Sm. _ MEG UNVERSPAT E216 INiaSPUOTHEK Zacsfelk MECLOGE Jennifer H, Maxfield, Technics! Edcor Copyright ©2005 (Concordia Historical nstinate 801 DeMun Avenue Se Louis, MO 63105, and “The Luther Academy 13825 373rd Avene Northvile, SD 57465 Qhusines office) ermsionshereith rated rerodcethe fr personal and conga we Face he ae Shi peony beeper, seg Sua a "aramid in ay frm ot by yeas ects meta ke oe ng ee i or Sith ay ther pares oling opin to mae eee ISBN; 0-9659555-25 Printed in the Uni f Sheridan Books, i materials inthis book ‘The Pieper Lectures Volume 9 The Bible in the History of the Lutheran Church Ee Jobn A. Maxfi Editor pore y Comers Hiri ants an TL bie esa ites are at eerily ts ead. The views ops bythe nical comers ior Iie or Th Lather Academy‘TaPerm Lens Ini Ma hl 8) 12 api mr fly ie, Die a ri ate Put ie Sree Po Bs ipo, alo fh en Soy 4 ik Vow 18) PLWASSITITTAETSS. BRE WAS 3208 2 (AE 13-4), WA D816, M15, 3195 nadtsilge hin Waar tm, ba Waa aed, WAND 19-3,21935-40(AE 1296, ros, WakBstapAE ES » "ol Ser me aloe MST sak seas 3. On he mace nay of i se Jan Lasley, Te Le f Leming and he Dai i Sry ea a, Ne Fos Uscray Fron, 190) Fors hela soy of Mar Lhe etn to eso ‘pe Hemi Han ret Pt en rt rd ers Cin SS halo, Mt Cen Pleo 5. Wa 3447 1839, A 4546 BWA 84a 8036-5 AE S46 SE WASI08 2.18 AF eae Be WAH 2, 332 a: Geena Ngee metres entire gaia ai eee sprang ceupe an See omen On ‘serie Dee ore csi scomnte wiioee ep ee aaees a Bees i Tir Neu Yr oO Or Ces Rear an hcp ws hear ce Shc Sa tte See SS tne oe 124659, Wa 49293 WA 3a BIG 0 Sea te sOLF Te HPL AE Soy “4 Se Mal. Pre on ak 24), WA ie fort 353 Scriptural Authority in the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy Kenneth G. Appold Lutheran Orthodony has ong been rege as an age tha consol {int or Saystermated” the more fteresting eologeal insights of the Lutheran Reormation, Recendy hoogh scholars have come o ‘iow che peo as something more independent, aan age shaped by {eves of challenges and factors chat were unig and very different from thos ofthe Reformation Fore thing the Peace of Augburg tn 1558 fea station tae whe ending acon degree of bility tthe confessional snation inthe Holy Roman Empire remained Stshing eo mosto he protons, rom a Poteet standin, the big winers were the terior urs, he Landesberen, fo they tere corded any ofthe rights formerly atached wo bishops and Mere in fact given the eof mar epixpas within thei rexpectve weplons In tas sense the Peace of Augsburg may ave se the sage fora process that eventtally Te othe terior absolut fea ter Gernot astm tela pe uly dose in courted osoon of harh eadesbip—eot “Tong with hs process hat ew has fen undermined by ner af recen studies, however, that sugges that seventeenth-cenury {lutranshelogans were often sharply xt of ther urs and in Inay cvs puree church pla agen that ran counter the Tin ofthe Obighet® One sath difrenc, I would argue sin the eapste conceptions ochre” each group brought oben his tin af cmergng Lateran ident? Browly speaking, a “highest shop wits their gn princes tended focus onthe religious af fhe thirown tertorce and were ss iterestedinseing the ee- fon of sone hind of tany-regional church insttton chat might ave ‘elite thiraphere of nlance Lutheran theologians onthe other Tan, never stoped belerng nan cl wre nivel church commited to the gorpel and na miedo temporal or pail feundages! Most of them abo belived tha sucha church should be table Their ange of pons for making iil were limited how- ‘Wer given the ekceance ofall partes to recreate a univer eles ‘ion slong Reman Catholcnes- If here were o be a ind of qTanertionl Lather unity then would have to be secured not 9‘Tie Pravin Lovoees 2007 insrsoally bins nity offath. Dane became he efor meme orexbhing tern ny an oesein tne {ene the meas af forging Lateran ley unmet the bound aeoflnd an wate Tenaga kt Hew suc of spr thority inthe age of Laer "This paper has swo pars fist section wll examine some of he main fentares of septal shorty fom «dace perspective ok ing in oer wordy what Lutheran Orodny sows sir authori; second etion wil dexerbe how thee deine rk in practice, that is how they were applied bythe teologuan whos ser then, Some of whit ty may wach on umber of topes rex fami to readers of Rober Press work Te lupiron fa ture’ or Bengt Hiigglund’s study of Johann Gert rough sme of the points I make are new. eee ae Scriptural Authority as Doctrine Doctrines ar not simply setements of truth; sents of truth. In order for them to be binding ‘unity or person, they mst haves recognizable atari: Pat mos Pi the foundation of Lutheran theology during this period. ‘Theo oom ae otis tab ate Sto rd en ae cele ae eet hee ae snc Tnn ieee cea te Sechelt nee Spe aims o al propositions. The prophetic aed ape e etna etic and apos- Ts Diniz nett Histony oF Fur Lomas Ciencia twlie writings of the Old and New Tesaments ate, as the Formula of ‘Concord famously asserts in its opening paragraph, the sole rule and ror aecording to which all eachings and all teaches of theology are tobe judged" Some form of this earemenc would reappear in virtually trey textbook of Lutheran theology during the course of the subse- ‘quent century ‘Surveying Latheran theology of the pest-Reformation period makes possible a number of general observations about the doctrine of scrip tural ahoriy tha, despite considerable variety among individual theo- Togians, seems to apply tthe age asa whole. Por one thing, Lutheran assertions of scriptural authority were usually born out of controver- Sialist context. Irone sid “sola scriptus,” one ruled ou other soures ff tuth-—most importiny that of an unwriten Tradition. But thar ‘yas not all. Lutheran theologians also emphasized an intrinsic athor~ ity of Seriprue as divine commonieation—s the Word of God. Be~ ‘cause God Himself spoke through Scripture, the Bible’ authority was tlvine, ther than human. This placed Lutherans at ods with some Roman Catholic contoversilsts who, while not denying the divine ingiration of Scripture, nonetheless maintained that it was the church which gave authority t0 theological doctrines dra from the Bible. ‘After all such Carholies argued, it was the chur that had decided ‘which books once in the canon and ic was the church which alone Weas able to interpret the Bible accurate" Lutherans countered with tssertions of Scripture’ clarity and perspcacity, claiming tha any be Tiever with an open heart and mind could read the Bible and under- stand those meanings esental to sation. The controversy proved Aliicalt to resolve and reappeared in varying forms throughout the Seventeenth century. We wal rerun othe fsuein more detail short Beenune they were liked to a contoversiist context, Lutheran understandings of Serpture authority were nor static but changed over time through the course of evolving dialogues with opponents. As the Seventeenth century progreseed, beliefs in Scriprure§ authority ere talled into question ftom 3 numberof diferent quarters. One ofthese tras a homemade product of Lutherans’ own theology. The belief that Seripeure is clear and perspicacions was rooted in Marcin Luther’ fo- tea Lav and geapel che Bible, as Luther repeatedly argued consis ‘of commands and promises—those things thar contribute directly to Salvation. A telling consequence ofthis hermencutical approach is Philipp Melanchchon’s sadly of Pauls Episdeto dhe Romans, published in 1821 as Loc communes thealgic Melanchthon draws out what he Considers to be the epste’ "main themes,” and these cura out to Be all those docerines which need tobe understood in order for che lw uTie Psven Lacrowss 2004 ee eee ecole, ete eee Sioa Tepe rape ase terra ek Toure Beag e Sans Eas nee oe at between 1655 and 1677, filled no less than twelve volumes and ‘over tet irs Secreer eee aee o e elaine ene en Se er Sone pap STi eh aac ge ce Petry ati elie pape tector Cat init ia te Lites did ai became te ron pcs a rosette ry evi ln ya el he eo ig sts hd nnn nut on os indents oF ny hare enh ac eran Herp fe a ene ten iy secaetcpenluipdoner a es nea Gordon Huntley or Martin Becanus were more than hi rete ned el cena Gt ed Sine arfow eae cece wma men “fg ee Angee Pesce kh cadens Seis Te ake rsh i 2 “Tee Brave wT Flisvony oF Te LUTinnan Cavoncnt the most productive and fascinating periods in this sense!