Personal notes

Historical Critical Methods

The spirit of free thinking and the revolt against the authority had begun from the pre-
reformation humanism and in the fifteenth century Europe has far reaching impacts even in
the history of biblical interpretation.1 By the last quarter of the seventeenth century the
French Oratorian poet Richard published a series of books in which he applied critical
methods to the Bible (1678). He has an apologetic aim, not historical to show the protestant
sola scriptura principle, when he carried to its logical conclusion, makes confidence in the
Bible impossible. He questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and argued that
some biblical books reflect a long period of compilation and that the textual tradition is
uncertain.2 This practice of criticism led to the historical critical method and was fully bloom
in the 18th century. Thus, real beginning of critical method came after the Enlightenment
which can mean modern biblical criticism began in the period of Enlightenment.

The following are the main foci of the period: the early interpretative works were critically
examined; many manuscripts were found; an historical context of the New Testament has
been considered seriously; applying the findings of critical studies many commentaries and
monographs were written; and with the help of socio- historical studies the early Christian
history was reconstructed and finally insights from philosophy was to be carefully applied. 3

Johann Jokab Wettstein devised the modern notation system for listing the manuscripts by
distinguishing manuscripts by families and listed the variant readings. J.S. Semler was the
first to discover the difference of quality between the mass of later manuscripts of New
Testament. He also believed that there was a sharp difference between Jewish and Gentile
Christianity and attempted to divide the books of New Testament according to which these
community they belonged to. Unlike Semler, J. D. Michael is, consider the historical settings
of the individual Testament documents relating to authorship, date, place of writing,
recipients and purpose. He recognizes only apostolic books as canonical, which left out Mark,
Luke, Acts, James, Jude and possibly Hebrews and revelation too.4 Literary analysis of the
New Testament interpretation began with Eichhorn, G.E. Lessing, Lachmann, H. J.
Holtzmann etc. and it was dominant since the last quarter of eighteen century with the
intensive literary works. The dawn of the nineteenth century saw the development and use of
the historical method in the discipline of philosophy. This method with the problem of the
relation and faith and religious knowledge gave raise to new method the „history of regions
schools‟ in the New Testament. Positivism was the centre of their criticism along with factual
historical claims regarding the Bible which found to depreciate the Bible as revelation of
God.5 Thus, the growth and development of Enlightenment spirit tried to free biblical studies
from the dogmatic control of the Church by incorporating various discipline. With the brief
survey, this turn to the established methods and techniques to do with the basic text began
with textual criticism.

1.6.1. Textual Criticism

Textual criticism was undertaken in the hope to recovering the original text which most
people still believed was literally or verbally inspired. Textual criticism not only points out
the need for better editions of the original biblical texts but also show its possibility to use
 2

rational critical methods without imbibing the ideology. 6 Textual criticism is a critical tool of
recovering the original text of any ancient author or book. New Testament textual criticism
involves three major tasks: 1) the gathering and organizing of evidences, including especially
the collation (comparison) of manuscripts (=MSS) with one another to ascertain where errors
and alternation have produced variations in the text and the study of how and why these
variations happened; 2) The evaluation and assessment of the significance and implications of
the evidences with a view to determining which of the variant readings most likely represents
the original text; 3) the reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text, to the
extent allowed by the available evidences. 7 There are over five thousand Greek manuscripts
portions available and to determine the „original reading of the text‟ requires implementation
of highly technical process. Currently two significantly method of text criticism dominates.
Rigorous eclecticism advocated by G.D. Kilpatrick and J. K. Elliot and rational eclecticism
whose chief advocated were Kurt Aland, Bruze Metzer, Gorden Fee and E. J. Epp.8

Rigorous Eclecticism which relies virtually exclusively on internal considerations and places
little if any weight on external evidences; it treats the MSS as little more than a store house of
reading to be evaluated on other grounds; 9 and even there is tends to consider only intrinsic
probabilities.10 Intrinsic probabilities look for the reading that is most likely to have been
created by the author of the NT book himself.11 This category analyses the text from the
perspectives of authorial intent by examining the New Testament author‟s grammar, style,
vocabulary, theology, rhetorical purpose and so forth. A reading in a specific text most in line
with these factors of an author is preferred. Rigorous eclecticism favoured by Kilpatrick and
Elliot gives overwhelming weight to these internal factors. 12 Rigorous eclectics justify their
disregard of external evidence because they believed that during the second and third
centuries textual traditions was disrupted through wide spread attempt to correct the common
Greek of the New Testament by classical Attic standards. In this regard Rigorous eclecticism
is correct that no manuscript and no text type contain the original text in every instance, but
some manuscripts and text types are certainly nearer to the original than others, where
internal evidences in indecisive, the testimony of the best manuscript is weighty. 13

Rational eclecticism is an approach that seeks to apply all the tools and criteria developed by
classical method on passage by passage basis. No one rule or principle can be applied nor any
one MS (No matter how reliable) or group of MSS (how large) followed in a mechanical or
across the board fashion; each variation unit must be approached on its own merits and as
possibly unique.14 It seeks to give adequate consideration to both internal and external factors
that includes the dating, geographical, origin of Greek manuscripts and especially the family
relationships or the text types. Three types of text –Alexandria, western, Byzantine arose in
the process of copying of New Testament. The greatest external weight of evidence is given
to the reading with the earliest date, widest geographical distribution and concurrence among
text types, especially the Alexandrian and western text types. 15

Majority text method embodied in the Greek New testament. This approach seeks to
eliminate entirely any appeal to internal evidence, arguing instead that at any given point a
 3

variant that is supported by majority of the MSS ought to be accepted as original. 16 James A.
Brooks is of the opinion that it need to be recognised that in many instances the manuscripts
are eventually split and there is no majority text. 17

As of 1994, the Institute recorded a total of 5664 known Greek manuscripts that none of the
primary witnesses, the Greek manuscripts, is in complete agreement with another.18 From this
mass of evidence to determine both the original form of the text and the alterations made in
the course of its transmission, is a difficult task. The task to simply gather all the evidences
for a particular problem without mentioning about analysing and evaluating, it can be a
formidable challenged.19 The emphasis of the „best account for‟ in terms of both external and
internal consideration by the textual critics is questioned as they repeatedly content for the
originality of the reading that cannot account for historical evidences.20 Only the variant that
can be best account for all the evidence can seriously be considered as original. It always
deals with probability, never on certainty. 21 The uncertainty may create disbelief upon the
reader. The demonstration that no one manuscript or textual tradition is always right, no one
rule can be applied or followed pave more challenges for textual criticism. Thus, the task of
the textual critics is to determine which is the original text and thus to restore the original
using the approaches.

1.6.2. Source criticism

With a similar criterion with textual criticism if there are two or more variant reading of the
text source criticism seeks to understand the original sources as they were first written down.
Source criticism formerly called “literary criticism” or “higher criticism,” is a method of
biblical study which analyses texts that are not the work of a single author but result from the
combination of originally separate documents. Source criticism has been used extensively in
the analysis of the Pentateuch, the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth Gospel, but also in such
other books as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Acts, and the Apocalypse. 22 Source criticism is applied to
synoptic Gospels in order to understand the literary relationship among the first three
Gospels. They have basically the same structural outline, in contrast to the Fourth Gospel. 23
In spite of their literary dependence yet they have considerable differences both in content
and form. This interrelationship constitutes the problems, which compelled the scholars to
critically study the Synoptic problems.24

The first is the two perspectives dominating modern scholarship. The two document
hypothesis sets forth to view that Mark was written first then Matthew and Luke
independently used Mark as well as common second source Q. The other is the two-gospel
views reverse this sequence of literary dependency. 25Augustine was the first to consider the
literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels. According to him, the canonical order
Mtt-Mk-Lk is the order of dependence, this shows that Matt was the first written Gospel and
the later Gospels (Mk and Lk) were not written without the knowledge of the earlier Gospel.
This anticipated the Synoptic criticism in the 18th century.26

G. E Lessing attempted a Primitive Gospel Hypothesis theory (1776) who suggests that the
Synoptic Gospels have different translation from an old Aramaic Gospel of Nazarene( which
 4

is still in use among the sect of Nazarene in the 4th century), which was further developed by
J. G. Eichhorn (1796).27 According to this hypothesis, the common use of the Greek
translation of the Aramaic primitive Gospels is the reason of the similarities in the Synoptic
Gospels.28

