall
take as our example his discussion of the way in which
throughout the Gospel the disciples are portrayed as misun-
derstanding aspects of Jesus and his ministry. This is a theme
which runs throughout Mark's Gospel; for example: in verse
4:13 the disciples do not understand the parable of the sower;
in verses 4:30 f. they do not understand Jesus' power over the
elements; in 6:50-52 they understand neither the first feeding
of the multitude nor the walking on the water; in 7:18 they
do not understand the distinction between clean and unclean;
in 8:16-21 they understand neither the "leaven of the Phari-
sees" nor either of the feedings; in 9:5 f. they understand
neither the nature nor the meaning of the transfiguration; in
10:24-26 they do not understand the difficulty riches create
for entering the kingdom; in 14:37-41 they are completely
confused at Gethsemane. Thus, the disciples' misunderstand-
8
ing is a consistent theme running through the story, from

Galilee to Gethsemane, and is related to the words and deeds
of Jesus as well as to the events which the disciples are
privileged to witness. Moreover, the same misunderstanding
is to be found in connection with the predictions of the pas-
sion; each of these is met by this inability to understand: in
verse 8:31 f. it is Peter who misunderstands; in 9:30-32 it is
all disciples; in 10:32--34 the disciples' misunderstanding is
described in terms of their being "amazed"; and in 10:35-40
James and John display their misunderstanding by the request
they make. Nor is it simply the prospect of the humiliation
of the passion which the disciples cannot grasp, for neither
can they grasp the prospective glory of the resurrection
(9:10).
The fact that these references are to be found throughout
the Gospel and in connection with so many different aspects
of Jesus and his ministry gives rise to the supposition that
they represent the evangelist's conception rather than histori-
cal actuality. This supposition can be supported by observing
that they often occur in contexts which clearly reflect the
actual literary details of preceding narratives and which are
therefore probably additions, e.g., 6:50-52 and 8:1~21. Fur-
ther, a historicizing approach to the narratives, which attempts
to explain them as representing historical actuality, has to
read into the texts things that are not there. For example, it
could be argued that the disciples only gradually came to
understand Jesus as the Messiah, and that when they did
they had a false understanding of messiahship. But where is
there any support for this in the texts themselves? There is
no progression of understanding here; the disciples are as
imperceptive about Jesus at the end as they were at the begin-
ning; in this regard they neither change, develop, nor pro-
gress. Nor is there any evidence that their failure to under-
stand is limited to, or even especially linked with, the idea
of humiliation and suffering in connection with the Messiah;
they understand neither suffering nor glory. Finally, that they
were influenced by a false idea of messiahship is a hypothesis
9
WHAT IS BEDACDON CRITICISM?
for which there is not one word of evidence in the text of

Mark.lo
Using such arguments Wrede deals with varied aspects of
the Marean narratives. He shows that only by ignoring what
the narratives actually say and by reading into them one's
own ideas is it possible to regard these narratives as historical.
This is the first aspect of Wrede's work; he cuts the ground
from under the feet of the Marean hypothesis by demonstrat-
ing that major aspects of the Marean narratives are not in
fact historical. But if they are not historical, they must repre-
sent a dogmatic idea held by the author or an idea which is
at work in the tradition. This brings us to the second aspect
of Wrede's work, i.e., his claim that a major theme in the
narratives of Mark, that of the Messianic Secret, represents
in fact a dogmatic idea at work in the tradition.
Throughout the Marean narratives there is an emphasis
upon the necessity to keep secret Jesus' messiahship. Jesus
commands the demons not to make him known (1:25; 1:34;
3:12); he demands the same silence regarding his other
miracles (1:43-45; 5:35-43, esp. vss. 37, 40, and 43; 7:31-37,
esp. vss. 33 and 36; 8:22-26, esp. vss. 23 and 26); he com-
mands silence after Peter's confession ( 8:30) and after the
transfiguration (9:9). Nor is this theme limited to specific
commands of Jesus. He is represented as attempting in gen-
eral to remain incognito (7:24; 9:30f.); and in the account
of the blind man at Jericho even the bystanders (or disciples)
issue a command to be silent (10:48). In all of these in-
stances the commands are presented in an abrupt and stereo-
typed manner, and no motive for them is ever given. All
attempts to explain this demand for silence as a historical
aspect of the ministry of Jesus break down, as Wrede shows
convincingly, and therefore we must recognize that this Mes-
sianic Secret has no historical basis in the life of Jesus; it is
a theological conception at work in the tradition.u The clue
to understanding this conception is to be found in 9:9: "And
as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them
vrwe have reproduced in our own words the main threads of the arau-
ment in Wrede, M688ia8geheimnll, pp. 82-110.
nwrede, Meuiolg~. p. 66.
10
THE OBIGINS OF A DISCIPLINJ!:
to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of man should
have risen from the dead." The messiahship of Jesus is and
must be a secret during his lifetime on earth, but with the
resurrection the secret is revealed. The theological conception
of the Messianic Secret is rooted in the fact that Jesus was not
recognized as Messiah by the disciples, nor by anyone, before
the resurrection. After the resurrection he is so recognized.
However, the messiahship ascribed to him reflects the con-
cept as it was understood in early Christianity, a concept
which combines elements from a Jewish conception of "mes-
siah.. (such as would fit a man like Simon bar Cochba, the
messianic pretender who led a revolt against Rome in 133
A.D.) and elements from the idea-quite foreign to Judaism-
of a supernatural Son of God. In this combination the
supernatural Son of God elements are dominant, and, in Mark,
Jesus is always presented in this manner. In word and in
deed he always acts with supernatural authority, and he is
always seen as having this authority whatever title is ascribed
to him. Even in the sayings where he is presented as the
Son of man who must suffer, he is still thought of as super-
natural Son of God, which is why later generations found the
sayings hard to understand: "The predictions of the passion
appear mysterious and incomprehensible not from the stand-
point of the actual circumstances of the life of Jesus, but
from the dramatic perspective of a later time which found the
paradox of the divine counsel in the suffering and death of
Jesus."12 But a presentation of Jesus as the Messiah-Son of
God of early Christianity must stand in tension with actual
traditions about his life and death. These actual traditions
cannot contain anything of the Christian messianic idea-an
idea which was developed later in a situation that the earlier
traditions did not envisage. It is this tension that the literary
device of the Messianic Secret is designed to overcome. The
narratives present Jesus as keeping his messiahship secret
during his earthly life and claim that it was to be revealed
only after the resurrection. The latter aspect reflects the
historical actuality; the former is the device by means of
which it is shown to have been possible for Jesus to have
ulbld., p. 110.
11
WHAT IS REDACTION CBITICISM?
acted as (Christian) Messiah-Son of Cod during his lif~

time and yet to have been acknowledged as such, even by
his disciples, only after his death and resurrection. Moreover,
the fact that this Messianic Secret is a literary device read
into the narratives as they were developing in the tradition
is evidenced by their inconsistency regarding the secret. In
the narratives themselves Jesus commands secrecy yet often
publicly acts as Messiah-Son of Cod; he enjoins silence in
some instances but not in others, and so on.
This then is Wrede's presentation of the Messianic Secret
in Mark, a truly epoch-making event in the history of the
study of the Gospels. Today we recognize that there are
many things about his thesis that we would want to modify-
after all, more than sixty years of work on these texts is bound
to have made many changes necessary in any thesis-but still
we recognize as justifiable the two fundamental claims Wrede
made. These claims have been fully confirmed by subsequent
research: Mark may be read in a historicizing manner only
by reading all kinds of things into the text, and that text
itself is what it is largely because of dogmatic ideas that were
at work in the tradition. "'n this sense," says Wrede himself
with complete justification, ..the gospel of Mark belongs to
the history of Christian dogma."ls
So far as the development of redaction criticism is con-
cerned, Wrede's thesis opened the way for the study of the
dogmatic ideas and theological conceptions that were at
work in the tradition. The study of these ideas and concep-
tions is the task of redaction criticism, and Wrede's work on
the Messianic Secret is in many ways the first product of this
discipline. But here we would have to admit the importance
of those sixty years which separate his work from ours, for
there are two things that had to happen before redaction
criticism could really flower. First, we had to learn to think
of the evangelists and their predecessors who were at work
in the tradition in a more positive manner than Wrede was
prepared to do. Having a comparatively low opinion of the
abilities of the evangelist Mark and being inclined to mini-
mize Mark's impact upon the tradition, Wrede emphasized
ulbld•• p. 131.
12
that the dogmatic ideas were developed through a rather

impersonal historical process. Redaction criticism, on the
other hand, tends to think of the evangelist as having a much
more positive and creative role than this. Secondly, in order
for redaction criticism proper to develop we had to learn to
trace the various stages through which tradition has passed.
Only then was it possible to recognize the nature and extent
of the redaction. In other words redaction criticism proper
is dependent upon the ability to write a history of the tradi-
tion. This Wrede did not have the tools to do, since these
tools were developed through the later discipline known as
form criticism.
FORM CRITICISM
As we stated earlier in this chapter, form and redaction
criticism belong together and may indeed be regarded as the
first and second stages of one common enterprise. Nonethe-
less, their emphases are distinct from one another and to
view form criticism simply as the preparation for redaction
criticism is wholly unjust and unjustifiable. But that is what
we must do here, and we plead as an excuse-not as a justi-
fication-the necessary limits to this present volume and the
fact that another volume in this series is devoted to form
criticism itself. This is also our excuse for ignoring, in what
follows, the fact that form criticism of the New Testament
texts was developed only after form criticism had already
been applied to secular literature and to the Old Testament.
Just as redaction criticism first appears in the work of
Wilhelm Wrede, so much of what later came to be known
as form criticism-is intimated in the work of Julius Wellhausen
( 1844-1918). After almost a lifetime of work in the fields of
Old Testament and Semitic languages, in which fields he was
a tremendously important pioneer, Wellhausen turned to New
Testament studies and published commentaries on Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, and an "Introduction to the First Three
Gospels."14 In these works many of what came to be the
"'J. WeDhausen. Dar EvangeUum Matthael (Berlin: Georg Reimer,
1904); Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1903); Da8
Evangelium LUCIUI (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904); Elnleitung in dle drm
errten Eoangellen (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1905).
18
WHAT IS REDAcriON CRITICISM?
characteristic emphases of twentieth century synoptic schol-

arship first found expression. The books are amazingly pro-
phetic of what was to come, although only a careful reading
of them will disclose this. Wellhausen is "inclined to throw
out far-reaching hints rather than to establish definite conclu-
sions";111 he presents his material discursively rather than sys-
tematically. But in his discussion of Mark he makes three
points that were to be developed into major axioms by the
form critics. These are: ( 1) the original source for the
material in the Gospel is oral tradition in which that material
circulated in small units; ( 2) this material has been brought
together and redacted in various ways and at various stages,
only one of which is that of the evangelist; and ( 3) such
material gives us information about the beliefs and circum-
stances of the early church as well as about the ministry of
Jesus. 16 These themes, stated by Wellhausen in the period
immediately before the First World War, were seeds which
came to full fruition in the work of the form critics immedi-
ately after that war. The war itself necessarily called a halt
to academic biblical study in Germany. When it was resumed
there was a "new look'' to that study. Independently of one
another, three scholars produced works which shared the
common emphases and concerns of form criticism. These
scholars were Karl Ludwig Schmidt (1891-1956), Martin
Dibelius ( 1883-1947), and Rudolf Bultmann ( 1884-) .17
l&J\. H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation ln the Gospels (New
York: Harper and Bros., no date), p. 22; hereafter cited as History ond
Interpretotlon.
"Wellhausen, Elnleitung, pp. 43-57; Marcl, passim. See also the
statement by Lightfoot, History and lnterpretotion, p. 23.
"K. L. Schmidt. Der Rahmen der Guchichte ]681J (Berlin: Trowitzsch
& Sohn, 1919), hereafter cited as Rahmen; M. Dibelius, Die Form-
geachichte des Eoongeliums (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1919); R. Bulbnann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen TraditWn (GOt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921). Schmidt's book was not sub-
sequently revised, nor has it been translated into English. Dibelius's
book went through several revised editions of which the most recent
is '1961, and it was translated into English by B. L. Woolf as From
Tr~ to Gospel (New York: C~les Scribner's Sons, 1935); here-
after c1ted as Tradition. Bultmann s book was also revised several
times, the most recent edition being "19611 and it was translated (very
badly) by J. Marsh as The History of tne Synoptic Tradition (New
York: Harper & Row, 1963); hereafter cited as Historfl.
14
THE ORIGINS OF A DISCIPLINB
Schmidt concerned himself with the framework of the Gospel

narratives, showing that this framework was normally sup-
plied by the evangelist himself, who had taken small units
of tradition and fitted them loosely together in accordance
with his own interests and concerns. He reached the conclu-
sion: "On the whole there is [in the Gospels] no life of Jesus
in the sense of a developing story, as a chronological outline
of the history of Jesus, but only isolated stories, pericop~.
which have been provided with a framework. '"18 Dibelius
started with that activity in the early church in which the
tradition now found in the Gospels was first used ("In the
beginning was the sermon" )19 and studied the forms the tra-
dition would have had in that setting, analyzing them and
tracing their history down to that of the Gospel form itself.
Bultmann took as his point of departure the Gospels them-
selves and worked back from the material as it is found there
to the earlier forms of it that can be traced in the prior tradi-
tion. So Dibelius and Bultmann have essentially the same con-
cern and cover essentially the same ground, but they start at
opposite ends and move, therefore, in opposite directions,
Dibelius forward to the Gospels and Bultmann backward from
them.
Rather than give more details of the work of the individual
form critics, we shall summarize their common ideas and em-
phases:
( 1) The Gospels as we now have them are not single crea-
tions out of a whole cloth but consist of collections of material,
the final selection and arrangement of which we owe to the
evangelists themselves. Mark is here the primary influence;
he created the literary form "Gospel" and Matthew and Luke
both follow him and use his material
,.Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 317. This is the closing sentence of the book.
ll'fhis famous and oft quoted dictum of Dibelius is not actually in
From Tradiflon to Gospel where we find only: "In the sermon the
elements of the future Christian literature lay side by side as in a
mother cell" ( p. 70). It is from "Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der-
Leidens~~schichte des Petrus-und des Johannes-Evangeliums," Zeit-
schrift fUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Bei~, 33 ( Giessen:
AHred TopeJmann. 1918), 125, and it actually reads: 'At the beginning
of all early Christian creativity there stands the sermon: missio~ and
hortatory preaching, narrative and pazenesis, prophecy and the inter-
pretation Of scripture...
15
( 2) The material now presented in the Gospels has a previ-

ous history of use in the church, largely a history of oral trans-
mission. It circulated in the church in the form of individual
units or small collections of related material and in this form
it served definite functions in the life and worship of the
church, in preaching and apologetic, in exhortation and in-
struction.
( 3 ) The smallest units of tradition, the individual story, say-
ing, dialogue, etc., have definite forms which can be defined
and studied. Each of these forms served a definite function
in a concrete situation in the life of the early church. This
situation is what is referred to as the Sitz im Leben of the
material.
The main purpose for the creation, the circulation, and the
use of these forms was not to preserve the history of Jesus, but
to strengthen the life of the church. Thus these forms reflect
the concern of the church, and both the form and content have
been influenced by the faith and theology of the church, as
well as by her situation and practice.
The form critics who concern us most are Dibelius and Bult-
mann, and despite their broad measure of agreement, there
are differences of emphasis between them that are significant
for the development of redaction criticism. The difference of
emphasis which concerns us is the different understanding each
has of what is historical (i.e., relating to the historical Jesus)
in the tradition and, parallel to this, the different estimate of
the extent to which the faith and theology of the early church
affected the formation and modification of that tradition.
Let us begin with Dibelius. He can say roundly:
The first understanding afforded by the standpoint of Fonn-
geschichte is that there never was a "purely historical witness
to Jesus. Whatever was told of Jesus' words and deeds was always
a testimony of faith as formulated for preaching and exhortation
in order to convert unbelievers and confirm the faithful. What
founded Christianity was not knowledge about a historical process,
but the confidence that the content of the story was salvation:
the decisive beginning of the End. [Further, form criticism] . . .
undertakes to portray that understanding of the story of Jesus, by
which the various formulations of the material are dominated.20
IIIIJ3oth quotes from Dibelius, TrtJtliHon. p. 295.
16
At the same time Dibelius undoubtedly believes that the tra-
ditional material itseH contained a solid core of historical in-
formation about Jesus, and that form criticism is an invaluable
tool for the work of recovering this core. This is particularly
the case with sayings and teaching material. 'That the words
of Jesus were preserved, that they were put together to form
'speeches' with a single theme, and . . . edited in the interest
of exhortation, shows the church's concern for shaping life
according to the commands of the Master.''21 In this typical
Dibelius statement we can see not only the acknowledgment
of the church's role in shaping the tradition ("... put together
... edited"), but also his conviction that "words of Jesus were
preserved," that it really was "the commands of the Master'"
which lay at the heart of the church's endeavor. In reading
Dibelius one gets the impression that he thought essentially,
even if unconsciously, in terms of two major categories: the
category of legendary material of various kinds created in the
tradition about Jesus, as it was in the traditions about other
major figures of the ancient world; and the category of ma-
terial having an essentially historical basis, which was modified
as it was transmitted in the tradition. With this kind of em-
phasis, form criticism becomes an invaluable tool for Life of
Jesus research, and it was acknowledged as such by many
scholars. "Thus, form criticism may be looked upon as a neces-
sary step in research; if successful, it may lead us back to the
fountain-head of Christian origins."22 So wrote F. C. Grant
in an introduction to a book whose major content is an essay
by Bultmann. This statement, however, represents a decidedly
Anglo-Saxon interpretation of the emphasis of Dibelius.
While it is true that Bultmann's work can also be used as a
tool in Life of Jesus research-the present writer's Rediscover-
ing the Teaching of ]eS'US uses it in this way and, in fact, owes
much more to Bultmann than to Dibelius-nevertheless, Bult-
mann's emphasis is in some respects very diHerent from that
of Dibelius. In general Bultmann ascribes a greater element of
aDibeJius, Tradition, p. 289.
""F. C. Grant, Preface to R. Bultmann and K. Kundsin, Form CrlU-
ci.sm. Two Essays on New Testament Research, trans. F. C. Grant
(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962 [= 1934]), pp. vii.
17
WHAT IS REDACI'ION CBITICISM?
free creativity to the early church in her work on the tradition

than does Dibelius. Bultmann is neither as interested in, nor
as confident of, the existence of the historical core in the teach-
ing material as Dibelius is, and his History of the Synoptic
Tradition gives a more negative impression of the historical
element in the tradition of the teaching of Jesus than does
Dibelius's From Tradition to Gospel. But it should be pointed
out that this difference is one of emphasis rather than of es-
sence; and it must certainly be stressed that it is Bultroann
who actually analyzes the synoptic texts in great detail and
Dibelius who tends to talk in more general terms! With re-
gard to their impact upon the English-speaking world of bibli-
cal scholarship, it should also be noted that it was Dibelius
who made the major impact in the nineteen thirties and forties,
but that Bultmann is the more important figure today. This is
because the more "positive.. emphasis of Dibelius was more
congenial to the Anglo-Saxon scholarship of the earlier period;
however, it is Bultmann's meticulous analysis of the tradition
text by text that has better stood the test of time. (Incidentally,
the reader should be warned that Bultroann's book has been
so badly translated that the English version gives no true im-
pression of the force and care of the argumentation of the
German original.)
The difference in emphasis between Bultroann and Dibelius,
however, is not only that the former ascribes a greater ele-
ment of free creativity to the early church in her work on the
tradition, but also that he is much more interested than is
Dibelius in the actual details of that work. He is concerned
with writing a history of the synoptic tradition and, in the
course of doing this, he is forced to attempt to describe and
to understand the details of the processes at work in the crea-
tion and transmission of that tradition in a way that Dibelius,
who is more concerned with a description of the original
forms and their functions in the community's life, is not Again
the difference is one of emphasis rather than essence and it
should certainly not be overstressed; but it is nonetheless there
and it is the reason why redaction criticism has developed
18
more directly from the work of Bultmann than from that of

