Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, July 28, 2014

World War I 100 years ago today: Why? (Read Pieper)

Today, July 28, 2014, marks the 100-year anniversary of World War I.

Why do I bring this topic to this blog?  Because there were many German-American Lutherans in this land at that time.  The early fathers of the Missouri Synod came from Germany, many to escape persecution of Lutheranism in their fatherland.  And as I have perused the writings of those who lived through the "Great War" from the old (German) Missouri Synod, they presented a refreshing basis of true history that either refutes the worst of modern history, or filled in the true reasons for the anger that built into the so-called "Great War".  Why?... why are they the best source of true history?  Because all other historians ignore or are ignorant of the true motives involved as they ignored matters of the true faith, Christianity.

There has been a resurgence of books written recently purporting to give a more complete or incisive analysis of why this war started.  I have examined several for reference, but only to compare them to what I have learned from the German-American Lutherans of the old (German) Missouri Synod.  Virtually all of the history books take no notice of the religious aspects or underlying motives.

The old (German) Missouri Synod could see right through the motives of all sides.  But if you really want to learn of why the war began and progressed to its horrible stature, you will study especially...Franz Pieper.  It was especially Franz Pieper who struck at the heart of all matters involved, for he not only read the papers from around the world and kept himself informed on all events, but he also believed God at His Word.
Again, the best of these was none other than...

Franz Pieper, the Twentieth Century Luther!

Oh, how I have wished that he lived to record the true history of... World War II.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Luther Bible-Pt 6: Grammar of Gen. 4:1b; Keil-Delitzsch; "letters people"; Jews reject true grammar, maybe also the LC-MS?

