Redactions

[Alice_Gershom]

How can I answer my friend, who heard that Matt. 16:18 was a “redaction” written after the Papacy was established and added to the Gospel to support the later structure of the Church? She wants to know how she can find out for sure if this is true, or if I can recommend something to read. She also wonders, if such a redaction could be proven, how can we believe anything in the New Testament?

My only answer so far is common sense: What kind of convincing evidence could support the idea of such a redaction? There would have to be a very early copy of the Gospel that left out that verse (as well as all the other verses supporting the primacy of Peter). I’m sure that if anyone had such a manuscript, it would have been trumpeted to the whole world by the anti-Catholics as soon as it was found!

 

[Fidelis]

I think you’re on the right track. If Matthew 16:18 were a clearly a redaction, in our copies of the Bible (both Catholic and Protestant) you would have some kind of footnote. For example:

[1]Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the holy ones who are (in Ephesus) 2 faithful in Christ Jesus:​

2 [1] [In Ephesus]: the phrase is lacking in important early witnesses such as P46 (3rd cent.), and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th cent.), appearing in the latter two as a fifth-century addition. Basil and Origen mention its absence from manuscripts. See Introduction. Without the phrase, the Greek can be rendered, as in Col 1:2, “to the holy ones and faithful brothers in Christ.” (Ephesians 1:1, New Amercan Bible & footnote)

Your friend was probably the victim of “scholarly” speculation --or wishful thinking on the part of some anti-Catholic.

 

[epostle]

More “redactions”

Isa. 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
25 In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken."

Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an “office” and a “station.” An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.
This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

. 20: In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God’s people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church “Pope.” The Pope is the father of God’s people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ’s representative on earth.

22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ’s kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

23: And I will fasten him like a peg (Nail) in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus’ “keys” undeniably represent authority. By using the word “keys,” Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 RSV
7: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This “binding and loosing” authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish “halakah,” or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

 

[Ilroy]

Your best answer to this is tell them to pove it. They are making the claim, so they should have some sort of proof, or they should stop spreading this tripe.

 

[TMC]

How can I answer my friend, who heard that Matt. 16:18 was a “redaction” written after the Papacy was established and added to the Gospel to support the later structure of the Church? She wants to know how she can find out for sure if this is true, or if I can recommend something to read. She also wonders, if such a redaction could be proven, how can we believe anything in the New Testament?

My only answer so far is common sense: What kind of convincing evidence could support the idea of such a redaction? There would have to be a very early copy of the Gospel that left out that verse (as well as all the other verses supporting the primacy of Peter). I’m sure that if anyone had such a manuscript, it would have been trumpeted to the whole world by the anti-Catholics as soon as it was found!

I have heard claims that other things in Matthew were redactions, including Matthew 16:2-3, but not 16:18. I think that there are extant versions of Matthew from fairly early times, and I know that 16:18 is in Protestant Bibles. So, I guess in addition to “prove it”, and “why didn’t anyone notice til just now”, I might add that it is correct that 16:18 was not written until after the Papacy was established. Matthew was written somewhere between AD 60-90, the Papacy was established around AD 33 somewhere along the shores of the Sea of Galilee.

 

[Alice_Gershom]

My thanks to all of you for your answers! I was encouraged to find that my common sense idea had some merit. I enjoyed all those Biblical passages confirming the basic structure of the Catholic Church, esp. from the O. T. And as far as my talking about “after the establishment of the Papacy,” as if that happened centuries later, all I can say is “Oops!” and thanks for the correction.

My friend promises to get some evidence from the person who gave her the redaction idea. Should be interesting! But now she’s claiming that the whole point was that all of Matthew was written very late–which is not what she said originally. But in that case the problem becomes, not “Was Peter the first Pope?” but “How do we know anything in the Gospel is true?” I already sent her a defense of the early authorship of the Gospels, in case that came up.

She won’t tell me who this person is who’s giving her these challenges. Last time her source turned out to be The Davinci Code, so I hate to think…