Luther: No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise

On the web page, Twenty Vile Quotes Against Women By Church Leaders from St. Augustine to Pat Robertson, the following Martin Luther quote is mentioned:

No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise. –Martin Luther, Reformer (1483-1546), Table Talk

This quote is one of a number proving "Christianity produced a steady diet of misogyny for over 2000 years," put forth by a "former evangelical," now a "psychologist and writer." Her biography can be found here. She appears to still embrace some form of spirituality, but rallies against conservative Christianity. It's interesting that while her entry spans the entirety of church history, she chose a big picture of Martin Luther to head her blog post (pictured here also). 

Let's take a closer look at the quote. It's easy to cherry-pick quotes from church history, especially with an agenda and self-imposed blinders. While Luther was not in any sense a modern-day feminist, he was not the simplicity of a few quotes strung together to make him "vile."  

Documentation

The quote has traveled far, found not only in a number of webpages, but published books as well. The webpage simply says, "Table Talk," which in essence, isn't a helpful reference, but the majority of uses I found either don't provide a reference or similarly mention the Table Talk. 

The quote does come from the Table Talk.  It's from the recollection of Luther's associate, John Schlaginhaufen, who recorded Luther's' remarks from 1531-32. The comment probably dates from May 1532. The comment can be found in WA TR 2:130 (#1555):

The comment made it into English via the German version of the Table Talk put together by John Aurifaber (FB. 1, 208 above). The text reads, 

This German version was translated into English in the seventeenth-century:

Then the English was eventually revised in the eighteenth-century:

What ill becomes the Women.

There is no gown nor garment that becomes a woman worse (said Luther), than when she will be wise.

There are also subtle English variations: 

"There is no gown or garment becomes a woman worse" (said Luther), "than when she will be wise." (1832)

There is no gown or garment that worse becomes a woman than when she will be wise.  (1848)

 Examples of the English version that began this entry can be found in the early twentieth-century.  

An interesting contemporary English rendering comes from Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, Luther on Women: A Sourcebook: "There is no dress that suits a woman or maiden so badly as wanting to be clever." In their rendering, "wanting to be clever" has a different spin than wanting "to be wise."

Context

As with many Table Talk comments, there is not a context provided.  The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death.

Conclusion

Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. The "former evangelical" using the quote would've given herself more credibility had she first documented the quote correctly, then, secondly, not used it at all, but rather utilized a quote with a context and a better pedigree (something actually written by Luther).  From our current western pro-feminist zeitgeist, she would've certainly found some Luther quotes. 

Here's an opportunity to point out to Rome's defenders how wonderful "tradition" is (yes, that's sarcasm). Luther inherited his views on women from that which preceded him (as do we also). The basic overview from Luther on Women: A Sourcebook is helpful: "Luther's view of women's nature is continuous with that of earlier thinkers and compatible with the opinions of many other sixteenth-century theologians." They go on to mention an interesting historical tidbit: 

Luther was not an abject misogynist, nor a consistent misogynist. Another blogger examining the quote made an interesting observation.  If one were to follow the method of citing the Table Talk for Luther's positions, the entry that comes before the quote in question says, 

I have oftentimes noted, when women receive the doctrine of the gospel, they are far more fervent in faith, they hold to it more stiff and fast, than men do; as we see in the loving Magdalen, who was more hearty and bold than Peter.

Factor in also the comments Luther made about his wife (which would double the size of this entry). Did the "former evangelical" consider any of this evidence? I have my doubts. It's simply human nature, be it male or female, to vilify that which we're against, to treat people unfairly, especially if they've been dead for many centuries, lived in a different time period and in a different culture... that's the way discrimination works.

Calvin to Melanchthon: "It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences" and Melanchthon's Tears

From a discussion entitled, The ruinous Protestant Deformation of Catholic Christendom in Europe, comes the following alleged interaction between Protestant Reformers John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon:

"It is important" said the heretic Calvin in a letter to Melanchton [sic], "that posterity should not know of our differences. For it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at variance among ourselves." And Melanchton [sic] replied "All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation". The most regrettable Protestant Deformation of Catholic Christendom was a manifest tragedy from the very beginning.

This Calvin / Melanchthon pericope has been around for many years in various forms (typically perpetuated by Rome's defenders). The basic thrust is that Calvin and Melanchthon's lack of unification proves "the most regrettable Protestant Deformation of Catholic Christendom was a manifest tragedy from the very beginning."  In the quote above, Calvin appears as attempting to cover up his differences with Melanchthon for "posterity" (deliberate deception?), while Melanchthon is portrayed as responding distraught over the disunity and the overall results of the Reformation (severe regret).  In essence, Calvin appears to want a cover up which provokes Melanchthon to seek out an endless box of tissues to wipe his tears due to the "miseries caused by the Reformation." Let's take a closer look at this interaction:  it's basic Roman Catholic propaganda seeking to present the Reformers in the worst possible way.  

Documentation: Calvin's Letter to Melanchthon 

This particular bit of rhetoric has been around over one hundred years. I suspect it gained its cyber- popularity for English speaking audiences through Father Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther.  The book was originally published in 1916, then again by the Roman Catholic publisher Tan Books in 1987.  O'Hare states,

The other reformers were not a whit better than Luther in regard to toleration. The injury done their cause by their bickerings, disunions and hostilities did not escape their own notice. Calvin, for instance, fully aware of the disastrous results accruing from the specious principles of universal liberty by which the reformers had allured multitudes to their standard, wrote to Melanchthon: “It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at issue among ourselves.” Melanchthon wrote in answer that "the Elbe with all its waters could not furnish tears enough to weep over the miseries of the distracted Reformation.” [source]

The 1987 reprint includes an ironic typo in this section: "It is indeed important that posterity should now know of our differences" (p. 293). That's quite a difference in meaning! One of Rome's more popular defenders appears to have noticed the error / difference when citing it and used brackets: "[not]". O'Hare's English rendering was probably not his own: the exact same English translation appears in this 1881 text.  O'Hare was a master at nineteenth-century cut-and-paste... the majority of citations in his book were taken from secondary sources.  

Contrary to most modern on-line occurrences of this pericope, O'Hare's main thrust was that Calvin made his comment because he was "fully aware of the disastrous results accruing from the specious principles of universal liberty by which the reformers had allured multitudes to their standard." That "universal liberty" which "allured multitudes" was, as he goes on to say, "the lawless anarchy into which Protestantism in its various forms had sunk...". For O'Hare, Calvin wanted a major cover-up because of moral failure perpetuated by those adhering to Protestantism. How ironic, given that Calvin is often chastised for being the disciplinarian tyrant of Geneva, beating people down when they violated the Genevan moral code!