Dibelius.
In this last connection we must consider briefly the views
of Dibelius and Bultmann regarding the theological motiva-
tion to be discerned in the work of the synoptic evangelists
themselves. This has been the point of departure for redaction
criticism as a separable aspect of the general discipline of
form criticism, and we have already noted the interest of
Wrede in Mark from this perspective. The views of Dibelius
and Bultmann are interesting and even a brief consideration
of them should correct any false impression of the extent of
the differences between them, which our remarks may have
created.
A differen~ in emphasis is here again apparent. Dibelius
says that the synoptic evangelists ..are not •authors' in the
literary sense, but collectors"28 and the chapter of his book
dealing with the composition of the Gospel of Mark is simply
headed "Collection" [Sammlung]. Although he can speak of
"the composer [der Verfasser] of the Gospel of St. Mark," his
emphasis is upon "this collection of tradition.~ Bultmann, on
the other hand, has as his heading, corhe Editing [Redaktion]
of the Narrative Material and the Composition [Komposition]
of the Gospels"211 and speaks of "the theological character of
the Gospels."26 But the difference is more apparent than real
because we also read that "'Mark is not sufficiently master of
his material to venture on a systematic construction him-
sel£,"27 and, when it comes to a discussion of the "dogmatic
motives" which have influenced Mark in his work of composi-
tion,28 Bultmann is for the most part content to echo Dibelius's
characterization of Mark as "the book of secret epiphanies."
What is new in Bultmann is his emphasis that the purpose of
-rlibelius, Tradition, p. 59.
•Ibid., pp. 218, 219. The translation uses "synthesis.. to translate
Sammlung, but ..collection" is better.
-Bultmann, History, p. 337. One grows w~ of noting mistakes in
the English version of this book. The plural 'Compositions" here is
one of the more obvious ones.
•Ibld., p. 338•
.,Ibid., p. 350.
•Ibid., pp. 345 fi.
19
WHAT IS BEDACOON CBITICISM?
the author is "the union of the Hellenistic kerygma about

Christ ... with the tradition of the story about Jesus."'2D This
goes very considerably beyond Dibelius, although it would not
necessarUy be foreign to him.
Bultmann also goes beyond Dibelius in concerning himself
with Redaktion and Komposition in the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke.so Here he concerns himself with the relationship to,
and the diHerences from, the Gospel of Mark and with the
theological motivation for these diHerences. In this he is the
true father of redaction criticism, although it should be noted
that he reaches conclusions very diHerent from those reached
by the redaction critics. So far as Matthew is concerned he
can say: "Nevertheless, Mathew's portrayal is not so con-
sciously motivated by dogmatic motives as was Mark's. It is
much more that the Christian church's outlook is an uncon-
scious influence in Matthew, and that is why the literary form
of his work is not so dependent upon his own outlook as was
the case with Mark."'~~1 As for Luke, ..he does not permit his
dogmatic conceptions to exercise any essential influence on
his work," and major theological tendencies at work in his
Gospel ..are less characteristic of himself than of his circle and
his age."82 A Giinther Bomkamm or a Hans Conzelmann would
also say that the theology of Matthew or Luke, in many re-
spects, is that of their church and their age, but they would
assess very diHerently the influence of the theology of Matthew
and Luke upon the narrative of their Gospels. We must rec-
ognize that Bultmann, although moving in the direction that
led to redaction criticism, had spent so much time and effort
working in the synoptic tradition itself that he could not sud-
denly see clearly the special uses which Matthew and Luke
made of that tradition. The redaction critics, on the other hand,
came a generation later and were able to buUd upon Bult-
mann's work on the tradition. Therefore they were able to
•nnd., p. 347.
"lJbid., pp. 350-58 and 358-67.
11This Js our retranslation of the German represented by the first two
sentences on p. 357 of the English translation of Bulbnann's HlsfOf'f/.

That translation is simply wrong.
-Bultmann, Hisforrl, p. 366.
move more readily to a special consideration of Matthew and

Luke. Mark was a special case, partly because the spadework
Wrede had done on Mark was something the form critics
could assume, and partly because the tremendous act of creat-
ing the literary form "Gospel" as well as the theological signifi-
cance of this form was always clear to them. This latter point
is another reason why redaction criticism first appears in con-
nection with the Gospel of Mark. Wrede had seen already
that there were theological motives at work in Mark and that
this Gospel was not-as the "Marean hypothesis" maintained-
a comparatively reliable historical source. Then too, when the
significance of the fact that it was Mark who created the
"Gospel" form became apparent, questions of theological moti-
vation inevitably were raised, especially by those scholars
whose work on the tradition made it possible for them to ap-
preciate fully the uniqueness of what Mark had done.
AN ANTICIPATION OF REDACTION CRITICISM: R. H. LIGHTFOOT
Thus far we have been considering the form critics as the
immediate antecedents of redaction criticism. Form criticism
arose in a series of independent works which were produced
after the First World War in Germany, works which turned
out to be related in emphasis, as we have seen. Redaction criti-
cism appears in a remarkably similar way after the Second
World War in Germany, again in a series of independent works
which turn out to be related in emphasis. But before we turn
to the German scene immediately after 1946, we must con-
sider one further work, namely, the Bampton Lectures for 1934
given by R. H. Lightfoot ( 1883-1953) and published as His-
tory and Interpretation in the Gospels, an altogether remark-
able work.
English language reaction to form criticism tended to be of
three types: ( 1) rejection of the method, either as a whole or
in part; ( 2) acceptance of the method as a valuable tool in
Life of Jesus research, an instance of which we saw above;
and ( 3) R. H. Lightfoot! Lightfoot stands all by himself as a
pioneering scholar who understood what form criticism had to
offer and took it and used it; in so doing he actually reached
WHAT IS REDACOON CRrriCISM?
a new frontier beyond that reached by Dibelius and Bult-

mann. Although he does not use the term, Lightfoot was
actually the first redaction critic; in the ways in which he goes
beyond Dibelius and Bultmann he anticipates the methodology
that was to come into full flower in the work of Giinther Bom-
kamm, Hans Conzelmann, and Willi Marxsen. The reason for
this is consistent with what we observed above in connection
with Bultmann, namely, that redaction criticism could only
develop from form criticism in the work of someone who could
presuppose the form-critical work done on the synoptic tradi-
tion. Bornkamm, Conzelmann, Marxsen-all these grew up as
students under the influence of Dibelius and Bultmann; they
came a generation later and so this is entirely natural. But in
the early nineteen thirties Lightfoot deliberately went to Ger-
many to study form criticism as a possible solution to prob-
lems he had come up against in the study of the Gospels.81
There he encountered form criticism at first hand, was con-
verted to its approach, and was thereafter able to assume its
results in his own work. So, by the accident of personal circum-
stances, he was in the position that German students reached
only after 1946, for the German students of Dibelius and
Bultmann in the nineteen thirties were to have the natural
development of their work interrupted by the Third Reich and
the Second World War in a way which Lightfoot was not.
Lightfoot, however, would have anticipated them somewhat
in any event, since he came to the study in his maturity and
was therefore able to produce his own work more quickly.
Apart from the outward circumstances, that which makes
Lightfoot's work what it is, is the fact that he was able to free
himself from the major concern of his contemporaries in Gos-
pel studies in Britain and America: Life of Jesus research.
Thus he was able to see form criticism in its own light, and to
see-better than those who saw it in relation to Life of Jesus
research-the direction in which it was to develop. Actually,
even Lightfoot testifies to the tremendous hold that Life of
""On this see the memoir by D. E. Nineham in Studle.r in ths Go8Pf!Z..
E11all" if!. MlmW1'fl of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Buil
Blackwell. 1955), pp. vi-xvi.
'I1IE ORIGINS OF A DISCIPLINE
Jesus research had upon Gospel studies in his day, because he

feels compelled to say something about his own work in rela-
tion to it. So he adds a final paragraph that includes the mem-
orable sentence: "For all the inestimable value of the gospels
they yield us little more than a whisper of his (Jesus') voice;
we trace in them but the outskirts of his ways." This statement
aroused a storm of controversy, in the heat of which much of
the true significance of Lightfoot's work tended to get lost. He
must often have wished he had never penned that paragraph
and certainly his work was complete without it.
In the first two Bampton Lectures Lightfoot reviews criti-
cal work on the synoptic Gospels, with special reference to
Wrede and Wellhausen, and, relying mainly upon Dibelius,
presents the main tenets of Formgeschichte (Lightfoot doea
not use "form criticism" but retains the German term) as they
would apply to the Gospel of Mark. It is the third lecture that
is most interesting in our particular context because here Light-
foot attempts "to examine the doctrine set forth in this gospel
(Mark)" in light of the discipline of form criticism and finds
"interpretation continually present in a book most of us were
taught to regard as almost exclusively historical."34 To all in-
tents and purposes, this lecture is an exercise in redaction
criticism. For example, Lightfoot argues that the introduc-
tion to the Gospel (1:1-13) reveals the evangelist's theological
purposes and that the presentation of John the Baptist-de-
signed as it is by the evangelist to explain who Jesus is-has a
christological purpose. This latter point was to be a major em-
phasis in the work of Marxsen twenty years later!
But the fourth lecture also exhibits the kind of concerns that
are prevalent today because in it Lightfoot explains ..the con-
tent and structure of the gospel of St Mark"; however, he does
this "in the light of its main purpose," which purpose is clearly
to be recognized as theological: "We have found reason to
believe that, rightly regarded it [Mark's Gospel] may be called
the book of the (secret) Messiahship of Jesus.""B 5 Over and
over again narrative features of the Gospel, or aspects of the
•Lightfoot, Hlatof'JI and Interpretation. p. 57.
•Ibld., p. 98.
arr~_gement9i the mate_rial, or evident ~~lection_9f_transitional

material is explained in tenns of the. «:lYan~li!(~.t!!~9logical
purpose just as tliey would be by a redactio~ criti~tQg~y. All
in all, History and Interpretation in the Gospels can be read
with as much profit today as it could have been at the time of
its first publication; indeed, it can be read with more profit
now because the discussion has at last caught up with Light-
foot, and is concerned with the same problems and issues that
concerned him twenty years ago, and is using the same meth-
odology to approach them!
II
The Flowering of
the Discipline
Redaction criticism burst into full Bower immediately

after the Second World War in Germany. Just as three scholars
emerged with independent works marking the beginning of
form criticism proper after the hiatus caused by the First
World War, so three scholars came forward with independent
works denoting the beginning of redaction criticism proper
after the hiatus caused by the Second World War. After the
First World War it was Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius,
and Rudolf Bultmann, as we have already noted; after the
Second World War it was Giinther Bomkamm, Hans Conzel-
mann, and Willi Marxsen. Though working independently of
one another-Bornkamm on Matthew, Conzelmann on Luke,
and Marxsen on Mark-they moved in the same general direc-
tion. One of them, Willi Marxsen, gave the new movement its
German name, Redaktionsgeschichte. We shall now consider
them separately beginning with Giinther Bornkamm, whose
redaction-critical work appeared first.
GUNTHER BORNKAMM AND THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
Giinther Bornkamm is a pupil of Bultmann and a leading

member of the so-called Bultmann school. He is therefore one
who has always assumed the results of form criticism in his
own studies. Consequently he has been able to take the disci-
pline a stage further, and it is in his work that we first come to
redaction criticism proper. His first study on this theme was a
short article, published in the journal of the theological school
in Bethel in 1948 and now available in English in the volume

T-radition and Interpretation in Matthew, by Bornkamm and
two of his pupils, G. Barth and H. J. Held. In this study be
investigates the pericope of the Stilling of the Storm in Mat-
thew 8:23-27. By comparing it with its source, Mark 4:35-41,
·he shows that Matthew actually reinterprets the story as he
· inherits it from Mark. Thus Matthew inserts it into a definite
context of its own and presents it in such a way as to give it
a new meaning, a meaning which it does not have for the other
evangelists: "Matthew is not only a bander-on of the narra-
tive, but also its oldest exegete, and in fact the first to interpret
the journey of the disciples with Jesus in the storm and the
stilling of the storm with reference to discipleship, and that
means with reference to the little ship of the church."'l More-
over, Matthew also transposes the words of rebuke to the
disciples and the actual stilling of the storm. In Mark the
miracle occurs first and the words of rebuke second; in Mat-
thew the two episodes are reversed. "Before the elements are
brought to sUence, thus in the midst of a mortal threat, the
word of Jesus goes forth to the disciples and puts them to
shame for their little faith."2 Moreover, not only is "men of
little faith" a favorite expression of Matthew, but it also has a
strong Jewish background and throughout Matthew's Gospel
it is used frequently, as it is here, in the context of general
discipleship. "Further, by the choice of this expression the
special situation of the disciples, which in Mark is denoted
by the question 'Have you no faith?' becomes a typical situa-
tion of discipleship as a whole."a
Bomkamm's article is the first work in what we are calling
redaction criticism proper and we see in it the typical empha-
sis: Matthew is an interpreter of previous tradition and in his
modifications of that tradition he reveals something of both
his own theology and his evangelistic purpose. Bomkamm fol-
lowed up this study with a more comprehensive one, which
is also to be found in English in the Bornkamm. Barth, and
~Bomkamm in G. Bomkamm, G. Barth, H. J, Held, Tradition and
lntBf'JJf'etlltfen in Matthew (London: SCM; Philadelphia: West:mfDSter,
1963), p. 55; hereafter cited as Tradition and Interpretation.
"IOid., p. 56.
•Ibid.
26
THE FLOWERING OF TBE DISCIPLINE
Held volume, and is there entitled "'End-expectation and

Church in Matthew." The results of this particular investiga-
tion in Matthew's Gospel were first announced at a meeting
of theologians held in Germany on the fifth of January, 1954,
where Bomkamm made a presentation, "Matthew as Inter-
preter of the Words of the Lord." The article embodying the
complete investigation was first published (in German) in the
volume of essays honoring C. H. Dodd.' We have called atten-
tion elsewhere to the irony of the fact that this first major
publication of the new wave in New Testament studies initially
appeared side by side in this volume with an article by T. W.
Manson that attempted to stem the tide, namely, ..The Life of
Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present Day Research"l 5
Since Bornkamm's article is readily available in English we
need spend no time here describing its contents in detail. It
is sufficient for our purpose to point out that it is the first
thoroughgoing redaction-critical investigation of the theologi-
cal peculiarities and theme of Matthew's Gospel. As such it
begins with the discourses into which Matthew arranges his
presentation of the teaching of Jesus-discourses which, as has
long been noted, exhibit something of the particular interest
of Matthew as an author. Bomkamm shows how these dis-
courses are shot through and through with a particular Mat-
thean understanding of the church and its relationship to the
imminent parousia. Then attention is given to the Matthean
understanding of the Jewish Law and its role in Christian faith.
From there Bomkamm turns to the Matthean Christology,
which he approaches, quite properly, by means of that under-
standing of the relationship between Jesus himself and the Law
which plays such an important role in the Matthean theology;
in particular Bomkamm concerns himself with the various
titles that Matthew uses in his presentation of his Christology.
Finally, attention is given to the relationship between Chris-
tology and ecclesiology. The circle is complete and we return
CW. D. Davies and D. Daube (eds.), The Background of the New
Testament and its Eschatology. Studies in Honor of C. H. Dodd (Cam-
bridge: University Press, 1954, 1964).
1 N. Perrin, "The Wredestrasse becomes the Hauptstrasse: ReSections
on the Reprinting of the Dodd Festschrift,.. ]ouinal of Religion. 46
( 1966 ), 29f!-.800.
WHAT IS Rl!:DACOON CBITICISM?
to the role of the church, which is so prominent in the

