The Pride of Martin Luther

[Timonator348]

Unfortunately I think most Christians, Catholic or Protestant, are not aware of Luther adding the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 his actual quotes on the matter are as follows:

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text”

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** 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.”

I think is is important because this MAN is the reason our Protestant brothers only have 66 books instead of the whole canon with whatever additions or subtractions Luther Tudor the other “reformers” needed to fit their sola theology. For they “desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.” (1 Timothy 1:7)

 

[Crumpy]

I understand that Marty set a rule that if such-and-such book of the Bible was not found in the original Hebrew, but only in the Septuagint version, then he rejected its authenticity.

The Dead Sea Scrolls showed up some of the “apocryphal” books in Hebrew, hundreds of years after Luther lived and died.

The Septuagint, as I understand it, is older than any other texts of the bible that have been preserved. So, that, along with the fact that the NT quotes from it, lends a lot of weight to the validity of it.

Judaism prefers the Masoretic text, primarily because it is in Hebrew, and it has a lot of helpful notations about how to pronounce the words - a skill that the Masoretes recognized was challenging and being lost.

But, I don’t know that much about Luther.

Because of his German ancestry, Pope Benedict has studied Luther and other German reformers extensively, I think. He gives them credit when he can.

Faith alone doesn’t even make sense, generally, in light of the OT tradition. God was not satisfied with faith alone. He told the Israelites to love him with their whole heart, soul, and all their strength. This goes far beyond faith and touches every aspect of life.

 

[JonNC]

Unfortunately I think most Christians, Catholic or Protestant, are not aware of Luther adding the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 his actual quotes on the matter are as follows:

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text”

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** 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.”

I think is is important because this MAN is the reason our Protestant brothers only have 66 books instead of the whole canon with whatever additions or subtractions Luther Tudor the other “reformers” needed to fit their sola theology. For they “desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.” (1 Timothy 1:7)

Just make sure you quote the most important parts of Luther’s “Open Letter on Translating”, where he discusses his actual reason for using “allein”. What you’ve quoted above is his (oft used) sarcasm. He was being attacked for his translation while he believed others were using it to make their own.

Luther, later in the later states his real reason:

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.”

Jon

 

[Timonator348]

I guess that also explains why Luther so hated the book of James which is the only place the words “faith alone” did appear: James 2:24 ~ “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Even after he was willing to add James back into his German Bible he called it an “epistle of straw” and made it very clear he wanted to “throw Jimmy into the fire”.

I’m not saying all of Luther’s intentions were bad but when the Church pushed back his ego seemed to take over. Saying you’re better than all the “doctors of popedom” at his time would include the likes of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas if I’m not mistaken. This position seems rather pridefull to me.

 

[manualman]

In Luther’s defense, he most likely DID think he was translating it properly. I’m no scholar myself, but I’ve heard ones I respect explain that the passage does contain implied exclusionary cues. As catholics, we understand that to be excluding a reliance on the Mosaic Law. Luther took it as excluding ANY sort of action.

It just goes to show that translating is hard work. The catholic boys over at ICEL (IMO) have in my lifetime done a worse job than Luther ever did.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I understand that Marty set a rule that if such-and-such book of the Bible was not found in the original Hebrew, but only in the Septuagint version, then he rejected its authenticity.

Partly correct – Luther put questioned OT books in a separate “Apocrypha” section; he did omit 1 and 2 Esdras. (Of course, these, as well as the Prayer of Manesseh, were included by Clement in the Catholic Vulgate Apocrypha. Most English Catholic Bibles do not print the Catholic Apocrypha – with the Ecumenical Edition of the NRSV being the major exception.)

Luther also questioned the authenticity of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation and moved them to the end of the NT.

As to the claim that the Deuterocanonical books were included in the Dead Sea Scrolls, this is true of portions of Tobit, the Letter of Jeremiah, and Sirach. However, works not in the Catholic Canon (such as Psalm 151, Enoch, and Jubilees) were also found among those manuscripts, so it is not clear that the DSS are a reliable guide to canonical works.