     This Part 6 continues from Part 5 (Table of Contents in Part 1) presenting my (BTL) translation of Prof. Pardieck's Lehre und Wehre article in 1914 on Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1.  Luther's translation is virtually unknown in today's world because it has been corrupted.  Why?  Read on...
     We meet with the technical terminology of grammar in this section.  I recall learning about grammar many decades ago, and have long forgotten the meaning of "accusative", "transitive" and "particle", although I remember a few things about "prepositions" and "adverbs".  But on this question of the meaning of Genesis 4:1b, the old (German) Missouri Synod showed that it was the defender of the true Lutheran Church, for it claimed to be the master of the Hebrew grammar, and grammar in general.  But they did this only by faith... the same as Martin Luther.  Since Luther said "The grammar is Empress", it almost makes me want to pick up a book on "Grammar" and restudy this important science of language.
     Keil and Delitzsch, who were German Lutheran theologians, are well known names among today's theologians as authorities in the Biblical languages.  And the English Reformed publishers have had their German writings translated and published.  But we see in Prof. Pardieck's analysis that both Keil and Delitzsch certainly stumbled or fell at times in their scholarship on the Hebrew meaning of Genesis 4:1b.  With Hunnius, the "Missourians" would call Eve our "holy mother" in the true faith, faith in the "man-Jehovah" whom we now call in the New Testament time... Jesus Christ.
Hebrew characters have been graphically added back in from the original text.
Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 6: Page 343-344   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 
How does it stand now with the establishment of the Lutheran translation?  There it should be said: it has the grammar for itself.  This is actually generally conceded that this is the only translation that may be allowed when seen against the grammar.  Keil says in his commentary: "The 343-Hebrew01.jpg with Luther: to believe ‘a man the Lord’ as closer determining apposition to 343-Hebrew02.jpg, would be quite allowed grammatically, however it is in the sense inadvisable".  About the "in the sense inadvisable" we shall hear more later.  Here we only register the concession: "allowed grammatically". Similarly Delitzsch: "Is 343-Hebrew03.jpg here the accusative sign or the preposition?  The words seem to mean: I have acquired or brought forth a man, the Jehovah; because frequently is found after an initial accusative a second, closer to determining with 343-Hebrew04.jpg: [Genesis] 6:10; 26:34; Isaiah 7.17, while 343-Hebrew05.jpg as adverbial phrase meaning 'with Yahweh" does not occur otherwise, but instead (because 343-Hebrew06.jpg, 49:25, is questionable) 343-Hebrew07.jpg, 1 Samuel 14:25".  And now comes the usual dogmatic and "historical revelation" doubts.  In his "Messianic Prophecies" he even says: "The impression that 343-Hebrew04.jpg in 343-Hebrew09.jpg, [Genesis] 4:1 b, qualifier of the object (like 6:10, 26:34) is so strong, that the Jerusalemite Targum translates: I have acquired a man, the angel Yahweh. But this interpretation already lapses because the angel of Yahweh occurs only after the patriarchal period enters into history and consciousness." (page 30, “Anm. 1”).  In the dispute with the Lutherans, the grammar was granted more or less unopposed.  They well said mockingly: they are letters people, they would have nothing but grammatical reasons for themselves.  Sebastian Schmidt testified on this against Rivetus: "We wonder indeed that such a learned man can argue so foolishly.  Are not then the grammatical reasons, in laying out the Scriptures, among the strongest and first?  Must one then not observe the meaning and usage of the individual words according to [Page 344] their character?  Can then not already one argument from grammar suffice?"  These are not just frivolous ideas of our own, but we have reason in the grammar, which even the Jews could take if they did not in a vicious way simply not want to; because the Jews also argue with the grammar".  Now, there is a stronger argument in the exegesis of course not from grammar, that is the word meaning and the usus loquendi.  The sense thus obtained must remain as the right one, as long as the Scripture itself does not protest against it, or, as Luther expresses it, it is against an article of faith.  With earnestness Luther and other theologians have made such sayings: The grammar is Empress. The church is grammatical.  Because God has revealed his will to us in human language, and it concerns the understanding of the word, our theology is for the most part philology.  God's Word is not theologically understood if it has not been previously understood grammatically.  Whoever has the grammar in its full sense for himself and no other clear Scripture against him, has the right understanding of a passage on his side.
The individual arguments in support of the Lutheran translation is summarized by Gerhard in seven points, which are then often cited and approved by the following exegetes.  We state them briefly in turn and make a few brief observations. Gerhard says "Their accuracy is evident (1) from the original meaning of the word 343-Hebrew03.jpg.  The particle 343-Hebrew04.jpg is in its proper and usual meaning of the sign of the accusative when it is constructed with active or transitive verbs.  This from this meaning one is not to depart unless there is an obvious coercion."  Pfeiffer gives the rule quite in general and positively thus: "343-Hebrew04.jpg is, when an active verb precedes it by which it is governed, always nota accusativi.  Of this there is no exception (non datur dissimile exemplum)".  Calov gives the same rule thus: "Wherever the particles 343-Hebrew04.jpg are found in front of a noun which is governed by an active transitive verb, then is it the rule (ordinarie) the sign of the accusative".  When one by these formulations the more precise determination of of the rule: "if 343-Hebrew04.jpg is constructed with a transitive verb”, "wanted to press "if it is governed by a transitive verb", then a pretty worthless, self-evident truth would come out that would be almost tantamount to: If it is accusative, it is accusative; because if it indicates something other than the object case, it is not "governed by" and "constructed with" the transitive verb as such.  To say, however, in general: if 343-Hebrew04.jpg stands for a transitive verb, then you will only be able to say, and can you say: then it is the rule nota accusativi.  In the majority of cases so far in which 343-Hebrew04.jpg signs are of the accusative, even with a transitive verb where one naturally first [Page 345] has to think of the object, this assumption has always an enormous presumption of its own. –  
= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 7  = = = = = = = =

     This part ends with the first of seven points made by John Gerhard.  Unfortunately Pardieck does not give the specific place in Gerhard's Loci where the above may be found.  I must say it is quite difficult to translate Pardieck's material on the Hebrew grammar.  If you are like me, this may seem a little over the top in its technical terms of grammar, but Pardieck and the true Lutheran theologians are dealing with divine matters...  matters that matter... for eternity.  If you are a layman like myself and get into Strong's numbering of biblical words, I suspect there may well be some misinformation going on with word meanings.  For example one online-interlinear Hebrew Bible, BibleHub, seems to put forth the typical Reformed error which is repeated ad nauseum.
     According to my "Concordia Self-Study Bible, NIV" (CS-SB) from 1986 (Robert G Hoerber, General Editor), the following comment is made on the NIV version of Genesis 4:1b which reads "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man":
Eve acknowledged that God is the ultimate source of life (see Acts 17:25). According to Luther's translation ("I have the man, the Lord") Eve believed that her son was the fulfillment of the promise in 3:15.
Dear reader, do you believe the CPH's CS-SB editors believed Luther's translation?  Hmmm, good question... they certainly did not affirm it., but did they not also explicitly deny Luther's translation?  (John Gerhard did affirm it).  Oh, I thought this passage was a Lutheran shibboleth (?).  But isn't CPH and the LC-MS Lutheran?  Good question again...

