Psalm Singing Recording Resource

I recently ran across this site on soundcloud.com collected by Connor S. Quigley, which offers a treasure trove of psalm singing recordings.  This is a great place to listen and explore.  In addition to recordings that appear to come from congregational singing in the kirk, there are also pieces that come from professional singers, and psalms in other languages (e.g., Hebrew, French, Japanese, and even a Polynesian chant!).  Update:  Jason D. called to my attention (see comments below) that this site is even easier to navigate, with the Psalms in numerical order, though this site does not seem to have all the selections on the soundcloud site (like the non-English psalms).

Here are a few samples:

Mt. Zion Bible Church Conference: Music, Text, Family

Image:  JTR, Scott Brown, Jeff Pollard (left to right) at 2014 MZBC Family Conference

I had the privilege of giving three messages on the topic of New Testament text criticism last Friday-Saturday (November 14-15) at a family conference hosted by Mt. Zion Bible Church in Pensacola, Florida.  Mt. Zion is also home to Chapel Library, a tremendous non-profit,literature distribution ministry that has blessed and continues to bless many.

The conference had an eclectic theme.  In addition to my messages on text criticism, Scott Brown gave four messages on Christian family, and Jeff Pollard, the host pastor, gave three messages on music. Jeff's messages were particularly timely given that he was a professional rock musician before his conversion and call to the ministry.  Confessingbaptist.com did a nice wrap-up post on the conference with links to all the messages for those who might be interested.

JTR

"For David speaks concerning him....": Christ in the Psalms

While preaching last evening at Bells Grove on a section from Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:22-31) wherein Peter exposits Psalm 16 as a prophesy of Christ’s resurrection, I was struck by these words, “For David speaks concerning him….” (v. 25).

This statement is a reminder:

1. That the Old Testament speaks about Christ.  We do not have to limit our preaching to the New Testament to speak explicitly of Christ.  He is the focus of both testaments.

 

2.  The Psalms, in particular, speak of Christ.  I thought of this especially with regard to the singing of Psalms.  We have two explicit commands in the New Testament which instruct believers to sing canonical psalms (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).  I am an advocate for inclusive psalmody.  We should include the singing of Psalms in our corporate worship.  Sometimes one will hear the objection, “But the Psalms do not explicitly name the name of ‘Jesus.’”  Though the name “Jesus” is not found in the Psalms, this does not mean that the Psalms do not speak of Christ. Christ saturates the Psalms!  In them we find his nativity (Psalm 107:19-20), his teaching (e.g., Psalm 37:11), his miracles (e.g., Psalm 107:29), his death (see Psalms 22, 69), burial (Psalm 16:10), resurrection (Psalm 16:8-11), ascension (Psalm 47:5), session (Psalm 110:1), and second coming (Psalm 96:13).

Rightly then, does Peter say, “For David speaks concerning him….” (Acts 2:25).  

Confessing Baptist Podcast Interview # 69: Michael Barrett on the KJV Study Bible

It's here!  Reformation Heritage's KJV Study Bible is being released this month.  You can read about this resources on the KJV Study Bible website.

I did an interview with Michael Barrett, the Old Testament Editor for the KJV Study Bible, for Interview # 69 on the Confessingbaptist.com podcast.  I have also uploaded this podcast to sermonaudio.com (listen here).

You can also watch this video:

Word Magazine # 31: Review: John Piper on the Pericope Adulterae: Part One

I just posted to sermonaudio.com Word Magazine # 31.  WM # 31 is part one of a review of a 2012 sermon preached by John Piper on the Pericope Adulterae (PA:  John 7:53—8:11).

Here is the complete sermon on youtube.com:

I only made it through the first seven or so minutes of the sermon.  I noted the following:

I.  As is common for many pastors and even scholars who adopt and advocate for the modern critical text, Piper begins his defense of this position with an appeal to authority.

Piper argues we should reject the PA, because this is the opinion of leading modern-critical scholars, including evangelicals.  He cites:  D. A. Carson, Bruce Metzger, Leon Morris, Andreas  Köstenberger, and Herman Ridderbos.

