Thursday, August 14, 2008

Did some New Testament books grow over time?

It has been so long since I entered the purgatorial fires of studying the Bible in context that it has become difficult to remember how shocking some of the things I say to my students must be--both to the young and even moreso to the adult ones I now teach regularly for our grad program. IWU's grad program right now, in my opinion, does a great service to a group of pastors who would not normally get masters training. The pool of groups in my evening classes is incredibly diverse and delectable. I've had Apostolic, Pentecostal, house church, Baptist, Bible Methodist, Disciples, Presbyterian, Free Methodist... and very few Wesleyans.

But I often feel depressed after class. Many of the things I say are obvious, far beyond any reasonable dispute. (Others aren't, of course) You know they're true as soon as someone points them out to you--like the fact that 1 Thessalonians says it was written to, well, people who lived in a place called Thessalonica.

But people aren't wired to read the Bible with the common sense they would read any other book. Some of my adult, pastor students have a squinty, puzzled look on their faces the whole 8 weeks of the course, as if I am speaking strange mysteries. I feel like I'm taking away their innocence, this despite the fact they stand up and speak from the Bible for God each week. Of course, I may be overestimating how well they see the implications of what I'm saying. Maybe they go back to their churches and continue using the Bible just as they did before, with no better sense of how to read the words in context.

Anyway, that's a tangent. The reason I bring it up is my conclusion that the vast majority of pastors in America (and that's not the ones who go to mainstream Christian colleges or seminaries) see the origins of the Bible much along the lines of God handing the 10 commandments to Moses. Paul sits down one day with papyrus and stylus in hand and God begins to tell him what to write. He writes until God is done inspiring him, perhaps amazed at the things "the Holy Spirit was revealing through him." And then we have it, Romans is done.

This model of inspiration is not wired to think of the books of the Bible in historical terms, as products of real situations with a writing process. You often encounter a subconscious resistance by many Christians when you begin to talk about the Bible historically, even when obvious, common sense aspects of that process are under discussion. And those who resist may not even be able to tell you why they find what you're saying puzzling or angering.

For example, many people will resist the idea that Paul or a biblical author might have used a secretary or sources in the course of composition. Mind you, becoming a scholar doesn't always change these deep seated inclinations. In my opinion, some evangelical scholarship is simply a sophisticated version of these aversions. Why the strong aversion, for example, to the idea that Silas might have served as Peter's secretary in 1 Peter 5? And since anyone can start a denomination or Bible college in America, it has historically been all too easy to insulate yourself as a group from obvious thoughts. There is a vast "scholarly" coping mechanism out there that has evolved with the main goal of avoiding obvious conclusions.

What inspired this little reflection is the fact that I was reading a little in Josephus' Jewish War the other day. The introduction was talking about how Josephus likely expanded the work over time, that the first two books of this 7 book work were probably added after the first publication.

For some reason, this clicked for me. It's a picture of Josephus writing a "first edition" of the War in honor of the emperor Vespasian, a very pro-Roman version. But of course every time someone wanted a copy, the manuscript had to be copied by hand all over again. The great thing about blogging is that if I make a mistake or want to fix or expand something, it is very easy to change it. So it was with ancient manuscript copying. Josephus was able to add two books to the front of the work giving historical background as a later copy was being made, a later "edition" if you would.

This picture of Josephus editing and expanding his work over time clicked with me in relation to some biblical material, John and Revelation in particular. With New Testament letters, it is a little different. They are sent to a particular location different from the author. The author doesn't really have the luxury to change much over time.

But the gospels and Acts could be a different situation. How do we know, for example, that Mark's parenthetical comments like "For the Jews all wash their hands..." or "By this Jesus declared all foods clean" were not added secondarily as new copies of Mark were made? The D manuscript of Acts is significantly longer than other manuscripts, and not because it contradicts the other versions. Most of the additions are geographical and explanatory.

Of course with D these additions were probably added later than Luke's lifetime. In the case of Mark, on the other hand, Mark himself could have added these comments. This creates complications for the synoptic question, for it is possible that Matthew and Luke used a slightly different version of Mark than we now have. It also potentially throws a monkey wrench into textual criticism as it is conventionally conceived. What if, for example, the story of the Samaritan women in John 8 was not in an early version of John while included in a later one?

In cases such as the latter one, where we actually have manuscripts with and without a particular verse or reading, the change is likely to have taken place after the author's lifetime. All the manuscripts of Mark have the verses we mentioned, but the earliest manuscripts of John don't have the story of the woman caught in adultery.

But in my opinion, the books that reflection on Josephus potentially impacts the most are John and Revelation. These are books that arguably belonged to a community of a somewhat more isolated bent with a charismatic figure or figures at its center that lived together over an extended period of time. And these two writings bear the marks of documents that have undergone significant expansion over time.

Let me just give a couple examples. In between the first and second sign in John is a reference to Jesus doing many signs. One explanation would be that an earlier version of John was expanded with the material that has reference to many signs now in between the original first and second signs.