Repeatedly, Augustine‟s hypothesis of literary dependence has been defended. Besides all the
other views, only three views hold their ground seriously. (a) According to Augustine,
Matthew was written first, Mark used Matthew and Luke used Mark (Mtt-Mk-Lk). This
sequence is advocated and still in use today. (b) J. L Griesbach developed the sequence as
Matthew was written first, Luke used Matthew and Mark used both Matthew and Luke (Mtt-
Lk-Mk), which is called Griesbach hypothesis. But this hypothesis does not help to recognize
the literary independence of Mark. (c) J. B. Koppe and G. C. Storr, advocated the priority of
Mark to Matthew and Luke in 18th century. Later, C. Lachmann made an attempt to work on
the primitive text of the NT and he concluded that Mark presented the closest original
tradition. Further, C. G Wilke and H.Weisse suggested Mark as the common source for the
narrative material of Matthew and Luke and thereby established the Two- source theory.29

At one time the question was asked whether Matthew and Luke had before them an earlier
form of Mark than the one that we have from the Alexandrian and Western texts. Streeter and
others have urged that, the original ending of Mark is lost after Mk 16: 8, so it is unlikely that
two recensions of Mark, Ur- Markus and Mark itself were current in the primitive church,
which were known to the other two evangelists. 30 C. H. Turner suggests that Matthew may
have used a more corrupt text of Mark than the Mark that is in use today and some of its
corruption is followed by Luke. Streeter renounced the theory of Ur- Markus as „phantom,‟
however through the study of this theory paves the way of the purest text of the Synoptic
Gospels.31

Streeter drew attention to the Four-Document hypothesis, that besides Mark and Q, we have
L (material peculiar to Luke), and M (material peculiar to Matthew) in the Synoptic Gospels,
which had replaced the old two-document hypothesis of Mark and Q alone. It is incapable to
prove whether L and M were document rather than a collection of oral tradition.32 Streeter
has elaborated the four-document hypothesis depending on Mark and Q, Matthew and Luke
had access to reliable, independent traditions peculiar to their respective Gospels. B. S.
Easton argued that the Greek material in the list of L passages has a peculiar vocabulary,
different from Luke‟s. If the suggestion is accepted that Luke had a first draft of the Gospel
material he would have selected suitable stories which he heard probably from Palestine to
fill out the Q sayings at his disposal.33 It was suggested that the collection of Luke‟s stories
would have been drawn from the Judean sources.

The M material serves to show its lack of uniformity. While one passage, especially the
parables are reliable but one cannot be sure of the entire OT fulfilment, nor of the verses
inserted probably from separate sources into the Markan context. Streeter thought that the
„Infancy stories and the coin in the fish‟s mouth and the passion story‟ belonged to oral
tradition at Antioch. Both the M material and Matthew‟s Gospel was needed in the church. G.
 5

D. Kilpatric suggests that it was an important „element of production of contemporary

liturgical custom‟. Though a „liturgical exposition‟ provides many fresh insights, the view of
K. Stendhal (the school of St. Matthew) may be more valuable. According to him, a Matthean
school is a more natural sitz in leben for a „systematizing work,‟ instead of the reflection on
the position of church leaders, representing a manual for teaching and for administration in
the church. It may be that the „secondary elements‟ in M were derived from a school. In any
case, Streeter‟s view still stands that the Judaistic sayings of M is pronounced, and that its
sayings peculiar to Matthew did not occur originally in Q and were not to be omitted by
Luke.34 From these four hypotheses the first and third Gospels were descended, while Mark
survived independently. 35