I suggested that the appeal to authority can be a fallacious argument, however, if an opinion is divided and appeal is only made to authorities who support one’s position.  I shared several quotes from Bluehorn and Bluehorn’s Fallacy Detective including this one:  “If many accepted authorities disagree on a particular subject, we can’t say our favorite authority is the correct one—there may be many other equally respected authorities who disagree” (p. 60).

Through the authorities to whom Piper appeals reject the PA, there are others who do not.  Among interpreters from the past we could list:  Augustine, Jerome, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and others.  Among contemporary scholars we could list:  Zane Hodges, Arthur Farstad, Wilbur Pickering, Maurice Robinson, and David Punch.  Piper cites none of these men who disagree with his position.

II.  Piper lists six reasons to reject the authenticity of the PA and I tried to offer a response to each.

Here are some notes on Piper’s six objections to the PA and my responses:

1.  The PA is missing in all the Greek manuscripts before the fifth century.

Response:  It is not surprising that the PA is missing in the few early papyri of John, since they are all Alexandrian texts.  The earliest uncials we have of the NT are from the 4^th-5^th centuries (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus).  So, there are very few NT texts that have Greek manuscript support earlier than the 5^th century.  This is not necessarily unique to the PA.  In fact the PA does appear in Codex D from the 5^th century and it also appears in the early Old Latin manuscripts.  It is cited by Ambrose (c.  374 AD) and Augustine (c. 400 AD).  It is also cited by other early Christian writings including the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and the Apostolic Constitutions from the 3^rd and 4^th centuries respectively.  In the end, it prevailed in the majority tradition and appears in over 1400 Greek manuscripts.

Clearly and admittedly, there was controversy over whether the PA should be included in the text of John in the early church, probably because some early Christians objected to what they considered to be Jesus’ lax view toward the adulterer.  The antiquity of the PA, however, is beyond challenge.

2.  The earliest Church Fathers omit the passage in commenting on John and pass directly from 7:52 to 8:12.

Response:  The passage was cited by some of the Fathers (e.g., Ambrose and Augustine).  The Church Fathers do not offer an exhaustive commentary on every passage from the NT.  The absence of comment on the PA may be due to controversy over the passage of the fact that it was omitted in the early lectionary readings.

3.  The text flows amazingly well if you omit the PA.

Response:  This is a subjective and hypothetical argument that might well be said about many other passages in the NT.  For example:  Remove any miracle account, for example, from a Synoptic Gospel and one can still read a continuous narrative.  This does not mean, however, that it would be remove that miracle story.

4.  No Eastern Church Father cites the passage till the tenth century when dealing with this Gospel.

Response:

First, I pointed out that this statement is misleading.  If you look at the sermons from John Chrysostom on the Gospel of John, for example, it is clear he did not offer an exhaustive commentary on every verse but on the passages from which he preached, probably following the lectionary or liturgical reading.  There are many other passages from John chapters 7 and 8 on which Chrysostom did not comment, because he did not preach on that text.

Second, I pointed to E. F. Hills’ discussion of the PA in The KJV Defended, including a section subtitled “The Silence of the Greek Fathers explained” (pp. 156-158).  This argument, he says, “is not nearly so strong as Metzger makes it seem” (p. 156).

5. The PA appears in four other places in John or in Luke [Note: This is the so-called PA as a “floating tradition” argument].

Response:  See my previous blog post on this argument.    This is clearly a faulty argument and should be discarded by those who reject the PA.

6.  The style and vocabulary of the PA are more “unlike” the rest of the Gospel than any other paragraph in John.

Response:  This is the key “internal argument” against the PA (and is related to objection # 3 above).  Things are not quite so clear, however, as Piper makes out.

I pointed to the discussion of the PA in the Introduction to Hodges and Farstad’s The Greek NT According to the Majority Text, Second Edition (Thomas Nelson, 1985):  pp. xxiii-xxxii.  Their conclusion of the PA on internal evidence:

In view of the features of the Johannine style that have been noted and the narrative’s almost unique suitability to this context, the idea that this passage is not authentically Johannine must finally be dismissed.  If it is not an original part of the Fourth Gospel, its writer would have to be viewed as a skilled Johannine imitator, and its placement in this context as the shrewdest piece of interpolation in literary history!  Accordingly,the consideration of the narrative’s text that follows assumes its Johannine authenticity (p. xxiv).

