Divinely Inspired Editing

[NewlyReformedStudent]

I recently came across the theory of “divinely inspired editing” which teaches that God inspired editors in the same way as original authors to make changes to/clarify previous versions of Scripture up until the Old Testament canon came to a close. This view was presented as within the realm of orthodoxy concerning the doctrine of inspiration. As I heard this, it raised many red flags for its implications on the inerrancy of Scripture and the perspicuity of Scripture. Any thoughts on the validity of this “inspired editing” theory?

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I recently came across the theory of “divinely inspired editing” which teaches that God inspired editors in the same way as original authors to make changes to/clarify previous versions of Scripture up until the Old Testament canon came to a close. This view was presented as within the realm of orthodoxy concerning the doctrine of inspiration. As I heard this, it raised many red flags for its implications on the inerrancy of Scripture and the perspicuity of Scripture. Any thoughts on the validity of this “inspired editing” theory?

Well it depends on what you mean by "editing."

Most people accept that Ezra, the inspired prophet, had some hand in gathering and publishing the canon of the Old Testament. And that would have included compiling and "editing" to a certain extent, since the Scriptures cite non-inspired sources like the records of Babylon, Judah, etc. But the whole Scripture is inspired. So that would mean that Ezra and others were inspired to include certain things and exclude others, in order to produce an infallible, inspired book from many inspired and some uninspired sources.

 

[NewlyReformedStudent]

Well it depends on what you mean by "editing."

Most people accept that Ezra, the inspired prophet, had some hand in gathering and publishing the canon of the Old Testament. And that would have included compiling and "editing" to a certain extent, since the Scriptures cite non-inspired sources like the records of Babylon, Judah, etc. But the whole Scripture is inspired. So that would mean that Ezra and others were inspired to include certain things and exclude others, in order to produce an infallible, inspired book from many inspired and some uninspired sources.

The argument was that it was not merely “compiling” various books that were recognized as inspired, but that before the close of the canon, scribes and/or prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit to revise previous editions of those books to make them more understandable to a modern audience. One example is the inclusion of the place name “Dan” in Genesis 14:14 prior to Dan existing under Mosaic authorship. To allow for this, “autographa” is defined as the final canonical form rather than the original autograph.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

The argument was that it was not merely “compiling” various books that were recognized as inspired, but that before the close of the canon, scribes and/or prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit to revise previous editions of those books to make them more understandable to a modern audience. One example is the inclusion of the place name “Dan” in Genesis 14:14 prior to Dan existing under Mosaic authorship. To allow for this, “autographa” is defined as the final canonical form rather than the original autograph.

What? But Gen. 14:14 was written by Moses.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The argument was that it was not merely “compiling” various books that were recognized as inspired, but that before the close of the canon, scribes and/or prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit to revise previous editions of those books to make them more understandable to a modern audience. One example is the inclusion of the place name “Dan” in Genesis 14:14 prior to Dan existing under Mosaic authorship. To allow for this, “autographa” is defined as the final canonical form rather than the original autograph.

If "Dan" here refers to the "northern sliver" of territory (toward Sidon) that in Judges-time was taken by some of Dan--and I suppose indeed it does--then the choices are 1) Moses wrote in anticipation of events, making this a prophecy; or 2) it was indeed added later by another prophet occupying Moses' room in an after era.

I think the second is most likely. And what would be improper about that?

 

[EvanF]

What? But Gen. 14:14 was written by Moses.

The idea is that Moses died before the Tribe of Dan was assigned any territory in Canaan, so if the place called "Dan" in the verse refers to the later tribal territory, then that name was not originally written by Moses.

 

[NewlyReformedStudent]

What? But Gen. 14:14 was written by Moses.

From the ETS paper… “The city of Dan received its name in the settlement periodwhen the Danite tribe migrated north and conquered the city of Laish (Gen 14:14)/Leshem (Josh 19:47–48). Consequently, it appears that this place did not receive the name of Dan until after the Mosaic period (Judg 18:29)… We may assume that Moses originally wrote “Laish,” which was later changed to Dan when that place name was changed.”

