Jump to:
Exegetical Theology: The CGBM: Understanding the Positives
“Knowledge is good, method is good, but one thing beyond all others is necessary, and that is to have a head, not a pumpkin, on your shoulders and brains, not pudding, in your head.”[1] If you have read the past two installments, you may have sensed some skepticism toward the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). Methods are good. Brains are better. Yet, the CBGM has quickly become the standard for textual criticism. That is not without good reason. This article will share some of the positive aspects of the CBGM to bring a more balanced understanding to the conversation.
The CBGM deals with three major problems of NT textual criticism: contamination (i.e. so many variants on so many manuscripts), coincidental agreement (i.e. two scribes independently make the same mistake), and editorial inconsistency (i.e. what textual critics do individually can now be tracked in an overall picture). The method addresses these problems by evaluating coherence (agreement) under the headings of “pregenealogical” and “genealogical” coherence.
Pregenealogical coherence describes the percentage of agreement between the texts of any two witnesses. This is one reason why the notion of “text types” has been challenged, since a broader examination of all manuscripts has revealed complex agreement among supposed families.
Genealogical coherence determines the direction of the relationship between two witnesses. Did reading A come from B or did B come from A or is it uncertain? At each point of variation, the editor makes a decision about how the readings are related, and the computer tracks how those relationships are interconnected. Genealogical coherence is especially important when relating how witnesses disagree. Yes, there are many decisions the editors still need to make, but the use of computer software to assemble and coordinate things does limit the bias of any single editor. This also assists with tracking the many relationships that would be nearly impossible without computer technology.
One example can bring some of these positives into focus. In Mark 1:1 is one of the most difficult and important variants in the gospels. Did Mark originally include the christologically rich title “the Son of God (υἱοῦ θεοῦ)” in the title of his gospel? A scribe may have omitted these words due to writing the nomina sacra in majuscule script (i.e. repetition of upsilons can be confusing and this may explain the shorter reading). A scribe may also have wanted to expand the title of the book in reverence to our Lord (i.e. the longer reading has seemed easier for text critics to reject as not original). The SBL Greek NT omits the title, and the UBS4/NA27 and UBS5/NA28 include it in brackets, meaning it has a low rating. Examining all the manuscripts available in the CBGM online, Wasserman shows how the longer reading has near perfect pregenealogical coherence among manuscripts and the shorter reading has much weaker coherence. This means that while scholars are quick to dismiss the longer title, a broad examination of all manuscripts and a comparison of their coherence with one another reveals something else. Pregenealogical coherence suggests that we should prefer the longer reading as the initial text of Mark’s gospel.[2] Take that, Bart Ehrman!
The CBGM takes a real investment of time and effort, but there are some positive benefits. No doctrines of the Bible are affected. A few passages have altered meanings. The text-critical puzzle is still very complex, and you will need a head, not a pumpkin. Yet, the CBGM may offer another tool in our examination of “the very words of God” (1 Pet 4:11).
For further study…
Check out this very well-known article from outside the world of biblical textual criticism: A.E. Housman, “The Application of Thought To Textual Criticism” Proceedings of the Classical Association, August 1921, Vol. XVIII. Prof. John Brug summarizes this article: “Interesting, witty, and somewhat acerbic observations on textual criticism by a renowned classical scholar, poet, and curmudgeon. Caveat lector.”
[1] A.E. Housman, “The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism,” Proceedings of the Classical Association 17 (Aug 1921), 84.
[2] Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (Atlanta: SBL, 2017), 43-50.
Rev. Benjamin P. Schaefer serves as pastor of Mount Calvary in Redding and Anderson, CA
Systematic Theology: Solus Christus
The two natures of Jesus are still under attack, and so it is good for us to review them.
The second person of the Trinity always existed and is equal with the Father as to his divinity, so Jesus can honestly say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30, all quotations EHV), and “Before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).
Then at the fullness of set time, this second person of the Trinity became fully human, born of the virgin Mary. Gabriel told Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
Especially at Christmastime we focus on passages which present us with the mystery of God become man. “The Word became flesh and dwelled among us. We have seen his glory, the glory he has as the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). “All the fullness of God’s being dwells bodily in Christ” (Col 2:9).
The mystery of the two natures of Christ defies our reason, which is one reason why so many oppose it. But the completed salvation of sinful mankind required our Savior to be both God and man in one person.
Martin Chemnitz, in his classic, The Two Natures in Christ,gives several reasons why it was necessary for Jesus to be both God and man united into one person to save us:
1. “Because human nature was doomed to eternal punishment in accord with the sentence of divine judgment spoken on the day when Adam fell, therefore the Son of God offered Himself . . . so that man might not be destroyed by death.”
2. “Because human nature after the fall was subject to the wrath of God and damnation, it was necessary that our Mediator make satisfaction for us in the human nature.”
4. “The Son of God in His own person again united our human nature with the divine nature by the most intimate union, and thus restored it to fellowship with God.”
5. “The Son of God wills to accomplish the work of our redemption in, with, and through His assumed human nature, in order that we might be made certain that we are His brothers and heirs of all His merits.”
7. “The Son of God assumed a human nature in order that He might share His offices and duties of the kingdom, and perpetual high priesthood of the Messiah, so that we might be sure that we have access to Him and that we embrace Him in His Word as King and High Priest. . . . and we are bones of His bones.”[1]
So then, this Christmas season and every season proclaim the mystery, the majesty, and the necessity of the two natures of our only Savior Jesus. Proclaim it for the comfort of God’s people and to the glory of God.
