Question for Lutheran

[Tertiumquid]

It's possible that IowaLutheran is referring to the Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong, who (to his credit) removed references to O'Hare's work from his site (Cor ad Cor Loquitur) after Jim Swann pointed out to him how laughable O'Hare's work actually is.

Form more on this see, this link.

The (continuing) problem with Dave Armstrong's approach is that he rarely (if ever) quotes from Luther by having read Luther. Armstrong always quotes someone else who is quoting Luther. This is about as unscholarly a method as you can find. We leave that method to hacks and poorly educated and illogical remonstrants.

He's gotten a little better over the years, emphasis on "little".

Real historians, real apologists and real theologians go to the original source, and look at the whole statement in its original context. QuiltAngel's original post was a prime example of such an approach.

Yes, I have challenged Dave often to do this. It would keep him out of trouble.

James Swan

 

[IowaLutheran]

Many thanks again, James.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Kepler is right - Dave Armstrong has backed off of using these sources AFAIK.

Just to be fair to Mr. Armstrong, he still uses Hartmann Grisar.

Grisar tends to be good with facts, but his interpretation of those facts can sometimes miss reality.

James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

I have not heard this particular story before, and I will look into it. At face value, the quote is more likely strong angry hyperbole than an actual threat. Grisar often missed this in Luther's writings. Also note, this quote from Grisar is said to be from the early 1530's, while the quote I posted in my paper is from a later date.

Just a quick follow up. The Luther quote in question is from an 1883 edition of the Tabletalk, so it isn't even something Luther wrote. It's the recollection of someone else. Remember: there are various collections of the Tabletalk, and not all of them are reliable.

James Swan

 

[IowaLutheran]

Really? I would like those resources too for reference as well as reading them now.

Thanks

I found what I was thinking of in Martin - God's Court Jester - Luther in Retrospect by Eric Gritsch (Fortress Press 1983). Here are the relevant quotes:

From p. 146: "Sigmund Freud's (1856-1939) introduction of psychoanalysis into the field of medicine created a long-distance interest, as it were, in Luther as a 'patient.' Roman Catholic interpreters of Luther, like the Dominican Heinrich Denifle and the Jesuit Hartmann Grisar, used Freudian psychology to arrive at their assessment that Luther was a monk obsessed with the lust of the flesh and a pathological manic depressive personality. Their portraits of Luther were based on Luther's first and most hostile biographer, John Dobenick (1479-1552) who wrote under the pseudonym Cochlaeus and who regarded Luther as a creature of Satan. These polemical portraits were corrected in the 1940s when an ecumenically oriented scholar, Joseph Lortz, rejected Freudian psycho-historical methods in favor of a more objective critical assessment to depict Luther as a faithful priest-professor who had succombed to 'subjectivism.'"

From pp. 204-205: "Influenced by Cochlaeus, many Catholic biographers remained hostile to Luther until the beginning of the twentieth century. . . . The popular and detailed analysis by the Jesuit scholar Hartmann Grisar portrayed Luther as a man who was a victim of stubbornness and pride. Grisar used the newly developed insights of psychology when in 1911 he wrote [Gritsch includes a lengthy Grisar quote which accuses Luther of being a megalomaniac among other things] . . . . It was the German Catholic historian Jospeh Lortz who provided the bridge from destructive criticism of Luther to a more ecumenical assessment of him by using the tools of historical-critical scholarship. He saw Luther as a 'Catholic' who rediscovered the old Catholic doctrine of justification by faith, but saw it 'one-sidedly.' ' Within himself Luther wrestled and overthrew a Catholicism that was not Catholic.' Lortz asserted that, though given to overstatements and thus to 'subjectivism,' Luther nevertheless needs to be seen in the light of the differences of his situation and that of later Catholicism. . . . Lortz and his 'school' put an end to the Catholic vilification of Luther and made it possible for Catholics to join Protestant and other Luther scholars in a common effort to assess the ecumenical significance of the Wittenberg reformer."

And finally, Gritsch on p. 213 includes a quote from a speech by RC Cardinal Willebrands to the Lutheran World Federation:

"Who could deny today [1970] that Martin Luther wa a deeply religious personality who searched with honesty and commitment for the message of the gospel? Who could deny that he kept a significant proportion of the old Catholic faith, even though he pressured the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic See - for the sake of truth, one should not be silent about this. Indeed, did not the Second Vatican Council fulfill demands which were also expressed by Martin Luther, the fulillment of which has given several aspects of the Christian faith and life better expression than they did before? Despite all the differences, to say this is reason for great joy and hope."

