Assumptions About The Assumption #3

Why Did Pope Gelasius Condemn Apocryphal Stories About Mary's assumption?

Condemned apocryphal material is the earliest historical substantiation for Mary's bodily assumption. the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ dates from the end of the fifth century. Giovanni Miegge gives an excellent summation of the story contained in this material, which i've quoted in detail:

“After the death of Jesus, Mary stayed for twenty-two years in the home of John's relatives, which was close to the Mount of Olives. One day as she was praying to be reunited with her Son, an angel appeared to her who gave her a palm from God's paradise, telling her to carry it to her bier because in three days she would be dead. Mary asked to be attended by the twelve apostles in that supreme moment. The angel vanished, Mary dressed herself in her festal clothes, took the palm and went to the Mount of Olives. There she addressed a prayer to Jesus asking to be saved from the assaults of the infernal powers during her passage. Then she returned home.

In that same instant the apostle John, who had been caught up by a cloud at Ephesus as he was praying, appears on the threshold. Then all the other apostles similarly caught up and carried find themselves at Mary's door to the amazement of all. Paul also is there and Peter invites him to offer a prayer to God in the name of all that He will make His will known. But Paul demurs, declaring the primacy of Peter. (The writing of Pseudo-Melito is Latin.) The apostles are pleased with the humility of Paul. Peter prays and as he says "Amen" the apostle John comes out of the house where Mary has told her vision. All go in. Mary tells the apostles that the Lord has sent them to comfort her in the anguish of the last passage and asks them to watch.

The three days pass in devout converse and prayers. At the third hour of the day all those present in the house fall into a deep sleep except the apostles and the three virgins who are attending Mary. Jesus appears with a multitude of angels and asks Mary to come with Him into the rest of eternal life. Mary repeats her desire not to see the infernal spirits and Jesus tells her that He has had to bear their assault on the cross and that she too will see them, for such is the condition of humanity, but the demons can do nothing to her and she will be defended by the hosts of heaven. Then the Holy Virgin lies down upon her bed and renders up her spirit while the apostles see a dazzling light. Jesus entrusts her soul to the archangel Michael, prefect of paradise and head of the Hebrew nation, and orders the apostles to bury her body. While the heavenly train mounts to the supernal regions the virgins prepare Mary for the funeral.

She has turned white as a lily and from her comes a perfume of incomparable sweetness. Then the funeral cortege starts on its way, preceded by John who carries the heavenly palm in his hand. The coffin is carried by Peter and Paul, the former at the head, the latter at the foot. All sing, In exitu Israel de Egypto, alleluia! A crown of light appears on the coffin and the angels sing with surpassing sweetness.

At the sound of the heavenly music a multitude of fifteen thousand people comes together, for the Jews have sworn to burn Mary's body. One of them, the chief priest, filled with fury, flings himself upon the coffin to overturn it. But the hands and forearm of the evil man become shriveled and he remains fastened to the bier. The cortege goes on while the Jew leaps up and down howling with pain. The other Jews cannot come to his help because they are blinded by the angels. Finally Peter tells the Jew that if he will confess Jesus Christ he will be healed. He not only confesses but eloquently praises Jesus Christ, with quotations from the books of Moses. Then, recovered, he receives from Peter the heavenly palm carried by John and is told to go back into the city and preach to those who have been made blind. Those who will confess Christ will be healed and the others will stay blind. And so it comes to pass.

Meanwhile the apostles, having come into the valley of Jehoshaphat to the place the Lord showed them, place Mary in a new tomb and seat themselves at its entrance. And then, unexpectedly, the Lord Jesus comes down from heaven with an innumerable company of shining angels. He greets the apostles, "Peace be with you." They answer, "Let thy mercybe upon us, 0 Lord, as our hope is in thee." Then Jesus, reminding them that according to His promise they will sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel, asks them to decide what Mary's future is to be. Peter answers for all, "Lord, thou hast chosen her, thy servant, that thy dwelling should be immaculate. As for us, thy poor servants, thou hast taken us into thy service. From all eternity Thou knowest all things, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom Thou art one divinity only, a power equal and infinite. Here, then, is what has seemed right to us Thy servants: as Thou dost reign in glory after having conquered death, so let the body of Thy Mother be given life again and be brought with Thee into celestial joy." Jesus said, "Let it be according to thy word." He orders Michael to take the soul of Mary. The archangel Gabriel opens the sepulchre, Mary emerges from the tomb and embraces Jesus, who gives her into the care of the angels who carry her into paradise. Then Jesus embraces the apostles and disappears caught up by a cloud. Other clouds carry the apostles away to their fields of work.”

Source: Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 86-88.

Stories like these about Mary’s death and Assumption were specifically condemned by Pope Gelasius. What’s ironic, is that Roman Catholics argue for the validity of the Assumption in these condemned stories (in a roundabout way). For example, note the response of Robert Sungenis to this material presented by James White:

James White: “Roman historians admit that the first historical reference to the concept [of Mary’s Assumption] is not found in orthodox Christian writings, but in the writings of heretics, specifically, in the Transitus literature of the late fifth century. This literature was condemned as heretical by the bishop of Rome, Gelasius, in A.D. 495.”

Robert Sungenis: Dr. White also tries to cast doubt on the viability of Mary's Assumption by referring to the Transitus Mariae (Passage of Mary) documents of Pseudo-Melito. Granted, in the Decretum Gelasianum, Gelasius rejected these documents, since some of them contained fanciful stories similar to other apocryphal literature. But that is not the issue at stake here. The issue is that these documents show a undying concern with the Assumption of Mary in the early church, since the Transitus Mariae documents have been dated as early as the second or third century. The interesting fact that Dr. White does not reveal about the Transitus Mariae is that much of it claimed that Mary had actually died and was not assumed into heaven. Perhaps this was why it was rejected by Gelasius, either because it denied the Assumption, or because its contents contained conflicting accounts of what occurred."

Source: Answering James White on the Bodily Assumption of Our Lady

I don’t know exactly what Sungenis means when he claims much of the Transitus Mariae claims Mary actually died and was not assumed into Heaven. The stories I have read all contain some version, though differing in details on Mary’s death and Assumption. Sungenis speculates it may have been the “conflicting accounts”. But yet, Gelasius never says this. Here we find Catholic private interpretation telling us what the condemnation means.

Along these lines is an interpretation offered to me by a Catholic layman:

“Pope Gelasius rightly condemned this writing because it was obviously fictional, NOT because it contained an account of Mary's assumption, which it does. After all, other apocryphal writings condemned by early popes contain accounts of the resurrection and ascension of Christ. Does that mean the popes rejected the idea of the resurrection and ascension of Christ? No. It just means that errors and fabrications are usually mixed with truth in apocryphal writings.”

This response differs from that given by Sungenis, though one thing is consistent- it is again the private interpretation of a Roman Catholic layman. First, its essential to see exactly what was said in the condemnation by Gelasius. Here is the relevant section:

“The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognized by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by Catholics:

-snip-….

the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary

-snip-…

These and those similar ones, which Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his obscene followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Jovianus, Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one disgraced Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.”

Now, let's apply the Roman Catholic reasoning offered above. I don’t find anything in the above where Gelasius says,

“I reject the book about Mary’s assumption because it’s obviously fictional.”

“Mary’s bodily assumption is true, but the book is rejected for other reasons.”

“The book about Mary’s assumption contains some true statements, these we accept, and the false statements we reject.”

In order to grant the validity of the reasoning, one has to have some knowledge as to what content provoked the pope to condemn Transitus Mariae. So far, the reasoning given is speculation in the guise of absolute knowledge. Do they have any evidence to back up their arguments? Do they have some other writing from Pope Gelasius in which he explains in greater detail why he rejected particular books?