O'Hare had many sources to choose from: Calvin's part of this pericope circulated heavily in English texts in the nineteenth century (typically without Melanchthon's reply), for example: "It is of great importance that the divisions which subsist among us should not be known to future ages: for nothing can be more ridiculous than that we, who have broken off from the whole world, should have agreed so ill among ourselves from the very beginning of the Reformation." That O'Hare utilized it is typical of Roman Catholic anti-reformation propaganda of that time period.    

This Calvin quote is genuine. It does indeed come from a letter written to Melanchthon (November 28, 1552). It can be found in the Corpus Reformatorum 14:415 (this scan is poor, this PDF download link here is better). The text reads, 

This Latin text has been translated into English in Dr. Jules Bonnet's Letters of John Calvin Volume 2, p. 375-381, with the quote occurring on pages 376-377. 

Context: Calvin's response to Melanchthon

Jules Bonnet points out that Melanchthon's correspondence to Calvin had gone through a period of "long silence" probably due to wars in Germany. The letter Calvin was responding to was written October 1, 1552. It's a short two-paragraph Latin letter (C.R. 7:1085).  Philip Schaff translates the relevant first paragraph:

“How often," wrote Melanchthon, Oct. 1, 1552, "would I have written to you, reverend sir and dearest brother, if I could find more trustworthy letter carriers. For I would like to converse with you about many most important matters, because I esteem your judgment very highly and know the candor and purity of your soul. I am now living as in a wasp's nest; but perhaps I shall soon be called from this mortal life to a brighter companionship in heaven. If I live longer, I have to expect new exiles; if so, I am determined to turn to you. The studies are now broken up by pestilence and war. How often do I mourn and sigh over the causes of this fury among princes." 

 Calvin's reply is much longer, the opening includes the quote:

Nothing could have come to me more seasonably at this time than your letter, which I received two months after its dispatch. For, in addition to the very great troubles with which I am so sorely consumed, there is almost no day on which some new pain or anxiety does not occur. I should, therefore, be in a short time entirely overcome by the load of evils under which I am oppressed, did not the Lord by his own means alleviate their severity; among which it was no slight consolation to me to know that you are enjoying tolerable health, such at least as your years admit of and the delicate state of your body, and to be informed, by your own letter, that your affection for me had undergone no change. It was reported to me that you had been so displeased by a rather free admonition of mine which, however, ought to have affected you far otherwise—that you tore the letter to pieces in the presence of certain witnesses. But even if the messenger was not sufficiently trustworthy, still, after a long lapse of time, his fidelity was established by various proofs, and I was compelled at length to suspect something. Wherefore I have learned the more gladly that up to this time our friendship remains safe, which assuredly, as it grew out of a heartfelt love of piety, ought to remain for ever sacred and inviolable. But it greatly concerns us to cherish faithfully and constantly to the end the friendship which God has sanctified by the authority of his own name, seeing that herein is involved either great advantage or great loss even to the whole Church. For you see how the eyes of many are turned upon us, so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions to speak evil, and the weak are only perplexed by our unintelligible disputations. Nor, in truth, is it of little importance to prevent the suspicion of any difference having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world. I know and confess, moreover, that we occupy widely different positions; still, because I am not ignorant of the place in this theatre to which God has elevated me, there is no reason for my concealing that our friendship could not be interrupted without great injury to the Church. And that we may act independent of the conduct of others, reflect, from your own feeling of the thing, how painful it would be for me to be estranged from that man whom I both love and esteem above all others, and whom God has not only nobly adorned with remarkable gifts in order to make him distinguished in the eyes of the whole Church, but has also employed as his chief minister for conducting matters of the highest importance. And surely it is indicative of a marvelous and monstrous insensibility, that we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity, by which we ought to be bringing back into the world the angels of heaven.

Documentation: Melanchthon's Response to Calvin

Father O'Hare does not document Melanchthon's response to Calvin that "the Elbe with all its waters could not furnish tears enough to weep over the miseries of the distracted Reformation." This book which preceded his by a year or so uses a different wording for the Calvin quote followed by the exact Melanchthon quote (also noting it was a response to Calvin). 

The two quotes appear to have originally been placed together for polemical reasons but not as a written correspondence between the two Reformers. This 1874 Roman Catholic source uses both quotes but does not indicate Melanchthon was responding to Calvin. This book from 1895 uses both quotes, but similarly does not indicate the words are a response to Calvin (and also places a quote from Beza in-between). Note the following example of Roman Catholic propaganda from Our Sunday Visitor, March 19,1916:

Nineteenth century English texts have a number of instances of Melanchthon's tears and the Elbe. This text from 1849 reads, "Could I but shed as many tears as our Elbe pours of waves when in full stream, my grief would not be drawn dry." This nineteenth century book attributes the quote from Melanchthon to Luther: "The Elbe with all its waters, wrote Melanchthon, to his dear master Luther, would not supply me with tears enough to lament all the evils of the Reformation." This text has "the Elbe with all its streams..." weeping over "the divided reformation." In an 1828 text, the quote is put forth as "The Elbe (wrote he in confidence to a friend) 'the Elbe with all its waves could not furnish tears enough to weep over the miseries of the distracted reformation.'" Was Calvin 'the friend"? That a defender of Rome would pass up Calvin's name seems unlikely! This 1828 text was originally in French (1824), put forth as "l'Elbe avec tous ses flots ne sauroit me fournir assez de larmes pour pleurer les malheurs de la réforme divisée." The translation of this French text may be the the English source of this quote that ultimately wound up in O'Hare's book. 

It's difficult to locate an exact reference for Melanchthon's quote as presented by Father O'Hare. Often nineteenth century texts document versions of  the quote as "Epist. lib. ii, EP 202" (I've yet to find this).  The reason the reference and original source are so elusive is that Melanchthon used the "Elbe + tears" imagery a number of times. Johannes Janssen says that in a September 1545 letter Melanchthon said, "Had I as many tears as the waters of the Elbe... still they would not cease to flow." Janssen's source appears to be this 1545 letter to Dr. Theodore Vitus, "Si tantum lacrymarum fundere possem, quantum undarum noster Albis pleno vehit alveo, non posset exhauriri meus dolor ortus ex hac dissensione."  In 1548 Melanchthon wrote to  Archbishop Cranmer, 

I do not, however, desire in this letter to do any thing more than express my grief, which is so great, that it could not be exhausted, though I were to shed a flood of tears as large as our Elbe or your Thames.

