To be fair to Dr. Luther--the exegete. Every translation of Sacred Scripture is interpretation of it. So, as those who can speak more than one language know, there’s not always a comparable word or phrase from one language to another. Luther translating Scripture into could be making the argument that it conveys in the original text “faith alone,” or rather that’s how the meaning is expressed fully into German via grammar, mood, tense, etc.
That’s not to say that he’s right, but to give him the benefit of the doubt in charity. And, even so, once a person is corrected, how natural is it for us humans to then double down on it?
Perhaps. But, I don't think his argument was that he attempted to present an accurate translation. My interpretation of his words, at least, is that he knew full well what an accurate translation of the words and message would be. But, he chose to delete anything that didn't agree with his doctrine.... then convince a largely illiterate audience that he, alone, was providing them with the truth that the Catholic Church was trying to hide... kind of like a certain figure in the Bible who argued that God didn't really say you would die if you ate that apple... it contains hidden knowledge.... surely, you deserve it... Convincing people that some truth is being hidden from them is a very seductive argument. That seems to be the root of every heresy Saint Irenaeus wrote against, the entire Protestant protest and much of the most destructive forces in political history. Whether Robespierre, Hitler or Mao, they all present themselves as champions of the people, saving them from forces beyond their control - blame the Jews, blame the Catholics, blame the monarchy or the capitalists or the patriarchy.... it is always the whispers of the devil just doing the same as he has done since Eden.
My comment is based on the arguments against the theological concept of Original Sin formulated by St. Augustine. Many argue that Augustine “mistranslated” Romans 5:12 thus creating an exegetical interpretation which isn’t true to the original text. My argument from an exegete’s standpoint is that for that to be true one would need to argue that Augustine was then ignorant of the whole of Scripture like St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians where he refers to those as “Children of Wrath.”
And maybe Luther knew the whole of Scripture which is why when he interpreted Romans as “faith alone.” Books like Tobit, Maccabees, and even James needed to go.
Yes I love Tobit, especially since it wasn’t included in the Bibles I grew up with. After conversion to Catholicism I took the time to read the books that Protestants removed!
Since a teen ( I am 76 now), Tobit has been one of my favorite Bible books! I learned the love of God for me, the importance of loving my fellow humans and how lovable God is from this book!
I found it interesting that in Jewish history, there is a story that the Archangel Raphael taught Moses about all medicinal herbs after the flood. He was also believed to be the source of healing at the pool of Siloam. Tobit gives evidence that in Judaism, angels were believed to have great influence in our lives. If you cut that book out, of course Catholics seem odd for having that belief. Leave it in, and Catholic belief about angels is barely remarkable.
To be fair to Dr. Luther--the exegete. Every translation of Sacred Scripture is interpretation of it. So, as those who can speak more than one language know, there’s not always a comparable word or phrase from one language to another. Luther translating Scripture into could be making the argument that it conveys in the original text “faith alone,” or rather that’s how the meaning is expressed fully into German via grammar, mood, tense, etc.
That’s not to say that he’s right, but to give him the benefit of the doubt in charity. And, even so, once a person is corrected, how natural is it for us humans to then double down on it?
Perhaps. But, I don't think his argument was that he attempted to present an accurate translation. My interpretation of his words, at least, is that he knew full well what an accurate translation of the words and message would be. But, he chose to delete anything that didn't agree with his doctrine.... then convince a largely illiterate audience that he, alone, was providing them with the truth that the Catholic Church was trying to hide... kind of like a certain figure in the Bible who argued that God didn't really say you would die if you ate that apple... it contains hidden knowledge.... surely, you deserve it... Convincing people that some truth is being hidden from them is a very seductive argument. That seems to be the root of every heresy Saint Irenaeus wrote against, the entire Protestant protest and much of the most destructive forces in political history. Whether Robespierre, Hitler or Mao, they all present themselves as champions of the people, saving them from forces beyond their control - blame the Jews, blame the Catholics, blame the monarchy or the capitalists or the patriarchy.... it is always the whispers of the devil just doing the same as he has done since Eden.
My comment is based on the arguments against the theological concept of Original Sin formulated by St. Augustine. Many argue that Augustine “mistranslated” Romans 5:12 thus creating an exegetical interpretation which isn’t true to the original text. My argument from an exegete’s standpoint is that for that to be true one would need to argue that Augustine was then ignorant of the whole of Scripture like St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians where he refers to those as “Children of Wrath.”
And maybe Luther knew the whole of Scripture which is why when he interpreted Romans as “faith alone.” Books like Tobit, Maccabees, and even James needed to go.
Sure, that could be. Of what I have read of his writings though, he does not seem to be one who acted in good faith.
Yes I love Tobit, especially since it wasn’t included in the Bibles I grew up with. After conversion to Catholicism I took the time to read the books that Protestants removed!
Since a teen ( I am 76 now), Tobit has been one of my favorite Bible books! I learned the love of God for me, the importance of loving my fellow humans and how lovable God is from this book!
I agree. The book of Wisdom is also a favorite that is included in Catholic Bibles.
I totally agree!
The book of Tobit is one of my favorites. It has inspired and brought my faith closer to God. Amen 🙏
I found it interesting that in Jewish history, there is a story that the Archangel Raphael taught Moses about all medicinal herbs after the flood. He was also believed to be the source of healing at the pool of Siloam. Tobit gives evidence that in Judaism, angels were believed to have great influence in our lives. If you cut that book out, of course Catholics seem odd for having that belief. Leave it in, and Catholic belief about angels is barely remarkable.