One part of Revelation speaks of a sixth king on seven hills who "now is." This would likely be Vespasian. Yet it is the virtual consensus of tradition and scholarship that Revelation was finished in the reign of Domitian. My hunch is that the earliest version of Revelation was written just after Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, but that it didn't reach its "final form" until the time of Domitian.

The model of ongoing editing and expansion over time fits what we observe in John and Revelation. It would also explain why John seems to show so little interaction with Mark--its earliest drafts would be created about the same time as Mark was being written. By the way, we have with the Dead Sea Scrolls clear examples of this sort of process, where among the scrolls are both earlier, shorter versions of documents and later, longer ones.

Now, back to where we started. I generally don't talk about this stuff with any of my IWU classes, with the exception of the times I teach a New Testament honors class. But you can see where this sort of thinking clashes with the usual model of how the books of the Bible were produced. For one thing, it seems such a human process, although why couldn't God inspire a person to edit and use sources as well as to receive dictation? But it also implies that John may not be a continuous narrative from a strictly historical perspective. I would suggest that this is no problem for John, but rather, a problem with our preconceptions about John.

I don't see any of these thoughts as contrary to faith or love of the Bible. And although I generally "don't go there" on many thoughts I have that seem obvious in the light of study, you have to wonder how Christianity can be healthy if at some point we don't develop a faith that can incorporate rather than avoid such things.

What do you think?

10 comments:

Bill Heroman said...

Yes, faith should incorporate rather than avoid. I think the real problem is that scholars give off a skeptical air that is foreign and threatening to simple people of faith. To you, Ken, these problems are not too big for faith. And Praise the Lord.

You might find some insight from reading Jefferson White's introduction to "Evidence and Paul's Journeys". An independent, like me, he points out that scholars tend to focus on the problems, rather than solutions. Your own points in this post reach at solutions that can't help being tenative at best: the idea of Silas as secretary; the hunch that John was revised over time. Etc.

I totally understand. The PROBLEM is the only thing scholarship can state with objective certainty. (Such as it is.) The "problem" simply IS what we know and can say. Addressing it is why scholars stay employed. If there were no problems, there would be far fewer professors! Thus I believe the overall process appears, to a simple believer, to be pure skepticism.

Good luck improving your approach. I hope my pov adds a little from the "layman"s perspective.

Btw, don't get me started on pastors' use of the bible. But I appreciate the heart of your post was in sympathy for their experience in class.

Anonymous said...

Are you being fair to all your students by reserving some potentially crucial information for your "honors" class. It seems to me that if you wish to combat the situation you describe with your graduate students then you should equip all your students before they become those very pastors who squint when confronted with the unsimpleissues surrounding about the origins of the scriptures.

Plesae don't get me wroong. I don't mean to be too critical. I appreciate what you are struggling with. You see I have made a Devil's Bargain in the raising of my own children: I have agreed that they will raised in a church. The benefits are legion and it allows we parents to present a united front during the formative years. Unfortunately, I must repress my own, shall we say, more skeptical view of God and religion in the process. It is not always easy. Now I struggle with what age would be appropriate for my children to witness my "coming out", as it were.

Currently, I do not see any "good" opportunity to assert my beliefs during the time when many important traits are being developed without throwing a spanner in the works. Last night I conceived the solution might be to encourage them to approach the Bible critically, exploring the same issues that you lament are resisted by so many Christians. If it leads them to understand Christianity yet reject it, I can accompany them on their journey. If, on the other hand, they find that critical thinking and faith do not have to be enemies, then the world will have gained two more believers with nuanced and thoughtful understandings of what they believe and why. The Lord knows, the world would be a better place with more people like that.

Anonymous said...

Ken, I think only professional academics like yourself spend much time pondering issues like this. If a Christian accepts the Bible as the authoritative word of God and lives it in a credible way, then direct dictation or guided inspired research is not a burning issue with them I don't think. By the way, how many angels can fit on the point of a needle?

Jared Calaway said...

From a slightly different perspective--looking at how this affects consensus views in scholarship. Let's talk about Q. Kloppenborg, and others, often speak of how Q is something that developed over time with different layers (although I think such intense focus on a hypothetical document is misplaced--Q is only interesting insofar as it helps us understand Matthew and Luke). But you see this less with actual books we have. Yes, people talk about different endings to Mark, etc. But that they would write multiple editions of the same work--that is interesting. In fact, it might begin to pick away at the Q hypothesis. If Matt and Luke had different Marks, does that mean LESS material can be assigned to Q or more?

Something to think about.

Ken Schenck said...

The Christian life issue for me is not this particular issue itself. The issue is that there is an inevitable skew in people's sense of what the authoritative voice of Scripture is saying because there is no real sense of how to read the words in context. It is the 20,000 different church groups reading the authoritative voice of Scripture and coming up with 20,000 different understandings of that voice. Basically, the math means that everybody is substantially wrong in what they think the Bible means. Reading in context is part of the antidote, not the problem or idle speculation.

