I'm beginning a series this week on the seven sayings of Jesus while on the cross. The first one is Luke 23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do" [NKJV]. In the Holman Christian Standard Bible the verse is bracketed, showing that there is some doubt about its authenticity. The text is bracketed in UBS4 with an "A" rating, meaning the committee believes it likely is not original to Luke.
Both p75 and B omit the verse, as do a few other later Alexandrian and Western mss. Aleph includes the verse as does A C L Byz and some Syriac. When you get down to it, the external evidence is split.
What are the internal factors? Bock summarizes them well [1868].
· The parallel prayer of Stephen in Acts 7:60 argues for inclusion, since Luke frequently notes parallelism between events. Some have argued that the text was modeled on Acts but the other way around seems more likely.
· The absence of a parallel in the other Gospels speaks of inclusion here. There is no good reason to explain why a copyist would add such a remark.
· The motif of ignorance is common in Acts [3:17; 13:27; 17:30] and finds endorsement here [Epps].
· It is easier to explain the prayer's omission than inclusion. A scribe could have considered the remarks too forgiving of the Jews [R. Brown] or if he regarded the prayer as unanswered in light of A.D. 70 [Morris; Jerome, Letter 120.8.2 says it delayed the judgment].
· Each major subunit of Luke's crucifixion narrative contains a saying. If the prayer is omitted, then a saying is lacking from this subunit [23:28-31, 43, 46 Marshall, 868].
While certainly not overwhelming, the internal evidence suggests that the text is original with Luke [Ernst, Grundmann, Tiede, Ellis, Bock, Morris, Stein, Marshall (although he is a bit hesitant). As mentioned above the text is bracketed in UBS4 and given an "A" rating. The text is bracketed in WH as well.
Brown has a detailed summary of the discussion, including four options of how the prayer arose: (1) spoken by Jesus and preserved by Luke, (2) spoken by Jesus and inserted early on into Luke, (3) formulated by Luke, and (4) formulated after Luke. Bock prefers option 1, Brown option 3, and Metzger option 2.
Prudent text criticism takes both external and internal evidence into account. For Luke 23:34 it is the internal evidence that is the most persuasive.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Hoehner
It is sad to report the death of Harold Hoehner, the distinguished NT professor of Dallas Theological. The Dallas Morning News reports that Dr. Hoehner died Thursday. I've gained many insights from Dr. Hoehner's writings, especially his magisterial commentary on Ephesians. There is a tribute to Dr. Hoehner on the DTS website as well.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Language and the Pulpit
Baptist Press has a story this week which is critical of Mark Driscoll's use of sexually explicit langugage. You might know that Driscoll was once known as the "cussing pastor." This was something for which he apologized and repented, but it looks like he is still on the edge on his blog.
My kids came back this past weekend from an event held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in which Driscoll preached. When I asked them how he did, my son made a few comments and then said, "At least he didn't cuss." I'm not sure that's the testimony a pastor should have. Should he not be attempting to live "above reproach?"
This is not a problem for Driscoll alone. I hear reports more often than I'd like on pastors who go over the line in a sermon. It is usually one that deals with sex. The Bible has much to say on that topic, but the Word of God is restrained in when sex is the topic. I think we should always take our cue from Scripture. Deal with the topic but do so with restraint.
In Col 4:6, Paul wrote: "Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person." This is the Apostle's word on how to engage the culture. Do so. But do so graciously, watching what you say and how you say it. Usually, pushing the envelope does more harm than good in the long run.
My kids came back this past weekend from an event held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in which Driscoll preached. When I asked them how he did, my son made a few comments and then said, "At least he didn't cuss." I'm not sure that's the testimony a pastor should have. Should he not be attempting to live "above reproach?"
This is not a problem for Driscoll alone. I hear reports more often than I'd like on pastors who go over the line in a sermon. It is usually one that deals with sex. The Bible has much to say on that topic, but the Word of God is restrained in when sex is the topic. I think we should always take our cue from Scripture. Deal with the topic but do so with restraint.
