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? :scratch: ;)

[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? :scratch: ;)

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?? :confused:

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?? :confused:

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. :wave: 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. :wave: 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?

[filosofer]

There is still a problem of terminology. When Biblical scholars use the term textual criticism it has a specific referent, and it is not the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch nor the Q hypothesis for a pre-Gospel writing. Textual criticism refers to examining the original language manuscripts and the variations between manuscripts. Secondarily it involves examining the text of translations (specifically LXX, Latin, Aramaic targums, etc for the OT).

Two of the better texts for getting into this topic are:

The Text of the Old Testament by E. Wurthwein (1979)

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emmanuel Tov (1992)

For a beginning study of the Septuagint(s) and textual criticism, consider this book as a starting point:

Invitation to the Septuagint by Moises Silva and Karen Jobes

Now, based on this starting point for textual criticism, there is no evidence textually for the documentary hypothesis. In other words there are no manuscripts in which JEDP or any other such hypothetical document exists.

Likewise for Q in the New Testament.

In both cases, scholars present literary constructs trying to establish something outside of the evidence of the existing manuscripts, and what they consider "behind" the text.

In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

For a study of the OT Canon (which is a related topic, but not specifically textual criticism), there is an excellent book published recently by CPH:

The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon by Andrew Steinmann



In Christ's love,
filo

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Are you still considering seminary?

Yup.

Keep in mind that I don't ascribe to the documentary hypothesis, especially in it's contemporary JEPD form.

I'm simply saying A. I don't understand what's wrong with higher criticism in-itself (especially since, as demonstrated with the Marian example, it can be a useful apologetic tool) and B. I don't understand why Christ's words necessitate a belief in Mosaic authorship of the whole of the Torah.

I understand that even that can be problematic within the LCMS (and, of course, that critical bibilical methodology and study is not the vocation of a pastor as has no place at the pulpit, because the pulpit is the kerygma of Law and Gospel). But I don't see why my two points can't be defended within the general biblical-theological framework espoused by the LCMS (even if this has generally not been the case, since rarely are critical approaches associated with doctrinal conservatives).

There is still a problem of terminology. When Biblical scholars use the term textual criticism it has a specific referent, and it is not the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch nor the Q hypothesis for a pre-Gospel writing. Textual criticism refers to examining the original language manuscripts and the variations between manuscripts. Secondarily it involves examining the text of translations (specifically LXX, Latin, Aramaic targums, etc for the OT).

You're right. Textual criticism is a popular term that actually means 'lower criticism,' which establishes the original form of a text based on all the extant manuscripts and early church citations.

Higher criticism, and it's various subdisciplines (form criticism, narrative criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism, etc.) is what we have been discussing.

For a study of the OT Canon (which is a related topic, but not specifically textual criticism), there is an excellent book published recently by CPH:

The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon by Andrew Steinmann


Sounds cool, I'll have to check it out.

Currently I'm reading A History of Israel: From Conquest to Exile by John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb. It basically covers Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles from an inerrantist perspective ("The authors have approached the Old Testament text with full confidence that the original words... were inspired by God and therefore absolutely inerrant."). The period is really quite interesting (especially for a politics major with a Mideast focus). The book also addresses most of the supposed 'contradictions' in the biblical account (such as the 'twin deaths' of Saul, which it reconciles in an honest and simply manner). I'm reading it in tandum with a JSP translation of the Prophets (Nevi'im): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.

I've really gotten into Old Testament recently. I guess it's a natural consequence of moving ever-father away from my parent's dispensationalist congregation and toward a focus on covenantal economy and redemptive history.

[filosofer]

You're right. Textual criticism is a popular term that actually means 'lower criticism,' which establishes the original form of a text based on all the extant manuscripts and early church citations.

Higher criticism, and it's various subdisciplines (form criticism, narrative criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism, etc.) is what we have been discussing.

There is a distinction, but not as you have written; rather, it's the other way around: "lower criticism" is the popular term, "textual criticism" is the technical term. Consider Tov:

Textual criticism deals with the origin and nature of all forms of a text, in our case the biblical text. This involves a discussion of its putative original form(s) and an analysis of the various representatives of the changing biblical text. The analysis includes a discussion of the relation between these texts, and attempts are made to describe the external conditions of the copying and the procedure of textual transmission. Scholars involved in textual criticism ... [p. 1]


Regarding "higher criticism", it isn't some of the tools that are suspect, but the assumptions behind them. Thus, we can and should study the literary forms of the Biblical text. We need to distinguish between narrative portions and poetic sections, wisom sayings, etc. There are many tools available to help us with this.