In in a letter from September 1, 1554, Melanchthon writes: 

This source cites this letter, saying that Melanchthon "wrote to Joannes Timannus (c.1500-c. 1577) in Amsterdam that he wished that he had as many tears as there was water in the Elbe to cry grief about the dispute regarding the Lord's supper." In a letter dated September 5, 1555, Melanchthon says, 

In a letter dated April 18, 1556, Melanchthon writes:

Note that Melanchthon's Elbe tears are linked to "propter dissensionem in Ecclesia."

Conclusion

I came across this bit of propaganda back in 2006, then questioning where the letter from Melanchthon back to Calvin could be found. Now, with so many sources available, it has been much easier to solidify my suspicion that no such letter exists. In its popular form, the pericope is not a back and forth dialog between Calvin and Melanchthon, but appears rather to be the result of English anti-Reformation rhetoric from the nineteenth and early twentieth century that placed the two comments together. 

While Calvin and Melanchthon did have written correspondence,  Melanchthon did not respond back with this comment. While Calvin and Melanchthon did have disagreements, they did have mutual respect for each other. Calvin was not advocating or perpetuating a cover-up, and whatever regret Melanchthon did have over aspects of the Reformation, it was not regret that it ever happened.  

John Calvin, Tyrant of Geneva?

Was John Calvin the tyrant of Geneva, a cruel dictator, persecuting all those who stood in his way? A few years ago I did fact-checking research for an author agreeing with this historical conclusion. I was provided with a number of "facts" about Calvin's Geneva and requested to either verify or dispel them before a book was sent to the publisher.  Below is a sampling of some of the material I went through, along with a few other related entries.

Lest there be any confusion of my view of the man, John Calvin was a fallible person, a man of his times. He had moral shortcomings and sins, but he did not kick cats and steal candy from children while he walked the streets of Geneva, nor was a "dictator."

The goal of going through particular facts is not to defend John Calvin as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do we love our neighbors in the study of church history? We do so with our words: If we bear false witness against our neighbors, even if they've been dead for hundreds of years, we are not loving them. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all.


Calvin was the Cruel and Unopposed Dictator of Geneva?

John Calvin Had 58 People Executed in Geneva?

Calvin Beheaded a Child in Geneva?

Calvin's Geneva: A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an “immoral height"

John Calvin: “It is better to burn a few (Anabaptists) at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell”

Calvin's Geneva: A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham 

 
Calvin: Arrested and Imprisoned Jerome Bolsec, Then Wanted Him “Rotting in a Ditch"?

Calvin's Own Step-Daughter and Son-in-Law Were Among Those Condemned for Adultery and Executed in Geneva

Calvin's Geneva: A High Percentage of Illegitimate Children, Abandoned Infants, Forced Marriages, and Sentences of Death

Did Calvin Murder Servetus? by Standford Rives

Calvin: I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.

Calvin Killed Servetus? Before Servetus Killed Calvin? 

Calvin: We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself

Church and State Government in Calvin's Geneva

Calvin and the Death Penalty For Roman Catholics

Bucer: "Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them"

Luther: "Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths."

Luther's High Regard for John Calvin?

Luther and Calvin... Friends or Enemies?

John Calvin: Luther was a Madman and a Beast?

Luther: "Remove Christ from the Scriptures and there is nothing left"

Did Luther say, "Remove Christ from the Scriptures and there is nothing left"? This popular Luther quote circulates cyberspace, often found in pictorial form, like that pictured above. Yes, Luther appears to have said something like this... as did theologian John Stott: "Take Christ from Christianity, and you remove the heart from it; there is practically nothing left," and also, "Take Christ from Christianity, and you disembowel it; there is practically nothing left." Let's take a closer look at Luther's version.

Documentation
Of the cyber-pictures using the quote I checked, none provided a reference. Similarly, a basic Google search for the quote did not yield a reference. A Google Book search gave some interesting hits. A 2008 book uses the exact quote without a reference, mentioning Luther's interaction with Erasmus. Another Google Books hit states: "Remove Christ from the Scriptures and what more will you find in them? [De servo arbitrio WA 18:606]." Even though it places the quote in the form of a rhetorical question, it sounds a lot like the quote in question.

"De servo arbitrio" refers to Luther's response to Erasmus, "The Bondage of the Will" (1525). This seems like a likely candidate for the source. WA 18:606 reads,

The sentence in question is "Tolle Christum e scripturis, quid amplius in illis invenies?" De servo arbitrio has been translated into English a number of times. The quote can be found in LW 33:26 and also in the Packer / Johnston translation on page 71.

Context

I admit, of course, that there are many texts in the Scriptures that are obscure and abstruse, not because of the majesty of their subject matter, but because of our ignorance of their vocabulary and grammar; but these texts in no way hinder a knowledge of all the subject matter of Scripture. For what still sublimer thing can remain hidden in the Scriptures, now that the seals have been broken, the stone rolled from the door of the sepulcher [Matt. 27:66; 28:2], and the supreme mystery brought to light, namely, that Christ the Son of God has been made man, that God is three and one, that Christ has suffered for us and is to reign eternally? Are not these things known and sung even in the highways and byways? Take Christ out of the Scriptures, and what will you find left in them?

The subject matter of the Scriptures, therefore, is all quite accessible, even though some texts are still obscure owing to our ignorance of their terms. Truly it is stupid and impious, when we know that the subject matter of Scripture has all been placed in the clearest light, to call it obscure on account of a few obscure words. If the words are obscure in one place, yet they are plain in another; and it is one and the same theme, published quite openly to the whole world, which in the Scriptures is sometimes expressed in plain words, and sometimes lies as yet hidden in obscure words. Now, when the thing signified is in the light, it does not matter if this or that sign of it is in darkness, since many other signs of the same thing are meanwhile in the light. Who will say that a public fountain is not in the light because those who are in a narrow side street do not see it, whereas all who are in the marketplace do see it? (LW 33:25-26)

Conclusion
In the complete context of LW 33:24-28 (a section entitled, "The clarity of Scripture"), Luther's comment about Christ, while important, is actually more of a passing comment. Luther was reacting to Erasmus's point that there were many passages in Scripture that are obscure:

Thus there are many passages in the sacred volumes on which many commentators have tried their skill, but no one has really removed their obscurity, as for example: the distinction between the persons in the Godhead, the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, and the unforgivable sin. (LW 33:24 fn. 13; cf. Diatribe EAS 4,12 f)

For those difficult areas like "the Trinity" or the two natures of Christ, for Luther, Scripture confesses them, and how exactly they are what they are is not necessary to know. What we need to know "has been placed in the clearest light." Luther was gearing up to attack Erasmus on the scriptural clarity of nature of the will of man and its freedom in regard to salvation.

