Not part of the text
There have been some recent posts on Better Bibles Blog about the impact of the headings given to passages in a large number (the majority?) of modern translations of Scripture. Two key issues touched on are the placing of headings and the interpretative function of headings. Both these examples come from texts used in (mainly inter-evangelical) controversies. They are, however, symptomatic of a much broader problem, and one that is not confined to headings.
I have often been struck by those churches that use pew bibles, or bibles rather than lectionaries for readings in church, how often the heading is read out as part of the scripture reading. On the course I teach I regularly have to point out to students that the headings they quote so blithely are not necessarily what the passage is about, far less that they are themselves part of the passage. I often have to make a similar and related point about notes in the unfortunately ubiquitous “study bibles.” I am, in fact increasingly thinking about banning the use of study bibles in classroom discussions in order to get people to focus on the text.
I have opened my (rather old) copy of the NIV at random, and I find Matthew 22:23-33. This is entitled “Marriage at the resurrection.” First, I must note, this is a relatively uncontroversial heading in terms of any ongoing disputes. But I must also ask whether this is actually what the passage is about, rather than being the surface topic of debate between Jesus and the Sadducees. Jesus does say something about marriage at the resurrection rather than sidestep the question, and what he does say points arguably in the direction of an androgynous non-gendered humanity, which is not quite about marriage at the resurrection, but human nature.
Principally, however, it is the actuality of the resurrection, and testimony to it even in the books that the Sadducees take as scripture that is at stake here, not marriage. Is the heading the NIV chooses oversimplified? Does it side-step the awkward and unapproved (in contemporary terms) pattern of Jesus’ exegesis? And does it simply avoid what might be a more provocative heading: “Jesus sides with the Pharisees” — which would have rather more relevance to helping interpret the verses that immediately follow?
I notice this phenomenon of treating headings as scripture seems far more prevalent in evangelical churches, and among more evangelical students on courses. On the courses they are also those students most likely to use and quote from the notes of the study bibles. There is a fascinating irony here: those who most strongly stress the authority of the scripture alone in theory are those who in practice are quickest to supplement it (at worst) or read it only within the bounds of the traditions enshrined in the headings and footnotes.