 

[QuiltAngel]

Thanks IowaLutheran. This is what I needed.

 

[Edial]

Dear James Swan.

Thank you so much for your research and the time that you put into it.

Interesting part is that you are not a Lutheran.

What made you take up this project?
( I am certain that you have it in your papers someplace, ... but tell it to me live. )

Thanks,
Ed

 

[A. believer]

Dear James Swan.

Thank you so much for your research and the time that you put into it.

Interesting part is that you are not a Lutheran.

What made you take up this project?
( I am certain that you have it in your papers someplace, ... but tell it to me live. )

Thanks,
Ed

If you really want to hear James telling it live, you can listen to him here.

 

[Radiata]

The (continuing) problem with Dave Armstrong's approach is that he rarely (if ever) quotes from Luther by having read Luther. Armstrong always quotes someone else who is quoting Luther. This is about as unscholarly a method as you can find. We leave that method to hacks and poorly educated and illogical remonstrants.

Real historians, real apologists and real theologians go to the original source, and look at the whole statement in its original context. QuiltAngel's original post was a prime example of such an approach.

Well, that's what I'm going to do at the moment. I have a question for Lutherans where I am going to quote Martin Marty in his book I am currently reading simply titled "Martin Luther".

It's a long quote mind you.

As much as he honored wives, he still did little to counter the inherited understanding that the woman was subordinate to the man and even continued to hold that opinion himself. With so many in his time, he considered that because the husband had a strong sexual drive, he needed to satisfy it by entering his wife, but Luther advocated that rights of both and encouraged both to find pleasure. In two theoretical but drastic situations he counseled first that if a woman persistently denied her man, the husband might then turn to the housemaid or someone else for sexual relations. He balanced that provocative and patriarchal advice with its counterpart: A woman who was wed to an impotent man but who desired to have children or was unable ot remain continent, "with the consent of the man (who is not really her husband, but only a dweller under the same roof with her)," should have intercourse with another, for example her husband's brother. They were to keep this "marriage" secret and ascribe any children to the "so-called putative father." Such a woman would be in a saved state and would not be displeasing God.

P.108

I don’t quite understand why Luther would issue such a statement. He pretty much says that if sinning (adultery) is creating offspring that is being used to benefit the glory of God, than that sin is justified. The ends never justify the means. I have always believed that if good was to come from sin, that good would not be worth the effort.

 

[A. believer]

Well, that's what I'm going to do at the moment. I have a question for Lutherans where I am going to quote Martin Marty in his book I am currently reading simply titled "Martin Luther".

It's a long quote mind you.

I don’t quite understand why Luther would issue such a statement. He pretty much says that if sinning (adultery) is creating offspring that is being used to benefit the glory of God, than that sin is justified. The ends never justify the means. I have always believed that if good was to come from sin, that good would not be worth the effort.

Quoting Martin Marty isn't quoting from Luther. Does Marty provide a citation for his little nugget? If so, please post that.

 

[Radiata]

I know. Shame on me for quoting someone who quoted someone who quoted someone etc. No, Martin Marty does not provide citations. That's the one thing that I don't like about this book. It tells about Luther's life, what he wrote, who he debated with and how, his battle against the papal office.

There is something of a bibilography, I'll attempt to type them in. It's a long list.

Luther scholars, historians of religion and theology, historians and theologians are: Denis Janz, Mark Edwards, Larry Greenfield, Kurt Hendel, Richard E. Koenig, Myron Marty, David McCrea, Jonathan Moore, Linda Lee Nelson, Mark Noll, William Russell, John Witte.

Representing "The priesthood of all scholars," nonprofessionals in this field, but of the sort Luther would have favored, include Mildred and Gene Burger, Jim Foorman, David Heim, F. Dean Lueking, Paul Manz, Harriet J. Marty, Joel Marty, Micah Marty, Peter Marty, Ann Rehfeldt, Pastor Roger Timm, Vicar Paul Elbert, Don Forney, Shirley Jan, Libby Shotola, Beth Smart, Jean Turnmire

Teachers, colleagues, and friends who taught Luther on master's doctoral, and postdoctoratal levels, but did not read this book are, John Dillenberger, Robert H. Fischer, Gerhard Forde, George Forell, Brian Gerrish, Robert Kolb, William H Lazareth, Jaroslav J. Pelikan, Michael Root, Franklin Sherman, Susan Schreiner, Timothy Wengert.

That looks like all the names in the acknowledgments. I doubt it helped at all.

