Actually, that's called the "schwa" and it's a vowel point. Technically, it is made up of two "tittles."
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Take a look at this web page:
Genesis 1
Under the bolded larger text, on the right side, ignore the small letter, the next letter to the left is the Hebrew letter beth. If you look to the lower right of this Hebrew letter, there is a very small extension at the bottom. That is the "tittle".
In Christ's love,
filo
Missouri- Concordia, St. Louis
[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]Where do you get "beth" from? The Greek text says "iota", the Greek letter, and "keraia", which means "point" or "dot."
[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]Actually, that's called the "schwa" and it's a vowel point. Technically, it is made up of two "tittles."
We're arguing over nonsense. The verse in Matthew has nothing to do with letters or vowel pointings. It is referring to the written Law as a whole. "Not the least letter, not even the most insignificant part..."Yes, yes, of course the Greek text has iota (which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew letter yodth). But look at BAGD, page 428 for keraia, and it gives "projection" or "hook" as part of a letter, a serif. My reference to the Hebrew letter beth is because the little extension at the base of the beth is an example of that keraia, or serif.
In Christ's love,
filo
[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]We're arguing over nonsense.
Why does seminary program training young men for the pastoral vocation need to endorse a single synoptic theory? It doesn't seem like theory one or the other bears on textual interpretation inasmuch as the exegesis is geared toward the homiletic proclaimation of Law and Gospel. It seems rather rigid to me.
P.S., I love David Scaer. His work on Christology in the Lutheran Dogmatics series is a great read. Where does he teach?
Wait... you're saying Mark isn't one of the synoptics, with Matthew and Luke, at all?
Most of the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission- the primary organ of the papal bureaucracy concerned with exegesis- hold to the two-source hypothesis as an answer to the 'synoptic problem.' Raymond E. Brown certainly did (although his scholarly focus was Johannine literature).
And, haha, I don't think evangelicals have much in the way of higher criticism...
[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]Well that's a bit of a strech. I mean, you could reconstruct an S document including all words that end in sigma. But why would you want to?
[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]And of course you're right- the two source hypothesis and Q material is dependent on Markan priority.
But I have every reason to believe that Mark takes priority as a gospel. It's the shortest gospel, and represents the 'lowest' Christology (I AM during the walking-on-water narrative in ch. 6 notwithstanding). It's also the first gospel mentioned in Papias, as I recall (Matthew is mentioned, but as logia or sayings, not as a gospel- possibly a reference to our hypothesized Q material, but I wouldn't even bother making a case for it)
DaRev said:I think that unless you begin to change how you view Scripture, you may have a very difficult time getting your certification. The MDiv degree requirements are not a guarantee of certification for ordination and a Call.
Luther1521 said:Probably because it make the most sense.
Luther1521 said:Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, IN
No, I am not saying that they are not synoptical, but that the differences in each are apparent. Matthew, Mark and Luke do have some commonalities, but there are larger differences that the untrained eye can not see.
Well lets see if you hold to Pontifical sources in these matters I am sure one could find the fault in them as well.
filosofer said:But isn't that the problem with Q as well, which you admitted later in the post?
Actually you have only given a few reasons to "believe" that Mark takes priority. And none of your stated reasons are air-tight.
GratiaCorpusChristi said:I know absolutely none of what I said establishes Markan priority, but hey, I'm tired, and really I started the thread just to know if there was anything wrong with biblical criticism in-and-of-itself, removed from all the liberal theories, radical skepticism, and downright heresy propogated by the scholarly communities that use it as a tool.
Also, with Dr. Weinrich's reasoning at FW (I took him for John's Gospel as my last STM course), I am leaning toward an early date for John's Gospel, perhaps the earliest.
As far as I know, holding to Markan priority does not disqualify a man from serving as pastor in the LCMS. But holding such a position without requisite study of alternatives might.
There are some presuppositions that have to be examined with regard to Markan priority, and that is the real problem area for the LCMS.
Actually you have only given a few reasons to "believe" that Mark takes priority.
Of course. And I'm well aware of the other hypotheses (Farrer hypothesis, the well-thought-of Griesbach hypothesis, the Augustinian hypothesis, etc.). It only makes sense that a seminary instruct it's students in a wide variety of positions.
I'm also glad to hear that CSL doesn't require assent single hypothesis. That would seem silly to me, since Scripture doesn't require a single hypothesis on synoptic authorship (and of course, DaRev, I understand that you believe Scripture requires belief in the authorship by Moses of the vast majority, excluding the death scene, of the Torah... but I really, honestly do interpret those passages differently).
Ahhh... like one of the reasons for Markan priority being that it has a 'lower' Christology than the others? I can certainly understand why leadership in the LCMS and orthodoxy Christianity at large would find this problematic, especially since it implies that the ascription of divine titles to Jesus of Nazareth would considerably later innovations.
First, I'm a preterist, and I think Kenneth Gentry did a fantastic job in Before Jerusalem Fell in dating the Book of Revelation to sometime before A.D. 70. And yet the book of Revelation contains some of the absolute highest Christology in the entire New Testament. Indeed, it's the only book where we get hints both of 'preexistence' Christology and 'virginal conception' Christology. It's beautiful and amazing. And Hebrews, which I also take to be written before A.D. 70 (based on eb 10:2 and a reference to the ongoing nature of temple sacrifices), contains some very high Christology and even one of the few explicit references to Jesus as Theos.
Yet nevertheless, all the New Testament writings seem quite squeemish about openly refering to Christ as God (sort of weird, since they readily use the title Lord, Kyrios, the LXX translation of the more sacred name, Yahweh). It took a little time, I think, for the early Jewish Christians to come entirely to grips with the fact that God was incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, reconciling himself to the world.
[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]To make a long story short, I suppose I could see why a 'low' Christology, then, would evidence against (not 'rule out') a later date, but and while and however a 'high' Christology would not necessarily evidence against an early date (since some of them clearly came to grips with the fact that God was no longer 'set apart, set apart, set apart' quite early)
BTW, Preterism might be a problem from an eschatological perspective in the LCMS.
I'm a preterist
DaRev said:Preterism is heresy. I do believe that would disqualify you from being a pastor in the LCMS.
Then again, with the way the synod is going...
GratiaCorpusChristi said:I'm not a full preterist, if that's what you're thinking. Christ will come again in glory to judge both the living and the dead, who shall be bodily resurrected on the renewed earth.
I simply mean that substantial portions of Daniel 9, Mark 13 (and parallels), and parts of Revelation were fulfilled during the intertestament period, in the coming of Christ, and in the events of A.D. 70.
BTW, I thank you and DaRev for this thread and the dialog. Good food for thought. May God bless your continued study of the Word (and not just textbooks about the Word).
Partial Preterism is not considered to be heresy, since it allows for Christ's real 2nd Coming in the future.Why is partial preterism a heresy?
Edial said:Full Preterism is heresy. And it is not even allowed to debate at these forums, as per CF rules.
I could discuss this with you further, if you wish.
What is preterism? I don't have Rev. or Future Rev. in front of my name, so forgive my ignorancePreterism is heresy.
Melethiel said:Partial Preterism is similar...it links the destruction of the Temple, the persecutions of Nero, etc to certain passages in Scripture, but allows for some events to be in the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?