Let me counter speculate: The statement from the decree says, the “...Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive” the book Transitus Mariae. It also says that he who wrote it “we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.” Now, this decree isn’t fooling around. Whatever was taught in the book “The Assumption of Mary” must have really ticked off Gelasius.

Since there is no counter-evidence to suggest that the early church taught and believed in Mary’s assumption, it is probably more likely that the Pope was calling the Assumption a heresy by his above condemnation. I think the evidence points to the notion that Mary’s Assumption was being condemned by Gelasius, simply because the church had never believed in Mary’s Assumption. The earliest church fathers say “no one knows what happened to Mary.” This is much different from “We know Mary was Assumed”- which they did not say.

Defections

Even I get caught up in stories of defections.

Over on a Lutheran discussion board, a guy announced he was "defecting back to Calvinism". You can read it here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2980057-i-am-defecting.html

These are always interesting to read. I could probably post a Lutheran response:

"You mean, you're going to embrace a false view of the Eucharist?" "You're going to embrace the heresy of limited atonement?"

These seem to be the issues that Lutherans dwell on. In the first, Calvinists and Lutherans should at least agree to disagree. In the second, Lutherans should at least read up on the Reformed perspective on limited atonment before speaking about it negatively. In other words, go out and get a few books from actual Reformed authors. Read their points and be prepared to know what you're talking about.

Assumptions About The Assumption #2

“If the Assumption is not true, then where is Mary’s tomb?” This question was offered to me once in support of the Assumption. This is a dangerous way to argue for the truth one's beliefs. The corrupt/bogus practice of gathering alleged relics exploded during the 16th Century. Such things like pieces of the cross and drops of the Virgin Mary's milk became objects of great idolatry. Calvin said once,

"St. Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin has a whole body at Apt in Provence, and another at Notre Dame-de-lille in Julich, and a third in a tower named after her in Thuringia. I shall not speak of her other relics shown in more than a hundred different places."

Perhaps St. Anne was given the gift of ubiquity! But what of the question, "Then where is Mary's historical tomb?"- This method of determining truth says in effect, that if a relic or tomb has been historically said to exist, it therefore verifies the truth about the Assumption, one way or another. Since no historical reference to Mary's tomb has surfaced, Mary was bodily assumed. But I have found a reference to Mary's tomb. In his book The Virgin Mary, the historian Giovanni Meigge wrote,

"She [Mary] departed life humbly and modestly as she had lived it, and none remembered the place of her burial, even if a tradition toward the mid-fifth century gave her a sepulcher near Jerusalem in the Garden of Gethsemane."

Source: Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 85.

Miegge’s book details the growth of the “cult of Mary” and its impact on such things like the Assumption. I find it curious that a “tradition” gave Mary a sepulcher!Now, I would posit it probably wasn't really Mary's tomb- but who knows? Tradition is saying it- and "Tradition" says a lot of curious things- some silly, some contradictory, and some which may be the truth, or have a kernal of truth- but verifying its claims is not the easiest task.

It seems to me that early church history didn’t know what to do about the death of Mary. For instance, the words of Epiphanius contradict the idea of a long held belief in the Assumption. Epiphanius notes another "tradition" that no one knows what happened to Mary. His is the earliest non-heretical voice that comments on the subject of Mary's bodily assumption, around 377:

“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent (on the end of Mary) ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’" (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

William Webster has rightly pointed out:

“For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.”

“In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject.”

The Humor of Amazon.com

Ok- Amazon.com spams my e-mail. Of course, they know i'm a sucker for books. This one though I found funny:

Dear Amazon.com Customer,
We've noticed that customers who have purchased Calvin: A Biography by Bernard Cottret also purchased books by Donald K. McKim. For this reason, you might like to know that Donald K. McKim's Calvin and the Bible is now available . You can order your copy by following the link below.

Calvin and the BibleDonald K. McKim (Editor)
Price:
$75.00


Yeah- I just happen to have 75 bucks sitting around! Please! I have never paid 75 bucks for a book. To top it off, I'm Dutch.

Assumptions about the Assumption #1

I regard the Bible as "true" as a basic presupposition in my own thinking. It serves as the basis for all other aspects of my thinking. It even serves as the basis for “doing” history. Thus, I begin with the Bible as a beginning point, it is a core belief (we all have these). God has spoken. No authority exists above God to validate this, even history. History doesn't prove the Bible. The Bible proves history.

In the case of the Mary's Assumption, Catholics claim that it is a Christian truth. I don’t grant the validity of an extra-biblical infallible authority, all claims for religious truth must be weighed and tested by the only infallible authority: the very voice of God found in the Scriptures. The Assumption fails this test. Biblical proof of the Assumption simply doesn't exist.

Roman Catholics also appeal to the record of history to validate their claim for an infallible authoritative tradition that exists beside Scripture. The Assumption fails this test as well, as we will see momentarily.

Here is a test the Assumption doesn’t fail: "I believe in the assumption and the claims of the Roman Catholic Church because I want to. I begin with a core presupposition that Rome is infallible, and God’s living church. The testimony of either Scripture or history that contradicts the core presupposition in Rome’s infallibility is not to be considered as harmful to my core presupposition, because my faith rests in Rome, not in the Bible or history."

In my conversations with Roman Catholics, i've never had them admit the doctrine of Mary's Assumption can only be held on the basis that they "want to" believe this doctrine. Here's a typical Catholic defense about Mary's Assumption:

"Last night I heard the Bible Answer Man repeated an oft used Protestant canard concerning Pope Gelasius' document Decretum Gelasianum. This is usually used to somehow show how popes contradict one another.He made the claim that pope Gelasius explicitly condemned the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven in this document and makes it anathema. Of course this claim is false. No one can produce a single document in which the pope specifically condemns the belief that Mary was assumed into heaven.Gelasius did, however, condemn a group of apocryphal books in his decree, including one called Transitus Mariae, which contained fanciful stories of the 12 Apostles being transported to Jerusalem to meet Jesus at Mary's tomb - some of whom are magically resuscitated from death (prematurely resurrected?) for this purpose. The Twelve then urge Our Lord to take Mary into heaven with Him, and He concedes. So Pope Gelasius rightly condemned this writing because it was obviously fictional, NOT because it contained an account of Mary's assumption, which it does. After all, other apocryphal writings condemned by early popes contain accounts of the resurrection and ascension of Christ. Does that mean the popes rejected the idea of the resurrection and ascension of Christ? No. It just means that errors and fabrications are usually mixed with truth in apocryphal writings. Sorry Hank."

The problem, if I recall, is not so much Gelasius condemning Transitus Mariae, a book which included the notion of Mary's assumption. Rather, the problem is, the Transitus Mariae is the earliest source that speaks of Mary's bodily assumption.

You see the problem: a condemned apocryphal book is the earliest substantiation for Mary's bodily assumption. Now, red flags should definately be going up.

The assumption is a big historical problem for Roman Catholics. The first church father to teach it was Gregory of Tours in 590 AD. The Transitus Mariae dates from the end of the fith century. Catholic historian Ludwig Ott confirms this as the earliest source of Mary's assumption:

"The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours' "

Source: Ludwigg Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209-210.

Pope Gelasius condemned the authors of the Transitus Mariae, as well as the teachings it promoted as well as any who would follw those teachings. I would assume, Mary's bodily assumption is a teaching of the Transitus Mariae. In a future blog post- i'll look at the charge that only certain heretical teachings were condemned- and Mary's assumption was not one of them. This claim is more wishful thinking than it is a "fact" of history.

Now, the Roman Catholic Church claims the assumption is a historical fact, yet they can't provide historical verification that links it back to an unwritten teaching of the apostles. They can link it back to a condemned apocryphal gnostic book. If this isn't enough to make someone stop and consider what it means to put their faith in the Roman Catholic Church, nothing will.