 

[NewlyReformedStudent]

If "Dan" here refers to the "northern sliver" of territory (toward Sidon) that in Judges-time was taken by some of Dan--and I suppose indeed it does--then the choices are 1) Moses wrote in anticipation of events, making this a prophecy; or 2) it was indeed added later by another prophet occupying Moses' room in an after era.

I think the second is most likely. And what would be improper about that?

Would you consider that post-Mosaic scribal editing Inspired by the Holy Spirit, or would you consider that a scribal variant giving explanation of the location to the audience when the edit was made?

I believe “inspired editing” naturally leads to the conclusion that previous editions were insufficient and/or erroneous if there was a need to have the Holy Spirit superintend human editors to revise the previous versions. Yet, “inspired editing” claims that the original versions are inspired, so there is essentially Genesis 1.0 and Genesis 2.0 and so on until its final form at the close of canon.

 

[jwright82]

Would you consider that post-Mosaic scribal editing Inspired by the Holy Spirit, or would you consider that a scribal variant giving explanation of the location to the audience when the edit was made?

I believe “inspired editing” naturally leads to the conclusion that previous editions were insufficient and/or erroneous if there was a need to have the Holy Spirit superintend human editors to revise the previous versions. Yet, “inspired editing” claims that the original versions are inspired, so there is essentially Genesis 1.0 and Genesis 2.0 and so on until its final form at the close of canon.

I see the "problem" you're alluding to but I wonder why it's a problem? The Canon of Scripture is without error, inspired, infallible, and useful for the purpose God intended it for. However that came about is beyond our complete understanding.
I wonder though, if the inerrancy that one has in mind is more "modern" in form than what actually happened. If we presuppose what inerrancy has to be and how it happened from our contemporary perspective we may force scripture into a mold it was never intended to be in, one that fits better with our apologetical concerns, but those are "our apologetical concerns" not scripture's.
A "it would be nice and easier to defend if it happened this way" is not a bad desire but it may be an autonomous goal on our part to make it easier on us. But divine revelation is just that "divine".
I think we ought to take scripture as is and not drag into our contemporary context. WCF chp one is the best confessional view that we have on scripture, so I affirm that.

 

[davejonescue]

I have always heard the definition of inspiration being confined to the very original manuscripts, which are now gone. And that the job of textual criticism is 1. To get the text now as close to the originals by comparing all available manuscripts, and 2. to insure Christians by doing so that what we have can be thoroughly trusted as consistent with the originals. I never heard that inspiration could take place (up until) official canonization, but only through the original author, to the original penmen, to the original document. Don't know much about this stuff, so maybe I am way off.

 

[paranymph]

What about the book of Jeremiah? How would you apply your criteria to it?

 

[jwright82]

Also defending scripture from how many thousands of years of attack is a task in itself, without aggravating the problem by saying things like "if it didn't happen this contemporary contextual way than we lose inerrancy and inspiration". I've always been weary of apologetical arguments that take the form of "if we lose this (fill in the blank) than we lose this (fill in the blank)".
There's much truth to that sentiment, don't get me wrong but let's not over do it.

 

[paranymph]

I have always heard the definition of inspiration being confined to the very original manuscripts, which are now gone. And that the job of textual criticism is 1. To get the text now as close to the originals by comparing all available manuscripts, and 2. to insure Christians by doing so that what we have can be thoroughly trusted as consistent with the originals. I never heard that inspiration could take (up until) place pre-canonization, but only through the original penmen to the original document. Dont know much about this stuff, so maybe I am way off.

The issue for debate is what we refer to by "the original manuscripts." Is it the first document that an author wrote, or the final document compiled into the canon at a later point? The issue of text criticism is not at play here.

 

[MW]

It is always assumed Moses did not know beforehand. But consider the following:

Numbers 2:25, "The standard of the camp of Dan shall be on the north side by their armies."

Deut 3:27-28, "Get thee up into the top of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, and behold it with thine eyes: for thou shalt not go over this Jordan. But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him: for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which thou shalt see."

Deut 33:22, "And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan."

 

[jwright82]

What about the book of Jeremiah? How would you apply your criteria to it?

