Redaction critics from disparate traditions and presuppositions can still find wide agreement on their work since the purpose of an author/editor largely can still be recovered.It emphasizes the creative role of the author.By tracking the overall impact of this editorial activity, one can come away with a fairly strong picture of the purpose of a particular text. If a writer consistently avoids reporting, for example, the weaknesses of the Twelve Apostles, even when there are earlier sources that provide lurid details of their follies, one could draw the conclusion that the later editor/author held the Twelve in higher esteem because of the editor had presuppositions, or because the editor was perhaps trying to reinforce the legitimacy of those chosen by Jesus to carry on his work. Does the text reflect preferred words for the editor, or are there words that the editor rarely uses or attempts to avoid using? If the wording reflects the language of the editor, it points toward editorial reworking of a text, but if it is unused or avoided language, it points toward being part of an earlier source.ДЄlthough redaction criticism (the possibility of the various gospels having different theological perspectives) has existed since Antiquity, three modern day scholars are regularly credited with this school's modern development: Gunther Bornkamm, Willi Marxsen and Hans Conzelmann (see Bornkamm, Barth and Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, Conzelmann, Theology of St Luke).ДЇrom the changes, redaction critics can sketch out the distinctive elements of an author/editor's theology. Does a later account add, omit or conserve parts of an earlier account of the same event? The repetition of common motifs and themes (for example, in Matthew's Gospel, the fulfillment of prophecy).

There are several ways in which redaction critics detect editorial activity like the following:

Redactor definition