Source criticism cannot be assumed that it will always be possible to identify the use of the
written sources, still less of oral source, especially if the author was a competent editor. Any
of the evangelists are thought to be eyewitness, familiar with many traditions that have
recorded long before they wrote them, that such traditions may be recorded in the language
and style of the evangelist in question is scarcely surprising and proves nothing about the
reliability of the traditions.36 Though source criticism was a literary discipline it restricted
itself to the document or text in hand. It supposes that Matthew and Luke centred on Mark
and Q source as its basic assumption and it could not go behind these texts. What it did was
suggest an earlier form of Mark or multiplications of Q. This proved unsatisfactory and it
weakened the whole assumption or hypothetical structure of source.37John S. Kloppenborg
argued that the synoptic problem which has its origins in the late eighteen centuries in the
works of J. J. Griesbach, G.E. Lessing and J.G. Eichhorn has traditionally been restricted to
the investigation of the literary relationship. In recent years the synoptic problem issues has
become the literary relation to the Gospel of Thomas, Didache, Longer (secret) Gospel of
Mark and Gospel of Peter.38Source criticism thus succeeds by form criticism which deals
with early stages when the tradition of Jesus was circulated mostly in oral forms in the
process and formation of the Gospels.

1.6.3. Form Criticism

„Form criticism‟ might be described as the analysis of the typical forms by means of which
human experience is verbally expressed. The term „form criticism‟ is the common translation
of the German „Formgeschichte‟ (literally, history of form). 39 Form criticism began during,
or even before, world war-I. Earlier scholars like Johannes Weiss and Julius Wellhausen, and
above all in the work of Hermann Gunkel applied the theory to the history and legends in the
Old Testament. But its full application came only with the work of Rudolf Bultmann and
Martin Dibelius.40In New Testament studies, form criticism may be defined as a systematic,
historical and theological methodology for analysing the form and to some extent the content,
of the primitive Christian literature, with special reference to the history of early Christian
movement in its reflective creative theological activities. 41 It is also an attempt to show the
ways in which the stories of Jesus were used before the writing of the Gospels. 42 Besides the
Gospels, form criticism had been fruitfully applied to other writings of the New Testament.
Examples outside of the Gospels are the hymns (Phil. 2:5-11); elements in the Lord‟s Supper
 6

(I Cor. 11:24-26), list of behaviour code for believers in community etc (Col. 3:18-4:1).
Therefore, form criticism is not exclusive for the Synoptic Gospels. 43

Form critical methods were first applied systematically to the gospels by three German
scholars namely K.L Schmidt, M. Dibelius and R. Bultmann. In order to understand how
these methods works, some of the axioms from which form criticism proceeds need to be
listed. Form criticism holds that the Gospels are “popular” or folk literature. According to
Dibelius, the evangelists are author of the Gospels only in a small extent; rather they are
collectors, vehicles of tradition or editors.44 It is assumed that the period between the ministry
of Jesus and the time when the Gospels were written, the transmission of the sayings of Jesus
and stories about him by Christians were in oral forms. Form critics assume that though Q
might have existed by A.D. 50, yet the church continued to emphasise on oral tradition till the
second century.45 Thirdly, form critics points out that during the oral stage of transmission,
the units of the tradition developed to certain forms suited for the function performed in the
Christian community.46 The different passages and stories of what Jesus did and said are
classified according to „form.‟ Such as parables, miracles, proverbs and pronouncement
stories and some are even thought to be legends. Some stories which contain sayings leading
to the climax of what Jesus said are termed pronouncement stories (e.g. Mk. 2:15-17; 3:31-
35), and some, though not always regarded as non-historical are termed legends (e.g. Lk.
2:41-49; Mt. 27:3-8).47

The fourth axiom is assigned to the context in the life situation or „sitzem leben’ of the first
century church. The assumption in this is that each unit circulated separately from one
another to provide effective illustration in the early church. 48 As the ‘sitzem leben’ is
described in sociological terms, the form critical analysis or study requires not only the
investigation of literature but also some knowledge of sociology and human experience. In
scholarly circle, the social setting of life in which the given oral or literary forms are
expressed and appropriated is termed the „sitzem leben’ or setting of life or life situation.49