How to Deal with Those Who Differ from "Us"

Here's something I posted in 2010. It seems more relevant now than ever before...excerpts from Roger Nicole's article: Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us.

What Do I Owe to the Person Who Differs From Me?

What Can I Learn from Those Who Differ From Me?

How Can I Cope with Those Who Differ from Me?

Here's an interesting snippet:

How then do we desire to be treated? First, we want people to know what we are saying or meaning. If we are going to voice differences, therefore, we have an obligation to make a serious effort to understand the person with whom we differ. That person may have published books or articles. Then we should be acquainted with those writings. It is not appropriate for us to voice sharp differences if we have neglected to read what is available. The person with whom we differ should have evidence that we have read carefully what has been written and that we have attempted to understand its meaning. In the case of an oral exchange where we don't have any written words, we owe the person who differs from us the courtesy to listen carefully to what he or she says. Rather than preparing to pounce on that person the moment he or she stops talking, we should concentrate on apprehending precisely what his or her position is.

In this respect, Dr. Cornelius Van Til has given us a splendid example. As you may know, he expressed very strong objections to the theology of Karl Barth. This was so strong that Barth claimed that Van Til simply did not understand him. It has been my privilege to be at Dr. Van Til's office and to see with my own eyes the bulky tomes of Barth's, Kirchliche Dogmatik (incidentally, these volumes were the original German text, not an English translation). As I leafed through them I did not see one page that was not constellated with underlining, double-underlining, marginal annotations, exclamation points, and question marks galore. So here is someone who certainly did not say, "I know Karl Barth well; I understand his stance; I don't need to read any more of this; I can move on with what I have." Each of the volumes, including the most recent, gave evidence of very, very careful scrutiny. So when we take issue with somebody, we need to do the job that is necessary to know that person so that we are not voicing our criticism in the absence of knowledge but that we are proceeding from the vantage point of real acquaintance.

"Father forgive Them, For They Do Not Know What They Are Doing": A Review of the Arguments For and Against the Inclusion of Luke 23:34a

Introduction

The preacher launched into that part of his sermon that would convey the dire agony of the savior of the world:

“Soldiers gathered around the condemned prisoner as he was stripped naked, then dressed in an absurd degrading costume. The adult equivalent of unsupervised childish taunting ensued, a pack mentality unleashed its obligatory beating. Oddly, after this brutality, the soldiers took the costume off and put the prisoner’s own clothes back on him! During the execution, the soldiers spent their time gambling on those same clothes amongst themselves; the clothing being of more importance than the actual human being. It doesn’t appear the soldiers felt any empathy, sympathy, or regret towards the condemned, not even gratitude for free clothing. Maybe they were just being soldiers, following orders. Maybe they were skilled in the art of dehumanization that characterizes militaristic cruelty. Maybe they didn’t even realize what they where doing, so hardened by years of soldiering.”

With this sitz im leben set, the preacher could now bring his point home: 

"Suffering a slow execution, the prisoner looked on. Astonishingly, he could still speak. His words though were not the anger of a stoic hero whose spirit could not be broken, nor were they the words of a coward looking for rescue or escape. Rather, they were words of forgiveness towards his tormentors, a plea to God to excuse their hateful ignorance. They were words of compassion and mercy towards men devoid of the very same qualities: Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” 

This sort of emotional sentiment characterizes many sermons expounding Luke 23:34a. Such exhortations press to capture one of the key elements of Christianity: divine forgiveness. There’s also a seemingly endless amount of Christian “forgiveness” literature basically arriving at the same conclusion: Jesus unconditionally forgave his enemies even as he was dying on the cross at their brutal hands. By extension therefore, no matter what has befallen you, forgiving your enemies is a basic Christian obligation.

But what if one of the paramount verses on Biblical forgiveness was not actually supposed to be in the Bible? This entry will examine the pedigree of Luke 23:34a: “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing." Why should this verse be in the Bible? Why shouldn’t it? What implications does this verse have on the theology of forgiveness and soteriology? 

II. English Bibles and the Appearance of Luke 23:34a

The average layman is typically unfamiliar with the controversy surrounding the textual issues of Luke 23:34a. Surveying a popular collection of English Bibles, twenty-seven do not mention any problems with its pedigree. Included in this list is the King James Bible.1 Thirty-two though provide a footnote, generally saying something in small-print like, “Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence” and nothing more.2 Some do go the extra step by pointing out, “This portion of Luke 23:34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution.”3 One exception is the New English Translation (NET). The NET goes to the extent of listing manuscripts missing the verse and then provides a brief commentary on some of the points of debate involved.4 Overall, it’s not difficult for the average person in the pew to miss this textual issue when reading the passage in a popular English Bible.5

This prayer of forgiveness only appears in one of the Gospels. The Synoptic narratives follow each other somewhat closely (Matt. 27:33-35; Mark 15:22-24; Luke 23:33-34). All three include going to the Place of the Skull, the crucifixion with the criminals, and the dividing of the clothes. Matthew and Mark mention the drink of myrrh, Luke does not. Only Luke records the prayer of Jesus from the cross. The typical layman is focused with harmonization here, not textual issues. It’s easy to see why the textual issue could be overlooked.

