Schrift 15: #10: Natural History; #11: Chronology of Bible; the surprising Preus brothers

      This continues from Part 14 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. — This segment addresses perhaps the most cited reason for the modern world's rejection of "inerrancy" for the Bible -- "SCIENCE".   Luther was not unmindful of Augustine's view of Creation as "instantaneous", but Luther was utterly bound by… Holy Scripture -- it was SIX DAYS.  But that stand is actually a stand for all "Natural History" of the Bible, 'science' notwithstanding.  To say that this is a "hot topic" would be an understatement. Walther then specifically treats of Biblical Chronology by Luther. See my series on this topic starting here. Prof. Manteufel covers this also in his essay here and footnote 89.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 14)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 71-72 "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

X. Also what the Scriptures say of Natural History is said by God the Holy Spirit Himself.

“I have often said that he who desires to study the Holy Scriptures should ever see to it that he abide by the simple words as he always can, and never thereby yield, whether it forces possibly that one must understand an article of the faith differently than the words read. [i.e. the articles of faith = the Word] For we must be sure that no simpler speech on earth has come, for God has spoken. Therefore, when Moses writes that God has created heaven and earth in six days, and what is in them, let it remain that it was six days, and may not apply a gloss how six days were one day.  But if you can not hear it, that it has been six days, then do the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you.  For you should go with Scripture, so that you think as God Himself speaks. But because God speaks, it is not proper for you to direct His Word out of sacrilege, wherever you will, for it compels the need to understand a text differently, than as the words read; that is, when faith does not suffer such understanding as the words give.” (Sermons on Genesis, 1527. III, 23 § 9-10 [StL 3, 20-21 § 9-10; not in LW)

“Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days. … Therefore so far as this opinion of Augustine is concerned, we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six [page 72] days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.” (Exposition of Genesis, 1536 ff. I, 3. 4. § 5-6  StL 1, 6-7, § 5-6; LW 1, 4-5)  

XI. Also the chronological information in the Holy Scriptures is of divine origin.

“Still, there is little reason to find fault with Eusebius. Indeed, as Jerome writes, he was an amazing and very precise man. We complain about all other historians, and they complain among themselves that they have not a clue to the precise reckoning of the years. So I have set them all aside, and in this work I have tried to derive this chronology chiefly out of Holy Writ, upon which we can and should rest.….  

I base mine solely on the Bible. Therefore I find it necessary, reluctantly, to reject Philo who in another place inserts eighteen years too many….  This matter convinced me that I should not completely disdain the historians but I should give preference to Holy Writ. I use them in such a way that I am not compelled to contradict the Bible, for I believe that the truthful God speaks in the Bible, but in the histories good people, according to their ability, show their diligence and their honesty (but as men), or at least, that the copyists could have made mistakes.”  (Luther’s Chronica, 1541  & 1545. XIV, 1112., § 5, 1116 § 16. 1117 § 18; [StL 14, 487, 490-491; NOT in LW; ref. this blog post for English translation of Pastor Kenneth K. Miller; see this blog post for Pieper’s comments)

Before Luther would have attributed a chronological error to one of the holy scribes, he preferred that a chronological statement incompatible with other pertinent statements should have come into the Bible text by copyists. He writes: “The age of the Judges from the death of Moses to Samuel is 357 years, including Joshua, as you can see. This reckoning does not fail us, since in 1 King. 6 is reckoned 480 years from the Exodus to Solomon’s Temple. Hence Acts 13 (Acts 13:2020) evidently contains a copyist’s error [durch die Schreiber versehen]. The Latin is doubly wrong, for it has 450 years for the Judges during the division of the land, and it compels Lyra to take it back to the time of Isaac. The Greek text was corrupted by a copyist, a mistake easily made, because he wrote tetrakosiois instead of triakosiois.”  (XIV,  1178 f.. [StL 14, 600; not in LW; this is from p. 58 in K. K. Miller's English translation]) 1)                           

————————

1)  Beza agrees with Luther and justifies his opinion in his Novum Testamentum et Th. Bezae annotationes 1598. fol. 512.

= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 16  = = = = = = = = = = =

LC-MS for “Science” (and Copernicanism) over Scripture
Walther's citations did not single out the fields of Astronomy, or Geography, or other areas of Natural History.  But is there even a hint from Luther's writings that suggests he would not stand in the same way over these other fields of science?  If someone thinks otherwise, they will run head-on into Luther's statements on the Chronology of the Bible.
      Unfortunately the LC-MS long ago officially abandoned this stand:

• In 1969, the LC-MS/CTCR officially stated (here, p. 500, question #10): "It would be no more erroneous than to speak of "sunrise" or "sunset," even though, scientifically considered, the sun neither rises nor sets." (Dr. Richard Jungkuntz, Exec. Sec'y)
• Sadly, Dr. Robert Preus weakened his defense of "Inerrancy" in his 1967 CTM essay on the subject (p. 370) when he explicitly abandoned the clear words of Joshua 10:13, stating: “In describing the things of nature, Scripture… describes and alludes to things phenomenally as they appear to our senses…  the earth as motionless in a fixed position; the sun as going around the fixed earth.” And in 1970, Preus confirmed his denial of the clear Biblical reading even as he reported Calov's strong support of the same over against Copernicanism (see here – p. 359, 399).  

And of course, today's LC-MS has confirmed nearly 50 years later (2015) this same teaching in their recent 2015 CTCR booklet "In Christ All Things Hold Together - The Intersection of Science and Christian Theology". (see this intro to my series on Copernicanism.)

… but a surprise – against Copernicanism
      LC-MS teachers have been predictable in their teaching for at least the last 50 years, but more like the last 75 years.  One might despair of any Lutheran teacher or leader in the world holding to the Bible's Natural History, including the field of Astronomy, except for Prof. Wallace McLaughlin.

Joshua 10:12-14!

But then I about fell out of my chair when I read Prof. J.A.O. Preus's 1948 pamphlet What Stands Between?.  I quote (emphases mine):

• “When Scripture and Science disagree, Science is wrong” (p. 14)
• “And finally we come to some teachings which do not necessarily destroy any doctrine of the faith, but which amount to a denial of the clarity of Scripture on the part of the ELC [Norwegian merger]. The students at the seminary of the ELC are taught that the account of Joshua and the stopping of the sun in Josh. 10.12-14, is poetry, not history.” (p. 16)

It appears that, of the two brothers Robert and J.A.O. Preus, J.A.O. was the stronger one in the doctrines of the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Holy Scripture.  However I could not find evidence in J.A.O.'s later writings, while he was yet a professor at CTS-Springfield, of his former strong stand on these issues. -- In the next Part 16...