Notice, however, that the documentary hypothesis is not based on the existent texts nor on manuscript evidence. It also is not based on a literary analysis of the text, but a literary analysis of a reconstructed text. It does not treat the text as it exists (aside from text critical differences) but requires a re-arranged, divided text (pulling sections here and there) based on the appearance of a specific word/phrase, when there is no literary evidence to suggest such re-structuring of the text.

Consider the Q hypothesis: Find one shred of evidence for its existence as a real thing apart from its literary construct. And what is Q? It is defined as the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. It is a defined construct within a hypothesis, no different than if someone claims that S is a "document" - where S includes all words that end in SIGMA in the Greek text of Paul's writings. I can construct such a thing. But that does not mean that there is evidence that such a thing actually existed, or is a predecessor of any of Paul's actual written letters.

And why the need for Q? Because it is based on the assumption that Mark is the first Gospel. If you assume that Mark is not first, there is no need for Q. Read this book from a scholar who moved away from such a construct in the Synoptic Gospels:

Redating Matthew, Mark, Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham (1992)

In Christ's love,
filo

[DaRev]

Originally Posted by DaRev
Are you still considering seminary?
Yup.

Which synod?

[filosofer]

Yup.

Currently I'm reading A History of Israel: From Conquest to Exile by John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb. It basically covers Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles from an inerrantist perspective ("The authors have approached the Old Testament text with full confidence that the original words... were inspired by God and therefore absolutely inerrant."). The period is really quite interesting (especially for a politics major with a Mideast focus). The book also addresses most of the supposed 'contradictions' in the biblical account (such as the 'twin deaths' of Saul, which it reconciles in an honest and simply manner). I'm reading it in tandum with a JSP translation of the Prophets (Nevi'im): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.


One note: the use of the term "inerrant" has some Reformed baggage. It comes from B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), Princeton theologian, eventually coming into the LCMS through Fritz and Arndt. However, Warfield's referent for inerrant was the "autographs". The problem no one has ever seen the autographs. And what if Matthew wrote his Gospel in both Aramaic and Greek, but they differ. Which is the autograph? Prior to the time of Warfield, the common referent (of inspired, infallible, without error text) was the existent original language texts. Note how Jesus speaks about not one "jot or tittle" (smallest Hebrew letter and the extension of a few consonants), which means he was referring the existent manuscripts there that they used in first century Judea, since earlier Hebrew texts (pre-Babylonian captivity) were not written in the same form.



I've really gotten into Old Testament recently. I guess it's a natural consequence of moving ever-father away from my parent's dispensationalist congregation and toward a focus on covenantal economy and redemptive history.

That's a good endeavor, and I encourage you in this. I think it is wise for all Christians to study the Old Testament as well as the New. Sadly, too many pastors forget Hebrew or never really learned it, and consequently tend to avoid the Hebrew Scriptures, or use borrowed thoughts as the basis for their sermons. Of course, I am a proponent of the position that pastors continue to learn and use both Greek and Hebrew. But that is just me. :preach:

:D :amen:

In Christ's love,
filo

[DaRev]

"jot or tittle"

You do realize that "jot or tittle" is a KJV term and not from the Greek text, don't you? :confused:

[C.F.W. Walther]

I've really gotten into Old Testament recently. I guess it's a natural consequence of moving ever-father away from my parent's dispensationalist congregation and toward a focus on covenantal economy and redemptive history.I though higher critisism was part of the dispensationals? If you are promoting partial critisism then wouldn't you be reverting back to the dispesationals theology?

[filosofer]

You do realize that "jot or tittle" is a KJV term and not from the Greek text, don't you? :confused:

Yes, but most people are familiar with the expression, so that is why I used it. Better than ESV (in terms of familiarity):

Matthew 5:18: For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

iota is a Greek letter, not Hebrew (the Hebrew letter is yodth), and the extension of the Hebrew letter bet(h) is certainly not a dot.

If only we could use Hebrew and Greek so that everyone could see it in the right font. I will try to find an example of it and link here.

In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

I though higher critisism was part of the dispensationals? If you are promoting partial critisism then wouldn't you be reverting back to the dispesationals theology?

They are not necessarily related.

In Christ's love,
filo

[Melethiel]

If only we could use Hebrew and Greek so that everyone could see it in the right font. I will try to find an example of it and link here.

