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

$5.00

Old Testament Redaction Criticism

A redactor edits or changes a text composed by another. Redaction criticism of the Bible claims that subsequent editors (redactors) changed the text of Scripture. If such alleged changes were substantial, it would seriously damage the credibility of Scripture. We could not be sure what was in the original text. For redaction critical views regarding the New Testament, see below.

Nature of Redaction Views. Redaction views are held by both evangelicals and non-evangelicals. The latter are more radical in their assertion of the kinds of changes they believe have occurred in the text.

Radical Views. Emanuel Tov is often quoted in support of the redacted-canon view. On the alleged redactions of Jeremiah, he argued that both minor and major details were changed. He believed these changes apparent in

(1.) text arrangement;

(2.) the addition of headings to prophecies;

(3.) repetition of sections;

(4.) addition of new verses and sections;

(5.) addition of new details; and

(6.) changes in content (Tov, 217).

Of courses, substantial changes in content would undermine the credibility of the Old Testament and particularly its apologetic value. How could one be sure that the prophecies were not tampered with later to make them fit what had actually happened.

“Inspired” Redactors. Some evangelicals have attempted to accommodate redactional models by proposing an “inspired redactor.” In this way, they hope both to explain the evidence for redaction while maintaining the inspiration of the Scriptures (see New Testament Manuscripts; Old Testament Manuscripts). For example, Bruce Waltke claims “that the books of the Bible seem to have gone through an editorial revision after coming from the mouth of an inspired spokesman.” In the same passage he speaks of “later editorial activity.” Waltke claims there is evidence of redaction from 1800 B.C. to A.D. 200 (Waltke, 78, 79, 92). However, respondents to Waltke’s proposal strongly reject his position (ibid., 133). Even his concessions tend to undermine the biblical text.

History of the Documentary Theory of the Pentateuch

Arguments for Redactors. Attention is focused here on the Old Testament redaction, especially as held by Waltke and some other evangelical scholars who insist that “inspired redactors” made substantial changes in the biblical writings. Along with more critical redactors, they believe that the content of biblical writers underwent continual changes until it reached its final form.

In support of this position the following arguments are sometimes offered.

(1.) Someone after Moses, possibly Joshua, wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy (chap. 34), since it is not prophetic and records Moses’s death.

(2.) Certain sections of Deuteronomy (2:10–12, 20–23) show evidence of a later redactor. They are editorial and parenthetical in nature.

(3.) Arrangement of the psalms into five books or sections is undoubtedly the work of compiler-editors.

(4.) Proverbs passed through the hands of editors after Solomon (10:1; 22:17; 25:1; 30:1; 31:1), some of whom lived in Hezekiah’s day, two centuries after Solomon (25:1).

(5.) Some books, such as Jeremiah, survive in two substantially different versions. The longer (Hebrew) version is one-seventh larger than the Greek Septuagint version, an example of which survives in fragments from Qumran (4 QJerb).

(6.) The books of Chronicles present themselves as being based on prior prophetic records (1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 13:22; 16:11; 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:19; 35:27; 36:8) which were redacted by the author(s) of Chronicles.

Response to Arguments. None of the arguments advanced in support of inspired redaction are definitive. Merrill Unger granted only slight “editorial additions to the Pentateuch, regarded as authentically Mosaic.” But he flatly rejected the notion that later non-Mosaic additions were made on the Pentateuch by redactors, inspired or not (Unger, 231–32). The response to the “inspired redactor” theory will follow the order of their arguments given above.

FALLACIES OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM: (Biblical Criticism, Literary Criticism)

The Account of Moses’ Death. For a full discussion of this point, Mosaic Authorship of. That Moses might not have written Deuteronomy 34 has long been accepted by conservative scholars, even Unger. However, this is not a redaction in the content of anything Moses wrote. It is an addition of events that, humanly speaking, Moses could not have written, namely, an account of his own funeral (Deuteronomy 34). Of course, it is always possible that Moses could have written this by supernatural revelation, but there is no claim or evidence that he did. Completion of the book by another inspired prophet, Joshua in particular, would not compromise its authority.

Editorial Comments in Deuteronomy 2. This is also discussed in Pentateuch, Mosaic Authorship of. The parenthetical sections in Deuteronomy 2 need not be later redactions. They fit into the text, and there is no reason Moses could not have included them to amplify and clarify. If these additions were made by later scribes, they are uninspired and subject to the same textual skepticism as Mark 16:9–20 and John 8:1–11. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to consider these to be editorial comments by Moses.

Adding and Rearranging. Simply compiling and arranging inspired writings (individual psalms) is not proof of the redaction model. Adding psalms to the psalter as they were written fits perfectly with the prophetic model of the canon. What the redactional model would have to prove is that later inspired writers made deliberate content changes in Psalms (or other books) already in the canon, not simply rearranging what is there. There is no proof of this in the Psalms.

Small editorial additions to a text are not the problem. The inspired redactor view accepts substantial changes in content.

