“Interpretation of a Gospel is Far More than Source and Redaction Criticism”

After mentioning Watson’s book new book Gospel Writing: A Canonical PerspectiveI couldn’t wait to break it open jump in. Simon Gathercole says of Watson’s book in the blurb:

A wonderfully wide-ranging book, full of learning and insight. One of the most significant books on the gospels in the last hundred years, this work will undoubtedly shake up the current study of the gospels.

High praise indeed!

When “pigeon holing” the book, I found this passage that quite well captures my less than sanguine interest, referenced in my DJG post, in source and redaction criticism. Watson admits:

If the main purpose of the synopsis is comparison, leading one to appreciate the distinctiveness of each individual gospel, that appreciation will be further enhanced if we can learn how was that their convergences and divergence came about in the first place. There is of course a considerable risk here. If a gospel is interpreted in light of a source-critical hypothesis that turns out to be erroneous, the whole interpretation will be undermined. If Griesbach is wrong (as he probably is), then the Mark who follows first Matthew and then Luke is a fictitious figure who will seriously distort the reading of the canonical text. The same is true in principle of any other source-critical hypothesis: Markan priority (which is presupposed throughout the present work), Q (rejected in Chapter 3, below) or Luke’s selective use of Matthew as well as Mark (proposed in Chapters 3 and 4), not to mention the potential relevance of early gospels later deemed noncanonical (Chapters 5–7). The interpretation of a gospel is far more than source redaction criticism, but that is no reason to disparage or reject these methods (60-61)

I am in agreement with Watson about the purpose of synopsis work. I have found it fruitful after studying a passage in one Gospel to then compare it as a whole with a parallel in another Gospel. These comparison’s bring out the unique elements of one Evangelist’s story. But I’m not optimistic that we can “learn how”, with any certainty, the “convergences and divergences” came about even if they would, in theory, “enhance” this appreciation of the comparison. What’s more, while I wouldn’t advocate a complete rejection of the methods of source and redaction criticism, I don’t think they provide secure enough foundation for conclusions about the particular Gospel or Jesus.

Early on in my Gospel Studies I read something Tom Wright said (I think in NTPG) that gave language to my emerging pessimism about these so-called criticisms. Tom said that he’s much more certain about Jesus than he is about which Gospel was first and what the nature of the inter-relationships are between the Gospels.

I think there are other more fruitful lines of research that have a much greater yield.

But I’ll keep reading . . . I have been intrigued for quite sometime with the L/M hypothesis which assumes Mark wrote first, then Matthew (using Mark) and then Luke using Mark and Matthew. This obviously dispenses with the Q hypothesis which I’d be happy to do. This has been made popular recently by Mark Goodacre.