In my
article Biblical
Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets, I discuss
various examples of biblical prophets changing their writings and/or the
writings of previous prophets, similar to what Joseph Smith did to some of his
revelations. In their commentary on the book of Amos as part of the Anchor
Bible series, Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, when discussing this
practice, write the following which sheds further light on this intriguing issue:
[T]he literary product called the book of
Amos is not merely the transcript of oracles uttered by the prophet and stories
about his experience recalled directly by him or through an amanuensis. There
is a significant editorial process as we move from the actual utterances of the
prophet to a written literary record and adaptation. An editor is at work
putting the book together, certainly using materials taken directly from the
prophet. After all, it is the book of Amos,
a person important enough to warrant the attention given to him and his words,
because except for the book he would be totally unknown. No one would invent
and otherwise unknown person because it would serve no describable or
conceivable purpose.
So Amos himself and his words remain the
central factor in the book and we make our first assumption by arguing that the
editor’s purpose is to do precisely that—to make and maintain the centrality of
Amos, man and prophet, words and deeds. In other words, there is a coherence
and continuity between prophet and editor. It is conceivable that a prophet
could be his own editor, as seems to be the case with Ezekiel (and possibly
Zechariah, who can be postulated as editor of the book of Haggai and his own
book, that is, chaps. 1-8; but concerning the remainder we can say only that it
is very obscure). A more likely and common situation is reflected in the book
of Jeremiah, concerning which we know who the first and most important editor
was, Baruch the Scribe (Muilenburg 1970). The circumstances are entirely
plausible and understandable, and while some of the details are unique and
peculiar to Jeremiah’s time and place, we can posit such a pattern for other
prophets, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Again it seems
likely that the prophet and his editor were in close contact, and that the
editorial work proceeded with the authorization and approval, as well as the
critical appraisal and corrections, of the principal. To the extent that this
is the way matters developed we can speak of the prophet as his own editor, one
who was heavily involved in that process.
The importance of this aspect of the process
of the literary embodiment of oracles should not be underestimated. It means
that the transition from first oral presentation to ultimate or at least stable
written form will have been done with the prophet’s supervision and approval.
The implication is that the materials can be well preserved, for that is the
purpose of the exercise. It is important to note that secondary and tertiary
uses—written records as opposed to initial presentation—serve different
purposes from the original, and often (or at least sometimes) modifications are
introduced when the transition occurs. It is not so much the supposed shift
from oracles to written forms, as there is no reason why one need be different
from the other. Speeches presented orally can be written down verbatim and no
doubt were, whereas speeches originally written down can and will be delivered
orally There may well be alternation as one moves from one medium to another,
but the transfer itself does not require or even imply significant changes.
Rather, it is the modification in purposes and function that dictates change in
format, style, wording, and the like. The tendency in writing is to expand, as
the wry comment about Baruch’s second edition of Jeremiah’s book makes clear:
And Jeremiah took another scroll and he gave
it to Baruch ben-Neriah the Scribe; and he [Baruch] wrote upon it at the
dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the book [the writing] that Jehoiakim
the king of Judah had burned in the fire; and again [even so] he added to them
many words like those (Jer 36:32).
The point is that a good many of the oracles
show signs of rewriting or adaptation, the product of editorial work designed
to preserve material in context, or to link it with other materials presented
at different times and places. Such editorial activity may be taken for
granted, and scholars are constantly on the lookout for signs and clues showing
that the preserved form of an oracle may not be the same as the form of the
original presentation. Such analysis is both important and useful, and when
successful can point us to the original utterance by the prophet. But it would
be a mistaken to relegate automatically the revised or updated form in which
the oracles now appear to the hand of a later editor—and to deem it of less
value than the reconstructed original Two comments are in order.
1. The exercise is a hypothetical and
speculative one. The recovery or reconstruction of so-called original versions
of oracles or poems or narratives is an enterprise fraught with perils,
obstacles, and difficulties; any results, however appealing, are still partly
if not largely informed guesswork. In the end there is a significant difference
between having something tangible in front of our eyes, and trying to draw
inferences or argue cases on the basis of a reconstructed hypothetical original.
What we reconstruct is finally of our own making; the text in its preserved
from is what we have.
2. The revised form may be as much the work
of the prophet as the original presentation. The editing or altering may well
have been done with his approval and authorization if not with his direct
participation. Poets often revise their work, and who is to say that one
version is more authentic or authoritative than another? We must reckon with
this possibility in the case of biblical books, and in the case of Amos (as
well as others) we must give this option first consideration. Thus the
intermixture of elements deriving ostensibly from different occasions may not
be the work of clumsy later editors or contributors, but rather the revisions
and rearrangements of the prophet himself, making the book serve purposes other
than those of the originally presented oracles. (Francis I. Andersen and David
Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary [AB 24A; New York: Doubleday, 1989], 74-76,
comments in square brackets in original)