* The Book. fof Nature came to occupy a place of growing importance next to the Book of Seripture ss advances in medicine, astronomy, physics, and the other natural sciences exercised influence on the minds and ives bf the age. This process did not always clminate indirect conflicts ‘wth Sersprure, bu its eomulative effect di erode older understand ings ofthe scope of biblical authority and gave birth to modern bili- Cal ertism. Here, 0, the role of Lutheran Orthodox theologians ‘was complen. Their dedication to leaning and their underlying com- Initment wo academic freedom placed them in opposition to more re= fctionary trends within cheir confession that sought to eliminate non- biblical sources of knowledge from theology altogether. ‘The great ‘Wittenberg theologian Jacob Marin engaged in such a controversy carly in the seventeenth century and penned his seminal “Vernuntfspiegel” of 1618, a two-volume defense of che use of phi- losopky and related disciplines in theology: Going through a list chat includes physic, metaphysics ethics, musi, an politcal seience, Mar tint argues that basic knowledge of these fields, while not necessary for salvation, was nevertheless indispensable to well-educated theo logian. Similarly, human reason, while unable in its postlapsarian con- dition eo produce sale knowledge of God, remained a powerful tool for the tanemsion and explication of such knowledge. Orthodox theologians also developed significant doctrines of “natura theology ‘contending that human reason and observation of nature could awaken {preliminary interest n God and lad to general—though not redemp- tive—knowledge of God. Such views opened theology’ doors to 8 ‘variety of new disciplinary approaches. Martinis student and suctes- 7 ed, for sor in Wittenberg, the celebrated Johann Andreas Quensteds for cxample, devoted much of his theologies carer to historcal-culurl ‘Sties of ancient rituals, sing the information he gsned to desc and explain, among other things Christian sites of Bapsm, Commun fon, and Bara.” Ironically, Quenstdt is best known today fos Me ‘Toelogi didatcrpolemie sce systema thclogicum* a cx systemae theology he put together shortly before his death that is ‘uch less original than bis previous work, which remains largely un own, sources of "The rise in importance of other disciplines and their Jknowledge did not lead to a rejection of Scripture’ authority by nheran Orthodox theologians but it id compel them so construct ‘more nuanced articulations ofthis deerine in order co maine Creibl. For one thing, separa authority was ately asserted with ‘ut some kind of accompanying explanation. In a preface 2‘Tae Preven Lacrvas—2009 mentary on Romans, for example, Johann Gerhard poses the question. How can we be rain tat Pris episte—or anyother writing, or that mater belong tote authorize cnon ofthe Bb? There are three tors, writes Gerhard that make bibl thority mane 1) quaiss inherent in the text suchas the majesty ofthe sjec mat tes the uniqueness ofthe sje and che conformity to the message of ‘other books inthe Old and New Texans 2) the external testo Of the church, in parila ofthe pts period, which defined the anon; 3) the itermalestnony of the Hol Spr, which comes ino Day whenever we red works of Srprare studiously and with he Feat Of God, and ind da the Spirit effacionly consoles, exh ani sate nd exces sso that we are comineed in ou hears that they are immediatly inspired bythe Holy Spr.” Gerhards entera a inceresing fora number of reson. The fist one, which pins in- et eal isa ame of hoon kb contemporary textual criti, From a methodsogial standin, Gerard