If you use the language settings on the computer keyboard, it will work. βλέπεις?

[filosofer]

If you use the language settings on the computer keyboard, it will work. βλέπει?

If everyone uses the same computer and the same fonts (Win, Mac, Linux, etc.). Yes, on my Mac OS X I have several Hebrew and Greek fonts that I use daily, natively typing Hebrew right to left. But unless another person can match that, it won't turn out correctly, and then it is frustrating.

In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

Take a look at this web page:

Genesis 1 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0101.htm)

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

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Which synod?

Missouri- Concordia, St. Louis (with some time at Westfieldhouse)

I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of liberal.

One note: the use of the term "inerrant" has some Reformed baggage. It comes from B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), Princeton theologian, eventually coming into the LCMS through Fritz and Arndt. However, Warfield's referent for inerrant was the "autographs". The problem no one has ever seen the autographs. And what if Matthew wrote his Gospel in both Aramaic and Greek, but they differ. Which is the autograph? Prior to the time of Warfield, the common referent (of inspired, infallible, without error text) was the existent original language texts. Note how Jesus speaks about not one "jot or tittle" (smallest Hebrew letter and the extension of a few consonants), which means he was referring the existent manuscripts there that they used in first century Judea, since earlier Hebrew texts (pre-Babylonian captivity) were not written in the same form.

I don't think our Lord was refering to the text of the manuscripts, but rather the content of the law... a preemptive strike against antinomianism.

That's a good endeavor, and I encourage you in this. I think it is wise for all Christians to study the Old Testament as well as the New. Sadly, too many pastors forget Hebrew or never really learned it, and consequently tend to avoid the Hebrew Scriptures, or use borrowed thoughts as the basis for their sermons. Of course, I am a proponent of the position that pastors continue to learn and use both Greek and Hebrew. But that is just me. :preach:

I totally agree. Hebrew might end up being quite difficult for me, but I really can't imagine maintaining consistent exegesis on all three readings for each week without (unless I read from the LXX, which would be... well... eh...).

I though higher critisism was part of the dispensationals? If you are promoting partial critisism then wouldn't you be reverting back to the dispesationals theology?

Actually I've never heard of a dispensationalist who uses higher critical techniques.

The only relation I can think of is the higher critical propensity for dating the writing of New Testament texts, and the mid-Acts dispensationalist rejection of anything but the Pauline epistles as normative in the 'church age.' But the dispensationalists reject the other writings as presently normative because of they are 'too Jewish,' and not for any, well, real reasons.

[BigNorsk]

Higher criticism and dispensationalism are two separate things, they did kind of get going at about the same time so I can understand a bit of a link though.

I would like to go back a bit to how I linked higher criticism and using supposed history though as sources.

Take that synoptic gospel as a big part of higher criticism. Note how there isn't actually any provable history associated with the supposed common document.

I see the same sort of thing done all the time in the practitioners of higher criticism. If they can find some evidence historically, they use it to back up their theories. If they can't, they make it up.

Maybe at one time they weren't linked, I don't know. But now the two are so intertwined as to be hard to separate them.

Mostly to me it seems to be a system with the primary purpose of cranking out PhD's. Other things really seem kind of secondary. In order to get a PhD you have to come up with something new. So people do. Doesn't matter if there's really any evidence or not, just keep coming up with theories and throwing them out there and get your degree and go into teaching more people to do the same.

That's the cubbyhole I have it in in my mind.

Marv

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Consider the Q hypothesis: Find one shred of evidence for its existence as a real thing apart from its literary construct. And what is Q? It is defined as the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. It is a defined construct within a hypothesis, no different than if someone claims that S is a "document" - where S includes all words that end in SIGMA in the Greek text of Paul's writings. I can construct such a thing. But that does not mean that there is evidence that such a thing actually existed, or is a predecessor of any of Paul's actual written letters.

And why the need for Q? Because it is based on the assumption that Mark is the first Gospel. If you assume that Mark is not first, there is no need for Q. Read this book from a scholar who moved away from such a construct in the Synoptic Gospels:

Redating Matthew, Mark, Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham (1992)


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?

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)

Now you're never hear me refer to a 'Q [Source] Gospel' and much less the imaginative 'Q Community' of Burton Mark infamy. All such thinking is devoid of any intellectual merit whatsoever. The idea that we can take a hypothesized block of material and hypothetically assign it the title of 'gospel' (when there isn't really even 'good news' proclaimed in it), and then reconstruct a hypothetical community that wrote and used the source material with a hypothetical history based on hypothetical divisions within the hypothetical order of the 'text' is pure nonsense. I can't believe any serious scholar thinks that, even though there are a good number of folk who present themselves as scholars to the media.

