Redaction Criticism and the Old Testament: A Biblical Refutation of Higher Critical Theories Undermining Scriptural Inerrancy

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Redaction criticism, a branch of higher criticism, is one of the most significant threats to the doctrine of the inerrancy and divine preservation of the Old Testament. Rooted in literary and historical-critical methods that arose from 18th and 19th-century rationalist philosophy, redaction criticism assumes that various books of the Bible were not authored by the traditionally attributed writers, but were instead shaped and modified by later editors or “redactors.” These alleged redactors are claimed to have rearranged, inserted, or changed portions of the biblical text—sometimes centuries after the original composition.

Such a theory, if accepted, strikes at the very heart of Scripture’s reliability and authority. If the content of the Old Testament was substantially altered, we cannot affirm the inerrancy of the original autographs, nor can we distinguish between divinely revealed prophecy and later editorial invention. Consequently, any significant form of redaction—especially one said to involve inspired revisions—is incompatible with the objective, historical-grammatical approach to Scripture and is wholly inconsistent with the biblical doctrine of inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16), divine authorship (2 Peter 1:20–21), and preservation (Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:89).

This article will provide a thorough biblical response to redaction criticism, addressing its claims, evaluating the so-called evidence, and reasserting the conservative evangelical position on Old Testament integrity based on Scripture itself, not speculative human theories.

The Nature and Claims of Redaction Criticism

At its core, redaction criticism assumes that biblical texts were subject to editorial modifications over time. Scholars like Emanuel Tov and others point to variations in textual arrangements, repeated sections, editorial glosses, and differing versions of the same book (e.g., Jeremiah in the MT vs. LXX) as evidence that later editors rewrote, expanded, or modified the content of inspired Scripture.

Tov, for example, argues that in Jeremiah we see:

– Rearranged text
– Addition of headings
– Repetitions
– Inserted verses
– Content alterations

These alleged changes, according to redaction critics, reflect theological motivations or the evolving religious consciousness of the Israelite community. Redactors are viewed not simply as copyists or transmitters but as creative agents shaping the biblical message. While radical critics propose uninspired redactors, some evangelical scholars have attempted to soften the theory by arguing for “inspired redactors” who edited previous revelation under divine guidance—an idea no less problematic.

Bruce Waltke, for instance, postulates editorial revisions extending over 2,000 years, proposing that biblical texts evolved through prophetic spokesmen and later inspired editors. But this position, though less radical in language, is no less damaging in implication. If inspired men modified or expanded previously completed inspired writings, we no longer have the fixed, authoritative Word of God but a developing, fluid corpus—an idea in direct contradiction to biblical testimony.

A Biblical Response to Redactionist Arguments

Deuteronomy 34: The Death of Moses

It is frequently claimed that the description of Moses’ death in Deuteronomy 34 could not have been written by Moses, thus requiring a later redactor. However, the conservative response has been consistent: this passage is either a prophetically given conclusion by Moses himself or more likely an appendix added by Joshua or another immediate successor under divine inspiration.

This is not redaction in the technical sense—it does not involve changing Moses’ writings but supplementing the narrative with necessary closure. It does not reflect a change in theology, narrative structure, or prophetic message. A single addendum is not comparable to a theory of sustained redaction over centuries.

Deuteronomy 2:10–12 and 2:20–23

These verses are parenthetical and often presented as clear indicators of later editorial glosses. However, this interpretation is based entirely on subjective literary judgment. The Historical-Grammatical method recognizes that such explanatory notes could easily have been included by Moses himself. The fact that they appear in a seamless context does not demand redaction. Moses, writing near the end of his life (1406 B.C.E.), could easily have inserted such explanatory remarks for the sake of clarity.

No textual or manuscript evidence indicates that these verses were later interpolations, and there is no doctrinal or theological shift introduced by their presence.

Arrangement of the Psalms

The Psalms are indeed grouped into five books, and various editorial notes (e.g., superscriptions) appear throughout. However, there is no evidence that the actual content of the individual psalms was altered. Psalm titles and the division into books are not redactional changes to revelation but organizational tools for liturgical or mnemonic purposes.

Even if a later inspired compiler arranged the psalms into the form we now have, this is categorically different from redaction criticism’s claim that content was substantially rewritten. Scripture nowhere implies that these groupings were the result of post-exilic theological editors, and all evidence points to early compilation from authentic sources.

Proverbs and Later “Editors”

Some Proverbs (25:1) state they were “copied by the men of Hezekiah king of Judah,” which redaction critics claim as evidence of redaction. However, the text does not say the content was modified—only that it was copied, i.e., transcribed and preserved. The inspired proverbs of Solomon (c. 970–931 B.C.E.) were already recognized as divinely authoritative and were simply compiled for preservation under Hezekiah (c. 715–686 B.C.E.).

