Almost have Protestant friend converting - Need Quick Help

[Dominus Fidelis]

But I need some quick help...

I can't remember what part of Romans Luther translated incorrectly in order to have his own view of justification backed up. Please link me to some documentation.

Also, can someone link me to something about Luther trying to get James thrown out of the Bible for being an epistle of straw.

My friend didn't know about the Bible being modified and is quite mad about it. Give me some ammo please.

 

[Credo]

Here's one source:

Sola Scriptura or Sola Luther?

Hope that's helpful. I'm still looking...

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks, that is what I needed.

 

[Credo]

Here's a couple more I found by Dave Armstrong:

Luther vs. the Canon of the Bible

Luther's Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Texts

 

[Ravenchica]

But I need some quick help...

I can't remember what part of Romans Luther translated incorrectly in order to have his own view of justification backed up. Please link me to some documentation.

Also, can someone link me to something about Luther trying to get James thrown out of the Bible for being an epistle of straw.

My friend didn't know about the Bible being modified and is quite mad about it. Give me some ammo please.

Check out this article
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304fea1.asp

It talks about what Luther wanted to change and why it's not true.

 

[NiteClerk]

Here's one source:

Sola Scriptura or Sola Luther?

Hope that's helpful. I'm still looking...

Wow. I really liked that article.
/me copies to word & prints out.

It's definitely something I'll read & review at supper with the family.

Thanks,

Bob

 

[Credo]

Wow. I really liked that article.

It's definitely something I'll read & review at supper with the family.

Thanks,

Bob

The rest of the website is very suspect, as it is Church of God - but this page was very helpful.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks

 

[IowaLutheran]

I can't remember what part of Romans Luther translated incorrectly in order to have his own view of justification backed up. Please link me to some documentation.

From a Catholic perspective, there are many valid criticisms of Luther that I struggle with at times.

However, this is not one of them. Luther was following the solid tradition of Catholic translators before him who also added the word "alone" (sola in Latin) to the original Greek:

The following is from
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

(I could have cut and pasted more references from this site to the use of "sola" in tradition before Luther, including from Aquinas, but I didn't want to cut and paste too much).


"The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361."

 

[NewMan99]

Uhhh...not so fast there. I own a copy of Fitzmyer's book and I suspect strongly that Mr. Swan is taking his comments somewhat out of context (perhaps unintentionally). Later tonight when I can get to my library I will come back with a bit more to this discussion. Notice that Fitzmyer speaks of the two points that Luther made to justify his heretofore novel translation. Fitzmyer did not say that Luther's justification was based on a correct understanding of the CONTEXT of the patristic writings.

IOW - none of the sources listed intended to convey a sola Fide soteriology in their writings...which is precisely the theological message Luther sought to convey when he inserted the word "only" in his Biblical translation. None of the above fathers who used the phrase "faith alone" meant it in the same way that Luther meant it.

Also notice that Luther was citing patristic writings...he did not cite any previous Bible translations. Luther's point would have had more weight had previous Bible translations inserted the adverb in question.

So what Luther wound up doing is inserting a word in his translation that is clearly absent in the original Greek text, and then justifying it by citing patristic sources out of context. What Luther meant by "faith alone" and what the Church fathers meant by "faith alone" are two entirely different things.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[IowaLutheran]

Uhhh...not so fast there. I own a copy of Fitzmyer's book and I suspect strongly that Mr. Swan is taking his comments somewhat out of context. Later tonight when I can get to my library I will come back with a bit more to this discussion. Notice that Fitzmyer speaks of the two points that Luther made to justify his heretofore novel translation. Fitzmyer did not say that Luther's justification was based on a correct understanding of the CONTEXT of the patristic writings.

IOW - none of the sources listed intended to convey a sola Fide soteriology in their writings...which is precisely the theological message Luther sought to convey when he inserted the word "only" in his Biblical translation. None of the above fathers who used the phrase "faith alone" meant it in the same way that Luther meant it.

Also notice that Luther was citing patristic writings...he did not cite any previous Bible translations. Luther's point would have had more weight had previous Bible translations inserted the adverb in question.

So what Luther wound up doing is inserting a word in his translation that is clearly absent in the original Greek text, and then justifying it by citing patristic sources out of context. What Luther meant by "faith alone" and what the Church fathers meant by "faith alone" are two entirely different things.

God's Peace,

NewMan

Fair enough - let me know what you find.

Assuming you are totally right, however, going back to the original question, I think the criticism of Luther would be more fair if it were stated as "Luther erroneously translated the Bible by taking things out of context" as opposed to "Luther made up and inserted a word into Romans that had never been used before in the context of Romans".

