Sunday, December 26, 2010

Luther on the Immaculate Conception: A Response to Scott Windsor (Part Three)

I. IntroductionThis will be the third installment of my discussion with Scott Windsor on Luther and the immaculate conception. My first installment briefly outlined my view (that Luther indeed did not hold to a lifelong belief in Mary's immaculate conception). The second blog entry took a closer look at the methodology behind Mr. Windsor's conclusions. That entry noted Mr. Windsor's apologetic / historical methodology boils down to utilizing extracted Luther quotes from either my writings, other secondary web pages, or old secondary sources available from Google books. Scott then puts forth a harmonizing solution for some of Luther's later statements based on a sermon from 1527 (which Mr. Windsor appears to have never read, along with the other writings of Luther he cited).

Faced with counter-evidence, any statements from Luther that can't be harmonized with Windsor's interpretive framework are said to be examples of Luther contradicting himself. So as to maintain the integrity of his interpretive paradigm, Windsor actually goes as far to posit Luther contradicts himself on the immaculate conception even in the same writing.


II. Windsor's view on The Day of Conception of the Mother of GodI'd like to take a closer look at Scott's position on this key piece of historical evidence, Luther's 1527 sermon on "The Day of Conception of the Mother of God." This is the linchpin holding Mr. Windsor's view together. After citing a section of this sermon taken from a secondary source, Windsor states, "Luther's view was that of "two conceptions" - the "second conception" does align quite well to the 1854 definition of the dogmatic definition."

From Windsor's partial reading of a deleted extract from this sermon, he then interprets statements from the last nineteen years of Luther's life positing he held to a lifelong belief in Mary's immaculate conception. Windsor argues the later statements from Luther do not deny the “two conceptions” theory Luther explicitly espoused earlier [source]. He then qualifies this by stating Luther did not speak of the immaculate conception in as forceful terms as he did earlier:

My use of “forceful” is a relevant term... in later works he may not have been as explicit as in his Catholic and early Protestant days... The later works do not come out and say, “I was wrong in 1527 and earlier and I whole-heartedly renounce all belief in the Immaculate Conception.” There is no such retraction that I am aware of, and I’m sure if one existed that you would quote it and validly cite your source [source].

Windsor also states:

deletion of something is an argument from silence - the LACK of saying something cannot be equivocated to denying it, in fact in logic silence lends itself to consent - not negation.

-snip-

You’re assuming by his silence (the alleged removal of this from later works) that he negates his earlier statements, but you’re the one left making an assumption which is contrary to logic - remember, in logic silence lends itself to consent, not negation [source].

For Scott, Luther's deletion of the section of sermon in question isn't an explicit denial of the immaculate conception. That the ending of this sermon was re-written (which is where the deletion was) isn't an explicit denial of the immaculate conception. For Windsor, these facts serve as proof Luther maintained a belief in the immaculate conception. Unless Luther stated "I was wrong in 1527 and earlier and I whole-heartedly renounce all belief in the Immaculate Conception," Luther's lifelong view was that expressed in a deleted portion of a 1527 sermon.


II. Avoiding Sources: The Day of Conception of the Mother of God (1527)
In my first response I provided Mr. Windsor with a bibliographic reference to an English translation of the revised sermon, which Mr. Windsor thus far has chosen to ignore (this book is in print and affordable). Mr. Windsor doesn't appear to care enough to actually read the entire context of this short sermon. Even though it plays a crucial role in his historical interpretation on this matter, Scott refuses to do basic research by actually reading that which he interprets. In previous discussions with Scott, I had provided a link (more than a few times!) to a blog entry I compiled on this very issue. I included a fair amount of bibliographic information, as well as an overview of my reading of the sermon.

Despite this provided link, Mr. Windsor makes the following comment:

Back to James, he claims to have read later copies of this sermon which have the part which explicitly mentions the IC removed, but he does not quote us that sermon nor does he cite a source of that sermon or provide a link to that alleged version of the sermon. I'm not saying it doesn't exist and/or that James is making this up - but such an unsupported statement coming from me would be utterly rejected, and thus the objective reader here must also reject James' unscholarly approach here. He claims he doesn't want to do all my work for me - but HE is the one who asserts the existence of this later publication of the sermon so it is HIS RESPONSIBILITY to adequately and validly document his claim or withdraw it from consideration. He should not expect us to do his homework for him. (And yes, I do not diminish the fact that he has already done a lot of work here - but in regard to THIS assertion his work, thus far, is deficient) [source].
Had Mr. Windsor actually read the material provided to him, he would've seen that I documented the deletion as noted in Erlangen 15, provided an overview of the entire sermon, and included the re-edited ending, as well as the deleted ending. I chose not to include this tedious documentation in my first response, assuming Scott would have read it the three times I provided the link for him. Scott says at one point, "I have looked at ALL the links you've provided and ALL you've posted directly in this exchange." My question then for Scott would be "What do you mean by..."looked"....? If Scott actually read this provided link, I either wasn't clear enough in my presentation, or Scott didn't understand it. Only Scott can explain this mystery.

II. Basing a Conclusion on a Deleted Portion of Text From Luther In my first response to Mr. Windsor, I briefly pointed out the inherent problems with utilizing this sermon to substantiate Luther's later view. The sermon was edited (in fact the very words Mr. Windsor highlights in blue bolding were deleted). The section was rewritten by Luther. Mr. Windsor should be familiar with similar problems found in the writings of the early church fathers. For instance, Augustine later retracted some of his earlier views. Other church writings have questionable sections in which their authenticity isn't certain. Mr. Windsor should be aware of the tenuousness of basing one's view on a questionable text, whether it was retracted, deleted, or edited.

In this instance, the sermon in question had deletions and was edited by Luther himself. As noted in my first response to Mr. Windsor, the very deleted section Mr. Windsor uses doesn't even have the certain pedigree of being written by Luther. I've also documented this uncertainty here, in the same link provided to Mr. Windsor.

As I've pointed out to Scott, the editors of Luther's Works hold "the material in question seems to be solely the responsibility of its editor, Stephan Roth." While this isn't certain, I do find it curious that I haven't found any other examples from Luther putting forth the view contained in this deleted section, nor do the editors of Luther's Works. If Mr. Windsor could provide corroborating evidence of Luther positing a "two conception theory," particularly later in his life, perhaps then one could authenticate the earlier deleted material as being representative of Luther's view. The question then of course would be, why did (or would) Luther delete the material, if in fact it was his view? He certainly wasn't one to hold back an opinion. In terms of positive evidence then for Luther's actual view, even in 1527, the material Scott relies on is questionable, as should be his interpretive paradigm.

So, when Mr. Windsor hosts an article that states "the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death," one needs to keep in mind his basis for such an assertion rests on a questionable section of text. Scott has recently stated, "I have conceded that there IS ROOM for the anti-IC believer to believe that Luther in his later life rejected the IC - but there can be no denying in his earlier life as a Catholic and well into the time he schismed from the Catholic Faith - that he did indeed believe and profess a belief in the IC compatible with the 1854 dogmatic definition." Only Scott can explain which statement he holds to.

III. Comments on the Context of the 1527 Sermon
In this link I went through the entire context of this short sermon. The version of the sermon in WA 17(2) opens with this summary: "Christ does not look at the honor, glory and praise of the flesh, also not that of his mother, the most holy virgin Mary. Therefore those, who proclaim nothing than the praise of Mary, should be preaching God's Word (instead)." That is actually the point of the sermon. The sermon itself is primarily about original sin, not the immaculate conception of Mary. In a blog comment, my friend Brigitte (who helped me with aspects of the German translation) made the following statement:

If someone, or everyone, were to read the sermon carefully, he, or they, would note, that Luther is only presenting various prevailing views. He is trying to calm the water and allow people their pious opinions which they are not to make into dogma since there is no scripture to go on. Secondly, he is trying to get everyone to think about their own original sin, which sticks to them even though they are redeemed Christians, and to battle their sinful flesh daily by sticking with their prayers, the creed and the Lord's prayer. (This would be more useful than speculations). Thirdly, he wants everyone to focus on the clear words of scripture about Christ and give up this useless dissension regrarding the flesh and the praise of Mary. In the course of all this he does not give his own opinion [in the immaculate conception], but rather tries to steer away from useless strife--which indeed we are having here again.

And also:

Scott, I've read the sermon in questions numerous times now in various versions in German, English and bits of Latin. Any references to the immaculate conception of Mary are not definitely expressing Luther's opinion. The only thing that matters to him is that Jesus himself was conceived without original sin, lust or concupiscence. The two conceptions with the cleaning of the soul during it's infusion, is just the presentation of someone's point of view, which one may take or leave without hurting one's conscience. Just read the entire sermon.

I included these comments because I couldn't say it any better. Nor did Mr. Windsor respond to either of these statements (which were intended for him). This is one of the reasons I keep harping on context, and letting Luther be Luther. What would Scott's view be on this sermon if he actually read it? Only Scott can explain what his view would be.

IV. Conclusion
If Scott wants to disagree with me on this sermon, I wish he would do so on historical or exegetical grounds. In this entry, I've asked Scott Windsor to explain his view three times (points I, II, & III).

I've tried to do everything possible to understand the historical considerations and context of this sermon. For instance, a few months back I found a preview of a book on Google that gave me a partial sentence that said, "the edition that this section of the sermon was expunged after 1527, until restored by Luther himself." One can imagine my pulse rate when I read a secondary source that may have been implying Luther removed the section in question, and then put it back! As documentation for this assertion, they cited: Paul F. Palmer, Mary in the Documents of the Church (Maryland: Newman Press, 1952) p. 76. I could find no Internet copy of this book, so I ordered the book. They state,

"Kirchenpostille," in Luther's Sammtliche Werke, Erlangen ed. 1828, 15, 55). The editor of this edition notes on p. 54 that after 1527 this section of Luther's sermon was expunged from later editions until restored by himself."

Well, I had already done the work of looking up Luther's Sammtliche Werke, Erlangen ed. 1828, 15, 54. Erl 15 does not say Luther restored this section of the sermon. An asterisk at the bottom of the page indicates a deletion of the end paragraphs: "From here on until the end, is only found in the edition of the year 1527." But it is true, Luther did restore this sermon, along with many others from the Kirchenpostille, by rewriting sections that needed to be fixed after Roth's publication. Luther spent a lot of time revising the Kirchenpostille to reflect his official teachings. I once again ask Mr. Windsor to simply let Luther be Luther. If he saw fit to delete a section and rewrite it, the version he intended for us is that which we should hold him to.

AddendumFor Mr. Windsor, here is copy of the page from Erl 15 noting the deletion.




Here is page 51 from Baseley's translation of the 1584 Festival Postil:




All this information was available to Mr. Windsor previously in this blog post. He needed only to read this blog entry which I provided for him numerous times.

20 comments:

James Swan said...

This entry was edited for some typos a few hours after it was posted. I left Scott's typos in, but didn't point them out.

Brigitte said...

The sermon he want to preach on original sin is really well summarized in his Smalcald Articles. All of it comes down to the cross of Christ remaining the center and the place of salvation, otherwise Christ would have died in vain; and no doubt to me, our dear sister and mother in the faith, the Virgin Mary, would want herself included in this number of those who trust fully in Christ.

Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article I
Sin

Here we must confess, as Paul says in Romans 5:12, that sin originated from one man, Adam. By his disobedience, all people were made sinners and became subject to death and the devil. This is called original or the chief sin. (1)

This hereditary sin is such a deep corruption of nature that no reason can understand it. Rather, it must be believed from the revelation of Scripture. Therefore, it is nothing but error and blindness that the scholastic doctors have taught in regard to this article:

Since Adam’s fall the natural powers of human beings have remained whole and uncorrupted, and by nature people have a right reason and good will, as the philosophers teach.

A person has a free will to do good and not to do evil, and, on the other hand, to not do good and do evil.

By natural and human powers a person can observe and keep all God’s commands. (3-6)

These and many similar ideas have arise from lack of understanding and ignorance, both about sin and about Christ, our Savior. They are truly heathen teachings that we cannot endure. For is should teaching were true, then Christ has died in vain.

CathApol said...

James, you complain that I have not read the 1527 sermon - yet in your own article you said it was virtually impossible to find in English, and you gave up trying. Then you say the English translation you're relying on is that of fellow blogger Brigitte, and some others. Now I see in your initial article the link to Bp. Ullathorne's book, which has the section of that sermon we are interested in (I don't recall seeing that link in your article previously, but perhaps I overlooked it?). I too found Bp. Ullathorne's google book reference and I copied a text version of that part of the sermon to my blog. All we've seen from you thus far are bibliographical references to the German and Latin, along with this reference to the English, which I also found. You then CLAIM but DO NOT DOCUMENT that these "words in blue and bold" were omitted from later publications of the sermon. You CLAIM the sermon is easily found (while earlier describing how difficult it was) and then say it's easily affordable, and imply that I should just go out an buy the book. Well, again I assert that it is YOU who asserts there is a change in the sermon thus it is UP TO YOU to DOCUMENT IT! Enough of the smoke and mirrors, Mr. Swan. Put forth the primary source documentation and make your case. Enough of the empty assertions. I will trust that you will honestly portray the original/primary source (as it would be far more damaging to you to deliberately put forth something false and then if you also provide proper and scholarly citation - it can be verified).

So enough with trying to impugn ME personally and/or my "research methods" - which I've already gone out and bought one of Grisar's books plus two volumes of Luther's Works just since this discussion and FOR this discussion - so enough implying that I won't spend the money - when THE POINT IS I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO! YOU made the assertion these parts are later omitted YOU PROVE IT!

Again, I am not saying they were NOT later omitted, I just want to see your evidence, and someone who wishes to appear to be putting forth scholarly work should not be saying "go out and buy it yourself."

Bp. Ullathorne presents us with a primary source - and he cites HIS source. Based upon his citation, it appears his original source was in Latin. I concur with you, finding this in English, especially in its entirety, is quite difficult - if not impossible.

Scott<<<

(I deleted and reposted after fixing a link).

James Swan said...

Scott, you aren't reading carefully, or I'm not writing clearly.

James, you complain that I have not read the 1527 sermon - yet in your own article you said it was virtually impossible to find in English, and you gave up trying.

Scott, in my blog entry I state of the 1527 sermon- note the words "at the time.": "I eventually gave up, arriving at the conviction that the sermon was almost impossible to track down, especially in English. There simply wasn't anything on-line at the time that mentioned a primary source, or any sort of English translation. "

Then you say the English translation you're relying on is that of fellow blogger Brigitte, and some others.

Scott, in my blog entry I state:"Joel Baseley recently put out an English translation in his translation of the Festival Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005) pp. 42-51." In my first response to you I state: "a translation which can be found in Joel Baseley, the Festival Sermons of Martin Luther [Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005] pp. 42-51]." In my blog entry I noted I used Baseley's translation, as well as those prepared for me by Brigitte and Matthew Carver. Ewald Plass also provided a partial translation of one section which I used as well. I've compared and contrasted every translation I can get my hands on.

Now I see in your initial article the link to Bp. Ullathorne's book, which has the section of that sermon we are interested in (I don't recall seeing that link in your article previously, but perhaps I overlooked it?).

You did. I also mention Ullathorne in a link of mine you've utilized. I've had a copy of this book for about 7 years. I used it back when I put this web page together.

James Swan said...

I too found Bp. Ullathorne's google book reference and I copied a text version of that part of the sermon to my blog.

Yes, I see that. It's called a secondary source. You'll notice in my blog entry, I've linked over to the Latin text primary source Ullathorne used.

All we've seen from you thus far are bibliographical references to the German and Latin, along with this reference to the English, which I also found.

Scott, you must not be reading carefully. I provided you with bibliographic information to Baseley's translation in my first response to you: "Not only was the relevant section deleted (which may not have been written by Luther at all), it was actually re-written by Luther (a translation which can be found in Joel Baseley, the Festival Sermons of Martin Luther [Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005] pp. 42-51)." Here is a link on how to buy this book. It's sitting in front of me now as I write. I can take a picture of it for you if you'd like proof of its existence.

You then CLAIM but DO NOT DOCUMENT that these "words in blue and bold" were omitted from later publications of the sermon.

Scott, in this blog link which I've posted for you numerous times (and you claim to have read), I noted Hartmann Grisar (A Roman Catholic scholar!) pointed out the deletion in the Erlangen edition of Luther's Works (Erl 15). Erl 15 is on-line (you don't have to buy this one). I then stated in this same blog entry I looked up Erl 15 as instructed by Grisar, and sure enough, an asterisk at the bottom of page 54 indicates a deletion of the end paragraphs: "From here on until the end, is only found in the edition of the year 1527." Also Baseley's translation was made from a 1584 edition, and is missing the section in question. When I contacted Baseley about it, he said he left nothing out, and appeared to be unaware of the earlier non-edited version.

James Swan said...

You CLAIM the sermon is easily found (while earlier describing how difficult it was) and then say it's easily affordable, and imply that I should just go out an buy the book.

Again, in context, I stated in the blog entry in question "There simply wasn't anything on-line at the time that mentioned a primary source, or any sort of English translation." Now in 2010, there is an English translation available. If you're interested in a historical debate with me, i can see no other option than to have the sources needed in order to converse.

Well, again I assert that it is YOU who asserts there is a change in the sermon thus it is UP TO YOU to DOCUMENT IT!

As I did in this comment, look above, beginning with the words "Scott, in this blog link which I've posted for you numerous times..." then read the rest of the comment, stopping at the words, "non-edited version." Keep in mind, you yourself on your website state: "This quote actually comes from a sermon preached by Luther ("On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) and was published with his permission, but prior to the end of his life it is not found in published editions of his works." So, Scott, you're claiming the same thing I am. The only difference is, I've looked at the primary sources and prove it.

Enough of the smoke and mirrors, Mr. Swan. Put forth the primary source documentation and make your case. Enough of the empty assertions.

Scott, I'm trying to be as clear as possible, but you've had all of this information from me since we began our dialog. Either I didn't write clearly, or you don't understand what I've written. Or, I guess it could be both.

I will trust that you will honestly portray the original/primary source (as it would be far more damaging to you to deliberately put forth something false and then if you also provide proper and scholarly citation - it can be verified).

In case I haven't been clear yet, the Erlangen edition of Luther's works, volume 15 notes the deletion. Baseley's English translation is from a 1584 edition and has the revision. All this information is available here. I've linked it for you now a number of times. I go into greater detail in this link.

So enough with trying to impugn ME personally and/or my "research methods" - which I've already gone out and bought one of Grisar's books plus two volumes of Luther's Works just since this discussion and FOR this discussion - so enough implying that I won't spend the money - when THE POINT IS I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO! YOU made the assertion these parts are later omitted YOU PROVE IT!

Scott, I haven't held back anything. Either I haven't written it clearly, or you don't understand it, or both. As to your research methods, as far as I can tell, you wrote an entire blog entry without reading any of the quotes in context. That's not the way I do things. Maybe that's the way those from your "ken" do things, but I say it's a blueprint for historical anarchy.

James Swan said...

Again, I am not saying they were NOT later omitted, I just want to see your evidence, and someone who wishes to appear to be putting forth scholarly work should not be saying "go out and buy it yourself."

Again Scott, this evidence was available to you here. I suggest if you doubt my findings, verify my claims by getting the sources yourself.

Bp. Ullathorne presents us with a primary source - and he cites HIS source. Based upon his citation, it appears his original source was in Latin. I concur with you, finding this in English, especially in its entirety, is quite difficult - if not impossible.


It's not impossible. Baseley's book is easily available. And no, Ullathorne is not a primary source.

steve said...

Not only is Windsor unable to read Luther in the original German, but he's unable to read Swan in the original English. Perhaps you should try conversational Klingon.

drinking song:

'ej HumtaH 'ej DechtaH 'Iw
[And the blood was ankle deep]
'ej Doq SoDtaH ghoSpa' Sqral bIQtIq
[And the River Skral ran crimson red]
'e' pa' jaj law' mo' jaj puS
[On the day above all days]
jaj qeylIS molar mIgh HoHchu'qu'
[When Kahless slew evil Molor dead]

James Swan said...

Not only is Windsor unable to read Luther in the original German, but he's unable to read Swan in the original English. Perhaps you should try conversational Klingon.

LOL.

Well, I'm not sure what to do for Scott at this point. Perhaps I'll "Print Screen" and post it as a picture of Erl 15 to prove the noted deletion Grisar refers to, although Windsor could always simply read the blog post and click on the link to Erl 15...

Maybe though Scott's just goofing around with me.

I'm open to suggestions at this point as to how best to communicate my points to Scott.

CathApol said...

Gentleman, I am fully aware of all the links Mr. Swan has provided. None of which contain the text of the sermon in question - with the exception of Bp. Ullathorne - who does provide us with primary source information. Bp. Ullathorne does not provide the complete sermon, but he does provide us with a translation of Luther's words into English - and that IS a primary source. His commentary before and after the quoted portion of the sermon is secondary source material. That being said, providing a bibliography is NOT "documentation." A bibliography is a resource list to guide one to the documentation - it is NOT documentation in itself. The bibliography is PART OF documentation, but alone its just a list of sources. This is part of what I learned doing high school research papers and was reinforced in the college honors English and other college courses which required research papers, (history, philosophy, etc.).

In short, to make an assertion and then back it up without direct quotes from primary sources and merely a bibliography and some secondary source commentaries - well frankly, that's not valid nor complete documentation. The job is only half-done.

CathApol said...

Am I missing something? Swan writes: although Windsor could always simply read the blog post and click on the link to Erl 15...

The only "link" I saw to "Erl 15" was in German.

James Swan said...

Scott, I added two pictures for you in this blog post under "Addendum."

The first picture is the page from Erl. 15 Grisar and other scholars mention. The asterisk at the bottom of the page (picture) indicates the deletion of the end paragraphs. It translates, "From here on until the end, is only found in the edition of the year 1527." The "edition" refers to Luther's Church Postil.

The second scan is the last paragraph from Baseley's translation of the 1527 sermon in question. Baseley had a later edition of the sermon from Luther's Church Postil (1584). The parts you have on your blog entry bolded in blue are deletions and not in the 1584 text. If they were, they would be on this page.

For information on what "Church Postil" means, refer to my blog entry (the one I've linked you to probably a dozen times by now).

James Swan said...

Am I missing something? Swan writes:

The only "link" I saw to "Erl 15" was in German


Yes, you're missing the fact Erl 15 is a German text.

CathApol said...

So, Erl 15 is only in German, and the "documentation" is an editorial note (also in German). I am not doubting your German translation to English - but an editorial note is not documentation of Luther HIMSELF not including those words. This is my frustration here... you constantly say "Let Luther be Luther," but you're not doing it yourself! You're letting Luther be an editor's commentary. Where is a copy of LUTHER in his own words, translated or otherwise, where this text is not included? Thus far the ONLY primary source material we've seen from this sermon INCLUDES the words in question. Again, the job is left half-done.

I do appreciate the images presented, but they're not quite sufficient to prove your case yet. The first, above disputed, and the second is not even on the same sermon. Though seems along the lines of what you have been arguing outside of this sermon from 1527.

Church Postils refers to the annual cycle of homilies (sermons).

James Swan said...

Gentleman, I am fully aware of all the links Mr. Swan has provided.

Well, you may be aware of them, but either I'm a very poor communicator, or you don't understand their contents (or both).

None of which contain the text of the sermon in question - with the exception of Bp. Ullathorne - who does provide us with primary source information.

This is a blatant error. Here's what I posted:

The earlier sermon compiled by Roth can be found in WA 17 2, Fastenpostille 1525; Roths Festpostille 1527 (Festival Postil), titled Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes Luk. 11 (pp. 280-289). The specific quote and context can be found on pages 287 - 288. There's also an extant Latin volume of Luther's sermons (alternate link) in which the sermon can be found starting on page 360. A Latin version can also be found here in WA 4: 690-694.

These links most certainly have the sermon.

James Swan said...

Bp. Ullathorne does not provide the complete sermon, but he does provide us with a translation of Luther's words into English - and that IS a primary source.

No it isn't. Here's a tidbit from Wikipedia (so it must be true, LOL): "Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied." Ullathorne is a Romanist writing a few hundred years after the sermon was published, putting forth a piece of propaganda on Mariolotry. He uses Luther in his own context to argue in favor of Romanism. That would be like me quoting you via a post by one of my Protestant friends.

His commentary before and after the quoted portion of the sermon is secondary source material.

Thus saith the Gods of Wikipedia: "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Scott I hate to quote Wikipedia, but this stuff is so basic, i thought it was common knowledge.

That being said, providing a bibliography is NOT "documentation." A bibliography is a resource list to guide one to the documentation - it is NOT documentation in itself. The bibliography is PART OF documentation, but alone its just a list of sources. This is part of what I learned doing high school research papers and was reinforced in the college honors English and other college courses which required research papers, (history, philosophy, etc.).

Scott, the bibliographic sources were provided to you so you could check my work if you so chose to. Baseley's translation of the sermon was noted for you in case you actually wanted to have historical interaction on the text in question.

What I think it really comes down to is this: you simply want me to provide you with a translation of the sermon. From now on, every time a Roman Catholic says something about Luther or quotes Luther, I'm going to ask them for a copy of the text in question. Guess how many of your fellow apologists would do this?

James Swan said...

So, Erl 15 is only in German, and the "documentation" is an editorial note (also in German). I am not doubting your German translation to English - but an editorial note is not documentation of Luther HIMSELF not including those words.

I don't have access to all the early 16th century editions of Luther's Church Postil. Perhaps Grisar, the editors of Erl 15., and a host of other scholars noting the deletions are in error. I guess that's possible. If interacting with you comes down to photocopies of 16th century publications, then I guess Scott, you beat me. I don't have access to such rare documents (although I recently found a website actually posting original 16th century editions of Luther's writings). Scholars are not infallible. It certainly is possible that faulty information was passed on. Although, I was in contact with Reverend Basely, and the copy of the Church Postil he translated was from 1584. The material in question that you so want to be there simply wasn't, according to Baseley.

This is my frustration here... you constantly say "Let Luther be Luther," but you're not doing it yourself! You're letting Luther be an editor's commentary. Where is a copy of LUTHER in his own words, translated or otherwise, where this text is not included? Thus far the ONLY primary source material we've seen from this sermon INCLUDES the words in question. Again, the job is left half-done.

The 1584 copy of the Church Postil Rev. Baseley translated has a shorter ending to the sermon, in fact a different ending than that cited by Ullathorne. The 1584 Church Postil is indeed Luther in his own words. Other scholars in the field of Luther studies have noted the revised ending. Perhaps though Scott, it's a conspiracy to cover up... the real Luther, devotee of Mary!

I do appreciate the images presented, but they're not quite sufficient to prove your case yet. The first, above disputed, and the second is not even on the same sermon. Though seems along the lines of what you have been arguing outside of this sermon from 1527.

Scott, I'm not following you here. The first is only disputed by you. It's the sermon in question. It's the same sermon Roman Catholic scholar Hartmann Grisar refers to. It's the same sermon from Luther's Church Postil. If you can't see that, then well, you can't see that. The second picture is the last page of the same sermon from the 1584 edition of the Church Postil. If you can't see that, well you can't see that.

steve said...

CathApol said...

"So, Erl 15 is only in German, and the "documentation" is an editorial note (also in German). I am not doubting your German translation to English - but an editorial note is not documentation of Luther HIMSELF not including those words. This is my frustration here... you constantly say "Let Luther be Luther," but you're not doing it yourself! You're letting Luther be an editor's commentary. Where is a copy of LUTHER in his own words, translated or otherwise, where this text is not included? Thus far the ONLY primary source material we've seen from this sermon INCLUDES the words in question. Again, the job is left half-done."

If Windsor is going to hold Swan to that (rather conspiratorial) standard, then, of course, we're entitled to hold Windsor to the same standard. Since Windsor lacks access to primary sources, and can't even read German, much less period German, then Windsor is in no position to make assertions regarding Luther's theology.

If he were honorable, he'd recognize his limitations and bow out of debates for which he lacks the requisite qualifications.

James Swan said...

If Windsor is going to hold Swan to that (rather conspiratorial) standard, then, of course, we're entitled to hold Windsor to the same standard. Since Windsor lacks access to primary sources, and can't even read German, much less period German, then Windsor is in no position to make assertions regarding Luther's theology.

The ironic thing is that on Scott's blog he states:

"3 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 4, 694. Correction on this citation, which many other Catholic apologetics sites have as well. This quote actually comes from a sermon preached by Luther ("On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) and was published with his permission, but prior to the end of his life it is not found in published editions of his works."


So why is it Scott is granted a free pass to say of the material in question, that it "was published with his permission, but prior to the end of his life it is not found in published editions of his works"? Why is it Scott simply gets to say this, so it must be true, while any corroborating evidence proving this is indeed the case I put forth has to be treated with distrust? So far, Windsor is presenting argumentation similar to to the man behind the desk, but not nearly as funny.

James Swan said...

For clarification, since who knows what Scott will come up with on this...

The original sermon was in Luther's Festval Postil book which was later incorporated into Luther's Church Postil book.

The editions of both the Festival Postil and the Church Postil after 1527 do not have the quote Scott bolded in blue on his blog entry.