clearly considers it pole that a rear could, theoretical, onclude thats atl Paline eps sot "genuine" but he dors ‘ot cone thio be eas, gen what he hinselfinows. The ope ‘es of his approach remains noteworthy, however. In dealing withthe cara testnony of te chch Geran comes qe cet ston held by sme of hs Roman Catole opponent, mini thatthe church, inded, defines the canon, Noetbelesy the charts extra teimony i in Gehan account, merely tae he church Sef to Scrpre’ aor: des not eet ial, we Hd Problematic mentioning ofan “internal testimony of the HOY Seine” Thi ine tstimony nas point of eamtenon Between aera and Reformed in the sevententh century. According he le the Won of Gol wn nox ceive wen Nesey online simon of he Hay Spe Int way, Cains swe conn fr th ovina all who ht te Word az devine ob sed Since Luther id not each double p= desinaton, they were pared this pura problem and ejected the "ion hat the Spt woud choose to act separately fom the exert "ther an ternal testimony ofthe Spin then not on the extemal Word of Scripture; iti an effect of ” Thee Binur 18 Tr Histon oF ie Levan CHOnoH sul estimony ofthe church, his intra estimony is no constive SThibial authorgy—che Bible is authoritative whether e penetrates Gur sally or not-but merely 2 posible wines to that authority. In “ther works Geran makes this pint more cls by dingwnbing Rerwecr an ator of Senpmre nse and ts thority ee a while the ibis authority isl isincontorerabl, tv authority sere Sent us ony in ath The fe that Gerhard ls hese msunder- Standing and dawson uch apgaments ll shows ans ie Simply ser serimral ahora nso dogmatic was tot enough in his er The dotin was under sufciem presse to Savant more exenve apologetic core. Gerard move repre= Tenuuve of Lutheran Orhodony 1s 2 whole. Inf, soch apologies trou intensify as ume went on, Abraham Calo expands Gerhards Te of thre “witnesses to biblical authority to eight i his Syema Calor, by the way, avoid the term “nner testimony and spe in Steal of he Holy Spit sting his sea in the heart ofthe atl” (Ghigurio Sprts Sn nda bu)” Fe eye ew taped Ltkersn Onbodonys ariculation ofthe dine of cra story and doing jst 0 them would warrant considerably more space tha arable here Ia oncladng this st section chink fa 0 5, a general, ha ee ‘ripe of serial authority ceained i orce troghot the Bis {ory af Lutheran Orhan thology. Sepre provided the eps ‘nological foundation for ding theological work Senprare et theo- Toga stements heir authority, Despite manifold external press bon the doctrine, it remained philosophically indispensable to Ltheran theology and was a8 consequence, defended vigorowl Dy Orton theologian, All were seed tat Sexprar lone served the mle and aon of thecogil deen ‘One fnal put shouldbe made Tor ericson: while aserons of Serre’ thority were central Lutheran theology in the age Sf Orthodoxy and « pina contndon with Roman Cathoisepe- Sil many Lutheran theologians tint vew belt nthe doin Ss nccemay for sleston, Nicolaus Hunnivs son of Ags and au thor of he wellknown Diep boi de fendamenal dens teria Beane Lye Cabins Reratt of 1626, ‘pectel shen artes of ath be considered fundamental” apd pon Miche fle Chrians needed to agre- The doctrine of Srpure ‘tasmoesnong dc. Iwas nou, Huios sy ele Be mes Sage ofthe gospel twas not neces to fae theoreti knowledge dour ir wfteen source, Disagreement on this subject, according 0 ini, should oe be chreh-diving 2s“Te Proren Lacrons 2008 Scriptural Authority in Practice Having cabled the theoreti importnce of scrip authori, we may now ak hw ign the dectrine was rom prc stand poine Di Lathenn Orthodony allow trough on is unyielding Tie in the coctrtas sorta ° acta he es, bir Sramsancesemphsed nee or dcrin nthe age of Orthod. They pera prema onthe production of healogy-of scene dcpined theology Sha was lolly sound, These requirements were tobe me by ak ing Serie, the sore of elena, clogs prima epi ‘emlogal principe. In pra, hat meat shat theca er anesthe te too place