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Here's a couple more I found by Dave Armstrong:

Luther vs. the Canon of the Bible

Luther's Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Texts

 

[NewMan99]

Fair enough - let me know what you find.

Assuming you are totally right, however, going back to the original question, I think the criticism of Luther would be more fair if it were stated as "Luther erroneously translated the Bible by taking things out of context" as opposed to "Luther made up and inserted a word into Romans that had never been used before in the context of Romans".

Sure...that is - perhaps - a valid point. There is a sense of malvolence that polemicists on the Catholic side often attribute to Luther's motivations that may not be quite fair. It is entirely possible that Luther believed that Augustine and Ambrose taught a primative form of sola Fide. I don't doubt that he inserted "alone" into the text because that is what he thought Paul meant to convey to his readers. Regardless of his motivation, the end-result is the same: a corruption of the text itself.

Thanks for a nice discussion.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[IowaLutheran]

Thanks for a nice discussion.

God's Peace,

NewMan

And also with you!

(or, according to the new mass translation, should I say "And with your spirit" ).

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Sure...that is - perhaps - a valid point. There is a sense of malvolence that polemicists on the Catholic side often attribute to Luther's motivations that may not be quite fair. It is entirely possible that Luther believed that Augustine and Ambrose taught a primative form of sola Fide. I don't doubt that he inserted "alone" into the text because that is what he thought Paul meant to convey to his readers. Regardless of his motivation, the end-result is the same: a corruption of the text itself.

Thanks for a nice discussion.

God's Peace,

NewMan

Well, let's look at his words...he seems quite arrogant in his assertion that "alone" belongs in there because he says so...

"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" (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

 

[NewMan99]

And also with you!

(or, according to the new mass translation, should I say "And with your spirit" ).

Oooohhh...well played!

 

[NewMan99]

Well, let's look at his words...he seems quite arrogant in his assertion that "alone" belongs in there because he says so...

"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" (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

He seems quite arrogant because that's precisely what he was. But, if you study the issue further, you will also see that there is more to it than his own ego. Luther also had a sincere belief that "faith alone" (in the way that Luther's meant the phrase) was Paul's intent...and in that regard Luther was not intentionally putting his own personal opinion above and against Paul's intent. Rather, he was putting his own personal opinion above and against that of the opinions of other translators and theologians who were disputing with him as to what St. Paul's intentions were. In his mind, he was not disputing with Paul, but rather disputing with other translators.

However, his approach was fundamentally flawed in that he placed his own personal opinion above and against (perhaps due to his arrogance and ego) the Sacred Traditions of the Church that had NEVER interpreted Romans 3:28 in a manner that would convey Luther's novelty known as sola Fide. Thus, he was guilty of privately interpreting Scripture APART from the Church...something which is condemned by Scripture itself (2 Peter 1:20).

Believe me, I'm not defending the guy. But I do believe that he was sincere when he claimed that Paul intended to convey "alone" in the text. Translators do that all the time, they put an ancient text into local modern languages in a way that conveys the sense of what the Sacred Authors (supposedly) intended. That is why it is critical to only translate within the context of the Magisterium and never apart from the Church.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

Hi IowaLutheran!

From a Catholic perspective, there are many valid criticisms of Luther that I struggle with at times.

An honest approach...you are to be commended for that.

However, this is not one of them. Luther was following the solid tradition of Catholic translators before him who also added the word "alone" (sola in Latin) to the original Greek:

Okay - here it must be pointed out that Luther did not follow a tradition of Catholic "translators," but rather Church Fathers and theologians. Prior to Luther, Romans 3:28 was never translated with the adverb "alone" inserted...and, contrary to popular opinion, there were several translations of the Bible into the vernacular German prior to Luther's translation (although Luther decided to translate his from the original languages instead of translating the Latin Vulgate into German).

What is true is that there was an expression (a tradition of sorts) used occasionally within early Catholic theological circles of "faith alone." The phrase was around and used from time to time (not a lot) by various writers. However - it did not mean "sola Fide" as Luther used it. Fitzmyer explains this in his book (Swan didn't copy that part of Fitzmyer's book). I will explain this in more detail later in this post.

The following is from

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

(I could have cut and pasted more references from this site to the use of "sola" in tradition before Luther, including from Aquinas, but I didn't want to cut and paste too much).

And here I will point out something that Swan quotes in this link. Luther said: “Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

So this was one of the justifications Luther used for inserting "alone" into the text: because Ambrose and Augustine did so in the past.

