John Lennon and Christianity?

Recently from Fox News: Jesus, Reagan and John Lennon -- What Secrets Has Yoko Ono Been Keeping From Us?

I came across something like this a few years ago via Chris Arnzen's Iron Sharpens Iron program. His guest, Peter Jones claims to be a childhood friend of John Lennon's. On one of these shows Jones mentioned something like John Lennon became a Christian shortly before his death, but Yoko is keeping such a revelation secret. I discounted Jones at the time, because if I recall, he quoted the Beatles song "Can't Buy Me Love" and said John was searching for something when he wrote that. If my limited Beatles knowledge is correct, "Can't Buy Me Love" was primarily written by Paul McCartney, if not completely. A Beatles expert can jump in and let me know if I've got that right.

Even if it were true, mega-conversion stories really don't mean all that much to me. Christianity isn't more true because someone famous embraces the Christian faith. Nor are conversion tales reliable. Back in the 1970's Eldridge Cleaver was put forth as a Black Panther who went to jail and became a Christian. His book Soul on Fire recounts the tale. He went on to dabble with the Moonies, and then Mormonism.

I realize Paul was in a sense a "mega convert" during his time period. Paul's "story" was actually inscripturated, so if I'm going to tell any sort of "conversion story" in either an apologetic effort or outreach, that's one of the stories I might use. I'd rather stick with a conversion story that has a divine pedigree, and was written by the Holy Spirit.

Addendum:

Here's another mega convert story.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Desperate and Dubious Muslim Polemical Methods

"Ebion" "the poor one" in Hebrew - אֶבְיוֹן

Muslim polemical methods are very dubious and desperate. They constantly use liberals like Bart Ehrman, an agnostic and skeptic; and, yet, as we have pointed out before, even Bart Ehrman knows that Jesus was crucified in history.

Four examples of Muslims who skew lots of information in their polemics and attacks on Christianity and the Bible are:

1. Paul Williams (A British convert to Islam, who claims to have been a born-again Christian before becoming a Muslim) - attacking the gospel of John, the doctrine of the Trinity, and using the Ebionites as "proto-Muslims"; and quoting liberal scholars and using them inconsistently.

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/ (all throughout his blog; I engaged him some in comboxes)

2. the Grandverbalizer 19 (someone not worth mentioning, who sometimes was fair; but mixes lots of unrelated thoughts and things and sometimes outright lies; but you can Google him if you want to find him)

3. Rasheed Gadir - Somebody who has a blog called "hard questions" - linked later in the article. Using the Ebionites and Dr. James Tabor. James Tabor's scholarship is very weak, as you will see.

4. Abdul Haqq (means "slave of Truth")- another Brit who converted to Islam, who was on the Unbelievable Radio program linked below and author of the shallow and fully refuted book, Before Nicea. (see below)

Attacking the gospel of John

Muslims attack the gospel of John as not written by the apostle John and claim that "most scholars" say it was not written by John and very late, etc.

However, according to Irenaeus, John lived up until around 96 AD; and so the traditional view is that John the disciple and eye-witness, the beloved disciple, the son of Zebedee, did indeed write the fourth gospel.

Also,

Dan Wallace makes a good case for an early pre-70 AD date for the Gospel according to John:

http://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-john-introduction-argument-outline

Muslims try to use the Ebionites

Muslims attempt to say that the Ebionites were the "original Christians" that the Qur'an speaks about.

However, Dr. Anthony McRoy, lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology, fully refutes a Muslim convert, Abdul Haqq (a British man who converted to Islam) and his book, Before Nicaea and the idea that the early true Christians were the Ebionites.

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/unbelievable.aspx?mod_page=12

Scroll down and find the Unbelievable Radio program on June 20, 2009. ("Before Nicaea") (Thanks to Dr. James White for pointing me to this past radio program.)

Some of Dr. McRoy's key points:

1. where is the evidence that the Ebionites were the early Christians or even around in the first century? Abdul Haqq, a Muslim could never answer that question.

2. They were a heretical sect first mentioned by Irenaeus around 180 in Against Heresies. Abdul Haqq could not refute that.

3. Several early church fathers note that the Ebionites were like the docetist Cerinthus and other Gnostics who denied the virgin birth of Christ and separated the man Jesus from the divine logos, the Christ, and that the logos left the man Jesus before He was crucified.

Notice what Irenaeus, around 180 AD, says about the Ebionites and their belief about Jesus was similar to Cerinthus who was called by Polycarp a heretic and “son of Satan”; and other heretics. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, chapter 26, paragraph 1-2:

1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. [see above] They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God. [my emphasis]

It is inconsistent for Muslims to use the Ebionites, as most of them did deny the virgin birth of Christ, yet Islam affirms the virgin birth of Christ. (Surah 3:45-48; 19:19-21)

4. Muslims also try to use Basilides, another Gnostic heretic mentioned by Irenaeus, to say that Jesus was not crucified. In Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, sections 3-7. Basilides was another Gnostic teacher who taught that the body was evil and the the creator of the physical world was evil; therefore, that is the reason why they could not accept the crucifixion of Christ. It seems that Muhammad, since he was illiterate and could not read, and did not have the gospels or NT in Arabic, heard lots of Gnostic teaching going around and incorporated it into his Qur'an. Basiledes taught that Simon the Cyrene was crucified. Abdul Haqq makes a desparate attempt to say that Mark 15:27 means that Simon "bore the cross" in a crucifixion sense, seemingly trying to tie it to the idea of "Jesus bearing our sins"; but Anthony McRoy points out that the Greek word means that he carried the cross for a while. Jesus the Messiah bore our sins on the wooden cross. (1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:1-12)

5. It is inconsistent for the Muslims to use Basilides or Cerinthus, since they both objected to the crucifixion on philosophical grounds, that the body (and sex and physical creation) are evil intrinsically, yet Islam affirms that the body is not evil, and in fact, in paradise in Islamic teaching, sex and eating and drinking and sensual pleasures will go on for eternity for the Muslim believers. (mostly for men only)

Most of the Ebionites were a semi-Gnostic group that denied the virgin birth of Christ:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ebionites_according_to_the_Church_Fathers

Trying to make James and Jude the first "proto-Muslims"

Muslims also make desperate attempts to say that James and Jude did not accept the apostle Paul and did not accept the Deity of Christ, nor the crucifixion or resurrection; and they are even more deparate when they use Dr. James Tabor as a source for this.

Dr. James Tabor, a former member of the Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, was one of the consultants for The Jesus Family Tomb film by James Cameron (Oscar winning director of very successful films such as Aliens, The Titanic, Spiderman, and Avatar). He should have stuck to his science fiction and fantasy and other types of fiction!