[1] Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ (St. Louis: Concordia, 1971), 147-48.
Rev. Gary Juergens serves as pastor of Immanuel Lutheran in Lakeside, AZ.
Historical Theology: Confirmation under Pietism and Rationalism
As the seventeenth century dawned, confirmation was beginning to take on much more subjective tones. Initially viewed as the simple completion of an elaborate baptism rite, confirmation had taken on new functions during the first century after Luther. Some had distinctly Lutheran motivations, such as preparing for reception of the Lord’s Supper, but others were more influenced by the Swiss Reformed, adding a renewal of baptismal vows, or vows of obedience to Christ and his Church, which came only after a child reached an “age of discretion,” turning confirmation into a Lutheran version of the Anabaptists’ “decision.”
These ideas budding in the sixteenth century found full bloom in the seventeenth century, in Philipp Jacob Spener, the “father of Pietism.” He was concerned that faith had moved into minds, and had largely left hearts and lives, so he wanted to “bring the head into the heart.”[1] Confirmation was a tool suited to do that. While Spener didn’t deny infant baptism, he saw it as incomplete and lacking lasting power. Confirmation became a remedy. So that the confirmand could be led toward a momentous “conversion experience,” the Pietists lengthened the amount of instruction, delaying the confirmation rite from the previous age of 10-11, to closer to 14. The day of confirmation itself became a significant event, during which the confirmand would renew his baptismal covenant by making a vow to keep his part of the covenant with God as long as he lived and would recite a memory verse as his personal scriptural prescription for Christian living. Under the Pietists, confirmation (as almost everything else) became much more subjective. It became more important than baptism, and one wasn’t really considered a member of the church until they were confirmed.
While Rationalism was in many ways at odds with Pietism, it found common ground in its view of the importance of confirmation. It was considered the second half of baptism—and the more important half. Stressing the intellectual over the emotional, the Rationalists thought that a confirmand ought to be a fully-trained apologist for the Church. Instruction was further deepened and lengthened, and confirmation further delayed, to as late as possible—the end of formal instruction. Since schools shut down after Easter for spring planting, Palm Sunday became a customary day for confirmation. To make sure a confirmand was prepared to defend the faith, extensive examinations were held (often on a separate day because of the length). Confirmation was considered the most important day of a child’s life, and was celebrated as such, with external customs that we’d find very familiar—a special service, a specially decorated church, white robes for the confirmands, flowers for the girls, and a large family celebration to follow.
These are the influences that have shaped our current ideas of confirmation. Most of these practices are still prevalent among us today. But perhaps understanding where our confirmation practices have come from will be helpful in determining how pastors can most faithfully serve their people today.
[1] Other sources quote Spener as wanting to “bring the heart into the head.” The sense is the same.
Rev. Rik Krahn serves as campus pastor at Manitowoc Lutheran High School.
Practical Theology: Lectionary Lessons: Using Sunday’s Propers for Bible Study–Part 3, Your Ideas
Thanks for responding to the survey about methods and benefits of a Bible study using the Propers. About 1 in 5 pastors had never done it. However, about 1 in 2 pastors did so regularly. (Granted, these pastors may have been more likely to read to the end of my article and offer their thoughts.)
Respondents reported conducting this study both before and after Sunday worship. The timing of the study can make some of these methods more, or less, fitting:
- Use this type of Bible study during the summer months, or as “fill in” between other topics.
- Use the Whole Bible Project from NPH as a base study for each readings, adding more questions as needed.
- Simply use Luther’s garland of four strands method (instruction, thanksgiving, confession, prayer) with each of the readings.
- Small groups meet outside of church to apply the readings to their lives, using the outline found in “Sticky Church.” (Here is a Shepherd’s Study review of this book). The sermon text is the focus.
- Emphasize the theme of the Sunday and connections between the readings so that people are prepared to “get more out of” the worship service. This can be done with introductory explanations, highlighting “watchwords,” or using questions that explore connections throughout the study.
- Include instruction about a small part of the liturgy in each lesson.
- Print a take-home sheet in the worship folder with questions to consider for each reading.
- Discuss the readings with ministry leaders each week.
- With positive encouragement from the congregation, one respondent conducted a Sunday morning lectionary-based Bible study for five straight years!
The two most mentioned benefits of this type of study were a better understanding of the sermon and a better grasp on the theme of the Sunday:
- This study is “an opportunity for people to ask questions and comment about the service and the sermon.”
- “People understood better that there was a ‘point’ to every service even beyond basic justification law and gospel.”
- “People ‘get more’ out of the sermon by freeing up some of the understanding time for pondering time.”
Students grew in appreciation and awareness of the Church Year’s purpose and variety:
- “Seeing the lectionary ‘in action.’”
- “I’d be hard-pressed to think of a doctrinal topic that didn’t come up.”
Pastors also found benefits for their personal preparation:
- “It helped me live and breathe the lectionary as part of my weekly routine—and what I was studying that week was often used in meetings, counseling, and with shut-ins.”
- “Preparing questions for a class helps me think things through from the hearers’ perspective, helping me try to express things as clearly as possible.”
- “Somewhat counterintuitively, looking at all the readings actually helped me focus on the one I was primarily using as my sermon text.”
Lectionary-based Bible studies seem to be common. The reason? So many pastors and congregations have already seen the benefits.
Rev. Jeff Grundmeier serves as Campus Pastor at Northland Lutheran High School in Kronenwetter, WI.