Form criticism in the New Testament have differentiated six basics „forms‟ deduced from the
work of three German scholars – Martin Dibelius, 1919 (From Tradition to Gospel), Rudolf
Bultmann, 1921 (The History of Synoptic Tradition) and V. Taylor, 1935 (The Formation of
the Gospel Tradition). The six different types of materials are: - Paradigms, Tales or
Novellen, Legends, Myths, Passion story and sayings of Jesus. 50 Paradigm is termed
Apophthegms by Bultmann and pronouncement stories by Vincent Taylor and is found in
incidents which are brief, ending in maxim or famous saying that gives a lesson. 51 An
example is Jesus pronouncement about giving to Caesar and to God (Mk. 12:17) and from
Mk. 2:23-28 the pronouncement about the Sabbath.52 For Miracles, both Bultmann and V.
Taylor use the term miracle stories. Dibelius calls miracles as tales and thinks that in them
Jesus is portrayed as a person who works wonders with exceptional power.53 Bultmann also
agrees with Dibelius that the miracle stories were established for preaching and apologetic
purpose.54
Legend is the term Dibelius applied to later Christian centuries to legend of saints. They arose
to satisfy twofold desire – “the wish to know something of the virtues and lot of holy men
 7

and women in the story of Jesus himself in this way. However, legends do not necessarily
mean that what has been recorded is not historical.55 The other form is myths. Myths are
accounts which describe many-sided interaction or relations of mythology but not in human
persons. In myth the supernatural or divine beings are seen in entering or breaking in upon
the human scene or nature. In study of literature when scholars use it, it refers to those
elements of the Gospel exposition of passage of Jesus which presents him to show that he
transcends the human and the natural beings. 56 Only three narratives are listed in this
category – the Baptism (Mk. 1:9-11), the Temptation (Mt. 4:1-11 and parallels) and the
Transfiguration (Mk. 9:2-8 and parallels). Bultmann does not include this in the category of
myth but these narratives are included among historical “stories and legends.” 57 However, the
passion narrative is also considered as one form of the literary units. There is no complete
agreement among the form critics regarding the passion story. For some it is seen as a
continuing well-knit narrative in contrast to the fragmentary nature of the other Gospel
material, while others see it as a combination of edited and polished work. 58 The passion
narrative Mk. 10-16 is a collection of other forms – pronouncements, sayings, miracles,
stories and historical stories. It represents the stories of Jesus‟ death, burial and resurrection
known by all Christians. Lastly, form consists of saying of Jesus which can be classified into
several types. First are the wisdom words. As Judaism was rich in short and wise sayings this
was to be expected in the element of Jesus‟ teaching. But for Bultmann there must be
suspicion, that at least some of such sayings might have been the work of the evangelist who
attributed it to Jesus.59 Bultmann divided the „Sayings‟ of Jesus into proverbial, prophetic,
legal and parabolic sayings. 60 These types of sayings are meant for the welfare of the
community to live in harmony with one another.

Therefore, basic purpose of form criticism is not, however, limited to classifying the various
units of tradition. Form critics have generally made use of their classifications to get behind
the gospels and look for earlier, purer „strata of tradition.‟ For instance, they have held that
the explanations of the parable do not belong with the parables, and the moralizing
conclusions often provided are secondary. They have also claimed that some miracle stories
can be classified as „Jewish‟ (healings and exorcisms) and therefore relatively early and
authentic, while others are to be regarded as „Hellenistic‟ (the so-called „nature miracles‟) and
therefore late and unreliable.61

Form criticism has helped readers, however tentatively, to penetrate into the “tunnel period”
before any of our New Testament documents were written down. The search for the Sitz im
leben of a tradition is an aid to exegesis. An understanding of the form of a periscope is
often of major importance for its accurate exegesis. Form criticism connects us to the oral
tradition and the life of early communities. 62 Form criticism has also made us aware of some
of the ways in which early Christians used their historical traditions creatively to get their
message across.63

Form criticism in spite of its advantages it is not free from limitations. The assumption that
there was an "oral period" before any of the gospel material came to be written down has
been questioned by H. Schurmann. Secondly, H. Riesenfeld and B. Gerhardsson have
 8

contended that the transmission of traditions by the early Christians must be understood on
the analogy of transmission of traditions by the Jewish rabbis. 64Thirdly, the concern to draw
parallels with extra-biblical material can sometimes distort rather than help exegesis. 65
Fourthly, the presence of both eyewitnesses and apostles seriously limits the creativity of
the early church despite the form critic‟s insistence that sayings were invented. 66 Fifthly,
from the very beginning the assumption that the individual periscope were passed on
unconnected has been challenged, in particular, by C. H. Dodd. 67 Lastly, E. Fascher, the
historian and critic of the movement (Die form ge schicht liche methode, 1924), not only
pointed out that form critics differ rather widely among themselves as to the forms, but
advance as much more serious objection, namely, that the materials of the gospel are vastly
different from the substance of the folk literature.68 The limitations of form criticism in
historical method provide space for new approach like redaction criticism.