In the next episode we will continue to flow Piper’s treatment of the PA, including problems related to his assertion that though the PA is not part of Scripture, it is still contains truth that can be proclaimed or as he puts it, “It’s true.  It’s a true story….  whether it happened or whether it belongs in this Gospel” (start listening c. the 36:31 mark).

The Vision (11.6.14): Ten Principles for Believing Hermeneutics

Note:  I started thinking recently about how important it is to have an intellectual framework for interpreting the Scriptures.  I jotted down some preliminary thoughts below that might be expanded, added to, or adjusted in the future.

Hermeneutics refers to the proper interpretation of the Scriptures.  Believers approach the interpretation of the Scriptures guided by distinct principles.  Here are ten:

1.  The Scriptures are inspired (2 Timothy 3:16).  They were written by men, but they are not merely the words of men (2 Thess 2:13).  They are the Word of God.

2.  The Scriptures are infallible (Psalm 12:6).  They are completely trustworthy in all that they describe, teach, and affirm (John 17:17).

3.  The Scriptures are perspicuous (clear).  The truths of God are clearly revealed in the Scriptures even if, due to the limitations of our human finitude and the impact of human sin, we do not immediately understand them (Psalm 119:130).  When a Biblical passage is unclear to us, we should pray, seek the counsel of sound teachers (both non-immediate through reading sound expositors from the past and present and immediate by speaking to living elders) and fellow believers.

4.  The Scriptures are consistent and non-contradictory (John 10:30).  If we find an apparent inconsistency or a place where one passage appears to be in conflict with another, we must recognize that our inability to understand is not due to a weakness in the Scriptures but a weakness in our limited understanding.  We must, therefore, pray for illumination and understanding (Psalm 119:18).

5.  The Scriptures must be used to interpret the Scriptures (the analogy of Scripture, analogia scripturae).  Passages that are clearer to us must be used to illumine those that are less clear.  We should not base doctrine on any one verse or passage taken out of context but consult the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

6.  The Scriptures must be interpreted according to the standards of sound doctrine drawn from the totality of Scriptural revelation (the analogy of faith, analogia fidei).

7.  All the Scriptures point to Christ.  He is the scope and goal of Biblical revelation and may be found in all parts of it (Luke 24:27; John 5:46).

8.  The first mention of a Biblical doctrine or concept in the Scriptures often plays a defining role for understanding the nature and meaning of that doctrine as it appears in the rest of the Scriptures.  We should thus pay special attention to this phenomenon.  An example of this principle is seen in the foundational role of the opening chapters of Genesis for understanding doctrines like the doctrines of God, man, sin, and redemption.

9.  The interpretation of any passage of Scripture must take into account the literary genre of that passage and the context in which it is found.  The Scriptures are generally to be read and understood on a “plain sense” level.  The interpreter is to avoid fanciful and inappropriately allegorical readings that do not have a sound basis within the text itself.  Paul thus exhorted the Corinthians not to go “above what is written” (2 Cor 4:6).

10. The Scriptures have both an evangelistic and an edifying purpose.  First, they have an evangelistic purpose, convincing and converting sinners.  What John says of his Gospel may be applied to the totality of Scripture:  “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31). Second, they have an edifying purpose, encouraging and exhorting believers.  So, Paul writes:  “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Ten Commandments for Academic Writing

Note:  I developed these "Ten Commandments for Academic Writing" to help my students when writing chapter by chapter summaries of selected NT books, book reports, and exam essays.

1.  Thou shalt write in complete sentences.

A complete sentence expresses a complete thought or idea.  It consists of a subject and a verb (predicate).

Negative example:  Chapter eight.  Talking about how Jesus healed a blind man.

Correction option one:  Chapter eight talks about how Jesus healed a blind man.

Correction option two: Chapter eight describes how Jesus healed a blind man.

2. Thou shalt use simple, active sentences.

In general, you should try to use simple sentences with active verbs, rather than complex and convoluted sentences.

Negative example:  Paul took three missionary journeys, and he planted many churches throughout the Roman world, because he was such a great preacher and theologian, and all kinds of people, both Jews and Gentiles, wanted to hear his message.

Correction:  Paul was a preacher and theologian.  He took three missionary journeys and planted many churches throughout the Roman world.  All kinds of people, both Jews and Gentiles, wanted to hear his message.