This is what Roman Catholics are required to believe about Mary's assumption:


"...We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

source: decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII

Here's An excellent resource for the historical facts about Mary's bodily assumption:

http://www.christiantruth.com/assumption.html

Luther's Canon: A Response To Catholic Dude (Part Four)

“I have found James Swan’s work credible in the past, that doesn’t mean I agree with everything but I do take into consideration valid points.” - Catholic Dude

This will part four in my response to a Roman Catholic named “Catholic Dude” who reviewed my paper *Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture*. The first three responses were directed towards entries from the Catholic Answers boards:

First response: Luther's Canon: A Response To "Catholic Dude" (Part one),
Second Response: Luther's Canon: A Response to Catholic Dude (Part Two).
Third Response: Luther's Canon: A Response To Catholic Dude (part Three)

The material from the Catholic Answers boards was from May 2005. I was sent a private message from Catholic Dude who stated: “I went to your page yesterday and read that luther card page. I went through it and posted my response.” At the time, I read through the Dude’s material and did not respond for two reasons: time constraints, and the Dude’s criticisms appeared trivial. In retrospect, after now responding to his charges a year later, my reactions were justified. So, why did I bother to respond now?

I’ve recently become active again in another discussion forum, a forum that has a good number of laymen Catholic apologists. In April 2006, a person with the nickname “Catholic Dude” again reviewed my paper. Seems to me to be the same person. I figured it was time to put his criticisms to the test. Catholic Dude’s latest review of my paper on Luther’s Canon can be found here. Generally, the Dude presents a number of irrelevant criticisms, sometimes making me wonder if he’s disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreeing. I believe Catholic Dude has an underlying bias that skews his ability to understand this issue and dialog with the material cogently.

Catholic Dude’s words will be in Red. The words from my article will be in blue. My responses will be in black. The Dude went through my entire paper, commenting sections-which is how I’ll respond to his comments.


Chapter 2: Luther’s Concept of The Canon Of Scripture
After reading this section, the Dude comments: “According to the article [Luther] did include [all the New Testament books] but he put them in a sort of doubtful category. None the less I found this quote to be interesting: ‘[23] Luther treated Scripture with amazing freedom, with so much freedom indeed that one wonders why he did not disrupt the canon. Tradition at this point was presumably too strong for him.’ Ill be interested to find out what "Tradition" was so "strong" for him.”

The quote is from Roland Bainton. Bainton doesn’t explain “tradition” in either book The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century or Studies on the Reformation. However, it seems to me that Bainton simply means the corpus of the books contained in many of the Bibles at the time of the Reformation. Now, “tradition” was not an infallible guide for Luther- thus I think Bainton is simply pointing out Luther was not radical in his re-evaluation of the canon. Luther realized that, for the most part, the Bible of the sixteenth century comprised of canonical and non-canonical books.

Chapter 3: Luther’s Liberty With The Canon And Trends In Church History
“[Swan’s paper] tries to point out [Luther] took on a scholastic view when "regarding James as the writings of a second century Christian", yet it only cites Eusebius as a major source. It should have included multiple quotes from ECFs.”

My paper pointed out that historical questions were an aspect of Luther’s understanding of the canon, but never do I say these issues were the sole determining factor. I’m simply taking Luther’s words at face value- Luther notes the question of the apostolic nature of James as one of his reasons for doubting its canonicity. Luther was not alone in this- the great humanist Desiderius Erasmus and the Catholic Scholar Cardinal Cajetan did as well.

The editors of Luther’s Works include a footnote in Luther’s Preface To James noting that both Eusebius and Jerome raised or confirmed doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. Even the NIV Study Bible says similarly: “As Eusebius noted long ago, one interesting fact connected with the General Letters is that most of them were at one time among the disputed books of the NT. James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude were all questioned extensively before admitted to the canon of Scripture [NIV Study Bible, 1878].

As to quoting multiple early church fathers- Is truth determined by a majority opinion? Eusebius notes that he doubts the authenticity of James “since few of the ancients quote it.” Hence, it is the lack of citation that provoked Eusebius to question James- not the abundance of citation:

“The Epistle of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap. 25) among the antilegomena. The ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very few: It was used by no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the second century. Iren`us seems to have known the epistle (his works exhibit some apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly cites it. The Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito contains it, and Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences of it in his extant works, and according to Eusebius VI. 14, wrote commentaries upon "Jude and the other catholic epistles." It is quoted frequently by Origen, who first connects it with the "Brother of the Lord," but does not express himself with decision as to its authenticity. From his time on it was commonly accepted as the work of "James, the Lord's brother." Eusebius throws it among the antilegomena; not necessarily because he considered it unauthentic, but because the early testimonies for it are too few to raise it to the dignity of one of the homologoumena (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1).”
Source: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol. 1
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/footnote/fn14.htm

Also:

“Most writing from before 200 do not mention the Epistle of James. One significant text does quote James: The Shepherd of Hermas, written before 140 M66. The theologian and biblical scholar, Origen, quotes James extensively between 230 and 250. He mentions that James was Jesus' brother, but does not make it clear if the letter is scripture M138. Hippolytus and Tertullian, from early in the third century, do not mention or quote James. Cyprian of Carthage, in the middle of the third century, also makes no mention. The "Muratorian Canon," from around 200, lists and comments on New Testament books, but fails to mention James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. Yet by 340 Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Christian historian, acknowledges that James is both canonical and orthodox, and widely read. However, he categorizes it, along with the other catholic epistles, as "disputed texts" M203. Two Greek New Testaments from that time each include James, along with the other catholic epistles M207. In 367 Athanasius lists the 27 New Testament books we presently use as the definitive canon M212. But the battle for James was not won. Bishops in 428 and 466 rejected all the catholic epistles M215. Early bibles from Lebanon, Egypt, Armenia, India and China do not include James before the sixth century M219. A ninth century manuscript from Mount Sinai leaves out the catholic epistles and the Syriac Church, headquartered in Kerala, India, continues to use a lectionary without them still today M220.

Source: James and Canon: The Early Evidence


Chapter 4: Martin Luther Called The Book Of James “An Epistle Of Straw”

The Dude then takes a look at Luther’s most famous canon comment and says,

“then [Swan’s paper]goes onto the part of Luther calling James "an Epistle of Straw" and tries to point out some "context" in which Luther said it, yet despite the "conclusion" of the foot notes I don’t see any grounds for this: ‘Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw,  compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.’ On what grounds does he "compare" and conclude this? Then it turns the subject to the fact his commentaries dropped this "epistle of straw" talk later in the "Reformer’s career".”

The ground of course, is the Gospel. What did Luther mean, “epistle of straw”? The answer may be found in his Preface to Hebrews. Luther says the author of Hebrews wrote his book on the foundation of faith laid by the apostles. The author used “gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in I Corinthians 3[:12]”[LW 35:395]. Luther then says, “Therefore we should not be deterred if wood, straw, or hay are perhaps mixed with them...”[LW 35:395]. Luther says that James “has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” The gospel would then be gold, silver, and precious stones. Luther dropped the comment “epistle of straw” as well as many other statements from his prefaces. In some instances, he eliminated comments because his opinion had changed, in other instances his attitudes had softened. In the case of the “epistle of straw” comment, I can only speculate that perhaps his opinion softened.


Chapter 5: Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of James

Catholic Dude says:

“To top that off here is the very next section: "Luther appears to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James." And look what he said "toward the end of his life": We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg],  for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. ... Pretty amazing, does this sound like reasoning based on historical sources? "Some Jew wrote it...to urge works alone" I smell "not by Faith Alone" as the real test.”

The Dude needs to read carefully. I said Luther appeared to have lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. The emphasis is on “appeared”. At times, it appears Luther accepted James as an apostle and his book as canonical. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. It is curious that in the sermon, Luther refers to James as “the apostle,” and it is also interesting that he does discuss the gospel and the Resurrection.