That said, I don't see why the material common to Matthew and Luke couldn't have been drawn from a common well of information based on oral traditions in the early church and possibly a written text. Kenneth Bailey has written a wonderful little article called 'Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels' in which he demonstrated through anthropological investigation the use of information controls in rural Mideastern culture (ancient and modern) in the transmission of proverbs, wisdom sayings, parables, and narratives. It's been quite helpful is dismissing a hypothesized textual Q Source- but allowing for a common body of oral material circulating in early church liturgical structures.

Anyway, all of that is a long way of saying that I ascribe to the two source hypothesis and a Q source, without ascribing to a Q text, Q gospel, Q community, and Q history.

I mean, although I reject the documentary hypothesis (for both textual and theological reasons), I really, really don't see any problems with the two source hypothesis. I mean, Luke actually says he uses sources in his prologue.

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'll try and find that book, though.

[Crankhandle]

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/astatement.pdf

Look at the section on Holy Scripture. It seems to flesh out the synod's view on textual criticism higher and lower. I personally think criticism is the "slippery slope" that has ruined the ELCA among other liberal denominations. It is my prayer that it will not ruin the LCMS as well.

[DaSeminarian]

There is still a problem of terminology. When Biblical scholars use the term textual criticism it has a specific referent, and it is not the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch nor the Q hypothesis for a pre-Gospel writing. Textual criticism refers to examining the original language manuscripts and the variations between manuscripts. Secondarily it involves examining the text of translations (specifically LXX, Latin, Aramaic targums, etc for the OT).

Two of the better texts for getting into this topic are:

The Text of the Old Testament by E. Wurthwein (1979)

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emmanuel Tov (1992)

For a beginning study of the Septuagint(s) and textual criticism, consider this book as a starting point:

Invitation to the Septuagint by Moises Silva and Karen Jobes

Now, based on this starting point for textual criticism, there is no evidence textually for the documentary hypothesis. In other words there are no manuscripts in which JEDP or any other such hypothetical document exists.

Likewise for Q in the New Testament.

In both cases, scholars present literary constructs trying to establish something outside of the evidence of the existing manuscripts, and what they consider "behind" the text.

In Christ's love,
filo


Dr. David Scaer would agree with you on the Q or Source documents. There is no proof that Mark was the first Gospel written. Both Seminaries will teach that Matthew was the first Gospel written with Luke being second and Mark the third Gospel and finally John.

Each Gospel has a different audience to which it is directed. Matthew was written by the disciple as a final book of the OT. Luke wrote a Narrative to his patron Theophilus which is actually a two part narrative beginning with Jesus as the Son of God. The genealogy goes back to Adam whereas the Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus to be the Promised one of the Jews from Abraham.

Mark's Gospel does not get into details as the other two. But is more concerned with what Jesus did and where he went. If you read carefully through you will notice the word "Immediately" quite often appears during Jesus miracles. The end of Mark's Gospel is different as well. There is a report of his resurrection, but he really doesn't give much more. John is the most introspective of Jesus' life. It is not synoptic though there are a couple of accounts from the other three that in some way appear in his as well.

The Reformed and American Evangelicals have pretty much settled on the Q source, whereas the Lutherans and Roman Catholics have not.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Dr. David Scaer would agree with you on the Q or Source documents. There is no proof that Mark was the first Gospel written. Both Seminaries will teach that Matthew was the first Gospel written with Luke being second and Mark the third Gospel and finally John.

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?

Mark's Gospel does not get into details as the other two. But is more concerned with what Jesus did and where he went. If you read carefully through you will notice the word "Immediately" quite often appears during Jesus miracles. The end of Mark's Gospel is different as well. There is a report of his resurrection, but he really doesn't give much more. John is the most introspective of Jesus' life. It is not synoptic though there are a couple of accounts from the other three that in some way appear in his as well.

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

The Reformed and American Evangelicals have pretty much settled on the Q source, whereas the Lutherans and Roman Catholics have not.

I really don't think that's the case.

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...

[DaRev]

iota is a Greek letter, not Hebrew (the Hebrew letter is yodth), and the extension of the Hebrew letter bet(h) is certainly not a dot.

