Talk:Martin Luther

• Good article delisting discussion, May 2007.

Archives

Moving on

With the apology from Drboisclair, and CTSW's removal of himself from the current discussion, perhaps we can now get back to the article and leave this discussion behind? It appears (I could be wrong) that the material in question has been removed, and the person responsible for adding it has apologized. Now let's get this back up to GA. Pastordavid 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PD, are there any significant areas missing from the article? I saw that the bigamy scandal was absent, so I added a paragraph. I noticed that one source mentioned the stress of that scandal as having affected Luther's health, so I wondered whether we should have more detail. Also, there was mention on the GA review that a section on anti-Catholicism had been removed. Should that be restored? Is there anything else that's missing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not overplay the bigamy issue, and in mention of it note the political expediancy of Luther's approval of Hesse's second marriage. Further, as I noted in the discussion about it a few months ago, I think the witchcraft issue is a red herring -- Luther's views were the same on that front as the vast majority of his contemporaries (but whether it stays or goes is not a major issue for me).

As for what's missing? The section on Luther's Bible is too small in proportion to the impact that it had. Modern German was shaped by Luther's Bible in a manner analogous to the combined impact of KJV and Shakespeare on the shape of modern English (or better, late victorian English). There should be mention of the Black Cloister of Erfurt, which was an observant (i.e., strict) branch of Augustinianism - shaping Luther's antagonism toward more lax monastic orders and his understanding of the severity of the Law (McGrath's Theology of the Cross is an excellent sourcefor this, although I don't have it in front of me for a citation). Finally, I think the article screams for some mention of Jan Hus, and how the events of 100 years prior shaped the interpretation of the events of the Reformation and the reaction to Luther.

That's all that really stands out to me in a first pass through the article. Pastordavid 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I also feel the writing is problematic. It's unencyclopedic, and often reads as though it was written by someone who didn't quite understand it, or as though sentences have been copied and pasted in from other sources, without paying attention to flow or sense. For example: "The Emperor had granted Luther a safe-conduct for his return to Wittenberg. Frederick the Wise, who had arranged for Luther's safe-conduct, arranged for him to be taken into safe custody on his way home by a company of masked horsemen; he was then carried to Wartburg Castle at Eisenach, where he stayed for about a year."

Various problems: the repetition of "safe conduct" or "safe custody" three times in two sentences; that Luther was "carried" to the castle; that he was taken into "safe custody" by a "company of masked horsemen." It has the tone of having been pieced together from elsewhere, but there are no references. Most of the article is written in the same tone. That Luther "affectionately called [his wife] "Katy"." How do we know this? How do we know that everyone didn't call her Katy? And anyway, why does it matter what he called his wife? The whole thing has that homespun flavor to it.

Other paragraphs are impenetrable to anyone who doesn't already know the issues: "Luther, still under the Imperial Ban, was left behind at the Coburg fortress while his elector and colleagues from Wittenberg attended the diet. The Augsburg Confession, a summary of the Lutheran faith authored by Philipp Melanchthon but influenced by Luther,[37] was read aloud to the emperor. It was the first specifically Lutheran confession included in the Book of Concord of 1580, and is regarded as the principal confession of the Lutheran Church." What on earth does it mean? There's no context, no narrative. Reminds me of something out of a school textbook.

The whole article needs to be written in a more scholarly style, from the point of view of secondary sources — "A has argued that Luther intended this or that; B has written that, after establishing X, Luther proceeded to argue that Y. Here is the significance of this or that." As things stand, we have no way of knowing what's accurate, or what's important and what isn't, and the point of our content policies is to make it easy for the general reader to go find the sources and check the accuracy and notability of our material.

I agree with you about the Bible issue. The only two things I remember about Luther from school were his translation of the Bible into the vernacular, and the revolutionary nature of it; and the influence of his work on the Nazis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I made pretty much the same observation about nine-ten months ago, and said that the whole article needed a rewrite, and I was ripped to shreds and attacked. That is the kind of thing that has been a problem and that cannot be repeated. The article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite, pure and simple. Take a look at the discussion under "Culling Needed" from last August [1]. Just one of many frustrating and fruitless attempts to reduce the hagiographic content of this article.--Mantanmoreland 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The other thing I meant to say is that, in sticking too closely to summary style, the article almost entirely lacks narrative flow, staggering from one truncated point to the next. Summary style shouldn't mean that none of the issues are explained properly on this page. The bottom line is that a reader coming to this who knew nothing about Martin Luther wouldn't learn much, because very little is really developed. It's hard to explain a complex issue like Luther's life and influence in simpler terms, but it would be good to try. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as long as we're moving on, here's something else to chew over while we're doing so: Why do we need Theology of Martin Luther? Take a look at the talk page and note the comment from Fishal at 01:40, 5 September 2006, about predominance of sources from the Missouri Synod. --Mantanmoreland 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki Jewish Cabal is at it again, using their multiple identifies and fake names to gum up things here again. It's a shame that a handful of fanatics who obviously do not have a life can so badly ruin the integrity of Wikipedia. It is precisely this kind of behavior that makes Wikipedia a well-deserved laughing stock.

I denounce the anti-Semitic hate-speech contained in the post immediately above. Meister Brau 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered ... I've never been a part of a Jewish cabal before ...;) Pastordavid 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For some info about the "black cloister" of Erfurt, see the section "Reform Movements" in Hermits of St. Augustine - its not that well written (I would guess a copy-paste from the old Catholic Encyclopedia), but it gets the idea across. Pastordavid 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Readability

Leaving aside the stickier issues around content disputes, I am doing some re-writing over the next few days - looking to improve the overall readability of the article. I am trying to NOT change the meaning of any statements in the article, and to not change any of the content. If I accidentally do so, please feel free to change it back - my only interest in these revisions is improving the prose. Pastordavid 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration between Luther and Cranach

You have seen the portrait of Martin Luther by Cranach which is at the beginning of the article. But there is more to the story than has been reported here. Luther also commisioned Cranach to illustrate a particulary foul criticism of the Pope. I do not have access to primary sources, but here is the information.

