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.

Åpne i MethodMindSnartBruk, sammenlign, få veiledning
Verktøy og ressurser
Last ned lysbilder
Lær og utforsk
VideoSnart

Les hele metoden

Kun for medlemmer

Logg inn med en gratis konto for å lese denne delen.

Logg inn

Metodekart

Nabolaget av beslektede metoder — velg en node for å utforske.

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

Slik siterer du denne siden

ScholarGate. (2026, June 23). Redaction Criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte: Editorial Theology of the Final Author). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/no/religious-studies/redaction-criticism

Hvilken metode?

Sett denne metoden ved siden av sin nærmeste slektning og les dem side om side — biblioteket legger bøkene på bordet; valget er ditt.

Sammenlign side om side

Referert av

ScholarGateRedaction Criticism (Redaction Criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte: Editorial Theology of the Final Author)). Hentet 2026-06-24 fra https://scholargate.app/no/religious-studies/redaction-criticism · Datasett: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026