1.6.4. Redaction Criticism

Redaction criticism came forward as a development of form, tradition and literary
development. Around 19th century source criticisms have been achieved. In the advent of the
20th century the scholars encountered with new questions behind the first written records and
the period of Jesus‟ event. In order to seek the authenticity of origin and history of the pre-
literal and oral tradition form tradition came into being. 69 Later traditional critics emerged to
put forward reconstructing the historical development of the gospel from the earliest time to
the final form. It often ignores to acknowledge the contributor. With the passage of time
literary critics appears to study on the final text of the gospel apart from considering the
originality of the event or author.70 Thus originally, redaction criticism develops to protest or
as a correction to areas neglected by form, tradition and also to correct literary criticism.
The term „redaction‟ describes the work of an editor carried out by an evangelist on their used
source when they create or compose the gospels. However, it is the study of observable
alternations introduced by the gospel writer into the traditional material they received and
used. And also examines the arrangement of materials which is motivated by the evangelist
theological understanding and intentions.71 The redactor ways of altering the source, the
seams or transition, while editing they use to connect the whole tradition into a unified one.72
It is also called composition criticism because the redactor composed new material,
arrangements with new patterns and units as well as redacting the existing material. 73The real
purpose of redaction criticism is to discover the theology of the redactor/author and its
setting. The evangelists were not mere „scissors‟ and „paste person‟ but scissors to be
manipulated by „theological hand‟ and the paste was to be impregnated with „particular
theology,‟ and therefore each has a theological purpose in writing.74

Hans Conzelmann begins by carefully comparing the text of Luke and the source he used. He
claimed that Luke was the first to have vision about the present church age and concentrates
upon the saving history or salvation history for proper understanding. He also inserts certain
features into the gospel which points the delay of the Parousia or the Christ‟s return.75 The
second most influential contributor to the redactional study is Willi Maxer. He maintained
that Mark focused more on the three fold setting of the gospel.He focused on Jesus ministry
and also sought to explain that Mark have written this gospel to warn the church to flee
 9

because the church to whom he writes were believers of Christ return i.e. Parousia.76 Günter
Bornakamm viewed that in Matthew Jesus was consistently pictured in more positive or
constructive discourse than his sources did in order that he might encourage the young
Christians to whom he was writing. This is controlled by authors own understanding of the
church and this convict that Matthew was a distinctive redactor and also interpreter of the
tradition which he had collected and arranged. 77

Redaction criticism represents a movement towards a more concentrated focus upon the text
as a whole. W. Randolph Tate, comments that that redaction criticism inherently focus on
four concerns, selection of traditional materials and sources, adaptation and modification of
the material, arrangement of the material and the extent of the author‟s theological
contribution to the text. 78McKnight provides six steps to delineate the particular emphasis of
each Gospels; firstly, to determine whether a true parallel exists; whether the accounts are
independent (e.g. Matt 22:1-14 and Luke14:16-24); secondly if the accounts are parallel, to
note that are not parallel; thirdly to note the terms and phrases that are common to all three
synoptic Gospels; fourthly to note where Mark and Matthew agree against Luke; fifthly to
note where Mark and Luke agree against Matthew; sixthly to note materials found in
Matthew and Luke but not on Mark (mostly Q sayings). 79

The following principles can be used for analysing any of the four Gospels since it is not
dependent upon source critical theory. Firstly, to study the seams as they are transitions that
link episodes together and provide the setting and often the theological emphasis for the
passage (e.g. Mark 1:21, 3:1); secondly to note the summaries as where an evangelist has
summarized materials, redactional emphases are particularly apparent (e.g. Matthew 4:23 and
9: 35); thirdly to note editorial asides and insertions, comments that are peculiar to a
particular evangelist become invaluable guides to the direction the stories are taking (e.g.
Mark 1:16, 2:15, John 3:16-21, 3:1-23); fourthly to note repeated or favourite word/ phrases,
the repetition of a word or phrase is indicative of emphasis and functions at both individual
and whole Gospel level.80