the conten of disputation preach ig deer nwig thes texts ha ke awa fom Serigar, Few Lutheran hela ofthis period be ve hole dines or reso th olde urd werd word in Sexe Mont geet with Abram Calo when sail that rele of faith ae notsnSeprre wena po vor er ord bt edo be erate fom Sere exegecal. Calor ha ‘nnd g-gn wth Soxinan tan move ‘neat prominent in Fastern Eero, a which the il bss fo ae sce fh Tht a Th Sis maine sine the ‘iy was noe mentioned exp by Serpere, it need norte male an are of ith Cals reply pin he importance of tclogy a nrpetie woof reating the ile ios thesloeetion td what Onto than ld th "a op sto ee np ha celina soe Scrip nore inporantiexchingy sch ature Ei Serpe mreinporae ching sch chao the ny wo ine ln the Cov were working wih something ke "hermeneta eee” in which parcel sages re ale ‘onl within th whol of Scop white hole of Sriptre greta aap fac inp" Thug oy oe have beso acs of ming wo Sere th peconesed dog 'n mind ad simply loking for pon ext cher lok thes teal wos rss 1 mich more anced ant sete sppeach. study of Calor’ exegesis— 2% Tine Bunce ws re Fisvoav oF tar Leniinan CHUncH each other tobe understood at all” They bring tothe biblical texts a9 fppreciation ofthis ancient literary world s a world of is own, asa realm to be entered through careful reading and mediation, tobe dis- {Covered asone explores foreign lan, and to be absorbed; if hat takes pice, it none les than Christ Himself who enters and inhabits the reader This sense of the Bible as 2 “foreign land” s especially evident in sermons ofthe period, particularly those that are base on Old Testa~ iment stories. Theological, most Ltherans of the time affirmed the Titeral sense of Seriptre as primary. In practice, however, they made liberal use of allegorical and typological readings to draw the listener into this strange new realm. They did so especially in thei sermons ‘The Wittenberg theologian Paul Rober who was professor and super- iendent at the City Church during the Thirty Year War and also Paul Gethardts teacher, was widely celebrated for his rhetorically imaginative interpretations of Seripeure In one sermon based on Psalm 42, Reber takes his listener ona spieitual journey to Jerusilem,deaw= ing them into the mindset of che dstant psslmistyearing for Jordan’ ‘waters, and finally assuring them that "you, t00, are in Jerusalem when {ver vou are here in ehureh and you to, taste the waters ofthe River Jordan whenever you reall your own baptism." Making use of aty- ological reading, Raber very skilfully merges the two worlds, the bib- Freal and the ecclesia, into something that could be experienced liargically by his lseners, dhs allowing Seripeare to come to life spi tually for people of the present. Raber’ predecessor in Wittenberg, Friedrich Baldui, wrote a series of sermons on the book of Joshua that also sceks to draw the listener into the world ofthis ancient cext, but he chooses a diferent approach. Baldain simply ignores the his- torial disance between Joshua’ time and the present and teats the “Stories as morality tals fll of examples for che conduct of his present tay Titeners Among othe things, he isinteresced in drawing out suide~ lines forthe behavior of princes and politica leaders—partcularly con- ‘cetming their duties toward the chureh. TA est glance, Balun’ appronch is more tera than Rober, bu closer look veils that hein less imaginative in his interpretation, Balduin does in these sermons what he and other Lutheran theo igians were doing in their more scholarly works of exegesis. He ana Fyees che biblical texts with a view toward drawing out theological con- losions that could be presented as docrine. In his commentaries on ‘Paul epistles, for example, Baldvin takes secons ofthe ext, analyzes and explicates them, teat a series of questions usually stemming from txchanges with other commentators, and concludes wth ist of theo nEESECeESECeESECessAtes SU Ces SUtessRtesstettstectstettstecsstiassteessteassteesstieastleastetasterasteteeteteeiet