III. The Manuscript Evidence Against Inclusion of Luke 23:34a

With or without a footnote in an English Bible noting the textual anomalies, there’s general scholarly agreement that early important biblical manuscript evidence lacks support for Luke 23:34a. One writer points out,

The prayer is missing from arguably the two strongest Alexandrian witnesses, p75 and Codex Vaticanus, as well as from 579 and the Sahidic version. It is missing also from important Western witnesses—-most notably, the first hand of Codex Bezae and the Old Latin manuscripts a and d—and from the Caesarean manuscript Codex Koridethi. Finally, it is missing from Byzantine manuscripts stretching from Codex W in the late fourth century to 597 in the thirteenth century.6 

This impressive list basically implies a lack of early inclusion in the major text type categories of geographical diversity: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine.7 It also implies those textual streams that date back to the second century in different regions (“Egypt, Europe, Syria, and Byzantium” 8 ) do not contain Luke 23:34a. Whitlark and Parsons point out,

The evidence for the original absence of Luke 23.34a runs from the beginning of the third century to the thirteenth century… The fact that the absence of this logion is attested by the three major textual streams from the second century indicates that it appears extremely early in the textual tradition, and that it likely derives from a non-extant exemplar that preceded these textual streams.9 

James Snapp refers to this manuscript evidence as “three Alexandrian heavyweights and three Western heavyweights” noting,

In Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus, and the earliest stratum of the Sahidic version, the sentence is not there – which implies that these witnesses do not have it because the ancestral text upon which they were based did not have it. Similarly, Codex Bezae, the Sinaitic Syriac, and Old Latin Codex Vercellensis (from the late 300’s) appear to echo an earlier Western form of the verse that did not have this sentence.10 

The inclusion of Luke 23:34a into non-Western text types picks up after the fourth century. There are also odd occurrences of including the longer reading. For instance, in Codex Siniaticus (א) it appears as a noted correction (“indicating that it should be omitted from the text”).11 Codex Bezae (D^ea) appears to insert Luke 23:34a “into a manuscript (marginally).”12

In summary, for those looking to exclude Luke 23:34a from the biblical text: the verse appears to be limited to only one geographic area and only one text type, occurring, according to the extant manuscript evidence, in the late second or early third century. They see the verse as suspiciously appearing as if it entered the text sometime during the second-century in one specific geographic area only. Had there been manuscript evidence or early attestation from different regions, the verse would have a more stable pedigree and less debatable as genuine in the original Biblical text.

IV. The External Evidence For Including Luke 23:34a
Why isn’t this manuscript information at least forceful enough to place the verse outside of the Biblical text, perhaps delegating it entirely to a footnote (like the Johannine Comma or 1 John 5:7-8) or noted by a sold line of demarcation (Mark 16:9-20). Generally speaking, English translations downplay the variant.13 Why?

While the omissive evidence may seem strong, there is also support to include Luke 23:34a from as early as the late second century, including usage outside the Biblical manuscript evidence:

What complicates this evidence though is that it appears to stem from the Western tradition only. J.H. Petzer observes,

The material evidence in favor of the long reading is, as has been said, earlier than that of the short reading and reaches into the second century. All these witnesses, however, belong to the same text-type. The evidence is thus genealogically limited. The pattern is more or less the same in the third century, with the reading occurring in Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, the Latin manuscripts c and e, which represent the earlier African form of the Vetus Latina, as well as the Curetonian Syriac version. All of this evidence belongs to the Western text, with Origen the only exception.15

The notion of “Western text" plays strongly in this controversy, typically dictating what weight this evidence is given depending on who's examining it. While some like Whitlark and Parsons see the Western flavor of the evidence as determinative for choosing the shorter reading (that is, the longer reading is only Western, only limited to one text type, therefore an obvious later insertion), others like Nathan Eubank think the evidence put forth is too sparse to conclude that “a handful of church fathers” and one pre-fourth century manuscript (⁷⁵) is “hardly enough evidence to justify speaking of a variant being confined to a particular text type.” 16 Thomas Bolin says, “The criteria used to determine which texts are important for establishing the original text are unclear, since we do not possess any original texts from which to verify such judgments.” 17 Thus, the entire delineation of “Western text type” is not necessarily a settled discussion among scholarship.

V. Difficulties With Extra Biblical Evidence in Support of Luke 23:34a
Those wishing to retain the prayer lay heavy emphasis on extra-biblical and patristic sources. The logion is peppered throughout the writings of the early church. Wieland Willker’s Online Textual Commentary presents a lengthy and detailed list of its occurrences.18 James Snapp Jr. summarizes, “this passage was used by over a dozen patristic writers in the 100’s, 200’s, and 300’s” proving it to be “an extremely ancient reading” in which the writer using the verse “expected the passage to be found in his readers’ copies as well.” 19 Snapp sees this evidence as one of the strands the compels the authenticity of the verse, yet does not explain the Western flavor of the earliest references. If those citations of the verse are limited in geographical specificity, then wouldn’t the main argument against its inclusion still hold?

The “what is” or “what is not” “Western text type” spills into quibbling over the extra-biblical details, with no seeming solution. For instance, while Petzer passes by Origen’s use of the phrase simply as an odd exception, Whitlark and Parsons posit Origen’s writings display “many distinctly Western readings” therefore, congruent with their Western text type paradigm. 20 Eubank though counters they are merely making an assertion about Origen rather than proving it.21 Saying that Origen utilizes elements of Western text type is not the same as proving it (Origen mentions the phrase in Homily 2 on Leviticus).22 Eubank, looking at the Sinaticus manuscript, admits Western readings are present, but holds, “the absence of Western readings in Sinaiticus at the end of Luke… suggests that Sinaiticus retains its Alexandrian character here.”23 Whitlark and Parsons though would see the inclusion of Luke 23:34a as the required proof of Western textual influence that Eubank is asking for. Both sides looking at the same evidence claim victory with the same evidence!

To demonstrate the difficulties that arise with interpreting the patristic evidence, a fascinating second-century attestation of “Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do” comes via Eusebius (ca. 260 - 340) when recounting the (no longer extant) writings of Hegesippus (ca. 110 - 180) “who belonged to the first generation after the apostles.” 24 This ancient witness records the phrase, not from Jesus on the cross, but from the martyrdom of “James, who is called the brother of the Lord” as he was “Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven” just previous to being “struck on the head” with a garment club.25 Eusebius links this martyrdom to the cause of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Eubank includes Eusebius / Hegesippus as one of his examples of “powerful” patristic citations of Luke 23:34a. Was this a prayer of Jesus already part of the early Christian community and the New Testament and utilized by James,26 or was it a prayer from James then applied to Jesus?27 Eubank says "James is shown dying with a prayer widely attributed to Jesus on his lips," while only a few sentences earlier, he states, "if Eusebius accurately records Hegesippus's words, then this is one of the earliest attestations of the prayer." 28 How can one know the prayer was “widely attributed to Jesus" when Hegesippus " is one of the earliest attestations of the prayer"?

