Cyberbrethren posts When is a Book of Concord Not a Book of Concord? Readers who are interested in the Concordia may well find this post an interesting summary of a discussion surrounding textual issues and the Book of Concord. Kudos to Paul McCain for organizing and posting these thoughts.
As a response, I offer a few questions:
1) The Henkels are a very interesting group coming out of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee in the early 1800s. Weird things were happening in those days (read: revivals), and the early American Lutheran scene isn't very pretty (read: not confessional Lutheran). David Henkel is credited with getting the confessional ball rolling among his family and is one of the translators credited in the Henkel edition of the Book of Concord. (See side links)
Looking at some of David's writings, it is evident that he had access to Luther's works. Is anyone aware of where/how would he/the rest of his family have had access to Luther or a 1580 Book of Concord?
2) Cyberbrethren posted: "Ironically, to this day, the only complete translation of the German edition of the Book of Concord of 1580 is the translation prepared by the Henkels in the 1850s, with the 1854 second edition being the better edition"
What makes the second Henkel edition better than the first? Is there a critique published somewhere?
3) I was a little surprised in the post above to read that "formulas of confessional subscription do not refer to a specific edition of the Book of Concord". The proposed ordination rite for Lutheran Service Book does specifically mention "the 1580 Book of Concord" - so perhaps I do not understand what is being said?
4) One of these days, I will learn to make use of the "trackback" function. I'm sure that there must be a FAQ somewhere...
Again - thank you to Cyberbrethren for an informative and interesting post. I commend it to anyone interested in textual questions about the Book of Concord.
2 comments:
Greetings,
Just a few comments by way of response to your questions. First, thanks for reading the post so carefully. There are a handful of us BOC-geeks out there and it is great to discuss and look into these things.
>>Is anyone aware of where/how would he/the rest of his family have had access to Luther or a 1580 Book of Concord?
For the translation of the BOC, Professor Krauth loaned them his copy of a Dresden 1580 Book of Concord, which they used while they did their work. You can go to "Lutheran Legacy" and read the prefatory materials for both the first and second editions of their translation and they explain the sources they used to do their work.
>>What makes the second Henkel edition better than the first? Is there a critique published somewhere?
I do not have the source here at home, but the LCMS published an English language periodical in the late 19th century, and in that publication they give kudos to the second edition, as superior to Jacobs' work, which they really attack as deficient for inserting poor translations qualifying the objective grace of God, etc. Also, if you take a look at the preface to the 1854 edition you'll see the steps they took to improve it. Again, see "Lutheran Legacy" for the scanned copy of the 1854 edition.
3) I was a little surprised in the post above to read that "formulas of confessional subscription do not refer to a specific edition of the Book of Concord". The proposed ordination rite for Lutheran Service Book does specifically mention "the 1580 Book of Concord"
McCain: To my knowledge, it in fact does not specifically refer to th 1580. This was a change. I'll have to look at the Agenda, which I have at work, but I lobbied to have the "German 1580" removed simply because they would have then, in effect, taken the Latin 1580 off the table, which was univesally received and used as an authoritative edition of the BOC. But, note, the pledge is to the Book of Concord, in fact, and not to anyting else, including, for example, the latest scholarly opinions on what the contents of the BOC should have been. For instance, we are not pledged to the second edition of the Apology, which is the edtion used in the Kolb/Wengert, but not used in either the German 1580 or the Latin 1584. Interesting, no?
4) One of these days, I will learn to make use of the "trackback" function. I'm sure that there must be a FAQ somewhere...
Well, there is one posted at www.cph.org/concordia, and it covers some of these issues, but the material in the post on my blog site is new, the quote there is from the second edition, which is at the printer.
I don't think I would get quite so many google hits on my blog if I'd called it BOC-geek :) I agree that it's an interesting discussion - it looks like you've had a few replies on your blog.
My interest in the Henkels goes back to different classes that I took with Dr. Rast. We had wondered aloud at one point about the access that the Henkels would have had to some of the confessional materials (particularly David, who was the earliest one to embrace confessional Lutheranism). The connection to Krauth is interesting. I wonder how early he connected with the Henkels?
The preface to the 2nd Henkel edition does say a little about the improvements that they made (I suppose that a major selling point of a second edition is that it is an improvement on the first...)
I've been looking on the issue of the German 1580 and the Latin 1584. Outside of my sem class notes (only as reliable as the notetaker...) I haven't found too much that addresses it. There is a reference in the Brief Statement. I've been scanning Sasse, but I haven't found anything specifically mentioning 1580. I'll be interested to see what your sources at work have to say.
Post a Comment