Question on Textual Criticism for Conservatives

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hi all. I wanted to post this in the open forum so everybody could discuss the matter, although my question is directed toward my fellow conservatives in the LCMS and WELS.

I understand that conservative American Lutherans, especially the LCMS, have a bad history with textual criticism. Our German forefathers in faith came here to escape the heresies of Friedrich Schleiermacher, only to find the American church engaged in the same- and so began the LCMS (I understand there were many, many other factors, not least the Prussian Union).

I also understand that Schleiermacher and his intellectual descendents used their textual-critical techniques to undermine the authority of Scripture and question doctrines of the faith. Schleiemacher, in his systematic theology, went to far as to place the doctrine of the Trinity at the end of the work.

I also understand that textual-critical theories undermine key events in salvation history. The current textual consensus on the Torah is that it, along with the Former Prophets, were composed by an author (redactor) sometime after the return from exile under Cyrus the Great of Persia. The author/redactor composed the Torah and the Former Prophets from a number of previous hypothetical documents, labled J, E, P, and D.

Now I reject this 'documentary hypothesis' as such, not least for the reason that it involves the composition in a power-play by Cyrus, Nehemiah, and Ezra (Ezra the scribe being the proposed redactor who weaved together the stories and law codes of JEPD into the Torah and Former Prophets).

But,

What is it we find wrong with textual-criticism in and of itself? For instance, Christ points to the Torah as the 'books of Moses.' Even dismissing the (partly valid) argument that this is not a lable denoting authorship, is the idea that Moses himself (under the Spirit's guidence) weaved together earlier written tales about the patriarchs to form, say, Genesis, so terribly wrong?

Anyway I'm not challenging Confessional Lutheran orthodoxy on this point. I really just want to know if the tool of textual-criticism is simply rejected for its association with heretical theology, or if there is something unethical about deceivering hypothetical documents (like the Book of Jasher in Joshua 10) weaved into the Scriptural narrative.

 

[DaRev]

What is it we find wrong with textual-criticism in and of itself? For instance, Christ points to the Torah as the 'books of Moses.' Even dismissing the (partly valid) argument that this is not a lable denoting authorship, is the idea that Moses himself (under the Spirit's guidence) weaved together earlier written tales about the patriarchs to form, say, Genesis, so terribly wrong?

To qualify, I am not an expert on Old Testament text-criticism. However, it is quite obvious that Moses' writing of the accounts of Genesis were based upon earlier oral traditions and records. This does not, however, dismiss the Spiritual inspiration of these accounts. God the Holy Spirit guided not only Moses in His recording of these things, but also in the preservation of these accounts to the time of Moses, just as He does to this day.

There are several places in the New Testament that conclude the Torah to be written by Moses. In Mark 12:26, Jesus mentions "the book of Moses." In the Greek text it reads "biblo Mouseos" which literally means "written record of Moses." There is little doubt of the authorship of the Torah attributed to Moses.

The LCMS outright rejects the JEPD source/redaction theory.

Anyway I'm not challenging Confessional Lutheran orthodoxy on this point. I really just want to know if the tool of textual-criticism is simply rejected for its association with heretical theology, or if there is something unethical about deceivering hypothetical documents (like the Book of Jasher in Joshua 10) weaved into the Scriptural narrative.

The quoting of non-Biblical writings by Biblical authors in no way qualifies the quoted source as holy writ. Jude. in his epistle, quotes a couple of New Testament era apochryphal writings, but that in no way makes the quoted works inspired or canonical. The human authors may have used statements from other known works of the time to make the point they were trying to make under Divine guidance, nothing more.

Does that help?


PS - I'm sure this was a typo, but what does "deceivering" mean?

 

[seajoy]

.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

However, it is quite obvious that Moses' writing of the accounts of Genesis were based upon earlier oral traditions and records. This does not, however, dismiss the Spiritual inspiration of these accounts.

Of course not, and I would never question the inspiration or authority of Sacred Scripture.

In the Greek text it reads "biblo Mouseos" which literally means "written record of Moses."

See here's what I really, honestly, do not understand about this defense of Mosaic authorship.

If I were to say 'the books of Thomas Jefferson,' I could mean a whole variety of things besides authorship. I could certainly mean 'the books authored by Thomas Jefferson,' but actually the first thing I would think was 'the books owned by Thomas Jefferson,' as well as 'the books about Thomas Jefferson,' 'the books representing the basic worldview of Thomas Jefferson,' or even just 'the books somehow related to Thomas Jefferson.'

I'm not defending the documentary hypothesis by any stretch of the imagination. It is highly problematic, for both theological and textual reasons. I just don't know why the words of our Lord necessarily imply Mosaic authorship of the whole of the Torah (though at the very, very least, I affirm that all the law codes were written under his personal authority). I'm not denying Mosaic authorship, and I'm perfectly comfortable with people believing in Mosaic authorship- I just see it as required by Holy Scripture.

The LCMS outright rejects the JEPD source/redaction theory.

I can certainly understand this. The theory is highly problematic for textual, archaeological, literary, and yes, theological reasons.

But are the official LCMS objections based on textual evidence, theological reasons, its rejection of Mosaic authorship, or simply their affiliation with Schleiermacher and his ilk?

The quoting of non-Biblical writings by Biblical authors in no way qualifies the quoted source as holy writ.

Certainly, not at all. Jude is a good example too- his citation of 1 Enoch in no way makes 1 Enoch an inspired text. Same with Joshua and Jasher.

PS - I'm sure this was a typo, but what does "deceivering" mean?

Hahah, deciphering.

Wow, I'm too dumb for this thread.

Aw, haha! It's ok, these things are far too obscure, and they're just the silly ideas of silly people.

 

[DaSeminarian]

I had recently come across this idea that Deuteronomy was written during the exile in Babylon, but didn't know what to make of the supposition.

I kind of agree with DaRev in the fact that LCMS rejects those sources JEP & D that are mentioned in the Opening post.

 

[IowaLutheran]

Don't you have to at least concede that Deuteronomy 34 was not written by Moses? This chapter describes the death, burial, and 30 day mourning period for Moses.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I had recently come across this idea that Deuteronomy was written during the exile in Babylon, but didn't know what to make of the supposition

I'd actually never heard that theory, myself. Most of the time, at least here at my college, it's presented as thought Deut. was 'forged' by priest-scribes during the reformation of King Josiah.

Which is of course nonsense, since you'd actually expect to find scrolls in the walls of temples in the ancient world (where Josiah found Deut.) deposited there during construction, and we often do.

 

[BigNorsk]

I think I'm starting to understand the question.

You aren't asking about textual criticism on the level of examining the text and trying to understand it.

And you aren't asking about textual criticism on the level of taking the manuscript evidence and determining as we best can the original text.

You are talking about the field of higher criticism where people treat the Biblical text like the text of any other book, and they examine the history and the cultures of the time trying to determine where the text originates from.

So you would end up with say Mary, looking for traditions around that time that would have had a virgin giving birth, and you would say that was taken from that religion and used by Christians.

And you would keep on doing it for all the doctrines and such in the Bible and you would publish all kinds of theories and such about it.

You would also theorize about intermediate forms and additions and such to the text and try to get back to an original. Such as has been done repeatedly with the synoptic Gospels.

Here's the major problem. The one source that doesn't work at all in such a system is any sort of supernatural source. All the stories and such in the Bible are treated simply as fables and superstitions just as they are for all other religions. Jesus wasn't really born of a Virgin, that's just a story borrowed from someone else's story.

The Bible isn't really authoritative in such a system at all. Man wrote it borrowing whatever from whomever, and it's all a fictitious account to explain to people where Israel came from. Pretty much the same as using the cabbage patch to explain to children where children come from.

Now here's where the biggest problem in my opinion comes in. You have now reduced the greatest witness to God, to a book of nursery rhymes. So what does it really tell you about God? Really under that system, the natural end is that God, becomes a concept, a fairy tale, borrowed from the fairy tales of other cultures. That's the problem.

Marv

 

[DaRev]

See here's what I really, honestly, do not understand about this defense of Mosaic authorship.