The Muslims here make a lot of mistakes in their attempt to use Dr. Tabor and mix a lot of things together so that the unknowing public thinks, "wow, that sounds really scholarly and intelligent!":

http://hardquestions.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/ebionites-theology-and-early-christians-beliefs/

Dr. Tabor totally avoids all the early evidence we do have for James as being in complete harmony with the apostle Paul. (see Galatians chapters 1-2 and I Corinthians 15:1-9; and Acts 15, which shows Peter and Paul and James in harmony doctrinally with each other. Peter said, about justification for the Gentiles, that they are saved in the same way as the Jewish Christians were; "cleansing their hearts by faith" in Acts 15:9) There is no sound basis for the theory that there was an irreparable conflict between Peter/James/Jewish Christian vs. Paul's Greek and so called "pagan theology" of making Jesus into "the Son of God" or "God in the flesh" conflict. (What Muslims wrongly accuse Paul of doing, of "hijacking the real Christianity".)

Dr. James White did an excellent job of refuting the book and film (about the Talpiot tomb) and Dr. Tabor ( “The Jesus Family Tomb” book and film) in From Toronto to Emmaus : The Empty Tomb and the Journey from Skepticism to Faith. http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=40_47&products_id=41

http://hardquestions.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/the-ebonites-true-followers-of-jesus-who-converted-to-islam/ (more outrageous claims about the Ebionites.)

Wrong use of the Didache

The Didache is one of the earliest extra-Biblical writings that we have evidence of, usually being dated between 70 - 100 AD, which shows that Matthew and the Trinitarian baptism formula is also very early. Matthew was written between 50-60 AD. The part about the Didache in the "hard questions" documentary was very shallow and left out one of the earliest quotes that affirms baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Yes, the Didache 7, quotes from Matthew 28:19. See

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running, flowing] water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. [ my emphasis]

See the phrase, "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water." - in Greek even: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/lake/fathers2.v.html

βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι.

The 3 persons of the Trinity are named there. Dr. Tabor forgot that. Oops! He also left out that James calls Jesus “the Lord” twice. (James 1:1, 2:1 - "glorious Lord") Lord is kurios, also used in the LXX for “Yahweh”. (see Psalm 110:1, which is quoted in all the synoptic gospels (Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-43) and Acts 2:34-35; and Hebrews 1:13 and alluded to in I Corinthians 15:25 - and other places that talk about Christ's ascension and session at the right hand of the Father; all to point to the Deity of Christ. Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 3:1)

They also seem to skew what the Eastern/Greek Orthodox priest says in the video documentary, but at least it is clear that the Orthodox priest says that belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is essential!

I am not impressed with Dr. Tabor as a scholar, when one looks a little deeper into the historical facts of these issues.

One cannot just name the Ebionites and connect them without any evidence to Jewish Christians or Jews or “the Nazarenes” in the first century. Muslims seem desparate to try and make a case for “proto-Muslims” from the first century in the Ebionites and Arians in the 4^rd Century onward; as they both rejected the Deity of Christ. But, wait, most of them accepted the crucifixion and yet most of the Ebionites rejected the virgin Birth!

Luther Plagiarized His Translation of the Bible?

Here's one I went through late at night this week, sitting in a Bed and Breakfast in Bar Harbor Maine.

Over on the CARM boards, a Roman Catholic put up a lengthy post on Luther's translation of the Bible.  The basic argument is Luther's translation of the Bible was a plagiarization, based on something called the Codex Teplensis. A number of arguments were made to bolster this notion. I'd like to go through his major argument: the opinion of church historian Henry Clay Vedder.

1. The Opinion of Henry Clay Vedder, Protestant Scholar
The first bit of evidence put forth was the opinion Henry Clay Vedder, a Baptist historian.  Since Vedder falls under the umbrella of "Protestant" this is taken to mean he would be "prone to hide" embarrassing facts about Luther. But on the subject of Luther's translation, he admits Luther's liberal use of earlier German Bibles, and questions Luther's ability to even translate the New Testament in the way he claimed he did.

This is simply naive, particularly in regard to Baptists. Luther strongly opposed either re-baptism or denials of infant baptism. He would consider such beliefs heretical, and would've (and did) write polemically against such views. There is therefore no reason why a Baptist scholar would want to hide any embarrassing fact about Luther. In fact, Vedder held to a number of views Luther would probably have abhorred. So, simply because Vedder was a Protestant, it doesn't follow he would be more prone to hide information on Luther. Therefore, any alleged revelations Vedder makes against Luther aren't at all shocking admissions from a Baptist historian.

Vedder's makes his anti-Lutheran comments (mentioning also the Codex Teplensis) on page 170- 171 of his book, The Reformation in Germany:

Authorities differ concerning the number of editions of the Bible in German before Luther's version appeared, but none enumerate fewer than fourteen in High German and three in Low German. Those in High German, which are all that we need consider here, are apparently reprints of a single MS. version, of which two copies are still preserved, one in a monastery at Tepl, Bohemia, the other in the library of the university at Freiburg in the Breisgau. The former, known as the Codex Teplensis, has recently been printed and is accessible to all scholars. As this MS. contains seven articles of faith that are evidently Waldensian, many have been led to attribute to this version a Waldensian origin. Others have pointed out that no more is proved by the MS. than a Waldensian ownership of it at some time, and have asserted a Catholic origin for the version. We need not enter into this controversy, which concerns a question of technical scholarship rather than the historic effect of the version; for, whatever theory of its origin may prevail, the fact of its frequent reprinting and wide circulation cannot be in any wise affected.

This version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the "deadly parallel." It appears from a verse-by-verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther's version is to call it a careful revision of the older text. Just as the English Bible is the result of successive revisions, from the days of Wiclif to our own, so that our text has a demonstrable historic continuity, so the German Bible is the product of revision. This is not to detract in the least from the glory of Luther or to diminish the value of his version—it is merely to define with accuracy what he accomplished, and to distinguish his real achievement from the semi-legendary tales of Lutheran literature.

Vedder does not call Luther a plagiarizer, he refers to Luther's work as "a careful revision of the older text " and "This is not to detract in the least from the glory of Luther or to diminish the value of his version—it is merely to define with accuracy what he accomplished, and to distinguish his real achievement from the semi-legendary tales of Lutheran literature." In Vedder's opinion, Luther's translation is a "careful revision", not plagiarism.


2. The Codex Teplensis
Note also Vedder is saying the Codex Teplensis is one of two similar manuscripts deriving their origin from a previous manuscript. As far as I understand Vedder, He is not saying Luther had the actual "Codex Teplensis" in his possession, but a version of it, or a copy of the Bible translation. Notice he says, "old German Bible."

This charge gained popularity in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It is correct that during the 1600's to 1700's, it had become common and popular to think that Luther was one of the first people (if not the first) to translate the Bible into German. This started to be challenged more and more during the 1700's, and by the late 1800's the view was articulated forcefully by Wilhelm Krafft (Die deutsche Bibel vor Luther, 1883). Vedder actually appears to have taken this information against Luther's translation from Krafft (he cites him on page 171) and offers no other citations or proof of his historical statements. Nor does Vedder put forth any of the actual alleged plagiarisms that are supposed to exist. Vedder seems to have simply parroted the conclusions of Krafft. He does though provide a footnote reference to Schaff on the similarities, and mentions a work by Dr. Ludwig Keller.

