Role of Bible Xticism

 The Bible is the word of God; but is God’s word recording events in history; and since
the Bible is itself the product of God’s acting in historical events it requires critical and
historical study to reconstruct as far as possible the historical events through which the
revelation occurred ( Ladd, 1967:35)
 The Bible is not a book that magically found its way to the xtris, it was a product of
various writers though inspired. This does not exempt them from using examples
relevant to them and other literal figures of speech coherent to them (Ladd:1967:36)
 Criticism means making intelligent judgments about historical, literally, textual and
philological questions which one must face in dealing with the Bible, in the light of the
available evidence when one recognizes that the word of God has come to men through
the words of men in given historical situations (Ladd:1967:37)
 “Krisis” is the greek word from which criticism is derived. It means “a judgment”. A critic
in the broadest sense is a man who makes intelligent judgments or decisions about
necessary questions associated with the books of the Bible(Ladd, 1967:37)
 In other words, it’s about asking questions about the authorship, date, place, sources,
purpose and so on of any ancient literally work. (Ladd, 1967:38)
 Arose in 18th Century by the onset of Deism in England and enlightment in Germany.
Both reflected as a rationalist Philosophy which regarded the Bible like all literature. And
must be subjected to universal laws of human reason (41).
 Through rationalism, miracles of Jesus His birth and resurrection are simply impossible
(41)
 Among the first people to use rationalism on interpretation of Jesus was H.S. Reimanis,
a professor of oriental languages in Hamburg. He in 1778 distinguished sharply between
the real Jesus and the quite unhistorical portrait in the gospels (41)
 J.P Gabler in 1787 followed him by making a distinction between dogmatic text book
and biblical theology.
 This rationalistic method which ushered the historical method was modified by Hegel
(42)
 Biblical criticisms brought gains in the Bible interpretation.
 The following are the gains:
 Getting the dating and authenticity of various N.T. books by Baur (43)
 Christianity as a pure spiritual-ethical religion, proclaimed by and embodied in the life
and mission of Jesus by Ritschl. (43)
 The solution of the synoptic problem by ascertaining that Mark was written first and
both Luke and Matthew used it as a source together with Q which was believed to have
been lost.
 Form Criticism
The idea of authenticity of the Gospels overlooks the following facts:
1. The brevity of the period of time which elapsed between the events and the
record of events.
2. The role of eye witnesses in preserving tradition.
3. The role of authoritative apostolic witnesses.
4. The role of the Holy Spirit (Ladd, 1967:163)

Form critics concluded that they have to truthworthy historical outline for the life of
Jesus does not follow (Ladd, 1967:168)

Redaction Criticism

Interpreting the New Testament: A practical Guide.

Daniel Harrington

The word redaction in the phrase redaction criticism is a rare item in English. According to the
dictionary “to redact”means “to draw into suitable literary form, revise or edit” The term may
be unusual but the operation is familiar (Harrington, 1979:96. The Liturgical Press: Minnesota.)

Redaction criticism arises from the realization that the N.T writers’ choice of material, the order
in which they placed what they had collected, and the alterations they made in the traditional
material were determined to some extent by their theological outlooks. (Harrington, 1979:96).

It is the child of source and form criticism (Harrington, 1979:96)

Redaction critics ask two fundamental questions:

1. What unique views or unusual emphasis does the author place on the sources.
2. What is the author’s life situation and theological outlook? (98)

Over-theologizing, allegorizing, and psychologizing are its major pitfalls (99)

Also known as composition criticism or composition history.

(Gall PC Streete) – (Mckenzie, S.L & Haynes, S.R. 1999: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and
their application. To each its own meaning West Minster John Knox Press: London).

It’s a translation of the German Redaktionsgeschichte (history of redaction) (1999:105)

It recognizes that the gospel writers through inheritors of both common and specific traditions
were also creative authors and theologians and not mere transcribers or collectors (Mackenzie
& Haynes, 1999:105).
Every introduction to each gospel cannot fail to show redaction criticisms (106)

The method is only applicable to the gospels and Acts and not in the epistles (108) except the
epistle of James.

Discovery of Q source which scholars think it’s a compiled sayings of Jesus is a discovery of
redaction criticism (109)

It has undertaken to ascertain the authenticity of certain sayings of Jesus.(109)

Studies of early xtn ‘titles’ of Jesus and studies of early christologies (110) one of the works of
R.C.

Source Criticism (Pauline A. Viviano)

Source criticism analyses the biblical text in order to determine what sources were used in its
formation. Once sources are isolated, the source critic considers issues of authorship, date,
style, setting and intent of each source.