3.  Thou shalt avoid wordiness.

In academic writing more is usually less.  Write with precision. Avoid conversational expressions and unnecessary fillers.

Negative example:  Jesus has all kinds of patience with lots of people who were constantly coming to approach him with awful sicknesses and troubles.

Correction:  Jesus was patient with the many sick persons who often came to him.

4.  Thou shalt properly use conjunctions (and, but, or).

If two complete sentences are joined to create a compound sentence, the two sentences must be joined by a comma and a conjunction (and, but, or).  If two sentences are together which are not joined by a comma and a conjunction, it is a “run-on” sentence.

Negative example:  Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, they met with the apostles and elders to discuss circumcision.

Correction option one:  Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, and they met with the apostles and elders to discuss circumcision.

Correction option two:  Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem.  They met there with the apostles and elders to discuss circumcision.

5.  Thou shalt avoid contractions in formal writing.

Contractions (like:   I’m, we’re, aren’t) are fine to use in personal essays, informal writing, or fictional writing.  In formal writing, however, they are to be avoided.

Negative example:  Peter’s a great disciple.  He’s the best known among the twelve apostles.

Correction:  Peter is a great disciple.  He is the best known among the apostles.

6. Thou shalt properly use the conjunction “however.”

“However” is an adversative conjunction (i.e., it is used to draw a contrast).  It can be used in two ways:

(1) It can be placed after a word, within commas, to emphasize a contrast.  In general, “however” should not appear as the first word in the sentence in formal writing.

Example:  Barnabas wanted to take Mark on the journey.  Paul, however, wanted to leave Mark behind.

(2) It can used as a regular conjunction (see # 4 above) to join two complete sentences. When used in this way, it is preceded by a semicolon (;) and followed by a comma (,).

Example:  Barnabas wanted to take Mark on the journey; however, Paul wanted to leave him behind.

7.  Thou shalt use proper capitalization.

The first word in each new sentence should be capitalized.  Proper nouns, including the proper names of persons, places, and titles should be capitalized.  All references to the “God” of the Bible should be capitalized, while references to polytheistic deities should simply be written as “gods.”

Negative example:  this chapter describes how god spoke to jesus at his baptism in the jordan river.

Correction:  This chapter describes how God spoke to Jesus at his baptism in the Jordan River.

8.  Thou shalt use proper possessive apostrophes.

When indicating the possession, you should add an apostrophe (‘) and the letter “s” to the noun.  If the noun ends in “s” one may simply add an apostrophe without an additional “s.”  This is especially true of the possessive of the name Jesus which should be written as “Jesus’” rather than “Jesus’s.”  You do not use apostrophe “s” to pluralize a noun!

Negative example:  Peter was one of Jesus’s disciples’.

Correction:  Peter was one of Jesus’ disciples.

9.  Thou shalt set off dependent clauses from the main sentence by a comma.

A dependent clause is a clause which adds to an independent clause but which cannot stand alone.

Example one:  Though deeply respected by his soldiers, Alexander could not convince his troops to march beyond India.

Example two:  While teaching in the temple, Jesus told many parables.

Example three:  After crying with a loud voice, Jesus died on the cross.

10.  Thou shalt always re-read and edit thy work when thou hast finished it.

Never turn in the first thing that you write.  Read over the text and correct any errors you have made.  Sometimes it is good to leave it for a few hours or even a day before doing a final edit. This way you can read your text with fresh eyes.

Word Magazine # 30: Interview with Andy McIntosh: Creation and Apologetics

Image:  Dr. McIntosh speaks with some children following the afternoon service on Sunday.

I posted a new Word Magazine (# 30) today which features an interview with our guest speaker from last Sunday, Dr. Andy McIntosh.  I grabbed the interview as we sat in the sanctuary after the second service on Sunday at church (ignore the occasional creaky door sound!)

Here also are links to the other messages that Dr. McIntosh gave on Sunday at CRBC:

Creation:  Reconnecting the Gospel to a Post-modern Culture

Creation or Evolution:  Looking at the Evidence

Creation or Evolution: Q and A

JTR

Andy McIntosh speaking at CRBC this Sunday (November 2)

Dr. Andy McIntosh, a retired professor of Engineering at the University of Leeds in the UK and a Reformed Baptist lay speaker on creation issues, will be our guest this Sunday at CRBC.

