|
|
|
|
|
Biblical Criticism
|
|
|
Biblical Criticism Outline the development of biblical criticism giving a general overview of the four main types of biblical criticism. (1000 words). Biblical criticism is a scholarly activity that aims to make the text more, not less, meaningful. In the course of that activity scholars may be led to make suggestions as to how the text may have been changed over the years, especially during the process of scribal copying, or to suggest how an evangelist may have allowed his particular theological interests to influence his record. Biblical criticism follows four forms: source, form, redaction and narrative. Originally biblical scholars tried to harmonize the Gospels, and evidence of this exists in the harmonization of the two infancy narratives. However, rather than harmonizing the Gospels, Griesbach set the synoptics in parallel. This posed the question, ‘How do we account for the similarities and differences?’ The way was open for source criticism to develop as scholars tried to establish the relationship between the synoptic gospels and their sources. Griesbach proposed that Matthew was written first because of its Jewish content however this theory was quickly discredited as scholars asked ‘Why would Mark abbreviate Matthew?’ Griesbach’s theory is based on the theory of St Agustine in the Middle Ages who was a proponent of Matthean priority. Alternatively, modern biblical scholars (including Harrington) would, for the most part, propose Markan priority with Mark as the source or framework for the other two synoptics as Taylor asserts, Mark, for Luke is a quarry from which stone is obtained to enlarge an already existing building’. Although this proposal was valid it still did not account for the fact that Matthew and Luke still had similarities although the material was not in Mark. In 1863 Holtzmannn put forward a two-source theory i.e. that Matthew and Luke had used marks as a source as well as another common source known as ‘Q’. He outlined his theory thus: Mark Source ‘Q’ Luke Matthew This two-source theory remained very influential for many years, and was the foundation of Streeter’s four-source theory in the early twentieth century. Streeter recognized the fact that both Matthew and Luke’s Gospel had unique material respectively. Streeter identified four sources from which the synoptics were comprised: Mark, source ‘Q’, ‘Special M’ (material unique to Matthew) and ‘Special L’ (material unique to Luke). He outlined his theory thus: Mark Source ‘Q’ Special L Special M Luke Matthew Nevertheless we are faced with problems in relation to the four-source theory. There are occasions when Matthew and Luke appear to agree with each other against Mark. This might be explained in several ways – tradition, theology or perhaps mark used Q – but differently. It could also mean that one (probably Luke) relied on the other as opposed to Mark. Some scholars also question why Matthew and Luke especially have left out parts of Mark. For instance, Luke contains no account of Walking on Water. Perhaps he did not use Mark or had an incomplete copy. This may suggest editorial redaction and as Russell points out, ‘most of the omissions made by Matthew and Luke are not surprising.’ Perhaps each evangelist omitted material to suit their theological or Christological perspective and needs. We are also faced with the problem that there is no evidence of Source ‘Q’. Most scholars are prepared to consider Luke using Matthew as there is much more Matthew in Luke than Luke in Matthew. Again there are problems with this. If Luke were using Matthew, why does he leave out additions that Matthew has made to Mark? It can be said that perhaps each writer used the same source but applied it differently, especially since Luke wanted to hi-light the theme of universality in his gospel. Overall we can say that the materials may well have come from both oral and written sources. It is clear from the content and the existence of Paul’s letters to churches, that early Christians considered accurate transmission of material important. Although some people would suggest that the transmission of stories of Jesus in the early Church were haphazard and relied on luck, we can see how quickly Paul’s letters circulated and became Church documents. If this was the case then surely we can assume that stories about Jesus were afforded some protection. What is essential to acknowledge is that if the four-source theory were to fall completely, then so would many of the finding of the Redaction Critics, who depend on being able to compare the use of parallel sources to draw conclusions about the theology, ecclesiology and Christology of evangelists. After source criticism had opened the debate about the relationships between the synoptic gospels the way was clear for scholars to suggest how the evangelists had been influenced in their selection and presentation of the traditions about Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