Whom are you referring to? I never gave criteria. But I would say the final canonical form is "without error, fully inspired, infallible, and completely useful for the guidance and edification of God's people".
The critical textual question would be are there "thus saith Jeremiah" sections not actually spoken by the prophet Jeremiah? No those are errors and lies. Whether editing happened or what have you doesn't seem to change that in my opinion.
[automerge]1739220193[/automerge]

The issue for debate is what we refer to by "the original manuscripts." Is it the first document that an author wrote, or the final document compiled into the canon at a later point? The issue of text criticism is not at play here.

Well I think I would say both. The Canon isn't the Canon without both. How it all works out is a mystery that is beyond our knowledge and textual criticism is one tool for that purpose. I'm referring to TC from the archeological to the exegetical perspective's here, the whole gambit.

 

[davejonescue]

The issue for debate is what we refer to by "the original manuscripts." Is it the first document that an author wrote, or the final document compiled into the canon at a later point? The issue of text criticism is not at play here.

Yea, I couldn't tell you. I always thought inspiration only applied to what I believe they call "autographs" and that any text after can include uninspired scribal errors or additions. And this is the job of TC to sort out the former from the latter.

 

[jwright82]

Yea, I couldn't tell you. I always thought inspiration only applied to what I believe they call "autographs" and that any text after can include uninspired scribal errors or additions. And this is the job of TC to sort out the former from the latter.

I think you're dead on here. That's what I always thought as well. It's what I've always read too.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I don't have any problem in principle with the idea that the OT underwent editing over time, particularly because it is almost certainly the case to some extent. The Psalms, for example, are a collection of poems put together over time. They did not flow from the pen of David organized in their present canonical order. Minor editing that occurred such as the updating of place names makes sense as well, I don't see why it should raise an issue.

As to @davejonescue's point about textual criticism, I think the oddness is because TC has largely been a New Testament-focused discipline, and with the New Testament the time from production to clear recognition as canonical Scripture was much shorter and tied to the actual document produced by the author. For the OT the process of canonical development seems much slower and longer, though certainly by the time of Christ it was pretty much set. It does require some different nuance than the typical NT idea of just the original "autograph".

 

[Ploutos]

The challenge for me here has always been that the OT and NT are evaluated by different standards. Most NT books are evaluated as inspired books that were composed in final form at the first fell swoop. While the gospels may have been collated from prior source material, there's no long history of development and transmission prior to canon closure. By and large (except Hebrews), the NT books were written by a single generally well-attested author and then passed into the canon.

By contrast, large swaths of the OT are of uncertain authorship and date of origin. There are numerous indicators of an original work having been refined and edited over a period of centuries, with traces of both the updates and the original versions (if Ezra handled the manuscript of Joshua, for instance, I rather doubt Rahab and her family were still alive in his day). So the inspiration of the OT books is not tied to a single act of writing by a single person in the way that we often picture for the NT books - if indeed that is an accurate picture of how the NT books were inspired.

That being the case, I would propose that the term "divinely inspired editing" is something of a misnomer, since it implies a clear delineation between the original act of writing and the subsequent acts of editing - one that I don't know can be well-argued for outside of the Pentateuch.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

The challenge for me here has always been that the OT and NT are evaluated by different standards. Most NT books are evaluated as inspired books that were composed in final form at the first fell swoop. While the gospels may have been collated from prior source material, there's no long history of development and transmission prior to canon closure. By and large (except Hebrews), the NT books were written by a single generally well-attested author and then passed into the canon.

This is true, and I think fitting given the difference of redemptive-historical eras in which the two testaments were composed.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would you consider that post-Mosaic scribal editing Inspired by the Holy Spirit, or would you consider that a scribal variant giving explanation of the location to the audience when the edit was made?

I believe “inspired editing” naturally leads to the conclusion that previous editions were insufficient and/or erroneous if there was a need to have the Holy Spirit superintend human editors to revise the previous versions. Yet, “inspired editing” claims that the original versions are inspired, so there is essentially Genesis 1.0 and Genesis 2.0 and so on until its final form at the close of canon.

I don't think an inspired prophet, who may have "editorialized" Moses' text by addition of explanatory gloss by direction of the Spirit, changed any word of Moses' original delivery.