The use of the "Codex Teplensis" was only one such argument against Luther, as a number of early German Bibles were compared and contrasted with Luther's translation. Codex Teplensis was an interesting comparison, because it was thought to be Waldensian, not Roman Catholic. If Luther could be linked with this early German version, it could be shown that Luther had sympathies with the Waldensians. Who would be interested in such a connection? Why, probably Roman Catholics, but interestingly, Roman Catholic scholars argued the translation wasn't Waldensian. Philip Schaff states:

The arguments for the Waldensian origin are derived from certain additions to the Codex Teplensis, and alleged departures from the text of the Vulgate. But the additions are not anti-Catholic, and are not found in the cognate Freiberger MS.; and the textual variations can not be traced to sectarian bias. The text of the Vulgate was in greater confusion in the middle ages than the text of the Itala at the time of Jerome, nor was there any authorized text of it before the Clementine recension of 1592. The only plausible argument which Dr. Keller brings out in his second publication (pp. 80 sqq.) is the fact that Emser, in his Annotations to the New Test. (1523), charges Luther with having translated the N. T. from a "Wickleffisch oder hussisch exemplar." But this refers to copies of the Latin Vulgate; and in the examples quoted by Keller, Luther does not agree with the Codex Teplensis.

Here Schaff notes the charge against Luther using a Waldensian German translation originated with Emser, but Emser is charging Luther took his translation from the Latin, not the German. He then says the argumentation put forth from Keller of Luther using using the German Codex Teplensis, "does not agree". Note as well, Vedder does not present any of alleged parallels between the Codex Teplensis and Luther's Bible. W.H.T. Dau notes "Catholics, in their efforts to belittle Luther's works, have claimed that he plagiarized a German translation already in existence, the so-called 'Codex Teplensis' and 'everybody who knows Greek can compare it with the original text. The Teplensian translation, too, can be looked into. In fact, all this has been done by competent scholars, and Luther's translation has been pronounced a masterpiece. Not only does it reproduce the original text faithfully but it speaks a good and correct German. Luther's translation of the Bible is now regarded as one of the classics of German literature."

Of the early German Bibles, Schaff states:

After the invention of the printing-press, and before the Reformation, this mediaeval German Bible was more frequently printed than any other except the Latin Vulgate. No less than seventeen or eighteen editions appeared between 1462 and 1522, at Strassburg, Augsburg, Nuernberg, Coeln, Luebeck, and Halberstadt (fourteen in the High, three or four in the Low German dialect). Most of them are in large folio, in two volumes, and illustrated by wood-cuts. The editions present one and the same version (or rather two versions, — one High German, the other Low German) with dialectical alterations and accommodations to the textual variations of the MSS. of the Vulgate, which was in a very unsettled condition before the Clementine recension (1592). The revisers are as unknown as the translators.

And also:

Luther could not be ignorant of this mediaeval version. He made judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns. Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the short space of three months. But this fact does not diminish his merit in the least; for his version was made from the original Hebrew and Greek, and was so far superior in every respect that the older version entirely disappeared. It is to all intents a new work.

3. J.M. Reu on Luther's Use of Earlier German Bibles
The most extensive English treatment of Luther's German Bible was done by J.M Reu. Reu says:

Other literary aids were the Glossa Ordinaria, which, however, had little to offer, and the Postilla in Biblia of Lyra, though in what editions cannot be determined. Perhaps he also had the Epistolae Pauli of Faber Stapulensis, of 1512 or 1515, which he had used at other times. Then there were the necessary lexicons like Reuchlin's Rudimenta linguae Hebraicae of 1506, Aleander's Lexicon Graeco-Latinum of 1512 and perhaps, what was the newest work of its kind, the Dictionarium Graecum, that had been issued at Basel in 1519. Since his work of translating was to be into German he probably also consulted this or that Latin-German dictionary as, for example, the widely used Vocabidarium ex quo (edition of 1477 in Berlin) which he had learned to know in his school days, or one of the Vocabularii praedicantium (e. g. Strassburg, 1482 or Magdeburg, 1495). Whether in addition to the existing German translations he also used the translation of St. Matthew by his friend Lang, published in Erfurt in 1521, is to say the least questionable. We are fairly safe in assuming that he had at hand one of the many plenaria and consulted it. No matter how fine his memory, he would hardly have ventured to depend on it alone, especially with his consciousness of the extent and difficulty of the task before him. Facts that in a general way are probable have been made almost certain through the careful comparisons of Freitag. The plenarium published by Zainer at Augsburg in 1474 was that which Luther consulted in making his own translations of the pericopes from his second postil pericope (St. Luke 2:1-14) on. The translation of the first pericope of the Postil (Titus 2:11-15), that was completed on the 10th of June, does not yet show this influence, but on the same day Luther acknowledged the receipt not only of letters but also of omnia alia, and among these "other things" was probably the Zainer plenarium, so that he could consult it from that date onwards. So from the time of the writing of the Wartburg Postil this plenarium was also available for the translation of the New Testament, and here and there the translations of the Wartburg Postil, that were influenced by the plenarium, pass over into his New Testament.

It is an old matter of dispute as to whether Luther utilized one of the medieval Bibles for purposes of comparison. For only that and nothing more could have been involved. In Luther's books and letters there is only one reference to these medieval Bibles. It is in the letter to Amsdorf which we have given in note 6, where he writes: "Now I know what translating means and why no one before me has attempted it under his own name." There he is evidently thinking of the medieval Bibles in which the name of the translator is nowhere given. He refers to them but it does not follow that he used them, yet it is a significant fact that just at the time when he was engaged in the work of translating the Bible and when the difficulty of his undertaking weighed heavily on his heart, he should refer to them.

As late as 1917 it seemed to me that their use was excluded from consideration and I then collected all the facts that could be mustered against this supposition, but subsequently I have been converted to the other view, not so much by Roethe as by Freitag. It was the Zainer Bible of 1475 that Luther had before him. The tremendous difference that still exists between the medieval translation of Zainer and Luther's New Testament does not preclude his use of the former. The difference is sufficiently, explained by his use of the original text, through his unique mastery of language that so far excelled the abilities of the translator of the Mentel Bible and the later reviser who prepared it for Zainer's edition, and by his own inner experiences that had given him a new understanding of the text.

