Question on Textual Criticism for Conservatives

[DaRev]

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

Actually, that's called the "schwa" and it's a vowel point. Technically, it is made up of two "tittles."

 

[DaRev]

Missouri- Concordia, St. Louis

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.

 

[filosofer]

Where do you get "beth" from? The Greek text says "iota", the Greek letter, and "keraia", which means "point" or "dot."

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
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]

 

[filosofer]

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Double post, sorry.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[filosofer]

Actually, that's called the "schwa" and it's a vowel point. Technically, it is made up of two "tittles."

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
No, not the vowel point underneath the beth. I am referring to the extension of the letter beth itself. at the base and to the right. Difficult to see, but it is there.

Sometimes those who who learn to write Hebrew, don't pay attention to those serifs, and often miss it or don't even know that it is there.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[DaRev]

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

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..."

 

[filosofer]

We're arguing over nonsense.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Okay, if you say so. Actually it isn't nonsense, but I agree that it is a minor point.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[DaSeminarian]

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.

Probably because it make the most sense.

P.S., I love David Scaer. His work on Christology in the Lutheran Dogmatics series is a great read. Where does he teach?

Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, IN

Wait... you're saying Mark isn't one of the synoptics, with Matthew and Luke, at all?

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.

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...

Well lets see if you hold to Pontifical sources in these matters I am sure one could find the fault in them as well.

Thank goodness they don't.

 

[filosofer]

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"]
But isn't that the problem with Q as well, which you admitted later in the post?

[/font]

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)

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Actually you have only given a few reasons to "believe" that Mark takes priority. And none of your stated reasons are air-tight.

When I was at CSL, there was not an officially endorsed position on Markan priority. However, the professors (most now dead or retired) encouraged us to research it and realize the problems attendant to Markan priority. In the last 25 years of study, I am more and more convinced by the evidence that Mark is not the first Gospel. 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.



In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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.

What 'view on Scripture?'

Has anything I've said in this thread questioned the truth of any Scriptural statement? Any?

I mean, seriously, have I not made the case that Christ's words do not necessarily imply Mosaic authorship of the entity of the Penteteuch/Torah (big T)?

I'm not questioning Christ. I'm not questioning whether or not Christ said such things.

I'm questioning whether our Lord and Sacred Scripture binds me to believe in a rabbinic tradition of authorship read back into the text by the early and subsequent church.

And please, please don't bring up past threads because your statements are in reaction to my statements on this thread. What on this thread is so terribly problematic?

I mean, lets assume for a minute that I'm a complete inerrantist- I don't only believe in the factual truth of Scripture in all matters doctrinal, ethical, redemptive-historical, and metascientific (ie, creatio ex nihilo and original sin), but also secularly historical and scientific. What would be the problem?

Probably because it make the most sense.

Hypothetical conjectures posited by scholars that are neither Scriptural truths of the faith nor certainly the Gospel of Jesus Christ should not be forced upon believers by church authority, just as scholarly hypotheses have no place at the pulpit, because the authority of the church extends over the proclaimation of law and gospel.

Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, IN

I might have to look him up and send him a 'thank you' email. His straunch anti-Reformed position really helped me in studying the genera of the communicatio.

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.

Ohh, I see. You're saying that we shouldn't be grouping them as 'synoptics' at all.

Fair enough.

Well lets see if you hold to Pontifical sources in these matters I am sure one could find the fault in them as well.

Are you faulting me because I hold to something that the Roman pontiff holds to? Because I seem to remember them holding to the divinity and resurrection of Christ...

But isn't that the problem with Q as well, which you admitted later in the post?

Well yes I have my critiques of Q, but what admission are you refering to? I fear we may have a miscommunication in the works.

Actually you have only given a few reasons to "believe" that Mark takes priority. And none of your stated reasons are air-tight.

And I never intended them to be:

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.

I never intended to argue for Markan priority- just to point out that my reasons exist, and give an example or two, so that I could defend my seeing a 'synoptic problem' regarding the usage of Mark by Matthew and Luke and thereby the rationality of positing a common source (if even simply liturgically-oriented oral tradition) for common Matthean and Lukan material (quelle, or Q, meaning source in German, but not necessarily 'source text').

And if you want me to defend Markan priority.. ha, well, I'm on spring break and won't have access to books until I can get to the public library on Monday. But if you're willing to wait, I'm sure the thread will last another day.

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.

Really? That's extremely interesting, because for a long time I've held to an earlier date on John as well- mostly because the narratives as so vivid. His descriptions of Jerusalem and the area surround the temple mount are almost certainly those of an eyewitness.

