What is Redaction Criticism?

Redaction Criticism of the Bible is the theory that different copyists and commentators of the early
biblical writings embellished and altered the biblical texts throughout early Jewish and Christian
history to make them appear more miraculous, inspirational, and legitimate. An example of redaction
theory would be the claim that Old Testament prophecies were modified by redactors after the fact to
make them appear as miraculous prophecies. Redaction criticism reduces the quality of the biblical
record, casts strong doubt on its inspiration, and implies that the Bible is not trustworthy as a historical
document. Originally, redaction criticism was restricted to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke), but it has been applied to other areas of scripture. Norman Perrin in his book "What is
Redaction Criticism?" states, "The prime requisite for redaction criticism is the ability to trace the form
and content of material used by the author concerned or in some way to determine the nature and extent
of his activity in collecting and creating, as well as in arranging, editing, and composing."1 Redaction
Criticism began in Germany in the early 1700's with Hermann Reimarus, who was a professor of
Oriental languages in Hamburg. He was a deist who wrote extensively against Christianity.  He
proposed that Jesus was a failure and that the disciples altered their stories in an attempt to make Jesus
appear messianic and miraculous. Redaction criticism was then taken up by David Friedrich Strauss
(1808-74) who attempted to show that the gospels were altered, were the expression of myth, and
cannot be construed as historical. His main contribution to redaction criticism was the idea that Mark
was used as a source document by Matthew and Luke.2 Wilhelm Wrede (1859-1906) was the next
major proponent of redaction criticism who attempted to show that the historical narratives of Mark
were not reliable. Some Evidence and Answers for Redaction Some evidence offered to support
biblical redaction is that the ending of Deuteronomy (Chapter 34) records Moses' death though it was
not Moses who wrote it; the arrangement of the Psalms into five sections is the work of a compiler; and
that the Book of Chronicles states it is based on prior writings (1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; 29:29; 2 Chron.
9:29; 13:22; 6:11; 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:19; 35:27; 36:8).3 There are other alleged
evidences, but these will suffice. Though there are accounts of biblical writers arranging or
commenting on events, this does not discount the authenticity or reliability of the biblical documents. 
It is commonly accepted in conservative scholarly circles that Joshua probably wrote the ending of
Deuteronomy.  This does not invalidate the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.  Likewise, simply
arranging material, such as the Psalms, into categories does not affect its inspiration, authenticity, or
reliability at all.  And, citing other sources for factual reference likewise, in no way reduces the
inspiration of the book of Chronicles, or the Bible as a whole.  The inspired writer simply used other
books, which were not inspired though accurate, in his compilation of the biblical record.Another twist
in redaction criticism is the proposition that there were inspired redactors.  That is, those people who
compiled and commented on biblical passages were themselves inspired.  But this contradicts the
doctrine that the original writings were inspired.  After all, if the original writings were inspired, there
would be no need for altering the text.  It further implies that what is said in scripture is not
trustworthy.  The gospels, for example, would not then really contain Jesus' words but only the words
of redactors who wanted to embellish and/or modify "myth stories" into what was apparently more
spiritual and inspirational.  With this, deception is implied since the biblical documents claim
authenticity and accuracy. Though it is not within the scope of this paper, redaction criticism is refuted
by the evidence of the reliability of the historic documents (dealt with in Textual Criticism), the fact
that the prophecies were indeed made and fulfilled, and that the Bible is archaeologically accurate. 
Due to the science of Textual Criticism, the original texts of the Bible can be reconstructed with a great
deal of accuracy, their prophetic nature verified, and their inspiration maintained. 1. Perrin, Norman,
What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969, p. 2. 2. Ibid., p. 4-5. 3. Geisler,
Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999,
p. 636.