Redaction Criticism of the Bible

A-MEN!

 

I did a little digging and Tate got his M.Div at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and not Evangel University. AGTS also does not have specific courses for Redaction Criticism but it was likely a major section of study in the hermeneutics and theology streams when Tate was a student.

 

Sounds like searching for the truth without Pharisees dictating, so seems fair to me.

Often wonder what has slipped in and by whom with what motives.

Which could necessitate taking a lot of time in justifying the principles…taking things back to basics?

This may open the door for a lot of abuse using “suspected” redactions to reformulate philosophies according to men who spoil with “complex studies” and may stray from the truth with accusations that are unsearchable not knowing the entire history.

I find that problematic if one where to actually believe such a teaching.

That’s a bit contrary to what the Word clued me in on without seminary training.

(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

(Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men , and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

(Eph 4:15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

(Rev 22:19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

To hide “obvious” redactions is deceitful and to not be aware they exist would be pretty foolish for anybody in seminary. I do think more focus should be on the final form of the text as I believe God has preserved truth for us.

Humble,

My gut says the same thing about these “guesses”.

Yep, sometimes we do have to draw the line on what Mama's taught us.

 

You misunderstood why I quoted a review of Tate's book. It had nothing to do with supporting the accuracy of any of my statements. It was meant to elaborate on what I mean when I use the terms author-centered, text-centered and reader-centered approaches to the bible.

The review and Tate's book are not a critiques of redaction criticism.

[ February 14, 2006, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

I would say it is still important but decreasingly so. I'm sure in some circles, it is still the best thing since sliced bread.

 

What evidence do you have to share with us that Bultmann “went off the deep end into highly speculative areas, allowing personal presuppositions to bias his work?” Do you have substantial evidence upon which to base this statement, or is this mere speculation on your part?

[/QUOTE]

Rudolph Bultmann stated his purpose very clearly and very early in his career. I don't have the sources in front of me at the moment, but they're easy to find. The one I read last year was dated 1923, as I recall, and Bultmann stated that his intent was to "de-mythologize" the bible. So he set out to do just that, approaching the text with the assumption that there were many errors and edits in it, and doing his best to remove what he had already decided should not be in the text. He started with the presumption against supernaturalism, and the result was that his doctrine, as I understand, denied many essentials of the faith.

That said, I think that his work should be studied very carefully in seminary today.....in order to know how heresy creeps into the church. Too many times we don't teach how error creeps in, so we repeat the mistakes of the past.

My friend, no offense to you personally, but if you are holding to the work of Bultmann, I would respectfully suggest that you need to study the reasons why his form of redaction criticism should be rejected today. Here we are, a generation later, and the likes of the Jesus Seminar have taken these teachings to a ridiculous degree.

I again refer you to the work of Eta Linnemann, who started as a full fledged radical critic, but later changed her views, and her recent works carefully and tediously demolish the whole system.

Perhaps there are some redactionists who are careful to not let their biases enter their work. Bultmann was not one of these. Again, I respectfully suggest that you read those who disagree with his view.

 

I would say this is an impossibility. Our biases and presupposition are in all that we do, say, think, write and read. The question isn't how do we get rid of our biases but how to recognize our own biases and what do we do in light of the fact that we can't rid ourselves of them?

 

Good question. One way I might suggest:

Assume that the meaning is in the text, not in the author's intent or in the reader's approach.

Not foolproof, but it would help to eliminate rampant speculation.

 

I agree that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.....on either side. No one wants to be blind to the truth. We should all be cautious of our own biases, and go where the truth leads. Truth is never afraid of scholarship.

I suggest:

Two works by Eta Linnemann:
"Is There a Synoptic Problem?"
"Biblical Criticism On Trial"
Linnemann was a card-carrying follower of liberal redactionism, and writer of standard scholarly texts. She changed her mind, and burned every copy of her older works, penning these new ones that destroys her former position and supports the existing texts.

I also recommend one by Colin Hemer:
"The Book of Acts In The Setting Of Hellenistic History"
This work is THE BEST at showing that the history as presented in Acts (and by implication, Luke) perfectly matches with known, corroborrated history. This book is heavy as a lead balloon, but it is a great, great work. When my prof asked one of the leading Jesus Seminar folks about it, HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF this major work in the field.


But more importanly, the NT writers have the last word:
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

In these verses, Peter says that:
1. They didn't make this stuff up.
2. They heard the word of God.
3. They gave us exactly what they heard.
4. We will do well to heed it.

Bless

 

Oh, and by the way....

In context, the 2 Peter 1 passage (above) is specifically speaking of a miracle....the mount of transformation.

 

Sounds like searching for the truth without Pharisees dictating, so seems fair to me.