Roethe gives his opinion concerning the relation between Zainer's Bible and Luther's translation in these words: "The connection is closest in the Apocalypse, it is freer in the Gospels and particularly free in the Pauline Epistles, where, in the interest of clear teaching, many new renderings, of deeper understanding, appear." The first of these assertions is entirely untenable since the Apocalypse offers so few difficulties to the translator that if two translators went to work, the one translating from the Vulgate, and the other familiar with it and consulting it regularly, they would produce almost similar translations. The single examples that have been pointed out to prove the supposed dependence are by no means of a conclusive character. The other observation that the consideration of Zainer is much less evident in the Pauline Epistles than in the Gospels is truer, but it is also easily explained as both the medieval Bibles and Zainer were most inadequate and unserviceable in this portion of the New Testament. Whoever really translated from the original and had grasped the inmost heart of the Epistles, as Luther had done, would be forced to produce a translation that might here or there be reminiscent of the medieval version, but that, as a whole, would be far above it. With the Gospels the case was different. Here the difference between the Greek original that Luther was using and the Vulgate which the medieval Bibles had followed was not nearly so great as it was in the case of the Epistles and furthermore, as Luther stood at the beginning of such a tremendous undertaking he must have felt much oftener the need of comparing what others had translated before him than he would a little later after he had become more accustomed to his task. We could more properly say that the influence of the Zainer Bible decreased in the same proportion that Luther became more expert in his task. It can be observed in the Gospels and Acts, is very faint in the Epistles and ceases in the Apocalypse. As he went along Luther became more and more independent, more and more free, even of the Zainer Bible. It had aided him occasionally to secure the appropriate phrase, to find a popular expression more readily and to strengthen him in his choice of words and construction of clauses, but no more than that. That he made use of this aid is nothing in the least discreditable nor does it diminish his accomplishment, for in spite of all this his translation towers far above the medieval attempts and it is a credit to his conscientiousness and scholarliness that he passed by no aid without first ascertaining whether or not it had something to contribute towards his great undertaking.

As little as Luther simply modernized the medieval Bible but created something that was completely new, even allowing for his occasional use of the medieval Bible, just as little did he, "taking it all in all, carry over the Vulgate." That Sandvos could make this assertion betrays both a bad spirit and unbounded ignorance. Adsuredly, in his younger years Luther had acquired the language of the Vulgate so completely that it could not be forgotten, and we know how even at his dying hour Bible verses from the translation of the Vulgate came into his mind. So it would be very strange if his translation of the Bible did not show some dependence on the Vulgate. As a matter of fact such dependence can be shown in many places. But it is just as certain that Luther instead of merely modernizing the medieval Bible or translating according to the Vulgate version, made his own translation independently from the Greek text. That this was the case with the later translation of the Old Testament is evident from Luther's original draft, which has been partly preserved and which furnishes indubitable evidence of the fact. "It is evident from his handwriting that while he already had his pen in hand his eyes were still fixed on the Hebrew copy."

Reu's opinion echoes and expands on some of the Lutherans scholars at that time, that while Luther may have utilized an earlier German Bible, it is not the case that he simply plagiarized the earlier Bibles. Wilhelm Walther vehemently argued that Luther did not rely on the earlier German versions. Later in the mid 1900's some argued Luther relied solely on the Greek text put out by Erasmus for the New Testament. An interesting overview of this topic can be found here.

4. Reu vs. Vedder
However good of a scholar Henry Clay Vedder was, J.M. Reu was a Luther expert, specifically on Luther and his translation of the Bible. In his book Thirty-Five Years of Luther Research, Reu actually comments on one of the very sections from Vedder quoted above. First, Reu cites Vedder:

We refer to "Vedder, The Reformation in Germany" (1914). Here we read on page 171 not only: "This version was certainly in the possession of Luther and was certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the 'deadly parallel.' It appears from a verse by verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther's version is to call it a careful revision of the older text," but on page 170 we also read: "It would be difficult in any case to believe that a complete translation of the entire New Testament could have been made by a man of Luther's limited attainment in Greek, and with the imperfect apparatus that he possessed in the short space of ten weeks. . . . Any minister to-day who has had a Greek course of a college and seminary is a far better scholar than Luther. Let such a man, if he thinks Luther's achievement possible, attempt the accurate translation of a single chapter of the New Testament—such a translation as he would be willing to print under his own name—and multiply the time consumed by the 260 chapters. He will be speedily convinced that the feat attributed to Luther is an impossible one."

Reu then responds to Vedder's arguments:

And just this we pronounce childish argumentation. We could call attention to the fact that R. P. Olivetan completed his French translation of the entire Bible, printed 1536, in one year; that Luther finished his writing against Sylvester Prierias, that in Walch's edition fills 80 columns, in two days; that Luther was in fact a linguistic genius; that an educated man in the thirties acquires a dead language much faster and more thoroughly than a youth from 16 to 20, and this all the more, the dearer and more valuable, yes, even decisive for his whole life, the contents of a book written in that language is to him; that Luther since 1519 had been a careful reader of Homer, writing many marginal notes into the copy which Melanchthon had presented to him (this copy is extant at London, cf. Pr. Smith, Notes from English libraries, Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 32, pp. 111-115; compare also: O. G. Schmidt, Luther's Bekanntschaft mit den alten Klassikern, 1883). We also could emphasize the important fact that Luther for more than ten years was well versed in the contents of the New Testament through the Vulgata. But aside from this we would like to ask Vedder whether he has forgotten that Luther, as can be proved, since 1516 used the Greek original in the preparation of his lectures, and certainly not seldom also when he prepared his sermons, and that it more and more became the foundation for his whole theological work; that he, before his stay at the Wartburg, had treated the Epistle to the Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, perhaps also the Epistle to Titus and the first to the Corinthians in lectures, the Epistle to the Galatians beside this also in a voluminous commentary; in short, that Luther lived and moved in the New Testament, and, finally, that the printing of his translation had not begun for two months after his return from the Wartburg, and that it was not completed before six months had passed? During this time he, together with Melanchthon and other occasional helpers, once more revised the whole in a most painstaking manner.

Conclusion
From my laptop here on the coast of Maine I'm somewhat limited as to researching this. I didn't find a lot of information on the Codex Teplensis. Nor did I have a chance to sift through more recent sources and studies on this issue.

I've never studied the alleged parallels between Luther's translation of the Bible and earlier German versions. Nor do I have the linguistic abilities to do so. It seems plausible to me Luther probably did consult earlier German versions in the way Reu explained, and I also wouldn't have any problems with Schaff's view, that "Luther could not be ignorant of this mediaeval version" and "He made judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns. Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the short space of three months." 

On the other hand, The CARM Romanist hasn't really offered any evidence of any sort of plagiarism on Luther's part. Quoting Vedder without any evidence, who parroted a conclusion from Krafft from a work done in 1883, is not convincing argumentation. In fact, it isn't anything.

When a Convert Leaves Romanism: Kimel vs. Kimel

Al Kimel, Former diocese of SC Episcopal priest who moved to Rome, to join Orthodox Church "Fr. Kimel is to be ordained into the Orthodox Church on Pentecost Sunday (i.e. today) by Bishop Jerome of the Russian Church Abroad, for the Western Rite."

Compare to:

When a Catholic leaves the Catholic Church by Alvin Kimel

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

I thought of this verse when I read Rod Dreher’s apologia for his conversion to Orthodoxy. I had heard about Dreher’s reception into the Orthodox Church shortly after it occurred, but I refrained from publicly commenting on it, hoping that he would himself refrain from publicly commenting on it. But he has announced his decision and declared his reasons for leaving the Catholic Church, and now Catholic blogdom is astir.