The primary focus of source criticism is the determination of written sources although the
formation of oral sources can also be considered.(35-36)

Upon its emergence in the 18th Century, it was known as literary criticism through to 20th
century, the term has been interchangeably used.(36) But today it’s easy to see the differences
between the two criticisms (Porter, 2007:340)

Both pay special attention to literary features of a text, noting the style, vocabulary, repetitions,
contradictions or inconsistencies and other literary traits, their respective goals are different.
(36)

Source focuses on how the text came to be and literary focuses on the text as it is. (36)

To get the sources, various ways are used (1) Where the Bible clearly quotes the source e.g.
Book of the Wars of Yahweh (Num 21:14) though nothing is written about them except their
mention, one can easily get to know them by studying the quotations about them or the
materials identified with them.(36)

Main task of some critics though they may look at the sources written or mentoned in the Bible,
their main interest is to detect and study sources that are not directly mentioned in the Bible.
They assume that the stories in the Bible were not just the creation of authors but stories and
traditions preserved somewhere orally or in texts (36)
Not disregarding the ability of the authors to create new stories, the source critics believe they
incorporated, rewrote, and re-interpreted traditional materials to come up with their own
versions (36).

The following help the source critics to sense a source in a xxxx. Variations in style, change in
vocabulary and perspective, contradictions and inconsistencies in a passage or between the
passages; abrupt interruptions that break the continuity of a passage; and various kinds of
duplications or repetitions. (37)

Source criticism was greatly applied in the unveiling or the formation of the Pentateuch (37).
(Porter, 2007:341).

Dating has been challenged (51). The sources transmission have been challenged, they are a
continuous creation (48)

(Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation ed Stanley E. Porter 2007 Routledge

Publishers: London.

The quest of written sources for books of the New Testament is not based on any a priori
conviction that such sources existed but it arose out of the effort to understand the historical
relationship of four somewhat divergent gospels to one another, to the historical Jesus and the
subsequent elaboration of the xtn doctrine (Porter, 2007:341).

In its quest to unveil the sources of the gospels, source critics endeavor to solve the synoptic
problem in this problem we have three discrete and partially overlapping accounts of the
gospels whose agreements in sequence and wording imply some form literary interdependence
(341, Porter).

The study of the gospels has revealed four sets of data.

We undertake to understand the relationship between the three:

1. The Nalkan priority and the two document theory.

(i) T.T Triple tradition
Where Mark & Luke agree against Matthew, Mark and Matthew agree against Luke but
where Matthew & Luke partially agree against Mark.
(ii) DT Double Tradition: Matthew & Luke agree without Mark, Matthew & Luke agree
sometimes near to verbatim.
(iii) There not periscopes which Matthew & Luke agree in placement against Mark.

Some conclusions to the above states that (1) the non-agreement of Matthew and Luke
against Mark is medial.
Either a link between the two or they common source they common source or their
conflation.

(2) The Q Source

It contained between 4000 and 4600 words. It displays a distinctive from critical profile
when compared with Mark and contains a relatively coherent structure and topic
arrangement. Its genre is prophetic or instruction book and sayings materials and it
lacks the passion stories and narrative structure (Porter, 2007:343)

(3) Proto-Luke and Ur –Markan

These two documents try to explain the non-use of either Q and non-Q, non Mark
material especially in Luke 9:51-18:14 suggesting that before Luke used Q, Q has already
been interpolated with another material mostly referred to as “Proto-Luke” .Which
might have contained the passion which Mark doesn’t have. Others treat this material
as separate document L.

Other features have led to the thought that Mark existed in at least two versions and
Matthew and Luke used either one (Ur-Markan) or a later one (Deutro –Markan)
versions. This has been complicated by the discovery of the secret gospel of Mark
(Porter, 2007:343)

(4) The Fourth Gospel

A double ending of the Fourth gospel, a variety of the thematic, narrative and
chronological aporiae and conspicuous style various have led to the conclusion that one
or more sources were used in the Fourth gospel compilation.

Bultiman posited several sources (i) revelation discource source. (ii) signs source (iii)
passion source.

Later critics have disregarded the revelation discourse source upholding the other two
(Porter, 2007:343)

(Biblical criticism: Beyond the Basics. Andrews, E.D, Farrel, F.D. Howe, T., Marshall, T &
Newman, D. 2017: Christian Publishing House

History of Moderm Criticism-Farrel, E.D.