Jump to:
Exegetical theology: The CGBM: “They’re changing our Greek NT!”
A seismic shift in NT textual criticism has occurred. After decades of little change in the text of the Greek NT, a new method of approaching and assembling the text has appeared, called the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). This method was used to assemble the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) which serves as the base text for the new NA28 and USB5 editions in the Catholic Epistles (published in 2012 and 2014, respectively). This is the NT text MLC students now purchase for their NT Greek courses. The CBGM is shaping the current text of the NT among academics and publishers. Soon it will shape the text and footnotes of English Bibles.
Perhaps a refresher may be helpful in how we determine the original text. Every pastor has heard the question, “Why does my Bible have that word in a footnote?” The transmission of the NT has resulted in variant readings or “contamination” of the original. Thanks be to God, this is does not annul the Lord’s promises to us—his Word endures forever (cf. Mt 24:35, 1 Pet 1:23-25). It does, however, call for sanctified wisdom. The text of the NT is often viewed as a family tree or stemma, and scholars have sought to trace the lines. For example, there’s the principle that if two texts agree in an error, then there is agreement in ancestry. Sometimes, variants appear also by coincidence as scribes happened to make similar mistakes. What happens, though, when there are multiple errors (variants) and the relationship between texts is not easily determined? “Reasoned eclecticism” is the old standard and remains the dominant method practiced by NT scholars. This method determines which variant reading is correct by evaluating internal evidence (such as, the likelihood of a scribe making a mistake or an author’s tendency to use certain words) and external evidence (such as, the age of a manuscript and where it came from). This is the method taught, in a modified version, at WLS.
But the CBGM seeks to establish the initial text in a new way. The CBGM is “a method that (1) uses a set of computer tools (2) based in a new way of relating manuscript texts that is (3) designed to help us understand the origin and history of the New Testament text.”[1] Simply put, the CBGM aggregates all the variants using a digital framework. In contrast to other methods, the CBGM makes a distinction between the text itself (called a “witness”) and actual papyrus or material of the document (called a “manuscript”). The CBGM has abandoned text-type as a way of classifying manuscripts of the NT (more on that in my next installment). Instead, the CBGM method “allows every witness to take its own position in relation to every other one.”[2] The manuscripts can be related to each other by examining the relationships of their variants, rather than simply judging based on age or text-type. A scholar still needs to make determinations about relationships between variants, especially which is the most likely ancestor of each manuscript, and that data is recorded into a computer database. Then, the editor uses the database to show relationships between many manuscripts. The subsequent diagram is called a text flow. The creator of CBGM, Gerd Mink, points out that the CBGM makes no textual decisions, but allows an image of the tradition to emerge from all the variants. The use of the CBGM has resulted in 33 changes in the Catholic Epistles from the text of NA27/USB4 to the newest edition, NA28/USB5. Seismic shifts, indeed, and we’ll examine the controversial passages in a future installment.
For further study:
- Peter J. Gurry’s article: “How Your Greek NT Is Changing: A Simple Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)”
[1] Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Cohorence-Based Genealogical Method. (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017),3. Emphasis original.
[2] Peter J. Gurry, A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism. (Boston: Brill, 2017), 37.
Rev. Benjamin P. Schaefer serves as pastor of Mount Calvary in Redding and Anderson, CA
Systematic Theology: Sola Fide
With Reformation around the corner, we ponder one of the pillars of our confessional Lutheran faith: Sola Fide! We are saved by faith alone. Paul wrote, “Indeed, it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (διὰ πίστεως)—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph 2:8-9, EHV). Truly, “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6, EHV).
Unfortunately, our American society has watered down the understanding of the words “faith” and “belief” to be more of a feeling or opinion than a historic, truthful fact. But saving faith has three basic elements: knowledge, assent, and trust.
There is no saving faith without knowledge. Since the fall, no person is born with any fear, love, or knowledge of the LORD our Triune God. Every believer must be taught to know the facts of Jesus. Paul says, “I know the one in whom I have believed” (2 Tim 1:12, EHV). Paul knew Jesus.
The second element of saving faith is assent. We accept the gospel of Jesus as true. If I told you, “I believe my team will win the championship this year. And unicorns are real,” you would say, “These are not facts, but opinions.” So, you would not accept them as fact but fantasy. For our salvation we must first know the facts of Jesus. True God became true man to offer himself as an infinite sacrifice for the whole world. As true man, Jesus took our place to be punished for all our sins. Then the Holy Spirit causes our hearts to assent, to believe that the gospel truths of Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter are real. We accept them as true. “So then, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message comes through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17, EHV).
The third and primary element of saving faith is trust. Satan provides us a useful illustration of why saving faith includes trust and not just knowledge and assent. The devil knows the gospel facts, and he knows that they are true—he was there. But Satan can never have saving faith since the gospel is not for him and so he cannot trust it. Likewise, unbelievers may know the facts of the gospel. But sadly, they don’t trust that Jesus rose and now lives to give them eternal life.
The saving faith which Christians have includes all three parts: knowing the facts of Christ, assenting to the Gospel as something true, and by the Spirit’s work trusting that Christ died for them. Thomas confessed his saving faith in the risen Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28, EHV).
Likewise, by the Spirit working in you, you confess Jesus is your Savior. Jesus died to remove all your sin. Now, your risen Redeemer is preparing a place for you to be with him forever in heavenly paradise. This is your saving faith! You’re saved by faith alone! This is most certainly true!