Further at least 2 Maccabees, being an abridgment of a longer work written by Jason of Cyrene, was originally written in Greek – so claims of Hebraic primacy for OT works is also inconsistent with the the Catholic canon.

 

[JonNC]

=Timonator348;7782742]I guess that also explains why Luther so hated the book of James which is the only place the words “faith alone” did appear: James 2:24 ~ “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Even after he was willing to add James back into his German Bible he called it an “epistle of straw” and made it very clear he wanted to “throw Jimmy into the fire”.

Just a few correction. He never took James out with the need to add it back in. James was in his first release of his NT translation in 1522, which is where the preface to which you are referring comes. Please also make note that it was his original preface that he later took out.
Be that as it may, to say he hated the Epistle of James doesn’t square with the facts. He also said this about James: “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;…"

As for “throw Jimmy into the fire”, here’s what he said:
“That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.”
He references the priest in Kalenburg. The priest in Kalenburg didn’t throw the book into the fire, but instead a wooden statue of St. James, to warm the room (for an important visitor). Clearly, this is a statmenet of frustration regarding what he saw - right or wrong - as an overemphasis on James by his opponents.

I’m not saying all of Luther’s intentions were bad but when the Church pushed back his ego seemed to take over. Saying you’re better than all the “doctors of popedom” at his time would include the likes of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas if I’m not mistaken. This position seems rather pridefull to me.

I will not deny Luther’s pride, nor his bombastic statements, but I will say that his pride was at least matched by some within the Church in his time, who refused to recognize his initial intentions, which you here agree were not bad. The question is, what do we do about it now???

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Luther was a child abuse victim [both physically as well as psychologically] and that experience was very influential in his theology. Because of the excesses of parental authority Luther came to reject all authority except, of course, his. So he rejected the authority of the Augustinians, the pope and the Catholic Church. He would later rail at those who disagreed with his own interpretation of scripture. He lived to see the beginning of the unraveling of protestantism into the myriad of divisions that were to come.

 

[JonNC]

Luther was a child abuse victim [both physically as well as psychologically] and that experience was very influential in his theology. Because of the excesses of parental authority Luther came to reject all authority except, of course, his. So he rejected the authority of the Augustinians, the pope and the Catholic Church. He would later rail at those who disagreed with his own interpretation of scripture. He lived to see the beginning of the unraveling of protestantism into the myriad of divisions that were to come.

Source, please.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Source, please.

Jon

Martin Luther. Read his own words about how he could never forgive his father or how his mother beat him till he bled all because of what Luther called, “an insignificant nut”. Of course the Lutheran spin on it was to only call his parents “strict” or “authoritative”. I guess if you abuse your child you can be considered to be a strict parent.

 

[JonNC]

Martin Luther. Read his own words about how he could never forgive his father or how his mother beat him till he bled all because of what Luther called, “an insignificant nut”. Of course the Lutheran spin on it was to only call his parents “strict” or “authoritative”. I guess if you abuse your child you can be considered to be a strict parent.

No, the source where he says that this caused him to reject all authority. The last comment isn’t worthy of a response.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

No, the source where he says that this caused him to reject all authority. The last comment isn’t worthy of a response.

Jon

Did I say Luther rejected all authority? I don’t think so. Obviously Luther accepted the authority of scripture as filtered through Martin Luther. So it was not the Church that was led into all truth as Jesus said, it was Martin Luther. It was not the church that hell would not prevail over as Jesus said, it was Martin Luther. Neither the Pope nor the Church could bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven as Jesus said it was only Martin Luther. Martin Luther could do all these things because Martin Luther controlled scripture. Only Martin Luther could interpret scripture correctly. Only Martin Luther had that authority. Luther didn’t reject authority he revelled in it. Just as long as it was his authority and no one else’s.