VI. Why Was Luke 23:34a Inserted or Deleted?
It’s easy to get lost, if not buried beyond intellectual escape, in the manuscript and patristic evidence. Both sides claim to have presented a compelling analysis of the same data to support either exclusion or inclusion of Jesus' prayer. The manuscript battle though is simply one aspect of a much larger war with multiple layers. Further complications arise in analyzing internal evidence.

Thomas Bolin (an advocate for inclusion) helpfully parses this aspect of the controversy into variant and stylistic. In his surveying of the extant manuscripts, he found no examples of basic scribal errors in regard to variants. There does not appear to be any of the common scribal mistakes in the manuscript evidence that would have produced or omitted Luke 23:34a.29 If the prayer was not original to Luke, was it a deliberate insertion into an already existing manuscript?30 If so, why? Why the stylistic insertion? If Luke 23:34a was original to Luke’s Gospel, why would it be excised? Why the stylistic deletion?

If the Western text-type theory holds, those following this paradigm see “a tendency to include additional traditional material.”31 Bruce Metzger says the logion “bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained, within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel.”32 Alan Kurschner surmises that an early “gospel harmony or some form of collective sayings… were harmonized” with the prayer being fed into Luke’s account.33 Kurschner and others appear to support their theory with Tatian's Diatessaron, a second-century harmony of the four Gospels (only extant though via Ephrem's Commentary of the Diatessaron by reconstruction), a writing which exhibits “familial relations with the Western text.” 34 Interestingly, in the reconstructed text of the Diatessaron, the prayer is misplaced, occurring immediately before the final saying of Jesus from the cross:

1 And after that, Jesus knew that all things were finished; and that the scripture 2 might be accomplished, he said, I thirst. And there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and in that hour one of them hasted, and took a sponge, and filled it with that 3 vinegar, and fastened it on a reed, and brought it near his mouth to give him a 4 drink. And when Jesus had taken that vinegar, he said, Everything is finished. 5 But the rest said, Let be, that we may see whether Elijah cometh to save him. 7 And Jesus said, My Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and said, My Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. He said that, and bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.35

If the insertion theorists are correct, the scribe who initially placed the prayer into Luke did so quite aptly. There are no peculiar or anomalous non-Lukan words or phrases in the logion. Thomas Bolin describes the characteristics of what such a scribe would be like:

[I]f the saying is a later addition (as the critical editions claim) then we have a very knowledgeable scribe who can deftly transform and transpose motifs from one text into another without any verbatim copying or use of vocabulary uncharacteristic of the author. 36

Adding yet another layer in answering the stylistic purpose of “why”, scholars have looked at the influence of Judaism as that which provided scribal motivation. David Flusser sees the insertion as Jewish Christians, or a Jewish scribe, formulating the prayer as a means of Jewish evangelism. In this theory, Hegesippus’s early account of the death of James influenced its eventual insertion into Luke.37 A scribe at some point eventually added the phrase to Luke, not necessarily as a knowing deception, but perhaps as a saying of Jesus (agrapha) meant specifically to evangelize Jews. Epp, Petzer, Whitlark, and Parsons though point out that the Western text-type has anti-Judaic tendencies, so why, in this one instance, is the text favorable to the Jews?38 It’s also an assumption that the prayer of Jesus was specifically directed at the Jews and understood by the early church to be directed at the Jews, rather than the Roman soldiers.

There are others though that see the deletion of the prayer as proof of anti-Judaism: a common theme in the early church was that the Jews killed Jesus. Having Jesus forgive the Jews from the cross may have been against the strong basic anti-Judaic prejudices of the scribe working with the Lukan text. Kurschner mentions though that such a long excision would be out of the ordinary:

There are examples in which over-pious scribes in the copying process would omit a single word with theological, pious, or “harshness” effects. But also, more common would be the phenomenon of scribes to alter or replace the “difficult” word; or at least to mollify its affects by adding words or omitting some form of syntax, etc. Further, in our case, we are not speaking of only a single-word variant, but an entire clause. Surely then, we should see at least one example of a witness altering Jesus’ prayer for theological reasons. But this is not the case; the witnesses either omit the prayer all together, or it is all intact.39  

VII. Six or Seven Last Words of Jesus?
One of the more unique explanations as to why the longer reading was inserted into the Lukan text is based on biblical numerology. The originators, Whitlark and Parsons, refer to a “seminal article” by Francois Bovon on the “significance of names and numbers” in the early church.40 They build on his basic theory that “the early Christians used the categories of ‘name’ and ‘number’ as theological tools” by applying it to the traditional Seven Last Words of Jesus.41 The “Seven Last words” or “seven sayings” are the utterances Jesus spoke from the cross. As their theory goes: since “Father, forgive them…” was not in the original text of Luke, the early church faced a dilemma when the four gospels were originally synthesized into one harmony. It became apparent that there were only six utterances Jesus made from the cross, and as Bovon’s hypothesis goes for the early church, “unity is the mark of perfection and the remaining numbers are the mark of deficiency,”42 provoking them away from the imperfect six to adding the logion to achieve the perfect biblical seven. A further balance was achieved by adding this saying to Luke’s crucifixtion account:

But why Luke’s crucifixion narrative? First, unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke already had two sayings of Jesus from the cross. By adding a third to Luke, canonical balanced is achieved: three sayings in Luke, three in John, one in Matthew and Mark. 43

 While a unique argument and certainly a scenario within the realm of possibility, a basic criticism is that the theory suffers from being cut by Occam’s Razor: it uses many textual variables connected together to arrive at a specific conclusion. One critic sums it up,

Basically to accept this argument you have to be able to envisage a scribe in the mid-to-late second century, familiar with a four-gospel collection, interested in counting the sayings of Jesus, finding something problematic in the resultant numbr [sic] six, having access to a “floating” saying (perhaps through the Diatessaron) and adding this in order to make up the number to seven, not after the other six but at this point in Luke. I find most of these steps fairly problematic myself. They certainly haven’t shown any evidence that a scribe is likely to count sayings like this.44

VIII. Does Luke 23:34a Fit Theologically?
There is though yet another way to analyze the controversy surrounding this verse, that of underlying theological presuppositions. James Snapp, who argues for including Luke 23:34a, says of this verse,

It may seem overly cerebral to offer a technical analysis of these words which convey such a power message about the love of God – but future Bible-readers won’t see that message if it is taken out of their New Testaments, which is what some evangelical apologists would like to do, claiming that Luke did not write it.45 

Snapp reveals an important theological presupposition, that the verse presents “a power message about the love of God.” In the book, Ancient Forgiveness: Classical, Judaic, and Christian, one author (unsure if Luke 23:34a is original or not) parses both sides, first explaining how the verse “fits well with other themes raised by the evangelist” and “it displays a particular interest in the bounty of divine forgiveness and emphasizes the innocent suffering of both Jesus and his followers, in part by focusing on the generosity they display towards their enemies.”46 She notes Peter and Paul claim those who crucified Jesus “were ignorant of the full implications of their actions” (Acts 3:12- 26; 13:27-28).47 The prayer is also similar to that stated by Stephen in Acts 7:60 (although Stephen does not mention Jewish ignorance). “Jesus appeal for divine forgiveness on behalf of those witnessing his death is therefore consistent with the larger theological paradigm of Luke-Acts.”48 For those who argue for the integrity of the verse, I suspect that in many cases similar theological presuppositions about the universal forgiveness of God are at work.

