Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Luther Bible-Pt 7: Christmas- in Genesis?; Gerhard; Kabbalism in Reuchlin, Humanism

     This Part 7 continues from Part 6 (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...
     This part picks up on the last six of seven points made by John Gerhard in support of the Lutheran meaning of the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 4:1.  There is deep discussion of Hebrew grammar at times, but also surprising commentary.  I believe Prof. Pardieck was a Hebrew master himself and could judge the best of them.
     Johann Reuchlin, a Humanist during the time of the Reformation, was not much of a friend of the Christian faith when he was willing to remove a Hebrew letter from the word "man" to please the Jews.  Today's "Humanists" are no different than Reuchlin as they prefer to please the Jews by condemning Luther on his writings against the Jews. "Humanitas International" (now off the Internet as of 2013) formerly published Luther's writing against the Jews in order to warn readers against Luther's "anti-semitism". –  Even the early Lutheran theologian Sebastian Schmidt was weak in that he too would grant that some truth could be gleaned from the Kabbalah [or Cabala].  But not so the old (German) Missouri Synod... not Prof. Eduard Pardieck.
  Hebrew characters have been added back in from the original text.
Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 7: Pages 345-347   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 
"2. From the accumulation of use in this same sense.  In this, the preceding and ensuing verses comes 343-Hebrew04.jpg nine times and is always nota accusativi.  So it is not likely that there is here all of a sudden something else.  
“3. From the comparison of the description of the birth of Cain and Abel.  With Abel it is said in parallel: ‘And she brought forth his brother Abel,’ 345-Hebrew01.jpg 345-Hebrew02.jpg.  
“4. From the nature of the Hebrew language.  That's Hebrew character to specify a apposition in the accusative by a between two nomina set 343-Hebrew04.jpg, Genesis 4:2; 17:8; 22:2; 26:34; 48:1, etc.  
“5. From the wording "man".  She (Eve) calls her son 343-Hebrew02.jpg, man, which is an epithet of Christ, who is so called before others (per excellentiam).  Ex. 15:4; Act 2:22".  And now comes a Kabbalistic gimmick with the word 343-Hebrew02.jpg, which came in by Reuchlin in Christian theology: "Christ is the man, called 343-Hebrew02.jpg, which on his shoulders is carried 345-Hebrew03.jpg, Earth, 345-Hebrew04.jpg, Sea, 345-Hebrew05.jpg, the Heavens, that is, everything is carried by his powerful Word, Hebrews 1:3.  He is 345-Hebrew06.jpg, Man, 345-Hebrew07.jpg, Jesus, 345-Hebrew08.jpg, Solomon [Preacher?], who is the 345-Hebrew09.jpg, Preserver (sustentator), 345-Hebrew10.jpg, Lord, and 345-Hebrew11.jpg, the Almighty, without which this JEsus for us nothing remains but 345-Hebrew12.jpg, fire and damnation.  Take out namely the 345-Hebrew13.jpg from the noun 343-Hebrew02.jpg, then we have neither Jehovah nor Jesus, rather only 345-Hebrew12.jpg, nothing but fire”.  They would prefer to eliminate it when it was also appealing to the source from which it came, namely from the Jews.  There Pareus and Rivetus were right when they said it was unworthy of a Christian exegete.  And there it was a weak defense when Sebastian Schmidt in his Disputatio says you must distinguish in the Kabbalah [or Cabala], to not reject everything, that the good must be retained.  But then there is opened the goal and door to all arbitrariness.  One may not do evil that good may come out even in exegetical matters.  The words of the text must speak with the actual, ordinary word meaning, otherwise they say nothing at all.  The Lutheran theologians should have been content with the arguments of the grammar; they admittedly had it for themselves.  —    
"6. From the expectation of the Messiah. As Adam out of longing for the Messiah calls his wife Eve, or “Life”, so Eve from longing for the promised woman's seed called her son 343-Hebrew02.jpg and Cain”.  Analogously, indeed the exclamation of Lamech at the birth of Noah, Genesis 5:29: "He will comfort us concerning our work and toil on earth that the Lord has cursed."  This exclamation of Lamech is simply incomprehensible and meaningless if it is not regarded as an early Christmas celebration as also the reputation of Eve.  In the Epistle of Jude it says verse 14: It has but also of such prophesied Enoch, the seventh from Adam, and said: Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to [Page 346] punish all their ungodly."  Delitzsch says of it: "Enoch preached by Jude 14 f. the parousia of the Lord for judgment. . . . That the Lord’s Judgment is in the future, although the history of man had even begun not so long ago, is not strange in itself.  Even after the church had only just begun, the Parousia of Christ as Judge and Saviour was wished for and hoped for.  So great was always the destruction of sin, that the faithful longed that God by judicial intervention would help the victory of the woman’s seed over the serpent's seed defeat." (Messianische Weissagungen, pg. 30, Anm. 2).  Bonar remarks: "When Enoch in the seventh generation recognized Jehovah as the One who was to come, why should not Eve be able to do the same in the first?"  Indeed, there is more to say: If Enoch speaks of Christ's future Judgment, then it is more natural that when Eve spoke of his arrival as Redeemer, the first had to occur.  And when the flock of believers so soon yearned after the arrival of the judge because they saw the rampant destruction of sin in the world, then it is much more natural that Adam and Eve yearned for the Redeemer since they were told in the beginning what a terrible misery they had brought upon themselves, as they learned it in their lives and suffering. —  
"7. from the correspondence of the Translator".  As he states: the Targum Jonathan translates: I have attained the man, the angel of Jehovah, that is, the promised Messiah. Cf. Isaiah 63.9; Malachi 3:1.  From the Old Isidorus Clarius and Calvinist Konrad Pelicanus.  He could still have specified as the eighth reason: From the mighty Not! the answering of the translators, the others translate.  [?-The meaning is unclear - BTL]
On the basis of the grammar, not many objections were made.  It was generally acknowledged for the Lutheran translation this: "linguistically possible."  Only these objections were made: In the apposition would have to be put: 346-Hebrew01.jpg, or it ought at least 343-Hebrew02.jpg determined by the article, also called 346-Hebrew02.jpg.  To which Pfeiffer responds: "Amana [Amama?] has already denied this against Drusius.  The determination by 346-Hebrew03.jpg is not necessary; 343-Hebrew02.jpg is determined by its apposition 345-Hebrew10.jpg".   Sebastian Schmidt gives the example in Ezekiel 4:1 as a complete parallel.  "There is commanded by God to the Prophet: ‘Take a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray it 346-Hebrew04.jpg, a city’, 346-Hebrew05.jpg.  Here is 346-Hebrew04.jpg, city, without any article, completely undetermined, where the prophet is commanded to portray a city; but that which is not yet expressed.  However, it is expressed by the name Jerusalem with the article 346-Hebrew05.jpg, ie, a city, namely Jerusalem.  This manner of speech of ours is quite compliant".  Pfeiffer states still more analogous examples: Genesis 17:8; 22:2; 26:34; 48:1; Jer. 18:13; 1 Kings 11:14.  Also Delitzsch says: "Frequently is found to a first accusative a second, nearer more governing with 343-Hebrew03.jpg”.   [Page 347]  
Another objection: the word 343-Hebrew02.jpg is separated by the accent Thifcha from the following word, thus then that would not be in apposition to it.  Pfeiffer says: such emphatic accentuation is not unusual and gives Genesis 26:34 as an example.  Gerhard yet adds Jonah 2:2 to this.
"Linguistically possible" is the general verdict on the Lutheran translation.  This can be said of no other [translation].   And there are many of them.  The Lutheran exegetes could say they have tried it from opposing sides with all casibus [cases] except the vocative, and the prepositions are also quite through.  E[duard]. P[ardieck].
(Conclusion follows).
= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 8  = = = = = = = =