I wrote two articles back in May when Mr. Dreher announced that he was exploring Orthodoxy: “Ten Thousand Scandals Do Not Make One Doubt” and “Dare We Entrust Our Children to the Catholic Church?” In light of Dreher’s departure from the Catholic Church, I only have only one question: Was he in fact a Catholic? I do not have access to Dreher’s heart and soul, and I certainly do not condemn him for his decision. I regret that he has left the Catholic Church, and I grieve the sins of the Church that led him to renounce the divine authority of the Vicar of Christ. I pray that I may never be so tested.

My interest at this point is purely theoretical. How are we to understand a person who enters into the communion of the Catholic Church and then departs from that communion? John Henry Newman raises precisely this question in his Grammar of Assent:

A man is converted to the Catholic Church from his admiration of its religious system, and his disgust with Protestantism. That admiration remains; but, after a time, he leaves his new faith, perhaps returns to his old. The reason, if we may conjecture, may sometimes be this: he has never believed in the Church’s infallibility; in her doctrinal truth he has believed, but in her infallibility, no. He was asked, before he was received, whether he held all that the Church taught, he replied he did; but he understood the question to mean, whether he held those particular doctrines “which at that time the Church in matter of fact formally taught,” whereas it really meant “whatever the Church then or at any future time should teach.” Thus, he never had the indispensable and elementary faith of a Catholic , and was simply no subject for reception into the fold of the Church. This being the case, when the Immaculate Conception is defined, he feels that it is something more than he bargained for when he became a Catholic, and accordingly he gives up his religious profession. The world will say that he has lost his certitude of the divinity of the Catholic Faith, but he never had it.

To become Catholic, to be Catholic, is to surrender one’s private judgment to the magisterial teaching of the Church. It is to believe that what the Church teaches and will teach as belonging to the deposit of revelation is from God. One may investigate the rational grounds for de fide dogmas; but one may not doubt them nor inquire whether or not they may be true. As Newman remarks, a Catholic “cannot be both inside and outside of the Church at once.”

I wonder how many priests and RCIA instructors understand what Catholic assent is. I wonder how many converts to Catholicism have been instructed in the irrevocable, definitive, full assent to magisterial teaching that is being asked of them when they enter into the communion of the Catholic Church.

It took me a little while to find the old article from Kimel. I first got a 404 error here. But it's hard to disappear on the Internet. I found it here. Unless, I'm mistaken, the above is from Kimel. A number of pro-Romanist articles from Kimel have vanished, but are still available if one digs a bit:

Why Not Eastern Orthodoxy? by Fr. Al Kimel

My Road to Rome by Fr. Al Kimel

Ten thousand scandals do not make one doubt by Alvin Kimel

And I almost forgot, Kimel visited here a few years ago.

More Greetings From Maine

It rained all day...

Greetings From Maine

I'm having a little R and R in Maine.

Finally: Roman Catholic Sexuality Scandal Resolved

"The fault is in the culture, not ourselves."

http://crossalone.us/?p=1503

and:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270793/joseph-ratzinger-s-diamond-jubilee-george-weigel

Behold, The Power of the Pope

"On September 15, 1521, Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz celebrated the annual festival of relics at his newly built cathedral, the Church of St. Moritz and Mary Magdalene in Halle, with the official announcement that indulgences would be granted to all visitors to the exhibition of relics. Anyone who prayed at a shrine and gave alms was promised an indulgence of four thousand years; anyone who confessed his sins to one of the priests hearing confessions in the cathedral during the ten days of the celebration would receive a plenary indulgence. Pope Leo X had issued a bull in 1519 granting the cathedral of Halle the same privileges granted to the Church of St. Peter in Rome: its confessors were authorized to absolve cases usually absolved only by the apostolic see in Rome; in addition, they could convert vows into financial contributions for the completion of the Halle cathedral—privileges not unusual in the established indulgence practice of the Roman curia."

Luther, M. (1999, c1970). Vol. 39: Luther's works, vol. 39 : Church and Ministry I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (39:241). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Roman Catholic Harry Potter Fans

Patrick Madrid says....

Among the odd things I’ve seen in the Catholic world, one of the oddest is the capacity of some Catholic Harry Potter fans to go zero-to-60 on the manic meter instantaneously at the mere suggestion that there might be something spiritually deleterious about HP.

Yeah well Patrick, try talking with a Roman Catholic convinced Mary is making appearances. I spent about 3 hours talking with a woman who was convinced Mary appeared in the sky above her, so when she looked into the sun, she was not blinded but protected by Mary. She went zero-to-60 when I suggested such an experience might be something spiritually deleterious.

Luther's Demonology

Here's a recent Romanist lament:

In our last “installment” we covered a small fraction of the material available on Luther’s extraordinary superstitions. We learned from Preserved Smith that Luther’s childhood was filled with spiritual terrors”, demons”The next topic is immensely “hotter”, Luther’s “addiction to demonic thought” – demonology. Documentation on this matter will come from quite a few different Scholars, only a couple of which are Catholic. The “Old School Defenders of Luther” – like James Swan wouldn’t be caught dead discussing the subject. In all of his volumes of writings about Luther on his Pop Apologetics Blog, he doesn’t deal with the topic at all as far as I can tell. Luther’s “demonology” you see - is WAY “too revealing” and it wouldn’t be easy at all to spin it to make Luther “look good”. If I am wrong on this, then James can correct me and point me to his article. That way we can compare it to the facts of the matter, which should prove to be “entertaining.”

Luther's Demonology?
Luther's addiction to demonic thought? What? That was my initial response. The first thing I wondered about was what exactly this guy meant by "demonic thought." If you read through his ramblings and ravings, it isn't quite clear. He refers to "Luther’s addiction to 'demonic thought'” – demonology" and states "Luther was a 'lifelong addict of demonic thought', which certainly could not have had a positive impact on his “theology.” Old horror films from the 1970's come to mind. That's the image I think of when someone is described as addicted to demonic thought.

He appears to not be arguing Luther was say, practicing black magic, or conjuring up Satan or demons, or attempting to rely on the power of the Devil, at least intentionally. But, I don't claim to be able exegete this guy's ramblings and ravings. One cannot apply logic to something illogical and expect that illogical argument to make sense. What I think he's getting at, is that Luther spent a lot of time writing about Satan (or demons, or whatever), and there was something theologically, spiritually, and psychologically wrong with this.

Older Romanists have indeed made some surprising claims about Luther and the Devil. Consider this comment by Father Patrick O'Hare:

Read Luther's work against "The Mass and the Ordination of Priests," (Erl. 31, 311 ff.) where he tells of his famous disputation with the "father of lies" who accosted him "at midnight" and spoke to him with "a deep, powerful voice," causing "the sweat to break forth" from his brow and his "heart to tremble and beat." In that celebrated conference, of which he was an unexceptional witness and about which he never entertained the slightest doubt, he says plainly and unmistakingly that "the devil spoke against the Mass, and Mary and the Saints" and that, moreover, "Satan gave him the most unqualified approval of his doctrine of justification by faith alone." Who now, we ask in all sincerity, can be found, except those appallingly blind to truth, to accept such a man, approved by the enemy of souls, as a spiritual teacher and entrust to his guidance their eternal welfare?