Is Luke 23:34a really consistent with Luke’s Gospel? First, there’s a contextual difficulty with harmonizing it with Luke 23:28-31. Those verses record a harsh prophetical judgment against Israel. Jesus speaks of the upcoming fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., a seeming response and result of his impending death (this judgment section only recorded by Luke). Why then in 23:34a would Jesus be praying for their forgiveness, a forgiveness which did not occur?49 It appears to be blatant contradiction.

Second, there is a trinitarian issue raised by this prayer of Jesus. He prays, “Father, forgive them.” He does not pray, “Father, if it’s your will, forgive them,” or “Father, would you forgive them if possible.” If the Son makes a direct statement to the Father, their unity in purpose necessarily come to pass. Therefore, if Jesus prays, “Father, forgive them,” then they are, forgiven. Yet people throughout history have died in their sins, apart from God. Granted, the scriptures do not necessarily say whom Jesus was praying for. Was it the Jews or the Roman soldiers? Nor does the Bible indicate that the Roman soldiers or Jews at the crucifixtion did, or did not, die in their sins, or, went away forgiven or unforgiven. It’s presumptuous though to use Luke 23:34a as indicative of universal forgiveness by extension in books or sermons, when in fact people die in their sins every day, unforgiven.

Third, there is the problem of how Luke 23:34a infuses Christian forgiveness-genre books and literature. The basic concept that Jesus unconditionally forgave his enemies from the cross, therefore, must mean that Christians should unconditionally forgive all wrongs doesn’t appear to follow from Luke-Acts. The theme of repentance leading to forgiveness is a basic theme throughout Luke’s writings. In his sermon in Acts 3, Peter says that the Jewish leaders acted in ignorance, but were still exhorted to “Repent.. and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out.” The Christian paradigm is that one should have the attitude and willingness to forgive their enemies, to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them (Matt. 5:43-48).

IX. Conclusion
The issues surrounding Luke 23:34a reach a level of complexity tempting one to embrace the contradiction of knowing that one cannot know. Both sides have credible and early manuscript evidence. Granting the validity of the Western text-type paradigm will typically lead to the conclusion that the logion was incorrectly added to Luke. Questioning the Western text-type paradigm along with greater emphasis on the extant patristic and extra-biblical evidence typically leads to accepting the logion as original.

Accepting that the phrase was deleted in the manuscript evidence lends support to the blatant anti-Judaism that scars church history. Accepting that the phrase was inserted into the text captures the essence of how the early church was prejudiced by their own theological numerology and symbolism, or as Bovon would say, their “conceptualizations” were “very different from our nominalist-based thinking.”50 With the complex nature of the debate over Luke 23:34a, it makes sense that current English Bibles don’t quite know what to do.

Wile only being a novice at understanding the depths and intricate nuances of the textual criticism surrounding Luke 23:34a, It’s at least certain that crucial ancient manuscripts are without the verse. This should at least provoke suspicion as to its pure pedigree, on whatever side one falls. Perhaps definitive motivations for it’s insertion or deletion will never satisfactorily surface. The various theories of motivation all seem to amount to special pleading. Nor do they account for the possibility that two seemingly opposed motivations could be true at the same time: that in certain manuscripts a phrase was added to have the perfect last words of Jesus be seven, and that in another instance there could be a removal because the passage offered forgiveness to the Jews.

The theological implications suggest that if the verse is original to Luke, then it’s at least a call to embrace the interpretive lens of paradox when things don’t quite add up theologically: Jesus speaks of universal forgiveness from the cross, yet a portion of humanity dies in their sins. What exactly does divine forgiveness mean if forgiven people end up separated from God suffering in eternal punishment? It can’t mean forgiveness necessarily leads to eternal salvation.

If the verse is not original, it’s demonstrative why certain Christian theologies have been so inconsistent in their doctrine of soteriology in regard to divine forgiveness; why they struggle to parse out the seeming universal forgiveness of Luke 23:34a and its relation to repentance and the atonement. It’s here where those in the Reformed community would do well to invest their time and energy into textual criticism, as not simply a sola scriptura issue, but as a sola gratia issue as well.

Notes
1 The collection I tallied is found at Biblegatway.com.  James Snapp Jr. has done a smaller survey, Luke 23:34a- Answering the Apologists (Part 1). Snapp appears to do so to highlight the confusion in differing English versions as well as disparaging those that cast doubt on including the verse.

2 Kenneth L. Barker (ed.), NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985) 1856.

3 John MacArthur (ed.), The MacArthur Study Bible, New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006 ) 1531.

4 NET Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019) 1985.

5 Thomas Bolin though notes that critical editions of the New Testament make the variant obvious by using brackets because they are “biased towards external evidence.” Thomas M. Bolin, ‘A Reassessment of the Textual Problem of Luke 23.34a’, Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwestern Biblical Society 12 (1992) 131.

6 Nathan Eubank, “A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a”, Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010) 522.

7 Peter M. Head, Whitlark and Parsons on Luke 23:24a, Available here.

8 Jason A. Whitlark and Mikeal C. Parsons, “The ‘Seven’ Last Words: A Numerical Motivation for the Insertion of Luke 23:34a,” New Testament Studies 52 (2006), 189.

9 Ibid.

10 Snapp.

11 Whitlark and Parsons, 190. Snapp points out, “…[T]he sentence, after being written by the main copyist, was marked alongside the text with parentheses around each line, after which someone else erased (without complete success the parentheses-marks.” Snapp.