If I were to say 'the books of Thomas Jefferson,' I could mean a whole variety of things besides authorship. I could certainly mean 'the books authored by Thomas Jefferson,' but actually the first thing I would think was 'the books owned by Thomas Jefferson,' as well as 'the books about Thomas Jefferson,' 'the books representing the basic worldview of Thomas Jefferson,' or even just 'the books somehow related to Thomas Jefferson.'

I'm not defending the documentary hypothesis by any stretch of the imagination. It is highly problematic, for both theological and textual reasons. I just don't know why the words of our Lord necessarily imply Mosaic authorship of the whole of the Torah (though at the very, very least, I affirm that all the law codes were written under his personal authority). I'm not denying Mosaic authorship, and I'm perfectly comfortable with people believing in Mosaic authorship- I just see it as required by Holy Scripture.

If you see it as required by Holy Scripture, then what is your argument??

Here's some help. First know that what the New Testament calls "the Law" it is referring to all of the Torah. It's actually an English translation problem.

Then read these verses:

Exodus 24:4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

Deuteronomy 31:9 So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.​

Mark 10:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

Mark 12:19 "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother.

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote-- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

John 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.


I think the Scriptures speak pretty plainly and clearly about Mosaic authorship of the Torah. When one starts to doubt or deny the Mosaic authorship, it starts a domino effect throughout all of Scripture.​

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You aren't asking about textual criticism on the level of examining the text and trying to understand it.

And you aren't asking about textual criticism on the level of taking the manuscript evidence and determining as we best can the original text.

You are talking about the field of higher criticism where people treat the Biblical text like the text of any other book, and they examine the history and the cultures of the time trying to determine where the text originates from.

Correct.

However, I feel it's very important in light of your subsequent remarks to point out that although textual criticism takes a methodologically naturalist approach to the text, and treats the biblical text like 'any other book,' it does not a priori exclude the idea that the texts are the accurate recordings of divine activity in history (see example below).

So you would end up with say Mary, looking for traditions around that time that would have had a virgin giving birth, and you would say that was taken from that religion and used by Christians.

Mostly correct. Textual criticism per se only really looks at the 'lines of dependence' between written texts- real or hypothetical. So for instance, a text critic might say that a particular passage in Matthew or Luke is literarily dependent on a passage in Mark.

But a textual critic can only say if a passage is historical or not if that passage is shown to be literarily dependent on a completely unrelated text.

For instance, the Blessed Virgin Mary (a fine example, since I actually know something about it due to my various endeavours to prove the historicity of the virginal conception). A 'higher' textual critic uses tools of the trade to see if the text of Matthew 1:23 (or surrounding text) and Luke 1:27 and 34 (or surrounding text) is literarily dependent on the various pagan mythologies surrounding divine-human couplings.

And actually in this instance, honest textual criticism has been quite helpful in defending Christian truth. The text of the infancy narrative is in no way literarily dependent on any existing text (Hesiod, Homer, Ovid, etc.) recording pagan divine-human mating myths. Through the tool of textual criticism, we're able to say with a good degree of certainty that the biblical stories of the virgin birth are not dependent on written pagan texts.

On the other hand, the historian, not the text critic, is the one who asks whether the story that lies behind the text is dependent on another story. Here, 'lines of dependence' do not require textual/phaseiological similarity, but only similarity in story structure. Yet here too, honest historians have been quite helpful. Raymond Brown, the first and only American head of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and both textual critic, exegete, and oft-time historian, surveyed the various pagan divine-human coupling myths throughout the ancient world in his book The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection. In it, he concluded that there is no parallel to the biblical story of the virginal conception/birth in the ancient world (basically because the pagan stories involving divine-human mating to produce semi-divine offspring, whereas there are no such connotations in the biblical account).

So really, textual criticism and critical history have been quite helpful in some cases. To round out the story- Raymond Brown concluded that we cannot historically establish the virgin birth. Through secular methods, we cannot determine what inspired the accounts in Matthew and Luke. However, as Christians under the authority of Scripture, we can, should, and must believe in them. But what Brown has done is effectively demonstrate (using textual criticism and critical history) that something other than a historical viriginal conception does not lie behind the narratives.

You would also theorize about intermediate forms and additions and such to the text and try to get back to an original. Such as has been done repeatedly with the synoptic Gospels.

