Did Martin Luther have a definition for "sola scriptura"?

[thenobes]

Do you mean because he refused to put his words at the level of scripture? I have no idea how he felt about the practice, other than he was convinced that Tradition was not consistent, that it at times had contradictions.

No, just that his words aren’t bible, including his idea of sola scriptura, according to his own words.

But as I implied, neither are mine.

It just that we don’t see “infallibility” in the same way Catholics do. Something doesn’t have to be infallible to be right, and being right does not necessarily mean being infallible.
We can accept the three Creeds as right, without saying that the writers were infallible in the writing. We can say the 7 General councils of the Church were right, and even authoritative, without saying they are infallible.

Jon

Understood.

But the question is, how can one select a point at which “right canons” turn to “wrong canons”? The NT itself could be said to be a be of canons, rules, by which to determine doctrine. How does one determine that that set is a correct one? Is their a set of rules for relating one canon to another?

Once again this is the function of the Church, not individuals, and scripture agrees. If not the function, then it is evident that fracturing of doctrine is a necessary result.

peace
steve

 

[JonNC]

No, just that his words aren’t bible, including his idea of sola scriptura, according to his own words.

But as I implied, neither are mine.

Understood.

But the question is, how can one select a point at which “right canons” turn to “wrong canons”? The NT itself could be said to be a be of canons, rules, by which to determine doctrine. How does one determine that that set is a correct one? Is their a set of rules for relating one canon to another?

Once again this is the function of the Church, not individuals, and scripture agrees. If not the function, then it is evident that fracturing of doctrine is a necessary result.

peace
steve

Ok. Yes. Determining canon is the role of the Church. More importantly, how the canon is used and interpreted is the role of the Church. In Lutheranism, where the canon is not dogmatically defined, we look at the history of books. Were they universally attested, or were they disputed. Hebrews, for example, is a historically disputed book. We will use it slightly differently than, say, Romans. We see them both see them both as scripture, as canonical, but in terms of doctrine, we use them differently.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

So, why did you stop your quote from the open letter there?

"I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there.
And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text –* if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek***, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
He recognizes it is not in Greek or Latin. He also recognizes that Greek and Latin do not necessarily translate directly, word for word, to German or any other language for that matter. So, for the meaning to be clear in German, alien is needed. In the English, “alone” is not needed. Hence, no English translation that I know of has “alone” in Romans 3:28.

You can dispute Luther’s translation assessment, but at least be honest by posting the whole thought.

Jon

PS: I can use large print, too.

It doesn’t matter if he wanted a German bible, he still should have
been more true to the Holy Bible and not alter it to meet his Faith
Alone mess.

 

[JonNC]

It doesn’t matter if he wanted a German bible, he still should have
been more true to the Holy Bible and not alter it to meet his Faith
Alone mess.

If you want to argue that his translation is not accurate, that’s fine. We can have a discussion, and likely disagree about that. I’m good with that, and respect your view on it.

I speak English, so my Bible(s) do not have “alone” in Romans 3:28. However, by looking at the entirety of the NT, I know that I am justified by grace alone through faith, faith alone, a faith the works through love.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

If you want to argue that his translation is not accurate, that’s fine…

Jon

Not only “not accurate”, he knew it, and that’s bad.

 

[JonNC]

Not only “not accurate”, he knew it, and that’s bad.

No, he knew his translation was accurate, in German. His translation was good enough for the Catholic “translator” Emser.
Here’s the point - again: if you want to disagree with Luther’s translation, that’s fine. But you seem to want to read his mind, ie., he knew he was not accurate. You don’t know that. You weren’t there, or in his head. He states his reasons for his translation. That’s what you have to go on. He says “allein” makes the verse clear in German. You can only judge his judgement. Judging his motives makes it an issue of the 8th commandment.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

No, he knew his translation was accurate, in German. His translation was good enough for the Catholic “translator” Emser.

And what ecclesiastical authority did Jerome Emser have? None.

…you seem to want to read his mind, ie., he knew he was not accurate. You don’t know that. You weren’t there, or in his head. He states his reasons for his translation. That’s what you have to go on. He says “allein” makes the verse clear in German. You can only judge his judgement. Judging his motives makes it an issue of the 8th commandment.

Jon

How am I breaking the 8th commandment? Luther Said IT! Luther said it, what was in
his mind, expressed in writing, I read it, but you *SEEM *to suggest that just because
Luther said he knew doesn’t actually mean he knew. Huh?

 

[JonNC]

And what ecclesiastical authority did Jerome Emser have? None.

How am I breaking the 8th commandment? Luther Said IT! Luther said it, what was in
his mind, expressed in writing, I read it, but you *SEEM *to suggest that just because
Luther said he knew doesn’t actually mean he knew. Huh?

I did not say you were. I said it would be if…
He said he knew it was not in the Greek or Latin. Now, if he had done a retranslation of the Latin and put it there, I would agree with you. But he explains his reasons why in German, in his view, it needed to be there. German is not Latin or Greek and he didn’t do a transliteration. He did German translation for Germans to read and hear.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I did not say you were. I said it would be if…
He said he knew it was not in the Greek or Latin. Now, if he had done a retranslation of the Latin and put it there, I would agree with you. But he explains his reasons why in German, in his view, it needed to be there. German is not Latin or Greek and he didn’t do a transliteration. He did German translation for Germans to read and hear.