The context though of "The Mass and the Ordination of Priests" includes a story being told by Luther as a literary device, not a personal experience. Father O'Hare missed this. (I wrote a blog article on this some time back).

I would echo the approach of  Heiko Oberman, that Luther is best understood as a religious man with a deep belief in God, and in a daily battle with the Devil. As I've read quite a large amount of Luther, it is true this cosmic battle is never completely set aside in his writings.

Oberman asks:

One delicate question -- one that might even be unfitting for any respectable home -- may lead back to Luther’s upbringing. The problem cannot be ignored: if a man is so obviously preoccupied with ideas about and visions of the Devil, does he not require a psychiatrist, or might he not be at least subject to psychological inquiry? In this case it would not be a question of father or mother fixations but of his surprising response to the Devil, which enlightened people find incomprehensible as well as extremely dangerous. Belief in the reality of Satan certainly promoted the frenzy of the witch hunts that seized all denominations and delayed the Enlightenment.

Oberman answers in part:

Centuries separate Luther from a modern world which has renounced and long since exorcised the Devil, thus finding it hard to see the difference between this kind of religion and medieval witchcraft. But Luther distinguished sharply between faith and superstition. He understood the hellish fears of his time, then discovered in the Scriptures the true thrust and threat of Satan and experienced himself the Devil’s trials and temptations. Consequently he, unlike any theologian before or after him, was able to disperse the fog of witches’ sabbath and sorcery and show the adversary for what he really was: violent toward God, man and the world. To make light of the Devil is to distort faith. "The only way to drive away the Devil is through faith in Christ, by saying: ‘I have been baptized, I am a Christian."’

Tedium #1: Richard Marius and Heiko Oberman on Luther's Demonology

There was a lot of tedium included by this Romanist to prove his case about Luther's demonology. He states,

Heiko Oberman (Protestant) wrote that Luther’s thought was guided by his demonology, which does not speak well of his “ability” to discern Christian Truths in Scripture, or anywhere else for that matter. These things don’t seem to be very good “attributes” for a “Christian” theologian.

-snip-

By use of the term “demonology” I am not making up some new term. This is a term that is in Robert Herndon Fife’s book, in the Erikson’s book and in the Marius book as a reference to the Oberman book (I need to find my copy of Oberman)... The Marius/Oberman quote, (in part for now) is: “Heiko Oberman sees Luther’s demonology as the rudder that guided his thought.” Marius, pg 78. These references to “demonology” DO NOT refer to the standard orthodox Christian belief that demons, (or devils if you like, or evil spirits or whatever) exist. The difference between “demonology” and the Scriptural and orthodox Christian belief are NOT even in the same universe.

Marius gives no reference on page 78 to his comment about Heiko Oberman. That's probably because Marius assumes those reading his book are familiar with Oberman's basic thesis. Heiko Oberman evaluated Luther as a religious man with a deep belief in God, and in a daily battle with the Devil. Richard Marius though argues Luther was not the heroic God believer in a cosmic spiritual battle. Luther was a man who questioned whether or not God even exists, and was terrified of death. That is indeed, two different presuppositional starting points for each biography. Historians interpret facts differently.

Marius says, "Luther was to make more of Satan as the years went along." The Romanist quotes the next sentence, "Heiko Oberman sees Luther’s demonology as the rudder that guided his thought." The very next sentence after that says, "For the later Luther, this view may be correct." Here Marius is challenging Oberman. begin reading Luther: Man Between God and the Devil By Heiko Oberman on page 102. Read till page 106. Or, use this link. You'll notice Oberman begins with Luther's upbringing, which is why Marius probably made his comment about "the later Luther":

Oberman states in part:

But the legacy of Luther’s parental home entailed more than a proper respect for hard work and deep erudition; it included also the at once wondrous and scary world of spirits, Devil and witchcraft, which the modern mind has come to call superstition.

Luther’s mother cannot be held solely responsible for Luther’s realistic perception of the Devil’s machinations. Father Hans thought exactly the same way, and so did the miners in Mansfeld, who, far away from the light of day, were even more exposed to the artifices of the infernal powers -- spirits, demons and hobgoblins -- in the darkness of their mineshafts. Nor would Martin have learned anything different from the Brethren of the Common Life in Magdeburg or from the most erudite humanists of his time.

 And so on. Read the chapter for yourself. Notice as well the differences in interpretation between Marius and Oberman on the notion of "God's Satan" (Marius, p. 78) and "the omnipotence of God and thus determined only narrow limits for the Devil’s activities" (Oberman p.104-105).

Related, though are these general comments from Oberman, stressing his thesis:

Luther’s world of thought is wholly distorted and apologetically misconstrued if his conception of the Devil is dismissed as a medieval phenomenon and only his faith in Christ retained as relevant or as the only decisive factor. Christ and the Devil were equally real to him: one was the perpetual intercessor for Christianity, the other a menace to mankind till the end. To argue that Luther never overcame the medieval belief in the Devil says far too little; he even intensified it and lent to it additional urgency: Christ and Satan wage a cosmic war for mastery over church and world. No one can evade involvement in this struggle. Even for the believer there is no refuge -- neither monastery nor the seclusion of the wilderness offer him a chance for escape. The Devil is the omnipresent threat, and exactly for this reason the faithful need the proper weapons for survival.

There is no way to grasp Luther’s milieu of experience and faith unless one has an acute sense of his view of Christian existence between God and the Devil: without a recognition of Satan’s power, belief in Christ is reduced to an idea about Christ -- and Luther’s faith becomes a confused delusion in keeping with the tenor of his time.

Attempts are made to offer excuses for Luther by pointing out that he never doubted the omnipotence of God and thus determined only narrow limits for the Devil’s activities. Luther himself would have been outraged at this view: the omnipotent God is indeed real, but as such hidden from us. Faith reaches not for God hidden but for God revealed, who, incarnate in Christ, laid himself open to the Devil’s fury. At Christmas God divested himself of his omnipotence -- the sign given the shepherds was a child "wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger" (Luke 2:12) . To Luther Christmas was the central feast: "God for us." But that directly implies "the Devil against us." This new belief in the Devil is such an integral part of the Reformation discovery that if the reality of the powers inimical to God is not grasped, the incarnation of Christ, as well as the justification and temptation of the sinner, are reduced to ideas of the mind rather than experiences of faith. That is what Luther’s battle against the Devil meant to convey. Centuries separate Luther from a modern world which has renounced and long since exorcised the Devil, thus finding it hard to see the difference between this kind of religion and medieval witchcraft. But Luther distinguished sharply between faith and superstition. He understood the hellish fears of his time, then discovered in the Scriptures the true thrust and threat of Satan and experienced himself the Devil’s trials and temptations. Consequently he, unlike any theologian before or after him, was able to disperse the fog of witches’ sabbath and sorcery and show the adversary for what he really was: violent toward God, man and the world. To make light of the Devil is to distort faith. "The only way to drive away the Devil is through faith in Christ, by saying: ‘I have been baptized, I am a Christian."’

