Redaktionsgeschichte in the Gospels
As nearly any student of New Testament Introduction should be able to explain, Günther Bornkamm’s brief, 1948 essay, „Die Sturmstillung im Matthäus-Evangelium“ (The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew’s Gospel), helped to launch a new discipline in the historical-critical study of the Gospels known as Redaktionsgeschichte, or “Redaction Criticism.” Bornkamm had studied alongside of Ernest Käsemann and Hans Conzelmann under Rudolf Bultmann, so he was part of the wave of scholars who created the “Second Quest” for the Historical Jesus. As his essay, “The Stilling of the Storm” reveals, Bornkamm was searching for ways to reconcile the differences between the Gospel pericopes when he hit upon an intriguing theory. The evangelists who composed the Gospels were not randomly placing together blocks of stories and sayings from oral traditions about Jesus (like “pearls on a string”), as the Form Critics claimed, but were arranging and modifying material to suit their own presentation of the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, they were not merely compilers of information but authors in their own right.
Bornkamm illustrates this observation by contrasting Matthew’s account of Jesus stilling the storm in Matt 8:23–27 with the parallel versions that appear in Mark 4:35–41 and Luke 8:22–25. In Matthew’s gospel, Bornkamm explains, “the story is made to serve a new motive.” For Matthew alone places the Stilling account after two men, a scribe and a would-be disciple separately approach Jesus and desire to “follow” (ἀκολουθεῖν) him. Immediately Matthew continues, “And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed [ἀκολουθεῖν] him” (Matt 8:23). Thus, while in Mark and Luke the Stilling narrative merely serves as a “miracle story” to illustrate the power of Jesus over nature (a form-critical category), in Matthew the story is used to make point about following Jesus into the storm. “Matthew is not only a hander-on of the narrative,” says Bornkamm, “but also its oldest exegete, and in fact the first to interpret the journey of the disciples with Jesus in the storm and the stilling of the storm with reference to discipleship, and that means with reference to the little ship of the Church.”
So impressed with this approach was Bornkamm’s colleague, Hanz Conzelmann, that Conzelmann produced a study of Luke’s Gospel with the purpose of illustrating how Luke redacted the gospel material he gathered in his own research (cf. Luke 1:1–4). In his Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (The Middle of Time: A Study of Luke’s Theology), Conzelmann attempts to demonstrate that Luke redacts his material in a way that deemphasizes the immediacy of Jesus’s return and encourages the followers of Jesus to wait patiently and to live in hope (e.g., Luke 8:1–8).
Conservative interpreters are right to be wary of Redaktionsgeschichte, for the methodology developed as one of the post-Enlightenment tools of historical criticism that treats the Bible “like any other book.” But while we may take issue with some of the interpretive conclusions of the redaction critics, is there anything fundamentally wrong with the idea that the evangelists arranged, adapted, dismissed, or emphasized certain aspects of their material in order to make a special point in their proclamation of Jesus as the Son of God?
I believe, for instance, that the methodology of Redaktionsgeschichte may be especially helpful in the comparison of another Sea of Galilee narrative, Jesus Walking on the Water. This particular narrative is especially fascinating, first because it is not limited to the Synoptics, but is one of those rare occasions where John’s material is tracking for two brief accounts with the Synoptic material. Second, the story also begins one of the blocks of gospel material where Luke curiously falls silent alongside of Mark and Matthew for ten full pericopes before picking up the harmony again with Peter’s confession. Therefore, oddly enough, the comparison of the Walking on the Water narratives is a study of Mark 6:45–56, Matthew 14:22–36, and John 6:16–24).
The account in each of these three Gospels takes place immediately after the narrative of Jesus feeding the 5000, as if the two stories were always told together. The most striking difference between these three pericopes, however, is the fact that Matthew is the only evangelist to insert the story of Peter walking on the water to meet Jesus (Matt 14:28–32). Why do the other evangelists omit this account? I mean, if I were writing a gospel and included the story of Jesus walking on the water I cannot imagine leaving out the part about Peter! The palpable image of Peter stepping onto those violent waves and then beginning to sink into the sea is one of the most memorable scenes in the four Gospels.
The absence of Peter’s story in Mark and John could be explained by Peter’s embarrassment of the incident. If Mark’s material comes primarily from Peter’s preaching (e.g., Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16), then the absence of the additional account may indicate that Peter did not mention it in his public ministry. And John, who is often paired as a close companion with Peter (e.g., Matt 17:1; Mark 5:37; John 21:20; Acts 3:1) would have known that Peter was uncomfortable with the account and remained silent about it for Peter’s sake. So, thankfully, Matthew did not get the memo about leaving Peter out of the story!
But is there a better explanation? If so, perhaps it can be sought in the conclusion of these three pericopes. For there is a striking difference in how each evangelist appears to apply the story. At the end of Mark’s version, Jesus “got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened” (Mark 6:51–52). Matthew’s account, however, does not end with the disciples perplexed and hardened, but rather in awe of Jesus and his true identity. “And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God” (Matt 14:32–33). In John’s gospel, on the other hand, the story leaves the reader less impressed on the surface. John simply writes, “Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going” (John 6:21). Except for the simple fact that the fear of the disciples was addressed by the calming words of Jesus, “It is I; do not be afraid” (John 6:20), John’s version serves mainly to get the disciples and Jesus from one side of the sea of Galilee to the other in order to set up the Bread of Life Discourse, the second encounter between Jesus and the multitude who had been miraculously fed by Jesus the evening before (John 6:22–70).
If I can be allowed to speculate, assuming Markan priority, perhaps Matthew’s account is an attempt to tell more of the story offered by Mark, in order that the reader not be left with the impression that the disciples had no clue who Jesus was at this point in his ministry. Though their hearts were “hardened” and though they were still chewing on the lesson of the loaves (Mark 6:51–52), Peter at least had the courage and the trust in Jesus to ask if he could step onto the water with him (Matt 14:28). At the climax of this incident, Jesus and Peter now back in the boat, we find the disciples worshiping Jesus in awe (Matt 14:33).
My purpose here is not to offer a definitive answer for the differences between these three accounts, but merely to suggest that the methodology of Redaktionsgeschichte may prove the most useful approach in helping us to come to an understanding of the differences between the four Gospels. The methodology does not have to serve as a contradiction to an orthodox understanding of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture; for recognizing redaction does not have to suggest that one of the evangelists got it wrong. Rather, Redaktionsgeschichte is a way of determining the process of how God prepared “holy men” (men set apart for a special purpose) and led them through the Holy Spirit to write the canonical Gospels (2 Pet 1:21). And each author has a unique message to convey to us about the eternal Son of God.