Luther was also aware of the common protestant harmonization of Paul and James, and even at times offered it himself:“This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith.” (Sermons of Martin Luther 2:2:308)

In regard to the quote that the Dude used, keep in mind it’s a comment from Luther’s Tabletalk. I always caution the Catholic folks who dialog with me to be careful with Luther’s Tabletalk. It is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther’s students and friends. Thus, it is not in actuality an official writing of Luther and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology.

As to the Dude smelling “faith alone”- as the “real test” in determining canonicity for Luther, I have never denied that Luther used the Gospel in his determining of canon. What I have suggested is understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives: 1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian 2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology.

The Dude’s comment is most revealing, and this is what I think is going on: the Dude thinks Luther evaluated the canon solely on the basis of sola fide, and historical concerns were merely a “smoke screen” used to justify his approach. Such of course is nonsense- it assumes Luther is fundamentally dishonest, and secondly- if we apply the Dude’s understanding to Luther’s evaluation of Jude, one finds Luther’s comments directed towards historical and textual concerns. Where is Luther’s “faith alone” in his criticism of Jude? It isn’t there. Catholic Dude shows a dedication to a theological worldview that refuses to see the facts of history in their context.

The Dude continues by evaluating my comments on a Catholic who selectively cited Luther’s preface to James:

“[Swan’s paper] goes onto cite Catholic deception: … This Catholic author cites Luther as saying, “ I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible.” There is no period after the word “Bible.” The sentence in its fullness reads, “ I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; but I would not prevent anyone placing him or raising him where he likes, for the epistle contains many excellent passages.” Now the question is was this deception on the Catholic Apologist's part? No, he was singling out the key passage "I refuse James a place among the true canon" what does this say about his intentions?”

I did not use the word “deception.” This is the Dude using inflammatory words to provoke emotion. What I would point out in this instance is the particular Catholic webpage I cited selectively used Luther’s words to the exclusion of other of his statements- to the point where the webpage placed “periods” in Luther’s writings where there weren’t any. In other words, the webpage was not seeking to understand Luther’s view, but rather present a caricature of Luther’s view. Now, I do not believe the author of that web page had a malicious deceptive intention. What I do believe though is that his pre-commitment to Roman Catholicism makes him see only what he wants to see. And of course, this is the same charge I level against Catholic Dude: he shows a dedication to a theological worldview that refuses to see the facts of history in their context.

Catholic Dude then says:

“At this point I strongly suggest people read Part 5 of the article (especially paragraph 2). In this issue I don’t believe he makes a good case in regards to historical evidence, it also includes a biased agenda as paragraph 2 states. Paragraph 3 is simply a sad display of scholarship on Luther's part, its clearly an agenda oriented problem. Paragraph 4 is very unfounded. Paragraph 5 is very Damming in the realm of "scholarship"!”

Of course, I deny the charge that my case was not “good.” I’m not exactly sure what my “biased agenda” was in paragraph 2- as has been demonstrated, at times Luther embraced the harmonization of Paul and James as suggested by Protestants. I can only conclude that Luther did not fully embrace the paradigm because of his commitment to the notion that James was not written by an apostle, but came later. I deny that Luther’s scholarship is “sad” in paragraph 3. The Dude would have to prove this assertion- the “sad” part I find is that the Dude himself has “an agenda oriented problem” when reading Luther- The dude can’t help but treat Luther as dishonest, no matter what he says. My commentary on Paragraph 4 is not unfounded- the Dude simply needs to do some study on the book of James. In paragraph 5, I pointed out that Luther made an error in his exegesis. I doubt this error “damned” him.


Chapter 6: Luther Cited and Preached From The Book of James

“Part 6 of the article is inconclusive, given that Luther quoted even from the DC books when commenting on stuff.”

No, part 6 was not “inconclusive”. I proved exactly what Luther held about James. While he didn’t think it was canonical, like the duetero-canonical books it still had value. He quoted from it positively throughout his career and also preached on it. One can find the same thing with Luther’s treatments of Jude, Revelation, Hebrews, and some of the apocrypha as well.


Chapter 8: Martin Luther’s Opinion of the Book of Jude

“Part 8 (another non issue to me) is about what Luther thought of Jude, it has something good to point out, here is what Luther said: ‘This epistle is ascribed to the holy apostle St. Jude, the brother of the two apostles James the Less and Simon, the sons of the sister of the mother of Christ who is called Mary the wife of James or Cleophas, as we read in Mark 6:3’ For those protestants out there who talk about the "brothers of Christ" we see Luther understood what that meant: relatives, cousins, etc., not the typical evangelical incorrect view.”

What’s so striking about the Dude’s comment here is how completely irrelevant it is. The comment has nothing to do with Luther’s view of the Canon. If there was ever an example of a commitment to an underlying bias this is it. Luther’s views on Mary have nothing to do with the Canon.

The Dude says though this section is a “non issue”. That he calls it a “non issue” is a clear example of an underlying bias. The Dude has said that Luther’s Canon is the result of Luther’s devious “agenda” – and downplays my documentation of the historical concerns Luther had toward the canon. Here though in Luther’s evaluation of Jude, what does one find? One finds Luther raising historical and exegetical concerns about the authenticity of the book of Jude. The Dude makes the same type of statement about Section 9: Martin Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of Revelation. He says, “Part 9 a non issue for me, just interesting how Luther's views change from one moment to the next.” So much then for Catholic dude’s charge of Luther’s “agenda”. Luther’s comments on these books don’t fit Catholic Dude’s paradigm- so he ignores them. The same can also be said of the Dude’s comments about Luther’s opinion on Hebrews.

Conclusion: Removing The “Luther-Card”

“The concluding paragraph "Removing the Luther Card", the evidence is against the author of this article. There are clear statements by Luther to the effect the individual can decide if a book is canonical AND that personal religious views do go into deciding this. I see in this article a clear and deliberate confusing of the idea of historical grounds and personal religeous grounds.”

No, the “evidence” is not against my material. Catholic Dude needs to study a little Roman Catholic history at this point. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has honestly pointed out,

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

If the New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed “some doubt.” Theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.

There was no attempt to confuse Luther’s historical concerns and his theological concerns. As has been demonstrated in this response, a reading of Luther’s comments shows both. With some of the books, the scales tipped toward historical concerns. With others, the scale tipped toward theological concerns. Both though were factors. Any attempt to deny either is to distort Luther’s view.

The Catholic View of Justification (Previous to Trent)

In dialog with Roman Catholics on sola fide, I have sometimes argued from their point of view: that is, the doctrine of justification was not, at the time of Luther’s writing, dogmatically defined in the Roman Catholic sense. In other words, Luther had freedom to hold the view on justification that he did within a Roman Catholic framework.

I picked up a copy yesterday of Jaraslov Pelikan’s book, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation [New York: Harper and Row, 1964]. I found this quote on page 51-52 quite interesting:

“Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification.”

I share this for one reason: don't get sucked into those silly arguments that "sola fide" was a theological "novum" previous to the Reformation. Pelikan says elsewhere:

"All the more tragic, therefore, was the Roman reaction on the front which was most important to the reformers, the message and teaching of the church. This had to be reformed according to the word of God; unless it was, no moral improvement would be able to alter the basic problem. Rome’s reactions were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition."

Source: Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52.

Simply use the above quotes, and then say "What does the Bible say about justification?" History doesn't determine doctrine. Councils don't determine doctrine. Only the Bible determines doctrine.

The Canon Quiz and a Presuppositional Response

How well do you know the differences between the Roman Catholic view of the Canon of Scripture versus the Protestant view of the Canon of Scripture? Below are 12 statements which are usually either Protestant or Roman Catholic. Figure out which is which. I assume that some of the statements can be both, depending on how fast or loose one plays with terms and authority structures.

Hint: 6 statements are Protestant, 6 are Catholic.

Extra Credit: place the 6 Catholic statements to contrast the 6 Protestant statements.