Matthean theology.6
Bornkamm's article is clearly the compressed result of a
lengthy and detailed investigation of Matthew's Gospe4 it is
easily the most important statement made about the Matthean
theology in many years; and it is the first presentation of the
possibilities inherent in redaction criticism, a presentation so
dramatic in its results that it opened the floodgates to the
tide that was to follow.
Equally as important to our discipline as Bomlcamm's own
work is his role as teacher, for Bornkamm had a number of
pupils whom he influenced to work along the lines which he
himself had laid down in his two articles. He is fortunate in
that a number of these pupils turned out to be first-class
scholars in their own right and made contributions to the
growth of redaction criticism which would be hard to over-
estimate. Two of these, Gerhard Barth and Heinz Held, de-
veloped further the insights which are found in the two Bom-
kamm articles and grounded them more thoroughly in a de-
tailed investigation of the material involved. Thus Barth wrote
a dissertation on Matthew's understanding of the Law and
Held produced one on Matthew as interpreter of the miracle
stories. These two dissertations have now been translated into
English and are presented in the Bomkamm, Barth, and Held
volume to which reference has already so often been made. In
addition to Barth and Held, Bomkamm had two other pupils
who must here be noticed; indeed, their dissertations are major
contributions to New Testament scholarship. These two (are
Heinz Eduard Todt, author of Son of Man in the Synoptic
Tradition and Ferdinand Hahn, author of The Titles of /e8U8
in Christology. A brief description of their work will be found
in the Annotated Bibliography at the end of this book.
HANS CONZELMANN AND THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
If Giinther Bomkamm is the first of the true redaction critics,
Hans Conzelmann is certainly the most important. His Theol--
'G. Bomkamm, "End-expectation and Church In Matthew," Tradition
and Interpretatkm, pp. 15-51.
28
THE FLOWERING OF THE DISCIPLINE
ogy of St. Luke, first published in German in 1954, is the one

work above all others which focused attention upon this new
discipline and convinced a whole world of New Testament
scholarship that here, indeed, was a major new departure in
New Testament Studies. His book ranks with Bultmann's
History of the Synoptic Tradition or Jeremias's The Parables of
Jesus as one of the few truly seminal works of our time in the
field of New Testament research; neither the discipline of New
Testament theology as a whole nor the understanding of Luke
in particular will ever be the same again. Apart from the force
and power with which Conzelmann works, his impact is in
no small measure due to his decision to work on the Lucan
theology. Luke has generally been regarded by scholars as the
historian of early Christianity, and it is quite typical that an
important review of recent work on Luke by C. K. Barrett
should have the title Luke the Historian in Recent Study.T
Impressed by the accuracy of his references to officials in the
Roman Empire, by his obvious close acquaintanceship with the
customs and life of the empire, and by the vividness of his
narrative in Acts, the general tendency has been to see him as
the first church historian and to regard him as a much better
historian than many of those who followed him! With Con-
zelmann's accomplishment all this changes; Luke the historian
becomes a self-conscious theologian, and the details of his
composition can be shown convincingly to have been theologi-
cally motivated. To give but one example, the resurrection
appearances in the Lucan writings take place in Jerusalem in
contrast to the impression given elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment that they take place in Galilee. Conzelmann shows that
this geographical reference is not historical reminiscence, a
conclusion which raises questions as to the actual locale of
these appearances. Luke is in no way motivated by a desire
to exercise historical accuracy, but entirely by his theological
concept of the role of Jerusalem in the history of salvation.
Of Conzelmann, then, it may justifiably be said that he al-::/
most single-handedly changed the whole tenor of Lucan
'C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth
Press, 1961 ).
.29
WHAT IS REDAcriON CRITICISM?
studies. It is symptomatic of the situation that C. H. Dodd, a

representative of a more historicizing approach to the New
Testament, should have written in a private letter, perhaps
somewhat ruefully, "I suspect we shall have to give Acts over,
so to speak, to Conzelmann."8
Working independently of others, Conzelmann begins his
book by defining his approach to the material in terms of its
contrast with both literary and form criticism. He notes, as by
now we would expect, that literary criticism provides the fun-
damental basis upon which he works, namely, the theory-so
important to him-of Luke's dependence upon Mark and Q. He
goes on to say that form criticism had concerned itself with
the smaller units and characteristically attempted to break off
those units from their framework and to understand them in
their most primitive form. He himself is concerned more with
the framework and with later forms of the tradition. He at-
tempts to understand what was happening to the tradition at
those later stages and particularly, of course, at the stage
represented by Luke:
The first phase in the collection of the traditional material (up
to the composition of Mark's gospel and the Q sayings) has been
clarified by form criticism. Now a second phase has to be distin-
guished, in which the kerygma is not simply transmitted and
received, but itself becomes the subject of reflection. This is what
happens with Luke. This new stage is seen both in the critical
attitude to tradition as well as in the positive formation of a new
picture of history out of those already current, like stones used
as parts of a new mosaic.9
The method which Conzelmann uses may be described

somewhat as follows: He begins by carefully comparing the
text of Luke with that of his source, mainly of course the
Gospel of Mark, in order to determine what may be recog-
nized as the Lucan editorial activity. Then he studies this ac-
tivity as carefully as he can to determine what theological
•Quoted by R. R. Williams in D. E. Nineham et al., Historicity and
Chronology in the New Testament ("Theological Collections," No. 6
[London: SPCK, 1965] ), p. 150.
"Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, trans. G. Bllllwell (New York:
Harper & Row, 1960), p. 12.
80
motivation is to be seen at work in it, and he goes on from

there to certain major texts which seem to him to summarize
central aspects of the theological purpose he has detected in
the editorial activity. Texts, for example, such as Luke 16:16
or Luke 13:31 ff., become keys for understanding the totality
of the Lucan theological enterprise. Informed by the details
he has learned from the minutiae of comparison and by the
overall schema he has developed from the major Lucan texts,
he goes on to analyze the totality of Luke-Acts in terms of
how it reflects the Lucan theological purpose and expresses
the Lucan theology. It must be stressed that the foundation
upon which he builds is the careful and detailed compari..son
of the text of Luke with that of the sources Luke used, where
these can be determined. This has to be emphasized because
a superficial reading of Conzelmann's book might give the im-
pression that he is putting too much weight upon a text such
as Luke 16:16-indeed, this complaint has often been lodged
against him by his critics. But the point is that he bases his
dependence upon major texts upon the conviction that the
ideas these texts express can be shown to have been the
dominant factors behind Luke's many minor modifications of
source material. On this detailed and thorough study of the
Lucan modifications of his sources the whole enterprise of
Conzelmann ultimately rests. Criticism of him can be valid
only when it is built upon an equally detailed and thorough
examination of the material, which is very rarely the case.
Conzelmann's presentation of the Lucan theology is by now
very well-known and we need not discuss its details. He con-
centrates attention upon the Heilsgeschichte ("saving history")
which Luke develops in three stages: stage one, the period of
Israel to which John the Baptist belongs; stage two, the pe-
riod of the ministry of Jesus which is "the center of time" (the
actual title of Conzelmann's work in German) and which
comes to an end with the ascension; stage three, the period
of the church in the world during which one can look back-
ward to the time of salvation and the ministry of Jesus, and
forward to the parousia, which will bring this period to a
close and will be the climax of all things. This scheme, Con-
81
zelmann argues, is Luke's response to the central th~logi

cal problem of his day, namely, the delay of the parousta ~d
the subsequent necessity for the church to come to terms Wlth
its continued and continuing existence in the world. Whereas
at the beginning period the time of the church in the world
was viewed as a brief interim very shortly to be brought to
a close by the parousia, for Luke the time of the church in
the world had to be regarded as indefinite. This created the
problem to which his theological enterprise is a proposed
solution. Luke's overall solution to the problem is reflected
in the details of his theology and affects every aspect of his
presentation of the ministry of Jesus and of the early church.
One of the remarkable aspects of Conzelmaun's work is not
only that he shows how great the Lucan theological enterprise
is in its conception, but also that he shows how detailed it is
in its execution. For example, be is able to demonstrate that
even such elements as geographical references in the Gospel
story are made to reflect aspects of the Lucan theology: Galilee
is the first place of the ministry of Jesus and here there is no
temptation but only a manifestation of the time of salvation;
Judea, especially Jerusalem, is the second place of the ministry
of Jesus, but here there is temptation because here the passion
occurs, and it is a necessary prelude to the resurrection and
ascension. In this geographical scheme the ministry of John
the Baptist does not belong to the time of salvation and hence
is carefully separated in its locale from Galilee and Judea-
Jerusalem, the places of Jesus. This is but one example of the
detailed exposition which Conzelmann is able to make of the
extent to which the Lucan theological enterprise has deter-
mined the smallest details of his narratives. As presented by
Conzelmann, the theology of Luke is breathtaking both in the
grandeur of its conception and in the careful detail of its ap-
plication and exposition in narrative form. It is no wonder
' that since Conzelmann's work, attention has been concentrated
upon Luke as theologian rather than as historian, or if as his-
torian, then historian understood in a very special way, as we
pointed out above. Indeed, not the least of the benefits which
redaction criticism has conferred upon us is this sudden reve-
lation of Luke as a major theologian of early Christianity.

What is more, it turns out that Luke himself was wrestling in
his way with a problem which greatly concerns the theologians
of today, namely the problem of faith and history in general,
and the "question of the historial Jesus" in particular!
WILLI MARXSEN AND THE GOSPEL OF MARK
The third of the redaction critics proper, as we are calling
them, is Willi Marxsen whose book Der Evangelist MaTkus
(English translation: Mark the Evangelist [1969]) was first
published in 1956. It consists of four redaction-critical studies
of the Gospel of Mark which were originally presented to the
University of Kiel in 1954 as a Habilitationsschriftl 0 and were
therefore carried out quite independently of the work of Bom-
kamm or Conzelmann. Indeed, in the prologue to the book
Marxsen notes that he was working along the same lines as
Conzelmann because redaction criticism was "in the air" after
the Second World War just as form criticism was after the
First.
As we have already said, Marxsen is responsible for the
name Redaktionsgeschichte, which we are representing as re-
daction criticism. His book begins with a systematic consider-
ation of the new methodology and its relationship to form
criticism, and it is here that he proposes the term Redaktions-
geschichte. In this systematic presentation Marxsen contrasts
redaction criticism with form criticism at four points. First,
he stresses the difference between the understanding of the
evangelists in the one discipline and the other. Form criticisni/
regarded the evangelists primarily as collectors of tradition, '
whereas redaction criticism regards them as authors in theilv'
own right. Secondly, form criticism was mostly concerned-
with breaking down the tradition into small units and particu-
larly with the way in which these small units came into being/
:IOJ'he German academician in effect writes two doctoral theses. The
En~lish language
first of these is his Promotion, roughly equivalent to the
Ph.D.; the second is his Habilitation, to which the English language
academic world has no equivalent. The HabilUation is necessary for a
German before it is permissible for him to hold a professorial chair
at a university.
88
WHAT IS REDAC'l10N CRITICISM?
in the first place. Redaction criticism, however, concerns _itself

with the larger units down to and including the particular
form of Gospel and asks questions about the purpose of ~~
,formation of these larger units of tradition. Thirdly, form cnti-
cism with its concern for the individual units of tradition and
its understanding of the evangelists as collectors of tradition
could never do justice to that bold new step taken by the
evangelist Mark, who gathers together individual units and
larger collections of tradition and out of them fashions some-
thing wholly new-a "Gospel." Both Matthew and Luke in-
herit this form, "Gospel," from Mark and make further use
of it themselves; in no small measure it is the purpose of re-
daction criticism to do justice to both the Marean theology
lying behind the creation of the form "Gospel" and to those
aspects of the Lucan and Matthean theology which become
evident as we consider the way in which they use the form
as well as the tradition which they inherit from Mark. Fourth-
- ly, in keeping with his understanding of the totality of the
transmission of tradition from its creation in the early church
to its reformulation by the synoptic evangelists, Marxsen
claims that one should be prepared to consider three separate
"settings-in-life" for synoptic tradition. If one is prepared to
follow Joachim Jeremias in his work on the parables and
claim a setting in the life of Jesus for a certain amount of the
synoptic material, then one also has to follow the form critics
and consider a setting in the life of the early church for the
tradition created and transmitted there, and then finally one
has to consider the setting in the purpose or theology of the
evangelist. This last setting is the concern of redaction criti-
cism. The idea of a threefold Sitz im Leben is a most impor-
tant conception and one to which we have called attention
elsewhere.11 It will come to play an increasing part in future
New Testament studies, and the only problem is that of find-
ing an appropriate terminology. The present tendency is to
have something of a mixture of German, Latin, and English.
We propose, therefore, the following three terms: ( 1) setting
in the life of Jesus; (2) setting in the life and work of the
nN. Perrin, Reducovering th. Teachmg qf ]utU, p. 258.
84
early church; ( 3) setting in the work and purpose of the

evangelist We shall use these terms ourselves from now on
and we hope that either these or some other appropriate ones
will become established as the way to refer to these most
definite realities of early Christian tradition.
Marxsen's statement sums up the things that we have been
saying about redaction criticism. We wish to modify it merely
to the extent that redaction criticism not only considers the
work of the evangelists as we have them, but also the work
of any creator of a new unit of tradition in which a theological
viewpoint is expressed, meaning particularly the sayings source
Q upon which Todt has done excellent work. Marxsen himself,
of course, would be the first to agree with this, and doubtless
would have said so had he written his Introduction later than
he did.
The four studies which make up the body of Marxsen's book
are independent of one another, but they have a common
theme in that they are all concerned with an aspect of the
Marean theology as revealed in the particular subject matter
under discussion and then with the way in which the re-use
of the Marean material by Matthew and Luke reflects aspects
of the Matthean and Lucan theologies respectively. In this way
Marxsen deals with ( 1) the tradition concerning John the
Baptist, ( 2) geographical references in the Gospel narratives,
(3) the conception euangelion (Gospel), (4) Mark 13. We
cannot here give a summary of the contents of the book, nor
can we enter into discussion with Marxsen about any of the
points he makes; however, we shall indicate something of his
method by offering a sample from his discussion of the John
the Baptist tradition, and we shall also refer to a major point
he makes which actually implies a new departure within
redaction criticism and indicates a possible way forward to
the future. First, then, a sample of his work.
Marxsen begins his study of the John the Baptist tradition
by describing the way it is used by the evangelist Mark. He
argues that, whatever the case may be with regard to the
elements of previous tradition that Mark is using, in the form
in which it is presented in the Gospel of Marie the tradition is
a Marean composition, and as such it can tell us a good deal

about the Marean theology. Mark has in fact composed
"backwards"; his purpose is to interpret the story of Jesus by
means of this reference to John the Baptist. The John the Bap-
tist tradition is presented not because of any particular his-
torical interest in the Baptist nor because of any desire to say
how things actually were, but because Mark wants to use this
tradition to say something about Jesus. "What comes before
(i.e. the story of the Baptist) is presented from the viewpoint
of what was to come after (i.e. the story of Jesus). That means,
however: the Baptist does not have any independent signifi-
cance of his own; there can be no teaching about the Baptist
or about baptism; rather, all that is said about the Baptist is
in effect something said about the Christ."12 But one can go
even further than this, for just as the Baptist interprets Jesus,
so the quotations from the Old Testament incorporated in
the narrative interpret the Baptist himself. The juxtaposition
of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the wilderness
in Mark 1:3 and the appearance of John the Baptist in the
wilderness in verse 4 shows us that John the Baptist is here
being interpreted as the fulfiller of these prophecies and, as
such, as the forerunner of Jesus. But this means that the ref-
erence to the wilderness in verse 4, whatever may have been
its origins in the tradition, is not a geographical reference at
all, but is rather a theological statement.
The wilderness is not a geographical location. It is not pe~
sible to reB.ect as to where it could lie. This reference is not
intended to give a location for the work of the Baptist . . • rather
"in the wilderness" qualifies the Baptist as the one who fulfills
Old Testament prophecy. It might almost be said: The Baptist
would even be the one who came "in the desert," even if in his
whole life he had never once been anywhere near the desert.u
Similarly with the references to time: Although verse 14
certainly refers to the arrest of John the Baptist by Herod, it
does not necessarily indicate that the ministry of Jesus began
only after John had been arrested. In its present place it
~arxsen, Der Evangelist Markus, p. 19 (Eng. trans., p. 33).
'Ibid., p. 22 (Eng. trans., pp. 37£.).
simply means that, theologically speaking, John was the fore-

