Four Branches – November 2024

Jump to:

Exegetical Theology: The CGBM: 1 Peter 4:16

Should the earliest Greek papyri carry more weight in text-critical decisions than medieval Byzantine manuscripts? The earlier, the better, right? Not so fast! Despite an increasing number of Greek papyri, the text of the UBS5/NA28 now favors a Byzantine manuscript tradition in 1 Peter 4:16, thanks to the CBGM.[1] The Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) is the latest and greatest method for determining the “initial text.”[2] The CBGM seeks to relate the texts of manuscripts rather than manuscripts themselves, and for this reason, the CBGM rejects the idea of text families that WELS pastors are familiar with (i.e. Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine being the major “text-types”). The CBGM rejects them because each manuscript may contain a significant amount of mixture or contamination (i.e. variants) in its text.[3] Editors still need to make decisions about relationships between texts, and then, by entering those relationships into a database, the various stemma (a sort of text family tree) appear. This has led to some surprising outcomes, such as the confirmation of the dictum recentiores non deteriores (i.e. recent manuscripts are not necessarily inferior) and a high regard for the Byzantine manuscript tradition—I’m guessing the KJV/Textus Receptus people are happy.

The NA28/USB5 made a textual decision in 1 Peter 4:16 in which a well-attested early reading is rejected in favor of a ninth-century Byzantine reading. There are five variant readings in this verse, but only two of these, A (τῷ μέρει τούτῳ) and B (τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ), are worthy of consideration. The options for the ending of the verse are: “But if [one of you suffers] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this portion” OR “in this name.” Prior to the CBGM, B was easily the preferred reading[4] but now A has taken its place. The support for B is impressive: P72 (third/fourth century), Sinaiticus (fourth century), Alexandrinus (fifth century), Vaticanus (fourth century), key minuscule witnesses, and almost every version. The support for A includes018 (ninth century), 104 (A.D. 1087), 180 (twelfth century), 206 (thirteenth-fifteenth century), 254 (fourteenth century), Byzantine witnesses, Old Church Slavonic, and others.

Why this change to A? Mink and Wasserman point out that ὀνόματι has an easy transcriptional explanation, since it was used just two verses earlier, while μέρει is harder to explain internally—how could A possibly come from B? The textual flow diagrams of the CBGM also support A as the original early reading, which was preserved in the later Byzantine texts.[5] Knight, however, makes a compelling case that B is the original reading, not only using the external manuscript evidence, but also based on internal factors and various corrections to the CBGM models.[6] I think the best explanation is that a ninth-century Byzantine scribe might have had trouble understanding how ὀνόματι (that is, the name “Christian”) would be something to be ashamed about, particularly in suffering. But St. Peter would have gladly worn that originally pejorative name with honor, and we do too—no matter what textual critics determine.

For further study:

[1] In 1993 when NA27 was published it included all the papyrus manuscripts up to that time—98 of them. By 2012 the newest edition of NA28 listed 127 papyri. And now the total number is 141 according to the Institut fuer Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Muenster, Germany (http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/liste).

[2] Ged Mink (creator of the method) wants to get at the Ausgangstext, the text from which the entire tradition originates, and not the original manuscript written by the inspired author (which is either hopelessly lost or never existed in the first place). He contends, “Textual stages that may have been situated between the autograph and the Ausgangstext are not accessible to text-critical means.” Quoted in Peter J. Gurry, A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism, Boston: Brill, 2017, p.93.

[3] It’s interesting that the only “text-type” that has survived (in a sense) is the Byzantine family because the CBGM has related a high frequency of genealogical coherence between texts. Everything else is all mixed up.

[4] The text of UBS4 does not even list any textual variants on this verse.

[5] Tommy Wasserman & Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017, p.72.

[6] Jarrett W. Knight, “Reading Between the Lines: 1 Peter 4:16, MS 424, and Some Methodological Blind Spots in the CBGM,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no.4 (2019): 899-921.

Rev. Benjamin P. Schaefer serves as pastor of Mount Calvary in Redding and Anderson, CA

Systematic Theology: Sola Gratia

Adolf Hoenecke begins the third volume of his Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics:

The first foundation of the salvation of the sinner is the merciful love of God, through which God is moved not only to want the deliverance of fallen humanity but also to resolve to bring about this deliverance and to offer the means through which the lost can partake of the deliverance.[1]

God so loved this fallen world that he sent his beloved Son to live, die, and rise to redeem lost and condemned sinners. This loving will of God, which wants to save us, is called grace, God’s underserved love, χάρις. BDAG defines χάρις as “a beneficent disposition toward someone … that which one grants to another, the action of one who volunteers to do something not otherwise obligatory.”[2] Hoenecke adds, “The undeserved favor of God, thus an emotion in the mind and heart of God—this is the usual meaning”[3] of God’s grace towards us. Our God is not obligated to do anything for us sinners. But instead, in his χάρις, he is moved to save his beloved fallen creatures.

See how the Holy Spirit uses χάρις to express what God volunteers to us. See what he lovingly wants to give us (all quotations are EHV).

  • “For out of his fullness we have all received grace upon grace” (χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος) (John 1:16).
  • “To all those loved by God who are in Rome, called to be saints: Grace (χάρις) to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 1:7).
  • “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace (χάριτι) through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:23-24).
  • “Through him we also have obtained access by faith into this grace (χάριν) in which we stand. And we rejoice confidently on the basis of our hope for the glory of God” (Rom 5:2).
  • “Indeed, it is by grace (χάριτί) you have been saved, through faith” (Eph 2:8).
  • “So that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace (χάρις) would reign through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 5:21).
  • “After you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace (χάριτος), who called you into his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, will himself restore, establish, strengthen, and support you” (1 Pet 5:10).

