Talk:Redaction criticism

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the biblical criticism work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Pointless Theological inference in 'Cons'[edit]

I refer to '6. Redaction Criticism has determined in advance what it will discover and therefore it is not a question of whether the writer will be found guilty but how and when he will be condemned. This stems from the redactionist's three main criteria, "distinctiveness," "multiple attestation," and "consistency," which presuppose that tradition about Jesus contains much that is un-historical.'

Emphasis mine. A very POV way to put it, don't you think? Conflating 'Jesus' and 'text of the entire bible'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.195.213 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I created a lead by simply moving the first section to the top of the article. But I also shortenbed it, and, most importantly, changed it to stress that redaction criticism makes a distinction between "author" and "redactor". PiCo 09:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added a bit about the prominent scholara[edit]

i added the bit about the school's key modern day contributors. feel free to edit - i'm no theologian on this topic so go ahead. but i'm reference was made from craig bloomberg's text, 'the historical reliability of the gospels'. --ToyotaPanasonic (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous reference[edit]

It may be a good idea to be a bit clearer with the references:

Bruce, 11-12

Dunn, xxix-xli

If they are books, then do they already have articles in wikipedia? Ideally we'd have many of the following mentioned in the reference:

full title
author's full name
publisher
date published
relevant link
ISBN

Pnelnik (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mistake[edit]

Bronkamm incorrect Bornkamm Correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.156.160.87 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]