 

[KEPLER]

Although I certainly have theological differences with him, Martin Marty is generally a top-notch scholar (although he is generally known for his work on 19th century American christianity...). Thus, I am absolutely gobsmacked at the non-inclusion of citations??!!

Without citations, such a work is useless.

UPDATE: OK, I just looked at the Amazon entry for this book. I for one would not recommend it, for a few reasons.

1. 1) Martin Marty, although an ordained pastor in the ELCA, is not actually a Reformation scholar. His area of expertise is American fundamentalism. When he is in his element, he is fantastic. But what I can tell from the Amazon entry is that he is doing kind of a 19th century analysis of Luther. This is completely inappropriate.
2. 2) The series of biographies of which this book is a part is meant to be "beginner" level. No such analysis as you describe belongs in such a book; to include it is irresponsible on Marty's part.

So, here's what I suggest.

1. Toss this book.
2. get a good biography of Luther.
   1. a) The most definitive bio is also the most intimidating, at 3 volumes: that of Martin Brecht.
   2. b) The standard bio is, alas, quite dated: Here I Stand, by Roland Bainton
   3. c) The best combination of current and accessible is James Kittleson's Luther, the Reformer. Go with this last one, for now.
3. The best analysis of family life in the sixteenth century is When Fathers Ruled, by Stephen Ozment.

Read Ozment in tandem with Kittleson's bio, and you should get a good picture of Luther's views on family.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Radiata]

So I should just completely forget what I have read so far in this book?


Huh? It now says MezzaMorta is a Muslim. Did he change that recently? I thought he was Catholic.

 

[KEPLER]

So I should just completely forget what I have read so far in this book?


Huh? It now says MezzaMorta is a Muslim. Did he change that recently? I thought he was Catholic.

That user has been permanently banned. No need to worry about him anymore.

As you read more, you can decide what to retain and what to dump from the Marty book.

 

[Radiata]

That user has been permanently banned. No need to worry about him anymore.

As you read more, you can decide what to retain and what to dump from the Marty book.

So the truth about Luther is mine to decide the more I read about him? I don't like the sound of that.

 

[KEPLER]

Huh?

History is not the same as Theology. Theology strives for propositional truth. History strives for the best possible explanation. What you are doing right now is an exercise in History.

History is not an exact science. Historians sift through the available evidence, and try to form the best construction of past events from that evidence. Unfortunately, no construction is going to be 100% accurate, since no historian has been able to witness, first hand, all of the events in question. What we strive for is the best construction, based on the best available evidence.

In this case, the task is to adequately describe Luther in light of his times. Kittleson does a good job of this. From what I have gathered from reviews of Marty's work (mind you, I have not read it), he analyzes Luther through 19th century lenses. This is called anachronism (literally = outside of the proper time frame). Anachronism never makes for good history. That doesn't mean that Marty won't have an insight here or there. He's not an idiot.

It just means that Kittleson has done a better job of constructing a life of Luther. I knew Jim Kittleson (he was one of my profs when I did my MA in Theology). He was an outstanding scholar, who did the requisite dirty work in German archives. I highly doubt that Marty has done this.

If you read the Kittleson book, you will be able to decide how much of the Marty book "rings true". That's all I'm saying.

Kepler

 

[KEPLER]

Let me give you an example of anachronism. Here is a portion of the citation you provided us from Martin Marty:

As much as he honored wives, he still did little to counter the inherited understanding that the woman was subordinate to the man and even continued to hold that opinion himself.

The problem is, until the mid-to-late nineteenth century, virtually no one had thought to "counter the inherited understanding that the woman was subordinate to the man." Marty is passing judgment on Luther using an idea which was not present in Luther's time. The idea of equality for women is "outside of its proper time frame" (anachronistic) when applied to a person in the sixteenth century.

Kepler

 

[A. believer]

Let me give you an example of anachronism. Here is a portion of the citation you provided us from Martin Marty:

The problem is, until the mid-to-late nineteenth century, virtually no one had thought to "counter the inherited understanding that the woman was subordinate to the man." Marty is passing judgment on Luther using an idea which was not present in Luther's time. The idea of equality for women is "outside of its proper time frame" (anachronistic) when applied to a person in the sixteenth century.

Kepler

Not to mention the problem with Marty's own assumption that Luther and the rest of the Christian world was wrong about the woman being subordinate to the man in the marital relationship.

 

[KEPLER]

Not to mention the problem with Marty's own assumption that Luther and the rest of the Christian world was wrong about the woman being subordinate to the man in the marital relationship.

Yes, but that is a theological issue, not a historical one.

 

[A. believer]

Yes, but that is a theological issue, not a historical one.

Yes, but it is revealing.