1. Church Determines Canon

2. Church is Witness of Canon

3. Church is Magistrate of Canon

4. Church is Mother of Canon

5. Church Regulates Canon

6. Church is Minister of Canon

7. Church Discovers Canon

8. Church is Child of Canon

9. Church Recognizes Canon

10. Church is Judge of Canon

11. Church is Servant of Canon

12. Church is Master of Canon


These 12 assertions come from Norman Geilser's General Introduction to The Bible and his Encyclopedia of Apologetics. He contrasts the Roman Catholic "incorrect" view with the Protestant "correct" view:

The Incorrect View
The Church is Determiner of Canon
The church is Mother of Canon
The Church is Magistrate of Canon
The Church is Regulator of Canon
The Church is Judge of Canon
The Church is Master of Canon

The Correct View
The Church is Discoverer of Canon
The Church is Child of Canon
The Church is Minister of Canon
The Church is Recognizer of Canon
The Church is Witness of Canon
The Church is Servant of Canon

In response to this, I was asked the Following question:

"James, I have, close at hand, 5 different Bibles: A Scofield Bible (KJV, but with the Apocrypha omitted) -- Fundamentalist Protestant; NIV - Protestant; NAB -- Roman Catholic; REB, with Apocrypha -- Ecumenical; NRSV, with Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books -- Ecumenical; JPS TaNaKh - pan-Jewish.Only the Scofield and the NIV have the same contents, in the same order. How can I determine which of these Bibles contains the "Canon" of Scripturre, in the correct order, without additions or omissions?"

My answer:

Excellent question. Here are some choices:

1. The Canon cannot be determined.

2. The Canon is infallibly declared by the Church

3. The Canon is discovered by hard work and study

All three of these views require faith. At some point in the 'determining' suggested in each view, faith is the building block by which the view is allowed to grow.

In the first, faith is placed in the belief that one cannot 'know'. In other words, one begins with the faith claim that God has not spoken via Scripture, or even if he has, it cannot be known with certainty what the contents are.

In the second, faith is placed in the Church. One begins by placing their faith in the notion that God's Spirit infallibly determines the Canon through the Church, which is God's Magistrate. The question then raised at this point is: how does one determine if God is really infallibly speaking through the Church? In other words, the 'certainty' claim of knowing the contents of the Canon in this view is really an empty claim. It still requires a leap of faith in accepting the 'fact' that God is infallibly speaking through a particular 'church'- be it the RCC, the Mormons, or the Watchtower, etc.

In the third, faith is placed in God. Since faith in Christ is God's gift (God takes the spiritually dead and raises them to spiritual life)- it follows that His sheep will be able to hear His voice. One has therefore begun with the assertion that God has spoken, and his sheep will be able to hear his voice. Because of sin, many try to obscure the voice of God- so in this view, the Canon is discovered by careful study.

Obviously in third view, there is faith in use as well- but all claims to 'certainty' begin with presuppositions. If God has spoken, no institution or person stands above Him to determine whether or not He has really spoken. As the evidence of Science points to a creator, so the evidence of Scripture points to Christ. I study Canon issues because like a Scientist, I'm uncovering the voice of God.

Providence, Faith, and the Apologetic Task

The mystery of God’s providence is much talked about. Whether it be theological elucidation or heated debate, Christians crave insight as to how “The almighty, everywhere-present power of God…upholds heaven and earth with all creatures, and so governs them… not by chance, but by His fatherly hand.”[i] Biblical exposition is the crucial means by which we come to know this truth. We read how “The Lord works out everything for his own ends…” (Proverbs 16:4) and that “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails” (Proverbs 19:21). To grasp hold of God’s providence and enjoy its blessings requires faith. Mercifully, God gives us faith (Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 2:8-9). Now you, faith-filled Christian, have no more questions or doubts about God’s providence, right? You rest every night, knowing all the hairs on your head are numbered, and every thing that happens to you works for your good. You wake up each day, undaunted, trusting in God’s love and providence. God is in control, and whatever may happen to you is yet one more opportunity to glorify God.

If you are at all like me though, the instant physical, emotional, or financial worries enter your life, you display an immediate lack of faith. This lack of faith may eventually lead to either wondering two equally miserable possibilities. The first is whether or not you really are a Christian. The Scripture says “in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28). One reasons, “If I’m not really a Christian, then it makes sense why things have gone so wrong in my life! God is not on my side working for my good!” The second miserable possibility is questioning the reality of God’s providence. Perhaps God just “set the ball rolling” and watches from afar. One may even come to doubt if the God of the Bible exists at all. One reasons, “I’ve tried to believe in God, but it simply doesn’t work. Things just aren’t going right for me.”

I am comforted by the fact that we are not alone in our fears. The Bible is replete with examples of those considered the strongest displaying deep signs of weakness. While sitting in prison, the bold John the Baptist (who had actually met Jesus) struggled with his doubts about whether Christ had really come (Matthew 11:1-4). In despondency King David cried out, “Has God forgotten to be merciful?” (Psalm 77:9). Peter, standing before our Lord sunk into the waves while walking towards him. Jesus said to him, “You of little faith…why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:31). Indeed, when I picture Peter sinking into the waves, I see my own face, perhaps you see your own image as well. Has God’s gift of faith failed? How is it that Christians “sink into the waves”? What is the answer to our Lord’s question, “why did you doubt?”

We all should know the reason for our faithlessness. God’s gift of salvation indeed turns our hearts of stone to flesh, but yet deep remnants of sin still remain. The root and source of all sin is unbelief in the inmost heart.[ii] Every time we sin, we express our unbelief in God. Hence, a person who never sinned would have a perfect trust in God and his promises. John Calvin once said, “unbelief is so deeply rooted in our hearts, and we are so inclined to it, that not without hard struggle is each one able to persuade himself of what all confess with the mouth: namely, that God is faithful.”[iii] He said also, “While we teach that faith ought to be certain and assured, we cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety…we say that believers are in perpetual conflict with their own unbelief.”[iv]

But yet God’s providence looms over us. Hasn’t God ordained all that comes to pass? Why, in His providential care, would he allow us to continually express our faithlessness? Why didn’t He take all the remnants of sin out of our lives? I offer one brief speculative possibility. God is able to continuingly turn our blatant rebellion against Him into something good. Martin Luther once commented on his own lack of faith and the severe depressions it caused in him: “…without [the depressions], no man can understand Scripture, faith, the fear or the love of God. He does not know the meaning of hope who was never subject to temptations.”[v] What Luther is getting at is only in our faithless depressions do we realize our continuing need for Christ. It is only in our weakness do we reach out and grasp toward the promises of Scripture. The pain caused by our disbelief finds its remedy in the promises of God. In other words, our faithlessness provokes us all the more to focus on the savior while we “walk on the water.” It is the gift of faith at work inside us, directing us to a closer walk with the Lord. The Holy Spirit exposes us to our deep roots of disbelief with the goal of our further sanctification.

The apologetic task is to “always be prepared to give an answer too everyone who asks…”(1 Peter 3:15). When we face difficult times, it is often the case we do not want to fulfill this command. Why would anyone want to hear about the joys of the Christian faith when our lives at times seem to be plagued with hardship? How could we possibly offer someone hope, when perhaps our current situation seems hopeless, and our attitudes reflect fear and doubt? Yet, this is indeed what the Bible shows us. We see the lives of men and women in dire life-threatening situations, proclaiming the Gospel and defending the faith. Paul says, “…for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor.12:10). This is a profound aspect of God’s providence. The very experiences that “providentially” seem to bring us hardship and doubt, actually bring us power and strength to proclaim the Gospel.


[i] The Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 10, answer 27.
[ii] My comment was inspired by Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans (Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1976),xv.
[iii] Calvin’s Institutes, III.ii.15.
[iv] Calvin’s Institutes, III.ii.17.
[v] Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor Books, 1950),283.