 

[JonNC]

Did I say Luther rejected all authority? I don’t think so. Obviously Luther accepted the authority of scripture as filtered through Martin Luther. So it was not the Church that was led into all truth as Jesus said, it was Martin Luther. It was not the church that hell would not prevail over as Jesus said, it was Martin Luther. Neither the Pope nor the Church could bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven as Jesus said it was only Martin Luther. Martin Luther could do all these things because Martin Luther controlled scripture. Only Martin Luther could interpret scripture correctly. Only Martin Luther had that authority. Luther didn’t reject authority he revelled in it. Just as long as it was his authority and no one else’s.

Nice dodge.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC
No, the source where he says that this caused him to reject all authority. The last comment isn’t worthy of a response.

Jon

Did I say Luther rejected all authority? I don’t think so. Obviously Luther accepted the authority of scripture as filtered through Martin Luther. So it was not the Church that was led into all truth as Jesus said, it was Martin Luther. It was not the church that hell would not prevail over as Jesus said, it was Martin Luther. Neither the Pope nor the Church could bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven as Jesus said it was only Martin Luther. Martin Luther could do all these things because Martin Luther controlled scripture. Only Martin Luther could interpret scripture correctly. Only Martin Luther had that authority. Luther didn’t reject authority he revelled in it. Just as long as it was his authority and no one else’s.

Nice dodge.

Jon

More like a Lexus but anyway your question was a red herring implying I said something that I had, in fact, did not say. So no dodge was needed nor employed.

 

[blackfirepro]

Unfortunately I think most Christians, Catholic or Protestant, are not aware of Luther adding the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 his actual quotes on the matter are as follows:

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text”

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** 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.”

Not to mention that Martin Luther was scrupulous and rbidly anti-Semitic. It seems since the moment he nailed the 95 thesis on the Church door he had a problem with authority. Too bad his work had such a lasting effect.

read my essays and movie reviews at:
colewebbharter.com/

 

[thistle]

Just a few correction. He never took James out with the need to add it back in. James was in his first release of his NT translation in 1522, which is where the preface to which you are referring comes. Please also make note that it was his original preface that he later took out.
Be that as it may, to say he hated the Epistle of James doesn’t square with the facts. He also said this about James: “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;…"

As for “throw Jimmy into the fire”, here’s what he said:
“That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.”
He references the priest in Kalenburg. The priest in Kalenburg didn’t throw the book into the fire, but instead a wooden statue of St. James, to warm the room (for an important visitor). Clearly, this is a statmenet of frustration regarding what he saw - right or wrong - as an overemphasis on James by his opponents.

I will not deny Luther’s pride, nor his bombastic statements, but I will say that his pride was at least matched by some within the Church in his time, who refused to recognize his initial intentions, which you here agree were not bad. The question is, what do we do about it now???
Jon

It is irrelevant that he had some genuine complaints. His pride got the better of him and he obviously did not have enough faith to trust God and stay within the Church to help fix things. He was a coward and ran away to become his own pope.
Lutherans should recognise the damage he did and come back into the arms of the Catholic Church (the only Church established by Christ) where they would be warmly welcomed.

 

[nordskoven]

Luther wounded a man during a duel, and as the man later died, Luther was guilty of a capital offense. Luther was himself wounded in the leg, and carried the scar with him his whole life. It is suggested that Luther sought sanctuary from this capital offense. Martin Luther’s excursion into the priesthood was via the Augustinians, who were the first to found a university without benefit of a papal charter.

And Luther’s father was adamant that Luther was not cut out to be a priest. Martin Luther was indeed a victim of child abuse, and this alone explains his quirky rebellious bent. Massaging his message into a palatable form like Melancthon did cannot remove the overweening influence of Father Martin Luther’s childhood abuse. His beef was with his dad, not Peter. And I would hope that when we look at the extremes of Barak Hussein Obama, as in three times voting against the Born Alive act granting life to children who survive abortion; and his implacably destructive economic policies; and his elitist disdain for accountability; that we realize that he is less a Democrat than a product of a child abandoned by his father, and later his mother, and raised by his banker grandmother. Hatred of exasperating or abusive parents engenders rebellion, the simple explanation for much of western society’s woes. Treat of that subject. Don’t dignify the acting out.