Had a brain fade

  • Thread starter Thread starter mkw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mkw

Guest
I am a team member of my parishes RCIA program, after having just gone through the process myself last year. Question came up that I can not find the answer to.

The ADDED word in the NT. I think the word was “Alone”, but for the life of me, I can’t remember which Book it was in. I have shown him the difference in the OT already, not only the missing books, but the ones that were shortened.

My brain just shut down on this :eek:
 
Could it possibly be the Protestant argument that Faith Alone is sufficient for salvation?

The Protestant left out the word "works " and added the word “alone”. after faith.

Sorry I don’t have the Ch and Verse. Fr Pacwa had a good sermon on thet on EWTN some time ago.
 
Are you sure you’re not thinking of the Nicene Creed where an “iota” was added by Rome to have the Holy Spirit “proceed from the Father and the Son?”

This ultimately was the proximate cause of the Orthodox Church in Constantinople breaking their allegiance to the Pope in Rome. 😦
 
You’re probably thinking of the following verse:
Ro 3:28
For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther, in his translation of the Bible, inserted the word “alone” after “faith” because he thought it was implied (and, rather conveniently, fit his own theology). His fellow “Reformers” were scandalized and, under pressure, he backed down and omitted it from subsequent translations.
 
I don’t believe it was James 2:24…And it might have been deleted later after Luther added it, not sure.

I remember, wish I could remember source, that Luther had added the word Alone to justify his Faith Alone theology.
 
Rom.3:28 So halten wir es nun, dass der
Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

Bam, baby. I hold in my hands a Martin Luther translation and the word is in there. So there you go, in its entirety. There’s a footnote in James 2:24 that directs the readers to this verse. WEIRRRRDDDD!!!

By the way, its an 1883 missouri synod editon, printed in old german (I can barely recognize the letters), and includes the “Apocrypha” which it states are great for instruction but aren’t authoritative. So the word “Allein” meaning “Alone” is still there. I haven’t picked up a recent copy. It is rad.
 
40.png
Fidelis:
You’re probably thinking of the following verse:
Ro 3:28
Click to expand...
For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

Martin Luther, in his translation of the Bible, inserted the word “alone” after “faith” because he thought it was implied (and, rather conveniently, fit his own theology). His fellow “Reformers” were scandalized and, under pressure, he backed down and omitted it from subsequent translations.
Click to expand...
Fidelis,
You are correct!
Annunciata:)
 
40.png
whowantsumadebo:
Rom.3:28 So halten wir es nun, dass der
Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

Bam, baby. I hold in my hands a Martin Luther translation and the word is in there. So there you go, in its entirety. There’s a footnote in James 2:24 that directs the readers to this verse. WEIRRRRDDDD!!!

By the way, its an 1883 missouri synod editon, printed in old german (I can barely recognize the letters), and includes the “Apocrypha” which it states are great for instruction but aren’t authoritative. So the word “Allein” meaning “Alone” is still there. I haven’t picked up a recent copy. It is rad.
Click to expand...
Wow, that is pretty cool that you have a Lutheran Bible that has that in it. I wonder if current Lutheran Bibles include the “alone” in English or “allein” auf Deutsch.
 
My thanks to all for the help… I need to find the archives of the Fr. Pacwa talk where he mentions this.

I think my brain hurts now, I have been reading for days just to find ONE word, how silly, when I should have focused on THE word.

God bless to all.
 
I have 3 very old German Bibles that contain the word “alone” on Rom 3:28. I will see if I can scan one and post it somewhere where people can view it. They are old and I do not want to do anything that could damage them but I will see what I can do…

Anyways, Luther did add the word ‘alone’ and readily admitted that it was not in the original Greek, or at least as close as we can get to the original. We need to be careful as to what ‘add’ means though. What Luther did was translated the verse and included the word because he thought that that was what the verse was trying to imply.

Catholic translations do the same. In the NAB 1 Cor has the addition of the word ‘practicing’ before ‘homosexual.’ Of course ‘practicing’ never actually exists in the Greek or even the Latin Vulgate.

So, although one can certainly disagree with the translation that Luther presented, I do not think that accusing him of changing the Bible is acceptable.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Catholic translations do the same. In the NAB 1 Cor has the addition of the word ‘practicing’ before ‘homosexual.’ Of course ‘practicing’ never actually exists in the Greek or even the Latin Vulgate.

So, although one can certainly disagree with the translation that Luther presented, I do not think that accusing him of changing the Bible is acceptable.
Click to expand...
I would quible on this point in that you could argue that Luther *did * effectively change the Bible by his insertion of the modifier “alone” since it radically changed the entire sense of the verse in question, so much so that Luther thought he could hang an entire aberrant theology upon it.
 
40.png
Fidelis:
I would quible on this point in that you could argue that Luther *did * effectively change the Bible by his insertion of the modifier “alone” since it radically changed the entire sense of the verse in question, so much so that Luther thought he could hang an entire aberrant theology upon it.
Click to expand...
Sola fida is not based on this verse.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Sola fida is not based on this verse.
Click to expand...
Not entirely, but it is commonly used as support by Protestants who promote that belief.
 
