NewMan99 said:
Hi Bill,
Mind if I take a stab at your question? It is a very fair question to ask.
Please consider that Luther's was NOT the first German translation of the Bible (merely the first to be translated from the Greek). In none of those other German translations did the word "alone" appear. Therefore all other translators "took exception" to Luther's addition of a word that did not exist in the original text.
Good Day, Newman99
Thanks for your response. I agree that Luther's was not the first german translation, but was the first in a common dielect for german people.
The previous translation like the The Nuremberg Bible of 1483, was done in "high" german and did at Roman 3:28 translate "allein durch den glauben," Which in that dielect is the same gramaticly as Luther's translation in his dielect.
Some one before Luther took execption before Luther ever wrote, that is a novel idea. Seeing that other's were based on differing German as noted above.
If the word "alone" was so proper from a German language perspective, why then was Luther the only one to do it?
There is really only one reason why he inserted the word into a BIBLICAL TRANSLATION: in order to promote his novelty of "faith alone."
I think Luther answered you question, because in order to make sence to the German (common) speaking people it was neeeded. That is why I was asking for some one during his time that may have addresses this, but I stilll wait.
I do not understand why this is hard to understand, we have thise sorts of things in english today, that is what makes our "english" diverse and in some cases completly differnet from state to state.
This is an all-important distinction from other translators (as well as the fathers and doctors of the Church), and something that Luther is rightly condemned for. For, it is abundantly true, as I said before, that no one else ever did this --that is, change the words in scripture itself. When Catholics criticize Luther, it is for intentionally changing the words in Scripture itself.
I have provide the "allein durch den glauben," from the
Nuremberg Bible of 1483, and will sumbit the
Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and 1538 had "per sola fide."
These are both Roman Catholic translations before Luther that contained the phase you condem Luther for, even though he explained it's need in the german which he wrote. I also suspect the "gloss" of the 9 th centruy may have the same implications in it.
And while the term "faith alone" was used by Catholic fathers and doctors before Luther (as Fitzmyer's book correctly noted) , the historical reality is that NOT ONE OF THEM ---not even in one isolated case --meant by "faith alone" what Luther meant by "faith alone."
It is quite true that before the Council of Trent a wide range of opinions existed in Catholicism on the issue of justification. This is true, but only insofar as all binding dogmas (e.g. the authoritative decision of Trent) develop from competing theolegoumena (theological opinions), and so of course undeveloped theolegoumena existed in the Church before the dogmatic proclamation ended the debate. Yet, what is all-telling here is that NOT ONE of the pre-Tridentine theolegoumena on justification reflects the "faith alone" novelty of Luther! ...and this only hammers home the reality that NO ONE in the Church read Romans 3:28 as he did --ergo, no one shared his particular interpretation of Rom 3:28 or perceived the "implication" that Luther did. Luther introduced something that had never existed before; and an honest analysis of this history must recognize this.
This is true to some extent, but to deny that Luther's view is out side the realm of beliefs pre-trent is to restrict the true range of beliefs. I would suggest Luther falls in line with Clement of Rome, even though Clement was inconsistant at times, Luther was not.
And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Maker and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his works. By his supreme power he founded the heavens, and by his incomprehensible understanding he ordered them. The earth he separated from the water that surrounded it, and fixed it on the firm foundation of his own will. The animals which inhabit therein he commanded to be by his ordinance. Having made beforehand the sea and the animals that are therein, he shut them in by his own power. Man, the most excellent of all animals, infinite in faculty, he moulded with his holy and faultless hands, in the impress of his likeness. For thus saith God: Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. And God made man. Male and female made he them. When, therefore, he had finished all things, he praised and blessed them, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply. Let us see, therefore, how all the just have been adorned with good works. Yea, the Lord himself rejoiced when he had adorned himself with his works. Having, therefore, this example, let us come in without shrinking to his will; let us work with all our strength the work of righteousness." (First Clement, 32-33)
Indeed, even if Luther were (which he was not) part of the valid, organic Catholic debate on justification prior to Trent, what this would mean is that he was merely presenting one possible opinion (theolegoumena) among others ---that he was merely putting forward his perceived interpretation of Romans 3:28 and what it (supposedly) implies. Ah! But, the fact that he made a biased translation of Romans for his followers, and so tampered with the words of Scripture itself shows that Luther was NOT merely offering an opinion, but was stacking the deck and eliminating any competing opinion. In other words, by changing the words OF SCRIPTURE ITSELF (something no father or doctor ever did), Luther was forcing Christians to adopt his interpretation ALONE --- that is, he was robbing Christians of the freedom to interpret Romans 3:28 in any other way, and so taking a mere theolegoumenon (theological opinion) - a novel and unprecedented one at that (his "faith alone" theory) - and making it MORE than a theolegoumenon. Luther was unilaterally proclaming his theolegoumenon to be a DOGMA --to be the Word of God itself! Yet, Luther had no magisterial authority to do such a thing, but was forcing his own opinion on the rest of the Church. And THIS is why we rightly criticize his action.
And, if you have any question about Luther's self-righteous opinion about this, consider his own testimony on the matter:
"Because I am certain of my teaching, with it I will judge over the angels, so that whoever does not accept my teaching cannot attain heaven, because it is God's, not mine." (Luther, WA 10II, 107, 9).
...and ....
"....I am not put off at all by passages of Scripture, even if you were to produce six hundred in support of the righteousness of works and against the righteousness of faith, and if you were to scream that Scripture contradicts itself." (Luther, LW 54, 20).
...and ....
"If the Papist make much fuss about the word sola (alone), tell him at once: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,' and says, 'Papist and donkey are one thing ...For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papists, but their masters and judges." (Luther, LW 13, 66;54, 74).
Real open-minded guy, wasn't he? He continues, mimicing the style of St. Paul ....
"Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they disputators? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they writers of books. So am I? And I shall further boast: I can expound Psalms and Prophets; which they cannot. ....Therefore, the word "alone" shall remain in my New Testament, and though all the Pope-donkeys should get furious and foolish, they shall not take it out." (Ibid).
It is true that Luther wrote those words in anger against certain Catholic critics (whether or not his anger was justified in some cases is up for debate since some of the very people who criticized Luther's actions also took his translation and used it as their own -- with a few modifications of course...such a striking out the word "alone" in Rom 3:28). However, the bottom line here, aside from any bombastic rhetoric by Luther, is that he pointed to himself as the authority on the issue above and beyond whatever magisterial and historical opinion had to say on the matter. Simply stated, he inserted the word "alone" into the biblical text NOT because the German language demanded it, but rather because promotion of the novel doctrine of sola Fide, an invention of Luther's alone, was aided by the insertion of the word.
God's Peace,
NewMan
Luther says the text demanded it, I see no reason to doubt that, seeing the lack of German sources that would refute his usage in the German. That is what I am looking for.
If it was to support Sola Fide' as you say, I am sure given the nature of his writing as it related to those he disagreed with, and they way he roundly berated them, I do not suppose he could of refrained from saying so, nor should he have IMHO.
Peace to u,
Bill
