robto

Redaction criticism, looking at how an author changes the sources he uses, is something I know very little about, other than the fact that J. D. Crossan and Raymond Brown both claim it provides secondary evidence for Markan priority. Can anyone recommend some good books to learn about this approach? (I'm looking for something scholarly rather than a popular treatment.)

Ben C Smith

Fortunately, you can start online with the celebrated article by Mark Goodacre, Fatigue in the Synoptics.

I summarize some common (and some not so commen) arguments on my site; you are admirably looking for scholarly treatments, and mine is not scholarly, but it might inspire a reaction.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

I know they make the claim, but there are problems with circular reasoning. Because redaction criticism of Matt and Luke assumes Markan priority, it cannot provide direct evidence for its own assumption.

Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, is a good, scholarly introduction to redaction criticism (as well as form and source criticism).

Stephen

Julian

I can second Stephen's suggestion of Studying the Synoptic Gospels which dedicates a very large part of the book to discussing many methods of criticism. The various approaches are clearly delineated and carefully explained along with examples.

Julian

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Doesn't redaction criticism also defacto assume redaction ?

So it would have no way to recognize a perfect, inerrant text
where the extant Received Text matches what the original
authors wrote.

ie. It comes with an a priori assumption of textual errancy,
a bulwark of skepticm.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

S.C.Carlson

Because you have to ask the question, it is not clear to me what exactly you mean by "redaction". As far as the other questions, redaction criticism and textual criticism are different endeavors.

Stephen

jakejonesiv

Yes, exactly!

The evangelist/redactor who edited his sources was himself a creative person. Whatever the solution for the synoptic problem is, there was certainly some redaction going on. This would be true even if you had the "original autographs."

Jake

Amaleq13

As you are well aware, the notion that any given text may contain errors is an entirely reasonable assumption based on rational thought while an assumption of inerrancy is, instead, the product of logically flawed thinking (eg special pleading).

Your relentless effort to equate the two prior assumptions are as tiresome as they are transparently false.

Chris Weimer

If you accept the Bible as you have it to be inerrant, then you have to accept every text worldwide to be inerrant, otherwise, you're just as guilty of assuming beforehand that those texts aren't inerrant, and that's an hypocritical position.

jakejonesiv

If the KJV is inerrrant, then why does Isaiah 14:12 say Lucifer? :devil2:

Jake Jones