Sooo...let's look at a case whereby Augustine used "faith alone" in one of his writings:

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love&#8221.

So here Augustine is seen to perfectly explicate Catholic theology...a living faith is one that WORKS through love. Augustine was merely trying to distinguish works of the law from works of love...IOW...God's commandments pertain to faith working through love ALONE - and not any other way that faith can work (such as through the law).

As for Aquinas...well...have you ever read Aquinas by chance? It is noteworthy that it is Swan, an apologist, that mentions Aquinas...Luther certainly never did. Why didn't Luther cite Aquinas? Because he knew that Aquinas never taught sola Fide. In fact, it is well known that Luther despised the Scholastic school (of which the foremost "dean" of the scholastic college was undoubtedly Aquinas). Aquinas MOST CERTAINLY did NOT espouse a sola Fide theology at any time (if he did - Luther would have jumped all over it in support of his own views). Aquinas may have used the phrase "faith alone" somewhere in his voluminious writing, but never in the same way that Luther did.

Let's go on to quote Swan as he quotes Fitzmyer:

"The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361."

Okay - fair enough. A few Catholic writers throughout the centuries used the phrase "faith alone."

Here is something that Fitzmyer wrote (page 361) but Swan did NOT copy on his website:

"The irony of the addition [here Fitzmyer is referring to the list of Catholic writers using that phrase in question] is that the adv. 'only' was earlier derived from that 'right strawy epistle,' Jas 2:24: 'You see that a human being is justified by deeds, and not by faith alone' (ouk ek pisteos monon). Once this Jacobean phrase [faith alone] entered the theological tradition, it was eventually used to explain Paul's assertion in 3:28. James' position is usually understood as a refutation not of Paul's teaching, but of an antinomian caricature of his teaching, to which his own generic and sometimes unguarded formulation (e.g. 4:2) was eventually open. Paul was speaking of 'deeds of the law' (Jewish deeds in observance of the Mosaic law), whereas James was referring to 'deeds' that flowed from Christian faith (Christian deeds). Again, James uses a restricted and narrow sense of pistis, seemingly meaning no more by it in the immediate context than an intellectual assent to monotheism (2:19b). Lastly, James understand Abraham as having been justified by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac (a deed), and not by faith (2:21).

Even so, one must further ask whether Luther meant by 'only' what his predecessors meant. In the Lutheran tradition the Pauline principle enunciated in 3:28 became...the article by which 'the church stands or falls.' This phrase was apparently first so formulated by V.E. Loscher in an antipietist essay, Timotheus Verinus... But it was based on formulations of Luther himself: 'quia isto articulo stante stat Ecclesia, ruente ruit Ecclesia' (because, if that article stands, the church stands, if it fails, the church fails).... The criteriological principle that it thus became is understandable in systematic theology and creates no difficulty, but one will look in vain for such a use of it in the Pauline writings themselves; it is a theological extension of Paul's teaching that presses beyond what he states."

So, far from a smoking gun, the entire context of Fitzmyer's book actually paints a very different picture than what the smaller excerpt, when considered of and by itself, from Swan's blog might lead one to conclude.


God's Peace,


NewMan

 

[BigNorsk]

The issue about which you are wondering is dealt with in detail at:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

Marv

 

[judaica]

But I need some quick help...

I can't remember what part of Romans Luther translated incorrectly in order to have his own view of justification backed up. Please link me to some documentation.

Also, can someone link me to something about Luther trying to get James thrown out of the Bible for being an epistle of straw.

My friend didn't know about the Bible being modified and is quite mad about it. Give me some ammo please.

But giving you "some ammo" is no way to convert anyone. This is why I hate christians converting from one church to another. This isn't a game with points, that you need two more in which to win. If your friend has been convicted that the Roman Catholic Church has preserved the truth of the Faith without distortion, good for him or her. But getting them into the Church through the "Luther is a heretic, and here's ten reasons why" method, is a very very wrong approach. They should be going toward something, not running from something. They should be Roman Catholic, because of the beauty and truth of being Roman Catholic, not because Luther did this or did that.

BTW, both assertions are accusations, and do not properly reflect Luther's stance, or what precisely was going on at the time. And while I believe he was wrong on some things, and Rome right, any one who cares to take a serious look into what the guy actually wrote, will see at the very least, that his heart belonged to God, and that he was a christian, even if his theology may at times been off (and whose hasn't?). Ergo, the guy's in heaven. And unless anyone here wants to contend that he's in hell, we'd all be better off not using the frailties and errors of one of God's saints and a fellow christian, to win one for the "home team".

That's all I'm going to say.

Judaica.