Live, dwell, bask in the grace your Savior God has for you and the people you serve.

[1] Adolf Hoenecke, Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics, Vol. III (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2003), 5.

[2] BDAG, s.v.

[3] Hoenecke, Dogmatics, 6.  

Rev. Gary Juergens serves as pastor of Immanuel Lutheran in Lakeside, AZ. 

Historical Theology: Confirmation in Early Lutheranism

By the late Middle Ages, confirmation had developed from the simple completion of a rather elaborate baptismal rite, to a wholly separate sacrament, one of seven recognized by the Church. Considering that this sacrament was thought to give a special imparting of the Holy Spirit, separate from baptism—and according to some, even more important than baptism—Luther’s reaction shouldn’t surprise. He called it “deceitful mumbo jumbo of the episcopal idols,”[1] and “monkey business … a fanciful deception,”[2] that was “invented to adorn the office of bishops, that they may not be entirely without work in the church.”[3] For Luther, the means of grace was what mattered, and anything that interfered with that gospel—like a man-contrived rite that some credited with more divine power than baptism—was a problem.

Yet also unsurprisingly, Luther resisted the temptation to overreact. While he could not abide confirmation being elevated to the level of a sacrament, in typical Luther-an gospel freedom, he also refused to forbid it.  “I would permit confirmation as long as it is understood that God knows nothing of it, and has said nothing about it, and that what the bishops claim for it is untrue. They mock our God when they say that it is one of God’s sacraments, for it is a purely human contrivance.”[4] He never developed a confirmation rite, but he gave his approval to at least two church orders that included one.[5]The Confessions followed Luther’s lead. In speaking about the sacraments, the Apology states, “Confirmation and extreme unction are rites received from the Fathers that not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God’s command. Therefore, it is useful to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God’s direct command and a clear promise of grace.”[6]

This gospel freedom allowed confirmation to take on new functions for Lutherans through the sixteenth century. Some used confirmation to teach the catechism and prepare catechumens to receive the Lord’s Supper. For others, confirmation wasn’t connected to the Supper at all, but was a catechetical instruction that flowed from baptism. Others, especially in areas that were influenced by the Swiss Reformers, with their distrust of infant baptism, viewed confirmation as the completion of infant baptism. Still others, most notably Martin Bucer, who came to be known as the “father of Lutheran confirmation,” combined several of these. While Bucer confessed infant baptism, he thought the Anabaptists weren’t entirely wrong, so he wanted a Lutheran moment of “decision.” The promises made on behalf of the infant by his baptismal sponsors were renewed in a vow of loyalty to Christ and his Church when one reached the age of discretion. After prayers and laying on of hands, the confirmand was then admitted to the Lord’s Supper.

Confirmation was beginning to take a form we recognize today. Final touches will be added by the Pietists and the Rationalists, as we will see next month.

[1] LW 45:8

[2] LW 45:24

[3] LW 36:91

[4] LW 45:24-25

[5] Luther approved both Johannes Bugenhagen’s Brandenburg Church Order of 1540 and Philipp Melanchthon’s Wittenberg Reformation of 1545.

[6] XII:6

Rev. Rik Krahn serves as campus pastor at Manitowoc Lutheran High School. 

Practical Theology: Lectionary Lessons: Using Sunday’s Propers for Bible Study–Part 2, How?

Producing a Bible Study based on Propers could be something you have already done without realizing it. If you print a worship folder—there it is. Many pastors could spend at least an hour speaking off-the-cuff about the Readings. When unexpected ministry shortens your preparation for Bible study, this can be very convenient. However, prior preparation prevents poor performance. We want to make sure we are ready to bring out treasures new as well as old.  

First, it is important to intentionally plan the order in which you will cover the Propers. They are already ordered wisely for worship. For a Bible study setting, you may want to change it up. Below is how I have most often ordered my studies: 

  • Prayer of the Day: Many Bible study groups have the healthy tradition of beginning with prayer. The Prayer of the Day is great for setting the tone of the study. Usually, only the pastor gets to speak this prayer. Try reading it together. Even before you do that, I’ve found it helpful to discuss the meaning of the prayer and connections to the theme of the Sunday. You may also find some illuminating historical information to share. Although Luther Reed’s The Lutheran Liturgy is out of print and does not contain all the prayers we use today, it is still the first place I look.  
  • Gospel: Everything builds up to this high point in the worship service, but in Bible study it may be wise to move it to the beginning. The theme of the Sunday is driven by the Gospel, so I like to lay that foundation before moving on to the other Propers. Also, if you save this to the end, you might run out of time and never get there. 
  • Hymn of the Day: This hymn is usually selected for its strong connection to the Gospel. It also comes right after the Gospel in the service, so it is natural to look here next. In Bible study, you can slow down and consider the meaning of the text. You can even practice singing a stanza. Although it is limited to the hymns from the 1993 version of the hymnal, Christian Worship Handbook is a treasure trove of historical information. Learning about the people behind our hymns makes singing them even more meaningful. 
  • First Reading, Psalm of the Day, Second Reading, Gospel Acclamation: You can simply present the rest of the “supporting cast” of Propers in the same order of appearance in the service. The flow alternates nicely between Readings and musical elements. You may want to spend more (or less) time on the Reading you are using for the sermon. Ending with the short and sweet Gospel Acclamation can be a great way to wrap up the study. 

Next month, we will continue to look at methods for presenting this type of Bible study, including your ideas gathered from this survey.

Rev. Jeff Grundmeier serves as Campus Pastor at Northland Lutheran High School in Kronenwetter, WI. 

Previous
Next