Actually, this is the real task of textual criticism- to establish lines of textual dependence.

And you're right- the synoptic gospels are one of the two major biblical groupings (the other being the Torah) where textual critics have hypothesized an intermediate document: Q Source. (Personally I think Q Source is a much better hypothesis than the documentary hypothesis).

But what is wrong with hypothesizing intermediate texts in-and-of-itself?

Here's the major problem. The one source that doesn't work at all in such a system is any sort of supernatural source. All the stories and such in the Bible are treated simply as fables and superstitions just as they are for all other religions. Jesus wasn't really born of a Virgin, that's just a story borrowed from someone else's story.

See I would say that people who say that aren't honest textual critics, because they're not addressing a textual issue.

For instance, the text of my history paper on Nazi Germany may be textually dependent (i.e., it cites) the great Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and perhaps other sources as well. But that in no way means that my history paper isn't recording actual historical events, nor less that The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich did not record actual events.

It's absolutely true that textual critics go off the deep end far too often, and I spend a lot of time defending the truth of Scriptural history here at my college. But if, say, a text is dependent on another text, that text may dependent on a historical event. And maybe, just maybe, that historical event may have been a point of divine action within human history.

Hope that helps explain my desire to ask what's wrong with textual criticism in-and-of-itself, since I actually see the discipline as providing us with apologetic tools.

If you see it as required by Holy Scripture, then what is your argument??

Haha, oops. I meant I don't see it as required by Holy Scripture. Wow, big mistake. No, the negative implication was the conclusion to my wholely negative argument with all the Thomas Jefferson examples and whatnot. Between that and 'deceivering,' my typos are getting fun. Lets see how many end up in this post....

Here's some help. First know that what the New Testament calls "the Law" it is referring to all of the Torah. It's actually an English translation problem.

See there again I'm unconvinced. I understand that 'torah' is a single Hebrew word that can mean 'teachings,' 'law,' or specifically the Penteteuch- but I don't understand why it must always mean the Penteteuch in every instance. It's not as though they had no word for 'teachings' or 'law' and couldn't talk about non-Mosaic teachings or laws without everybody getting extremely confused and thinking they were talking about the Penteteuch.

Then read these verses:

Exodus 24:4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

Deuteronomy 31:9 So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.​

Mark 10:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

Mark 12:19 "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother.

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote-- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

John 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

And absolutely, as I said before, at the very, very least I affirm that the statutes of the Penteteuch were authored under the authority of Moses, as they were divinely revealed to him on Mt. Sinai.

I just don't understand why these passages, affirming Mosaic authorship of corresponding passages of the Penteteuch (and specifically the legal codes [torah]... the only except being John 5:46, which I believe refers to a narrative section of Deut.), implies Mosaic authorship of the entirety of the Penteteuch, especially the narratives.

Again, I'm perfectly comfortable with someone believing in Mosaic authorship. And, unlike some people, you won't see me using the argument 'Maybe Jesus was dumbing down his speech to communicate to listeners on their level.' True as that may be in some cases (indeed, it's true of the incarnation into human flesh itself), it's an admitedly silly argument. But I really don't see why the literal letter of our Lord's words require belief in the Mosaic authorship of the entirety of the Penteteuch.

When one starts to doubt or deny the Mosaic authorship, it starts a domino effect throughout all of Scripture.

That's a rather broad statement. Care to explain?

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Textual criticism approaches the Bible as any other book. It begins something like reading a dictionary with a telescope. You are going to find patterns in this pursuit that are new and creative. You can make a name for yourself and thus its attraction.

It leads to patterns like JEDP and I,II,III Isaiah. But are these patterns not being created and interpreted whimsically? Do they lead closer to a better appreciation of the Biblical record? Or do they devalue?

Once you see the Bible as an other book, a community event, you start looking for the real authors and real meanings and real writings, you are slip sliding away at a rather fast pace.

But I do think we need to be careful of over-reaction which happens alot. TC's raise questions like anyone else that should be answered. It is how we answer their question that reveals quite a bit about ourselves.

Few however can do this and none better than Hummel in his OT survey. He addresses many of the TC concerns and gives solid answers. He certainly addresses Mosaic authorship.