12 Alan E. Kurschner, “From the Lips of Jesus or a Scribal Hand? ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’”

13 Only a small handful of the fifty-nine English bibles surveyed place the disputed text in brackets within the text (HCSB, LEB, NET, NABRE, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE). Nathan Eubank points out that the critical texts which are utilized in these English translations, NA27 and UBS4, use a double bracket "indicating that the logion is known not to be a part of the original text." Eubank, 521.

14 Whitlark and Parsons, 189-190.

15 J. H. Petzer, ‘Eclecticism and the Text of the New Testament’, in Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament, (New York: Brill, 1991) 55–56.

16 Eubank, 522.

17 Bolin, 134.

18 Wieland Wilker, A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, Vol. 3 (Bremen: Online Published Edition, 2015) 588-595.

19 Snapp.

20 Whitlark and Parsons, 190.

21 Eubank, 523.

22 Gary Wayne Barkley (trns.), Origen Homilies on Leviticus (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990) 40.

23 Eubank, 523.

24 G.A. Williamson (Trns.) Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1975) 99.

25 Ibid.

26 Philip Schaff comments that these words attributed to the martyrdom of James were his "last prayer" that "was an echo of that of his brother and Lord on the cross." Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910) 268. Jennifer Wright Knust states, “Perhaps a prayer already known as Jesus; own was applied to the martyrdom of his brother as well, lending further significance to James's death by means of repetition and comparison." Jennifer Wright Knust, “Jesus’ Conditional Forgiveness” found in, Charles L. Griswold, David Konstan (eds.), Ancient Forgiveness, classical, Judaic, and Christian (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 182.

27 Ibid. Wright Knust states, “Perhaps, then, a statement once associated with Jesus’ brother was later applied to Jesus himself, and added to the Gospel at an appropriate location.”

28 Eubank, 533-534.

29 Bolin, 135.

30 Ibid., 135-136.

31 Whitlark and Parsons, 193. They state, “Also such Western text representatives as D are marked by skillful theological transformation of the text.”

32 Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1998 ) 154. James Snapp strongly disagrees with Metzger and says there’s no physical evidence for his statement and that the logion demands a “narrative context.” James Snapp Jr., “Luke23:34a- Answering the Apologists (Part 2).”

33 Kurschner.

34 Whitlark and Parsons, 196.

35 Tatian, Diatessaron, available here.

36 Bolin, 137. Whitlark and Parsons say in response, “This is exactly the point when dealing with the text of the Western type.” (p. 193), and also, “[S]uch Western text representatives as D are marked by skillful theological transformation of the text.”(ibid.).

37 Whitlark and Parsons, 193-194.

38 Ibid.

39 Kurschner.

40 Whitlark and Parsons, 197.

41 François Bovon, ‘Names and Numbers in Early Christianity’, New Testament Studies 47 (2001), 267.

 42 Bovon, 285.

43 Whitlark and Parsons, 204.

44 Head.

45 Snapp, Luke 23:34a - Answering the Apologists (Part 1) 

46 Wright Knust, 182.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid., 183.

49 Whitlark and Parsons. 193.

50 Bovon, 267.

Luther's Theology of Mary... Facebook Style

 This meme was posted in a Facebook Group:

Typically, here would be an opportunity to launch into excessive amounts of text and documentation. Since most of us now have the reading concentration of a squirrel, here is the modern-day response (probably still too long): 

The first quote is supposed to prove Luther's acceptance of Mary's immaculate conception. The tedious details of why it doesn't prove it are found here. The quote appears to be an insertion into Luther's sermon by the editor who first published it in 1527. The quote was taken out of the sermon the following year by Luther.

The second quote was written before Luther's position on Mary's sinlessness changed. Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther's later writings insist Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during his conception, not Mary's.

Finally, the meme goes on to say, "Despite his schism from the Catholic church, Luther maintained a passionate devotion to the Mother of God his whole life." What exactly does "passionate devotion" mean? Luther saying nice things about Mary is not the same thing as Roman Catholic Marian devotion, both then and now.  

Augustine's "On The Unity of the Church" reposted

Granted, I have not had time to post here much in recent years, but here is a repost of an article, because I noticed the link has changed over at William Webster's excellent web-site.

Augustine's "On the Unity of the Church" 

https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/deunitateintroduction/

I am reposting this because the link changed.  Everyone in recent years is updating their web-sites, and with those new codes, etc. comes new links.

Here is my older article with the old links.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/12/augustines-unity-of-church-finally.html

At William Webster's web-site, I discovered the full text of Augustine's "On The Unity of the Church" vs. the Donatists.   For the first time in history, the full text has been translated into English. (Amazing that it took so long !! Centuries!) I look forward to reading this, studying it, and possibly writing blog articles on this in the future.


New Link:

Some choice selections from Webster's Introduction:

Augustine

Introduction:  “The question has been proposed: Is the Church of Christ among the Catholics or among the Donatists? This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture. First, evidence is brought forth from the Old Testament and then from the New Testament.”  (Augustine, Introduction, On the Unity of the Church. My emphasis)

. . . 

"But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case" (Chapter 5). (My emphasis)

Webster says that Augustine basically says, 

“Since both parties adhere to the truth of Scripture and believe them to be the word of God, it is scripture which should be the final arbiter.”

Augustine writes, “just as this doesn't need an interpreter” several times in his appeal to the Donatists.  Augustine believed that theses Scriptures were clear and perspicuous, and did not need an infallible interpreter to settle the dispute.  

In one of his sermons Augustine gives this exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16:

"Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.    Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer"

(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

This treatise is of great interest historically because of what Augustine does not say constitutes unity. These words by Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the 19th century, who taught church history for 47 years, are very telling:

St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable...that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he says not a word (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).

Augustine says, 'Whoever dissents from Holy Scripture concerning the head is not in the Church' (Paragraph 7). (my emphasis)

He repeats this passage:

But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case (Augustine, On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 5).

"I do not wish the holy Church to be founded on human evidence, but on divine oracles" (Augustine, ibid., Chapter 6). (My emphasis)

"All such things then removed, let them demonstrate their Church, if they can, not in the speeches and murmurs of African, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the epistles of whatever debates, not in false signs and prodigies, since we are prepared and cautioned against them by the word of the Lord, but in the precept of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the psalms, in the utterances of the one shepherd himself, in the preaching of the evangelists, that is in all the canonical authority of the holy books, and not such that they might gather and cite things that are spoken obscurely or ambiguously or metaphorically which anyone might interpret according to his own opinion as he wishes. Such things cannot be properly understood and explained unless first those things that are said most openly are held with a strong faith (Chapter 47).