In Col 4:6, Paul wrote: "Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person." This is the Apostle's word on how to engage the culture. Do so. But do so graciously, watching what you say and how you say it. Usually, pushing the envelope does more harm than good in the long run.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Chapel at NGU
I had the wonderful privilege this week to preach in the chapel service at North Greenville University. It was a blessing to preach the Word to this great student body. The message was from Romans 8:31-39--one of my favorite passages.
What You Won't Learn In Greek Class
I got this from Rod Decker's blog, but he got it from Dave Black.
Some things you will NOT learn in Greek class are:
1) Greek is the Abracadabra or Open Sesame of biblical interpretation. Hardly. Greek will not automatically tell you what the text says though it will limit your options.
2) Greek is inherently difficult to learn. Wrong. Greek is impeccably logical. It has mathematical precision. After all, God invented the language, and He does all things decently and in order. Anyone can learn it who is hardworking and motivated.
3) Greek is never abused by preachers and theologians. Wrong again. This happens all the time. This is one reason to learn Greek for yourself — so that you can check the accuracy of those who use Greek in their teaching. Greek is often (more often than we think) used to support one’s a priori conclusions as to what a text means. It’s what I call “evangelical Greek,” and no one, myself included, is immune from it.
4) Greek is strange and unique. Absolutely not! Greek is like a long-lost relative you’re meeting for the first time. Like English, it is an Indo-European language and thus shares many cognates and derivatives with your own mother tongue.
5) The New Testament had to be written in Greek because it is superior to other languages. (Sometimes this is phrased as follows: “The New Testament could never have been written in Hebrew because Hebrew lacks the complex semotaxis of Greek.”) True, Greek morphology and syntax are a bit complicated, but the real reason the New Testament was inscripturated in Greek (rather than, say, Hebrew) is a man named Alexander the Great.
6) Greek makes you a more spiritual person. Nonsense. Just remember 1 Cor. 8:1: Knowledge puffs up. Love builds up. Will Greek make you a more loving person? No. Will Greek help you learn truth that can change your life? Absolutely!
Oh how I miss teaching Greek, but I do love the language and attempt to work in it every day. I would agree, however, with all the above.
Some things you will NOT learn in Greek class are:
1) Greek is the Abracadabra or Open Sesame of biblical interpretation. Hardly. Greek will not automatically tell you what the text says though it will limit your options.
2) Greek is inherently difficult to learn. Wrong. Greek is impeccably logical. It has mathematical precision. After all, God invented the language, and He does all things decently and in order. Anyone can learn it who is hardworking and motivated.
3) Greek is never abused by preachers and theologians. Wrong again. This happens all the time. This is one reason to learn Greek for yourself — so that you can check the accuracy of those who use Greek in their teaching. Greek is often (more often than we think) used to support one’s a priori conclusions as to what a text means. It’s what I call “evangelical Greek,” and no one, myself included, is immune from it.
4) Greek is strange and unique. Absolutely not! Greek is like a long-lost relative you’re meeting for the first time. Like English, it is an Indo-European language and thus shares many cognates and derivatives with your own mother tongue.
5) The New Testament had to be written in Greek because it is superior to other languages. (Sometimes this is phrased as follows: “The New Testament could never have been written in Hebrew because Hebrew lacks the complex semotaxis of Greek.”) True, Greek morphology and syntax are a bit complicated, but the real reason the New Testament was inscripturated in Greek (rather than, say, Hebrew) is a man named Alexander the Great.
6) Greek makes you a more spiritual person. Nonsense. Just remember 1 Cor. 8:1: Knowledge puffs up. Love builds up. Will Greek make you a more loving person? No. Will Greek help you learn truth that can change your life? Absolutely!
Oh how I miss teaching Greek, but I do love the language and attempt to work in it every day. I would agree, however, with all the above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)