ScholarGate
Assistent
Process / pipelineBiblical exegesis / Gospel composition

Redaction Criticism

Redaction criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte) studies the biblical authors not as passive collectors of tradition but as genuine authors and theologians who shaped their inherited material to make a point. Where form criticism dissolved the Gospels into independent oral units, redaction criticism puts the spotlight back on the evangelist who selected, arranged, and edited those units. By comparing the final text with the sources and traditions behind it, the critic isolates the changes the author made, looks for a consistent pattern in those changes, and reads off the theological program that motivated them. Hans Conzelmann's 1953 study of Luke is the classic example, and Norman Perrin's 1969 primer What Is Redaction Criticism? introduced the method to English readers and articulated its logic.

Åbn i MethodMindSnartAnvend, sammenlign, få vejledning
Værktøjer og ressourcer
Hent slides
Lær og udforsk
VideoSnart

Læs hele metoden

Kun for medlemmer

Log ind med en gratis konto for at læse dette afsnit.

Log ind

Metodekort

Nabolaget af beslægtede metoder — vælg en knude for at udforske.

Kilder

  1. Perrin, N. (1969). What Is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ISBN: 9780800601812
  2. Conzelmann, H. (1960). The Theology of St Luke (trans. G. Buswell). New York: Harper. [German 'Die Mitte der Zeit', 1953]. link

Sådan citerer du denne side

ScholarGate. (2026, June 23). Redaction Criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte: Editorial Theology of the Final Author). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/da/religious-studies/redaction-criticism

Hvilken metode?

Stil denne metode ved siden af dens nærmeste slægtninge, og læs dem side om side — biblioteket lægger bøgerne på bordet; valget er dit.

Sammenlign side om side

Refereret af

ScholarGateRedaction Criticism (Redaction Criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte: Editorial Theology of the Final Author)). Hentet 2026-06-24 fra https://scholargate.app/da/religious-studies/redaction-criticism · Datasæt: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026