Against the Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil (1545) is said to be one of Luther's most coarse and vehement works he ever produced. Scatological satires of the Pope and Rome accompany it. http://www.online-literature.com/martin-luther/

In the last five or six years of his life, for example, Luther published violent attacks on Catholics, Turks, Jews, and other Protestants. The most notorious of these polemics are his attacks on the Jews, especially his On the Jews and Their Lies and his On the Ineffable Name and On Christ's Lineage, both of 1543. These treatises contain considerable exegesis of the Old Testament, but this is overshadowed by the pervasive vulgarity of Luther's language and by the incredibly harsh recommendations he offered for the treatment of contemporary Jews. Their synagogues and schools should be burned, their homes destroyed, their books seized, their rabbis forbidden to teach, and their money taken away from them. They should be put to work in the fields or, better yet, expelled from Germany. Even contemporary Protestants were shocked by these writings. Rivaling his anti-Jewish treatises for vulgarity and violence of expression is Against Hanswurst of 1541. Luther outdid even the violence and vulgarity of Against Hanswurst in his 1545 Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil. On the heels of these treatises he published a series of scatological and violent woodcuts that, in most graphic terms, suggested how good Christians should treat the papacy. I n these and other treatises, Luther bestialized his opponents, most frequently likening them to pigs or asses, or called them liars, murderers, and hypocrites. They were all minions of the devil. He directed the devil to his ass, he renamed the papal decretals "decraptals" [Drecketalen] and the Farnese pope "Fart-ass" (farlz Esel) and "Her Sodomitical Hellishness Pope Paula 111," and he threw around words for excrement with great abandon. In the woodcuts by Lucas Cranach that Luther commissioned at the end of his life, he had the papal church depicted as being expelled from the anus of an enormous she-devil and suggested, once again in picture, that the pope, cardinals, and bishops should be hung from gallows with their tongues nailed alongside. http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1468

graphic illustration at http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-this-religious-anti-catholicism-you.html

Meister Brau 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not add a section quoting that? I attempted to do so the greater part of a year ago and was hooted down.--Mantanmoreland 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is another situation where I would question the relevence. Yes, there were insults hurled from Luther toward Rome. Just as there were in the opposite direction. Indeed, the insult woodcuts from the era are all sort of like this - crude, mean-spirited, etc. If this is a notable fact, I would be more likely to expect it in an article on Cranach than on Luther. Pastordavid 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant here, and interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Yes, I was about to say that. In what conceivable way could a work by Martin Luther attacking the pope not be "relevant" to an article on the author of the work? --Mantanmoreland 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The other point is that it brings Luther alive. I've been arguing for a long time that this article makes him sound deadly dull. But someone as revolutionary as Luther must have been a complex, probably difficult, probably courageous and irreverent (i.e. rude and annoying), human being. To present a three-dimensional portrait of him, we need the good and the bad. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand Pastordavid to suggest that this pamphlet is relevant to an article on the illustrator of the pamphlet (if there is one) but not the author? I thought we were "moving on." We don't seem to be.--Mantanmoreland 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did state that I thought that the woodcuts themselves would be more relevent in an article on Cranach than on Luther. And, I do not see how having discussion is "not moving on." A comment was made, which I responded to. I did not edit war, revert, or respond unncivilly in response to the comment. If it is going to be a roadblock every time there is a difference of opinion, this will not get very far.

I do appreciate the description of possibilities for the article given by SV just above. My concern is that -- while attempting to add color/dimension to the article -- it is very easy to spend more time on rabbit trails that are interesting and colorful, but which focus on trivial and tangential topics rather than the core focus. Pastordavid 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're not opposed to adding a section making reference to Against the Papacy at Rome -- or are you? If you are, please state why it is a "rabbit trail" or whatever.--Mantanmoreland 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My reason for posting this on the Talk page was first to illustrate that there are some significant works by Luther that are known to the subsidized Luther researchers, but are not even mentioned here. I agree with the point that this reveals some dimensions about Luther that are interesting and lifelike. Not the sanitized version that many generations were provided. Notice that we have two Luther works, "Against Hanswurst" (1541) and "Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil" for which there are no known English translations. I do not understand the reasoning for suggesting that this be in the Cranach Wikipedia article but not the one for Luther. Meister Brau 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that there is an objection outstanding at present. Why not add a section referring to it? If there's something wrong with the section, it can be removed or changed easily enough.--Mantanmoreland 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more appropriate to post it here for comments...

Recent Trends in Martin Luther Research

In recent years, there has been significant translation and "discovery" of some of Martin Luther’s most controversial works. This has augmented the large body of Luther’s work that was translated and published by various Lutheran Church organizations and their related publishing companies, and presented a more controversial picture of this very prolific writer and complex personality.

An English translation of “On the Jews and Their Lies” [2]was published commercially in 1971, and revealed to many readers a side of Martin Luther that they had not previously known.

Another of Martin Luther’s works was “Vom Schem Hamphoras”[3] which contains graphic “toilet talk” against the Jews that was translated and published independantly as part of “The Jew In Christian Theology” by Gerhard Falk in 1971.

There is no known English translation of “Against the Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil” (1545), but it has been described as “one of Luther's most coarse and vehement works”. It is said to contain scatological satires of the Pope, along with illustrations [4] by Cranach (who is known for painting Luther’s portrait)[5].

Another of Luther’s works, "Against Hanswurst" (1541) was translated as part of "Luther's Works" and is described as “rivaling his anti-Jewish treatises for vulgarity and violence of expression”[6].

Since some of these works are only now being revealed, and the only English descriptions are often “secondary sources”, this has been a source of some disagreement among researcers as to their relevance. But the trend has been toward translation, publication and review, rather than silent archiving.

Meister Brau 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Against Hanswurst was translated in 1966 and is in volume 41 of the 55 volume American Edition of Luther's Works. On the Councils and the Church and On the Roman Papacy, which you mention in this post are also in this volume.--Drboisclair 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I like the neutral tone, and I think it would be good, if appropriated sourced.--Mantanmoreland 21:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentences have a bit of WP:OR in them. But the rest is quite good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but the tone is what appealed to me about it. I think that this kind of objective tone is what is lacking generally in the article. I'd suggest that Meister Brau provide citations, fix the first paragraph and insert it in the article. I imagine the end is a good place for it. --Mantanmoreland 21:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Meister has fixed the first paragraph of his proposed section. I think that, as per Jossi, the main thing is to source it. --Mantanmoreland 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We should give other editors a chance to comment. Meister Brau 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Just the kind of thing that's needed in this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism section

On the issue of this article improving, I've received a detailed critical analysis of the antisemtism section from an independent Wikipedian, an experienced and respected editor. I'm thefore going to try a copy edit of that section. Basically, his criticism is that the edit warring has led to poor writing (X says, but Y argues, and Z insists ...). He also feels it lacks substance. I can do a fairly quick copy edit, but adding more substance will take longer, as I'm waiting for some reading material to arrive. Anyway, I'll try to make a start. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten it for flow, reduced it by 500 words, added material from Robert Michael, and tried to make it more of an explanatory narrative, rather than just a series of claims. I still have citations to add. If people disagree with it, I'd appreciate comments here rather than reverting. In particular, if anyone feels it's still too long, please suggest here exactly which bits could be cut without losing narrative flow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As Sacha Cohen (my favorite Jewish antisemite) would say, "Very nasse!" Kaldari 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

The other problem is that many of the footnotes used a Harvard-style reference (Smith 1990) instead of giving the full details, but the article doesn't have a full references section, so readers can't quickly look up who Smith 1990 is. It also means that if the first citation disappears after an edit, subsequent footnotes relying on it are left hanging. I'm therefore going to go through the citations at some point and give full citations in the notes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work. Meister Brau

Fascinating stuff, Slim. It reads very well. Thank you and the anonymous user for this rewrite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I like the new section about the recent publications. Thank you, Meister Brau.

