The book of Hosea ends with an exhortation addressed to the readers: “Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of the Lord are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them” (Hos. 14:9). Did the prophet himself write this as a conclusion to his book, or could someone else, perhaps, have added it? Say, for example, the person who prepared this book for publication?

Many Bible readers are sooner or later confronted with the question of how the Bible books came to be. In the last few centuries, a great deal of research has been done, and various methods have been developed to deal with this question. Last week I mentioned something about literary-historical criticism in an article “Criticism, in various shapes and sizes.” Researchers who use this method usually do so from a scriptural-critical position. This implies that things which the Bible itself presents as credible and reliable will also face criticism. What the Bible itself expresses with authority about its own origin is not considered to be decisive. Proper principled research can, however, also be done in a different way; not all criticism is scriptural criticism. It is equally possible to engage in literary-historical research of the Bible in a scriptural manner. Another method of historical-critical Bible inquiry is known as editorial criticism. Such editorial criticism focuses on the activities of the people who put the finishing touches to the Bible books. Those people are known as the editors. They are distinguished from the authors who are responsible for the first, i.e., the most original form of the texts.

Can a Reformed interpreter of the Bible accomplish anything with such editorial criticism? Is it legitimate to assume that there were editors for the books of the Bible? These questions are the focus of this article.

A Dive into History⤒🔗

For a good understanding of what editorial criticism entails, I should first relate something more about Bible research in the last centuries. In the nineteenth century, many Bible scholars searched for the sources from which the Bible books would have been composed. In this way, four different sources were found from which the five books of Moses were composed, the youngest of which would have been written some time after the exile. The evangelists Matthew and Luke allegedly incorporated two sources in their books, namely, the book of Mark and an otherwise unknown source with all kinds of statements from Jesus.

In the first half of the twentieth century, attention was focused on the smallest parts of which the sources would have been composed. The smallest sections (e.g., the song of Deborah in Judges 5) were examined separately. As a result, little attention was paid to the broader scope of each of the Bible books; people were satisfied when they had commented on the sources or smaller parts separately.

After the Second World War, editorial criticism arose as both a complement and a reaction to this situation. People looked again at the books as they are now before us. They asked questions such as: who were the editors who compiled the current Bible books from all these different parts? Which pieces of text did they write themselves to connect the different parts together? What kind of vision did they want to put forward?

Were There Editors?←⤒🔗

So far for some background information about the origin and purpose of editorial criticism. The first question to be asked in this regard is: are there any indications in the Bible of such editorial activity? In addition to the authors, were there also editors who gave the books of the Bible their definitive form?

I answer this question without hesitation: yes, such editors may well have been in place. There are several clues that point in this direction.

You will find clear traces of editorial activity in the book of Psalms. For example, in Psalm 72:20, “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended.” That is a subscript that appears with the first two of the five sections that make up the book of Psalms. In the first two parts (Psalms 1–41 and 42–72) mainly psalms of David were collected; Psalm 72:20 concludes this collection. These are followed by psalms from Asaph (Psalms 73 - 83) and others. But you also come across psalms composed by David (e.g., Ps. 86 and 101). At the end you will even find a whole collection of psalms from David, namely, Psalms 138-145. Then there is a concluding collection of songs of praise, all of which begin and end with “Hallelujah” (Psalms 146-150).

The most obvious explanation is that several editors worked on the book of Psalms, and they are probably responsible for the inscriptions above different psalms. Take for instance Psalm 3: “A psalm of David, when he fled from his son Absalom.” Of course, David himself may have written that above his psalm, but it is much more likely that the people who compiled the psalms put the header above it, not David himself. Similarly, an editor may well have concluded the collection of the first 72 psalms with: “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, have ended.” Later, other editors added other collections of psalms.

Something similar can be said about the inscriptions regarding the books of the prophets. Of course, Joel himself may have written above his book: “The word of the Lord that came to Joel, the son of Pethuel.” But it might just as well have been someone else, someone who collected and wrote down the prophecies of Joel (like Baruch in the case of Jeremiah; see Jer. 36:4, 32).

The Spirit Guided the Entire Process←⤒🔗

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Holy Spirit directed the authors as they performed their work. He also guided the people who put together the psalms of David and others in the book of the Psalms. As long as you hold on to this, ¹

the idea of ​​editors is legitimate. What is decisive is that you can say of the Bible books as they now are before us: “This is how we received them from God; we accept them in this form as the reliable and authoritative recording of his revelation.”

The next issue is somewhat more difficult. Many Bible scholars assume that editors have inserted various kinds of clarifying or other comments into the text. Have they put things in the mouths of the original authors that they themselves have not said? Is that even an acceptable thought?

Nowadays, such a practice would constitute a violation of copyright. However, the question is whether this was regarded as such in the time of the Bible’s creation. An example may help to clarify this. In the Old Testament one can hardly detect any development of the Hebrew language. Apart from a few books, the language is uniform in its style. This holds true even though the language must have changed over the centuries. Apparently, they felt free to transfer what Moses had written into the Hebrew of a later period. This practice would be unacceptable nowadays; if one were to update the text it should at least mention: “linguistically modernized by…” Apparently this was not necessary in the time of the Old Testament.

That is also very understandable. The important thing was not that later generations read the exact words that Moses wrote. The most important thing was that what Moses had said on behalf of God was transmitted in such a way that later generations also understood exactly what his intention was.

In light of this, the idea of ​​later additions cannot be ruled out in advance. I am thinking in particular of explanatory comments starting with “that is…” Such remarks are found in different places (e.g., 1 Kings 6:38; 8:2). Whether the first author of a Bible portion wrote this down, or a later editor, doesn’t really matter. If it were a later editor, he likely did so from the conviction that the first author would have written it himself if he had lived in a later time! We would use a footnote or add brackets in such a case; they did not have those resources in the past. When you consider this type of thing, the Bible becomes no less reliable or understandable. What is decisive is that you yourself see God behind the entire Bible, including any clarifying remarks.

The Benefit of Editorial Criticism←⤒🔗

It is legitimate to think of the involvement of editors in the creation process of the Bible books, and it is therefore not wrong to do research into their activities. Everything may be examined, provided it is done with respectful acceptance of what God himself wants to tell us in his Word, also about the origin of the writings of the Old and New Testament. Unfortunately, most of the work done within editorial criticism is not accompanied by such an attitude. Is it then still useful for a reformed Bible interpreter to delve into it?

As a Reformed Bible interpreter, I am interested in everything that I can learn about the origin of the texts, but in the end, this is not what I am after. I want to better understand what God himself intends to say through his age-old Word, and that is precisely why I also want to know what the unique message of the various Bible books is within the whole of Scripture.

Editorial critical inquiry can sometimes help in this regard. Much criticism of this approach is possible. At the same time, it is beneficial to focus attention on the text again as it presents itself to us. That is a step forward after the one-sided focus on the individual components.

Confrontation with editorial-critical research can lead to a better understanding of the meaning of a Bible book. It can encourage you to think about what Matthew and Mark each intended with their own description of the gospel. Editorial criticism forces you to ask what it means that the book of Psalms ends with songs of praise. In this way, you realize what kind of message emanates from the end of the book, namely, that all our prayers and concerns must ultimately end up with the praise of God.