Hello everyone! We hope you all enjoyed the last post! Here is the final part in the Martin Luther series!! Please let us know what you thought of it and give us feedback on whether or not you would like to see more writings like this!! We would also like to take this opportunity to welcome a new writer for the blog, Feven Berhane!! Her writings will be featured shortly, stay tuned! :) Thank you for your support thus far. Please remember us in your prayers as always and pray for this service! Without further ado, we present the final part of our series...
Additionally, according to Edwards (1994),
Luther “would rather do without knowledge of the works of Christ than do
without his preaching” (pg. 112). There is a popular saying that says: “Actions
speak louder than words.” It may very well exist in many different languages
and cultures and Christ specifically spoke of this concept also in condemning
the Pharisees for telling people what to do but never actually doing it
themselves. Christ says in the Gospel according to St. Matthew: “Therefore whatever they
tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do
not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy
burdens, hard to bear, and lay them
on men’s shoulders; but they themselves
will not move them with one of their fingers” (Matthew 23:3-4). If Christ Himself
spoke of the importance of doing good works rather than just preaching, how is
it that Martin Luther can justify sola
fide? If he wanted his readers to focus so much on Christ’s teachings
rather than His works, how is it that he can so easily dismiss what Christ said
in regards to doing good works? Edwards (1994) quotes Luther as saying: “‘For
the works do not help me at all but his words give life’” (pg. 112). The works that
Christ did and are documented in the Gospel accounts are the example and the
witness to His divinity (which the Gospel according to St. John speaks much of).
Without any account of the miracles or events that were documented in the other
three Gospel accounts, how would anyone have evidence to support their faith
that Christ was the Messiah or God? They would not; Christ would simply be seen
as a normal human being. Also, with any historical figure, how is he or she
deemed a wicked character or a prominent one? Is it not through the evil or
good things they have done? If the terrible things that occurred during the
holocaust were not documented and Hitler’s evil works were not documented,
would anyone have considered him or known him to be a terrible man? If one were
to read only the Gospel according to St. John, they may get a distorted view of
Christ; this is ironic because Luther attempted to put focus on the Gospel
according to St. John, hoping to present Christ as simply and fully as
possible.

Edwards (1994) also brings to light the
fact that Luther both translated things the wrong way as well as added words
that were not found in the original Greek text. He says that Emser, a critic of
Luther, wrote a treatise “to explain how and where Luther distorted the text
and how he employed glosses and prefaces to mislead readers ‘from the ancient
Christian way’….Emser sought to show that the interpretation that seemed to
Luther natural and proper was in fact forced and contrived. Without Luther’s
glosses and particular translation, Emser maintained, the text yielded a quite
different meaning” (pg. 119). The two examples Edwards gives in which Luther
improperly translated or added words are verses 23 and 28 in chapter 3 of
Romans.
Edwards (1994) quotes Emser: “‘Just as
no one may say that he is without sin, thus no one may truly say that all works
are sin, for if fasting, giving of alms, praying, doing penance, etc., were
sins, then God would have commanded sin and Christ himself would have sinned,
for he himself also fasted, prayed, preached, and did good works….he
mistranslates the words of Paul, who does not say, ‘they are all sinners,’ but
rather ‘they have all sinned and lack the glory of God.’” (pg. 121). This is an
important point which Emser dwells on here. By translating this particular
verse to mean “they are all sinners,” Luther basically tells readers of the
Bible that no matter what they do, they can not be saved. In essence, this
dismisses the entire belief system of the Catholic church and all its
sacraments such as baptism and confession, through one is forgiven his or her
sins (pg. 122).
Luther is also thought to have reversed
word order and added words in certain verses in order to promote his interpretation
of it (pg. 122). Edwards (1994) says: “To make his theological point emphatic,
Luther had added a word not in the Greek or Latin texts, the word “solely” or
“alleyn”: “solely” through faith [alleyn durch dē glawben]” (pg. 122). While
Luther states that “this addition was necessary to translate the Greek into
good German” (pg. 122), it is clear that he was trying to manipulate the text
of the Bible to promote his interpretation of that particular verse and the
rest of Scripture. The fact that Luther used the Greek text of Scripture to
translate it to German means that very few people would know of the added words
since not many people during this time were well-educated or knew Greek. Thus,
he would be misleading people.
Luther’s biased compilation of the list
of most important books in the New Testament and his manipulation of the text
of Scripture poses a question: was Luther really trying to “reform” the
Catholic church’s corrupt ways at the time or was he using all of this as
propaganda to break away from the religious and political ties of the Catholic
church? The definition of propaganda according to the Oxford English Dictionary
is “an organization,
scheme, or movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine, practice, etc.;
the systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or
misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view” (Oxford
English Dictionary). Edwards reveals an important detail regarding the
publishing and distribution of Luther’s translation of the New Testament that
may shed some light on this question. Edwards (1994) claims that sometimes the
publishers who were printing and distributing editions of Luther’s translation
didn’t put that Luther was the one who translated it (pg. 127). He says: “By omitting his name, the printers assured a larger market,
including readers who remained loyal to the Catholic church, and helped
propagate Luther’s message to as large an audience as possible (pg. 127). Based
on the above evidence, one may come to the conclusion that Luther did indeed
“disseminat[e] information in a biased and misleading way,” mainly to promote
his interpretation of Scripture.
As discussed earlier, some of the
evidence for Luther using his translation of the New Testament as propaganda
is: he refused the authority of the fathers of the church unless it agreed with
his interpretation of it, he selectively chose which books in the New Testament
were authoritative and the most important also based on what he thought was the
correct interpretation, he provided commentary in the margins of the Bible he
translated presumably to help readers understand the “correct” meaning of
Scripture, and he improperly translated and added words not found in the
original Greek text he used. There is one theme that unites all of these
points: Luther’s main goal was to promote his understanding of Scripture to
readers of the Bible. While some may think that he is a hero and the father of
Protestantism as well as a reformer, there is some evidence to suggest
otherwise.
Works Cited
Works Cited
Edwards, M. U. (1994). Printing, Propaganda and Martin Luther. Berkeley: University of California Press.
St. Athanasius Orthodox Academy. (2008).
The Orthodox study Bible. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.
No comments:
Post a Comment