Luther's Canon: A Response To Catholic Dude (part Three)

This will part three in my response to a Roman Catholic named “Catholic Dude” who reviewed my paper *Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture*. The first response can be found here: Luther's Canon: A Response To "Catholic Dude" (Part one), the second here:
Luther's Canon: A Response to Catholic Dude (Part Two).

The focus of this response will be directed toward this link from the Catholic Answers discussion boards: “Re: Protestants: Here is what Luther did to some NT books you use...” . Catholic Dude’s words will be in Red. The words from my article will be in blue. My responses will be in black.


1. Luther on the Book of Jude
Luther questioned the apostolic nature of the book of Jude. If one reads through his comments, it fairly obvious no “agenda” is at work. His concerns are of a historical nature, as they were in the case of James. Catholic Dude asks, “So the question is how are the comments to Jude [by Luther] similar to James, when [James Swan] claims [Luther's] dislike for Jude is due primarily to history and apostolicity?”

This question deserves only minor attention, since the answer should be obvious to anyone reading what I wrote, or what Luther wrote. The evidence available to Luther, both internally and externally led him to conclude the book was written by someone who was not an apostolic witness. The Dude then asks, “Why he put this book at the bottom of the pile is a mystery to me.” Well, it shouldn’t be. Luther said:

“Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures.  Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.”

“This epistle is ascribed to the holy apostle St. Jude, the brother of the two apostles James the Less and Simon, the sons of the sister of the mother of Christ who is called Mary the wife of James or Cleophas, as we read in Mark 6:3. But this letter does not seem to have been written by the real apostle, for in it Jude refers to himself as a much later disciple of the apostles. Nor does it contain anything special beyond pointing to the Second Epistle of Saint Peter, from which it has borrowed nearly all the words.  It is nothing more than an epistle directed against our clerics—bishops, priests, and monks.”


2. The Catholic determining of the Canon: It’s Scripture Because We Say So
In my paper, I cited the Lutheran writer Mark Bartling saying, “[Luther’s] reason for reopening the question of canonicity was not at all subjective, or arbitrary, and certainly not at all like the modern historical-critical method. Luther, in his study of the question of canonicity, appealed not to subjective considerations or negative higher criticism, but objectively to the judgments of the early church and the writings of the fathers. Luther did not want to make the error of accepting the canon of Scripture because the institutional Church had declared it as such.”

Commenting on this, the Dude says, “Here SolaS shows its ugly head. The agenda is more and more clear.”

Faced with an accurate historical perspective put forth by Bartling, the Dude simply dismisses it rather than interact with it. Luther’s was not an arbitrary or subjective opinion. He had reasons for arriving at the conclusions he did- and these reasons were the result of his theological study.

On the other hand, one needs to “turn the tables” so to speak on the Dude. The question one needs to ask the Dude at this point is, how exactly does he himself understand what determines canonicity? He seems to be leaning toward the notion that the Catholic Church simply “declares” canon- as if by magic. This position would indeed be subjective and arbitrary. By the Dude’s disdain for Luther’s approach- that is, Luther’s evaluation of historical data and internal evidence, I can only conclude this method does not meet his particular “Catholic” standards. The other option would appear to be that the Catholic Church simply waves a magic wand, regardless of facts and evidence and declares “canon”.


3. A Criticism From Left Field- Huh?
In his last criticism, the Dude is simply silly. He quoted this line from the conclusion of my paper, “As has been demonstrated, Luther’s treatment of the canon is not the claim of authoritarian dogma. When one looks at the totality of Luther’s New Testament canon criticism, it is quite minute: four books. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions.”

The Dude comments: “Well the Gospels are quite minute I guess. The idea that picking and choosing being left up to the individual has been fully exposed.” I admit, the first time I read this comment, I simply said, “Huh? What in the world is this guy saying?”

Well, there are four gospels, and all of us would agree that they are of great significance. Had Luther denied the canonicity of the four Gospels, he would have been denying a large chunk of the New Testament. The dude is arguing that denying any four large New Testament books is equally as bad as denying four shorter books. This is obviously ridiculous. With the books Luther questioned, three were very small (James, Jude, and Hebrews), Revelation was much larger. In my paper, I went on to say: “Of the four books, it is possible that Luther’s opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation).” So now we’re down to James and Jude, which comprise a total of 6 chapters of Biblical text.

Catholic Dude again shows a complete rejection of history and fact when he says, “The idea that picking and choosing being left up to the individual has been fully exposed.” As I have pointed out previously, Luther had every right to debate and discuss the canon. In essence, when Luther is placed in a historical Roman Catholic context, Roman Catholics don’t even have the right to criticize Luther’s theological opinions on the canon. The canon wasn’t dogmatically closed for Roman Catholics until the Council of Trent. Luther, Erasmus, and Cajetan all argued their views previous to this declaration. Thus, they were within their rights to discuss the canon.

4. Why did Luther Quote and Preach From the Book of James?
The Dude wonders how Luther can deny the canonicity of James, but then read Luther positively use James in his writing and sermons. He says, “And in regards to post #1 where Luther claims that James has nothing to do with the Gospel, yet in appendix B of the article the author cites a sermon which uses James and in the sermon Luther talks about "Why Men Reject the Gospel" and "Christ's Resurrection". So is James worthy of teaching the Gospel or Not?”

I thought I made this point clear. Luther said, “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.”

Luther found value in the book, and like the Old Testament apocrypha, it was useful and good to read. I pointed out: An interesting fact not usually mentioned is that even though Luther had doubts about James, these were not enough to deter him from preaching from the book. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, "Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle." It is apparent that Luther did find many good things in James worthy to be preached. Similarly, one can find Luther positively quoting from the book of James throughout his writings.

It is curious that in the sermon, Luther refers to James as “the apostle,” and it is also interesting that he does discuss the gospel and the Resurrection. It is possible that Luther was being inconsistent, and the sermon is a good example that Luther’s opinion of James wasn’t a dogmatic lifelong denial. Even in my paper I said, “Luther appears to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James.” I used the word “appeared” because some of the evidence (like the sermon I utilized), would make one wonder if his opinion of James was that secure throughout his Reformation career.

Luther's Canon: A Response to Catholic Dude (Part Two)

This will be part two in my response to a Roman Catholic named “Catholic Dude” who reviewed my paper *Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture*. The first response can be found here: Luther's Canon: A Response To "Catholic Dude" (Part one). The focus of this response will be directed toward this link from the Catholic Answers discussion boards: "Re: Protestants: Here is what Luther did to some NT books you use... ." Catholic Dude’s words will be in Red. The words from my article will be in blue. My responses will be in black.


1. Am I trying to “throw people off the trail?”
Catholic Dude says that by noting the positive statements of Luther toward the book of James, I’m creating a diversion: “to throw people off the trail he thows[sic.] in some words of praise to James.” After quoting the section from my paper on James and Luther’s actual opinion of the book, the Dude again notes: “Here is the main theme again in another mask. Pretending to accept the book, while admitting he detests the book. And again Sola Scriptura is emerging.”

No, I’m not attempting to “throw people off the trail.” Rather, I’m attempting to look at all the facts that surround Luther’s opinion on the book of James. The historical facts show that Luther indeed did still value James- he positively quoted from it, and also preached from it. In his own preface to James he says, “I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Neither Luther nor myself have hidden his feelings towards James. If you consult the 55-volume set of Luther’s works (English edition), you will find that Luther did indeed find value in James. He cited and used the book throughout his career.

Catholic Dude says, “We have seen from other quotes how Luther feels about James.” Quotes were given by Catholic Dude in which Luther spoke negatively about the canonicity of James. What Catholic Dude is saying in essence is thus: “Luther said bad things about the book of James. These are the only quotes of importance. I don’t care about understanding Luther’s complete view of this book. I only accept the evidence that supports my conclusions.” Obviously, this shows a dedication to a theological worldview that refuses to see the facts of history in their context.