     The eyes can glaze over with some of the more technical portions of the above.  But then one catches the conclusions of the true Lutheran exegetes and finds that Oh!... that's what they are talking about, that the ancients believed in what we Christians do today... the same object of faith.  For example, I was jolted by the phrase: early Christmas celebration
What?  A Christmas celebration in the book of Genesis??  Oh, I see, the ancients too longed for Christmas to roll around, like we Christians in the New Testament times.
     Gerhard is being heralded by some of the scholars of the LC-MS and CPH.  Matthew Harrison says:
Gerhard’s Loci is the greatest doctrinal text in the entire history of Lutheranism.
Harrison's praise of Gerhard does nothing for me, but Pardieck's and Walther's praise makes me interested to learn more from Gerhard.  I would like to know if Pardieck's quotes from Gerhard above are included in the current series of translations being sold by CPH.
     At this point, I must say in response to President Harrison's assertion above: There is even a better doctrinal text of Lutheranism than Gerhard's... it is Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics.  Harrison deliberately overlooks Pieper's work.  Why is Pieper's work better?  Because Pieper perfectly followed Walther, the greatest Lutheran theologian since the Reformation century... and that includes going past Gerhard to get there.  Walther highly praised Gerhard in places and values him highly, but Walther shows that he went back even further for the ultimate theology... he had to go
Back To Luther.
In the next Part 8...

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.