You write out of your own particular perspective and chosen world view. Not all of us were theologically trained at Wartburg, nor do we all accept their emphases as the correct method or the best. Seems to me that at times you are in danger of "not seeing the forest for the trees." You examine individual words and differing accounts and emphases but are loath to see how they fit together or what it adds up to. Examining trees is interesting and important. But so is examining the extent, nature, and ecosystem of the whole forest. You also have limited your conversational partners in your theological enterprise to those more your contemporaries (neglecting the Fathers and Confessions) and I suspect also those who are of a more "critical" perspective. You also seem to have an affinity for more speculative interpretations. Would you consult, for example, commentaries from the CPH Concordia Commentary series?
I had to laugh when I read this. In every biblical class I've taught, I encourage the participants to read through the whole book so that they have a view of the "forest" before we look at individual trees.
An analogy I heard and have used is that when botanists dissect a rose, they can better understand all the distinct parts of a rose, but they have also lost the beauty of the rose.
Part One of a workshop I led in Toledo on the Advent/Christmas texts in Matthew, was "Forest." Part Two was "Six Trees."
If you're interested, the six trees were:
Matthew 24:36-44....The Son Will Come and We Dont Know When (1 Advent)
Matthew 3:1-12........Getting Drenched by the John for the Coming (2 Advent)
Matthew 11:2-11.......Are You Sure He Came? How Do You Know? (3 Advent)
Matthew 1:18-25.......The Genesis of Jesus A Very Strange Coming! (4 Advent)
Matthew 2:13-23.......He Came! He Leaves! Saving the Savior! (1 Christmas)
Matthew 2:1-12.........Oops! Wrong House; Wrong King! (Epiphany or 2 Christmas)
For me the primary "forest" or "rose" is the book (or author) being studied. There are certainly similarities between Matthew and Mark, but I see them as different forests or different flowers. Like with forests and flowers there are similarities, but to try and melt them together into one plant the beauty of the rose and the carnation are destroyed.
I do find that canon criticism is interesting; to try and discern why the early believers selected these books and put them in the order that we have them in.
In Donald Rumsfeld's phrase, we don't know what we don't know. All of us have blind spots some of which we are probably not aware. By limiting yourself to word studies and individual passages, you may blind yourself to perceiving the bigger picture, or even denying that there may be a bigger picture to be perceived. You may find yourself, having limited yourself like one of your favorite blind Hindi, perceiving only a part of the elephant and unaware or in denial that there is a larger whole of which your particular segment is but a part.
To quote Bill Hill (someone none of you know, but a friend of mine; he served in the military, was a manager of a coal mine, and after his studies to become a Roman Catholic deacon). I asked, "What's the most important thing you've learned?" He answered, "I learned how much I don't know."
I'm the one arguing that I am only one of the blind men and that there are many, many others who help contribute to understanding the elephant. I'm not sure that you would say the same thing about yourself.
Theologians have many tools in their toolbox. Like good craftsmen they will be competent with all of their tools. Typically, like other craftsmen, they will specialize, becoming more skilled with certain tools and certain tasks, and more comfortable working with certain tools. It is, however, a mistake to let our own comfort zone and specialization fool us into thinking that one specialization is the most important and the others can or should be neglected. One may end up with a preference for hammers and start treating everything as nails, even screws. Or perfecting the fashioning of individual parts and never assembling or applying the finish and upholstery to the whole chair.
Exactly! And when one sees himself as part of a huge gathering of good craftsmen, each with their specialties, I don't have to become a systematic or confessional theologian. Others are much better at it than I am. I have yet to be in a pericope study group where anyone else studied the Gospel from the Greek (and I was doing that before I started sending out my "notes" about 30 years ago).
I learned early on in my ministry that I couldn't afford every book on every topic that I was interested in or that was applicable to pastoring a congregation. I concentrated my spending and reading on commentaries, usually buying and reading two new commentaries on the main gospel for that year. I have about 30 commentaries on the Gospel of Luke. (I also concentrated on worship and music stuff, too. I specialized in piano music and arranging for guitar. I know enough about organs to know that I'm not qualified to play one.)
Poll