A Flexible Relationship to the Truth

*The following additions come from a discussion I am having on a message board concerning the reliability of scripture in achieving absolute truth:

The purpose of this reponse is not to vilify faith, but actually to strengthen it. Truth is not so easily obtained, and the more difficult truth is to obtain, the more faith is required. The criticism I have of the biblical writers is not a criticism of their faith or belief, but a simple acknowledgement that truth is just as elusive within Scripture as it is within the secular world.

The term redaction criticism was coined by W. Marxen in his work, Mark the Evangelist, pg. 21. This type of textual criticism is useful during investigations of all types of historical literature, and is not only applied to the Bible. In What is Redaction Criticism, pg. 1, Perrin defines the practice of redaction criticism as the discovery of "the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangment, editing and modification of traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity." Conservative, moderate, and liberal scholars all use redaction criticism to some extent in addressing biblical interpretation.

Marxen explains that there are three "settings in life" to consider when interpreting each of the gospels. The first setting is the authentic tradition deriving from the life of Christ; the second is the use to which the early Christian community put said tradition; and the third is the environmental situation of the author(s) of the gospel since they are not only collectors, but also writers. Unless one believes that God Himself wrote the words in stone, then all of this makes sense. Scholars do the same analysis with any historical document of study.

Now, on to some examples of biblical redaction. I should start by saying that just because material is redacted does not automatically mean you should not believe it - it simply means you should know it is redacted, and not part of the original story. Personally, I have faith in many redacted teachings. Of course, the most major doctrine in all of traditional Christendom is the divinity of Christ. As everyone knows, before movable type printing, volumes were copied by hand. In the case of Scripture, many thousands of scribes laboriously hand-copied sections of the Bible. At times, these copyists were tired; at times they were in a hurry; at times they were theologically motivated to make changes. Hence, "errors" entered into the biblical manuscripts, now accounting for tens of thousands of variations in readings, some minor, some not-so-minor.

One of the not-so-minor variations is found in the opening line of Mark's gospel, which reads, "This is the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." The tiny, yet theologically powerful, "Son of God" is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It is a later scribal addition to bring Mark into line with later developments in Christology, and the other gospels (which almost all scholars acknowledge were written after Mark). What makes "the Son of God" so strange in the context of Mark's gospel is that, throughout the rest of his gospel, Mark takes the prophet Daniel's lead in referring to Christ as the "Son of Man(kind)."

Another vital Christian doctrine is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Along with a [now heretical] version of Christ's divinity, I also believe in the traditional version of Christ's resurrection. But again, Mark gives us redactionary issues on the resurrection. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end with the discovery of the empty tomb in 16:8. Later manuscripts add verses 9-20, which include post-resurrection appearances of Christ, and even some assumed words of Christ himself in verses 15-18. Of course, if the reader of Mark's gospel is already a committed believer in the resurrected Christ, then he will just fly through verses 9-20 like they are the most natural words in the world. However, if an unbeliever were to stop at verse 8, the empty tomb, then there are myriad explanations for the emptiness of the grave. The later verses were added to confirm an evolving belief in a resurrected Christ. Interestingly enough, the supposed words of Christ in verses 15-18 have led to a variety of fundamentalist Christianity in Appalachia known as "snake-handling." Scores of believers have died for words that most likely were never spoken by Jesus.

A third important doctrine of Christianity, and one which I do not personally hold, is the belief in the Trinity. This is actually one of the more interesting and obvious redactionary biblical doctrines. In Matthew 28:19, the writer states, "baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is not included in early manuscripts, and the Church did not officially assent to the Trinity doctrine until the fourth century, most of the churches having a doctrine of "the holy two" previous to this (see the Council at Nice). One would think that if pro-Trinity scriptures were in the text from the beginning, it would not have taken Church leaders four centuries to make a decision on the issue. Another example of trinitarian interpolation is found in 1 John 5:8, which reads, "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is an extremely late addition as well, and is not found in early manuscripts. The 1 John passage has actually been removed in most modern translations, but is still included in some traditional translations.

Though the next two examples are not necessarily doctrinal, they are very interesting to me in the sense that one shows how the Matthean author(s) and redactors struggled with their contemporary religious environment (i.e. the debate concerning allowing Gentiles into the Christian movement), and the second gives an example of an obvious historical inconsistency. The redactors were not always on the ball.

In much of Matthew's gospel, gentiles are referred to as dogs, or they are normally ignored. However, portions of Matthew, such as the parable of the Roman centurion, exhibit gentile healings. Other portions of Matthew claim that gentiles from east and west will sit down together in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the Jewish people will be thrown out. Most scholars believe that the pro-gentile material is original material, but that anti-gentile additions were added later when the Jewish Christian community received the gospel. Old traditions die hard I suppose.

There are two versions of what happened to Judas after he supposedly betrayed Christ: Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:16-18. The Matthew version tells us that Judas, full of guilt, threw his thirty pieces of silver on the floor and immediately went to hang himself. The Acts version (traditionally attributed to Luke) tells us that Judas purchased some land with the money, and one day while walking through his fields, he tripped and fell, his guts spilling out on the ground. The stories could not be more different.

Peace & Blessings.