Siete eiretectetectetectstectteeteireteteeteiieteriraetiaetiraett ‘Tie Preven Lacrones— 20047 seg eet eee errs eves tome eres eg igen dante eg edad nner ee eee mediate eine atone ges ee eae erie imac epee eats theologians used the Bible “analytically” that isto say they approached "Sh SS et elmer Sa hen a Kereta een most ge commentaries aso. ‘contained statements on bib- a pi Ei stn eas eee nen tere, bur one observation does te fae at tt ini et Sc er Ierrnt nica meee ato leet cele eens ae wr tina tes nae es tcl epdeatciny Wan fore ete from Sriprure i a way that preserved the othr ofSeee udev hesaie wae Ereea ek 28 : “Te Bintan tae Flisronv oF Ft Lovina Canc sense, belie inthe authority of Scripture had to be complemented by confidence in the authority of sriptural interpretation, Some early Tutherans sought to circumvent this problem by asserting that the Holy Spire inspired theologians, roo, and even went so fara to attribute Geonsevoria to the Augsburg Confession. Such claims remained con troversial even within the Lutheran community, however, and did not Finally prove persuasive. Instead, most Lutherans chose to cast their loe with theological method. “The practical transfer of authority from Serptare to the interpre= tation of Sripture elds numberof pei for ealy Lutheranism. These tbecame evident in what later appeared co be the defining moment for Tatheran Orthodoxy’s understanding, of scriptural authority: the Regeasburg Colloguy of 1601. Convened by Duke Maximilian of Bavaria and Count Philipp Ludwig ofthe Paatinate-Neuburg late in thar year with ostensibly ecumenical intentions, te colloquy was oFigi- nally intended to cover all theological topes of controversy between Lutherans and Roman Catholic. After extensive preliminary negosia~ tions onthe scope and method ofthe debate, he disputants settled on tn issue of theological principles: whether Scripere alone can be the form of faith or whether the church defines that norm by its authori~ {ve interpretation of Sriprre.* Naturally, Lutherans, represented boveall bythe renowned Wittenberg profesor Agidivs Hunnivs, ae gud forthe former, They were not entiely succesful, however. The ‘Catholics, here led bythe Jesuit Adam Tanner, go the upper hand by getting Hlunnius to admit that Lutherans, roo, attached a normative lImportince to Seriptare as itis interpreted bythe ordained ministry. He didnot go as fr as Tanner would have liked —namely to concede tha the clergy has via ptertas to add things to Seriptre in order to make controversial points clearer. But Hunnivs’ concession remains Significant because i appears to posi judge in questions of faith who js outside Serpture itself, thus undermining the position that Seip tute alone is that judge. lannius wished to avoid positing such an x= tevcbibliea judge by insisting tha, while the minster verb inde has the authority to rule in matters of controversy, it remains hound x0 Scripture. ‘The ministry has no inherent authority, bu simply med ates scriptural authority with is decisions. As Tanner rightly observed, this is aot far fFom the Catholic postion, ‘The main difference lies in how the authority to interpret Seriprure is defined and instrwonal~ ied. The Cathoies have te pope, Lutherans a more diverse schema that includes both the ministry and politcal powers but is relatvized hy an appeal tothe freedom of each individual believer’ conscience.” LLaypeope, in Hunnius’ schema, theoretically have the power to chal- 2»‘Tae Peer Lecrvns— 2009 lenge he mine imergretaion by thrown appeal to Srp. ‘eres bard voc how Hunts could have taten tat posi very ‘Soulyn pce Gene mpally cacy gure fel ‘rhonda lana tbl exes iard mg i anyne cling op much les winrng eka spun ih ‘Winer rote Suey har sor nary rong it “iy nmin “Let ed here the Che Ronetyon win dene Wied none asthe reve mes ofeach side are sent hee" Is enough to observe that Hanns’ response doce Iensboxh eget ino Luhrs paced pnp Cipetion