Dr. McIntosh will speak in the morning service at 10:30 am and in the afternoon service at 1:00 pm. His topics:

10:30 am:  Creation:  Reconnecting the Gospel to a Post-modern Culture

1:00 pm:  Creation or Evolution?  Looking at the Evidence

Image:  Bells Grove meeting house, Louisa, Virginia

Both meetings will be held in our Bells Grove meeting house at 2997 Courthouse Road in Louisa (convenient to Goochland, Louisa, Fluvanna, Albemarle, and Charlottesville).  

Driving directions:  Take exit 143 Louisa/Ferncliff off I-64, go Northeast on Rt. 208 (Courthouse Rd.) and the church is c. 2.5 miles on the left.

The Vision (10.30.14): Women Disciples: Unlikely Witnesses to the Empty Tomb

Note:  Sunday before last in my sermon on the resurrection of Christ from Luke 24:1-11, we pondered the significance of the fact that women disciples were the first to visit the empty tomb and the first to announce the resurrection to the other disciples.

Maybe the most astounding lines in this passage are found in v. 11:  “And their words seemed as idle tales [that is, to the apostles, see v. 10], and they believed them not.”  The word for “idle tales” here is leros, meaning nonsense or empty talk.

This is another one of those places where we have to apply the criterion of embarrassment.  If this were not true why would Luke have kept such a seemingly embarrassing detail within the narrative?

Richard Bauckham in his book Jesus:  A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2011) observes:

But these eyewitnesses were women!  As almost every scholar notes, in that society women were not trusted to give evidence.  They were thought to be more emotional than men, and especially in religious matters apt to be credulous, too easily swayed by emotion (p. 105).

Bauckham goes on to cite a man named Celsus who was a second century pagan philosopher who despised Christianity and dismissed the testimony of Mary Magdalene, in particular, calling her a “hysterical female” (Ibid).

He adds:

Luke candidly admits that at first even the male disciples did not believe these women’s report.  Not only were women unreliable; it was unsuitable that women should be the first recipients of what was, in effect, a divine revelation.  If Jesus had risen from death, the men ought to have been the first to know (Ibid., p. 106).

Why did the Lord choose these women to be the first to find the empty tomb and to tell the disciples?  In many ways it is completely consistent with how God works.  This is the same God who told Israel in Deuteronomy 7:7 that he had not chosen them “because they were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people.”

It is the same God who spoke through Paul to say:

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

And who spoke to Paul to say:  “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9).

God sovereignly chose those weak women to discover the empty tomb in order to make his praise all the more glorious.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Word Magazine # 29: James White, Luke 23:34, the PA as a "Floating Tradition," and Muslim Apologetics

I recorded and posted yet another new Word Magazine this morning (that makes two WMs, back to back, in two days!).  Word Magazine # 29 comes in response to several people who contacted me over the last week asking if I'd do a response to a Muslim apologetic video which featured clips from apologist James White and Bart Ehrman.  As a supplement to this WM episode I have also added two blog posts that I refer to in the podcast:

(1) Text Note:  Luke 23:34

(2) The PA (John 7:53--8:11):  A "Floating Tradition"?

You can also view and listen to the video posted by "Muslimbychoice" which is reviewed in the podcast here:

The PA (John 7:53--8:11): A "Floating Tradition"?

It has sometimes been suggested that the Pericope Adulterae (PA; John 7:53—8:11) is merely a “floating tradition” that was never a stable part of the Gospel of John.  This charge is part of the rhetoric aimed at undermining the antiquity, credibility, and authority of the passage.

In Metzger’s Textual Commentary (see p. 221) he surveys a handful of examples of the PA appearing in different places in John and, in one case, in Luke.  Here are the examples he cites:

PA after 7:36                       ms 225

PA after 7:44                       several Georgian mss

PA after 21:25                    (1, 565, 1076, 1570, 1582, several Georgian mss)

PA after Luke 21:38     family 13 [aka the “Ferrar group”; about a dozen mss minuscule mss dating from the 11^th to 15^th centuries and believed to have descended from a common archetype]

According to Maurice Robinson the PA appears in 1,476 mss of John.  So, there are, in fact, only seven examples (counting family 13 as a single example) where the PA is moved, and all of these examples are in late minuscule mss.