2. Luther’s alleged “agenda”: sola fide.
After quoting my citation of the Lutheran scholar Paul Althaus, Catholic Dude finally reveals his understanding of Luther’s “agenda”. Remember Catholic Dude began his evaluation of my paper stating that an “agenda” drove Luther’s position on the canon. Now an “agenda” in its simplest understanding is a list of things to do. The Dude doesn’t mean this. He’s using the word in a negative sense that Luther had an underlying bias that motivated his work on the canon:

“Here is the first hints of Luther's agenda, FAITH ALONE. And later the agenda of Sola Scriptura. The outrageous claim comes at the end when the author claims that scripture actually turns on itself if we don’t believe as Luther wants. The truth is the only time scripture attacks/contradicts itself is when an agenda like this is pushed upon it.”

Now, recall in part one of this review I mentioned my paper in some ways argues Luther’s perspectives on the canon from a Catholic point of view. Let’s do the same here. Since the canon was not dogmatically set in “Catholic stone” at the time of Luther’s opinion, Luther, following an appeal to tradition and the historical information available to him, questioned the canonicity of particular books. In the same way, the doctrine of justification was also not, at the time of Luther’s writing, dogmatically defined in the Roman Catholic sense. In other words, Luther had freedom to hold the view on justification that he did within a Roman Catholic framework. He applied his understanding of sola fide to the entirety of the canon. There was no prohibition in Catholic theology to stop him from doing this. Hence, what the Dude sees negatively as an “agenda” is another example of his dedication to a theological worldview that refuses to see the facts of history in their context.

But what of Luther’s interpretive paradigm? First I would point out, the evidence of Luther’s rejection of James must also include his opinion that the book was not of apostolic origin. Any attempt to make Luther’s sole purpose in rejecting James that of “sola fide” would distort his view. The tradition of the church understood that only those books of apostolic origin were to be included in the New Testament canon. Luther is acutely aware of this. That there was some doubt about the apostolic nature of James during Luther’s day was covered in my paper.

Second, those books of apostolic origin preached the “Gospel.” I can only speculate that Catholic Dude would agree with me that if a book teaches opposite to the Gospel, it probably is not of apostolic origin. Luther had a particular understanding of the Gospel- that is: his exegesis of Paul in Romans clearly uncovered the doctrine of sola fide, which the church had buried. I, along with Luther and the majority of Protestant orthodoxy look at Luther’s understanding of the book of Romans and his exegesis of chapters three and four and find it to be sound- not because I want it so, but simply by the use of grammar and reason. It isn’t seeing Luther as an infallible interpreter- it’s simply looking at the clear teaching of Paul:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“However to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” (Romans 4:5)

But Luther came to the book of James, a book he knew had an uncertain canonicity. As he read it, and applied Paul’s understanding of justification, he was mistaken in his reading of James and saw a contradiction:

“In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4[:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15[:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15[:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.”

The problem with Luther’s view on James is fundamentally that Luther was mistaken in his exegesis of James. The irony of course, is that Catholic Dude would probably argue the opposite: Luther is correct on his exegesis of James, and mistaken in his exegesis of Paul and Romans. Who decides which exegesis is correct? I submit careful study of the Biblical text is the determining factor, not a pope or council that simply declares what the meaning is. Words have meaning. They are not given a different meaning hundreds of years later by pope or council.

I’m persuaded that had someone been able to convince Luther of apostolic authorship of James, he would have been forced to look more carefully at the text. Luther was aware of the common protestant harmonization of Paul and James, and even at times offered it himself:

“This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith.” (Sermons of Martin Luther 2:2:308)

Why Luther wasn’t persuaded by this exegesis he applied to James from time to time is a mystery to me. I can only speculate that Roman Catholic theologians clung heavily to using James to refute Luther- thus his was an over reaction to the book.

Really, Luther’s “agenda” was nothing more than looking for the Gospel and apostolic origin in the New Testament books. Fundamentally, I assume Catholic Dude would agree that this “agenda” is correct. Where we would differ is the content of the word “Gospel.” I, along with Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers see sola fide clearly a beautiful truth- a Gospel truth.

Luther's Canon: A Response To "Catholic Dude" (Part one)

A guy with handle “Catholic Dude” has reviewed my paper *Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture* twice. The first time, I ignored it due to time constraints, and what appeared to be many misunderstandings on the dude’s end. The second evaluation came recently. I figured it would be interesting to tackle both, and show a dedication to a theological worldview that refuses to see the facts of history in their context. Also, I think it would be interesting to compare both reviews to see if Catholic Dude’s criticism is consistent.

My paper was an attempt to show within a Roman Catholic framework, Luther had every right to debate and discuss the canon. In essence, when Luther is placed in a historical Roman Catholic context, my paper argues that Roman Catholics don’t even have the right to criticize Luther’s theological opinions on the canon. In many ways, I’m arguing Luther’s view from a Roman Catholic perspective. The canon wasn’t dogmatically closed for Roman Catholics until the Council of Trent. Luther, Erasmus, and Cajetan all argued their views previous to this declaration. Thus, they were within their rights to discuss the canon.

The first review from Catholic Dude, found in 3 parts, comes from the Catholic Answers Forums (May 2005):

Re: Protestants: Here is what Luther did to some NT books you use... (part one)

Re: Protestants: Here is what Luther did to some NT books you use... (part two)

Protestants: Here is what Luther did to some NT books you use... (part three)

The second review was posted recently here:

CARM review (April 2006)

I’m going to begin with Catholic Dude’s review from May 2005, part one, in dialog form. Catholic Dude’s words will be in Red. The words from my article will be in blue. My responses will be in black. I hold no animosity to Catholic Dude. We have dialoged occasionally in the past year or so.

1. A Response to my term “Luther Card”: Do I understand the Roman Catholic charge against Luther?

Catholic Dude claimed I misunderstand the Catholic charges against Luther on the canon:

“…I just got back from HERE. It is TertiumQuid's webpage of his defense of Luther who he claims is being unfairly portrayed by Catholics and the tactic is known as playing the "Luther Card" in attempt to make Luther look bad by misquoting what Luther said, especially concerning the books Luther removed. I took notes and here are my thoughts on a few of the quotes from that page:

‘It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books.’

Here is a theme that pops up all through the page. It claims that Catholics use the term "throw out" as in if you opened a Bible you wouldn’t [sic] see them. That is not what Catholics are saying there, we are going on the grounds that Luther has no business degrading those books the way he does, and all through the page this point is downplayed.”

I do assert that many Roman Catholic laymen frequently play the “Luther Card” in discussions about the canon, and they do selectively cite Luther’s words to make him look as bad as possible. I couldn’t put a number on how many of these type of discussions I’ve been in- all paint Luther as out-of-control when it came to the canon. I can provide numerous examples from discussions, but even in the footnotes of paper I provide examples, for instance, footnote #46.

A careful reading of my paper will show that I did more than simply accuse the Catholic position on Luther to be that books were “thrown out”. I said specifically, “Sometimes [Roman Catholics] make the radical charge that Luther removed books from the Bible; more often they accuse Luther of creating his own canon. The charge most often says Luther’s opinion is the result of subjectivism.” By paying attention to my footnotes (#1; #2; #3; #4; #5; #6) Catholic Dude would have seen that these three points were documented by Catholic opinion, and a close reading would have also shown that I cover these three points and provide counter-responses as well.

As to Luther having “no business degrading” books of the Bible being the correct Catholic opinion on this matter, I guess I could add a fourth Catholic opinion that states: “Luther is wrong because we say so, and he is not allowed to discuss issues we say he shouldn’t”. Of course, a position like this requires no response. “Because we say so” is not an intelligent way to discuss this issue.