Jon

German translation for Germans to read and
hear, great, but he still altered the Scriptures.
The Original Bible in Greek/Latin did not
have solum or sola, so he shouldn’t have
added allein. Plain and Simple.

 

[JonNC]

German translation for Germans to read and
hear, great, but he still altered the Scriptures.
The Original Bible in Greek/Latin did not
have solum or sola, so he shouldn’t have
added allein. Plain and Simple.

By that approach, we should have no translations at all, since all the English words, for example, should not be used because they don’t appear in the Latin or Greek.


Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

By that approach, we should have no translations at all, since all the English words, for example, should not be used because they don’t appear in the Latin or Greek.

Jon

Okay then, that’s an interesting response, but I’d need validation of that to be sure.
I wish for examples to be found in the Vatican approved New American Bible:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

 

[JonNC]

Okay then, that’s an interesting response, but I’d need validation of that to be sure.
I wish for examples to be found in the Vatican approved New American Bible:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

You need evidence that English language words are not in the Latin Vulgate?

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You need evidence that English language words are not in the Latin Vulgate?
Jon

You brought up the idea, I assumed you knew some examples.
I’m not positive, but I don’t think there are English words that so radically change Scripture.

I don’t find this challenge as **SUPER **hard. Youtuber *deliveringit *was able to present the subtle
difference with huge implications from the New American Standard Bible (not to be confused
with the New American Bible):youtube.com/watch?v=t6dvPGgPAyo
youtube.com/watch?v=c41InKBfT30

 

[Pug]

But he explains his reasons why in German, in his view, it needed to be there.

How would it be understood so differently in German than in English if the word “alone” were not there? What would the German speaker hear? The passage I saw above merely says it is because the language is German that it was put there, but not why.

 

[JonNC]

How would it be understood so differently in German than in English if the word “alone” were not there? What would the German speaker hear? The passage I saw above merely says it is because the language is German that it was put there, but not why.

Not being a German speaker. or understanding the nuances of the language, or the idioms of the culture, I couldn’t say. From the perspective of an English speaker, the word alone isn’t needed to understand that, all through Paul’s letters, he only refers to faith that justifies.
That said, I don’t believe that Paul and James contradict, as James is speaking in a different way, primarily about the law. So to James Chapter 2 I say Amen.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

…That said, I don’t believe that Paul and James contradict, as James is speaking in a different way, primarily about the law. So to James Chapter 2 I say Amen.

Jon

When Luther ADDed the word “allein” (alone), then Luther made Romans contradict James.

 

[JonNC]

When Luther ADDed the word “allein” (alone), then Luther made Romans contradict James.

Except he didn’t ADD anything, he translated. Nonetheless, even with “allein” in the German, they don’t conflict.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Except he didn’t ADD anything, he translated. Nonetheless, even with “allein” in the German, they don’t conflict.

Jon

He added. There was no sola, therefore there should be no allein.
If Paul didn’t feel it necessary, Luther shouldn’t have added.

 

[Pug]

Not being a German speaker. or understanding the nuances of the language, or the idioms of the culture, I couldn’t say. From the perspective of an English speaker, the word alone isn’t needed to understand that, all through Paul’s letters, he only refers to faith that justifies.
That said, I don’t believe that Paul and James contradict, as James is speaking in a different way, primarily about the law. So to James Chapter 2 I say Amen.

Jon

Thanks for answering. I was just hoping there was a small chance you might have some German, since you made an effort to refute the usual line about it. I agree that Romans and James do not conflict. (I doubt we agree on the why for that, but that isn’t why I came on this thread, so no need to discuss.)

 

[JonNC]

He added. There was no sola, therefore there should be no allein.
If Paul didn’t feel it necessary, Luther shouldn’t have added.

I wasn’t aware that Paul spoke and wrote his letters in German.

Pug, you might find this interesting, as well.

“I know very well that in the original text this word does not occur. Nevertheless it belongs in any good German translation… Whenever we place two things in opposition and want to make clear that we acknowledge or accept the one and reject the other, we use the word ‘only.’ ‘The farmer brings no money but corn only.’ ‘No, at the moment I really have no money, but only grain.’ ‘I have only eaten, but not yet drunk.’ ‘Have you only written, without rereading?’ This is the form which we use in countless expressions: over against ‘not’ or ‘none’ we have the word ‘only,’ to make the contrast clear.” - Luther

There is the reason for the translation - to make it German.

It is similar to the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25, * “…but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”*
Some protestants misunderstand the until as meaning that Joseph actually did “know” her after Christ’s birth, but this is a misreading of the usage.

Words mean things, and word usages can vary from language to language. Rarely is a translation a direct word for word, not only because words in the first language may not have a counterpart in the second language, but also because of usage and idioms peculiar to one language and culture and not the other.

Judas, again, if you want to argue that Luther’s translation was inaccurate, that he improperly translated into German, that’s fine. But he did not “add” anything in the German, whether the word was actually in the Greek or not.

Jon