ScholarGate
Assistant
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.

Open in MethodMindSoonApply, compare, get guidance
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore
VideoSoon

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Sources

  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

How to cite this page

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

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

Compare side by side

Referenced by

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