Redaction criticism treats the Gospel whole; it enables the readers to acknowledge the
gospels as product of individual who deliberately sought to interpret Jesus‟ words and deeds
to serve their theological intentions.81The study investigates author‟s theological emphasis by
noting how they utilize their sources and focus on the unique shades that each evangelist
contributed,82 to compose new materials and new forms. After a quarter century of massive
research using redactional critical assumptions, Norman Perrin declared that conventional
redaction criticism was no longer adequate because „it defines the literary activity of the
evangelist too narrowly.” Not only is the full range of literary activity of the authored missed,
but serious injustice is also done „to the text of the Gospels as coherent text with its own
internal dynamics.”83
 10

1
W. Baird, “New Testament Criticism,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman
(New York: Double day, 1992), 730.
2
Edger Krentz, The Historical Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 5-6.
3
Joy, Hermeneutics: Foundations and New Trends, A Postcolonial Reading of John 4, 17.
4
Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, 242, 244-245,
5
Krentz, The Historical Critical Method, 23, 30.
6
Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, 254.
7
Michael W. Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” The New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, edited by
David Alan Black and David. S. Dockery (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 101-102.
8
Lorin L. Cranford, “Modern New Testament Interpretation,” Biblical Hermeneutics: A
Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, second Edition, edited by Bruce Corley, Steve W.
Lemke, Grant I. Lovejoy ((Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publisher, 2002), 149.
9
Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” The New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, 113.
10
James A. Brooks, “An Introduction to Textual Criticism,” Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive
Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, second Edition, edited by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, Grant I.
Lovejoy ((Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publisher, 2002), 227.
11
Bart D. Ehrman, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV,
2006), 7.
12
Cranford, “Modern New Testament Interpretation,”149.
13
Brooks, “An Introduction to Textual Criticism,” 227.
14
Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” The New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, edited by David Alan
Black and David. S. Dockery (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 112-113.
15
Cranford, “Modern New Testament Interpretation,”149-150.
16
Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” The New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, 113.
17
Brooks, “An Introduction to Textual Criticism,” 227.
18
Bart D.Ehrman, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,
19
Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” The New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, 106.
20
Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” The New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, 114.
21
Brooks, “An Introduction to Textual Criticism,” 228.
22
Dietrich Alex Koch, "Source Criticism," The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 6, edited by D. N.
Freedman, G. A. Herion, D. F. Graf, J. D. Pleins and A. B. Beck (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 164.
23
Cranford, “Modern New Testament Interpretation,”154.
24
Werner George Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, 14th revise edition, translated by A. J
Mattill (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), 36.
25
Cranford, “Modern New Testament Interpretation,” 154.
26
Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, 37.
27
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, revised edition (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1990),
138-39.
28
R. H. Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green,
Scott McKnight, I. Howard Marshall (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 786.In Eichhorn writings he assumed
that each evangelist had used the primitive Aramaic Gospels in different forms, but in his hypothesis, he
developed a new writing. He derived nine different gospel writings from the primitive Gospels which were too
artificial and unknown quantities as it presented. However, it paved way for a supposition that Matthew and
Luke had a common source into the necessity of the hypothesis of a sayings source.Kummel, Introduction to the
New Testament, 37.
29
Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, 39.
30
C. S. C Williams, “The Synoptic Problem,” Peak’s Commentary on the Bible, edited by Matthew
Black and H. H. Rowley (Nairobi: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1962), 749.
31
A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 66.
32
Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1987), 13.
33
Williams, “The Synoptic Problem,” Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 752.
34
Williams, “The Synoptic Problem,” Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 752-54.
35
Merrill C. Tenny, New Testament Survey (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961), 136.
36
David Wenham, “Source Criticism,” New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and
Methods, edited by I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press Ltd., 1977), 146.
37
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction,3rded.(Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1970), 188.
38
John S. Kloppenborg, “A New Synoptic Problem: Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on
Thomas,” in Journal of the Study of New Testament, volume 36.3(March, 2014): 199-200.
39
Raymond F. Collins, Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1983), 156.
 11