ands hse delenit ek ner {etry leo sn nro nthe poer of ccm toate Ee Deve wth couse dain congeneis within teste “on hi show Lather ha the Reon et of ea Sly and penpccy were frd opin racic Ana shinee nel olen mal ‘acme Gen he demand ofthe ge hse erp eel ‘bbe poten of helo Thay Onno high oe tl hyn esc el orator nee on wee met pray tthe psa suo ele he ology profsrs These aeaenic colons peroneal author. Ther considerable scl and religious cas was unfergided by amarante he erent Senn Pca eye pti ce ruil demands or farm wang he eke {Epuiemens for ial exegesis, and the formation a theologl “ele that offen held inne pox lte professorships and inten soutaneoy es ik igs ao oe stances that made doctrines of sriptura areata tes oferty paces Notes ep ln acne id dharani, Cea nl Fureberchy Sden sme nh Orie gn uh et i ed rr : oD de Tah “Tite Brave wera Fistonv oF rit Lona Gi sp ie Frage sah dem Ushensenag der Unies. in 500 Jere Thee ‘Waco ale 1909 he S02 Bare dr Thro Fata or Nero Tiler Cases Hall et am Unter 102 el. Ao Ses (igre Evangesehe Verte, 208) 5 Bobee Kine pel, eo a Keanblng. hind Dianne on dor Unt Wiener sien 1570 and 110 (bene i par Po The sample that comes to in ri bony the Fora of Conon le soni cnt ula pret ned toca "Dreen Comers nce hoc Trop oe Scenery ete Do Eh Ove nd ay 187 ho ‘ian Tb Ply of Ren Latha Sid of halal Prlgoee (Si Lene Cone Pubinbing Howe. 1970, 754-40. * eng gon, Dy Hale Sond sve Drang der Theo oe Gera ees hey 195) ce oe cm nin oe, rn cae sey ropes spss pn com Vez tm No Testament et tat pions bal ben renin ye Com of Trent fut sen in plot 15 ce Deng Shonnet101- 150. CR 2; Soh ion nator sa Ba, Wile Pack (Wid: Wetmiter 199) 18-12 ties Capel drome pti ram, se de pnt ci cacnnnr a eves recom sie dees Ts Eye Cena Coppin, lear se dr yr sass at {irr oi Et SS Meat Cio, Gin se adr Sare Sore ure cen, ‘nee rit nr ps Las Binan EO bean scar, 07 " 1 ore Seer, Extn plata bes prie (Webe,167. 15 ice hr ke melons fr hil etc Kis Sol, npr Sed Bod de Btrll m FJabander (Mc: Kae, 1960) sacs Stra eran. Di rami wn serie il Ree onan omg eel ron, Pi eed 33 ‘Cee fea ine Rat et nee den seach Babataben Veuuferirmera tnd Phibptndere energy Fora many of Mars age Kerth Appel Nerney in enon ser git Mery, Ela ta at nr 3000585 hr of hn enon Lahn Orin ha ‘tonsa top foi commen, fro Tolck, Vr oad ‘eae nn Gerd and Meudon. Uneasy out Cex de cent i i anger Vacohonk& Rope, 161); Hanna eee Bein a rantnbes Shi nf i ta herihy Dao Lape Desens 198 Jorg Br De Vom cb Ou md Peet a Umcadang cor Thee ann nines Ques (Gaerh Nie tat Rett Suntan, Thoms Ayu nl be Gord (New Hove Undone), “Sot cum; ef Johann Andreas Quest, De sara Erie ris i emery, Vly, Dato gua eis fapimals Peete (Wiberg Siar aca es ar‘Tie Perea Locrumis— 2008 ri pais rasan, mera, brian... ieee (ta, Weenie of Guenter ee exc Appl, Oo I en piety tgs Eee erences acer aaa feat ena Rename pea ad ieee ers seit oi tec Soralecaente whe am cnteteaenc hott abies tet cnyiaaws oem omcs SR as wna tes ay ee eg ig 1 rare sential day econ ater ce Soe eaters 2a cite emp ne eB seeing Sart eeamt Phen i a fi tte og SE Cale Ce ee seer aaah crf Peer are te eg ae seal, eres Sr fees cee ie cena es paolo Rep ae et Sterner ata tea es dopa Syteeeerianae Sree a a nae ieee ate YAP at SSRs eo St das ju eet gre tn orien do Bee Joma Ke foelEne Tge e (hae XID rg GoncneGaerna Wink eo ih ania ere Teh di, meni om ql a ns rie cnsiara cacao Winener 165). Peconic Sa yh ta et mid we Al, rl Komi Far uae ome Sa oe ed Sf Sted ere tn he Aah Cao spelt ec ig pts Cot eLehige Decca rt ie an ger Towed oo Scere ye cy ee foe epee ten imma a ese 34 The allowing sma of eens Repeshurg dens pon che apt R “Fir Bir wr Fiero oF Fae LuTinan GER sec ye Lata pry Clio mre in, eri ‘gums nde (suigen, 1012); the petinary opinions writen by ths Wren Fo ae pled neon ge ner, Ds To ge er Thy Poa oe Fe Sa nya i et (ene pat ot eam dre Eecterticteat Coach aod 7 au je Rae aa er Berges 1 nrc ening passer oe falta ei eccletope impor fhe debe in Appel nso Keg 5 3B