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

[DaRev]

Take a look at this web page:

Genesis 1 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0101.htm)

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."


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

[filosofer]

Double post, sorry.

In Christ's love,
filo

[filosofer]

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

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

[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.

Okay, if you say so. ;) Actually it isn't nonsense, but I agree that it is a minor point.

In Christ's love,
filo

[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?

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



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)



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

[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. :P 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)

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 ;) ).:wave:

In Christ's love,
filo

[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... :doh:

[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... :doh:

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 ;) ).:wave:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[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 :blush: . 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.

[DaRev]

The problem with preterism of any form is that it takes some of the prophetic statements and ends them in the 1st century. While it is true that some prophecies of the OT were indeed finally fulfilled before the Parousia (return of Christ on the Last Day), a vast majority of prophecies have multiple fulfillments, all pointing to the Parousia. The fall of Jerusalem is one such "partial" fulfillment. The preterists see it as a final fulfillment of certain prophecies, but the fall of Jerusalem itslef points ahead to the final destruction of the sinful world and the coming of the new heavens and the new earth.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The problem with preterism of any form is that it takes some of the prophetic statements and ends them in the 1st century. While it is true that some prophecies of the OT were indeed finally fulfilled before the Parousia (return of Christ on the Last Day), a vast majority of prophecies have multiple fulfillments, all pointing to the Parousia. The fall of Jerusalem is one such "partial" fulfillment. The preterists see it as a final fulfillment of certain prophecies, but the fall of Jerusalem itslef points ahead to the final destruction of the sinful world and the coming of the new heavens and the new earth.

Aha. I suppose this is what Kim Riddlebarger means in A Case for Amillennialism when he refers to singular prophecies lookings forward to multiple fulfillments as 'prophetic perspectives.'

As it stands, I'm quite comfortable with that. Many brand of partial preterism is in no way postmillennial and foresees a literal, a literal antichrist, and a literal banishment of sin, death, and the devil.

[Edial]

to seajoy ... What is preterism? I don't have Rev. or Future Rev. in front of my name, so forgive my ignorance :blush: . 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

Full Preterists believe that all this below already happened, even the 2nd Coming of Christ (vv.30-31).
They believe that because of v.34 - this generationwill certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

They say that since "generation" is always 30-40 years, then everything below already happened even the 2nd Coming, at 70AD (destruction of the Jewish Temple).

Yet "generation" has different meanings in the NT besides the 30-40 years.
It also has a meaning of a generation of the Pharisees together with their forefathers.
Also of a type, or a kind of people, such as people of the world or the people of light.

Partial Preterists believe everything below happened at 70AD, besides the 2nd Coming.
And they still believe that "generation" always means 30-40 years.

Full Preterism is a full blown heresy, since it denies a bodily 2nd Coming of Christ.

Partial Preterism however, is something that cannot be taken seriously from Scriptural sense, because it picks and chooses what to believe or disbelief as happening at the 70AD destruction of the Temple, in the text below.

However, PP gains popularity especially in the Calvinist circles and in within circles of denoms that follows Amillenianism.

MT 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
MT 24:4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, `I am the Christ, n ' and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
MT 24:9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
MT 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place `the abomination that causes desolation,' n spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand-- 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again. 22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or, `There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
MT 24:26 "So if anyone tells you, `There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, `Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
MT 24:29 "Immediately after the distress of those days
" `the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' n
MT 24:30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
MT 24:32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it n is near, right at the door. 34 I tell you the truth, this generation n will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

[seajoy]

Thanks Ed...Whew, I'm not a hairytick!

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Partial Preterists believe everything below happened at 70AD, besides the 2nd Coming.
And they still believe that "generation" always means 30-40 years.


Well, not everything. The second coming isn't the only thing partial preterists foresee in the future- including the resurrection of the dead, final judgment, banishment of sin, death, and the devil, the marriage feast of lamb, and possibly (like myself) a period of increasing tribulation and a final antichrist figure.

[greg1290]

So how many think the abomination of desolation (http://jesus-survival.com/Abomination-desolation.htm), has already happened 50/50?

[DaRev]

So how many think the abomination of desolation (http://jesus-survival.com/Abomination-desolation.htm), has already happened 50/50?

Just more dispensationalist hooey.

Don't ever pay attention to people who try to predict dates of things. Jesus Himself said that He was not privy to such information in His humanity. What makes us think that we can figure it out.

Such things come in God's time. We need to be prepared as though it's coming right now.