Gerhard's next six (of seven) points on grammar will be covered in the next Part 7.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Luther Bible-Pt 5: Lutheran shibboleth, Gen. 4:1; Rydecki & Aegidius Hunnius, UOJ again

     This Part 5 continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1) presenting my (BTL) translation of Prof. Pardieck's Lehre und Wehre article in 1914 on Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1.  Luther's translation is virtually unknown in today's world because it has been corrupted.  Why?  Read on...
     Now we reach a focal point in Pardieck's essay showing that Luther's translation of Genesis 4:1 was a "shibboleth" for Lutheranism in opposition to the Calvinists.  Now we see once again the sorry state of external "Lutheranism" today that has hardly even heard of Eve's confession of the Proto-Evangel, the Gospel of Genesis 3:15.  Today's "Lutheranism" says of this topic: "whatever"!... and follows the judaizing Calvinists.  Not so for the old (German) Missouri Synod.
Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 5: Page 342-343   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 
Now the translation "the Lord" was almost a shibboleth of Lutheranism.  That was now the Lutheran translation of  342-Hebrew01.jpg,  and the opposite was seen as Calvinist, indeed judaizing exegesis.  Since it is on the Lutheran side a closed phalanx, the Calvinistic interpreters distributed themselves across the other translation methods.  Only one of the Reformed theologians, Konrad Pelikan, concurred with the Lutheran view.
The Lutheran theologians took the matter very seriously.  They were very certain of the emptiness in their [Calvinist] translation and understanding.  Sebastian Schmidt goes to his Disputatio with the prayer: "Grant, oh Man-Jehovah, that we are looking for you, that we will find you, that we keep you, through the Holy Spirit, whom thou hast breathed with your Father from eternity (spirasti)".  And he concludes it with thanksgiving to the God who made ​​us not only according to the flesh but after the spirit and faith to children of our holy mother Eve, and hath made us ​​partakers by grace of the salutary possession of the Man-Jehovah. They blame a Christian interpreter unless he also indicates that passage as messianic.  They then speak of betrayal of the Gospel of the Old Testament and of courting the favor of the enemies of Christ.  One should not straighten the back for the Jews and Socinians and give them a hold against his Christian brethren.  The Thesaurus Theologico-Philologicus holds that to be a Christian interpreter, one should already agree in principle a priori with the Lutheran translation: "It is unworthy of a Christian to prefer to join the mind of the Jews as one who glorifies Christ."  Our place is located at that position – which is of course not the only one, not even the most important –, which voids the interpretation which gives joy to the Jews, sorrow for the Christians, that of Aegidius Hunnius who punishes Calvin in his book Calvinus judaizan. And what was serious to him is shown by the extended title of this treatise: "The Judaizing Calvin, that is, Jewish glosses and text perversions, in which John Calvin has not shied from distorting in a very horrible way wonderful passages and testimonies of the Holy Scriptures of the Most Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but above all prophecies of the prophets regarding the coming of the Messiah, his birth, suffering, resurrection, ascension and sitting at the right hand of God".  Calov refutes the glosses of Grotius and introduces them as follows: "Grotius would rather applaud the blind Jews and Socinians and prefers the Latin Vulgate and the Greek translation to the clear text and the sources themselves." [David]  Pareus hunts for a great fight with [Aegidius] Hunnius [Page 343] with his assertion that Luther had translated in 1545: from the Lord.  Then Hunnius replies with great zeal: 1) Pareus so brutalized Luther's Bible that I did not believe him; he would first have to hold such an example where it says this in front of my nose.  2). If I saw it standing there with my own eyes, I would say it's a misprint.  3). If it really identified itself as Luther's translation, then I would say: he has improved this afterward, after he has looked more closely at the original Hebrew, as it now stands in our Bible.  And 4) Pareus should also keep in mind that it is something else, just say his opinion while other people’s view remains in honor, something else, such as Calvin does, an opinion which is not according to the truth of the Hebrew language, in the manner arranges so that it passes by and derides the people who have come closer to the original Hebrew text.
= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 6  = = = = = = = =

