Luther and James

[Tomster]

Hi James,
Your (name removed by moderator)ut is always helpful. One must remember about Hope for Eternal Life that both the ELCA and LCMS were approving of it (the LCMS had a few caveats). My point is simply that Lutheran theologians today, not me by any stretch of the imagination, seem to receive modern Catholic theological thought about Purgatory in a new light. Pope Benedict seems to shed a different light than what Luther was exposed to. I leave it to them to work out the details of whether or not the doctrine of Purgatory remains Church-dividing.

Jon

Hey Jon,

Why not just leave the question of Purgatory up to the Catholics and Orthodox? We’ll sort it out and then, by your standards, you should be o.k. with it. No?

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon,

Why not just leave the question of Purgatory up to the Catholics and Orthodox? We’ll sort it out and then, by your standards, you should be o.k. with it. No?

That would be one way. It is also a good way if our communions work it out, too.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I would be interested in seeing the LCMS caveats on Hope For Eternal Life, particularly if they have anything to say about Luther’s comments in the Smalclad Articles.

JS

Hi James,
I spoke to one of the LCMS dialogue members a good while back. One of the things he said regarding this and the JDDJ, is that the LCMS looks for full doctrinal agreement. If I understood him right, he seemed to be saying that statements such as, “not Church dividing” should be used with great care.

As for the specific caveats, I think they are spelled out in the hard-copy text.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi James,
As for the specific caveats, I think they are spelled out in the hard-copy text.
Jon

…Too busy at the moment to track anything in particular down, but thanks for making me aware of it. I don’t recall at this point if I have the hard-copy text or not.

JS

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Then all translations violate that verse, since all translations “add” words.

Source, please, where he says, on the one hand, that he wants to purge books, while on the other hand, he translates and includes 74 books.

Jon

the word alone did not exist in any translation until Luther added it thereby drastically changing the meaning of that verse.

So say “all” translations “add” words is mystifying; who are the authors of which translations in particular?

 

[JonNC]

the word alone did not exist in any translation until Luther added it thereby drastically changing the meaning of that verse.

So say “all” translations “add” words is mystifying; who are the authors of which translations in particular?

What I mean is that languages to not translate precisely from one to another. One word in one language may need more than one word in another language to translate precisely, to convey the meaning for the speakers of the second language. Luther’s stated reason for using “allein” in Romans 3:28 is just that. It also is significant that “alone” doesn’t appear in any English translation, protestant or otherwise, because it isn’t needed in the English.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

What I mean is that languages to not translate precisely from one to another. One word in one language may need more than one word in another language to translate precisely, to convey the meaning for the speakers of the second language. Luther’s stated reason for using “allein” in Romans 3:28 is just that. It also is significant that “alone” doesn’t appear in any English translation, protestant or otherwise, because it isn’t needed in the English.

Jon

That’s a good point.

Luther’s translation was just that, a translation, and what was translated in Romans 3 was the thought of the passage rather than a word for word rendering (formal and dynamic equivalence). Luther freely admitted the word “only” does not appear in the original Greek at Romans 3:28. He never sought to have the word added into any ancient manuscript. If Luther was attempting to radically distort the New Testament, his allegedly doctored work failed in many ways. Luther did not “add” the word “alone” to Galatians 2:16, nor did he remove “alone” from James 2. Even in his revision of the Latin Vulgate, Luther left the Latin of Romans 3:28 as it was, because the contrast between faith and works was apparent.

If Luther was attempting to introduce a radical mis-translation into church history he likewise failed. Luther mentions others before him translated Romans 3:28 as he did (for example, Ambrose and Augustine). Joseph Fitzmyer verified Luther’s claim, and also presented quite an extensive list of those previous to Luther doing likewise. Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

JS