runner and Jesus the one who came after; hence, the story of
John has to be brought to an end before the story of Jesus can
properly begin, and it is for this reason that John is "delivered
up" in verse 14. The actual story of the arrest and death of
John the Baptist will be given later in the Gospel, but the
reference to the arrest has to come also in verse 14 because
of the evangelist's desire to relate John the Baptist and Jesus
theologically. So Mark can have in verse 1 ..the beginning of
the gospel of Jesus Christ" quite properly because the story of
John the Baptist is, theologically speaking, the story of the
forerunner of Jesus. Thus by a presentation of his story a
beginning can be made to the interpretation of Jesus as the
Christ, which is a major purpose of the whole Gospel
Having discussed the use of the Baptist tradition by Mark,
Marxsen goes on to discuss the use of the Marean form of this
tradition by Matthew and Luke. He points out, for example,
that the reference to the wilderness (in Mark a theological
statement) becomes in Matthew and Luke a geographical one.
For Matthew the reference to the Old Testament takes on
new force and meaning, as indeed do references to the Old
Testament throughout his Gospel. He reflects on these far more
than does Mark and sees them not only as a means of inter-
preting the New Testament story, in this instance that of John
the Baptist, but also as the very ground for there being such
a story to interpret. So for him the Old Testament is not only
the means for interpreting the New, but also its prehistory.
Further in this direction, Matthew has taken the theological
ordering of the relationship between John the Baptist and
Jesus in Mark and made it a chronological ordering. In the
Gospel of Luke this tendency to order John the Baptist and
Jesus chronologically is carried still further, and Luke actually
separates the story of John the Baptist from that of Jesus in
a way which Matthew does not. Luke relegates the Baptist
to the Jewish prehistory of the Gospel and does not-as Mark
does-see the story of the Baptist as part of the Gospel story.
Thus the ministry of the Baptist is, theologically speaking, re-
garded as being at an end before the baptism of Jesus even
WHAT JS REDACTION CRITICISM?
takes place. Thus, too, Luke relates the account of the arrest
of John before he gives any account of the baptism of Jesus
and, in his account of the baptism, the figure of John almost
disappears. For Luke, the Baptist no longer has eschatological
but only historical significance; he is a prophet belonging to
that period of the prophets which came to an end with the
coming of Jesus.14 In this way Marxsen investigates the three
accounts of the Baptist in the synoptic Gospels and shows that,
although these accounts have only small differences from a
literary standpoint, these differences are indicative of major
variations in theological conception.
Although Marxsen's four studies are conceived and carried
out independently of one another, they all relate to the Marean
theology. Each reflects in one way or another a central point
about that theology, a point which to Marxsen is very impor-
tant. In thus carrying redaction criticism to its furthest limit
Marxsen perhaps points the way to a still future day and work.
This new departure is his conception that the Marean theology
reflects the situation in Galilee in the year 66 A.D. at the be-
ginning of the Jewish War against Rome. Marxsen believes
that the Christian community of Jerusalem had fled from
Jerusalem to Galilee at the beginning of the war, that there
they were waiting for the parousia which they believed to be
imminent. The Gospel of Mark, claims Marxsen, reflects this
situation in its theology. So, for example, the present ending
of the Gospel at 16:8 is the true ending; Mark did not intend
to go on to report resurrection appearances in Galilee; the ref-
erences to Galilee in 14:28 and 16:7 are not references to the
resurrection at all but to the parousia. There never was,
therefore, an ending to the Gospel in which Mark reported
resurrection appearances in Galilee. The "you will see him"
in 16:7 is a reference to the parousia and to the future. But
Mark expects this event to take place immediately, in his own
day. The parousia has not yet come but it is now imrninent. 16
This is an argument from Marxsen's discussion of the geo-
,.Ibid., p. 31 ( Eng. trans., p. 51), where he relates his viewl to thOM
of Conzelinann.
,.Ibid., p. 54 (Eng. tran!., p. 85).
88
graphical references in the Gospel, but similarly in his study

of Mark 13 we find the same situation envisaged. He inter-
prets Mark 13 as a totality and does not concern himself with
the question of the traditional material that may have been
brought together in it, since he correctly sees that the final
form of the chapter will be representative of the Marean
theological position. So he claims that we can determine a
good deal about the time and place of the composition of this
chapter from the chapter itself. We will concern ourselves
with only one of his arguments, namely the argument based
on Mark 13:14: "But when you see the desolating sacrilege
set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand),
then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." We
have in this verse a reference to the actual situation of the
Christian community in Jerusalem which fled into the moun-
tains of Galilee at the threat inherent in the outbreak of the
Jewish War. In this understanding of the verse the paren-
thesis '1et the reader understand" is Mark's way of directing
his readers from their present situation in Galilee to the escha-
tological future they are expecting.
It is not our purpose here to defend or to debate with Marx-
sen the correctness of his insight with regard to the place and
time of the composition of Mark's GospeL Our concern is to
point out that here we are moving beyond redaction criticism
itself to a still newer stage, a stage in which we work from a
theological insight we have been able to determine to the his-
torical situation in which that insight arose. This is the direc-
tion in which our studies ultimately will move; certainly the
challenge would seem to be appropriate. If redaction criticism
helps us to determine more and more exactly the theological
developments in earliest Christianity, then it will be natural
for us to go on to ask ourselves what historical circumstances
lie behind these theological developments. It may well be then
that redaction criticism .itself will ultimately produce a theo-
logical history of earliest Christianity such as it has not yet
been possible to write.
Ill
Redaction Criticism at
Work: A Sample
THE INCIDENT AT CAESAREA PHILIPPI

In this chapter we give an example of the kind of thing
redaction criticism does, and in this way we hope to help the
discipline come alive for the reader. We have chosen the ac-
count of the incident at Caesarea Philippi, the story concern-
ing the confession of Peter and the subsequent teaching of
Jesus on discipleship (Mark 8:27-9:1 with its parallels, Matt.
16:13-28 and Luke 9:18-27), because this story has always
played a large part in any attempt to reconstruct a life of Jesus.
In this example, therefore, the differences between a redac-
tion-critical approach and the older way of regarding it as
essentially a historical narrative will be most evident.
At this point we pause to make it clear that we are not
concerned here with arguing the case for redaction criticism as
an approach to the Gospels in general or to this narrative in
particular. The evidence and arguments which led the present
writer to adopt form criticism and redaction criticism as the
only legitimate approach to the Gospel narratives were set
out inN. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 15-
32, and there is no point in repeating them here. So far as this
particular narrative is concerned, the way that redaction criti-
cism is able to make sense of the phenomena demonstrably
present in the texts is itself a validation of the methodology.
40
REDACTION CRITICISM AT WORK:: A SAMPLE
THE MARCAN NARRATIVE: MARK 8:27-9:1
The Marean narrative has a remarkably clear structure and

it should first be read in its entirety, with the reader resolutely
leaving to one side any reminiscences of the Matthean or
Lucan parallels and even more resolutely banishing from his
mind reminiscences of lives of Jesus that he may have read.
When we do this we arrive at the following general picture.
Jesus and his disciples are on a journey from Bethsaida to
some villages in the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asks
them the double question: Who do men say ... Who do you
say that I am? They reply with a statement that represents
the general opinion (such as Mark had already used in 6:14 f.),
and then, through the mouth of Peter, with the fundamental
confession of early Christianity: "You are the Christ." Jesus
accepts this and charges them to keep it from anyone
else, and he then goes on to teach them concerning the
coming suffering of the Son of man (note: "Son of man,"
not "Christ"). Peter vehemently rejects this teaching, and
Jesus, with an eye to the disciples as a group, in tum
reprimands Peter in the strongest possible terms, identifying
him in this moment as Satan. This dispute with Peter leads
to a second block of teaching by Jesus, this time directed to
the crowd as well as to the disciples, indicating that the dis-
ciple must be prepared to accept the possibility of martyrdom
as the price of his discipleship. The narrative then reaches its
climax in two sayings: the first issues a stern warning that
those who fail the Son of man in the hour of trial will rue it
at the Last Judgment; and the second offers a reassuring
promise that those who stand firm will be delivered by the
coming of the kingdom "in power."
Reading the narrative by itself in this way, one cannot help
but be struck by a number of distinctive features. In particular
there is the remarkable way in which the action moves back-
wards and forwards between the historical situation of the
ministry of Jesus and the historical situation of the church for
which Mark is writing. The reply to the first question refers to
41
WHAT IS REDACTION CIUTICISM?
opinions available in the Palestinian situation of the ministry

of Jesus, but the second block of teaching, in its present form,
uses language derived from the situation of the early church
("take up his cross," ..... and the gospel's"). The questions,
answers, and teaching are on the lips of Jesus and Peter, but
the titles involved are from the christological vocabulary of
the early church. Further in this direction, we must note that,
although the characters in the pericope bear names or designa-
tions derived from the circumstances of the ministry (i.e.,
"Jesus,.. "Peter," "the multitude"), they also equally represent
the circumstances of the early church: "Jesus" is the Lord
addressing his church, "Peter" represents fallible believers who
confess correctly yet go on to interpret their confession incor-
rectly, and "the multitude" is the whole church membership
for whom the general teaching which follows is designed. So
we come to the all-important point so far as a redaction-criti-
cal view of the narrative is concerned: it has the form of a
story about the historical Jesus and his disciples but a purpose
in terms of the risen Lord and his church. Moreover, this pur-
pose is a specifically Marean purpose; it represents Mark's un-
derstanding of what the risen Lord has to say to the church
of his day.
The fundamental premise of redaction criticism, then, is
that the pericope can be analyzed from the perspective of a
Marean purpose. The goal of such an analysis is to understand
the purpose and the theology that is revealed in the purpose.
To this end we concern ourselves both with the individual
parts of the narrative and with the story as a whole. In other
words, we analyze the constituent parts of the narrative, such
as the sayings, etc., to see what they tell us of Mark as one
who gathers, modifies, or creates tradition, and we analyze the
total narrative in terms of its overall purposes, such as its set-
ting in the framework of the Gospel as a whole, etc., to see
what this will tell us about Mark as an evangelist.
We shall begin with a discussion of four constituent parts
of this narrative: the prediction of the passion ( 8:31); the
teaching about discipleship ( 8:34-37); the climactic warning
{8:38); and the climactic promise (9:1). In each case we shall
REDAariON CIU'I1CISM AT WORK: A SAMPLE
raise the question of the previous history of the material in the

tradition in order to set the stage for a consideration of the
Marean redactional work upon that material, and then we shall
discuss both the redaction of the material by Mark and also
the particular use which he has made of it
THE PREDICTION OF THE PASSION: MARK 8:31
And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer
many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests
and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
This is one of three passion predictions in Mark (8:31; 9:31;
10:33 f.). These sayings have such a complex history in the
tradition that it is beyond our present capacity to unravel it
in its details. This complexity is really what we should expect,
for the problem of the crucified Messiah was the major prob-
lem for the early church, both in terms of the development
of her own theology and of the development of an apologetic
to Judaism, and she brought her every theological resource to
bear upon it. The result of the church's wrestling with this
problem is that the traditions that crystallized out of her
struggle bear the marks of many different factors (use of vari-
ous Old Testament passages in exegesis and "passion apolo-
getic" [B. Lindars], a speculative Son of man theology, a
development of a doctrine of divine necessity, emphasis upon
the cross as redemptive and/or the resurrection as decisive
victory, etc. ) . It is a task beyond our current resources to
analyze these factors in their entirety, although we are in-
creasingly developing insights into various parts of the tradi-
tion they represent.1
In this particular instance, therefore, we cannot learn any-
thing about Mark and his theology from his redaction of tra-
dition, but the matter is far different with regard to his use of
1The two most important recent discussions are R E. Todt, The Son
of Man In the Sr~ncptic Tradition, trans. Dorothea M. Barton (Philadel-
phia: Westminster Press, 1965), pp. 141-221, hereafter cited as Son
af Man; and B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1962), pp. 75-137. The present writer proposes to
a_pproach the problem of the suffering Son of man sayings at a later
date in light of the insights and arguments of N. Perrin, Rediscoveriflg
the Teaclring of Jesus, pp. 164-99.
WHAT IS REDACI10N CRITICISM?
it. Following in part Toot's excellent analysis of this aspect

of the Marean theological purpose,2 we note that the section of
the Gospel 8:27-10:52 serves to introduce the passion narra-
tive and to prepare the reader to understand it correctly. It
presents to the reader the Marean theological understanding
of the cross; to use our own words, it offers a theological
treatise on the meaning of the cross in narrative form. The
section is a carefully composed unit held together by three
geographical references: 8:27, "... to the villages of Caesarea
Philippi" (north of Galilee); 9:30, "... from there and passed
through Galilee"; 10:1, ". . . he left there and went to the
region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" (i.e., he moves toward
Jerusalem). Each of these three divisions of the unit has its
own passion prediction ( 8:31; 9:31; 10:33 f.), and the dra-
matic tension is heightened by the fact that the last one in-
cludes a specific reference to the Jerusalem toward which
the group is moving as the locale of the passion (Mark him-
self must be responsible for this aspect of the saying). So we
learn from the sayings themselves, and from their function in
the composition of the Gospel, something of the Marean theol-
ogy of the cross. Since we cannot isolate the Marean redac-
tional elements in the sayings themselves, we cannot deter-
mine how much of this theology is specifically Marean and
how much general early Christian, but the boldness of con-
ception and the effectiveness of execution in presenting it in
this narrative form is remarkable.
THE TEACHING ABOUT DISCIPLESHIP: MARK 8:34-37

And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said
to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself
and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save
his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the
gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man, to gain the
whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in
return for his lifer
This section is made up of four sayings which very likely
originally circulated separately in the tradition and then were
-root. Son of Man, pp. 144-49.
44
REDACTION CRITICISM AT WORK: A SAMPLE
gradually brought together because of their similarity of con-

tent and because of the common catchword ''life." In the
parallel passage in Matthew {16:24-26) all four sayings ap-
pear; in Luke (9:23-25) only the first three; in addition Mat-
thew has versions of the first two joined together at his 10:38 f.
and Luke has versions of them separately at his 14:27 and
17:33. Mark's verses 36 and37 are found in Matthew and Luke
only where they are following Mark (Luke omits verse 37),
but they must have originally been separate sayings because
they make quite different points: verse 36 that riches are of
no avail at death and verse 37 that life is the highest good
( Bultmann). So Mark has brought together a group of say-
ings which originally circulated separately, but in doing this
he is only completing a process that was already going on in
the tradition. In itself this is common editorial activity in the
tradition and of no more theological significance for Mark than
for the anonymous editors of the tradition who preceded him.
However, the Marean activity in introducing a group of say-
ings on the cost of discipleship at this particular point in the
narrative does serve a definite theological purpose: it reflects
the Marean conviction that, as went the master, so must go the
disciple, with all that this implies theologically. That this is
definitely the result of deliberate editorial activity can be seen
from the fact that it happens in each instance of a passion
prediction and, moreover, there is a constant editorial pattern
of prediction-misunderstanding-teaching: so in 8:31, pas-
sion prediction; 8:32 f., dispute between Jesus and Peter; 8:
34-37, teaching about discipleship; and again, in 9:31, passion
prediction; 9:33 f., report of a dispute about greatness; 9:35-
37, teaching; and finally, 10:33 f., passion prediction; 10:35-41,
request of James and John arising out of their misunder-
standing of the nature of glory; 10:42-45, teaching. Further-
more, the three sets of teaching are carefully related to one
another in content so as to make a total impact and to devel-
op a total theological point. In the first one the disciple must
be prepared to take up his cross, as did the master; in the sec-
ond he must imitate the master in servanthood; in the third
that servanthood is defined in a saying which both takes up
45
WHAT IS REDACTION CRri'ICISM?
the previous themes of cross and servanthood and presents

these aspects of the Marean theology in all their fullness: "For
the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and
to give his life as a ransom for many." The boldness and effec-
tiveness of this method of stating a theme and developing an
exhortation based upon it must again be described as remark-
able.
THE CUMACTIC WARNING: MARK 8:38
For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulter-
ous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be
ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the
holy angels.
This saying has a history in the tradition prior to Mark which
can be traced with comparative certainty.8 In its very earliest
form it probably ran (in Aramaic): "Everyone who acknowl-
edges me before man, he will be acknowledged before the
angels of God." It was taken up into that tradition of the early
church which was concerned with the pronouncement of judg-
ment upon offenders, which judgment however would be car-
ried out by God at the eschaton (end time);' It was then trans-
lated into Greek and came to be known in the variety of ver-
sions which can be detected in Matthew 10:32 f. and parallel
passage, Luke 12:8£.:
So every one who acknowledges me before men, I (Luke: the
Son of man) also will acknowledge before my Father who is in
heaven (Luke: the angels of God); but whoever denies me before
men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven (Luke:
will be denied before the angels of God).
Here the important points to note are that the saying has be-
come a double saying using the verbs "acknowledge" and
"deny," and that the subject of the action in the second clause
can now either be 'T or "the Son of man" or God (when the
rwe are now swnmarizing what we argued in detail in Perrin, Redls-
cooering. pp. ls:H}11 with the difference that we are not here con-
cerned, as we were there, with the question as to whether any form of
the saying can be held to go back to Jesus himself.
'On this tradition, brilliantly isolated by Klisemann on fonn-critical
ifOunds. see Perrin, Rediscovering, pp. 22 f.
48
REDACfiON CRITICISM AT WORK: A SAMPLE
verb is in the passive). It must have been in some such ver-

sion that Mark knew the saying, and the changes from this
earlier version to the version in Mark 8:38 are due to Marean
redaction.
In the tradition from which the saying comes, th_e__empha-
sis was upon_ th~~!W'e _i!Jdw._~_!_Qf Q>_<!J,nd a specifiQ form
was created to express this judgment, namely, the form of a
rnro:partsenfence With the same verb in each e ressing
in e art the activi in 'u ed and in the second the
nl!-ture o e jud~ent. This act of pronouncing ju gment
was carried out atfue Eucharist and the form used for it
came to be widely used in early Christian exhortation, no
doubt because it carried with it something of the aura of that
moment of solemn judgment at the Eucharist. It must have
been for this reason that Mark chooses to use the form here.
Intending this as the climactic warning of the pericope, he
deliberately chooses a form which for his readers will strike
the chord of the solemn judgment pronouncement of the
church.
The changes in the actual saying from the version(s) detect-
able in Matthew 10:32 f. and parallel passages are similarly
reflective of the Marean purpose. The two most important of
these changes are the generalizing of the specific double em-
phasis "acknowledge-deny" into the single "be ashamed,"11 and
the choice of "Son of man" to express the subject of the sec-
ond clause rather than either of the other possibilities pre-
sented by the tradition, i.e., the first personal pronoun or the
passive voice (the latter as a circumlocution for "God"). The
first of these changes is due to the fact that the saying is now
the warning part of a double climax of warning and promise
(the promise being found in Mark 9:1) and so needs to be-
come a single warning saying to balance the second saying,
the promise. A double saying including both promise and warn-
ing would clearly be unbalanced when linked with a single
saying expressing promise. The choice of "Son of man" has a
'On the details of the development of this tradition and for the argu-
ments_ supporting the assertion made here, see Perrin, Rediscovering,
pp. 185-99.
47
WHAT IS REDAGnON CRITICISM?
double ground. On the one hand it makes a very effective

combination to balance "Son of man" in the warning against
"kingdom of God" in the promise, and on the other hand the
use of "Son of man" here naturally recalls the "Son of man"
in 8:31 (where, it should be noted, "Son of man" is introduced
rather abruptly since "Christ" is actually the title upon which
the contextual discussion turns). By means of this juxtaposition
Mark is able to make the cbristological point that the one
whose cross is the example to be followed is also the one whose
coming in judgment is to be anticipated. In this context
we may note that the use of the verb "ashamed" becomes very
effective indeed, a point which provides another reason for
regarding this version of the saying as a Marean product.
THE CLIMACTIC PROMISE: MARK 9:1
And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some
standing here who will not taste death before they see the
kingdom of God come with power...
The present writer has wrestled with this saying through-
out his academic career and during the course of some ten
years of work his opinion has moved from holding it to be a
genuine saying of Jesus to accepting that it is a Marean
product.• To summarize what we have argued in more
detail elsewhere, there are a number of features about the
saying which call for an explanation: it has distinctively
Marean characteristics, and it is related in form to Mark
13:30 as it is in content to Mark 8:38. We shall discuss these
matters in turn.
The Marean characteristics are the reference to "seeing"
the parousia and the use of the words "power" and "glory"
in this kind of context. Mark speaks of seeing the parousia
here in 9:1, again in 13:26, and for a third time in 14:62.
Matthew follows Mark on each occasion (Matt. 16:28; 24:30;
26:64), but he never uses the verb "to see" in connection with
'The changes and developments in the writer's opinion can be traced
throulili the successive works, N. Perrin. The Kingdom of God in the
T eacfiing qf ]e8U8 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), pa&Sim [see
refs. to Mark 9:1 in the Index]) and RedUcooering. pp. 16-20, 199-201.
48
the parousia elsewhere in his Gospel. Luke transforms Mark

