Gospel Editing Precludes Divine Inspiration

[robbyyoung]

Hello All,

Here's an interesting snippet from an article by Michael A. Fenemore.

Most Bible scholars believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their gospels. However, evidence of extensive redaction has serious implications for the doctrine of divine inspiration.

We must wonder why Matthew and Luke didn’t simply allow God to inspire them without depending on other sources. Copying from Mark implies they didn’t consider themselves inspired, and apparently, they didn’t believe Mark was either because they omitted some of his material, added their own, revised his wording and at times, contradicted him. If Matthew and Luke thought Mark’s gospel was inspired, why didn’t they just make faithful copies? Why presume to tamper with text composed by God? If they saw themselves as scribes having the freedom to revise their sources, we must wonder whether other ancient Christian documents were “copied” under the same philosophy.

Mark’s attempt at gospel writing gets off to a bad start. He begins, “As it is written in the prophet Isaiah” and proceeds to quote Malachi (Mark 1:2-3, NRSV throughout). Then, he seamlessly combines Malachi’s prediction with text from Isaiah as though it were all one passage. Mark was most likely writing from memory, but unfortunately, his memory failed him. His confusion is understandable since the two passages are similar. An ancient copyist tried to conceal the error by replacing “the prophet Isaiah” with “the prophets.” (See the KJV.) However, modern translators reject this rendering. Some commentators dismiss the entire issue by claiming it was a Jewish custom to quote multiple prophets while crediting only one, but according to John Lightfoot, there is no precedent for the case in Mark. (See A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica.) Regardless, the argument is weak. It’s clear Matthew and Luke treated the quotation as a mistake. Both authors specified “Isaiah,” not “the prophets,” and omitted the portion from Malachi. (See Matt. 3:3; Luke 3:4.) Moreover, Matthew is all but universally believed to have been a Jew writing to Jews. Surely, his readers would have been aware of the Jewish custom mentioned above. So, why drop the reference to Malachi? Simple: Matthew knew it was a mistake and didn’t want to perpetuate it.

Evidently, Matthew and Luke were sometimes troubled by Mark’s depiction of Jesus and his disciples. For instance, when a storm came up as they sailed on the Sea of Galilee, and Jesus happened to be sleeping, Mark records the disciples shouting, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” (Mark 4:38). His wording portrays the disciples as rather disrespectful and Jesus as uncaring. Matthew decides to neutralize this negative image with “Lord, save us! We are perishing!” (Matt. 8:25). This gets them all off the hook. Likewise, Luke changes Mark’s wording to “Master, Master, we are perishing!” (Luke 8:24). It doesn’t end there. Once Jesus had awakened and calmed the storm, Mark claims he asked the disciples, “Have you no faith?” Apparently, inferring the disciples had “no” faith was too harsh for Matthew and Luke. Matthew softens it to “…you of little faith.” Luke claims Jesus said, “Where is your faith?”

In Mark, a rich man calls Jesus “Good Teacher” to which Jesus responds “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:17-18). It appears Matthew believed Jesus would never have said such a thing. He probably thought, “Of course, Jesus is good.” So, Matthew says the rich man referred to Jesus only as “Teacher” and then, as most modern translations agree, he claims Jesus asked, “Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matt. 19:16-17). Most Christians believe they are reading the words of Jesus in the gospels, but obviously, this is not even close to being true. Matthew has totally destroyed the meaning of words supposedly spoken by Jesus himself.

In Mark 15:34, Jesus is hanging from the cross crying out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Some readers could find such a question troubling. Apparently, Luke did. He chose to delete this potentially embarrassing quotation. Instead, he presents a more submissive Jesus uttering, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” just before he “breathed his last” (Luke 23:46). None of the other gospel authors indicate knowing anything about Luke’s alleged quotation. John contradicts him by claiming Jesus said, “It is finished” as he “gave up his spirit” (John 19:30).

To insist all this blatant redacting was the work of God is ludicrous. Even those who maintain no copying or editing ever took place still face all the contradictions.

The shameless, unbridled editing of Mark by Matthew and Luke has sobering implications. It means practically everything we think we know about Jesus has been handed down to us by fallible men who, far from being inspired by God, were downright dishonest

.

To review his two articles, please click on the links and provide your comments, thanks:

1. http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/faith-d ... ges-truth/

2. http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/faith-r ... -inspired/

God Bless.

[mattrose]

I find this critique of the gospels amateurish. It seems to insist that inspiration means something like 'storks dropped off copies of the NT straight from the heavens' or 'the Gospel writers went into trances as God's Spirit took control of their fingers.' These are, to my mind, silly views of inspiration that leave no room for the the human authors to tell the story their way while still being considered inspired by God. It seems many people can only imagine God's sovereignty in terms of absolute control whereas, in reality, God's sovereignty over the writing of Scripture is shown through beautiful partnership.

[dizerner]

Perfectly said mattrose.