The Judaizing Calvin
     I see that I must meet with Pastor Paul Rydecki again in my research.  As I blogged earlier, Rydecki is noted for his opposition to the doctrines of Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ).  He has also translated Aegidius Hunnius' treatise The Judaizing Calvin into English, appearing to be fully Lutheran himself.  But Rydecki uses the weakness of Aegidius Hunnius to cover his error in refuting UOJ (see here), while Profs. Walther and Pardieck both make use of the strengths of Hunnius, even within view of his weakness.  Walther says:
If John Gerhard and Egidius Hunnius were to rise from the dead and see that our adversaries in the present controversy on predestination appeal to them as their authorities, they would be amazed; for it can be plainly shown that they have rejected and abominated the doctrine of our adversaries. (The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, page 271; see here, find "Hunnius")
Prof. Pardieck speaks on the position of his Missouri Synod in relation to Hunnius' attacks against Calvin:
...[Hunnius' position,] which is of course not the only one, not even the most important...
Just because Hunnius is so vehement against Calvin's errors does not blind C.F.W. Walther to Hunnius' weakness on Universal Justification.  This is similar to the WELS discomfort with the writings of its Prof. J.P. Meyer in defense of Universal Justification in Ministers of Christ (see Buchholz essay).  Unfortunately, Pastor Rydecki continues to deceive himself (also "Rt. Rev." James D. Heiser of Repristination Press).  It is unfortunate that those with high "scholarship" skills, as he has, can be so completely in error on the Gospel itself, an error of which leaves the entire Christian faith without defense... per Martin Luther.

==>> To Pastor Rydecki : I would recommend that my readers read your translation of Hunnius' book The Judaizing Calvin (ignoring the preface by Heiser), for the benefit of their Christian faith.  And with all your knowledge of languages, would you consider translating Walther's Compendium Theologiae Positivae from the Latin?  It sure would be helpful for us Christians to learn of the strengths and weaknesses of other Lutheran theologians of the past... No?  Well, it would be like reading Luther's judgments of the Church Fathers of the past, as Luther shows us their strengths and weaknesses.
      In the next Part 6, Prof. Pardieck gets deep into lessons of grammar, what I would call divine grammar.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Luther Bible-Pt 4: Calvin's way on Gen. 4:1; Philippi-Jewish convert

     This Part 4 continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) presenting my (BTL) translation of Prof. Pardieck's Lehre und Wehre article in 1914 on Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1.  Luther's translation is virtually unknown in today's world because it has been corrupted.  Why?  Read on...

Friedrich Adolph Philippi
     It was with great joy that I learned more of the great Jewish convert to Lutheran orthodoxy, Friedrich Adolph Philippi.  You can even read about him in the "Jewish Encyclopedia".  I had read some things about him in Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, but now not only did I read of his wonderful defense of Luther's translation of Genesis 4:1, but in my research I discovered that some of his books were translated from German into English, and are available on Google Books for free.  I invite the reader to take at least a quick look at Philippi's writing here. (I may take some time to read more of him myself!)  Hmmm, I don't think Philippi ever chastised Luther over his writings against the Jews... like today's LC-MS does.


