When studying a text, readers tend to have a certain angle on the reading as well as a specific goal to find the information they are looking for. For gospels, there are many methods that one can use to approach and analyze a text. Some of these include comparative, redaction, and historical criticism but today we are putting redaction criticism under the spotlight. Authors create their own literary works by modifying and editing the sources they have used, and this person is called a redactor. With redaction criticism, a reader can get to understand an author’s writing style and the themes they prioritize. Authors pick and choose what information they feel is necessary for their work and this method is most useful for studying why they choose the information they do and why they leave out certain details which could even be the switch of one word.
So, how do we use this tool? Well, let’s get into it. One may want to form judgments about a writing and find out if it’s credible (understandably) and what the author is saying isn’t just a bunch of made-up stuff. Today, we’re taking redaction criticism and applying it to the Gospels, specifically the Synoptic. First, it’s important to determine the sources the author has used in creating their writings and if these sources are commonly used by other authors. An example of a common source used between the Gospel authors was Q (Quelle) or even the Gospel of Mark itself. However, we do have to make sure this source is credible and that it was actually used and this may require some research (I know… this can be tedious). Then, begin to compare the passages between the Gospels and determine parallels and differences between them. This part can be tedious as well in that upon first reading you may skip over little changes and details so it’s important to give the passages a couple reads. Once you have noted the changes and/or similar passages, you can now investigate why the authors wrote what they wrote. It’s important to note why they add their own unique details not included in the sources identified earlier. Now, you have gotten to a point where it’s possible to explore the important themes included and the emphases in each Gospel.
Commonly, redaction criticism is used for analyzing the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) because they tend to contain many parallels between the stories. The four-source hypothesis and Markan priority declare that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke drew from this source immensely and created their own versions. Redaction criticism is specifically useful when looking at Matthew and Luke due to their common use of Mark’s gospel. It’s definitely strange seeing two identical copies of Gospel passages between different authors but in those passages, there are switches of small and sometimes unnoticeable details, and the author usually intentionally includes it. Today, we will dive into a significant story about Jesus and sift through the commonalities and subtle differences shared between Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Once you notice these slight changes, you can truly see the different theological interests and intentions behind each author.
In starting our journey, we now know to begin by looking over a source which Matthew and Luke drew independently from, which is the Gospel of Mark. This part is key in that you can view the author’s inspiration and can see how a rather basic story such as one from Mark’s can turn into a story containing more depth and detail with a personal touch. Mark’s gospel consists of straightforward quick accounts of Jesus’ life, whereas Matthew and Luke expand on and provide more/different information in comparison to Mark’s account. A motive regarding the altercations of Mark’s Gospel could be the purpose of improving Mark’s grammar and style. Mark often switches verb tenses and addresses people with singular nouns to plural, but Matthew and Luke do a good job of staying consistent and cleaning this up. The author of Mark is concise with his writing and the lack of detail makes it hard to determine the core themes throughout the Gospel, but scholars and theologians do know that the Gospel of Mark is dedicated to showing that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah.
Starting from the beginning with a very important story, today we will be diving into Jesus’ baptism. Mark begins his Gospel with Jesus’ baptism as his first chapter; however, Matthew and Luke both include two passages before starting this story further emphasizing Mark’s conciseness and quickness. Both Matthew and Luke include the genealogy of Jesus although they are located in different chapters, but nevertheless, adding this lets us know they care about including Jesus’ relation to David and Abraham, and the fulfillment of old prophecies. This was a rather large edition to their Gospels, but this is where we can pick up the emphases and common themes of each Gospel.
