Redaction criticism and higher criticism—What are they?

what does the bible say?

The Bible consistently presents itself as God’s Word given through human writers under His sovereign direction. Moses wrote the Law and gave it to the priests for safekeeping (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24–26). Jeremiah dictated his prophecies, which were rewritten after the first scroll was destroyed, with God Himself directing the process (Jeremiah 36:27–32). Luke acknowledged using eyewitness reports and earlier narratives to compose his Gospel, yet he stressed that his purpose was to provide an orderly and faithful account of what God had done in Christ (Luke 1:1–4). The New Testament insists that all Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16–17) and that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20–21). Jesus affirmed that not a single stroke of the Law would fail until all was accomplished (Matthew 5:17–18). While the Bible acknowledges ordinary literary and historical processes, it presents those processes as governed by God’s Spirit to communicate His truth. Attempts to reconstruct what “must have happened” behind the text often ignore the Bible’s own testimony and risk elevating speculation above revelation.

from the old testament

• Redaction criticism often claims that Old Testament books were assembled by later editors who reshaped traditions to serve new agendas. For example, some argue that the promises to Abraham (Genesis 12:3) were added long after his lifetime to give Israel a national identity during their time in exile. However, the text presents these promises as God’s words to Abraham himself, forming the basis of His covenant purposes. Viewing them as editorial inventions undermines their authority and strips them of their divine origin.
• Higher criticism often reduces Old Testament stories to reflections of their historical context. Jeremiah’s scroll is a notable example. When King Jehoiakim burned the first scroll, God instructed the prophet to rewrite it with additional material (Jeremiah 36:27–32). This event emphasizes divine preservation and authority; however, higher-critical views often interpret it as evidence of changing traditions, rather than God’s intentional reaffirmation of His word.
• In summary, both methods distort what Scripture itself states: that God spoke and made sure His message was preserved.

from the new testament

• Redaction criticism is often used to analyze the Gospels, with scholars arguing that Matthew or Luke modified earlier material (like Mark) to support their own theological goals. For instance, some contend that Matthew’s account of Jesus’s birth (Matthew 1–2) was crafted to depict Him as a “new Moses,” rather than as a truthful record of historical events. This contrasts with Matthew’s goal of grounding his account in fulfilled prophecy, presenting Jesus as the promised Messiah.
• Higher criticism often emphasizes the historical context in ways that reshape the understanding of Jesus’s mission. Some interpretations view Him mainly as a political revolutionary against Roman rule, reducing His teachings and miracles to signs of social unrest. This is in contrast to the Gospels, which present Him as the Son of God who came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) and who declared that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
• By filtering the text through speculative reconstructions, both of these methods distort the plain message of Scripture into something it never claimed to be.

implications for today

The greatest safeguard in Bible study is to let Scripture speak for itself. Start with the words on the page, asking what the author intended and how the original hearers would have understood it. Historical and literary background can be helpful when they clarify the meaning, but they must never replace or override the text. Speculative reconstructions of lost sources or hidden agendas may sound scholarly and intriguing, but they cannot be proven and often distract from the actual message God gave. A wise approach is to read humbly and in context. Pay attention to the genre, structure, and surrounding context. Guard against forcing theories into the text or treating it as raw material for human agendas. Do this by trusting that God has spoken clearly through His prophets and apostles, and that His Word is sufficient to teach, correct, and train you in righteousness. Also, read Scripture in community, allowing the Spirit to shape you as you learn alongside others. The main way to do this is by discussing questions about meaning with mature Christians in your local church. Additionally, many questions have been addressed over the years, so a good, biblically sound commentary or topic-specific book can also be very helpful. In summary, the Lord uses the believing community to deepen our understanding and correct blind spots. You don’t need to underst and Scripture alone!

Recap

understand

• Redaction criticism focuses on supposed editing by biblical authors, assuming human alteration instead of divine authorship.
• Higher criticism seeks to reconstruct historical contexts but often undermines the Bible’s authority by emphasizing speculation over revelation.
• The Bible consistently teaches that God inspired, guided, and preserved His Word through human writers under the Holy Spirit’s direction.

reflect

• How do you approach the Bible?
• What can you do to guard against letting speculation or academic trends weaken your confidence in Scripture?
• How does believing that God preserved His Word change the way you study and apply it?

engage

• How can we help each other stay grounded in the authority of the Bible while still appreciating historical and literary insights?
• What dangers arise when people treat the Bible as a collection of human stories, rather than divine revelation?
• How can studying the Bible together strengthen our trust that God’s Word is reliable and inspired?