9:1 into a non-parousia reference, as we shall argue below,
and he follows Mark 13:26 (Luke 21:27), but he omits the
reference to seeing in his version of Mark 14:62 (Luke 22:69).
Luke, like Matthew, also has no such usage except in depen-
dence on Mark. Mark uses "'power" and "glory" in a parousia
context in 8:38 ( ..glory") and 9:1 ("power"). Both Matthew
(16:27 f.) and Luke (9:26f.) follow him with regard to the
use of "glory" but omit the reference to "power." Mark 10:37
has "in your glory" with reference to the parousia, Matthew
( 20:21) changes this to "in your kingdom"; Luke has no
parallel. Mark 13:26 speaks of the Son of man "coming with
great power and glory"; Matthew (24:30) and Luke (21:27)
both follow this. Luke has no such usage elsewhere and
Matthew only one, Matthew .25:31, which is the beginning
of the parable of the sheep and the goats: "When the Son
of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then
he will sit on his glorious throne." In view of Matthew
19:28, ". . . in the new world, when the Son of man shall
sit on his glorious throne" (no parallels), this looks like a
combination of Marean and Matthean characteristics.
The relationship between Mark 9:1 and 13:30 in form and
content is as follows: ( 1) Both begin with the identical sol-
emn asseveration, "Truly, I say to you." ( 2) Both continue
with a promise that is similar in content (9:1, "... there are
some standing here who will not taste death before they see
the kingdom of God come with power"; 13:30, ". . . this
generation will not pass away before all these things take
place") and exactly parallel in form. Both use in the Greek
a clause introduced by hoti and both express the negation by
the use of double negative with the subjunctive. ( 3) Both
relate the promise to the coming of the eschaton.
The best explanation for this combination of data is the
supposition that Mark himself has composed his 9:1 using the
saying he has in his 13:30 as a model. Verse 13:30 itself is
almost certainly non-Marcan. It is a general piece of Jewish
Christian apocalyptic which has non-Marcan linguistic char-
acteristics, and it .fits its present context so very closely (it
49
WHAT IS REDACl'ION CRITlCISM?
finally answers the question which introduces the apocalyptic

discourse, 13:5-27, and the "these things" clearly are the
things referred to in that discourse) that there can be little
doubt but that the apocalyptic seer (neither Jesus nor Mark!)
who is responsible for this discourse composed 13:30 in order
to bring his discourse to an end.7 With this as a model Mark
has varied the content of the affinnation but not the form,
adopting for his purpose some stock phraseology from Jewish
apocalyptic. (Compare IV Ezra 6:25f.: "And it shall be
whosoever shall have survived all these things that I have
foretold unto thee, he shall be saved and shall see my salva-
tion. . . . And the men who have been taken up, who have
not tasted death from their birth, shall appear.") The promise
itseH varies in content from 13:30 in that it is expressed in
terms of the kingdom's coming in power. The use of "'kingdom
of God" in this context is undoubtedly due to the fact that
such a usage is a feature of the Jesus tradition itseH. As
Mark had gone to Jewish apocalyptic for the raw materials
of the first part of this saying, so he has gone to the tradition
of the sayings of Jesus for those of the second part. He will
have been motivated in part by the fact that in the Jesus
tradition "the kingdom of God" is most often used in a
context of promise or blessing. So it will have been natural
for him to construct a kingdom saying in the form of a
promise to balance the use of "Son of man.. in the preceding
warning. But although this kind of use of "kingdom of God,"
and of the verb "to come," were characteristic of the Jesus
tradition, and, for that matter, of Jesus himseH, both the tense
of the verb (the perfect) and the phrase "in power" are
Marean. To put the verb in the pedect and to add "in power"
is to stress the promise as a promise for an experience of
"We would reject the suggestion made, for example, h)' V. Taylor,
The Gorpel According to St. Mark (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1952),
p. 521, that this saying was originally a genuine saying of Jesus refer-
ring to the destruction of Jerusalem which "has been adapted in the
interests of contemporary apocalyptic." This is an ingenious attempt
to salvage the saying as a genuine word of Jesus. but there is not one
shred of evidence that the saying ever existed in a form other than
that which it now has. See further, Perrin, Rediacooering. p. 200.
50
BEDACTION CIUTICISM AT WORK: A SAMPLE
complete fulflllm.ent, all of which comes naturally in a saying

intended as the climactic promise of a whole pericope.
We have spent some time on the arguments for the Marean
authorship of this particular saying because this is an impor-
tant example of one kind of redactional possibility, namely,
free composition by the redactor on the basis of traditional
materials of various kinds. Indeed, one reason for choosing
this narrative as an example is that within its comparatively
brief compass we have instances of three distinct redactional
possibilities: ( 1) the bringing together of previously existing
independent sayings or shorter combinations of sayings ( 8:
36-7); (2) the modification of a saying in an existing tradition
of the church ( 8:38); ( 3) the creation of a new saying using
materials already present in the traditions of the church and
of Jewish apocalyptic.
So Mark 9:1 is a climactic promise constructed by Mark
himself to bring to an end this dramatic incident. It balances
the warning of the preceding saying and ends the whole on
a note of assurance, an assurance expressed in the strongest
terms which the traditions inherited by Mark could offer or
which Mark could conceive.8 A discussion of the exact mean-
ing indicated by Mark in this assurance must wait until we
have viewed the narrative as a whole from the perspective of
Mark's intention, to which we now turn.
THE NARRATIVE AS A WHOLE
Having discussed in some detail four individual parts of
the Caesarea Philippi narrative in Mark, we now must con-
sider the narrative again in its entirety. When we do this,
one thing noticeable is the very strong emphasis upon perse-
cution and suffering. The Son of man "must suffer many
"We have ~ken of Mark throuldwut as a self-conscio1JS-()ne might
even say cold-blooded!-editor, redactor, and author. We shonld per-
haps stress the obvious fact that this is simply a scholarlf convenience
as we discuss what he did, and it is not meant to prejudge any ques-
tions with regard to inspiration, sense of having "the mind of the
Lord," view of the tradition and its relationship to Jesus, etc. But
before any such questions can be discussed, it is essential to be clear
as to what Mark in fact did, and to determiDe this is, in part, the
PW'pOie of redaction criticism.
51
things," the disciple must ..deny himself and take up his

cross"; there is the ever-present possibility of saving one's
life only to lose it, of losing it only to save it, and so on.
Moreover, as we noted earlier, the whole moves in a most
remarkable manner between the historical situation of the
ministry of Jesus and that of the early church, and it is
quite evident that the pericope is concerned both with the
sufferings of Jesus as Son of man on the one hand and with
the potential sufferings of Christians "for my sake and the
gospel's" on the other. The narrative presupposes a context
of formal persecution for the readers. Recognizing this to
be the case, a major purpose of the narrative then becomes
apparent: the author is concerned with preparing the readers
for that persecution by linking it backwards with the suffer·
ings of Jesus and forwards with their own ultimate destiny.
On the one hand, as went the Master, so must go the disciple;
on the other, as goes the disciple now, so will go the Master
with him at the End.
In a very real sense, therefore, this pericope is a tract for
the times, and the times are those of formal persecution of
Christians as Christians. We cannot now reconstruct the
historical situation of the church to which Mark is addressing
himself in the sense that we can name the Roman city or
emperor concerned, but we can say that it is a situation
in which persecution is a very real possibility and that prepa·
ration of his readers for this possibility is a very real part
of the Marean purpose.
If we turn next to a consideration of the narrative in its
setting in the Gospel as a whole, then the first and most
obvious thing to be noted is the fact that has been so often
noted: this narrative is the watershed of the Gospel. Lives
of Jesus without number have been built upon the supposi-
tion that there was a "Galilean springtime.. in the ministry
of Jesus, that this was followed by a darkening "via dolorosa"
which led to Calvary, and that the transition from the one
to the other came at Caesarea Philippi. That this supposition
has so long endured is mute testimony to the sldll of Mark
as an author for, as we pointed out earlier, this narrative is
5.2
BEDACTION CRITICISM AT WORK: A SAMPLE
certainly designed by him to introduce his particular theology

of the cross. That he chose to do this in the form of narra-
tive rather than theological treatise is his business; that his
work has had such a tremendous impact upon subsequent
generations is testimony to the effectiveness of his choice. A
Marean treatise on the cross might even have earned an
honored place in the library of Christian theological literature,
but the Marean schematization of the ministry of Jesus
has become part of the lifeblood of Christian devotional
thinking. It is perhaps not out of place to add that the
validity of the Marean presentation is not dependent upon
whether Caesarea Philippi "actually happened" but upon the
meaningfulness of the cross as presented to Christian devotion
in this way.
It is not our present purpose to summarize the Marean
theology of the cross presented in this pericope and subse-
quently through his Gospel. In our view Mark is a significant
and creative literary figure and deserves to be read in the
form in which he chose to write rather than in summary.
Mark has the right to be read on his own terms, and after
several generations of being read mistakenly, as a historian,
he has earned the right to be read as a theologian. The
reader is therefore invited to consider for himseH the text
of Mark and the theology of the cross which it presents. Our
purpose is simply to point out that, from the viewpoint of
redaction criticism, this is one way in which the text should
be read.
A further emphasis in this narrative is that of Christology,
and in this connection the narrative has a number of notable
features. In the first place, we should notice that it uses the
title "Christ": "Peter answered him, 'You are the Christ...
( 8:29). At first sight this is by no means remarkable, for
Peter is here formally representing the early church and
therefore appropriately using the confessional title used by
that church. But if we look at the Gospel as a whole, then
we can see that, in general, the way Mark uses ..Christ..
focuses attention very sharply upon its use in this particular
incident. The title occurs only seven times in Mark: 1: 1; 8:29;
58
WHAT IS REDACTION CBITICISM?
9:41; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32. Of these seven instances

one (9:41) is simply a way of saying "Christian," four (12:
35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32} are references to "the anointed one,.
of Jewish messianic expectation, and one (1:1) is clearly a
part of the formal superscription to the Gospel as a whole.
This throws the last one ( 8:29) into very strong relief and
demands of us that we pay due attention to the fact that
only here in the Gospel of Mark is Jesus formally acknowl-
edged as the Messiah of Jewish expectation and the Christ
of Christian worship. Clearly this narrative is concerned wit;h
Christology in a very special way. We must add to this
observation the fact that verse 8:29 marks a very definite
stage of development in the Marean presentation of the disci-
ples' understanding of Jesus. 9 In the first half of the Gospel
(1:16-8:21} the disciples are imperceptive in the sense that
they appear incapable of perceiving who Jesus is. "Despite
the continuous manifestation of Jesus' messiahship before the
disciples in countless healings, exorcisms, and nature miracles,
they remain amazingly obtuse in the face of their involvement
in the messianic drama" (Weeden). The fact is that a careful
perusal of the first half of Mark's Gospel creates the impres-
sion that the disciples, although granted special privileges in
their relationship with Jesus, are far less perceptive concern-
ing him than are other people who meet him in the course
of his ministry.10 With the Caesarea Philippi narrative, how-
ever, all this changes. True, the disciples are as dim-witted
about Jesus as they had always been-note, for example, that
Peter is presented as one who cannot accept the idea of a
suffering Messiah even when that suffering culminates in res-
urrection ( 8:31 f. )-but now there is a change from imper-
ceptivity to misconception. Whereas before they had not
-In this and what follows, we are indebted to some as yet unp~b
lished work by Theodore J, Weeden of Wake Forest University on "The
Heresy That Necessitated Mark's Gospel."
"'Weeden.,.. whom we are following at this point, refers to 5:28-31
where the rusciples are oblivious to the healing power of Jesus gannents
which was knoWn to the hemorrhaging woman, to 8:4 wbere they have
apparently gained no insililit from the first feeding ( 6:30 ft.), 8.nd to
8:14-21 where they have 1ailed to COIJlprehend the supernaturril capac-
ity exhibited in the two feedings (6:30-44; 8:1-10).
54
been able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, now they recog-

nize him as Messiah but misunderstand the nature of that
messiahship. Even this, however, is not the end. From Mark
14:10 onwards there is a further change in the disciples'
understanding of Jesus. From this point on, they no longer
simply misunderstand Jesus; now they totally reject him:ll
Judas betrays him; the inner group, Peter, James, and John,
fails him in Gethsemane; Peter, the disciple par excellence,
denies him adamantly in the High Priest's courtyard.
This presentation of the disciples' relationship to, and un-
derstanding of, Jesus bears all the hallmarks of a careful
schematization and this fact focuses attention upon the Caesa-
rea Philippi narrative as a part of a Marean christological
argument. There is every reason to believe that one of the
problems faced by the early church was that of understanding
the true nature of her Christology. In the Greek world it
was natural to think of "divine men"-"sons of God," who by
their miraculous powers demonstrated the divine reality that
was present in them as substance or power and that enabled
them to enjoy ecstatic appearances and to do miracles 12-and
therefore to think of Jesus in these terms. Not the least of
the purposes of Mark's Gospel seems to have been specifically
to combat a "divine man" understanding of Christology. In
the first part of his Gospel, Mark goes to considerable pains
to present Jesus in such a light; he saturates the first half of
his Gospel with wonder-working activities of Jesus and inter-
sperses summaries of this activity which can only be read in
these tenns ( 1:32 fl.; 3:7 fl.; 6:53 ff.) so that the reader of
his Gospel is left with only one possible conclusion: Peter
confesses Jesus as a "divine man." In fact, if 1:1-8:29 were
the only extant section of the Gospel, one would be forced
to believe that from the Marean perspective the only authen-
tic understanding of Jesus was as a "divine man-Messiah."
nThe recognition of this fact is Weeden's special contn'bution to the
discussion. Up to here he had been following, A. Kuby, "Zur Konzeption
des Markus-Evangeliums," Zeitschrift fflr die neutestamentliche Wissen-
schaft1 49 ( 1958) t. 52-64, but the insights we follow from here on are his.
"'Ct. R. H. FUller, Th8 Foundations of New Testament Christologu,
p. 98.
55
But it is precisely here that the Caesarea Philippi narrative

plays its part. Here Peter confesses Jesus as the Messiah ~d
goes on to interpret this messiahship in terms of a ..divme
man" Christology. Here, therefore, the Lord rejects this
understanding of Christology in the most explicit terms possi-
ble: "Get behind me Satan! For you are not on the side of
God, but of men" (8:33). The conclusion is inevitable: Mark
presents a false understanding of Cbristology on the lips of
Peter, a true understanding on the lips of Jesus. But in recog-
nizing this, we are recognizing that the narrative is not
concerned with the historical Peter's misunderstanding of the
nature of Jesus' messiahship but with a false understanding
of Christology prevalent in the church for which Mark is
writing, i.e., with "the heresy that necessitated Mark's gospel"
(Weeden). The purpose of the schematization of the disci-
ples' misunderstanding of Jesus in Mark's Gospel is to press
for an acceptance of a suffering servant Christology in the
church for which Mark is writing.
One last aspect of this narrative which must concern us
is that of the Messianic Secret {8:30),13 At several places in
our work we have had occasion to call attention to this feature
of Mark's Gospel because the recognition of it as a feature
of the Gospel rather than of the historical ministry of Jesus
has been a key factor in the development of redaction criti-
cism. At this point we have no need to repeat what we said
earlier in the context of our discussions of Wrede and Light-
foot;14 we shall simply add that anyone who would under-
stand the theology of Mark has to wrestle with the mean-
ing of the Messianic Secret in Mark. To review the various
attempts to do this among contemporary scholars, or to make
such an attempt ourselves, would be to go beyond the bounds
of our present work; here we content ourselves with saying
that this is one of the things redaction criticism has taught
us to do.
We have concluded our discussion of the Caesarea Philippi

