Questions about Martin Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flowerchild
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The more correct thing is to say that Luther removed the books he did not agree with from the canon, but he placed them in an appendix. Later the reformers returned the NT books he did not agree with to the canon, but not the OT books. Even the extremely anti-Catholic and anti-monarchy Geneva bible included the “Apocrypha” in an appendix. The Geneva bible predates the Douay-Rheims.

Now the “Apocrypha” have been removed from the Bible all together. However, I have seen a trend of King James Bibles being printed with them again.

However, given how the term “Bible” has come to mean the book of inspired writings today, I would have to say that the “Apocrypha” have been removed from the Bible.
 
Psalm45_9 said:
The more correct thing is to say that Luther removed the books he did not agree with from the canon, but he placed them in an appendix. Later the reformers returned the NT books he did not agree with to the canon, but not the OT books. Even the extremely anti-Catholic and anti-monarchy Geneva bible included the “Apocrypha” in an appendix. The Geneva bible predates the Douay-Rheims.

Now the “Apocrypha” have been removed from the Bible all together. However, I have seen a trend of King James Bibles being printed with them again.
Click to expand...
Finally someone who knows what they’re talking about!

Sort of.

The only books Luther put into an appendix were the OT Deuteros. The books of the NT he’d expressed negative opinions about were all in their places as the common NT canon has them today.

It can be argued that Luther was wrong to do even this but it would be an uphill battle since the Church had not, at this point, solemnly, and definitively pronounced on the status of the OT Deuteros and permitted scholars (of which Luther was one) to hold differing opinions as to their canonicity.

The issue wasn’t resolved until they had to institutionally preserve purgatory and prayers to saints at Trent; after Luther was already dead. I wouldn’t normally put this this way but Joey has me all snarked up, and I’m in a kind of sauce for the gander mood.
 
He had no councillors or advisors.
Click to expand...
Okay you don’t like those terms, let’s use supporters. Either way he denomination could not have flourished and survived without supporters in positions of influence.
 
JoeyWarren said:
Okay you don’t like those terms, let’s use supporters. Either way he denomination could not have flourished and survived without supporters in positions of influence.
Click to expand...
Okay Joe, who were they and what did they say to him to convince him, against his will (as though anyone could ever convince this stubborn saxon against his will) to include the books he wanted to exclude?
 
What is really funny, or would be if it weren’t so sad is that people like Joey don’t learn. Even though he is receiving, in this thread, a valuable education about Luther’s approach to the canon, none of it will sink in.

With these people it is far more important to cackle over the supposed failures and errors of dead men as they have been uncritically received than it is to learn the truth about things.

I guarantee that we’ll hear from Joey himself, somewhere else on this board that Luther bowdlerized the Bible. The subject of Luther and the canon comes up all the time. He’ll get another opportunity to regurgitate the lie…

Afterall, it feels so good!
 
Steadfast said:
Let me correct and unpack this:

This particular exchange is not about him adding a word (something translators always do in order to translate the sense of the biblical languages into vernacular).

If your point is that Luther drove his theology into his translation of the text, beside the fact that I dispute his doing so at all and contend with him that his inclusion of “alone” is necessitated by the text itself, what about what the translators of the Douai Rheims did with Luke 1? When it got to the angel’s salutation to Mary and his use of the word kecharitomene, they translated it “full of grace”. This is not only a bad translation, it clearly represents the importation of an alien theological principle into the text.
Click to expand...
Back it up here,

The Kerichtomene and the tranlsation Into latin as Gracia Plena keep the finer nuances of the greek intact. Since it is easier to tranlsate Latin into Greek and vice versa. Even the GReek Catholics and Orthodox will translate the verse into “full of Grace” as noted in the following Eastern Orthodox Prayer:
Code: 
Today is the beginning of our salvation,
The revelation of the eternal mystery!
The Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin
As Gabriel announces the coming of Grace.
Together with him let us cry to the Theotokos:
Rejoice, O Full of Grace,
The Lord is with You!
Click to expand...
The word kerichtomene means much more than being simply favored, but endowed graces that fill the persons nature to the brim as noted in the wikipedia article on the eytmology on the word:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception#Scriptural_sources
Some Catholic theologians have also found Scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception in the angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary at the Annunciation, (Luke 1:28). The English translation, “Hail, Full of Grace,” or “Hail, Favored One,” is based on the Greek of Luke 1:28, “Χαίρε, Κεχαριτωμένη”, Chaire kecharitomene, a phrase which can most literally be translated: “Rejoice, you who have been graced”. The latter word, kecharitomene, is the Passive voice, Present Perfect participle of the verb “to grace” in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state. The angel’s salutation does not refer to the incarnation of Christ in Mary’s womb, as he proceeds to say: “thou shalt conceive in thy womb …” (Luke 1:31).
Click to expand...
 
Turt,

I appreciate your effort but Wikipedia is notoriously iffy on theological points.