The reference to "demonology" in the Marius book on page 78 has a specific meaning. Marius says, "Luther was to make more of Satan as the years went along." The Romanist quotes the next sentence, "Heiko Oberman sees Luther’s demonology as the rudder that guided his thought."

In context, Marius seems to be equating Satan=demonology, and he appears to be referring to Oberman's use of "demonology" as meaning "Satan" as well. I'm not aware of any use of the term "demonology" in Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. Of course, Oberman wrote a number of books, so it is possible Marius has some other writing of Oberman in mind. However, that Marius continues on page 78 to speak of Satan strongly suggests "Satan" is meant by the term "demonology."

That Luther believed in demons, witches, etc. is not disputed. However, I think this Romanist needs to stick with one source at a time, and exegete each source correctly. Words have meanings in context.

Tedium #2: Erik Erikson, Young Man Luther, A Study in Psychoanalysis

The Romanist states the following:

Realistic thought had little influence on Luther, the dogmatist; but it dominated the Zeitgeist which often emerged in Luther’s more informal utterances, especially in its alliance with demonism. We know Luther to have been a lifelong addict of demonic thought, which he managed to keep quite separate from his theological thought and his scientific judgment.” Erik Erikson, “Young Man Luther, A Study in Psychoanalysis ” pg 187

Normally Erikson’s comments make sense to me, but in this case I can’t fathom a manner in which anyone can be “addicted to demonic thought” AND keep that aspect of their “belief system” and world view – “quite separate from his theological thought”. Luther constantly refers to the sum of his beliefs as “My Gospel” so clearly his addiction to demonic thought HAD to influence his theology.

Erikson makes sense to this Romanist? He's an enemy of the Christian faith. Of course Erikson thought Luther's beliefs in demons, devils, and Satan was blatant psychosis. Erikson used a modified Freudian approach to Luther. He approached religious phenomena with prejudice: recall, Freud argued that religious phenomena are to be understood on the model of the neurotic symptoms of the individual: hence, a materialistic outlook on religion. Freud saw religious concerns within an individual as reflecting something “wrong” in a human. Erickson does the same with his treatment of Luther. Roman Catholics beware: Erikson is no friend of your beliefs, or of anyone with religious beliefs. That said, Erikson says something a little different than what was actually cited:

Realistic thought had little influence on Luther, the dogmatist; but it dominated the Zeitgeist which often emerged in Luther’s more informal utterances, especially in its alliance with demonism. We know Luther to have been a lifelong addict of demonic thought, which he managed to keep quite separate from his theological thought and his scientific judgment. The Devil's behind maintained a reality for him which- because his intellect and his religious intuition seemed to function on different planes- could be said to verge on the paranoid were it not at the same time representative of a pervading medieval tendency.

 Erikson's point is that according to Luther, the bad things that happen were the result of the reality of Satan. That is, what "happened" was also a reality in the "world of ideas" (realism). If you continue reading to page 188, you'll note the point from 187 "Realistic thought had little influence on Luther" and how that was related to the indulgence controversy.

The reality of Satan though was indeed a part of Luther's theological thought. Erikson here is simply unfamiliar with the entire corpus of Luther's writings. This would make sense, since a lot of his book is about "Luther’s more informal utterances" (i.e. the Table Talk).


Tedium #3: Henry Vedder on Luther's Demonology

The Romanist states the following:

One of our most honest Protestant Scholars (Vedder) said that Luther knew more about the devil than he did about God and also said that Luther “certainly manifests more of a Satanic rather than a Christian spirit.” Heiko Oberman (Protestant) wrote that Luther’s thought was guided by his demonology, which does not speak well of his “ability” to discern Christian Truths in Scripture, or anywhere else for that matter. These things don’t seem to be very good “attributes” for a “Christian” theologian.

Vedder was a Baptist historian. The context of this snippet is found here:

Zwingli, on the other hand, understood "This is my body" to mean, This signifies my body: and he adduced many passages of Scripture that must obviously be explained in this sense, such as "I am the vine" and "That rock was Christ." In his view the bread and wine are memorials of Christ's body and blood, not the true substantial body. He did not deny, but rather affirmed, that the true Christ is reserved by the believer in the sacrament, but a spiritual Christ who is spiritually received through the believer's faith, not through his mouth. And he did not hesitate to show, with unsparing pen, the inconsistencies and absurdities and intellectual impossibilities contained in Luther's doctrine the moment its grounds are examined. It comforts one not a little to find that Zwingli's intellect was also feeble in this particular, and that he was unable to follow the mental processes that Luther fondly persuaded himself were reasoning.

Though Zwingli substantially agreed with Carlstadt concerning the eucharist, he probably derived his view from another source and certainly advocated it on different grounds. But that he agreed with Carlstadt at all was enough to make Luther his enemy. In his first writings on the subject, as even the strong partisans of the Wittenberg leader are constrained to admit, Zwingli treated his opponent with great respect. We cannot say the same of Luther. In his tract, "That the Words of Christ: 'This is my Body' stand fast," 1 he accuses Zwingli of having derived his doctrine from the devil. "How true it is that the devil is a tausendkiinstler, a myriad-minded trickster. He proves this powerfully in the external rule of this world by bodily lusts, tricks, sins, murder, ruin, etc., but especially, and above all measure, in spiritual and external things that affect God's honor and our conscience. How he can turn and twist and throw all sorts of obstacles in the way, to prevent men from being saved and abiding in the Christian truth." The rest of the tract keeps the promise made by this beginning; it is ill-tempered and abusive, and displays on every page an intimate acquaintance with the devil and his works. Indeed, if one may trust the evidence of his polemic writings, Luther knew a good deal more about the devil than he did about God; and he certainly manifests more of a Satanic than of a Christian spirit. Much space is devoted in this tract to an idea that thenceforth became characteristic of Lutheran doctrine: the ubiquity of Christ's body. Luther was as little successful in proving the omnipresence of Christ's glorified body as Zwingli on his part was in proving a spatial inclusion of the same body in heaven—both resting their arguments on metaphysical notions regarding a glorified spiritual body of which we know absolutely nothing, and about which therefore all reasoning is a mere beating of the air.

The writing in question is Luther's polemical That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics (1527) [LW 37]. This was Luther's first main work against the Swiss. When Luther wrote a "polemical writing" he did so, not on trivial points being debated by his friends or fellow theologians. He typically wrote against those he thought were motivated by Satan, in an effort to expose Satan. When Vedder states, "he certainly manifests more of a Satanic than of a Christian spirit"- Vedder ignores the fact that Luther thought he was writing against Satan himself in this tract. The editors of LW point out, "Luther’s treatise opens with the assertion that the Lord’s Supper controversy has been caused by the devil, who has taken possession of the fanatics (pp. 13–23)" (LW 37:5). Vedder criticizes the writing as "ill-tempered and abusive." Well, that's how Luther argued against the Devil, in an abusive manner. This abusiveness permeates all of Luther's polemical writings. Big deal? Not really.