Some of them do, for sure. I rarely use Romans when dealing with a Catholic, because they draw a distinction between acts of law and good acts in general.

In the end though one can still not accuse Luther of Changing scripture because he noted the fact that it was not in the Greek and stated that this was what the intent of the verse was…

When one states that it is a horrible sin to alter the Scriptures, it was really meant for back in the day when they were scribed identically from the most original text available.

A translation is different in that it must change the language to handle the local vernacular. One could translate the verse to say “by faith only when riding in a Volvo Wagon we are justified” and that person would definitely be wrong, but not guilty of changing the Scriptures.

Look at the Living Bible for goodness sakes. That Bible probably has more unique words than transposed words.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Sola fida is not based on this verse.
Click to expand...
Luther developed his heretical “faith alone” soteriology before he incorrectly translated this verse. To say that Luther based his defective doctrine on a verse that he incorrectly translated is to have the cart before the horse. :rolleyes:
 
thanks all…the longer I come into these forums, the more I learn and realize how much i DONT know.

My family is German, now I am wondering if there might be some old bibles stashed away somewhere. What a treasure hunt that would be…
 
40.png
mkw:
I am a team member of my parishes RCIA program, after having just gone through the process myself last year. Question came up that I can not find the answer to.

The ADDED word in the NT. I think the word was “Alone”, but for the life of me, I can’t remember which Book it was in. I have shown him the difference in the OT already, not only the missing books, but the ones that were shortened.

My brain just shut down on this :eek:
Click to expand...
I am not sure but I think it was in Ephesians 2;8 that Luther added the word alone.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Anyways, Luther did add the word ‘alone’ and readily admitted that it was not in the original Greek, or at least as close as we can get to the original. We need to be careful as to what ‘add’ means though. What Luther did was translated the verse and included the word because he thought that that was what the verse was trying to imply.

Catholic translations do the same. In the NAB 1 Cor has the addition of the word ‘practicing’ before ‘homosexual.’ Of course ‘practicing’ never actually exists in the Greek or even the Latin Vulgate.

So, although one can certainly disagree with the translation that Luther presented, I do not think that accusing him of changing the Bible is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Oh come on - this is just going a little too far. Luther absolutely changed the bible; it is only a question of degree, but the more serious issue is that of motive. If the addition of “alone” in Rom 3:28 were an isolated incidence, with no apparent motive and in an otherwise unremarkable individual, you might be able to sell the above sob story. But the fact is that Luther not only changed that verse , but he also “shuffled” various books into an appendix from their traditional canonical placing, and also referred to the epistle of James as an “epistle of straw”. And each of these actions was not random, but was apparently done to justify and promote his overiding, self-determined theology of salvation by faith alone. And please note that I think his motives were probably genuine - but that is not the point.
Your point reagarding the addition of “practicing” in reference to homosexuality in 1 Cor in the NAB 1is a good one. However, there is a substantial difference in that the addition of this word is consistent with and meant to clarify established Church teaching - not opposed to and in an attempt to alter it. Namely, homosexuals can be divided into 2 groups: practicing and non-practicing. The church does not condemn homosexuals per se, just those practicing homosexuality unrepentently.
 
40.png
Philthy:
Oh come on - this is just going a little too far. Luther absolutely changed the bible; it is only a question of degree, but the more serious issue is that of motive. If the addition of “alone” in Rom 3:28 were an isolated incidence, with no apparent motive and in an otherwise unremarkable individual, you might be able to sell the above sob story. But the fact is that Luther not only changed that verse , but he also “shuffled” various books into an appendix from their traditional canonical placing, and also referred to the epistle of James as an “epistle of straw”. And each of these actions was not random, but was apparently done to justify and promote his overiding, self-determined theology of salvation by faith alone. And please note that I think his motives were probably genuine - but that is not the point.
Your point reagarding the addition of “practicing” in reference to homosexuality in 1 Cor in the NAB 1is a good one. However, there is a substantial difference in that the addition of this word is consistent with and meant to clarify established Church teaching - not opposed to and in an attempt to alter it. Namely, homosexuals can be divided into 2 groups: practicing and non-practicing. The church does not condemn homosexuals per se, just those practicing homosexuality unrepentently.
Click to expand...
In reference to the NAB, I just pointed out one instance. The whole NAB Bible is such that it adds many words for the purpose of clarification. It was not meant to be a literal translation.

Luther’s bible was not meant to be a direct literal translation either. I can certainly see where a Catholic would disagree with Luther’s translation, but Luther himself stated that ‘alone’ was not in the Greek text. He didn’t even try to claim that a word in the verse could be interpreted as ‘alone’. He stated that he believed based on his studies that ‘alone’ although not stated was implied. There are many places in the Bible where one could put the word ‘alone’ and it would be completely acceptable, provided that one stated that they were not doing a literal translation.

In reference to the Books removed. There have been many threads on the topic, but I will add that Luther was not the first to feel that these books were not canonical. There is a reason why they are referred to as deutercanonical. Deuter – means secondary.

I agree that Luther was wrong about James and Luther later agreed that he was most likely wrong about the book of James.

The book of James does not contradict the theology that Luther put forth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top