     In this section, I have omitted Hebrew words and replaced them with tildes (~) and dashes (-).  The reader may look these up from the original publication.
Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 4: Page 340-341   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 
[page 340] ... The only difference is: We say with the Apostle: without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God is manifest in the flesh [cf. 1 Tim. 3:16]; and Eve says: God will be manifested in the flesh".  He then explains how yet to find the propositiones personales [see Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2, pgs 86-87], also the first genus of communicatio idiomatum [i.e. communication of attributes, see C.D. vol. 1, pg 87], finds its expression in the words.  "From the beginning of the world after the fall was this mystery known, and in fact not unclear, but clearly just as the words and example (verba et exemplum) of Eve express the unity of the person, the difference of the natures, indeed also his Office and Work as Redeemer".  So there Luther's translation and explanation is held throughout, only with this deviation: she was not referring to Cain, held him not for this God-man, but on this occasion confesses her faith in the Savior, which she still expected.
Romanus Teller extensively expounds this view, that Eve speaks of the Messiah rather than referring to Cain, and gives the reasons for it.  In the Heiligen Schrift mit Anmerkungen engländischer Theologen [or “Holy Scriptures with Notes of English Theologians"] he says to the sentence which he discovered: "One could translate: a man, a Lord, or better: a man, who is the Lord.  So Eve believed she had born into the world the Messiah”, following: "The translation is however to be preferred under the rules of the Hebrew language as well as a thorough exegesis.  However, it follows by no means that Eve has held her first-born son for man and Messiah herself.  How she might have thought this, because, that 1) the same as the woman's seed has been announced which should be born without any help of a man; 2) the Sacrifice as type and shadow of the things to come, gave significantly enough to realize that the future of the promised Saviour could not be so close; 3) also is not to be doubted is that God would clearly explain by extraordinary revelation in the first Gospel and have made so much known as at that time it was necessary that in the person no mistake could proceed?  Meanwhile, this was their word: ‘I have the man, the Lord" a confession of their faith in the future Messiah. . . .  While the first of mankind beheld the light of this world, then remembered his mother the evangelical promise of God and known at the same time that she wanted to keep up with a firm reliance on those chosen Son of Man whom she worshiped as her Lord and God at the same time."  The Weimar Bible first cites Luther: “Ei, Gott sei gelobet, da habe ich erlangt den HErrn, den Mann, den Samen, der dem Satan, der höllischen Schlange, den Kopf zertreten soll; der wird`s tun” [i.e. Oh, God be praised, there have I obtained the Lord, the Man, the Seed that should bruise the head of Satan, the infernal serpent; he will do it.]  Then it remarks: "She would hardly (it would be because of haste, as happened subsequently of Lamech) have meant Cain himself because she knew that the Messiah should be only of the woman's seed, but she had faith the Christ and had as her possession, also comforted herself in the pangs of childbirth.  [Page 341]  One could also give it from the word Kina, which means a zeal, if one also still takes a verb after the Hebrew dialect: I carry a loving fervent desire for or against the man, the Lord, namely, that he may soon be born."
Among the moderns, Philippi [ref. Christian Cyclopedia] is one who goes for Luther's translation and also for Luther's understanding and use of this position.  In an excursus to the fourth chapter, he says in his commentary on Romans of Proto-Evangel: "This word of comfort they took from Paradise with in their misery, the Lord had given it to them as a rod and staff, as bread and water of life, that they should not perish on the way.  That was for them the Lord's law, over which they meditated day and night, and who wants to determine the limit up to which way they entered the mysterious rich sense of this wonderful mystery word?" and then continues: "Should we not perhaps over Genesis 4:1 have an explanation, should it now be ever so far that to translate ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ with Luther: "I have the Man, the Lord"?  That in the Proto-Evangel we have seen that the man the Lord, the God-man, is meant.  Eve was saying that her seed should bruise the serpent's head; so it was natural enough that she referred to this in the immediate sense and not only in the indirect sense. The miracle of the first birth of a human being must have been something overwhelming for them.  So could she also move easily in her delight over the border.  Might she be mistaken after all, nevertheless was Mary’s Magnificat, which was no illusion as that of Eve, but truly came to fulfillment.  Eve, indeed, had yet to learn that the serpent-conqueror would not be born of a sinful seed, that the natural seed of woman is merely a seed of the serpent." (Seite 176 f; see English translation in Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Volume 1, pgs 225-226).

In contrast, Calvin remarks at this place in his exposition of Genesis: "Some explain: with God, that is, with God's help or by God's grace, as if Eve leads back to God the received the blessing of children, just as Psalm 127:3 explains fruit of the womb for a gift of God.  At the same place comes out another translation: I have from God. Again Jerome translates, through God.  These three readings, I say, tend to this point, that Eve gives thanks to God for having begun to raise up a posterity through her, though she was deserving of perpetual barrenness, as well as of utter destruction. Others translate too subtle (subtilius): I have the man God, as if Eve understood that she already possessed that conqueror of the serpent, who had been divinely promised to her. Hence they celebrate the faith of Eve, because she embraced, by faith, the promise concerning the bruising of the head of the devil through her seed; only they think that she was mistaken in the person or the individual, seeing that she would restrict to Cain what had been promised concerning Christ.  To me, however, this seems to be the genuine sense, that while Eve [page 342] congratulates herself on the birth of a son, she offers him to God, as the first-fruits of his race. Therefore, I think it ought to be translated, ‘I have obtained a man from the Lord’, which approaches more nearly the Hebrew phrase".
= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 5  = = = = = = = =

     The last portion shows clearly the influence of Calvin's exposition of Genesis 4:1 on not only today's English Bibles, but also German and other languages.  Now we know why it is so hard to find an authentic version of Luther's Bible online... or anywhere!
     In the next Part 5...