Cheers,
Cosmic

 

[DaRev]

Correct.
However, I feel it's very important in light of your subsequent remarks to point out that although textual criticism takes a methodologically naturalist approach to the text, and treats the biblical text like 'any other book,' it does not a priori exclude the idea that the texts are the accurate recordings of divine activity in history (see example below).
Mostly correct. Textual criticism per se only really looks at the 'lines of dependence' between written texts- real or hypothetical. So for instance, a text critic might say that a particular passage in Matthew or Luke is literarily dependent on a passage in Mark.
But a textual critic can only say if a passage is historical or not if that passage is shown to be literarily dependent on a completely unrelated text.
For instance, the Blessed Virgin Mary (a fine example, since I actually know something about it due to my various endeavours to prove the historicity of the virginal conception). A 'higher' textual critic uses tools of the trade to see if the text of Matthew 1:23 (or surrounding text) and Luke 1:27 and 34 (or surrounding text) is literarily dependent on the various pagan mythologies surrounding divine-human couplings.
And actually in this instance, honest textual criticism has been quite helpful in defending Christian truth. The text of the infancy narrative is in no way literarily dependent on any existing text (Hesiod, Homer, Ovid, etc.) recording pagan divine-human mating myths. Through the tool of textual criticism, we're able to say with a good degree of certainty that the biblical stories of the virgin birth are not dependent on written pagan texts.
On the other hand, the historian, not the text critic, is the one who asks whether the story that lies behind the text is dependent on another story. Here, 'lines of dependence' do not require textual/phaseiological similarity, but only similarity in story structure. Yet here too, honest historians have been quite helpful. Raymond Brown, the first and only American head of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and both textual critic, exegete, and oft-time historian, surveyed the various pagan divine-human coupling myths throughout the ancient world in his book The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection. In it, he concluded that there is no parallel to the biblical story of the virginal conception/birth in the ancient world (basically because the pagan stories involving divine-human mating to produce semi-divine offspring, whereas there are no such connotations in the biblical account).
So really, textual criticism and critical history have been quite helpful in some cases. To round out the story- Raymond Brown concluded that we cannot historically establish the virgin birth. Through secular methods, we cannot determine what inspired the accounts in Matthew and Luke. However, as Christians under the authority of Scripture, we can, should, and must believe in them. But what Brown has done is effectively demonstrate (using textual criticism and critical history) that something other than a historical viriginal conception does not lie behind the narratives.
Actually, this is the real task of textual criticism- to establish lines of textual dependence.
And you're right- the synoptic gospels are one of the two major biblical groupings (the other being the Torah) where textual critics have hypothesized an intermediate document: Q Source. (Personally I think Q Source is a much better hypothesis than the documentary hypothesis).
But what is wrong with hypothesizing intermediate texts in-and-of-itself?
See I would say that people who say that aren't honest textual critics, because they're not addressing a textual issue.
For instance, the text of my history paper on Nazi Germany may be textually dependent (i.e., it cites) the great Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and perhaps other sources as well. But that in no way means that my history paper isn't recording actual historical events, nor less that The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich did not record actual events.
It's absolutely true that textual critics go off the deep end far too often, and I spend a lot of time defending the truth of Scriptural history here at my college. But if, say, a text is dependent on another text, that text may dependent on a historical event. And maybe, just maybe, that historical event may have been a point of divine action within human history.
Hope that helps explain my desire to ask what's wrong with textual criticism in-and-of-itself, since I actually see the discipline as providing us with apologetic tools.
Haha, oops. I meant I don't see it as required by Holy Scripture. Wow, big mistake. No, the negative implication was the conclusion to my wholely negative argument with all the Thomas Jefferson examples and whatnot. Between that and 'deceivering,' my typos are getting fun. Lets see how many end up in this post....
See there again I'm unconvinced. I understand that 'torah' is a single Hebrew word that can mean 'teachings,' 'law,' or specifically the Penteteuch- but I don't understand why it must always mean the Penteteuch in every instance. It's not as though they had no word for 'teachings' or 'law' and couldn't talk about non-Mosaic teachings or laws without everybody getting extremely confused and thinking they were talking about the Penteteuch.
And absolutely, as I said before, at the very, very least I affirm that the statutes of the Penteteuch were authored under the authority of Moses, as they were divinely revealed to him on Mt. Sinai.
I just don't understand why these passages, affirming Mosaic authorship of corresponding passages of the Penteteuch (and specifically the legal codes [torah]... the only except being John 5:46, which I believe refers to a narrative section of Deut.), implies Mosaic authorship of the entirety of the Penteteuch, especially the narratives.
Again, I'm perfectly comfortable with someone believing in Mosaic authorship. And, unlike some people, you won't see me using the argument 'Maybe Jesus was dumbing down his speech to communicate to listeners on their level.' True as that may be in some cases (indeed, it's true of the incarnation into human flesh itself), it's an admitedly silly argument. But I really don't see why the literal letter of our Lord's words require belief in the Mosaic authorship of the entirety of the Penteteuch.