It certainly falls within the pervue of this thread if you want to explain this here. If not, since it's your private research, I'll understand if you want to keep it to yourself or PM me. But man, that's really cool.

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.

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).

There are some presuppositions that have to be examined with regard to Markan priority, and that is the real problem area for the LCMS.

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.

Allow me to simply say two things on this point.

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.

Secondly, I do think the earliest Christians were uncomfortable with the bold new revelation of the incarnation in their first generations. I don't think it was a forged, later ascription of course. Even aside from all the actions he performed that God alone could do (forgiveness of sins, namely), he explicitly told them so in John 14-17! 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. Perhaps Paul's missions to the Gentiles, who were all too comfortable with divine-human interaction, helped the community along in coping with this great and awesome truth.

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- evidence Paul and Thomas' "My Lord and my God!").

Oh and one more thing:

Actually you have only given a few reasons to "believe" that Mark takes priority.

Blah blah so I said believe. My bad. It's the first time, I believe (oh no!), that I've used the term "believe" in reference to a scholarly hypothesis in this whole thread- I've strictly avoided it. Second, "every reason to believe" is a phrase. But it's all good.

 

[filosofer]

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.

It is more than reading about the hypotheses, it is actually dealing with the texts. Also, understanding the presuppositions behind the hypotheses.

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).

There is more behind the argument against Mosaic authorship. This could prove a sticking point, but four years at seminary ought to give you time to evaluate.

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.

Of course, the issue is whether Mark has a "low Christology". It is the presupposition behind that assessment that is one of the problems.

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.

You see, your argument supporting the high Christology of Revelation really contradicts what you claim about Mark's Christology.

BTW, Preterism might be a problem from an eschatological perspective in the LCMS.

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.

Interesting, because the greater affront for the Jewish Christian would be the ascription of Kyrios to Jesus because it is the divine, personal, revelatory name in the OT. Yet the NT does use that personal ascription readily.

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)

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
And that is why the presupposition of Mark's "low" Christology has to be challenged.

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 ).

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thanks filo! I'll take everything you've said into consideration. You're absolutely right that our text is the Word, and not textbooks about the Word.

One question, though:

BTW, Preterism might be a problem from an eschatological perspective in the LCMS.

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.

Other than these, what's the problem?

 

[DaRev]

I'm a preterist

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]

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...

Did you read my qualifying statements?

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.

Why is partial preterism a heresy?

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

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 ).

 

[Edial]

Why is partial preterism a heresy?

Partial Preterism is not considered to be heresy, since it allows for Christ's real 2nd Coming in the future.

However, Partial Preterism is primarily based on the understanding of the word "generation".
34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Then, they assume that generation is 30-40 years and conclude that these events already had happened.

But "generation" (Strong's 1074) also means a general type, or "kind" of people.

LK 16:8 "The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind (1074) than are the people of the light. ...

In Luke it presents as a kind (generation) of the people that belongs to this world as compared to a kind (generation) of people that belong to light.

There is even a stronger evidence (as per Christ's words) that generation in the context of the Pharisees also includes their forefathers.
So it is not necessarily 30-40 years.

Partial Preterism is weak on Scriptural (internal) evidence.

I could discuss this with you further, if you wish.

Full Preterism is heresy. And it is not even allowed to debate at these forums, as per CF rules.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Full Preterism is heresy. And it is not even allowed to debate at these forums, as per CF rules.

And quite correctly so.

I could discuss this with you further, if you wish.

Hey, I'm game. Seems like everyone has already laid their cards on the table as car as biblical criticism goes, anyway.

 

[seajoy]

Preterism is heresy.

What is preterism? I don't have Rev. or Future Rev. in front of my name, so forgive my ignorance . But if this is heresy, I want to make sure I'm not thinking it without knowing what it is.
I've found this thread to be interesting, but difficult for me to understand parts of.

Thanks guys.
seajoy

 

[Melethiel]

Preterism holds that the prophetic events described in the Gospels and Revelation (antichrist, judgment, etc) have already happened, including the return of Christ. 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.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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.

Namely the return of Christ to judge the living and the dead, the bodily resurrection of the dead, the renewal and transfiguration of the heavens and earth and all creation and glorification of believers, the banishment of all evil, and the marriage feast of the lamb.

Many partial preterists, like myself, also allow for a time of increasing tribulation and persecution, and perhaps the rise of a personal, final, antichrist.

So I'm really not sure what's so terrible about all that.