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 
, 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.
, 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 |
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 (search "For if this doctrine").
==>> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.