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 
nine times and is always nota accusativi. So it is not likely that there is here all of a sudden something else.
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,’ 
.
.
“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 
, Genesis 4:2; 17:8; 22:2; 26:34; 48:1, etc.
, Genesis 4:2; 17:8; 22:2; 26:34; 48:1, etc.
“5. From the wording "man". She (Eve) calls her son 
, 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 
, which came in by Reuchlin in Christian theology: "Christ is the man, called 
, which on his shoulders is carried 
, Earth, 
, Sea, 
, the Heavens, that is, everything is carried by his powerful Word, Hebrews 1:3. He is 
, Man, 
, Jesus, 
, Solomon [Preacher?], who is the 
, Preserver (sustentator), 
, Lord, and 
, the Almighty, without which this JEsus for us nothing remains but 
, fire and damnation. Take out namely the 
from the noun 
, then we have neither Jehovah nor Jesus, rather only 
, 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. —
, 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 , which came in by Reuchlin in Christian theology: "Christ is the man, called , which on his shoulders is carried , Earth, , Sea, , the Heavens, that is, everything is carried by his powerful Word, Hebrews 1:3. He is , Man, , Jesus, , Solomon [Preacher?], who is the , Preserver (sustentator), , Lord, and , the Almighty, without which this JEsus for us nothing remains but , fire and damnation. Take out namely the from the noun , then we have neither Jehovah nor Jesus, rather only , 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 
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. —
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: 
, or it ought at least 
determined by the article, also called 
. To which Pfeiffer responds: "Amana [Amama?] has already denied this against Drusius. The determination by 
is not necessary; 
is determined by its apposition 
". 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 
, a city’, 
. Here is 
, 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 
, 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 
”. [Page 347]
, or it ought at least determined by the article, also called . To which Pfeiffer responds: "Amana [Amama?] has already denied this against Drusius. The determination by is not necessary; is determined by its apposition ". 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 , a city’, . Here is , 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 , 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 ”. [Page 347]
Another objection: the word 
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.
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:
...an early Christmas celebrationWhat? 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...