18See above, pp. 7 ff.
"'See above, pp. 7-12 (Wrede), 23 f. (Lightfoot).
56
REDACI'ION CRITICISM AT WORK: A SAMPLE
narrative in Mark and we now turn to a discussion of the

parallels in Matthew and Luke: Matthew 16:13-28 and Luke
9:18-27. As we do, the situation changes because now we
have the source which both Matthew and Luke have used.
On literary-critical grounds 111 we can show that both Matthew
and Luke have used Mark as a source for their own Gospels,
and they are certainly following Mark in their account of
this particular incident. This means that we can now move
with certainty in regard to redaction criticism because a
simple comparison of Matthew and Luke with Mark will
immediately throw into relief the redactional activity of Mat-
thew and Luke respectively. Whereas with Mark we have
to spend a lot of time and energy attempting to reconstruct
the tradition he has used if we are to detect his redactional
activity on that tradition, with Matthew and Luke, in a narra-
tive such as this one, we have the tradition they have used
before us in the form in which it came to them from Mark.
Our knowledge of the redactional activity of Matthew and
Luke is therefore both firm and extensive; we not only have
one of their major sources, Mark, but we can also reconstruct
another, the sayings source, Q. It is no accident that redaction
criticism is able to do spectacularly successful work on the
theology of Matthew and the theology of Luke.
THE MATTHEAN NARRATIVE: MATTHEW 16:13-28
If we repeat our previous practice with Mark and begin

by reading this narrative straight through, we notice at once
that there is here not one incident but two. Matthew 16:13-23
is a story complete in itself which should be given some such
heading as 'The Revelation to Peter." Peter's confession is
now greeted by the paean of praise: "Blessed are you, Simon
Bar-Jonal For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
but my Father who is in heaven," which throws it into stark
relief both as a confession and as an insight made possible
only by divine revelation. This "Revelation to Peter" is fol-
lowed by the commissioning of Peter as formal head of the
usee the forthcoming volume in this series, W. A. Beardslee, Literaru
Criticism of the New Teatament, and Perrin. Rediscovering, pp. 34 f.
57
WHAT lS REDACriON CRITICISM?
church: • And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I
will build my church, and the powers of death shall not
prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven." This commissioning is clearly possible now
because of the previous revelation; as the recipient of this
revelation Peter fittingly becomes head of the Christian com-
munity. Then, in verse 21, there is a break in the narrative
("From that time Jesus began to show his disciples ..."),
and we get the transition to a second story, "The Misunder-
standing of the Passion," an incident in which Matthew fol-
lows Mark in general content but with verbal changes that
will concern us later.
The Matthean version is, then, a complete reworking of
the narrative. Instead of a confession at Caesarea Philippi,
we have both a revelation and a commissioning there, and
the close connection between the confession and the subse-
quent misunderstanding characteristic of Mark, whose con-
cerns are christological, is deliberately broken by Matthew,
whose concerns are predominantly ecclesiologicaL This re~
working is in part effected by verbal changes Matthew makes
in the Marean source, for example, Matthew's "From that
time Jesus began" for Mark's "And he began" (Matt. 16:21;
Mark 8:31 ), but for the most part they are due to the inser-
tion of Matthew 16:17-19, a piece of tradition which has no
parallel in Mark or Luke. Whence comes this formal blessing
of Peter, this ceremonial appointment of him to hegemony
in the early Christian church? The most probable answer
(argued very strongly by R H. Fuller in a paper "The Tu Es
Petrus' Pericope" read to the Society of Biblical Literature on
December 29, 1966) is that it is from a story which originally
concerned Christ's resurrection appearance to Peter, a story
used by Matthew here and which has also left its traces on
other parts of the New Testament, but which is otherwise
lost to us. The effect of the use of this piece of tradition by
Matthew is unmistakable; it transforms the first part of the
Marean narrative into a new, seH-contained incident in which
58
REDACTION CRITICISM AT WORX: A SAMPLE
Peter is granted a heavenly revelation of Jesus' true nature

as Messiah and in which, on the basis of this revelation,
he assumes full authority as founder and leader of the early
church with the power to determine not only membership
of that church but also of the ultimate kingdom of God. Here
we have not only "outside the church there is no salvation"
but also "within the church salvation is certain."
At this point it is interesting to note that there is a certain
conflict between Matthew himseH and the tradition he is
using. It is true enough that Matthew has a marked ecclesi-
ological interest; every '1ntroduction to the New Testament"
points out that the Gospel of Matthew is a "church book,"
designed to meet the ecclesiastical needs of a Christian con-
gregation toward the end of the first century, and in this
sense the changes in the first part of the Marean narrative are
absolutely typical of Matthew's total procedure. Matthew
himseH certainly believes that "outside the church there is
no salvation," but he also believes that there are many in
the church who are by no means saved and that good and
bad will continue side by side in the church until the sorting
out process of the final judgment. 16 In the tradition used by
him in verses 17-19 of this narrative, however, there is no
hint of any reservation in this matter; as we have already
said, "within the church salvation is certain'' is the viewpoint
here! Very likely this tradition was the product of circles con-
cerned with honoring Peter as founder and leader of the
church as against possible rivals, and, as one might expect,
a partisan viewpoint is accompanied by a somewhat unsophis-
ticated view of the church. Be that as it may, Matthew uses
the tradition here because he too honors Peter and because
he is concerned with the moment of revelation as a conse-
quence of which the church is founded.
It should be noted in passing that, if the supposition is
correct that the tradition originally concerned a resurrection
appearance to Peter, then we have here another most impor-
tant insight into the nature of Gospel narratives as conceived
11Matt. 13:26-30; 13:47-50. Cf. G. Bomkamm, G. Barth, R J. Held,
Tradition. and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 10 ff.
59
by the evangelists themselves. Not only is Matthew following

Mark in moving readily between the ministry of Jesus, which
is past, and the ministry of the church, which is present,
but he is also adding a third element in that he moves equally
readily from the more distant past of the ministry of Jesus
to the more immediate past of a reslUTection appearance to
Peter, to the present of the church. It is clear that in Gospel
narratives past-both more distant and more immediate-and
present flow into one another in a way that we must regard
as remarkable.
If we consider the wording of that part of Matthew 16:
13-23 in which Matthew is following Mark, then two changes
become immediately apparent: Jesus' first question, "Who do
men say that I am," has become in Matthew, "Who do men
say that the Son of man is," and Peter's confession, "You are
the Christ," has become, "You are the Christ, the Son of the
living God" (Matt. 16:13, 14). Both of these are significant.
The first is part of a double change in that Matthew not only
adds "Son of man" here but also rewrites the passion pre-
diction (16:21, compare Mark 8:31) in order to avoid such
a reference there; in effect he moves the "Son of man" refer-
ence from 16:21 to 16:13. Now the immediate effect of this
is to make the question in 16:13 a nonsensical question, for
the answer is now given in the question! It might be possible
to suggest, as some commentators do, that "Son of man"
here is a colorless self-designation, but this cannot be so be-
cause the fact that Matthew has moved the reference shows
that it is for him a most meaningful one, and in any case in
so heavily confessional a context as this the term must be
regarded as being used confessionally. No, the huth of the
matter is that Matthew is not here interested in a realistic
question which will initiate a christological discussion, as is
Mark; he is interested in the formal proclamation by Jesus of
the existence of the Christian church and so "the sovereignty
of the one who announces the period of his Church is sol-
emnly enunciated at the beginning of the section" by using
60
REDACTION CBITICISM AT WORK: A SAMPLE
the name "Son of man" ..as an emphatic heading."17 So he

moves the term to the beginning of the section in order to
make the Jesus who is to proclaim the existence and authority
of the church, with Peter as its leader, also proclaim himself
as Son of man. We shall have occasion to note below that
for Matthew "Son of man" is a term of supreme authority.
The second change, the addition of "the Son of the living
God" to the confession, is simpler. Recognizing the confession
for what it is, the regular confession of the early Christian
church, Matthew has cast it in the form used in the circles
in which he moved. "Son of God" was not a messianic title
in pre-Christian Judaism and so the confession would be
impossible in the historical circumstances of the ministry of
Jesus-not that that is of any concern to Matthew. The con-
fession developed in early Christianity and it is particularly
meaningful to Matthew himself, no doubt having been medi-
ated to him by the church for which he wrote. He has a
strong interest in this particular christological title and in
theological and devotional thinking based upon its use: Mat-
thew 2:15; 8:29; 14:33; 11:25-27.
The second of the two incidents into which Matthew divides
the Marean Caesarea Philippi narrative is much closer to
the original than is the first. The major change comes at the
end where the climactic warning and promise in Mark have
been reworked in the interest of a particular Matthean doc-
trine of the Son of man (Matt. 16:27, 28; cf. Mark 8:38t; 9:1).
The Marean reference to the coming of the Son of man has
been made much more emphatic: "For the Son of man is to
come ..."; and in place of the Son of man being "ashamed"
we have a developed doctrine of the judgment of the Son
of man: "and then he will repay every man for what he has
done." This last is a development in the direction of Jewish
apocalyptic (cf. I Enoch 45:3 and chapter 46), and it is a
doctrine in which Matthew has a particular interest (Matt.
13:41; 25:31). More than this, the final "kingdom" of Chris-
"TOdt, Son of Man, p. 150. TOdt's discussion of the use of Son of
man by Matthew here ind elsewhere is most illuminating.
61
tian expectation can be for Matthew specifically the kingdom

of the Son of man (see Matt. 13:41) and so the "'before they
see the kingdom of God come with power" of Mark 9:1
becomes, in Matthew 16:28, "before they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom." For Matthew "Son of man" is a title
of supreme authority and that •son of man" readily comes
to assume functions which elsewhere in the Christian tradi-
tions are ascribed to God himseH. Incidentally, the "Son of
man" figure similarly assumes functions more normally attrib-
uted directly to God also in the Jewish apocalyptic traditions
now represented by the so-called Similitudes of Enoch (I
Enoch 37-71), traditions apparently known to Matthew.
THE LUCAN NARRATIVE: LUKE 9:18-27
This narrative begins with a verse that has long been the
subject of discussion: "Now it happened that as he was pray·
ing alone the disciples were with him." This is nonsense,
both in the English translation and in the original Greek, and
the best explanation seems to be that Luke is deliberately
combining the situation of Mark 6:46, "And after he had
taken leave of them, he went into the hills to pray," with
that of Mark 8:27, ..And Jesus went on with his disciples...."
When we add to this the oft-noted fact that Luke has no
parallels to Mark 6:44-8:26, then it seems most probable
that his copy of Mark's Gospel was defective at this point.
Newl1 discovered papyrus codices of the Gospels offer us
exact parallels to this: John 6:11-35 is missing from the
codex designated P11 and Luke 18:18-22:4 from that desig-
nated P711 •
As regards more theologically motivated redaction, there
are two major changes in the Lucan pericope as over against
the Marean. The first of these is the omission of the dispute
between Jesus and Peter (Mark 8:32 f.). We argued above
that this was part of a literary device by means of which
Mark makes an essential christological point Luke is not
interested in the christological point (note in Luke 22:24-30
his spectacular choice of a version of the dispute about
greatness which enables him to omit Mark 10:45), and he
6.2
REDACI'ION CRITICISM AT WORK: A SAMPLE
therefore omits this part of the narrative. It may even be

that he found it offensive, although this we cannot know. 11
The second change is that by a series of subtle touches-
for example, the insertion of "daily" in verse 23, and the
omission of "in this adulterous and sinful generation.. in
verse 26 and of "come with power.. in verse 27-Luke has
completely changed the tenor of the whole passage. The
Marean note of urgency in the face of a specific persecution
preceding an imminent eschaton has become a challenge for
a continual witnessing over an indefinite period of time. This
is part of the Lucan rethinking of early Christian eschatology
to which Hans Conzelmann has so convincingly called our
attention, and since his work is so readily available we need
do no more than mention this fact here.
liJ:f we are to think in these terms, then we could say that Matthew
will have been able to maintain it because it is mitigated by the
preceding approval of Peter in the Matthean version of the narrative.
It is interesting to note that all three evangelists have the account of
the Denial by Peter in their passion narratives (Mark 14:66-72; Matt.
26:69-75; LUke 22:56-61). The passion narrative in its essentials is
certainly pre-Marcan and it may well have been this incident which
led Mark to the literary device of the Petrine christological mil-
understanding.
IV
The Significance of the Discipline
So far in this book we have attempted to describe the

origins and characteristics of redaction criticism, to give some
account of its first flowering, and to offer a sample of the
kind of work which it attempts to do. We could go on to
review the redaction-critical work that has been done since
the accomplishments of Bomkamm and his pupils and of
Marxsen and Conzelmann. But this work is still going on
very actively indeed, and any summary attempted now would
have to be drastically revised in light of the work that will
no doubt be published within the next few years. It will be
a decade or so at the very least before the work will have
progressed far enough for there to be sufficient agreement
among the scholars concerned to provide the basis for a sum-
mary of achieved results. All we could do today, for example,
would be to show how Conzelmann's conclusions about the
Lucan theology are in part accepted, in part modified, and
in part rejected by those scholars who have responded to the
challenge of his initial work on Luke-Acts. But the work is still
going on and any such statement made now in the fall of 1969
would certainly have to be modified in the fall of 1970 because
no doubt significant articles or even books on Luke using the
redaction-critical methodology will appear in the next twelve
months. The fact of the matter is that the work is being car-
ried on so actively and the discipline and methodology are still
so new that any attempt to present a summary of achievements
or conclusions would be premature. So rather than attempt this
64
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCIPLINE
in the final chapter of our book, we propose instead to reHect

somewhat on what may tum out to be ultimately the signifi-
cance of the discipline. In part this is to doff the mantle of a
reporter and to put on that of a prophet, a wholly ridiculous
proceeding, but some assessment of the possibilities inherent
in the discipline and of its significance for broader theological
concerns is essential in a book of this nature. For this reason
the present writer will attempt some assessment of prospect
and significance.
REDACTION AND COMPOSITION
It is becoming evident that one problem connected with
redaction criticism is and will increasingly become the prob-
lem of the relationship between redaction and composition.
This has come out at several points in our previous discussion,
and we have called attention, for example, to the fact that
Haenchen suggests the term "composition criticism" for the
discipline. The problem is that in some respects we learn to
recognize the theological motivation of a writer in the way he
modifies or redacts previously existing material. It is for this
reason, for example, that the term "redaction criticism" quite
properly applies to the work of Conzelmann, who builds his
basic understanding of the Lucan theology upon the minute
observation of changes introduced by Luke in the material he
inherits from Mark and Q; in other words, Conzelmann is look-
ing for demonstrable tendencies to be revealed in Luke's
handling of traditional material. Clearly wherever we have
sources and the use of these as observable phenomena in the
work of a writer, this is a proper methodology. This methodol-
ogy can also be used in those cases where sources have to be
posited rather than demonstrated as actually existing, for ex-
ample, in the case of Mark. Here the present writer in a recent
article has sought to define the traditional uses of Son of man
inherited by Mark and then to observe the changes that he
introduces in his use of this traditional material.1 This again
is redaction criticism. But we do not go very far in this direc-
1N. Perrin, -rhe Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark,..
Union SemlnM'fl Quarterlu ReoleiD, 23 (1967/68), 357-65.
65
WHAT IS REDACTION CRmCISM?
tion before we come to the questions not only of the changes

introduced in the material, but also the arrangement of the
material, the movement of narrative in which the material is
now set, and the like. This is composition, but it is also a good
indicator of the theological pmpose of the author. To give an
obvious example, we learn a great deal about the Marean
theological purpose from the careful way in which he has com-
posed a whole section of his Gospel, 8:27-10:52, to serve as an
introduction to, and an exploration of, the meaning of the pas-
sion. And we gain further insight from the way in which he has
developed within that section the careful threefold repetition
of the pattern: passion prediction-misunderstanding-instruc-
tion in Christian discipleship.
Just as it is clear that we cannot easily separate redaction from
composition, so it is also clear that we must expand the concept
of composition to include the composition of wholly new say-
ings. Undoubtedly, many sayings now ascribed to Jesus in the
synoptic Gospels were composed at various stages in the trans-
mission of the tradition: Son of man sayings were composed by
early Christian prophets, for example, or Mark 9:1 was com-
posed by Mark to serve his own purpose as the climax to the
Caesarea Philippi pericope. This kind of composition also speaks
volumes for the theological purpose of the author. Here we
have, therefore, a whole variety of activities in which an author
engages, and the one thing that can be said of it all is that no
single term is adequate to describe this variety. It is for this rea-
son that we have stayed with the term "redaction criticism"
rather than follow Haenchen's suggestion; ..redaction criticism"
may not be accurate but then no other term would be more so,
and it does have the advantage of having been the first used in
this context But we wish to make it quite clear that we do un-
derstand "redaction criticism" as being a cipher rather than a
description: it refers to the whole range_9f creative activities
w}rl~ we can-deteclJn an . ev@gellit,::m authC?r~~ tr~~tter
of t:radition, and in which and by means of which we learn
sometliing ofthat'author's, evangelist's, transmitter's-theoTo_gy.
It may well be that one day the discipline will have ueveroped
to the point where composition criticism has to be distin-
66
guished from redaction criticism as redaction criticism now