 

Chris Keith of St. Mary’s University College in Twickenham, London is an expert on the PA who published a Brill monograph on the passage in 2009 titled The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus.  When speaking at the PA Conference at SEBTS in April 2014, Dr. Keith said the following:

We can be certain of three things:

1.  Christians were reading the PA by at least the late 4^th century at John 7:53—8:11.

2.  Copies of John circulated without the PA.

3.  The only location attested for the PA is John 7:53—8:11 until the ninth century.  It was not a “floating tradition” in early Christianity.

At the same conference Jennifer Knust of Boston University discussed non-textual evidence for the antiquity of the PA including an Egyptian ivory pyxis (small, lidded jar) from the fifth-sixth centuries which depicts the Samaritan Woman at the Well along with the Woman Caught in Adultery. This shows the PA was known early (by at least the sixth century AD), was known in Egypt (i.e., not just in the Western church), and was associated with the Gospel of John (i.e., depiction with the Samaritan woman from John 4 is on the same object with the woman caught in adultery from John 7:53—8:11).

Image:  Ivory pyxis with Samaritan woman at well (left), Jesus with scroll in hand (center), and woman caught in adultery (right); 5-6^th century, Egyptian; Current location:  National Museum, Paris.

Image:  Side view of the pyxis, focusing on the the woman caught in adultery.

For a discussion of this object and others (like a similar pyxis now in St. Petersburg, Russia), along with various supporting arguments of the antiquity of the PA, see Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman, “Earth Accuses Earth:  Tracing What Jesus Wrote on the Ground,” Harvard Theological Review 103:4 (2010):  pp. 407-446.

Admittedly, neither Keith nor Knust believe that the PA is original to John; however, they do believe that it became a distinct part of John’s Gospel very early in the tradition and that it was not merely a “floating tradition.”

The time has come to put to rest the perpetuation of the idea that the PA did not have a fixed place in or association with the Gospel of John in early Christianity.

JTR 

Text Note: Luke 23:34

I.  The Issue:

The question here is the beloved saying of Jesus from the cross:  “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”  The phrase appears in the traditional text, but its authenticity is challenged in the modern critical text which encloses the phrase in double brackets.  The Introduction to the NA 28 explains that double brackets “indicate that the enclosed words , generally of some length, are known not to be part of the original text.  These texts derive from a very early stage of the tradition, and have often played a significant role in the history of the church (cf. Jn 7,53-8,11)” (p. 55).

II. External Evidence:

The traditional text is supported the following Greek mss:  The original hand of Sinaiticus and its second corrector [b] (c. 7^th century AD), A (using the aorist eipen for “he said” rather than the imperfect elegen), C, third corrector of D, K, L, N, Q, Gamma, Delta, Psi, family 1, family 13 (without the conjunction de), 33, 565, 700, 892, 1424, 2542, Lectionary 844, and the vast majority of extant mss.

Among the versions it is found in the Vulgate and part of the Old Latin, the Syriac (Curetonian, Peshitta, Harklean), some Bohairic Coptic mss, and in the Latin version of Irenaeus (dated to before 395 AD).

The modern critical text is supported by the following Greek mss:  p75, second corrector [a] of Sinaiticus (c. 7^th c. AD), B, original hand of D, W, Theta, 070, 579, 1241.

Among the versions it is found in the 4^th century Old Latin manuscript “a”, Syriac Sinaiticus, the Sahidic Coptic, and some Bohairic Coptic mss.

III.  Internal Evidence:

Metzger notes that the absence of these words from “such early and diverse witnesses” as those cited above “is most impressive and can scarcely be explained as a deliberative excision by a copyist who, considering the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews, could not allow it to appear that a prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered.  At the same time, the logion though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained, within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel” (Textual Commentary, p. 180).

Leon Morris, however, states:  “Early copyists may have been tempted to omit the words by reflection that perhaps God had not forgiven the guilty nation.  The events of 70 AD and afterwards may well have looked like anything but forgiveness.  We should regard the words as genuine” (Luke, p. 327).