Both Mark’s and Luke’s narratives are rather short whereas Matthew’s is slightly longer and although Luke’s is short it’s unique and very distinct in comparison to the other two. After reading the three accounts we can see the parallels shared between all three some of which are written verbatim or reworded to improve the passage’s flow. Important lines and moments shared between each (copied from our source Mark):
- “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with* water, but he will baptize you with* the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:7, and Luke 3:16)
- “And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; * with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:21-22, Mark 1:10-11, and Matthew 3:16-17)
Within that second passage mentioned, Matthew and Mark’s wording differs in that Mark writes that the voice from heaven says, “You are my Son” whereas Matthew writes, “This is my Son”. “You are” refers to God speaking directly to Jesus rather than a crowd in which “This is” is used. Why would Mark use “you are”? The Messianic secret! DUH! We can see that this small change in the two words enforces Mark’s important theme of the Messianic secret and keeping Jesus’ identity hidden from others. At the same time, clearly, Matthew does not enforce this as the voice is also speaking to the crowd around them.
Another unique tweak made pertains to Luke’s inclusion of Jesus in prayer after His baptism. The addition of this singular word is important, and this adds to Luke’s prioritization of prayer within the Gospel. We might question why Luke adds this in and upon research one will discover this is fact one of his themes. The author links Jesus in prayer to significant moments in His life which His baptism was in fact. Luke also adds the Holy Spirit descending in “bodily form” rather than only a dove, which is different from the others, and it reinforces the role of the Holy Spirit and its presence in Jesus’ life.
Matthew and Luke tend to include in their accounts more dialogue between the people at the event. Maybe they wanted to sound more credible?? The dialogue gives the reader a sense of how the characters are feeling and a better understanding of what is happening at the moment. Both Matthew and John include the verses,
“But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, [John] said to them, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance. Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.’” (Matthew 3:7-9 and Luke 3:7-9)
This inclusion of John’s rebuke alludes to the importance of true repentance and the opportunity of the cleansing of sins during this baptism. It is definitely not just any old baptism! During this time people believed Sadducees and Pharisees lacked true righteousness and these verses further enforce this opinion during this time by including John’s criticism of these groups and their ideology and lack of faith in God.
Another example of dialogue found only in Matthew is between Jesus and John. It is written, “John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented.” (Matthew 3:14-15). These two verses are unique in comparison to the other Gospels and from this we can discover Matthew’s common theme of righteousness and obedience to God by showing Jesus’ insistence on John baptizing Him and convincing John he was the man for the job. In the Gospel of Luke, there is no dialogue between the two, and the readers even have to infer that John is doing the baptism himself! Readers gain a more vivid picture through this dialogue and can picture how John was feeling at this moment as it shows his timidness and questioning nature. So now we’re really seeing how authors do have a motive for all their work!
Yes, I did say earlier that Matthew and Luke pulled from Mark but that does NOT mean they picked the exact same lines of text from Mark to include. This distinction proves the two authors pulled from the Gospel of Mark rather than each other (two-source hypothesis). Matthew copies some lines from Mark that Luke does not. For example:
“And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.” (Mark 1:5-6 and Matthew 3:4-6)
So, we may ask, why does Matthew include things that Luke does not or the other way around? Why does Luke purposely leave out the description of John and who attended the baptism? It could be several things. As I mentioned before, you may have forgotten, but in Luke’s Gospel, he seemed to not care for descriptions of John. Authors have different goals in what they are trying to convey, and in this case, for Luke, it may not have fit with the content he wanted to reference. Along with using Mark as their source, Matthew and Luke used “Q” as well and while there may be pieces of information in one source it may not be in another. Authors may have viewed specific details as insignificant, if not put in more than one source.
Whew! That was a lot to take in. There is always more digging to be done, but this is a good start to how we can approach the Synoptic Gospels and a specific story with redaction criticism. Further reminder: don’t be lazy and read it just once. One reading will not get you the information you’re looking for! I read each story over and over, but it was worth it in that each time I read, I picked up something new. Theologians and scholars have continued to produce theories and ideas to help understand the process the authors of Matthew and Luke took in creating the Gospels. Redaction criticism is just one of many tools we readers can use to investigate the Synoptic Gospels along with providing new insights and knowledge. This is not what you may want to hear BUT I must mention it, there is no definite answer as to why specific information is included and why authors modify and edit their sources, but we can surely still investigate this ongoing question and find evidence to our theories.