For further study:
- Daniel Deutschlander, Grace Abounds (NPH), especially pages 379-84.
Rev. Gary Juergens serves as pastor of Immanuel Lutheran in Lakeside, AZ.
Historical Theology: The Origins of Confirmation
Sola Scriptura is a principle that we as Lutherans take seriously. We draw our doctrine and practice from Scripture, and Scripture alone. Yet there is a practice that is universal in our Synod even though it has no precedent in Scripture. Scripture doesn’t command it; Scripture doesn’t describe it; Scripture doesn’t even mention it. That practice is Confirmation. All our churches do it (even if we’re not fully agreed why we do it; more on that later). But why do we so consistently carry out a practice that’s not found in Scripture? Where did this come from, and how did it become so universal among us?
Confirmation’s beginnings are quite innocuous, lying in ancient baptismal practices, mixed with a bit of pragmatism. Early in the history of the Christian Church, there developed a rather elaborate baptismal rite. Tertullian (c. 160-220) describes baptism as having three parts: the applying of water, the anointing with oil, and the laying on of hands.1 Cyprian (c. 210–258) describes a similar ceremony.2 Interestingly, both of them indicate that it was in the laying on of hands that the Holy Spirit was given to the baptized. This likely explains why Traditio Apostolica (attributed to Hippolytus [c. 170–235], but some contend it should be dated to the fourth or fifth century) describes that while elders and deacons had roles to play in the baptism rite, only the bishop could conclude the rite with the laying on of hands.3
As the Church grew and spread, and as the baptized became less-exclusively converted adults and increasingly the infants of Christians (who might not want to wait months to have their baby baptized), it became impossible for the bishops preside over every baptism. So the local pastor would baptize—but only the applying of water, not the full rite. At a later date, the bishop would come around and finish the full baptismal rite—the anointing with oil and the laying on of hands—thereby “confirming” the baptism. With some already talking about the Spirit coming through the laying on of hands and not the water, it’s not hard to see where this would lead. When they were all part of the same ceremony, such a thought made little practical difference (which is surely how the early Fathers saw it). But now that the ceremony was being broken into pieces, one rite was becoming two rites, and one sacrament was becoming two sacraments. By the mid-fifth century in France, this second rite began to be called “confirmation.”4 What began in France slowly spread to the entire Roman world. By the mid-twelfth century, it had become so universally recognized that Peter Lombard, in his influential Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, listed confirmation among his seven sacraments. In the following century, Thomas Aquinas did the same. Confirmation was officially designated as a sacrament at the Council of Florence in 1439.
This was the state of confirmation when Luther entered the ministry. Unsurprisingly, he had some thoughts, as we will see next time.
Rev. Rik Krahn serves as campus pastor at Manitowoc Lutheran High School.
Practical Theology: Why Use Sunday’s Propers for Bible Study
I’m sure many pastors already use the Sunday’s Propers for Bible study. Let’s look at why this practice can be beneficial for the pastor and his people. At the end of this article, there is a short survey for sharing your own experiences. Your responses will help further the conversation in the third article in this series.
There is no lectionary for Bible study used throughout the Christian church. “What are we doing next for Bible Study at church?” is a question pastors regularly face. You have to choose something and should have a good reason why. When I was in the parish, I often tried to involve the congregation in choosing the next Bible study. The reason for this was that adults tend to benefit from self-directed learning. I also tried to alternate between topical studies and book-of-the-Bible studies. The reason for this was to encourage healthy variety.
But sometimes, I was at a loss, and no one else had any ideas either. So, I admit that I first used “Lectionary Lessons” as a fallback option—something to bridge a gap in the schedule. Yet, the more I did it, the more I saw the blessings:
- Leverage study time. We all have those weeks when you realize you spent more time on Bible study preparation, and the sermon/service suffered. Or vice versa. But if you begin your week studying the Propers for both Bible study and the sermon, you have laid a good foundation for both. When you save time for yourself, it is also good for your people.
- Strengthen grasp on the Sunday’s theme. The lectionary for CW21 emphasizes thematic Sundays. Your study, aided by resources such as The Foundation and the Commentaries on the Propers, will help you see connections between the Gospel, Readings, Psalm of the Day, Prayer of the Day, Hymn of the Day (and even the Gospel Acclamation).
- “Prime the pump” for applications. Preparing questions and learning exercises for Bible study encourages you to anticipate the questions people may have, and how the readings, prayers and hymns fit into their everyday lives. Plus, if you offer this Bible study during the week before Sunday, the attendees will be helping you write your sermon.
- Lay groundwork for the future. You will give yourself good notes to look back on three years (or one year) from now, when that Sunday of the lectionary comes up again.
Finally, these “Lectionary Lessons” meet the two goals I had in choosing Bible studies. They provide adults with an opportunity for self-directed learning. You don’t have to worry about getting to everything you prepare for study in class—let them choose what parts they want to spend time on! They also provide variety, because you get to study something from a different book of the Bible every Sunday!
Next month, I’ll offer a few ideas about how to deliver a Bible study on the Propers. For now, I would love to hear your ideas through this survey.
Rev. Jeff Grundmeier serves as Campus Pastor at Northland Lutheran High School in Kronenwetter, WI.