I would suggest you try to contact Rev. Dr. David Adams at Concordia Seminary with your questions regarding OT text criticism and the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Like I said, I am not expert in this field, but he most certainly is.

You also seem to think that the Torah and the Penteteuch are two seperate things. The Torah is the first 5 books of the OT. The word "Torah" can also mean strictly the "law" but the word encapsules much more than just "rules" to be followed. In the Greek NT the word used is "nomos." When referring to the writings of Moses, it means the Torah, the first 5 books of the OT. The NT often refers to the OT writings as "the Law and the Prophets" or sometimes Law, Psalms, and Prophets. This, BTW, is what the Jews call the OT - TaNaK -Torah, Nivi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (psalms & writings)

That's a rather broad statement. Care to explain?

When one cuts down one part of Scripture, such as questioning or denying the words of Jesus (or Paul or Peter or whoever) in the Scripture, it leads to the cutting down of other parts of the Scripture as well. The theological turmoil in the ELCA is a perfect example. Their insistance in higher-critical interpretation has basically abandoned much of the New Testament, allowing for their practices of women's ordination, open communion and the denial of necessity of belief in the Real Presence, homosexual tolerance, support of abortion, etc. It's a slippery slope that gets slicker and slicker the further down you slide.

 

[DaSeminarian]

I would suggest you try to contact Rev. Dr. David Adams at Concordia Seminary with your questions regarding OT text criticism and the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Like I said, I am not expert in this field, but he most certainly is.

You also seem to think that the Torah and the Penteteuch are two seperate things. The Torah is the first 5 books of the OT. The word "Torah" can also mean strictly the "law" but the word encapsules much more than just "rules" to be followed. In the Greek NT the word used is "nomos." When referring to the writings of Moses, it means the Torah, the first 5 books of the OT. The NT often refers to the OT writings as "the Law and the Prophets" or sometimes Law, Psalms, and Prophets. This, BTW, is what the Jews call the OT - TaNaK -Torah, Nivi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (psalms & writings)



When one cuts down one part of Scripture, such as questioning or denying the words of Jesus (or Paul or Peter or whoever) in the Scripture, it leads to the cutting down of other parts of the Scripture as well. The theological turmoil in the ELCA is a perfect example. Their insistance in higher-critical interpretation has basically abandoned much of the New Testament, allowing for their practices of women's ordination, open communion and the denial of necessity of belief in the Real Presence, homosexual tolerance, support of abortion, etc. It's a slippery slope that gets slicker and slicker the further down you slide.

Let's also remember that a good number of those "Higher Critics" were a part of the LCMS until 1974. Some of them have even been colloquized back into the LCMS in the years since then and it is they who plague our synod with heretical and heterodoxical ideals with groups like Daystar and JesusFirst and even though Renewal in Missouri is no longer a functional group they have their leaders still roaming the churches within our synod.

 

[Edial]

An ELCA conservative's view ...

...
What is it we find wrong with textual-criticism in and of itself? For instance, Christ points to the Torah as the 'books of Moses.' Even dismissing the (partly valid) argument that this is not a lable denoting authorship, is the idea that Moses himself (under the Spirit's guidence) weaved together earlier written tales about the patriarchs to form, say, Genesis, so terribly wrong?