There is no evidence that these scribes modified or altered Solomon’s words. This copying activity supports, not undermines, the view that God providentially preserved His Word through careful transmission by faithful men.

The Two Versions of Jeremiah

The claim that the Greek Septuagint version of Jeremiah is about one-seventh shorter than the Masoretic Text has been used to argue for extensive redaction. However, conservative scholarship acknowledges that Jeremiah likely had more than one edition of his prophetic work, perhaps preserved through his scribe Baruch (Jeremiah 36:4). This phenomenon is not redactional in the critical sense but reflects the common prophetic practice of expanding messages for different audiences or occasions.

There is no textual evidence that later scribes reworded, removed, or inserted doctrine-altering content. Differences in arrangement or length do not constitute proof of redactional fabrication.

Chronicles and the Use of Sources

The Chronicler references numerous prior sources (e.g., “Samuel the Seer,” “Nathan the Prophet,” etc.), which critics claim proves redaction. However, citing sources is not the same as redacting them. The use of earlier inspired or uninspired writings as historical data (like court records or genealogies) does not entail modification of their content. It merely shows that the Chronicler, possibly Ezra, compiled history faithfully using accessible material, just as Luke did in composing his Gospel (Luke 1:1–4).

No changes in theology, prophecy, or revelation occur in such compilations. The redactor model assumes without evidence that the Chronicler altered these materials to create a new theological narrative.

Refuting the Concept of “Inspired Redactors”

The concept of inspired redactors introduces several serious theological errors:

Violates God’s Command Not to Alter His Word

Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6 make it clear that adding to or taking away from God’s Word is a serious offense. Revelation 22:18–19 reiterates this warning. If later “inspired” redactors were allowed to modify previous divine revelation, these commands would be rendered meaningless. Prophets did not revise each other’s work—they proclaimed and recorded God’s Word, which then stood as authoritative and immutable.

Destroys the Meaning of Inspiration

2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is “God-breathed,” not all redactions. The doctrine of inspiration applies to the original autographs, not to hypothetical composite documents. Redaction criticism turns inspiration into an evolving process, undermining the finality and sufficiency of any one text.

Undermines the Inerrancy of the Autographs

Evangelical theology holds that only the autographs are inerrant. Redaction criticism makes it impossible to identify the original. If each generation of scribes edited and revised, the original message is irretrievable. But God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2), has preserved His Word intact (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18), not through revision but through accurate transmission.

Replaces Prophetic Authority with Editorial Authority

The redactor model places authority not in the prophet who received divine revelation but in anonymous editors. This contradicts the biblical model in which God speaks through prophets, confirmed by miracles (Exodus 4:1–9; Hebrews 2:3–4). Editors were never assigned prophetic roles.

Allows for Theological Deception

Redaction criticism leads inevitably to theological deception. If later editors reshaped prophecies, inserted words into God’s mouth, or rewrote narratives to fit new agendas, then the Bible contains intentional misrepresentation—something utterly incompatible with the character of God (Hebrews 6:18; Numbers 23:19).

Misrepresents Legitimate Scribe Activity

Normal transmission of the text—copying, preserving, or even updating spelling conventions—is not redaction. The distinction between scribal preservation and content revision must be maintained. The historical-grammatical method rightly focuses on authorial intent and the original text, not speculative layers of editing.

Conflicts with Jewish and Church History

Historical testimony also contradicts redaction models. Josephus and the rabbis record that prophecy ceased after Malachi (c. 400 B.C.E.). There were no divinely authorized editors after this time. Therefore, any alterations made beyond that period, if they occurred, cannot be considered inspired. The Jewish canon was closed, and its content fixed well before Christ’s ministry began.

Conclusion: Redaction Criticism Is Incompatible with Biblical Inerrancy

Redaction criticism, in all its forms, rests on unproven assumptions, speculative reconstructions, and the rejection of the clear biblical teaching on inspiration, preservation, and prophetic authority. Whether advanced by radical critics like Emanuel Tov or compromised by evangelical theorists proposing “inspired redactors,” the result is the same: a damaged view of Scripture, a loss of confidence in the integrity of God’s Word, and a departure from the historical faith.

Only the objective, historical-grammatical method—committed to interpreting Scripture as it was intended by the original author under divine inspiration—preserves the authority and inerrancy of the biblical text. The redactor theories must be rejected not because they are too new or too academic, but because they are contrary to what the Bible teaches about itself.

You May Also Benefit From

Rationalism and the Bible: A Scriptural and Apologetic Response to Human Reason as Ultimate Authority

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).