Kecharitomene is best translated “highly favored” not just “favored”. I have never seen a convincing argument to the effect that it says anything about the nature of Mary other than that she was singularly favored by God in His election of her to bear the Messiah.

“Full of grace” is not a horrible translation it’s just a bad one.
 
Even so on theological ground points, wikipedia is at least correct (Being a nuetral observer) on the eytmological point. The word Kerichtomene is it’self a passive verb. The word carries a full completed action as the term grace is to shown what has been endowed in given fully at some point in the past.

If we translate the word literally, we come with “you who have been fully graced” The word can not mean “highly favored” becuase of the fact the the phrase itself is a complete act of gracing. Meaning that this person being applied this phrase, literally for all intents and puposes has been “fully graced” and it can not refer to Christ as the would be spoken of in the proceeding verses in St. Luke’s Gospel.

Plus the Greek Orthodox (who reject the declaration of what they percieve as the the deffinition of original sin and the immaculate conception) also refer to the Blessed Virgin as Full of Grace in thier prayers ( as I noted ). I would love for you to go over to the Eastern Christian sub-forums and ask them how they translate Kerichtomene since they themselves study Greek.
 
Turtullian said:
Even so on theological ground points, wikipedia is atleast correct (Being a nuetral observer) on the eytmological point. The word Kerichtomene is it’self a passive verb. The word carries a full completed action as the term grace is to shown what has been endowed in given fully at some point in the past. If we translate the word literally, we come with “you who have been fully graced” The word can not mean “highly favored” becuase of the fact the the phrase itself is a complete act of gracing. Meaning that this person being applied this phrase, literally for all intents and puposes has been “fully graced” and it can not refer to Christ as the would be spoken of in the proceeding verses in St. Luke’s Gospel.
Click to expand...
Sounds like A Canned Answer to me…

I’ve read differently but being that I am not a Greek expert, I’ll drop the point and return to something with which I am more familiar; i.e. Luther and the Canon.
 
Steadfast said:
I’ve read differently but being that I am not a Greek expert, I’ll drop the point and return to something with which I am more familiar; i.e. Luther and the Canon.
Click to expand...
I as said in my edited Post, why don’t you go over to the Eastern Christian forums and speak with Father Ambrose and the Other Greek Orthodox Christians and ask how they translate that into english since they and thier liturgies revolve around the study and the speaking of Greek.
 
Turtullian said:
I as said in my edited Post, why don’t you go over to the Eastern Christian forums and speak with Father Ambrose and the Other Greek Orthodox Christians and ask how they translate that into english since they and thier liturgies revolve around the study and the speaking of Greek.
Click to expand...
Thanks, maybe I will.👍
 
JoeyWarren said:
It may be a canned answer. Why reinvent the wheel when the wheel has already been made?
Click to expand...
Right.

Now, who were those wise men who persuaded Luther to include texts in his Deutsche Bibel he was determined to omit?
 
i am very curious to see steadfast’s response to turtullian’s rebuttle on the translation of Kerichtomene in the aformentioned post. I was was always under the impression that “full of grace” is the proper translation, or at least an implication of it.

It seems to me, that it is scriptural evidence that mary was born without OS, for those that need it. Since God dwelt there, common sense should tell someone that she was without OS, or any sin for that matter.
 
That link says nothing about any supposed supporters, counselors or advisors who persuaded him to include texts he intended to omit.
Click to expand...
It does mention his supporters.

Otherwise…

I would imagine your name comes from one of Martin Luther’s supporters. Please correct me in this if I am wrong.
Cranach and Luther were colleagues and business associates, both of whom worked under the patronage of the Wittenberg Electors: Frederick the Wise, John the Steadfast, and John Frederick the Magnanimous, said to be the most powerful princes of the empire after Maximilian I and Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperors. The rulers’ sanction of Cranach and Luther granted them authority, public respect, and freedom to promote the ideas of the Reformation. Luther, aware of the importance of polemical images, commissioned Cranach to illustrate his biblical translations, the Lord’s Prayer, and other tracts.
Click to expand...
 
TheGarg said:
i am very curious to see steadfast’s response to turtullian’s rebuttle on the translation of Kerichtomene in the aformentioned post. I was was always under the impression that “full of grace” is the proper translation, or at least an implication of it.
Click to expand...
I am sorry I brought it up.

I suspect that it will come down to duelling interpretations.
 
JoeyWarren said:
It does mention his supporters.

Otherwise…

I would imagine your name comes from one of Martin Luther’s supporters. Please correct me in this if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
The question is not whether Luther had supporters.

The question is who convinced him to include books he wanted to leave out and how they did it?

Because this is what you claimed.
 
TheGarg said:
i am very curious to see steadfast’s response to turtullian’s rebuttle on the translation of Kerichtomene in the aformentioned post. I was was always under the impression that “full of grace” is the proper translation, or at least an implication of it.
Click to expand...
He bowed out gracefully…
I’ve read differently but being that I am not a Greek expert, I’ll drop the point and return to something with which I am more familiar…
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top