Anyway I'm not challenging Confessional Lutheran orthodoxy on this point. I really just want to know if the tool of textual-criticism is simply rejected for its association with heretical theology, or if there is something unethical about deceivering hypothetical documents (like the Book of Jasher in Joshua 10) weaved into the Scriptural narrative.

I think the major flaw of textual criticism lies in it's inability to conclude on certain matters based on an external evidences.
They do take into consideration the internal evidence of the Bible, but often not of higher priority than that of the external.

External evidence however, is not necessarily reliable in all cases.

For example, based on external evidence (medical in this case) it was thought that when the text described Christ sweating sweat that looked like blood, many critics concluded that the drops of the sweat did not contain blood, but just reflected the size of the blood drops.
(Such comments are still recorded in various commentaries).
Later on however, the medical science determined that it is possible to have blood seep inside the sweat drops in cases of the extreme stress.
Then, many commentaries changed their view and commented that sweat indeed looked red.

What I am saying is that the commentaries did not take the internal evidence of the text itself, but prioritized it lower to that of the external evidence, the medical science of the times.

Textual Criticism in itself is a good tool, in my opinion.
But it often takes external evidences (sciences, history and even lack of historical data) as a foundation upon which it critiques the text.
It also does refer to the internal evidences of the Bible (what does the text actually says), but uses that as a secondary criteria by which to judge the historical validity of the accounts.

Textual Criticism is good if it changes it's priorities, it's approach towards establishing it's opinion.
And priorities should be in such an order with a slight tweak:
1. What does the Bible say?
2. Do history and sciences disprove that what it says by facts and not theories nor a lack of physical evidence?

In plain terms, in 2000 years no one could prove errors in the Bible.

Yet many still do not believe the events of the Bible, not because these are disproven, but because they often use the inadequate scientific or medical theories and prioritize such theories (very unfairly, in my opinoin) over the plain text of the Scriptures, the internal evidence.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DaSeminarian]

An ELCA conservative's view ...
I think the major flaw of textual criticism lies in it's inability to conclude on certain matters based on an external evidences.
They do take into consideration the internal evidence of the Bible, but often not of higher priority than that of the external.

External evidence however, is not necessarily reliable in all cases.

For example, based on external evidence (medical in this case) it was thought that when the text described Christ sweating sweat that looked like blood, many critics concluded that the drops of the sweat did not contain blood, but just reflected the size of the blood drops.
(Such comments are still recorded in various commentaries).
Later on however, the medical science determined that it is possible to have blood seep inside the sweat drops in cases of the extreme stress.
Then, many commentaries changed their view and commented that sweat indeed looked red.

What I am saying is that the commentaries did not take the internal evidence of the text itself, but prioritized it lower to that of the external evidence, the medical science of the times.

Textual Criticism in itself is a good tool, in my opinion.
But it often takes external evidences (sciences, history and even lack of historical data) as a foundation upon which it critiques the text.
It also does refer to the internal evidences of the Bible (what does the text actually says), but uses that as a secondary criteria by which to judge the historical validity of the accounts.

Textual Criticism is good if it changes it's priorities, it's approach towards establishing it's opinion.
And priorities should be in such an order with a slight tweak:
1. What does the Bible say?
2. Do history and sciences disprove that what it says by facts and not theories nor a lack of physical evidence?

In plain terms, in 2000 years no one could prove errors in the Bible.

Yet many still do not believe the events of the Bible, not because these are disproven, but because they often use the inadequate scientific or medical theories and prioritize such theories (very unfairly, in my opinoin) over the plain text of the Scriptures, the internal evidence.

Thanks,
Ed

And what University or Seminary did you receive your degree in Textual Criticism? I think DaRev stated that and ELCA conservative is an Oxymoron. Which are you? The oxy or the other?

I would do as DaRev suggests and get in touch with Dr. Adams at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis or Dr. Charles Gieschen at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne. Both men have expertise in this field.

 

[Edial]

And what University or Seminary did you receive your degree in Textual Criticism? I think DaRev stated that and ELCA conservative is an Oxymoron. Which are you? The oxy or the other?

I would do as DaRev suggests and get in touch with Dr. Adams at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis or Dr. Charles Gieschen at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne. Both men have expertise in this field.

