(The following are excerpts from “Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics” by Norman L. Geisler; with some other sources in quotes)
A redactor edits or changes a text composed by another. Redaction criticism of the Bible [involves] subsequent editors (redactors) changing 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.
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. [An ‘inspired redactor’ simply means that God inspired the man (or woman) to change the text of scripture long after it had been originally written; however, I wholeheartedly reject this ideology.] 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.”
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 [(an answer to the argument is also given)].
- Someone after Moses, possibly Joshua, wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy (chap. 34), since it is not
prophetic and records Moses’s death.
Deut 34:5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. 6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. 7 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
That Moses might not have written Deut 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 (Deut 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.
- Certain sections of Deuteronomy (2:10-12,20-23) show evidence of a later redactor. They are editorial and parenthetical in nature.
Deut 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; 11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. 12 The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them.
The parenthetical sections in Deut 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.
- Arrangement of the psalms into five books or sections is undoubtedly the work of compiler-editors.
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.
“The development of the Psalter would have been gradual, then, with frequent revisions and organizations. The first stage would have been the writing of individual psalms. The collection of the psalms would have been the next stage. Possibly some songs of David were collected, as well as Asaph’s. Other collections such as the songs “of ascents,” or pilgrim songs (Pss. 120-134) may also have been gathered.” (Bible Knowledge Commentary)
The Psalms were written over an extended period of time, most probably coming between 1000 and 400 B.C.. They were written by different authors, and at several times new groups of psalms were added to the collection. Seventy-three of the psalms were written by David. Forty-nine are anonymous.” (The Teacher’s Commentary)
“These smaller collections would then have been included in the books that now exist. Book I is made up of Psalms 1-41; Book II comprises Psalms 42-72; Book III is Psalms 73-89; Book IV is Psalms 90-106; and Book V includes Psalms 107-150. Each section concludes with a doxology, and the entire Psalter concludes with Ps 150, a grand doxology.” (Bible Knowledge Commentary)
“The First, Second, and Third Books end with Amen and Amen; the Fourth, with Amen and Hallelujah; the Fifth, with Hallelujah.” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary)
“The earliest evidence for this fivefold division comes from the Qumran scrolls (found neat the Dead Sea) copied soon after the beginning of the Christian era.” (Bible Knowledge Commentary)
“The Hebrews divide the Psalms into five books, and this division is noticed by several of the primitive fathers. The origin of this division is not easily ascertained; but as it was considered a book of great excellence, and compared for its importance to the Pentateuch itself, it was probably divided into five books, as the law was contained in so many volumes. But where the divisions should take place the ancients are not agreed; and some of them divide into three fifties rather than into five parts; and for all these divisions they assign certain allegorical reasons which merit little attention.” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary)
- 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).
Prov 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;
Prov 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.
Prov 25:1 These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.
Prov 30:1 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,
Prov 31:1 The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.
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.
- 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).
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.
“A major difficulty is trying to determine how the various prophecies in the Book of Jeremiah were compiled. Many scholars feel that the book is an anthology of selected sayings from Jeremiah (or his disciples) that were later collected and arranged, often rather haphazardly. Some deny that a purposeful order can be (or should be) determined in the text.
(1) Obviously there is no chronological consistency. Unlike Ezekiel, whose prophecies are arranged in chronological order, Jeremiah often placed prophecies together that are dated years apart.
(2) Jeremiah’s messages were given during times of stress, upheaval, and need. Chapters 1-6 and 11-12 correspond roughly to the time of King Josiah’s reforms. The next major burst of prophetic activity (chaps. 7-10; 14:1-20:18; 22:1-19; 26) came when Nebuchadnezzar rose to power. The rest of Jeremiah’s prophecies came at the time of the first deportation to Babylon, the second deportation to Babylon, the secret plot to rebel against Babylon, and the final siege and deportation to Babylon. Chapter Jer 52 was written at a later date.
(3) The book itself gives evidence of multiple stages of growth. That is, Jeremiah, at different stages of his ministry, collected his prophecies and rearranged them in a definite pattern (cf. 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,32). Jeremiah could have completed the final form of chapters 1-51 after he was taken hostage to Egypt (cf. 51:64). But what about chapter 52? Jer 52, nearly identical to 2 Kings 24:18-25:30, was written sometime after 561 B.C. when King Jehoiachin was released from prison in Babylon (Jer 52:31). Apparently this last chapter was appended to Jeremiah’s prophecies by the same writer who compiled the Book of Kings. The chapter was added to show that Jeremiah’s words of Judgment had been fulfilled and that Jehoiachin’s release foreshadowed God’s promises of restoration and blessing.”
(Bible Knowledge Commentary)
- 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, etc.) which were redacted by the author(s) of Chronicles.
1 Chron 9:1 So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression.
2 Chron 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
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 Sam 22 uses Ps 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., 1 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.
The inspired-redactors view that editors made deliberate and substantial changes in the content of previous prophetic material is unacceptable. God gave repeated warning to his prophets not to “add to the word which I command 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).
The so-called “inspired redactor” view is contrary to the biblical use of the word inspired or God-breathed in 2 Tim 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.
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 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?
The scholarly discipline of textual criticism refutes the claims of redaction criticism. For the history of the biblical text is well known. 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 brief time 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.
(Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler)