Martin Luther added the word "alone"?

[Peter_J]

Martin Luther ADDED words to the Bible that were not there. When he was confronted with this sin of adding to the Bible he replied: “Bacause Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!” This man was one ego-maniac with delusions of popehood.

The above quote is from the Saint Michael Center for Apologetics website (also quoted on the Lutheran blog Beggars All). I thought I’d open this thread with a nice eye-catching example of Christian charity.

My actual purpose here, however, is to response to

Since all translation of Greek is exactly that, a translation, not a word for word dictation, one always translates the meaning of the Greek, not word for word. Justified by faith apart from works/Justified apart from everything but faith/Justified by faith alone. All convey the meaning of the Greek.

Luther was not the first commentator or translator to use “alone” in Rom. 3:28. Add Augustine and Chrysostom to that list.

I do agree with you, TriuneUnity, that when discussing Luther’s “adding the word ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28” some Catholics have over-simplified things a bit. But I also think it would be an over-simplification if we were to say that Luther was just doing what Augustine, Chrysostom, etc. had done.

For example, I admit that Thomas Aquinas quoted Romans 3:28 with the word “sola” (“Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide") – but there is a slight difference between that and what Martin Luther did, because Aquinas was writing a commentary whereas Luther was producing an edition (translation) of the bible.

P.S. I don’t claim to be any sort of expert on pre-Luther translations of Romans 3:28, so someone please correct me if I’m getting facts wrong here.

 

[lizaanne]

I think it’s quite clear that Luther knew EXACTLY what he was doing (his words below):

“If your papist annoys you with that word (i.e. alone), tell him straightaway: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so: Papists and asses are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. LUTHER WILL HAVE IT SO, AND HE IS A DOCTOR ABOVE ALL THE DOCTORS IN POPEDOM.”

(Amicable Discussions, 1 127).


~Liza

 

[KingAlfred]

The above quote is from the Saint Michael Center for Apologetics website (also quoted on the Lutheran blog Beggars All). I thought I’d open this thread with a nice eye-catching example of Christian charity.

My actual purpose here, however, is to response to

I do agree with you, TriuneUnity, that when discussing Luther’s “adding the word ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28” some Catholics have over-simplified things a bit. But I also think it would be an over-simplification if we were to say that Luther was just doing what Augustine, Chrysostom, etc. had done.

For example, I admit that Thomas Aquinas quoted Romans 3:28 with the word “sola” (“Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide") – but there is a slight difference between that and what Martin Luther did, because Aquinas was writing a commentary whereas Luther was producing an edition (translation) of the bible.

P.S. I don’t claim to be any sort of expert on pre-Luther translations of Romans 3:28, so someone please correct me if I’m getting facts wrong here.

Luther sought the emancipation of the individual Christian from what he perceived to be spiritual tyranny and doctrinal errancy of an overly institutionalized church. In some respects, from historical and theoretical perspectives, he was justified in doing so. In practice, however, Protestantism fell flat on its face, where it remains today. Protestantism’s biggest achievements occurred in the secular realm, in the form of the Protestant work-ethic, and the exodus of pietism from Europe to what eventually became the United States. In a strictly religious sense, Protestantism has greatly weakened Christianity within the world community. Still, it was a necessary development. The power of the Medieval Church had to be broken, for it had produced marked corruption, which threatened to undermine Church authority forever.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The above quote is from the Saint Michael Center for Apologetics website (also quoted on the Lutheran blog Beggars All). I thought I’d open this thread with a nice eye-catching example of Christian charity.

My actual purpose here, however, is to response to

I do agree with you, TriuneUnity, that when discussing Luther’s “adding the word ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28” some Catholics have over-simplified things a bit. But I also think it would be an over-simplification if we were to say that Luther was just doing what Augustine, Chrysostom, etc. had done.

For example, I admit that Thomas Aquinas quoted Romans 3:28 with the word “sola” (“Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide") – but there is a slight difference between that and what Martin Luther did, because Aquinas was writing a commentary whereas Luther was producing an edition (translation) of the bible.

P.S. I don’t claim to be any sort of expert on pre-Luther translations of Romans 3:28, so someone please correct me if I’m getting facts wrong here.

It is true that what Luther was doing was a biblical translation. As I stated in the original thread, however, a translation, by its nature as a translation is never word for word but is giving the meaning of the original text in the language to which it is being translated to. A commentator is doing much the same thing except he is not translating the text. Otherwise, different biblical versions would all have the same verbage, but it doesn’t, because each translator is going for the best meaning to the words.

When Paul says we justified by faith apart from works, in essence he is saying we are justified by faith apart from everything else, hence alone. In order for Luther to be adding words to the Bible, he would need to be adding words to the original Greek text.

 

[ralphinal]

I could honestly care less about this one word. Luther was not the first to put it there at all. Other translators had done the same. The more important question is if the conclusion that all you must do is beleive is Biblical.
It is not.

James shows it to be problematic. Luther wanted it removed.

The Gospels show that one must do for the least of our brothers. Oops.

Paul himself equates faith with works in Hebrews. If one has faith, one does things.

There are non-Catholics who will tell you, seriously, that as long as you believe, you are fine. There is no reason to do squat for anyone else. I have heard this from preachers and deacons.

Luther saw a problem, a real problem. Luther, becuase of various internal and external forces in his life, acted in a way that created more problems that may never be fixed.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I could honestly care less about this one word. Luther was not the first to put it there at all. Other translators had done the same. The more important question is if the conclusion that all you must do is beleive is Biblical.
It is not.

James shows it to be problematic. Luther wanted it removed.

The Gospels show that one must do for the least of our brothers. Oops.

Paul himself equates faith with works in Hebrews. If one has faith, one does things.

All of that is very true. Jesus preached the Law, as did James in his epistle. The failure of Catholic theology to adequately contextualize these passages is an inability to distinguish between the Law and the Gospel. This is certainly not a problem among Rome alone, but also of neo-evangelicals, who interpret faith to be a meritorious work on the part of man.

Generally, speaking, I am confident of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s argument in Romans because Paul anticipates the very same objections that are raised to sola fide by Catholics and others.

 

[ralphinal]

All of that is very true. Jesus preached the Law, as did James in his epistle. The failure of Catholic theology to adequately contextualize these passages is an inability to distinguish between the Law and the Gospel. This is certainly not a problem among Rome alone, but also of neo-evangelicals, who interpret faith to be a meritorious work on the part of man.

Generally, speaking, I am confident of Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s argument in Romans because Paul anticipates the very same objections that are raised to sola fide by Catholics and others.

What about Hebrews? Noah had faith and built the ark…It is clear that if your faith does not make you do, you do not have faith. Faith and works are joined in a way that cannot be split.

Was Jesus talking about the law in Matthew when the sheep and goats are separated?

Now, works of the law is another story.

 

[TriuneUnity]

What about Hebrews? Noah had faith and built the ark…It is clear that if your faith does not make you do, you do not have faith. Faith and works are joined in a way that cannot be split.

Not really a question of splitting them apart. Faith will display itself in the real world in good works. The issue is what justifies us before God. The grounds of our justification is the work of Christ on behalf of sinners. How do we receive the work that Christ performed on our behalf? Faith alone. Paul expects his listeners to object and say “What about good deeds and obedience to the commandments!?” Paul discusses this objection at length in Romans 6.

Was Jesus talking about the law in Matthew when the sheep and goats are separated?

Yes, he was. Strictly speaking, according to the Law, every last human being would be in the left hand column. The reason the sheep are on the right hand is because Christ’s righteousness is theirs and hence, all of His good works are credited to them, and their sins are removed by Christ. We must interpret all of Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture.

Now, works of the law is another story.

While Paul often refers to works of the Mosaic law, he clearly states that all of humanity is under condemnation according to the Law of God. Jews and Gentiles both. In such cases, he is not referring to the Mosaic code, but to the moral Law of God which is true in all times, places, and nations.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, he was. Strictly speaking, according to the Law, every last human being would be in the left hand column. The reason the sheep are on the right hand is because Christ’s righteousness is theirs and hence, all of His good works are credited to them, and their sins are removed by Christ. We must interpret all of Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture

The only problem with that interpretation is that the goats were told that they were sent to hell because they did nothing for those in need, and the sheep were told that they went to heaven because they did for those in need. In fact, a few verses earlier, Jesus tells them that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will inherit the kingdom, but only those that do the will of the Father.

Now, I am not saying that works can replace faith, or that you can work your way into heaven. I am saying, and scripture does the same, that faith alone, without any sort of works, is not faith at all. Faith MUST include works or else it is dead.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The only problem with that interpretation is that the goats were told that they were sent to hell because they did nothing for those in need

Absolutely. God sends people to damnation for a reason. That reason being their violating of God’s holy Law (sinning). In this case, Jesus uses the example of failing to love our neighbors as ourselves.

and the sheep were told that they went to heaven because they did for those in need.

Interpret this in light of the fact that Jesus did for those in need perfectly, which is what the Law of God requires. Through faith in Christ, His righteous acts are ours. Even if the sheep had done for the least among them, they would have had to do so perfectly in order to merit salvation by it.

In fact, a few verses earlier, Jesus tells them that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will inherit the kingdom, but only those that do the will of the Father.

Jesus is here addressing false prophets. What is interesting about the passage is that the false prophets did not attempt to enter heaven by their faith, but by their works! “Did we not cast out demons in your name? etc.” But Jesus says they did not do the will of the Father. In John’s Gospel, we learn that the will of the Father is that we believe in the One He has sent.

Now, I am not saying that works can replace faith, or that you can work your way into heaven. I am saying, and scripture does the same, that faith alone, without any sort of works, is not faith at all. Faith MUST include works or else it is dead.

With this I agree. The faith that we receive as a gift from God, which receives the justification Christ has won for us, must work itself out in love. The temporal purpose of our justification is that we may serve and love our neighbor and thus add to the kingdom. The working out in love does not add to, nor increase our justification. Christ’s righteousness needs no additions.

 

[Contarini]

I think it’s quite clear that Luther knew EXACTLY what he was doing (his words below):

It’s quite clear, if you can’t be bothered to read the whole text. Read it, and then give us an informed opinion.

Luther in fact makes an argument as to why his translation is required according to the idioms of sixteenth-century German. He may be right, or he may be wrong. If he’s wrong, it is certainly because of his theological bias. So I’m not claiming that he’s off the hook. But the issue is one of translation, and has to be argued in terms of the nuances of koine Greek and sixteenth-century German.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

It’s quite clear, if you can’t be bothered to read the whole text.

Is this the context you mean?

But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.(2) For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.

I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”(3)

Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry, like Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Snot-Nose, (4) and such like them, who set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. Truly a donkey does not have to sing much, because he is already known by his ears.

For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word alone …

bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

 

[JonNC]

Is this the context you mean?

bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

Hi Peter,
I think he means this context:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

“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.”**
"So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

I might add that in no English translation that I know of is “alone” in the text (I checked here:biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:28;&version=31; ). I believe that is because it isn’t needed in an English translation.

So, for me, the issue is not the word, but the meaning of the text which, with or without alone, there is still some disagreement about between Lutherans and Catholics (though for me less than there used to be).

Jon

 

[pnewton]

When Paul says we justified by faith apart from works, in essence he is saying we are justified by faith apart from everything else, hence alone. In order for Luther to be adding words to the Bible, he would need to be adding words to the original Greek text.

Or add them in the English or German that are not in the Greek or implied in the Greek. Such dynamic translations allow the translators personal interpretation to override the author of the Bible. If nothing in the text states “alone” it should not be included.

Because Paul stated in one phrase “justified by faith apart from works”, one can not simply move that thought to another phrase and change it to “justified by faith apart from any and everything.” That is an act of interpretation, not translation. The Bible is no place for such sleight of hand tactics. Even the translators of the KJV tried no such shennanigans but attempted to stick to a more literal translation.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter,
I think he means this context:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

Well that’s good too.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Or add them in the English or German that are not in the Greek or implied in the Greek. Such dynamic translations allow the translators personal interpretation to override the author of the Bible. If nothing in the text states “alone” it should not be included.

Because Paul stated in one phrase “justified by faith apart from works”, one can not simply move that thought to another phrase and change it to “justified by faith apart from any and everything.” That is an act of interpretation, not translation. The Bible is no place for such sleight of hand tactics. Even the translators of the KJV tried no such shennanigans but attempted to stick to a more literal translation.

If Paul states justified by faith apart from works, what else justifies that Paul didn’t include? Since you either receive your righteousness by grace through faith, or you merit it by works. If there’s a third category missing there, please include it. Otherwise, justified by faith apart from anything else would apply. Hence, alone.

 

[ralphinal]

Why is it that the context to Catholics says that the words “apart from the law” should be added while Protestants do not?

If he had changed it to say “Faith Alone apart from works of the law” how different would you folks be today?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Why is it that the context to Catholics says that the words “apart from the law” should be added while Protestants do not?

If he had changed it to say “Faith Alone apart from works of the law” how different would you folks be today?

Faith alone apart from works of the law would neither add or subtract from it. The apart from works of the Law translation is the same Greek text that Luther used allein/alone for. Catholics usually try to say that Paul is saying apart from Mosaic Law, but his context in the preceding 3 1/2 chapters is not the Mosaic Law, it’s all of morality given by God since Paul has indicted both Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles didnt have the Mosaic Law, so for Paul to say they were condemned by kosher and circumcision would’ve been nonsensical.

 

[pnewton]

If Paul states justified by faith apart from works, what else justifies that Paul didn’t include?

One could be justified by bribery. One could be justified by marking a ballot apprpopriatly. One could be winning a randomly lottery. These things are out there, but not eliminated grammatically. Language is the universe of the translator, not logic. Anything else is not translating, but interepreting.

One could make the argument that every thing is a “work” as defined by Paul, but then that arument is circular in the extreme and does nothing but beg the question.

Another possibility, and would be in accord to Catholic thinking, is that “works” used by Paul has a narrow usage. Specifically referring in the first part of Romans to works of The Law. The whole passage is aimed at Judaizers who attempted to combine a form of following Mosaic law with Christianity. There is nothing in a pure translation that prevents (or mandates) this interpretation.

If one is going to hold a nice sola scriptura position, it is best to start with the purest “scriptura” and not adulterate it with opinion from the outset. This was always my fundamentalist first rule of interpretation. It has carried over with me as a Catholic.

 

[pnewton]

but his context in the preceding 3 1/2 chapters is **not the Mosaic Law, it’s all of morality given by God **since Paul has indicted both Jews and Gentiles…

2:17 “Indeed you are called a Jew and rest on the Law…” You do not think this is the Mosaic Law? He goes on to discuss circumcision, part of the Mosaic Law, but not the Natural Law.

3:21But now the righteousness of God apart from the Law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets"
The Natural Moral Law and the Prophets?