Mark Schnell said...

I agree with craig moore when he says:

"If a Christian accepts the Bible as the authoritative word of God and lives it in a credible way, then direct dictation or guided inspired research is not a burning issue with them I don't think.

But Ken is teaching students that will be or already are ministering to some people that do not accept the Bible as authoritative. Many people these days don't accept ANYTHING as authoritative. This is precisely why pastors and Bible teachers need to have these discussions that Ken is speaking of. Some people that visit our churches or that we are trying to win for Christ WILL ask these questions. It would be good if we didn't look at them with a blank stare when they do.

Bill Heroman said...

Reading in context is part of the antidote, not the problem or idle speculation.

Ken, I couldn't agree more. But which context? Purgatorial fires indeed. ;)

Realizing the "context" is broken and complex should create more humility of the kind Scott longs for. But how do you also express care for the 'christian life issue'?

Bret L. McAtee said...

Sure, I think that we should finally concede to the Wellhausen school and the Higher Critical conclusions. We should admit that Isaiah was written by at least three different authors and that Daniel was written long after the Jewish return from Exile.

You sound a great deal like Dr. Peter Enns. Have you heard of him?

Ken Schenck said...

Welcome back, Bret, or shall I say "Once a Wesleyan" :-)

Yes, I have heard of Peter Enns. And let me say how much I enjoyed Bruce McCormick at Princeton schooling Westminster Seminary on the meaning of the Westminster Confession!

Hope you're doing well up there in Michiganland.

Anonymous said...

Ken S.,

(KS: "What if, for example, the story of the Samaritan women in John 8 was not in an early version of John while included in a later one?" The Samaritan woman is in Jn. 4. The woman in Jn. 7:53-8:11 is not called a Samaritan).

I think the problem that you're facing must be resolved mainly at the pastoral level: in Bible studies and in Sunday School classes. Tyndale wished that the average plow-hand would recite the Scriptures and sing them as he worked. (Or was that Wycliffe?) I wish that the average plow-hand would also sing about how the books of the Bible were written, preserved, and translated as well. But there is a cost: learning those things requires some in-depth study, and in-depth study, unless it is done creatively, will bore the laity. So lots of preachers and teachers, I suspect, take an easy and less demanding route: in their sermons and lessons, they oversimplify Biblical criticism, or skip it altogether.

Ministers should be encouraged to teach the flock about the Bible's origins (plural: I say again, originS). Certainly the divine origin of the text is paramount, but questions about how a book was written, and when and where and why, and how its text was preserved, are tremendously important for sound interpretation and valid application.

KS: "Why the strong aversion, for example, to the idea that Silas might have served as Peter's secretary in 1 Peter 5?"

I don't think it's because anyone has a lot riding on the assumption that Peter did not have a secretary (after all, Mark was essentially Peter's secretary); it probably has more to do with a basic fear of the unknown: when a novice researcher departs from a simple one-author-per-book view, he may feel like a medieval sailor aboard a ship which is leaving the sight of land for the first time. But a little trepidation is a small price to pay for important discoveries, as long as the ship doesn't sink.

KS: . . . "In the case of Mark, on the other hand, Mark himself could have added these comments . . ."

Mark probably collected Peter's memoirs and arranged for copies to be made on request; his collection grew as Peter continued to preach. This is one way to easily explain Luke's non-use of a big chunk of the Gospel of Mark -- Luke used a "Proto-Mark."

KS: "The books that reflection on Josephus potentially impacts the most are John and Revelation."

I think I get what you mean, and it's especially true about the Gospel of John. Revelation will continue to be interpreted a thousand different ways with or without a sound analysis of its source-materials. But reinterpreting the Gospel of John as something put together by John-of-Ephesus, apprentice to John-the-Apostle, using source-materials by John-the-Apostle, will inevitably result in some new interpretive twists.

KS: "Yet it is the virtual consensus of tradition and scholarship that Revelation was finished in the reign of Domitian."

John A. T. Robinson had some insightful things to say about this in "Redating the NT."

KS: ". . . you can see where this sort of thinking clashes with the usual model of how the books of the Bible were produced. For one thing, it seems such a human process, although why couldn't God inspire a person to edit and use sources as well as to receive dictation?"

If you choose your materials carefully, you can demonstrate from some OT texts (where authors refer to their source-materials) that God inspired some Biblical authors to edit and use sources.

KS: "It also implies that John may not be a continuous narrative from a strictly historical perspective. I would suggest that this is no problem for John, but rather, a problem with our preconceptions about John."

I concur. I encourage you to introduce your students to source-criticism and textual criticism more than you are currently doing. If they don't learn these things from you, they will learn them from some author (Spong, Pagels, etc.) with an agenda to upset and destroy Christian faith rather than inform and mature it.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
Tipton, Indiana