THE HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM

Proverbs Shows No Evidence of Redaction. None of the passages cited from Proverbs prove that the original author’s writing (whether Solomon [1–29], Agur [30], or Lemuel [31]) were not accepted by the believing community immediately and continuously without subsequent content changes. The phrase “copied out” (25:1) does not mean “changed in content” but merely transcribed onto another manuscript. Whether this process involved a selection and rearrangement of what Solomon had previously written is irrelevant. As with Psalms, there is a big difference between rearranging what Solomon wrote and redacting (changing) its content. There is no evidence of the latter.

Two Editions by Jeremiah. Conservative scholars acknowledge that there may have been two versions (editions) of Jeremiah that originated with Jeremiah himself, possibly through Baruch his scribe (Archer, 361–62). This would account for differences found in the manuscripts. In this case there is no need to posit a later redactor. Jeremiah himself, while alive, could have directed a later version of his book with more prophecies in it. Jeremiah preached and prophesied as the occasion called for it. It is understandable that the collection of his writings would grow. The Septuagint’s scholars may have had access to a preliminary version.

What Is the Synoptic Problem of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and What is the Hypothetical So-Called Q Document?

Citing Other Sources. The passages cited in Chronicles (1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24, etc.) do not mean that the writer of Chronicles (possibly Ezra) was redacting some other books. Rather he used them as sources to write his own book, just as Daniel (9) uses Jeremiah (25), and 2 Samuel 22 uses Psalm 18. Luke evidently used other records (Luke 1:1–4).

Further, it is not necessary to take all these Old Testament citations as being from inspired writings. Some were court records (e.g., 1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; 2 Chron. 20:34). The books by “Samuel the Seer and Nathan the Prophet” (1 Chron. 29:29) may be the prophetic writing now known as 1 Samuel. Still others may have been uninspired commentaries (e.g., 2 Chron. 13:22). Paul uses uninspired sources in his works (cf. Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). This is not making changes in an inspired book.

Problems with “Inspired” Redaction. The inspired-redactors view that editors made deliberate and substantial changes in the content of previous prophetic material is unacceptable.

It Is Contrary to God’s Warning. God gave repeated warning to his prophets not to “add to the word which I [God] am commanding you” (Deut. 4:2; cf. Prov. 30:4; Rev. 22:18–19). This of course does not mean that another prophet cannot have added separate revelation to complete Deuteronomy. It does mean that no one was permitted to change (redact) the revelation God had given to another prophet, or, for that matter, to himself. No one was to add to or take way from what God had spoken (cf. Rev. 22:19).

It Confuses Textual Criticism and Canonicity. The redaction view confuses canonicity and lower textual criticism (see Bible Criticism). Canonicity (Gk. canon, rule or norm) deals with which books are inspired and belong in the Bible (see Bible, Canonicity of). Lower textual criticism studies the text of canonical books, attempting to get as close to the original text as possible. Now the question of scribal changes in transmitting a manuscript of an inspired book is one of lower textual criticism, not canonicity. Likewise, if material was added later, as in 1 John 5:7 (kjv) or John 8:1–11, this is a matter of textual criticism to determine whether it was in the original writing. It is not properly a question of canonicity.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM: Reader-Response and Narrative Criticism

Lower textual criticism is a legitimate discipline because it does not seek to change or redact the original text but simply to reconstruct it from the available manuscripts.

It Is Contrary to the Meaning of Inspired. The so-called “inspired redactor” view is contrary to the biblical use of the word inspired or God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16. The Bible does not speak of inspired writers, but only of inspired writings. An inspired author would be infallible and inerrant, not simply the author of an infallible and inerrant book.

It Is Contrary to Inspired Autographs. This redaction view is contrary to the evangelical view that only the autographs (original texts) are inspired. The autograph is the original text (or an exact replica) as it came from the prophet. Only this is believed to be inspired and, therefore, without error. Copies are inspired to the degree that they accurately reproduce the original.

But according to the “inspired redactor” view, the final redacted version is inspired. If this is so, then the original writings were not the ones breathed out by God. For God cannot err (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), nor change (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 1:12; 13:8; James 1:17). If there was an “inspired redactor,” God made content changes in his successive inspired editions.

Further, the “inspired redactor” view requires rejection of the evangelical view of a definite written original that God breathed out through a given prophet. Instead, the autographs would be a fluid manuscript in process, perhaps over centuries. It would in effect promote scribes to the rank of prophets. God would have to breathe out the copies (including their errors) as well as the originals.

The Seriously Flawed Feminist Criticism of the Bible Harmonizes So Well with Today’s Secular Way of Thinking

It Eliminates Verification of a Work. Inspired redaction eliminates the means by which a prophetic utterance could be tested by those to whom it was given. According to the redaction view, the prophetic work as such was not presented to the contemporary believing community. Rather it was finished and endowed to the church by someone decades (or even centuries) later. When there was need, God confirmed his prophets by signs and wonders (cf. Exodus 3–4; 1 Kings 18; Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3–4). Contemporaries of the prophet could test the man of God’s claims (cf. Deuteronomy 18). But if the “inspired redactor” view is correct, there is no way to confirm whether that writing (in its eventual edited form) actually came from a prophet of God. Only if the original and unchanged message was confirmed by the original audience can we have assurance of its rightful place in the canon.