Often wonder what has slipped in and by whom with what motives.

Which could necessitate taking a lot of time in justifying the principles…taking things back to basics?

This may open the door for a lot of abuse using “suspected” redactions to reformulate philosophies according to men who spoil with “complex studies” and may stray from the truth with accusations that are unsearchable not knowing the entire history.

I find that problematic if one where to actually believe such a teaching.

That’s a bit contrary to what the Word clued me in on without seminary training.

(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

(Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men , and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

(Eph 4:15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

(Rev 22:19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

To hide “obvious” redactions is deceitful and to not be aware they exist would be pretty foolish for anybody in seminary. I do think more focus should be on the final form of the text as I believe God has preserved truth for us.

Humble,

My gut says the same thing about these “guesses”.

Yep, sometimes we do have to draw the line on what Mama's taught us. </font>[/QUOTE]Benjamin, it seems to me that you are pretty much staying right on track. And yes, I do mean "staying on track", for that is a good analysis and description, for many, if not most, of the ignorant guesses that masquerade as so-called "critical scholarship" lead to 'theological train wrecks'.
Despite the protestations to the contrary, there is no evidence for the guesses made in the name of "redaction criticism" save its own assumptions. At best, these are built on a super-structure of "source criticism", with its own guesses formed from ITS own presumptions, which, in turn, are erected on a similar structure of "form criticism", whose guesses are built on the assumptions of that idea. Those last presumptions happen to be based on the one thing that has any real validity, in this whole chain, and that is differing genres and styles.
The rest, in general, is nothing more, and nothing less, than a guess, built on a guess, built on a guess, built on a guess, ad nausea.

In general, I suggest that there is validity as to what many have posted. I further suggest that Craig's last sentences about "jumping to conclusions" are a good thumbsketch of what I was above referring to, in reverse.
In His grace,
Ed

 

Craig,

conservatives don't have to assume they already know the truth. We do have the truth. The Word of God is the infallible, inerrant Word that has been given to us by God as it was penned by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit.
Liberal scholars have not cared enough to seek out the truth. They have simply not been willing to accept by faith the truth that God has given. They don't like the what the Bible says about certain things so in turn in their blindness they have set about to discredit the Bible all under the guise of scholarship and academia. Nothing wrong with scholarship, etc....
I know we will never agree on this point but people who have been saved by the Grace of God through His Son by His Word do not spend their lives and make it their chief aim in life to discredit the Scriptures. It just doesn't happen. They decieve themselves.
I'm not questioning a person's salvation but it is a fair question to ask a scholar who denies the miracles of the Bible to explain how they can believe the greatest miracle of all. Which takes place everytime someone gives their life to Christ as their Savior.
I never cease to be amazed how men can think that they can tear down the crediablity of Scripture while at the same time claim to follow Christ. I believe it is impossible.
Liberal scholars want to claim Jesus is their guide while at the same time they try to destroy everything he ever did. Poor,wretched, lost souls. You cannot claim Jesus and DISCLAIM the Bible. The person that does that is not being true to him or her own self. They are believing a lie if that is how they see it.

 

With all due respect, we do not know that, at all, absent that assumption starting out. Some have made that guess. I don't happen to be one of them.
Ed

 

Theses are doctrines of men that are not found in the Bible. Perhaps you choose to believe men; I choose to believe the Bible, and I believe that it deserves very careful and prayerful study.

</font>[/QUOTE]A straw man is once again in evidence. While it is true that the words 'infallible' and 'inerrant' do not occur in the text of Scripture, the idea at least of infallible (and I believe without error) does. Jesus said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" In another place he even made reference to the smallest of letters and aperatures not passing away 'Not one jot or one tittle'. Paul spoke of Scripture in this way- "All Scripture is God-breathed-out"; Peter spoke of "the prophecy" and the use of 'the' is often overlooked, being presented by 'holy men of God (who) spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit'. Moses recorded that God had commanded him to write, John recorded that he was similarly commanded to write, and even not to write certain things, and Daniel was told that his words were to be sealed. Other writers make similar claims, and I'm just pulling this off of the top of my head.
I do not deny that the Bible indeed demands prayerful study. In fact I agree. I even suggest you study "Q" in an aid to understanding the Gospels, in the NT; and the sources of the 'Jahwist', 'Elohist', "Deuteronomist' and author of the 'Priestly codes', and all the named redactors such as H1, H2, etc. for starters in the Pentateuch in the OT. I mean, why let an insignificant little minor detail, such as there are no such documents, or even the first fragments of such anywhere, at least that have ever been discovered, anyway, get in the way of good study?
Why, one might have to settle for something far inferior, like the Scriptures, themselves!
In His grace,
Ed