In favor of the originality of Luke 23:34a is its relation in context to the words of Jesus in Luke 23:46:  “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”  If original, Luke would have the first words of Jesus on the cross be an intercessory prayer addressed to the Father for his persecutors (v. 34) and his last words on the cross be a prayer addressed to the Father before his death (v. 46), thus framing Luke’s discreet description of Jesus’ suffering on the cross (vv. 34-46).

IV.  Conclusion:

The external evidence for Luke 23:34a is strong.  It is even supported by the original hand of Sinaiticus, providing another example of divergence between the twin modern critical heavyweights of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.  Is there a plausible explanation for why the phrase would have been omitted?  Yes.  Some scribes might have believed the prayer of forgiveness was unheeded given the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (an event given special emphasis in Luke; cf. 19:43-44; 21:20-24).  It is unclear how Metzger can declare this as a “scarcely” tenable explanation or on what basis he concludes it is “probably” not part of the original text of Luke.  Furthermore, Metzger, like other modern critical text advocates, acknowledges that the words of Jesus cited here obviously have very early attestation.  He even suggests it is an authentic “dominical” saying, though not original.  Given this, why not simply accept that the 23:34a is not only an early authentic saying of Jesus but an authentic saying that was, from the beginning a part of Luke’s Gospel, demonstrating, along with the prayer of Jesus in 23:46, his communion in prayer with the Father, even while on the cross.  In the end, I agree with Morris:  “We should regard the words as genuine.”

JTR 

Word Magazine # 28: The Life and Legacy of Bruce Manning Metzger

Image:  The fourth edition (co-edited with Bart Ehrman) of Metzger's best known and perhaps most influential book, "The Text of the New Testament."

Image: Bruce Manning Metzger (1914-2007)

Note:  I recorded and posted a new Word Magazine today (# 28).  This episode sketches the life an legacy of longtime Princeton Seminary professor, Bruce Manning Metzger.  Below is the introduction to the podcast.  Listen for the rest.

I was having a discussion recently with two friends and one asked the other two of us this question:  “What are the books which have been the most influential against the traditional text?”

My friend answered:

1.       Bruce Metzger’s Text of the New Testament

2.       Kurt and Barbara Aland’s Text of the New Testament

3.       James White’s The King James Only Controversy           

4.       D. A. Carson’s King James Version Debate:  A Plea for Realism

My response:

I think in the modern context it has been B. N. Metzger's The Text of the New Testament (now in its 4th edition and co-edited by no less than Bart Ehrman).  The subtitle says it all:  "Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration."

For the 19th century, it would likely be Westcott and Hort's Introduction to the NT in the Original Greek.

So, we both put Bruce Manning Metzger's Text of the New Testament at the top of the list.  In some of my recent podcasts reviewing James Whites’ comments on the text of the NT, I noted that White, like most other contemporary pastors and scholars, has been deeply influenced by Metzger in adopting “reasoned eclecticism” and embracing the modern critical text.  White, in particular, and other have also been prone to pass along anecdotes from Metzger without bothering to examine the primary sources (e. g., Erasmian legends).

Who was Bruce Manning Metzger?  In this article I want:

1.  To offer a sketch of Metzger’s life and his considerable academic achievements.

2.  To reflect on Metzger’s ongoing legacy.

I am relying on two primary sources for this study:

First,  Metzger’s autobiography, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (Hendrickson, 1997).

Second, J. Harold Ellens, “Bruce Manning Metzger (1914-2007),” in  Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, Ed. Donald K. McKim (IVP Academic, 2007):  pp. 728-732.

In addition I also read several online obituaries and tributes from pastors and scholars that were published at Metzger’s death..... 

The Vision (10.23.14): Jeremiah Burroughs on the Meaning of the Resurrection

I preached last Sunday morning from Luke 24:1-11 on the resurrection of Christ.  At the close I tried to describe why the resurrection was an essential part of the saving work of Christ.  In conversation after the service a friend mentioned a good verse to add to the list of prooftexts:

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

He also sent along this helpful quote from the Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs (c. 1600-1646) from his treatise titled Hope:

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the cause of true lively hope in the hearts of the saints.  By the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, God has declared that He is fully satisfied for the sins of man, and that the work of redemption is fully wrought out; otherwise Christ must have been held in the prison of the grave forever.

May we continue to marvel over and to meditate upon the significance of our Lord’s resurrection from the dead.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle