Unravelling Luther’s House Postils

I came across two fascinating links documenting the difficulty in researching Luther's House Postil sermons. These sermons were delivered by Luther at his house (the old monastery) to his friends and family between 1531 - 1535.

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 1

Unravelling Luther’s House Postils, Part 2

Recently Concordia has released four new volumes of Luther's Church Postil sermons (LW 75-78). These new translations are helpful, particularly because of the extensive historical and critical footnotes. According to the links above, no such project is scheduled for the House Postil sermons:

"I found out that the 20 new volumes of Luther’s works being put out by Concordia Publishing House are not going to include Luther’s House Postil(s), in part because these have already been published in a three-volume series by Baker Books in 1996, edited by Eugene F. A. Klug."

Currently as I write this, I've been researching a Luther quote (used in a polemical way by Rome's defenders!) from the House Postil. While I'm partly working from the 1996 publication, it would be so helpful to have a critical English edition. These sermons were not written by Luther, but were put together by two men who heard them being preached (Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer). In many cases, two versions of the sermons exist. These versions are said to compliment each other, rather than contradict (see the Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5 [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 14-15]. The Baker edition relied on Roerer's version. There is an old two-volume English translation that used Dietrich's version: Luther: Sermons on the Gospels for the Sundays and principal festivals of the church year. The Baker edition does point out that attempts to recreate an "authentic version"of these sermons from the two accounts have not worked in the past. I'm not looking for the "authentic" version, but it would sure be helpful to have a critical version of both sets of sermons, side by side. In the links above, the writer points out that there are errors as well in the current English translations in the Baker set:

"Klug’s translation itself flows well. But it is not based on the more critical Weimar edition of Luther’s works, and so the content is often incorrect (e.g. §15 in 3:215, which Luther did not actually say) or incomplete (e.g. §20 in 3:228, which is incomplete because it does not take the Nuremberg copy of the sermon into account, where Luther refers to his health and leaves the completion of the series in doubt; and §1 in 3:229, which omits the entire first part of Luther’s sermon when he preached on the Gospel before continuing with his series on Isaiah)."

Another comment made by these links in this regard is worth pointing out as well: simply because these sermon notes have been transformed into readable accounts, there's still some ambiguity and interpretation as to what Luther actually preached:

I can also speak from experience that, in spite of Andreas Poach’s best intentions, he did not in fact publish an edition of Luther’s sermons “without any alterations, truncations, or additions.” (Refer, however, to Georg Buchwald’s remarks on Poach’s edition in Part 2.) While he is generally faithful to Rörer’s notes, and generally does an excellent job filling them out so that they read and sound more like sermons and less like shorthand lecture notes, the fact is that he does fill them out, and sometimes he takes liberties that are distasteful (e.g. making Luther a little more uncouth than Rörer has him in his notes) or even completely incorrect. This is why, if a translation is to be made of any of the House Postils – and really, any work of Luther – it must at the very least seriously consult and compare the more critical Weimar edition, which takes the reader back to the original notes, instead of to any editor’s publication and interpretation of those notes. 

I've been looking into obscure Luther quotes for over fifteen years now. The deeper I've researched them, the more I've come to realize that there are broad classes of reliability as to what Luther actually said:

Most reliable: Luther's actual writings from his own hand.
Moderately reliable: Luther's sermons recorded by those who heard him preach.
Not reliable: Table Talk statements.

My particular enjoyment in reading Luther is seeing what Rome's defenders say he said and then comparing it to what is actually said in context. I've come to realize that even though I may have located a context for a particular quote, in many cases I'm actually I'm relying on documents Luther didn't actually write. Do Rome's defenders realize this? On the pop-apologetic level, probably not.

Addendum
Included in the links above is a fresh English translation of the preface of WA 52:VII-XI and the Foreword to Volume 1 of the Second Edition of the Erlangen Edition of Luther’s Works. Also, of interest is the article Fragments and Crumbs’ for the Preachers: Luther’s House Postils in Logia.

Luther: People are Worse Than They Were Under The Papacy

Here's a point about the evils of the Reformation substantiated by a quote from Luther. The following is found in Catholic apologist Steve Ray's book, Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, footnote #97 on page 65-66:

According to Mr. Ray, Luther admitted his teaching made people worse, not provoking anyone to holiness. This is a typical charge. It is argued by many of Rome's defenders that Luther was vexed and agonized that his teaching made things worse. If Luther's teachings really were from God, wouldn't truth make people better? Another defender pf Rome cites it on his blog and also in his book Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (2007), p. 92. He uses it as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism."

Mr. Ray and friends cited Luther via Heinrich Denifle's Luther and Lutherdom. Denifle's use of the quote is longer:

Even in 1523, he had to acknowledge that he and his followers were become worse than they had been formerly, This he later repeats. "The world by this teaching becomes only the worse, the longer it exists; that is the work and business of the malign devil. As one sees, the people are more avaricious, less merciful, more immodest, bolder and worse than before under the Papacy." (p.25)

Denifle uses this quote to prove Luther "had to acknowledge that he and his followers were become worse than they had been formerly." Out of all the quotes I've looked at over the years, this one has a rich history of usage, and appears to have been very popular with older Roman Catholic apologetic works. I found at least a dozen or more older Roman Catholic authors using it, with many differing English translations.

Documentation and Sources
What's interesting about this quote is that it is available from two primary English sources. It's from a 1533 sermon that was written down by two people who heard it: Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer. Dietrich's account can be found in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. Scholars say Roerer's transcriptions are more exact and trustworthy (see p.15 of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 5 for more information).

This sermon wasn't preached at church to the general public. It was preached to his close circle of friends, family, and a few others at Luther's residence. The text of the sermon was Matthew 21:1-9. If you haven't read any of Luther's sermons, this would be a good one to begin with.

Context
Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life.

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not:

"This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and every one should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy." [Dietrich''s version]

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan.
Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people.

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Conclusion
I have to question exactly what Denifle was reading when he concluded that Luther's followers were worse because of the gospel. In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the gospel being preached. Those who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the gospel would find great opposition, and would be attacked from all sides. The gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The gospel would indeed make those of the world worse.

Steve Ray butchered the citation by leaving out the fact that Luther blamed the devil for people being worse. He actually took a quote being misused by Denifle, and added his own error to it. Why would there be an outbreak of holiness by those who hate the gospel already?

Was this quote an example of Luther agonizing over the state of early Protestantism as the Romanist claims in a published book? Hardly. Once again, these guys should read something in context before publishing.