has to be distinguished from form criticism, but that day is
not yet and we are concerned with the discipline as it is
currently being practiced.
THE THEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF EARUEST CHRISTIANITY
What can be said to be the significance of the discipline?
First and most obvious is the fact that redaction criticism is
vastly increasing our knowledge of the theological history of
earliest Christianity. We have had occasion to stress that, while
there are no agreed results as yet which could serve as the
basis for summary presentations of, for example, the theology
of Luke or the theology of Mark, there can be no doubt that
the insights being gained through redaction criticism are of
such importance that all previous presentations of the theology
of the evangelists are now simply outdated. There can be no
discussion of the theology of Luke which does not begin with
the work of Conzelmann and go on from there, using his char-
acteristic methodology; nor is it possible today to discuss any
aspect of the theology of earliest Christianity without first con-
sidering what redaction criticism has had to say about it We
cannot possibly overstress the significance of the discipline
in this field; there is no going back from it and there is no
disputing it except on the basis of a better use of the charac-
teristic methodology. So we may confidently expect that in the
course of the next few years we are going to develop major
understandings of the theology of the synoptic evangelists in
a way that we could never have hoped to do before the rise
of this discipline. Further, there can also be no doubt that we
are going to be able to pinpoint other significant moments in
the theological history of earliest Christianity. Already we have
fundamentally important insights into the theology which
produced the source Q, as has been demonstrated by the
work of Toot, and there is no reason why such knowledge
should be limited to Q. At any point where we can isolate
a moment in the development of tradition we are going to be
able to say something about the theology which is at work
in that moment and hence to :611 in our knowledge of the
ffl
theological history of earliest Christianity in a way that would

have been impossible a few years ago. It must be said that
the first chapters of all the standard histories of Christian doc-
trine or Christian theology are already out of date! Nor is ·it
only the histories of Christian theology which are being af-
fected by the development; the standard portrayals of New
Testament theology, even Bultmann's, which is by far the
most important of them all, are equally out of date insofar
as they do not present the synoptic evangelists as major theo-
logians. In this respect the theological world is going to be
very seriously affected by the work of the redaction critic and,
it is hoped, very considerably helped!
LIFE OF JESUS RESEARCH AND LIFE OF JESUS THEOLOGY
In addition to this quite obvious point there are some other
things that must be said about the potential significance of
redaction criticism, not the least of which is its significance
in the context of Life of Jesus research and Life of Jesus theol-
ogy. These are terms used by the Germans [Leben ]esu For-
schung, Leben ]em Theologie] to denote a particular attitude
to the historical Jesus, namely, that of recognizing him as the
locus of revelation and the central concern of Christian faith.
Motivated by this viewpoint, whole generations of German
scholars took up the "quest of the historical Jesus." In Ger-
many this movement came to an end roughly with the rise
of form criticism. In Britain and America, however, it has con-
tinued down to the present, and there is a constant tendency
among us to regard the historical Jesus as all-important to faith
and hence to want to continue to regard the Gospels as sources
for knowledge of him. The present writer would be the first
to admit that this is the motivation for the work that he did
which led to his two previous books on The Kingdom of God
in the Teaching of Jesus and Rediscovering the Teaching of
]e8'U8. However, he must also be the first to admit that a grow-
ing awareness of the consequences of accepting form criticism,
not only as a methodology to be used in Life of Jesus research
but also as a way of understanding the nature of the Gospel
narratives, has had grave consequences so far as this viewpoint
68
is concerned. But it is when we come to redaction criticism

that the whole matter comes to a head. For redaction criti-
cism not only makes Life of Jesus research very much more
difficult, it also raises fundamental questions with regard to
the validity of a Life of Jesus theology. We will discuss each
of these in tum.
That redaction criticism makes Life of Jesus research very
much more difficult is, of course, immediately obvious. With
the recognition that so very much of the material in the Gos-
pels must be ascribed to the theological motivation of the evan-
gelist or of an editor of the tradition, or of a prophet or
preacher in the early church, we must come to recognize that
the words of B. H. Lightfoot were fully and absolutely justi-
fied: the Gospels do indeed yield us "only the whisper of
Jesus' voice." This means in practice that we must take as our
starting point the assumption that the Gospels offer us directly
information about the theology of the early church and not
about the teaching of the historical Jesus, and that any infor-
mation we may derive from them about Jesus can only come
as a result of the stringent application of very carefully con-
trived criteria for authenticity. The present writer does not
wish to belabor this point-he has made it already in the first
chapter of his Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus-but it must
be said once again here since this is the first and most im-
mediate impact of redaction criticism upon one who has grown
up in Anglo-Saxon theological circumstances. What has hap-
pened in practice is that over the last fifty years or so we have
seen the gradual recognition that very stringent criteria in-
deed are necessary in the quest for authentic words of Jesus.
There was a time when anything that was not obviously im-
possible on the lips of Jesus was ascribed to him. Again at a
more sophisticated level we saw the day when there was a
tendency to feel that the Gospel tradition was only one step
removed from actual reminiscence of the ministry of Jesus and
so any convergence of two sources in the synoptic tradition
brought us into that ministry. This was essentially the position
of the present writer's first teacher, T. W. Manson. In all of
this there was the unspoken assumption that the burden of
69
proof lay on the claim to inauthenticity. This attitude is still

to be detected in some work, especially that coming from
England. An example would be the recent book The Son of
Man in Mark by Morna D. Hooker.2 Miss Hooker is convinced
that form criticism has failed to make its point, and she is
therefore content with the assumption that may be caricatured
in the words, "If it could have come from Jesus it most prob-
ably did." But it is the contention of our present book that
neither form criticism nor redaction criticism has failed; rather
they have succeeded spectacularly in illuminating the true
nature of the Gospel tradition; hence the burden of proof must
lay on the claim to authenticity, and the difficulties of estab-
lishing that claim become very great-very great indeed, but
not impossible. The present writer would be the first to claim
that we do know something about Jesus and that it is possible
to establish some conclusions with regard to his teaching But
it is by no means simple, and the sooner this is recognized.
the better for Life of Jesus research.
The actual needs of the situation here can perhaps best be
illustrated by reference to the specific methodologies proposed
for Life of Jesus research by R. H. Fuller and the present
writer.8 Both of us worked in full knowledge of the impact of
form criticism (a term used so as to include what we are here
calling redaction criticism); we both had the same concern-
to &nd a way to recognize authentic Jesus material in the syn-
optic tradition-and we worked completely independently of
one another. The measure of agreement we reached is there·
fore all the more striking.
We agree that what is needed first and foremost is a history
of the tradition. We must follow in the path of R. Bultmann in
his History of the Synoptic Tradition or J. Jeremias in his
Parables of Jesus and reconstruct the history of the particular
tradition with which we are concerned, i.e., the history of its
transmission in the church, so that we may reach its primary
stratum. When we have reached that form of the material
-London: SPCK, 1967. See the present writer's review of this book
m the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 37 ( 1969), 92-94.
8J\. H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (Naper·
ville: Allenson, 1966), pp. 91-104; N. Perrin, Rediscovering, pp. ls::-49.
70
we must then devise criteria by means of which we can test

its authenticity. Both Fuller and the present writer devised
the same three criteria although we gave them different names.
First and most important, we have the criterion of "distinc-
tiveness" (Fuller) or "dissimilarity" (Perrin): material may
be ascribed to Jesus only if it can be shown to be distinctive
of him, which usually will mean dissimilar to known tendencies
in Judaism before him or the church after him. An example of
this would be the address to God, "Abba" {Father), in the
Lucan version of the Lord's Prayer. Jeremias has shown that
this is foreign to the Judaism of Jesus' day, and the Matthean
version of the Lord's Prayer, representing the more character-
istic piety of the early church, moves away from it Then we
have, secondly, the "cross-section method" ( Fuller) or "crite-
rion of multiple attestation" (Perrin): material may be accepted
which is found in a multiplicity of sources or forms of tradi-
tion, provided always that this multiple attestation is not due
to the influence of some widespread church practice such as
the Eucharist. An example here would be the concern of Jesus
for "tax collectors and sinners." Thirdly and lastly, we have the
criterion of "consistency" (Fuller) or "coherence" (Perrin):
material which is consistent with or coheres with material
established as authentic by other means may also be accepted.
It is to be acknowledged, of course, that in all this the material
must also pass linguistic and environmental tests. Anything
which is clearly Greek in origin, such as the explanation of
the Sower in Mark 4:11-20, or which obviously reflects the en-
vironment of the church, such as the commissioning of Peter
in Matthew 16: 18 f., must be rejected. At the same time ma-
terial which is both Aramaic and Palestinian must also meet
other criteria, since the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian church
certainly created Jesus material, as for example, apocalyptic
Son of man sayings.
From this moment forward Life of Jesus research must
proceed in this way and use this kind of methodology. The
impact of form and redaction criticism is such that nothing less
than this kind of stringency is possible. It is quite clear that
form criticism and its "lusty infant," redaction criticism, have
71
made Life of Jesus research immensely more difficult than it

was at one time held to be, and that, at the same time, schol-
arship is moving ahead in the attempt to meet the challenge
of these difficulties. But the fact that redaction criticism makes
Life of Jesus research immensely more difficult is not the real
cutting edge of its impact in this field, even if it is the most
obvious thing about it. The real cutting edge of the impact of
redaction criticism is the fact that it raises very serious ques-
tions indeed about that which normally motivates Life of Jesus
research: Life of Jesus theology. It raises above all the ques-
tion as to whether the view of the historical Jesus as the locus
of revelation and the central concern of Christian faith is in
fact justifiable, and it raises this question because it shows how
truly foreign such a view is to the New Testament itself.
It has, of course, always been clear that the very concep-
tion of the "historical Jesus" was foreign to the New Testament
as such a conception would be to any document from the
ancient world. When we use the word "historical" we mean
"factual," "as it actually was," or the like, and our intention
is always to distinguish between this and later additions or
interpretations. But the ancient world simply did not think in
this way, and so we always have the problem of recovering
the historical figure, as we would understand that phrase, from
documents which do not observe our distinctions. In this re-
spect the problem is the same whether the figure be Jesus,
Julius Caesar, or Socrates; we have to set out on a "quest" of
the historical figure. Further, and equally obviously, we have
to contend with the fact that the ancient documents were
written by people with a view of the world very different from
our own. To the men of the New Testament, for example, the
appearance of angels, the machinations of demons, the break-
ing open of the heavens to facilitate the descent of a dove
or the ascent of a body are all events within the realm of
realistic expectation, whereas the appearance of such things
to us would send us to consult either an oculist or a psychia-
trist! But none of this is new, and certainly none of it is due
to the impact of redaction criticism. It was always well-known
72
THE SICNIFIC.ANCE OF THE DISCIPLINE
to scholars who engaged in the "'quest of the historical Jesus••

and they developed techniques for dealing with the problems
involved. The fact that the Gospels are not historical sources
in our sense of that phrase does not mean that historical in-
formation cannot be derived &om them. In this regard the
diHerence made by the insights of redaction criticism is simply
that the "quest" becomes more difficult, but, as we have al-
ready indicated, historical scholarship is rising to meet that
particular challenge.
The really complicating factor in the case of the New Testa-
ment documents, more specifically the Gospels, is that the
early church, not having our sense of the word "historical" and
being motivated by an intense religious experience, saw no
reason to distinguish between words originally spoken by the
historical Jesus bar Joseph from Nazareth and words ascribed
to him in the tradition of the church. In this respect the New
Testament is very diHerent from the records we have of Jewish
rabbis or Greek teachers in the ancient world. In every in-
stance, whether it be the Greek philosopher Socrates, the
Jewish rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, or Jesus of Nazareth, we
would have the problem of distinguishing the original core of
authentic material from accretions or interpretations in the
particular tradition concerned, but in the case of the New Tes-
tament there is something else to consider: the sense of the
presence of the risen Lord Jesus in the experience of the be-
liever or the church and the conviction that this Jesus who
speaks is the Jesus who once spoke. It is at this point that re-
daction criticism makes its impact, for it reveals to us how very
much of the material ascribed to the Jesus who spoke in Gall-
lee or Judea must in fact be ascribed to the Jesus who spoke
through a prophet or evangelist in the early church. We saw
in our discussion of the Caesarea Philippi pericope, for ex-
ample, that in the case of the two climactic sayings ascribed
to Jesus in Mark 8:38 and 9:1, the first is ultimately from a
Christian prophet and the second is a composition of the
evangelist himself. Further, we saw that in the Matthean ver-
sion of that pericope the key commissioning of Peter, Matthew
~allusion is to the title of Albert Schweitzeis famous book.
78
WHAT IS REDACOON CRITICISM?
16:18 f., was very likely originally known to Matthew himseH

as a commissioning by the risen Lord in a resurrection story
but is then ascribed by him to the Jesus of the Gospel story.
But that is precisely the point: "the Jesus of the Gospel story"
is at one and the same time the "historical" Jesus bar Joseph
from Nazareth, the risen Lord of Peter's resurrection vision,
and the Son of God who guides the evangelist to an under-
standing of the ultimate hope for persecuted Christians.
It is this aspect of the Gospel narratives which redaction
criticism so clearly reveals. It makes clear the fact that the
voice of the Jesus of the Gospels is the voice of living Chris·
tian experience, and that the evangelists and the tradition they
represent are indifferent as to whether this experience is ulti-
mately related to anything said or done in Galilee or Judea
before the crucifixion. In light of this fact it seems very hard
indeed to justify a Life of Jesus theology. If the Jesus of the
Gospel of Mark is the Jesus of Mark's own Christian experi-
ence and that of the church before him, then the claim that
the "historical" Jesus is the center and source of Christian faith
would seem to have no necessary basis in the New Testament
It has always been clear that neither Paul, John, nor the Cath-
olic epistles have the kind of attitude toward the earthly Jesus
that would justify a central place for the historical Jesus in
Christian theology It is no accident that the rise of a Life of
Jesus theology was closely connected with an acceptance of
the Marean hypothesis. In destroying the Marean hypothesis
redaction criticism would seem to have cut the ground from
under the feet of that theology.
THE NATURE OF A "GOSPEL"
But this negative observation is by no means the end of
the matter. Redaction criticism has done much more than make
it difficult to justify a Life of Jesus theology: it has revealed
something of the nature of a "Gospel." We must always re-
member that the form "Gospel" is the one unique literary
product of New Testament Christianity. There are literary
parallels to all the other kinds of literature represented in the
New Testament. Other people produced letters, chronicles of
74
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TBE DISCIPLINE
the acts of famous men, apocalyptic discourses, but only the

early Christians produced "Gospels." The literary form "Gos-
pel" is the unique product of early Christianity and as such
must be held to be characteristic of a distinctive element in
early Christian faith. Not the least of the services of redaction
criticism is that it is indicating to us something of the
true nature of that form. In revealing the extent to which
the theological viewpoint of the evangelist or transmitter of
the tradition has played a part in the formation of the Gospel
material, it is forcing us to recognize that a Gospel does not
portray the history of the ministry of Jesus from A.D. 27-30, or
whatever the dates may actually have been, but the history of
Christian experience in any and every age. At the same time
this history of Christian experience is cast in the form of a
chronicle of the ministry of Jesus, and some parts of it-
whether large or small is irrelevant at this point-are actually
based on reminiscence of that ministry. The Gospel of Mark
is the prototype which the others follow and it is a mixture
of historical reminiscence, interpreted tradition, and the free
creativity of prophets and the evangelist. It is, in other words,
a strange mixture of history, legend, and myth. It is this fact
which redaction criticism makes unmistakably clear; and it
is this fact to which we have to do justice in our thinking
about the significance of the "Gospel.. as the characteristic and
distinctive literary product of early Christianity.
We have already seen the negative impact of this in the
difficulties it creates for Life of Jesus research and the doubts
it casts upon the validity of a Life of Jesus theology. We now
have to look at the other side of the coin and ask what positive
impact it has upon us as we think about the essential nature
of Christian faith. Here it would seem that there are two things
immediately to be said. As revealed by redaction criticism
the nature of a Gospel is such that it must be held that the
locus of revelation is not the ministry of the historical Jesus
but the reality of Christian experience; however, it is also clear
that there is real continuity between those two things.
The Gospels as we have them, as well as the traditions that
lie behind them, reflect the experience of early Christianity.
75
WHAT IS BEDAcnON CRJ'I1CISMP
The teaching of Jesus was first collected, as the redaction-criti-

cal work on the Q material shows, in order to continue Jesus'
eschatological proclamation. It was believed that the resurrec-
tion had vindicated Jesus and his proclamation of the kingdom
of God and that therefore the future hope represented by
that proclamation was still valid, indeed, more valid now than
ever because of the act of God in vindicating Jesus. So the
proclamation was continued, although the form of the hope
changed from the general expectation of the eschatological
activity of God, represented by the term "kingdom of God," to
the concrete picture of that activity in the form of the coming
of Jesus as Lord or Son of man. In the context of this hope the
proclamation of Jesus was carried on as the proclamation of
the early church, and the teaching of Jesus was carried on as
preparation for his coming as Lord.
This is the moment at which the tradition represented by the
Gospels begins, and it is at this moment that the nature of the
continuity between Jesus and the early church can be seen. The
resurrection vindicated Jesus as eschatological prophet and
revealed him as Lord; the early church, convinced of this, pro-
claimed his coming as he had proclaimed the coming of the
kingdom and prepared herself for that coming by reiterating
his teaching as showing what men must do to stand well at
that coming. So the continuity here is very real, and the his-
torical Jesus must be held to be of significance to the faith of
earliest Christianity. But Jesus is significant not primarily be-
cause of what he had done in the past in his earthly ministry
but because of what he was to do at his future coming as Lord
or Son of man. It is the hope of the future that gives signifi-
cance to the memory of the past Moreover, that hope was
motivated not so much by the disciples' experience of the past
ministry as by their experience of the present reality of Jesus
as risen.
From the very beginning, therefore, we have essentially the
situation which was to be characteristic of New Testament
Christianity and which was to be reflected in the creation of
the literary form "Gospel." It might be described as a situa-
tion in which distinctions between past, present, and future
76
THE SIGNIFIC.ANCE OF THE DISCIPLINE
tended to be lost as the present experience of Jesus as risen