It Shifts Authority away from Scripture. The redaction model shifts the locus of divine authority from the original prophetic message (given by God through the prophet) to the community of believers generations later. It is contrary to the principle of canonicity that God determines canonicity and the people of God discover what God determined as inspired. In effect the redaction model locates the authority in the church rather than in the God-given prophetic message to the church.

It Involves Deception. A redaction model of canonicity entails acceptance of deception as a means of divine communication. In significant ways, a message or book which claims to come from a prophet came actually from later redactors. As applied to the Gospels, redaction criticism claims that Jesus did not necessarily say or do what the Gospel writer claims he did. Redactors literally put their own words in Jesus’ mouth. But this involves intentional misrepresentation, which is deceptive. The same criticism applies if later redactors changed what a prophet wrote. That would be a deception, misleading the reader to believe that God directed what original writers had said. But God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18).

Form Criticism and Tradition Criticism

It Confuses Proper Editing with Redacting. The redaction model of the canon confuses legitimate scribal activity, involving grammatical form, updating of names and arrangement of prophetic material, with the illegitimate redactional changes in actual content of a previous prophet’s message. It confuses acceptable scribal transmission with unacceptable redactional tampering. It confuses proper discussion of which is the earlier text with improper claims that latter prophets changed the truth of earlier texts?

It Is Refuted by Jewish History. The redaction theory assumes there were inspired redactors well beyond the period in which there were prophets (viz., fourth century B.C.). There can be no inspired works unless there are living prophets. And the Jews recognized no prophets after the time of Malachi (ca. 400 B.C.). Josephus, the Jewish historian, explicitly referred to revelation ceasing by “the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia” (Josephus, 1.8). He added: “From Artaxerxes until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased” (ibid.).

Additional rabbinical statements on the cessation of prophecy support this (see Beckwith, 370): Seder Olam Rabbah 30 declares, “Until then [the coming of Alexander the Great] the prophets prophesied through the Holy Spirit. From then on, ‘Incline thine ear and hear the words of the wise.’ ” Baba Bathra 12b declares: “Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise.” Rabbi Samuel bar Inia said, “The Second Temple lacked five things which the First Temple possessed, namely, the fire, the ark, the urim and thummim, the oil of anointing and the Holy Spirit [of prophecy].”

Thus, any changes in the Old Testament text after this time could not have been inspired, since there were no prophets. Thus they are a matter of textual criticism, not canonicity.

The Documentary Hypothesis—Defending Moses’ Authorship of the Pentateuch

It Is Refuted by Textual Criticism. The scholarly discipline of textual criticism refutes the claims of redaction criticism. For the history of the biblical text is well known (see New Testament Manuscripts). Thousands of manuscripts trace the changes. The original text can be reconstructed with a great degree of confidence. There are no redactions in the content of the prophetic message by either inspired or uninspired editors. Most changes have to do with form, not content. They are grammatical, not theological. The scribes were faithful in copying the text. This being the case, there is no reason to believe the original message of the biblical writer has been redacted. The brieftime gap and the large number of manuscripts compared to other works of antiquity vouch for the fact that the content of the biblical texts has been unchanged.

New Testament Redaction Criticism

Redaction criticism is more closely associated with the text than is traditional criticism. As a result, it is less open to the charge of subjective speculation. Redaction (editorial) critics can achieve absolute certainty only when all the sources are used that were at the disposal of the redactor (editor), since the task is to determine how a redactor compiled sources, what was omitted, what was added, and what particular bias was involved in the process. At best, the critic has only some of the sources available, such as the books of Kings used by the writers of Chronicles. Elsewhere, in both the Old and the New Testaments, the sources must be reconstructed out of the edited work itself. Then redaction criticism becomes much less certain as a literary device (Wenham, “Gospel Origins,” 439).

The Synoptic Gospels In Early Christianity: Why Is the Preferred Choice the Testimony to the Priority of the Gospel of Matthew?

Redaction critics tend to favor a view that biblical books were written much later and by different authors than the text relates. Late theological editors attached names out of history to their works for the sake of prestige and credibility. In Old and New Testament studies this view arose from historical criticism, source criticism, and form criticism. As a result, it adopts many of the same presuppositions, including the documentary hypothesis in the Old Testament and the priority of Mark in the New Testament.

Sources

G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism
Flavius Josephus, Against Apion
———, Antiquities of the Jews
N. L. Geisler and W. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible
E. Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in J. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism
M. Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament
B. K. Waltke, “Historical Grammatical Problems,” in E. D. Radmacher and R. D. Preus, eds., Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible
Norman L. Geisler, “Redaction Criticism, Old Testament,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 635–638.

Reductio ad Absurdum refers to a logic-based argument that reduces opposing views to the absurd by showing that two or more of its central premises, or those that follow logically from them, are logically contradictory (see Logic). One system of Christian apologetics, the rational presuppositionalism of Gordon Clark, depends entirely on this type of argument (see Apologetics, Presuppositional).