In issue 103 (1984) of the Journal of Biblical Literature, Bruce Malchow shared a few interesting thoughts on the identity of “the messenger of the covenant” in Malachi 3:1. I plan to share my own thoughts on the verse in future posts, but I will begin with an observation on Malchow’s notion of redaction in Malachi. Some scholars thing “Malachi” is a generic name lifted from 3:1. It simply means “my messenger” in Hebrew. I for one, take Malachi to be written entirely by a man named Malachi. This reflects the tendency of a prophet’s life to mirror his message (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, et al).
Now, I can understand how many scholars take 4:4-5 and perhaps even all of chapter 4 (in the English) to be a later addition, but I remain unpersuaded. Many scholars, of course, see a redactor present throughout the entire book of Malachi, not simply at the end. These scholars usually attempt to solve the difficulties of chapter 3 by chalking it up to the work of a redactor. Verses 1-5 are confusing because they change voice from the first person, to the third and then back to the first person. Malchow writes:
Several scholars suggest that it is more likely that all or large parts of vv 1b-4 are a later addition to the text. It seems that this whole section is an addition. This explains why v 1a and v 5 are in the first person, and vv 1b-4 are in the third. Also, v 5 continues the discussion of general evildoers begun in 2:17, while 3:2-4 deals with purifying the Levites. (Malchow, 253)
My question is Would a redactor really be this stupid? I’ve always struggled with these kinds of solutions. I recall writing middle school “research” papers and my classmates were much more skilled at plagiarizing the Encyclopedia Britannica than this redactor was at combining his sources. Junior high students can make their sources at least somewhat fit the rest of their paper. Would a literate Hebrew really not be able to know that his work is so shoddy? Does he not understand the difference between the first and third person? It seems reasonable to me that a literate Hebrew would have smoothed these sorts of things out if he thought it was worthwhile to redact in the first place. I realize my comments are not based on a very sophisticated understanding of redaction, but I think they are still worthy of consideration.
See Bruce V. Malchow, “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal. 3:1,” JBL 103 (1984) 252-55.
Camden-
Two questions 1) Are you on Twitter?
2) Have you been able to derive benefit from the Redactionist school from such men as Leonard Goppelt. Are youn aware that he was John Piper’s doctorate ‘Father’ until he died suddenly?