[TheEditor]

Agreed. It also reminds me of something I once read that made me rethink how different people view the Scriptures, as Matt mentions; it went something like this, 'The Gospel writers did not necessarily have to be "inspired" to make good eyewitnesses". And that sums it up for me. I can't see how the critic can establish a bar so high that it dis-allows the account from taking into consideration the subjective experience of the writer. No historical narrative is pilloried the way the Gospels and Acts are.

Regards, brenden.

[Paidion]

Good point, Brenden. I don't think any of the "gospel" writers had any idea that they had been "inspired" in the sense of God telling them what to write. They simply wanted to write an account of the life of Jesus, and that is what they did.

Matthew, as a disciple, walked with Jesus, as did John. All of them wrote their memoirs of Christ many years after the events. Matthew and John may have written events down purely from memory.

It is said that Mark got most of his information from Peter, and Luke got most of his from Paul. Paul wasn't even in the presence of Jesus when He walked this earth as a human being. He must have gotten his information from one or more of the twelve. Paul wrote his twelve letters to the churches considerably earlier.

[TheEditor]

Hi Paidion,

Good points. I recall reading somewhere (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Luke has at times been referred to as the Gospel according to the women; that is, the Marys and Martha giving their take--there does seem to be some areas where Luke writes about what only Mary could have known (ie. "Mary treasured all of these things and drew conclusions in her heart" Luke 2:19).

Regards, Brenden.

[steve7150]

Actually these differences show that they didn't copy from each other because if they had they would have been careful not to contradict. Of course they didn't really contradict because the gospels compliment each other and should be taken as a whole. There are many examples where you need to have a knowledge of all four to get a comprehensive picture of Jesus life and ministry.
The writers never claimed inspiration they only claimed to tell the truth and it's the readers choice to decide.

[Homer]

Interesting. I was just about to start a thread on God's sovereignty and then I read this. Perhaps I should rather than divert this one.

I had a surgical procedure in March to do some biopsies and picked up an infection. The biopsies (no new cancer found) were in follow up to two surgeries to remove cancer from the bladder. Anyway I had to take antibiotics for about five weeks and yesterday happily learned that a culture showed no infection. Now I can proceed with BCG treatments (maintenance therapy). Anyway I said all that to tell you this: I was very thankful to God that the infection is gone. But was He involved at all? Did the antibiotics do the job and did God have nothing too do with it? I don't think so. I think God is actively or passively involved in everything; He always has a veto.

In Ephesians 5:20 Paul writes: "always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father", so why would Paul write this if God is not involved in all things? Is God only involved in some things? Were the gospels not inspired? Didn't Paul say all scripture is inspired? Was Paul wrong or are the gospels not scripture? Were the words of Jesus so unimportant that we are left in the position of Marcus Borg, et. al., where we can just decide what to throw out? Come to think of it, for all practical purposes many have done so in regard to such things as divorce and remarriage. How do we know Jesus' teaching on this are recorded any more accurately than which prophet a quotation is attributed to? John's gospel has things in it the others do not, so there is no way to cross check them. Maybe he made them up?

Proceed with care down this road!

[steve]

I tend to see this TheEditor's way. I don't care whether the four Gospels were written under inspiration or not—nor do I even know what that means! Jesus promised His apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them new things, and would remind them of what He had said to them (John 14:26). He also opened their understanding, that they might understand the Old Testament properly (Luke 24:45). We should give the Holy Spirit credit for at least this much activity in the minds of the writers.

However, there is never made any claim that a special power seized their minds and intervened so as to make their written documents "inerrant" (a word not found in the Bible). Luke, at least, attributed the credibility of his writing, not to divine inspiration, but to his careful research and thorough acquaintance with his subject matter (Luke 1:1-4). I fully trust his competence and integrity—as well as that of the other Evangelists.

It seems very unlikely that Paul, in saying that all "scripture" was God-breathed, had any New Testament documents in mind. We don't know how many of the Gospels were even written in his lifetime. His reference to the "scriptures" was certainly indicating the Old Testament, from which Timothy had been taught from his youth (2 Tim.3:15-17). This could not have included any New Testament books.

None of the Gospels contain within them any claim that they were written by special divine inspiration. Why would that be necessary? Weren't the writers competent to write reliable history? That's what the Gospels are, and all they claim to be. They certainly have every reason to be trusted to be just what they profess to be—namely, "true."

Evangelicals make up traditions about the nature of the scriptural documents, which go beyond what those scriptures say about themselves. To me, this seems parallel to the Roman Catholics making up unbiblical traditions about the virgin Mary. The scriptures and Mary are both rightly-revered conduits through which God has brought the Word (Christ) to us, but there is no reason to claim more for them than what the Bible itself claims for them.

By the way, I believe in the authority of the entire Bible, placing its claims above those of any other source—which is why I trust its statements about itself more than the non-canonical statements that people have made about it.

[mattrose]

I do believe that God has provided us with an inspired, inerrant, infallible Word. His name is Jesus.

I stole this way of saying it from Bruxy Cavey