In case anyone wonders why I don't have page numbers for the Robert Michaels book I've used as a source in the antisemitism section, I only have a copy of one chapter and the footnotes, and it has no page numbers on it. I've ordered the book and I'll add numbers as soon as it arrives. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to do some research, if needed. What do we need to get this article back to FA status? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was GA status. I think we might need to expand or add any areas that have been downplayed or left out, and make the writing flow better. There's been an overuse of summary style to the point where some of the sections are hard to understand because no context is provided.

Does anyone know what this means exactly? "Luther worked to reintroduce the practice of receiving Holy Communion in both kinds, that is, receiving both the consecrated bread and wine, rather than the practice of denying the wine to lay people." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Early Christians received under both species, I think, but the teaching of the Catholic Church has always been the Christ is present, whole and entire, under either species. In other words, if you receive one crumb from the host, you have received the blood as well as the body, and if you receive one drop from the chalice, you have received the body as well as the blood, because after the Resurrection, his body and blood can no longer be separated. So, under Catholic teaching, you don't get "more" of Jesus by receiving a bigger host, or by receiving from the chalice as well as under the form of bread. You don't get more graces. But it's a "fuller sign".

A priest, while saying Mass, MUST receive under both forms, as otherwise the sacrifice is considered to be incomplete. But a priest attending Mass said by another priest would normally only receive under one form.

For various reasons, danger of spillage being one, it became uncommon for lay people to receive under both kinds. At the time of the reformation, I think some Protestants argued that you hadn't fully received unless you received under both kinds. The Catholic Church considered this a heresy, and I think after the Council of Trent, communion under one kind became even more firmly emphasised in the Catholic Church as a way of reinforcing the doctrine that Christ was present "whole and entire" under either species. It's now becoming more common for Catholic churches to offer communion under both kinds (at least in the UK). Musical Linguist and/or Str1977 might be able to add to that. ElinorD (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, Elinor, that's very helpful. What I'm looking for is a way to present this that anyone could understand, and without making the section much longer. I tried to copy edit it last night then realized I didn't have a clue what it was about. :-)

If the body and blood are considered inseparable, why did a priest saying Mass have to receive both forms? And why did the Reformers argue that you hadn't fully received unless you received both? (And why are they called forms, kinds, and species?) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask ML and Str to chime in if they're around, in case I ignorantly lapse into heresy :), but I'll have a shot at answering anyway.

The Mass, according to Catholic teaching, is the Sacrifice of Calvary made present, and the priest is offering the sacrifice in persona Christi. Nevertheless, Christ does not die again. ("Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more." Romans, 6,9.) So the way that Calvary is made present (making the Mass trulyl a sacrifice) is that his body is separated from his blood, which occur by the priest consecrating them separately. I think that the priest consuming both species is in some way connected to that, because if the priest doesn't receive Communion, the Mass is incomplete, whereas a lay person can attend Mass without receiving.

The reformers rejected transubstantiation, and, depending on denomination, accepted that Christ was present "in the bread and wine" (not that the bread and wine were changed into the body and blood in such a way that there was no bread or wine left), or that he was present "with the bread and wine" or that he was present "spiritually", etc. Some reformers believed that the bread was changed into the body alone and the wine was changed into the blood alone, so that the people who received under one form were in some sense "deprived" of something.

Regarding species and form and kinds, perhaps ML or Str could weigh in. Some Catholics use those words to avoid a so-called heretical use of the words "bread" and "wine" by themselves, but of course there must be some deeper, original meaning that I'm ignorant of. It's okay to say that someone received "under the form of wine", or "under the appearance of wine", but not to say that they received "the wine". I'm not really sure of the difference between "form" and "species" and "appearance" and "kinds". However, most Protestants wouldn't have problems calling them "bread" and "wine", because they only believe in some kind of spiritual presence.

Hope that helps, but if ML or Str disagree, then I think you'd be better off going by what they say! I'm not quite sure what Lutherans call the two species after consecration, but I'd feel it would be safer for the article to say "the practice of denying the CUP to lay people". ElinorD (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Elinor is right on the mark IMHO.

I do not know where the words "form", "species" etc. come from. But I think they were used to refer to the two gifts of the eucharist because a) bread and wine may imply that they have not been changed, and b) Body and Blood may imply a restriction of the Body to the one gift and the Blood to the other. (On the other hand, when distributing communion, either species is called the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ respectively.

Receiving under both kinds is the normal way of receiving and of course the two gifts sensualize (if that is a word) one "aspect" more then the other. IMHO, it is not that the Host is so much both body and blood but that whoever receives the host shares in the whole Christ (of course, that is just my own reflection).

Because it is the normal way to receive the priest receives always under both kinds. (And a practical aspect: the Cup is an essential part of the Eucharistic sacrifice. And of course someone has to consume it, either all the congregation or the priest alone.)

In the Eastern Churches, BTW, the faithful receive both kinds together, the Body soaked in the Blood and distributed via a spoon.

As for the restriction of the Cup to priests: the Church's de facto position changed a bit throughout history, depending on the issues of the time: in the 5th century, Pope Gelasius excommunicated anyone who would refuse to receive in the Cup to combat certain ascetic-gnostic heresies that rejected the use of wine. Later on, in the Early Middle Ages Eucharistic piety went along strange paths: many people avoided receiving the Eucharist for fear they wouldn't be worthy - the Church insisted that frequent communion is a good thing, introduced the idea of an obligatory communion once a year (usually at Easter, to this the annual confession goes back). But the notion of unworthiness continued, now specialising on the Cup (as the Blood is often thought as the real saving substance, washing us clean from sin, it was to be somehow "more holy" than the Host, compare all the Blood miracles, Grail literature etc.): they would insist on abstaining from the Cup while receiving the Host. The Church de facto yielded to these practices but insisted that whoever receives under one species receives the whole Christ, not just a part of Him.

This then became the standard practice for centuries, with practical reasons (the danger of spillage) playing a role too. It was only challenged around 1400 by the Hussite movement who saw the restriction of the Cup to the priest as some clerical privilege. Therefore they rejected this and demanded communion "sub utraque forma". The moderate wing of the movement therefore is termed "Utraquists", content with being allowed to receive under both species. The Popes however would allow this only grudingly and used every opportunity to return to the restriction.

The reformation took up the issues of the Hussites and rejecting a special priesthood they had to reject such a restriction as well. In Luther's case, concerns for receiving the whole Christ played a part as well (as Luther fervently believed in the Christ's presence in the gifts not just during communion but continually - a view not shared by Lutherans) - Luther believed that the bread and wine were the Body and Blood of Christ - despite his rejection of transubstantiation - while other Protestants, notably Zwingli and Calvin rejected this, taking it "merely as a symbol". To those, I guess, the "clerical privilege" line was more important.

The Church reacted to many Protestant views by emphasizing the challenged aspects of the faith, e.g. Marian piety, the ordained priesthood, Eucharist piety. However, the restriction of the Cup to the priest was only a very common practice and not in any way unalterable. After Vatican II the trend reversed, generally allowing the faithful to receive under both species, though whether and how far this is actually done differs from country to country and congregation to congregation. But a common thing is to receive under both species on Maundy Thursday (when the Mass especially commemorates the institution of the Eucharist by Christ).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Form" and "species" come from the Artistotelean metaphysic (especially as interpreted through Aquinas) that was the basis for most medieval sacramental theology. Pastordavid 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek and Martin Luther

Please see: "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". Who's Lokai and who's Bele here? Does it make a difference? Griselinia 08:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know the show in question but I have no idea what the person above is referring to. Could you perhaps clarify a little? John Carter 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not-very-well-executed irony. Bele and Lokai were locked in a lifelong battle to the death because they focused on their differences rather than their commonalities. My remark was made in reference to the back and forth discussions going on here. I'm sure both sides are sincere and have valid points.Griselinia 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Luther and anti-semitism

The current section does not give enough context to Luther's views. In the middle ages anti-semitism was widespread and to fairly represent his writings in the setting of the time this needs to be referred to. I am by no means an expert and reading this talk page is enough to scare off anyone from being bold so I'm bringing a link here for discussion to see whether others think it could be of use in balancing the section. [7] The only problem with this is that the section is currently the largest despite having a whole article devoted to the Jews and their lies book. Sophia 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not think that you should be scared to be bold. If you are uncomfortable making these additions, you can always use the talk page and make proposals. I am sure that there should material about this aspect, probably from contemporary Lutheran bodies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that that section, takes only but a small percentage of the whole article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume you mean the language in italics, which appears to originate from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook at Fordham University [8]. That's certainly a reputable project, and from a fine institution. I certainly don't see a problem with mentioning somewhere in the article a reference to the coarseness of his language, as that would apply to all quotes and not just this section.--Mantanmoreland 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your lack of boldness, Sophia, especially with this section. Do you have any sources showing how widespread antisemitism was in the Middle Ages? The point about Luther is that his was the work that was remembered. Bear in mind that we're not talking about the man here; we're talking about the work. It is the work that has survived; it is the work that has been influential. And it is the work that Robert Michael argues acquired the status of scripture in Germany, with Luther becoming the most widely read author of his time, and therefore having a tremendous influence on the development of German antisemitism.

As for the length, there has been an overuse of summary style on this page, to the point where certain sections are hard, if not impossible, to understand for people who don't already know the subject. Therefore, please don't judge any section too long simply because it's longer than the shorter ones.

Mantan, I'd like to see a section on the coarseness of his language, because he's famous for it, and we don't mention it, except in passing in a couple of the other sections. I don't know where to find a good source on it though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the Internet Medieval Sourcebook might be considered a proper source? Lamentably it is not footnoted on the "coarseness" passage.--Mantanmoreland 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph in the final section.--Mantanmoreland 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the sourcebook -- my concerns were unwarranted. The Internet History Sourcebooks Project, of which the Medieval Sourcebook belongs, is a significant endeavor and has a lengthy article of its own.--Mantanmoreland 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good addtion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash) As I said I'm no expert but on most articles the largest section is usually about the most influential aspects of a subject. The way this article currently reads it looks as if Luther founded Nazism which does not concord with what I know (Wagner is acknowledged as a much bigger influence but look how that section is balanced by the whole). Here are some links from which hopefully a starting point for an NPOV balance can be achieved. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Looking at The Merchant of Venice gives a pretty good idea of a stereotypical Jew according to Middle Age views. As for not being bold - I think some of the comments further up are disgraceful and do nothing to enchance the positive editing atmosphere of Wikipedia. It is heartening to see things moving on but I think the pillorying of long time editors to clear the field will be counter productive to the quality of the article. Steps need to be taken to be able to work constructively wih all - even those who have made errors. No one should feel uncomfortable editing on an article when they approach it in good faith. Sophia 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same concerns as you for many months. Hopefully the air is cleared and we can move forward.--Mantanmoreland 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The section doesn't state or imply that he founded Nazism. It says that his work was influential in the development of German antisemitism, and that it provided a convenient foundation for the antisemitism of the Nazis. As for Wagner, he is not acknowledged to be a "much bigger influence," and the sections in his article dealing with Nazism are 845 words long with only six sources, not something that would work here.

As for the "errors," that issue is settled, Sophia, so there's no need to bring it up again. Editing and discussion in the last few days has been the most constructive here for a long time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm wrong about Wagner then so are many others. [15] Sophia 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) Interesting article. As a (admittedly lapsed) Catholic but ardent anti-capitalist I must say I appreciate this rigorous take on Luther... however, focusing on his influence on the Nazis seems a bit much. Didn't the Protestant Reformation also, directly and indirectly, lead to the deaths of countless numbers of people, and set conditions allowing for the development of global capitalism, per Weber? I don't think the Nazis were Lutherans, as intriguing as the concept may be, such as the impression the summary leaves... and in any case I don't think you can realistically blame Luther for events which occured centuries later, for which, if you want to point fingers, Nietzsche was a much closer antecedent who probably deserves more blame for the Holocaust even though he was not anti-Semitic. Though modern state capitalism does take on fascist tendencies, which can be said to have originated, ideologically at least, at some far removed point and distant point, with Luther, perhaps the most shocking aspect of Nazi fascism was how ahead of its time it was? (per Adorno, Horkheimer "The Dialectic of Enlightenment.")—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In keeping what Sophia wrote, the article shouldn't imply that anti-semitism is the main heritage of Luther. It is merely a side-note, albeit a very smelly one.

Luther's view shouldn't be identified with Nazism or made the sole cause, nor should his view be drowned in supposedly anti-semitic Middle Ages (using anti-semitism as a shorthand for judaeophobic, actually there was not anti-semitism in the narrow sense before the 19th century.)

Luther didn't found Nazism anymore than Wagner did. Neither did. Hitler did, of course receiving some ideas from them. However Hitler did not read Luther's book in his formative years.

Shylock is not the medieval stereotype of a Jew because the play is not from the Middle Ages. He is a vice figure known from morality plays like Everyman and also present in other Elizabethan plays, though he looks a bit more human than Barabbas. There were no Jews (officially) in England at the time and the Merchant of Venice does not concern itself with Jews at all but rather with motives of loyalty, friendship, vengeance, grace, law (though the latter two have a connection to theological anti-Judaism).

Academy Leader, the Weber thesis is just that a thesis and cannot be treated as established fact. And the same goes for Adorno's great but nonetheless very speculative and ahistorical book. Capitalism does not equal fascism does not equal Nazism. Luther has nothing to do with the rise of capitalism (not even Weber claims that) and also nothing to do with the rise of Nazism (Fascism anyway happening in another country) apart from his contributions to the omnipotent state and the described element of anti-semitism.

In any case, this shouldn't be a game of "blaming X for the Holocaust" - the blame should remain with those considering, planning and executing the Shoa. (Just as I don't see Rousseau directly blamed for the reign of terror in 1794.) I am not denying that Nietzsche had a profound influence not just on Nazism but on other inhuman developments (Nietzsche apologetics being too vocal recently) - but Nietzsche was just an influential philosopher in his time and/or someone who put into writing (in extreme form) currents present in his society - currently trickling down to a vagabond like Hitler. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the information probably belongs in a separate article "Origins of Nazi Ideology" or "History of German anti-Semitism," not in a front page biography of Luther. References to his anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic texts I am ok with, making these the basis for inferring that he was responsible for the rise of the Third Reich seems another thing altogether.

On an unrelated note, a friend of mine is a graduate student instructor for an undergraduate history course on the Holocaust. She says one of the most shocking things about teaching the material is how the some of the students will speak admiringly of German military achievements and say, "If only the Nazis weren't anti-Semitic." This is why there is no massive outcry in the US against the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Adorno and Horkheimer were right.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It belongs there only if it's accurate and only in a NPOV form. Weber's claim about Protestantism and Captitalism does not belong there as it has not bearing on Nazism whatsoever.

Actually I do not understand your shock. If people can admire achievements without any point such as in sports people also can admire achievements in other fields regardless of what the point is, i.e. regardless of what warfare is aiming at. They actual reason for the lack of outcry is that it is not part of their lives. Not that I think that there should be an outcry about Afghanistan, or that those suddenly opposing war in Iraq (I leave out the definitve article, as this is no longer the same war, the first one was clearly won by the US) are in any way intellectually applaudable or courageous. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some notes, if they would be any help

I long ago gave up editing here because I felt that my edits were not in keeping with the drive for brevity. I don't blame CTS or Drboisclair for that but a red-name slasher who took the article down from over 76kb to about 48kb without even moving anything per summary style. In the process he reduced, for example, a complex section about the response of the papacy which I had worked on (it's difficult material) to almost nothing, and I became discouraged (if you wonder why Miltitz appeared out of the blue it's because the previous mention of him was removed). The worst thing for me was that no one any longer seemed interested in mapping the incremental shifts in Luther's position, which are precisely mappable, if you look carefully (removal of the Leipzig debate, for example, was particularly damaging to the article's narrative, in my opinion).

At the time I gave up I was working on some of the central sections, which are badly written. I know little about Luther, but what I was trying to do was rewrite the word-for-word Schaff into our own words, and to do that I went back and read Schaff and sometimes chose different information to include. If my rough (I emphasize rough) drafts are of any use, they are here: User:Qp10qp/Sandbox (I have checked all the refs unless noted). The two most interesting elements there, for me, are Melanchthon's comment about the way Luther was living, with his mildewed bed, etc. (humanises him), and his attack on the peasants as mad dogs, because the language is of a piece with that he used against the Jews and the witches. On the other hand, his tone in the Invocavit Sermons and in his response to the peasants who petitioned him with the Twelve Articles was mellow and sane, it seems to me. Which makes me wonder if he was bipolar or something.

Anyway, I won't be editing the article, but best of luck to those who do. Don't let it age you too much. qp10qp 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Qp10, thanks for your notes, but please come back. You're exactly the kind of editor we need here: a great writer and researcher. Look, folks, this is a great man we're writing about. He was revolutionary in his time, and not only then, but still. The attitude that he promoted — let the people have direct access to knowledge! — is exactly the attitude that Wikipedia is still having to promote hundreds of years later, because until very recently, the loftier-than-thou position that the masses can't be trusted with certain types of information remained firmly in place, and it's really only the Internet that's killing it completely. Martin Luther was one of the first people to question it, taking on arguably the most powerful institution in the world at the time, and succeeding.

We do him no justice by writing in this mealy-mouthed fashion. Let it all come out! The coarse language, the legacy of his antisemitism, and anything else that brings his work alive, that tells us why his legacy is still being argued about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, maybe you could get Martin Luther designated “the Grandfather of the Internet.” Or maybe “a co-founder of Wikipedia…” Jimbo might take issue with being associated, though, and I don’t know if Luther himself would have approved of “a free scripture that anyone can edit,” but still, yes, “let it all come out!” as it were.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this series of edits by User:Justas Jonas. Justas Jonas's entire Wikipedia career lasted approximately 3 weeks, most of that devoted to slashing material out of the Martin Luther article. I see no reason why his deletions should be kept. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but I see from his user page that he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Mantanmoreland 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I forgot, Justus Jonas was the infamous Ptmcain! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me that Keesiewonder, who was responsible for making this discovery in the first place, should be invited back to the page.--Mantanmoreland 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Qp10, thanks for your notes, but please come back. You're exactly the kind of editor we need here: a great writer and researcher."

Hey, Qp10m, for what it's worth my fellow Wikipedian, I more than second SlimVirgin's opinion. Please come back! Luther was/is an incredibly dramatic figure, and in many ways (thought I disagree with him on certain theological points) a great soul, whose life and work (regardless of one's opinions of the man) are deserving of the very best editors. Therefore I implore you, hang tight and don't be discouraged. I - and I'm willing to bet not a few others - are rooting for you!

And Slim, if I may say so, what great words of passion and encouragement! It's folks like you (and of course all the wonderful regular editors here: CTS, Drbois, Matan, etc.) that make me proud to be, if only in a feeble sort of way, a part of this marvelous enterprise known as Wikipedia. Delta x 06:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Flattery will get you everywhere.:)--Mantanmoreland 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as going into too much detail in an article like this one. Anytime someone thinks something needs to be summarized, it would be helpful to hive it off to its own article. Every section in this article ideally, in my opinion, should eventually be a summary of an entire article elsewhere at wikipedia, which in turn can be structured the same way, so that in the end, an entire book's worth of sourced data can exist here in useful sized chunks. Bottom line - don't throw away good stuff, hive it off to its own article. WAS 4.250 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but there has been a problem in the past with overuse of summary style, which has made it hard for laypeople and non-Lutherans to understand specific aspects of the article.--Mantanmoreland 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Delta. :-) I've restored Qp10qp's material. [16] [17] [18] [19] It's good stuff; makes those sections a lot clearer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Mantanmoreland, you are both welcome. And now it's back to task of purging a ton of junk, which explains why, in this picture of me at my computer, I look somewhat flustered - I am. Just look at that disarray!! But in a week or so all will be, once again, well ordered (at least for a while). :) Delta x 02:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Recent Research"

The "recent research" section is a little misleading. Perhaps there are some historians for whom this is their focus, but having just completed my masters a short while ago (and the same is true while working on my bachelor's), I did not find this to be the focus of anyone's "recent research" among church historians and theologians (which is where I would say the majority of Luther research is done). Much more time, energy, and ink is being spent on the so-called "Finnish school" of Luther studies: a group led by Tuomo Mannermaa of the U of Helsinka, which reads Luther through the eyes of Finnish Lutherans' conversations with their Orthodox brothers and sisters (much more emphasis on deification, sanctification, and the ways the great Greek Fathers shaped Luther as much as the Latin Fathers). Some published examples -just to name a few of the better known ones - of this strain of "recent recearch" (in English), include:

• Rob. Jenson and Carl Braatan, eds., Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Eerdmans, 1988).
• Tuomo Mannerma, Christ Present In Faith: Luther's View Of Justification (Augsburg Fortress, 2005).
• Veli-Matti Karkkainen, One with God: Salvation As Deification and Justification (Liturgical Press, 2005)

-- Pastordavid 13:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to add some material about other recent research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is more serious. Until such material is added, this section should be entitled "Recent research on Luther's controversial writings" or something like that. It is not accurate to end the article with a section implying controversy is the direction of contemporary Luther scholarship! Ideally, a bold WikiGenius would give this article some structure, splitting up Luther's Life, Theology/Writings, Impact/Legacy, and Controversies. The Norwegians have managed to create a Featured Article without splitting things up, but if we must dwell on controversy (and of course we must, we are the English Wikipedia), then at least a Wagner-like structure would be more appropriate in my opinion. --Merzul 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's best to avoid forking criticism off onto its own page if at all possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean forking off any criticism, but simply re-structuring the article. In any case, that was just my speculation as to what would help the article in general, but the immediate concern raised by Pastordavid is that the last section is highly misleading, since it contains an inaccurate assessment of the current direction of Luther research. --Merzul 22:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Influence

Martin Luther is credited with great influence during his life with regard to religious beliefs and power structures. Is he credited with influencing and changing people's behaviors or beliefs during his life with regard to jews; as opposed to being credited with expressing opinions that reflected the opinions of his time and were later used as an excuse by Nazis to do what they were already going to do? Or does my question presuppose something counterfactual? WAS 4.250 15:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. His impact on subsequent antisemitism is a matter of record, but his impact on the persecution of Jews in his day needs to be addressed.--Mantanmoreland 16:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are examples in the section of his influence during his lifetime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: "Luther successfully campaigned against the Jews in Saxony, Brandenburg, and Silesia. Michael writes that the city of Strasbourg was asked by Josel of Rosheim to forbid the sale of Luther's anti-Jewish works; they refused initially, but relented when a Lutheran pastor in Hochfelden argued in a sermon that his parishioners should murder Jews. Luther's influence persisted after his death. Throughout the 1580s, riots saw the expulsion of Jews from several German Lutheran states.[59]"--Mantanmoreland 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Material

And the Witnesses Were Silent: The Confessing Church and the Persecution of the Jews by Victoria J. Barnett, Wolfgang Gerlach; University of Nebraska Press, 2000. pp.113-4, ISBN 0-803-22165-7

A third statement, a September 1937 essay by Gerhard Schmidt, illustrates that Confessing Christians who fought to retain the Old Testament did not necessarily hold pro-Jewish attitudes, even theologically. Referring to Luther, Schmidt characterized "the fusion of the Jewish question with the things of the Old Testament" as a "false path": "Exactly at the point where Martin Luther criticizes the insolence and impertinence of contemporary Jews, he commits himself with all his power on behalf of the Old Testament and its character as revelation. . . . He does not reject the Old Testament because of the Jews, but rather the other way around: Because of the Old Testament, he rejects the Jews."

With this text from Luther, Schmidt, a Confessing pastor and contributor to Junge Kirche, sacrificed the Jews in order to save the Old Testament. The Nazi state, he wrote, intended to destroy the Jews in order to liquidate the Old Testament as well. That same year, "the city of Nuremberg presented a copy of the rare edition of Luther's text 'On the Jews and Their Lies,' published in the year 1543 with a frontispiece by Lucas Cranach, to the Gauleiter Julius Streicher in honor of his birthday." 57 The Confessing Church had protested too quietly or not at all and had failed to interfere with state treatment of the Jews. Ironically, the 4 April 1937 issue of Nationalkirche (National church), edited by Thuringian German Christian leaders Leffler and Leutheuser, compared the Confessing Church to Der Stürmer: "They are united in their radical rejection. The one [ Der Stürmer] for anti-Jewish reasons, the other [the Confessing Church] for anti-Christian reasons. Common to both is the anti-Christian attitude, the hostility toward Christ, [who is] the anti-Jew and Liberator of the human soul to God."

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Robert G. L. Waite; Da Capo Press, 1993, ISBN 0-306-80514-6

pp.117-8

A little known pamphlet apparently written jointly by Hitler and Eckart and published in 1924 is an important source for Hitler's political ideas during these years. Despite its ambitious title, Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me, there is virtually nothing in the pamphlet about Bolshevism. [...] In the pamphlet, Hitler and Eckart were ambivalent about Martin Luther. They praised him for his anti-Semitism and approved of the synagogue burning he recommended, but they found that in splitting the Christian church Luther increased the power of the Jews. Hitler and Eckart also expressed disappointment with Luther's draconian "solution to the Jewish Problem" (see Chapter 4), which they found much too moderate. The pamphlet calls for "rooting out" the Jews.

pp.248 - A Legacy of Luther

"Side by side with Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner." -- Adolf Hitler

pp. 249-250

Centuries before Hitler, Luther was convinced that the Jews were pernicious parasites who exploited and enslaved honest Germans. While Germans toiled by the sweat of their brow, Jews "stuff themselves, guzzle and sit around the stove . . . fart and roast pears [a proverbial expression for laziness] . . . they fleece us of our money and goods." He had specific ideas for dealing with "this depraved and damned people of the Jews." Luther's program, which Hitler would carry out in every detail, was set forth in 1543:

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools. . . . Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. . . . Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such adultery, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. . . . Fourth, I advise that their Rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. . . . Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. . . . Sixth, I advise that . . . all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. . . . Seventh, . . . Let whosoever can, throw brimstone and pitch upon them, so much the better . . . and if this be not enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of the land. . . .

It is one of those jarring accidents of chronology that Hitler launched his first pogrom against the Jews, known as Kristallnacht, setting fire to their synagogues and schools, on the night of 9-10 November 1938--on Luther's birthday.

pp.251

Martin Luther was a Christian theologian who made imperishable contributions to the religious life and thought of the Western world-contributions far greater than can be acknowledged here. But there is another legacy pointed to by a thoughtful German, who, writing after Hitler's Holocaust, concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful. (nb: Waite refers here to Wilhelm Röpke, The Solution to the German Problem, (1946), pp117).

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Röpke quote is pertinent. The fact that he is not a religious scholar, is not relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all very interesting material... for an article on Nazism! The problem with emphasizing this material is mainly one of historical context... Luther was a product of the 16th century. There were already pogroms in Europe before his time... it's not like anti-Semitism originates with Luther, or that the Nazis particularly needed Luther to justify their aims. Hitler probably just expertly capitalized on the fact he was a anti-Semitic German like he did with Wagner and the rest.

For this article, I would really focus on emphasizing Luther within his own time period and on the more or less immediate aftermath of that. Anti-Semitism, bigamy, comments against Catholics and witches: all ok to mention within his own historical context... to go beyond that, however, and basically interpret Luther through the events of the Holocaust, makes the article read like a polemic, which would seem to fall within WP:NPOV#Undue weight (in terms of contextual displacement) and really wouldn't seem to be in the best interest of Wikipedia as a whole.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Was thinking, also, couldn't this be considered undue weight by emphasizing the POV of Nazis? Not that these are Nazi sources, but content discussing the "Nazi POV" of Luther would definitely seem to qualify as a minority viewpoint, I would hope.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why we use secondary sources. It's the position of the academic sources that we're citing, not the position of the Nazis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

About research into Luther from 1900 onwards (from the German WP)

I wonder if anything in here would be of use to us? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Luthers Theologie wird erst seit Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, systematisch erst seit etwa 1900 erforscht. Dabei war ihre Deutung stets eng mit der aktuellen Geschichte des Protestantismus verbunden. Wichtige Vertreter der Lutherforschung und -deutung waren Theodosius Harnack (konfessionelle preußisch-konservative Restauration), Albrecht Ritschl und Wilhelm Herrmann (neukantianischer Individualismus), Karl Holl und Erich Seeberg (Lutherrenaissance), Friedrich Gogarten, Karl Barth (Dialektische Theologie), Rudolf Bultmann, Gerhard Ebeling (existentiale Interpretation), Ernst Wolf, Hans Joachim Iwand (sozialkritisches Luthertum nach 1945).

Wegmarken der Lutherforschung waren die kritische Weimarer Gesamtausgabe, begonnen 1883, eine Fülle zwischen 1900 und 1920 neu aufgefundener Handschriften vor allem des frühen Luther (z.B. Vorlesungen 1509-1518), aber auch des späten Luther (Predigtnachschriften, Disputationsprotokolle 1522-1546), die Gründung der Luthergesellschaft 1917 und nach 1945 zunehmend interkonfessionelle und internationale Lutherkongresse (1956 Aarhus, 1960 Münster/Westfalen u.a.) sowie eine Fülle von Studien zu bestimmten Lebensabschnitten oder Einzelfragen.

Lange Zeit hatte bei den Protestanten die Erforschung der reformatorischen Wende das Übergewicht; dank der neueren Textfunde und interkonfessioneller Forschungsprojekte wurde allmählich das differenzierte und komplexe Verhältnis Luthers zur katholischen Tradition aufgehellt.

Luthers Jugendeinflüsse und Frühschriften hat zuerst der Kirchenhistoriker Otto Scheel erforscht und festgestellt, dass Luther vor seinem Theologiestudium mit keinen häretischen, humanistischen und kirchenkritischen Strömungen seiner Zeit in Berührung kam (Die Entwicklung Luthers bis zum Abschluß der Vorlesung über den Römerbrief, Leipzig 1910; Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung (bis 1519), Tübingen 1911).

Der schwedische Psychoanalytiker Erik H. Erikson unternahm 1958 den - in der Fachdiskussion heute weithin als überholt angesehenen - Versuch, Luthers Theologie aus frühkindlichen Deformationen seiner Sexualität und angestauten Schuld- und Hassgefühlen gegenüber seinem Vater zu erklären (Der junge Mann Luther. Eine psychoanalytische und historische Studie).

95 Theses image

There's a great image here of Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the church, thereby triggering the Reformation (insofar as any one act can be said to have triggered it). It'd be good to use this but I can't see where it's from. Does anyone know offhand? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I searched and searched and could not find the name of the painting, or its location. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Seems that the image is from a book cover and not from an oil painting, but I am not 100% sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been searching too; nothing so far, though I see lots of people using it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

The following is problematic, as it endorsed a certain POV:

"and that the church is a community of believers, rather than a hierarchical structure of clergy against laity"

The church as the community of believer was no new idea and certainly not developed by Luther. In fact it was and is part of Catholic ecclesiology. Also it is not in contrast to a hierarchical structure which furthermore does not pit clergy against laity. This all smacks of Protestant POV. Not surprising maybe but still violating NPOV.

I don't even think that the above description fits Luther's ecclesiology unless it is preceded by a merely: the church being merely the community of believers, but even that doesn't to him justice, given the new idea of an invisible church.

I am not sure what was actually meant in this context but if we need a Lutheran innovation, try for "the priesthood of all believers" as opposed "ordained priesthood", which he indeed abolished.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Str, I changed that sentence to: "[The key tenets of his theology were] that the Bible, not the church, is the sole source of religious authority; that grace by means of faith in Jesus as the messiah, a faith unmediated by the church, is the only salvation; and that the church is a priesthood of believers, not a hierarchy of priests and congregants ..." It's sourced to the Hillerbrand article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Does that edit alleviate your concerns? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's better but still not quite accurate. Luther distinguished between the visible and the invisible church, the former being merely a human group of believers getting together, and the latter being invisible. A better solution would be to say "that all believers share in a common priesthood without needing a hierarchy ..." or something like that.

There is also a wrong implication at the top: "that the Bible, not the church, is the sole source of religious authority" implies that someone else holds the view that the church is the sole sources of religious authority. But no one does. Luther is the man throwing around "sola" all the time. It should be "that the Bible, apart from the church, is the sole source ..."

Also, the line about "grace by means of face" lacks Luther's insistence that it is "grace alone" by "faith alone" - since the latter is another of the main points of contention it is important to be precise.

Two more things:

1) Making the Bible "accesible to ordinary people" is POV IMHO. He made easier to read it by a joint effort of printing and translation, though he started neither of those. His translation was not the first translation. It also assumes that apart from a vernacular translation the Bible is inaccessible. At best made it more accessible and so it should say "more accessible" (Not delving into the issue of whether this purports the Lutheran dogma of perspicuity of scripture or the possibility that spreading his interpretation might be a wall of a different kind).

2) Why did you change the line about Luther's writings on the Jews being controversial. [20] As much as we discuss it here, Luther is not primarily known for these writings. (And I hope I am beyond the suspicion of being a "Luther apologists".

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tweaked it a bit more. Now it's "The key tenets of Luther's theology — that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority; that grace alone, attainable only by faith in Jesus as the messiah, a faith unmediated by the church, is the only salvation; and that the church is a priesthood of all believers — helped to inspire the Protestant Reformation and change the course of Western civilization."

The controversial thing — it was repeated at the end of the 3rd para and then the start of the next, which seemed untidy. Also, he is known for those writings, perhaps not among people who focus on the theology, but by historians. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would put it this way:

"The key tenets of Luther's theology — that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority; that grace alone, attainable only by faith in Jesus as the messiah, a faith unmediated by the church, is the only salvation; and all Christians share the priesthood of all believers — helped to inspire the Protestant Reformation and change the course of Western civilization."

IMHO the "also known" overdoes the Jewish issue. It is not what he's primarily known for, not even among historians. But I will let this rest.

What about the "more accessible" bit? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Additions

Please don't lengthen that section any further. It's long enough, and it's fairly balanced at the moment, reflecting what reliable sources say. An economist is not a reliable source regarding Luther's influence in 1930s Germany. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wilhelm Röpke is not a reliable source for the subject of Luther's influence on Nazism? I would argue strongly that he is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That sentence, as well as Hitler's view of Luther, closes that section very appropriately. I do not want to edit war about it, so I would appreciate if others can comment. This is the diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would an economist be a reliable source for that? Also, he's not saying anything the other sources don't say — that Luther was influential, but we know that. As for quoting Hitler, that's the sort of primary-source use we need to stay away from. I edited the section so it was 500 words shorter and relied on secondary scholarly sources (other than Luther himself) who have actually studied this, rather than people just commenting; I think it's best left that way, so we can focus on the rest of the article for a change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. Röpke was there at the time, and made that comment at the end of the war. As for Hitler's statement, it simply nails the previous paragraphs in which other opinions of the influence are described. Adding Hitler's own words, moves these opinions from being such, into the realm of fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

jossi, the material is good in one sense, and congratulations for finding it, but I think the point about it being from an economist (rather than a historian) is important, and it does tend to overbalance the section, which was already quite lengthy given the rest of the article, and the complaints that there was too much focus on Luther's writings about Jews. Perhaps it would fit better in the On the Jews and their Lies article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slim and Jayjg. He, as reported by another source, only described Luther's position as very important in many regards (not just the Jewish issue) and classifies that influence as "fateful". That's not really any new information. If you want to use it as a reference for what we have, go ahead. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I wonder about the context of the Röpke quote. What was he talking about? Really about the Shoa or primarily about the Shoa? I don't think so. Given the time as "after the Holocaust" implies this but might as well be POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. I will move the material to a more suitable article. Thanks for the feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But take care that you only let it say what it says. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Luther on witchcraft

Found a few very interesting treatises on witchcraft, in which Luther is mentioned quite substantially. Will it be worth my time to develop a bigger section on this subject, than the one we have now? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

I can kind of work out what this means, but I'm not confident about editing it to be clearer. Can someone say more about its meaning? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Luther came to understand justification as entirely the work of God. Against the teaching of his day that the righteous acts of believers are performed in cooperation with God, Luther wrote that Christians receive that righteousness entirely from outside themselves; that righteousness not only comes from Christ, it actually is the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us (rather than infused into us) through faith.

Slim, the two views are basically:

1. God gives grace to man (who receives it by faith in Christ) enabling to do righteous works. God and man cooperate in these works. Man is justified (=made just) by faith and these works, which he wouldn't have been able to do on his own. This view also considers justification as an ongoing process unto perfection.
2. God overlooks man's sins by imputing to him the perfect righteousness of Christ based on man's faith in the salvatory effect of Christ's death on the cross (an effect on the individual himself, not jsut a general effect). Man is justified (=declared just) by faith alone. This view also distinguishes between justification at the beginning, followed by sanctification, which is an ongoing process unto perfection.

The first is the Catholic view, the second the Lutheran/Protestant view.

Terms like "of his day" should be avoided. The paragraph draws an accurate picture. However, the thing Luther opposed here was not just the teaching of his day but had been so for centuries, if you ask me from the beginning. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. I think I see, but perhaps not quite. In the above, the Catholic view is that man is made just according to his good acts, not according to his beliefs, and not by grace alone: becoming just is a lifelong process. The Lutheran view is that belief is more important than good acts. If you have faith in Jesus, you are made just by that belief alone, which is sufficient to trigger God's grace, and that is enough.

That is, becoming just is not a process for Lutherans. In the Catholic view, grace is only part of what is needed for salvation; in the Lutheran view, it is the only thing that's needed. Have I got that right? :-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost, Slim: faith and grace do play important roles in the Catholic view: all of salvation happens by and through God's grace. And man must accept that grace in faith. The difference on the terminological level is the rejection of the Lutheran "faith alone", on a deeper level it is the definition of justification - infused vs. imputed. The Lutheran view is that a faith in "Jesus died for MY sins" (not just in general) results in you being declared just (even though you are actually just as sinful as before) - this difference is a philosophical: Aristotelian realism (righteousness really exists in itself) vs. Nominalism (anything that God calls its righteous is thereby righteous). ::For a Protestant works are merely fruits of the justification that occured previously by faith alone, whereas for a Catholic, since justification is not restricted to the first instance but encompasses sanctification, works are part and parcel of it together with faith. Of course, in initial justification a Catholic would not see works involved either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"The only thing that's needed" mischaracterizes Luthers position. Luther argues that human deeds are insufficient to earn oneself good standing with God. The article on the Christian doctrine of Original sin has the background for that position of his. Dr Zak 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that is pretty close. The question that marks the divide is whether or not there is any human element of cooperation in salvation/justification - for which the Lutheran answer is an emphatic no. There is a process when talking about righteousness for Lutherans, but it deals with post-justification and does not contribute to salvation/justification (see Luther's Two Kinds of Righteousness for a delineation between salvific righteousness that is entirely extra nos, and the righteousness which comes after salvation - with which there is cooperation; see the note above about recent research for secondary sources along these lines). Hope that helps, and doesn't just muddy the water. Pastordavid 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. I'm getting there ... :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Triggering God's grace" is at least an unfortunate way of putting it and could well be a misunderstanding. Luther argues that God extends his grace to mankind despite everyone being a miserable sinner. Dr Zak 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)