40
Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism, trans. Frederick C. Grant (Willet, Clark and
Company, 1934), 8-9.
41
Vernon K. Robbins “New Testament”The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, eds., Gary A. Herion,
David F. Graf and John David Pleins A (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 841. A
42
Christopher Tuckett, Reading the New Testament: Method of Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1987),
95.
43
Tuckett, Reading the New Testament: Method of Interpretation, 110.
44
Stephen H. Travis, “Form Criticism,” in New Testament Interpretation, edited by I. Howard Marshall
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), 153.
45
Travis, “Form Criticism,” New Testament Interpretation, 153.
46
Travis, “Form Criticism,” New Testament Interpretation, 154.
47
C. L. Bloomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1987), 21.
48
Travis, “Form Criticism,” New Testament Interpretation, 154.
49
Collins, Introduction to New Testament, 164.
50
Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon (Illinois:
Inter Varsity Press, 1995), 45.
51
Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to New Testament, revised edition (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1977), 156.
52
Travis, “Form Criticism,” New Testament Interpretation, 155.
53
Harrison, Introduction to New Testament, 156.
54
Travis, “Form Criticism”in New Testament Interpretation, 156.
55
Travis, “Form Criticism,” in New Testament Interpretation, 156.
56
Harrison, Introduction to New Testament, 157.
57
Travis, “Form Criticism,”in New Testament Interpretation, 157.
58
Harrison, Introduction to New Testament, 157.
59
Harrison, Introduction to New Testament, p. 157.
60
W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach, third edition (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2008), 277-278.
61
Robert M. Grant, An Historical Introduction to New Testament (New York: Harper and Row
Publisher, 1963), 300.
62
Anugraha Behera, Synoptic Gospels (Hooghly West Bengal: The Author, 2003), 23.
63
Christopher Tuckett, Reading the New Testament, Methods of Interpretation, 111.
64
Since the rabbis' concern was to transmit accurately the traditions as they received them, Christian
churches were similarly concerned for accurate transmission, rather than being the “creative communities”
which form critic often imagine them to have been.
65
This is the fault of many forms critics‟ approach to the miracle-stories. Noting formal parallels with
stories of Hellenistic “divine men” and miracle-workers, they have underplayed the didactic purpose of the
miracle-stories and regarded them as quite distinct from the proclamation of Jesus as bringer of the kingdom of
God.I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Interpretation; Essays on Principle and Methods (England: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 159.
66
There is clear evidence in the early church (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:10, 12) that a distinction was made
between Christian decisions and the decisions of the historical Jesus.Scot McKnight, Interpreting the
Synoptic Gospels (Secunderabad: OM Books, 1988), 76.
67
This represents a serious challenge to form criticism and should not be overlooked. Dodd argues that
there were different types of material in the Gospels: independent units, larger complexes, and a basic outline of
the life of Jesus. This latter aspect can be glimpsed in the so-called Markan summaries (1:14-15, 21-22, 39;
3:7b-19; 4:33-34; 6:7, 12-13, 30) as well as in the early sermons in Acts (2:14-39; 3:13-26; 4:10-12; 5:30-32;
10:37-41)
68
Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, 158
69
Behera, Synoptic Gospels, 18.
70
Stenger, Introduction to New Testament Exegesis, 52.
71
Stephen S. Smalley, “Redaction Criticism, “New Testament Interpretation: Essay on Principles and
Methods, edited by I. Howard Marshal (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1979), 181.
72
G.R. Osborne, “Redaction Criticism,” A Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel Green,
Scott McKnight ,I. Howard Marshall(Leicester:Inter Varsity Press,1992),662.
73
Norman, Perrin, What is Textual Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 1.
74
Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon, 55.
75
Norman Perrin, What is Textual Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969),
 12

76
Robert H, Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpreter, second edition (Michigan:
Baker Academic.2001), 239.
77
Blomberg, The Historicity Reliability of the Gospels, 36
78
Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach, 181.
79
Grant R. Osborn, “Redaction Criticism,” The New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, 208-209.
80
Osborn, “Redaction Criticism,” The New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, 209.
81
Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon, 55.
82
Donald, Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, revised edition (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990),
240.
83
Yarchin, History of Biblical Interpretation: A reader, 377.