Quote from: Mbecker on Yesterday at 05:16:00 PMQuote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 22, 2024, 10:03:52 AMBut you do agree, Matt, that they were teaching the historical critical method?
If by "they" you mean bibical scholars and other professors of theology at LCMS colleges and seminaries after the mid-1940s, you are correct. As I mentioned, when the synod celebrated its centennial, the convention that year voted to spend a large sum of money to support the publication of a major historical-critical resource, BAG (later abbreviated BDAG). From the 1940s onward (perhaps even earlier), seminary students, LCMS pastors, and LCMS professors of theology learned historical-critical methods in LCMS institutions, and those individuals benefited from historical-critical resources. I learned about such resources myself when I was a student at 801 ('84-'88), and made use of them then as well as subsequently. Hoerber made use of those resources in NT studies, just as Hummel did in his OT courses. (Hummel helped to introduced these modern methods to Concordia students in the early '50s.)
Were there matters of disagreement? Absolutely. The Scharlemann affair is a good example. Hummel left Concordia for LSTC, where he could work a little more freely in his area. Habel's work on the genres of the Genesis stories in Gen 1-3 is another example.
By the early 1960s it was clear that the Synod would need to address the limited usefulness of "the historical-critical method," given that those tools could be used destructively (e.g., as they have been, imo, within the ideology of historicism). Thus, the Synod went on record in 1967 and 1969 supporting the use of historical-critical tools of biblical scholarship within certain prescribed limits. The presuppositions and aims that one brings to the exegetical/hermeneutical task are crucial, e.g., using those historical-critical tools in service to the gospel and not in rigid obedience to Troeltsch's three principles.
Thank you, Matt. I think that was precisely the bone of contention, whether or how to use the historical critical method. Users can reach widely different conclusions. A more conservative user like Danker would raise fewer eyebrows. But as users began to reach more surprising conclusions, that sparked concern and mistrust.
As I've read the literature, the number one accusation from both sides was dishonesty. Both felt it and both feared it, which led to further and further confrontation.
I've been with youth all night talking about the two natures in Christ. Time to turn in.