Tedium #4: Robert Herndon Fife, “The Revolt and Martin Luther

The Romanist posts the following:

“In Martin's boyhood the primitive demonology of the Germans broke into hysterical expression in the pulpit and in literature. As soon as he was able to comprehend, he heard from parish priest and begging friar stories like those he tells afterward to his congregations and table companions. These religious sanctions extended to the picturesque figure of the medieval devil. This half-terrifying, half-humorous figure may well have caught his eye as it passed in the carnival procession of the city guilds or played hide-and-seek with other dramatis personae of a Shrovetide mask on the market place of Mansfeld or Eisleben. The imagination of the boy seized pictures of this sort and gave them reality. From these sources as from the folklore passed on by family and neighbors the character of the devil was built up for Martin: now full of malignant hatred, now touched with grim humor, always a resourceful and relentless enemy. Robert Herndon Fife, “The Revolt and Martin Luther”, pg 12

The primitive demonology of Luther’s Germany was unfortunately reflected in the preaching by the relatively uneducated priesthood of his day. Fife points to Luther’s demonology as having two sources, the preaching of the uneducated priesthood, and the folklore passed along from family and neighbors (some of which were witches according to Luther). Martin’s childhood exposure to this kind of environment was not unique, however, it was his “imagination” and also his “sensitivity” that was, and that were abnormal. It was these two additional factors that caused him to expand on these images of the devil and “give them a reality”, even for the time.

I put this quote at the end of this section so as to make it easier for people to snip out everything else, address this last quote, point to the Church ONLY for Luther’s demonology which was very uncommon even for the time. That way they can pretend to have address my post and avoid the main thrust. You know, dust off their hands and proclaim "I guess I told that Tim MD a thing or two". What I would rather see is someone actually address Luther's "demonology" rather than just PRETEND to be responding to this post.

Fife actually says,

The cultural atmosphere that surrounded the growing child was not different from that in other small cities of north-central Germany in the later Middle Ages. Crude superstition and naive religious beliefs were intertwined to make up the texture of the mind. Through his parents he absorbed relics of pagan mythology that the German peasantry had brought down from primitive days without essential modification by Christian patterns. The awakening imagination of the child sucked in with eagerness these animistic beliefs and wove them into fixations that reappear throughout later life in the sermons and in the Table Talk. He learned that witches lurk on every side and cast their spell on man, beast, and food. In early sermons he shows a certain grim pleasure in passing in review the manifestations of witches and evil spirits and he throws a vivid light on the atmosphere of his home when, many years later, in looking back on the way mothers were obliged to care for children under the attacks of these creatures, he adds, "that kind of witchery was especially general when I was a boy." so His poor mother, as he told his table companions, "was so tormented by one of her neighbors who was a witch that she was obliged to treat her with the highest respect and conciliate her, for she caused such agony to her children that they would scream like unto death." When one of his brothers died, witchcraft was held to be responsible; and many victims of these malignant women were pointed out to the terrified boy, When the crops failed, he learned that it was because evil spirits had poisoned the air; and as a child he doubtless took part in the Corpus Christi processions, when the clergy led the way to the fields and read the gospel to purify the air of such harmful beings. It was the latter, as he was told by his parents and neighbors, that caused the destructive storms, blasted the fruit, and brought the cattle plague. "We may not doubt," he declares in a well-accredited remark in the Table Talk, "that pestilences, fevers, and other grave diseases are the work of demons."

Following Biblical authority he thought that insane persons were possessed of a devil, who took this way of tormenting them, and that the doctors attributed things of that kind to natural causes only because of their ignorance of the ways of demons. Hidden in the house were little sprites who, like the fox-spirit in China, bring good luck; and his mother must often have whispered to him to avoid giving offense to these "little wights' for people feared to vex them "more than God and the whole world." Satan, Martin learned, dwells in the woods and groves and is especially dangerous in the water. On the Pubelsberg, a mountain near Mansfeld, there was a lake which was thought to be a dwelling place of captive demons in his boyhood.

"If a stone is thrown in, a great storm arises throughout the whole region." The cases of drowning which occurred yearly at Wittenberg among bathers in the Elbe, a stream of shifting sandbanks and holes, Martin ascribed in a sermon of middle life to Satan, "who formerly worked through nixies"; and he warned his hearers to wash at home rather than go to the river alone. As he grew older, the simple animism that the boy had learned from his village-bred parents and neighbors was modified by theological influences.

The literalism with which he came to interpret the Scriptures made him reject forms of magic commonly practiced in his day, such as communion with the spirits of the dead, foretelling the future by crystal-gazing, or finding treasure with a divining rod. These and other hocus-pocus he found inconsistent with God's commands. He even mocked at astrology, which was accepted without hesitation by contemporary humanists of distinction: God has locked the future from us, Martin is convinced, and will reveal it at His own time. Nevertheless he joined his contemporaries in believing that comets and other exceptional celestial phenomena boded disaster, though not to the righteous man. Likewise, the old Germanic superstition of the incubus and succubus, who beget children under the guise o dreams, and the demonic changeling that is substituted for the infant in the cradle appear repeatedly in Luther's Table Talk in richly decorated form. From his father Martin learned also of resentful earth-spirits who appear to the workmen in the lonely corridors of the mine. The tricks which the devil plays on the miner stirred the imagination of the boy and like other mythology of Mansfeld days reappeared in colorful pictures in old age. In Luther's years of restless self-examination many demons focus in the scriptural Satan, but this enemy, who figures repeatedly in Martin's physical and emotional crises, has his source above all in the animistic fixations of childhood that crowd each other in picturesque succession in a sermon on the Ten Commandments in 1518, one of the earliest publications of young Luther, and persist in the discourses of middle life and later.

In Martin's boyhood the primitive demonology of the Germans broke into hysterical expression in the pulpit and in literature. As soon as he was able to comprehend, he heard from parish priest and begging friar stories like those he tells afterward to his congregations and table companions. These religious sanctions extended to the picturesque figure of the medieval devil. This half-terrifying, half-humorous figure may well have caught his eye as it passed in the carnival procession of the city guilds or played hide-and-seek with other dramatis personae of a Shrovetide mask on the market place of Mansfeld or Eisleben. The imagination of the boy seized pictures of this sort and gave them reality. From these sources as from the folklore passed on by family and neighbors the character of the devil was built up for Martin: now full of malignant hatred, now touched with grim humor, always a resourceful and relentless enemy.

This Romanist says "Martin’s childhood exposure to this kind of environment was not unique, however, it was his 'imagination' and also his 'sensitivity'” that was, and that were abnormal."  Where exactly does Fife say Luther's “imagination” and also his “sensitivity” were abnormal? The Romanist put these two words in quotes. Perhaps he's citing a different section of Fife's text?

Further,  Based on the extended quote above from Fife, on what grounds can he assert, "Luther’s demonology which was very uncommon even for the time"?

Conclusion
I don't typically post such long entries, and I realize that most of those who read this blog probably haven't even made it this far down. True indeed, Satan was real in Luther's life. But then again, Satan was very much real to Jesus and the Apostles. Perhaps we need to likewise consider his activites in 2011.