Scott, I think that both of us should get in touch with whoever we see the need for.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I would suggest you try to contact Rev. Dr. David Adams at Concordia Seminary with your questions regarding OT text criticism and the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Like I said, I am not expert in this field, but he most certainly is.

As long as you don't think he'd mind.

You also seem to think that the Torah and the Penteteuch are two seperate things.

Oh, no no no. I see why it was confusing. I simply restricted my termiology to 'Penteteuch' (a term I rarely use) in order to indicate that I was specifically talking about Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., and Deut, instead of using torah, which can mean either the Penteteuch or have wider connotations simply meaning instruction (which is the use I see in our Lord's words).

When one starts to doubt or deny the Mosaic authorship, it starts a domino effect throughout all of Scripture.

That's a rather broad statement. Care to explain?

When one cuts down one part of Scripture...

But I'm not. I'm trying to make the point that our Lord's words do not necessarily mean the whole of the Penteteuch, and could instead mean only the legal codes.

I agree it's a slippery sloap when one starts to cut down parts of Scripture. But I really see no reason to think that our Lord's words necessarily imply Mosaic authorship of the whole (or even that vast majority, baring the death scene) of the Torah.

 

[DaRev]

As long as you don't think he'd mind.

Never hurts to ask.

Oh, no no no. I see why it was confusing. I simply restricted my termiology to 'Penteteuch' (a term I rarely use) in order to indicate that I was specifically talking about Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., and Deut, instead of using torah, which can mean either the Penteteuch or have wider connotations simply meaning instruction (which is the use I see in our Lord's words).

But I'm not. I'm trying to make the point that our Lord's words do not necessarily mean the whole of the Penteteuch, and could instead mean only the legal codes.

But you need to understand the terminology of the people of that time and culture. The Torah are the writings of Moses which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. That is what is referred to as the Torah, or the Law (capital "L") in English, or the "writings of Moses."

I agree it's a slippery sloap when one starts to cut down parts of Scripture. But I really see no reason to think that our Lord's words necessarily imply Mosaic authorship of the whole (or even that vast majority, baring the death scene) of the Torah.

But that indeed is what it means (barring the death narrative which most likely was concluded by Joshua). There is nothing in the context of Scripture that suggests otherwise, and there is no other source indicated for those writings apart from Moses. Therefore, that is what we believe.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But you need to understand the terminology of the people of that time and culture. The Torah are the writings of Moses which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. That is what is referred to as the Torah, or the Law (capital "L") in English, or the "writings of Moses."

Well, I suppose I'll have to ask the good doctor about the cultural context, unless you'd like to provide a quote from Josephus, Philo, intertestament literature, or the Mishnah.

But I would really, really like some proof that torah (small t = laws, teachings) and its cognate nomos always and exclusively means the Penteteuch/Torah (big T).

There is nothing in the context of Scripture that suggests otherwise, and there is no other source indicated for those writings apart from Moses. Therefore, that is what we believe.

Of couse. I can naturally see why somone would believe in Mosaic authorship of the Torah. I just don't see why it's absolutely required by the letter of Scripture, because, again, 'books of Moses' does not necessarily mean 'books authored by Moses' and our Lord's references to Mosaic authorship, while binding on the passages in question and probably the law code (torah small t = nomos), do not necessarily imply comprehensive and total authorship of the entire Penteteuch/Torah (big T) narrative.

 

[DaRev]

Well, I suppose I'll have to ask the good doctor about the cultural context, unless you'd like to provide a quote from Josephus, Philo, intertestament literature, or the Mishnah.

But I would really, really like some proof that torah (small t = laws, teachings) and its cognate nomos always and exclusively means the Penteteuch/Torah (big T).



Of couse. I can naturally see why somone would believe in Mosaic authorship of the Torah. I just don't see why it's absolutely required by the letter of Scripture, because, again, 'books of Moses' does not necessarily mean 'books authored by Moses' and our Lord's references to Mosaic authorship, while binding on the passages in question and probably the law code (torah small t = nomos), do not necessarily imply comprehensive and total authorship of the entire Penteteuch/Torah (big T) narrative.

Are you still considering seminary?