led to a new understanding of the future and of the past. The
key was the present experience without which the future
would have appeared barren and the past would have been
soon forgotten. But because of that experience there came the
conviction that the Jesus who had been known would be known
again.
So far as the formation of Gospel tradition is concerned.
one way to arrive at an understanding of the matter might
be to consider the formation of Son of man sayings. The escha-
tological hope of the early church is expressed by the creation
of apocalyptic Son of man sayings such as that now found in
Mark 8:38, which we have previously discussed. At the same
time other sayings are created in which the future authority
of Jesus as Son of man is expressed in terms of his past minis-
try, the clearest being Mark 2:10 ("that you may know that
the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins") and
2:28 ("so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath"). In
these sayings Jesus is already acting with the authority with
which he will act when he comes as Son of man. In other
words the past ministry of Jesus is seen in light of the expecta-
tion of his future ministry as Son of man. Now we are at the
heart of the matter, for we can see that past, present, and
future have flowed together and in so doing have led to the
formation of Gospel-type material. The future ministry of the
Son of man and the past ministry of Jesus are one and the
same. "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever,"
so the expectation for the future can be expressed in the form
of sayings or stories from the past. At the same time it must
also have been true that the memory of the past ministry of
Jesus gave form and content to the expectation of the future.
But the important thing is the abandonment of any distinction
between past and future, between future and past, revealed
in the process of the formation of Son of man sayings, which
in this respect are typical of Gospel-type tradition altogether.
The next step is to recognize the importance of the present
experience which led to the prophetic utterance of apocalyptic
Son of man sayings such as Mark 8:38. The very fact that such
77
sayings were produced reveals the existence of a conviction that

the Lord who spoke is the Lord who speaks. In taking up the
Jesus material, the early church not only reinterpreted it to
fit the needs of a new situation, but also, as redaction criticism
has shown, she did much more. The point we would make here
is that the church could treat the material with such freedom
only because of a conviction that the Lord who spoke is the
Lord who speaks. Without this conviction there would have
been no Gospel material; when such a conviction is assumed
a particular feature of Gospel material-the representation of
the present in the form of an account of the past-becomes
readily understandable.
We see, therefore, that Gospel material represents a flowing
together of past, present, and future. It takes the form of
stories and sayings from the past because the Jesus who speaks
is the Jesus who spoke and because the Jesus to come as Lord/
Son of man is the Jesus who came as eschatological prophet.
But both the view of the past which it represents and the hope
for the future which it expresses are due to an experience in
the present. There could have been no Gospel at all without
the conviction that Jesus was to be known in the present as
risen, and there would have been no Gospel of Mark without
the conviction that the risen Lord had a message for the
church for which Mark wrote. In respect to motivation the
Gospels are not different from the letters to the seven churches
in the Book of Revelation; they are a message from the risen
Lord addressed to his church. But in respect to form they are
very different indeed, and the reason for this difference is
what distinguishes early Christianity from other apocalyptic
sects in ancient Judaism: the conviction that the Lord of the
future is the Jesus of his past earthly ministry and of the
Christian's present experience of him as risen. For this reason
the message to the present takes the form of stories and sayings
from the past.
Perhaps the most important thing which redaction criticism
has done for us to date is to confront us with this understand-
ing of the essential nature of "Gospel" material. The Gospels
are the characteristic and unique literary product of early
78
Christianity, and hence an understanding of their essential

nature must be of signiBcance to an understanding of the
essential nature of the faith they represent. Redaction criticism
is teaching us that the content of a Gospel is as much a product
of the present experience of the men who transmitted the
tradition and of the evangelist, as apocalyptic literature is a
product of the seer's visions. John's letter to the church at
Ephesus (Rev. 2:1) is a product of his experience on the
island of Patmos "in the Spirit on the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10).
But whereas the apocalyptic seer expresses his experience in
terms of the world of apocalyptic imagery, the evangelist ex-
presses his in terms of the past ministry of Jesus and in so
doing strikes the note that is characteristically Christian.
We can now return to the double point we made at the be-
ginning of our discussion of this aspect of the significance of
the impact of redaction criticism. As revealed by redaction
criticism the nature of the Gospels and of Gospel material is
such that the locus of revelation must be held to be in the
present of Christian experience. At the same time that experi-
ence must be continuous with the past of the ministry of Jesus,
knowledge of which will both condition and inform it.
19
Glossary
APoCALYPTIC From a Greek root meaning "to uncover," this

word is used to describe the literature produced to reveal
the secrets of the coming of the End Time. In the Old Testa-
ment the book of Daniel is an apocalyptic work, as is Reve-
lation in the New Testament. The apocalyptic movement was
very strong in both Judaism and Christianity into the second
century A.D.
CmusroLOGY The doctrine of the person of Christ.
DoGMA, DOGMATIC From the Greek word for opinion, an opinion
held or taught as true and more especially a theological
opinion or doctrine so held or taught.
EsCHATOLOGY From the Greek word for "end" (eschaton), it
refers to teaching concerning the end of time or history.
EvANGELIST The author of a Gospel, the Greek word for the
Gospel bein~ euangelion which was rendered into English
as "evangel.
PAROUSIA From a Greek word meaning "presence," especially
the presence of a king or high official visiting a given locality,
this word was used by the evangelist Matthew of the "second
coming" of Christ and so passed into the vocabulary of the
church with the meanin~ "the final coming (of Christ) in
full authority and power.
Q The first letter of the German word QueUe (source) ; it is
used to designate the source of the material which Matthew
and Luke have in common which does not come from Mark.
Since this material is almost wholly teaching ascribed to
Jesus, the expression "sayings source" is sometimes also used.
80
GLOSSARY
SITZ IM LEBEN The German phrase "setting in life'" is used u

a technical term by form critics to denote the aspect of early
Christian practice (liturgy, exhortation, apologetic, catecheti-
cal instruction, etc.) in the context of which a given form of
tradition functions.
SoN OF MAN One of the titles used by the early Christians of
Jesus; like others of a similar nature (e.g., Son of God, Son
of David) it has its roots in the Old Testament (Dan. 7) and
it is used in the apocalyptic literature (I Enoch, IV Ezra).
The use of this title in the New Testament presents many
problems to the scholar; indeed, almost everything about it
is disputed. A statement of what is probably the most widely
held position today with regard to the matter will be found
in the relevant sections of R. H. Fuller, Foundations of New
Testament Christology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1965). A preliminary statement of the present writer's views,
which diller at some important points, will be found in N.
Perrin, Rediscooering the Teaching of Jesus (New York:
Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 164-99.
SYNoPTic GosPELS The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
so called because they can be set side by side and read to-
gether, whereas the Gospel of John is very different in outline,
content, and style. "Synoptic" is from a Greek root meaning
"to view together.,.
TRADITION From a Latin root meaning "to hand down,.. this word
denotes material handed down or passed on in the church.
In form and redaction criticism the concept of tradition plays
an important part because it is recognized that much of the
material now found in the New Testament texts was used in
a variety of ways in the church before it was given its present
form by the actual author of the particular New Testament
text concerned. In other words, the material has a history in
the tradition (of the church).
81
Annotated Bibliography
This bibliography is designed as a guide to students and is

deliberately limited to works readily available; moreover, ~e .mate-
rial in languages other than English has been kept to a nurumum.
THE WORKS OF R. H. LIGHTFOOT

LIGHTFOOT, R. H. History and Interpretation in the Go~la.
("The Bampton Lectures," 1934.) New York: Harper and
Bros., no date. This, the pioneer work in the Geld, is discussed
in chapter I above. Lightfoot followed it up with two further
works, both of which are still important today.
- - . Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. New York and
London: Harper and Bros., no date. This is a series of studies
in all four Gospels.
- - . The Gospel Message of St. Mark. ("Oxford Paper-
backs.") Oxford (England): University Press, 1962. Six stud-
ies of Mark, one of John, and an apologetic for form criticism.
THE GOSPEL OF MATIHEW

BoRNXAMM, G., BARTH, G., HELD, H. J. Tradition and Interpre-
tation In Matthew. Translated by PERCY ScoTr. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1963. The fundamental work on Matthew,
this book is discussed in chapter II above.
DAVIES, W. D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Although not ex-
plicitly a redaction-critical work, this book moves in the same
general direction. The author appreciates the work of Born-
kamm et al., but the bulk of his own work had been done
before it appeared.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
STENDABL, K. "Matthew," Peake's Commentary on the Bible.

Edited by M. BLACK: and H. H. RoWLEY. London and New
York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962, pp. 769-98. A brief
commentary on the Gospel by a scholar aware of form and
redaction criticism.
There are a number of important redaction-critical studies of

Matthew in German, including:
Tlu:u.ING, W. Das wahre Israel. Studien ZU1' Theologie des Mat-
thiiweoongeliums. ("Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testa-
ment,.. No. 10.) [Earlier editions of this book were pub-
lished in Leipzig in "Erfurter Theologische Studien.. ( 11959,
2 1961) .] Munich: Kosel, 1964.
STBECXEB, G. Der Weg der Gerechtigkett. Untersuchung zur

Theologie des Matthiius. GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1962.
HUMMEL, R. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Klrche und
]udentum im Matthiiusevangelium. ("Beitriige zur evange-
lische Theologie," No. 33.) Munich: C. Kaiser, 1963.
THE GOSPEL OF MARK

MABxsEN, W. Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktions-
geschichte des Evangeliums. GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 11956, 21959. The basic work on Mark, this book is
discussed in chapter II above. An English translation entitled
Mark the Evangelist (New York and Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1969) has appeared.
ROBINSON, J. M. The Problem of History in Mark. ("Studies in
Biblical Theology," No. 21.) Naperville: Allenson, 1957. This
was actually written before Marxsen's work and is not ex-
plicitly an example of the redaction-critical method. But in
its concern for a major aspect of the Marean theology, it
moves in the same general direction.
Bumm.L, T. A. Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the
Philosophy of St. Mark's Gospel. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1963. A series of studies centering around the Mes-
sianic Secret motif in Mark. We saw in chapter I above how
important this motif has proven to be in the development of
redaction criticism as a discipline.
BEST, ERNEST. The Temptation and the Passion: The Marean
Soteriology. ("Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
88
WHAT IS REDACTION CIUTICJSM?
Series," No.2.) New York: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
A strange book in that the author combines redaction criti-
cism with the assumption "that Mark believes that the inci-
dents he uses actually happened'" (p. xi) I
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

CoNZELMANN, H. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by G.
BUSWELL. New York: Harper and Row, 1960. This truly
epoch-making book was discussed in chapter II above.
Of the many German responses to Conzelmann's work only one

has been translated into English:
FLENDEll, H. St. Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History. Trans·
lated by REGINALD H. ana ILsA F'uLLEB. Philadelphia: For-
tress Press, 1967.
Others in German include:

BARTSCH, H. W. Wachet aber zu feder Zeit! Entworf elnef' Aus-
legung des Lukas-Evangeliums. Hamburg-Bergstedt: H. Reich,
1963.
There is a volume of essays in English, many of which reflect

the impact of Conzehnann:
Studies In Luke-Acts. Essays presented in Honor of Paul Schubert.
Edited by LEANDER E. KEa: and J. LoUIS MARTYN. Nash-
ville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.
Specific studies of the Acts of the Apostles reflecting the con-

cerns of redaction criticism include:
O'NEn.L, J. C. The Theology of Acts ln its Historical Setting.
London: SPCK, 1961.
IIAENCHEN, E. Die Apostelguchichte. ("Meyer Kommentar.'")
GOttingen: Vandenhoeck &: Ruprecht, 1956. One of the great
commentaries, as epoch-making in its own way as Conzel-
mann's book.
CoNZELMANN, H. Die Apomlgeschichte. ("Handbuch zum Neuen
Testament.") Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1963.
Conzelmann completes his own work on Luke-Acts with a
commentary on Acts.
84
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Redaction-critical work on Jolm is in its infancy, but a start has
been made.
MARTYN, J. Louis. History and Theo'UJgy in the Fourth Gospel.
New York: Harper & Row, 1968. The author distinguishes
between tradition and redaction in the case of four blocks of
Johannine material, all miracle stories, and then goes on to
draw conclusions both about the theology of John and about
the historical situation in the church in which John was
writing. This book therefore not only pioneers in redaction-
critical work on the Gospel of John, it also takes the further
step mentioned in chapter II above as a possible consequence
of redaction criticism: the step from the theology of the
evangelist to the historical situation in which that theology
came into being. Both the history and the theology mentioned
in the title are those of the evangelist and his church, not
of Jesus.
REDACTION-CRITICAL APPROACHES TO THE

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Redaction criticism has proven invaluable as a new method of
approach to long-standing problems. The work available in
English is mostly connected with the Christology of the New
Testament.
ToDT, H. E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Trans-
lated by DoROTHEA M. BARTON. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1965. Todt's work is remarkable as a first attempt to
use redaction criticism in approaching the extraordinarily
difficult problems presented by the use of Son of man in the
synoptic Gospels and in the traditions which lie behind them.
His actual solutions of the major problems themselves are not
new; what is new in his work is the way in which he is able
to illuminate the theology of Q, of various aspects of the
traditions and of the evangelists as these theologies are re-
vealed in their redaction and use of Son of man material.
In this respect, Toot's work both validates forever redaction
criticism as a methodology and immediately outdates anything
done on Son of man in the synoptics before him.
liAHN, FERDINAND. The Titles of ]e8U8 in Christo'UJgy (New York
and Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1969). Hahn investi-
gates the strands of tradition lying behind the use of the
85
WHAT IS BEDACTION CR1'11CISM?
various christological titles in the Gospels, especially in the
Gospel of Mark. Again, the force and value of redaction
criticism comes through very strongly in this work.
FULLER, R. H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965. Fully appreciating
the significance of the work of Toot and Hahn, Reginald Fuller
produced a study of New Testament Christology which
shared their methodology and to some extent their results.
Since he came to form and redaction criticism out of English
language scholarship, the author was able effectively to bridge
any gap there might be for the English language reader, and
this book is therefore a most •valuable introduction to the
new method of studying the Christology of the New Test~
ment. On the book see further, PERBIN, N., "New Beginnings
in Christology: a Review Article," Journal of Religion, 40
(1966), 491-96.
GENERAL
MARXSEN, W. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated
by G. BUSWELL. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964. This. is
an introduction to the New Testament as a whole by a lead-
ing redaction critic. Unfortunately it does not include any
discussion of the discipline as such but insights developed
by its use are to be found in the discussion of the synoptic
Gospels and Acts.
RoHDE, J. Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists. Trans-
lated by D. M. BARTON. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1969. Originally an East German doctoral dissertation, this
book is a survey of the origin and development of redaction
criticism in Germany (non-German work is ignored). The
author presents valuable summaries of all the pertinent books
and articles. The book appeared too late to be used in the text
of the present volume, but it would be a natural "next step'"
for the reader who wished to pursue the matter further.
Tupe, 10 on 12 and 9 on 10 Caledonia

DW,lau, Eurostile and Futura
88

Norman Perrin-What Is Redaction Criticism

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationpdf

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norman Perrin-What Is Redaction Criticism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norman Perrin-What Is Redaction Criticism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guides to Biblical Scholarship

Dan 0. Via, Jr., Editor, New Testament Series

Volumes Now Available

What Is Redaction Criticism?

Biblical quotations from the Revised Standard Version

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 72-81529

1096C69 Printed in the U.S.A. 1-181

In New Testament scholarship insights, concerns, and

literary criticism of the New Testament has begun to reflect

and through the composition. Although redaction criticism

faith. This particular relationship to Judaism, on the one

DAN 0. VIA, JR••

Redaction criticism is an attempt to represent in

criticism has been restricted to the synoptic evangelists, the

with no attempt to distinguish them from one another u

ogetic for the Rational Worshipers of God) which he refr~ed

[1846]) published in two volumes in 1835 and 1836 really

for a Christ myth. In their dilemma they seized upon a newly

In substance and style and treatment the Gospel of St. Mark

a contribution to a discussion as a bombshell! Few books

ing is a consistent theme running through the story, from

for which there is not one word of evidence in the text of

acted as (Christian) Messiah-Son of Cod during his lif~

that the dogmatic ideas were developed through a rather

characteristic emphases of twentieth century synoptic schol-

Schmidt concerned himself with the framework of the Gospel

( 2) The material now presented in the Gospels has a previ-

free creativity to the early church in her work on the tradition

more directly from the work of Bultmann than from that of

the author is "the union of the Hellenistic kerygma about

sentences on p. 357 of the English translation of Bulbnann's HlsfOf'f/.

move more readily to a special consideration of Matthew and

a new frontier beyond that reached by Dibelius and Bult-

Jesus research had upon Gospel studies in his day, because he

arr~_gement9i the mate_rial, or evident ~~lection_9f_transitional

Redaction criticism burst into full Bower immediately

Giinther Bornkamm is a pupil of Bultmann and a leading

in Bethel in 1948 and now available in English in the volume

Held volume, and is there entitled "'End-expectation and

to the role of the church, which is so prominent in the

ogy of St. Luke, first published in German in 1954, is the one

studies. It is symptomatic of the situation that C. H. Dodd, a

The method which Conzelmann uses may be described

motivation is to be seen at work in it, and he goes on from

zelmann argues, is Luke's response to the central th~logi­

lation of Luke as a major theologian of early Christianity.

in the first place. Redaction criticism, however, concerns _itself

early church; ( 3) setting in the work and purpose of the

a Marean composition, and as such it can tell us a good deal

simply means that, theologically speaking, John was the fore-

graphical references in the Gospel, but similarly in his study

THE INCIDENT AT CAESAREA PHILIPPI

THE MARCAN NARRATIVE: MARK 8:27-9:1

The Marean narrative has a remarkably clear structure and

opinions available in the Palestinian situation of the ministry

raise the question of the previous history of the material in the

it. Following in part Toot's excellent analysis of this aspect

zelmann argues, is Luke's response to the central th~logi