2. Do I deny Luther’s “religious opinion” in his view on the canon?

Catholic Dude claimed I miss another reason Catholics are against Luther on the canon:

“Second Catholics claim that Luther's actions were a direct consequence of passages getting in the way of his religious agenda/opinion.”

Well, “agenda” and “opinion” are two different things. It is true I never did discuss Luther’s “agenda”- simply because I don’t think he had one- nor do I recall ever reading a valid Roman Catholic source documenting Luther’s “agenda” as a determinate factor in canonicity. Contrary to Catholic dude’s claim, I did indeed discuss the aspect of Luther’s “opinion” on the canon. Very early in my paper, I stated the following:

“Understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives:

1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian
2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology

My primary focus will be on the first point since Roman Catholics tend to completely disregard it. Any attempt though to understand Luther’s view of the canon that neglects either of these is prone to distortion and caricature.”

Note the bolded #2 above. I later went on to explain this point. I consider Luther’s theological opinions to be what I mentioned earlier: Luther’s subjective opinion. My emphasis throughout the paper was on point #1, and I have become even more convinced that historical concerns on canon issues together with Luther’s interpretive hermeneutic cannot be separated if one wants to understand him on this subject. I didn’t spend an extraordinary amount of time on this simply for the reason I stated out the outset: Luther had every right previous to the dogmatic canon declaration at Trent to present his views.


3. Catholic Dude claims Luther used a “smoke screen”.

The dude quotes me saying, “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” He then comments:” Another smoke screen used by Luther to pretend he accepts them when he really doesn’t[sic.], this claim occurs a lot in many forms on the www.”
The selected comment in blue is Luther’s view on the Apocrypha (which he translated into German and included in his Bible). That Luther was not “pretending” is blatantly obvious to anyone who has access to Luther’s Works. Simply look in the indexes, and one will find Luther did indeed positively quote from the apocryphal books, in many instances. He most definitely lived up to what he held: the apocryphal books were useful to him and good to read.

As to the comment, “this claim occurs a lot in many forms on the www”- this is totally irrelevant since the subject is Luther’s treatment of the books- not how often a comment like this is made by others in cyber space.


4. Catholic Dude claims I missed the point: Luther ideologically removed books from the canon.

The dude quoted a paragraph I utilized from Jaraslov Pelikan in part three. In a nutshell, Pelikan points out that Luther retained the canon as given by tradition- but it would be mistaken to think Pelikan means “infallible Roman Catholic tradition.”

Luther wasn’t like Marcion. He translated and included all the books that were currently in the Bible. Pelikan said:

“[Luther] did not pretend that the church could undertake the construction of the canon anew, or that it could function with a canon open at both ends. Never, even at the height of his criticism of James, did he drop it from his editions of the Bible, any more than he dropped the Old Testament Apocrypha. From his own experience he could testify that often a Christian found one or another book of the canon difficult or useless to him at a particular time, only to discover later on that it was just what he needed in a time of trouble or temptation. Had such a person been permitted to re-edit the canon on the basis of his passing mood, he would have been deprived of the patience and comfort of the Scriptures when he needed them most. Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of constructing a private miniature canon. But he was realistic enough in his theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition. That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of contradictions.”

The dude comments:

“Here is the whole page in a nutshell. It starts off making the claim that Luther would never even go there, but as you read on you find the recurring problem, and that is Luther had an agenda and this simple observation is ignored/downplayed using smoke screens. Look it says that messing around with the books just because something bothers your is A BAD IDEA because in the future you will need them. It finishes off by saying that he had a "framework" to do what he was doing, so does this admit that he had an agenda, but wanted to stay under the radar as long as possible?”

Again, Catholic Dude refers to the mysterious “agenda” Luther had, but never tells us what it is. As a typical Catholic interacting with this subject, the Dude completely disregard the canon issues Luther faced. This perspective fails in many ways. When one looks at the totality of Luther’s New Testament canon criticism, it is quite minute: four books. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. His overall opinion softened later in life by the exclusion of many negative comments in his revised prefaces. Of the four books, it is possible that Luther’s opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Even while criticizing James and Jude, he positively quoted from them throughout his career. In the case of Jude he did a complete series of lectures. In the case of James, he preached from the book, and positively quoted the book. These points obliterate an “agenda” theory.

“The idea that he removed them to the trash physically is what the author claims that Catholics are saying. What the author misses is the issue that Luther removed them ideologically/spiritually to the trash, which is just as bad, that is what Catholics are saying.”

Again, I did not claim the Catholic opinion was solely Luther removed books of the Bible (see point #1 above). Generally, I have though found this opinion frequently stated by Catholic laymen. It’s not my fault Catholic laymen frequently don’t know this subject well enough to articulate the facts accurately. Luther “removed [books] ideologically/spiritually to the trash” is simply a misreading of his prefaces. He presents his opinion in short “prefaces” and makes no dogmatic declarations. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions.

What Martin Luther thought about the canon of sacred scripture, or anything else for that matter, really doesn’t matter. He is not the Protestant pope. He’s just a man- a talented man with much insight, but he’s not the infallible authority for Protestants. My interest though is in historical theology, and I find the Reformation period very interesting. I became interested in studying Catholic approaches to Luther- and my writings reflect this.

Luther's Early Biographer: A Perspective From a Contemporary

Above: One of Luther’s first Roman Catholic biographers was also a great adversary with lasting impact: Johannes Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus best expressed his campaign against Luther by portraying him as a seven-headed dragon. Cochlaeus divided up the life of Luther into seven distinct periods, each represented by one of the heads on the monster. Each head held a contradictory opinion to the other. He explains what each head represents:

“Thus all brothers emerge from the womb of one and the same cowl by a birth so monstrous, that none is like the other in either behavior, shape, face or character. The elder brothers, Doctor and Martinus, come closest to the opinion of the Church, and they are to be believed above all the others, if anything anywhere in Luther's books can be believed with any certainty at all. Lutherus, however, according to his surname, plays a wicked game just like Ismael. Ecclesiastes tells the people who are always keen on novelties, pleasant things. Svermerns rages furiously and errs in the manner of Phaeton throughout the skies. Barrabas is looking for violence and sedition everywhere. And at the last, Visitator, adorned with a new mitre and ambitious for a new papacy, prescribes new laws of ceremonies, and many old ones which he had previously abolished—revokes, removes, reduces.”

During Luther’s lifetime, one of Luther’s first biographers was also a great adversary with lasting impact: Johannes Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus spent a great deal of his life writing against Luther, and went so far as maintaining printing presses at his own cost to make sure his work was published. What makes this man interesting is that he was a contemporary of Luther’s, and actually had met Luther. His work is the immediate reaction of a Catholic scholar to the beginnings of the Reformation. The Catholic Encyclopedia says of him, “Naturally of a quiet and studious disposition he was drawn into the arena of polemics by the religious schism. There he developed a productivity and zeal unparalleled by any other Catholic theologian of his time.”

I have a growing collection of books by Roman Catholics written against Luther, and I actually tracked down an English translation of Cochlaeus’s magnum opus against Luther:

Commentaria de Actis et Scriptis Martini Lutheri (1549)

(The Deeds and writings of Martin Luther from the year of the Lord 1517 to the year 1546 related chronologically to all posterity by Johannes Cochlaeus)

I never thought I would hold this book in my hands. Here’s an interesting snippet from page one, speaking of Luther’s early life in the monastery before the 1517 posting of the 95 Theses:

“…[W]hen [Luther] was in the country, either because he was terrified and prostrated by a bolt of lightning, as is commonly said, or because he was overwhelmed with grief at the death of a companion, through contempt of this world he suddenly - to the astonishment of many - entered the Monastery of the brothers of St Augustine, who are commonly called the Hermits. After a year's probation, his profession of that order was made legitimate, and there in his studies and spiritual exercises he fought strenuously for God for four years. However, he appeared to the brothers to have a certain amount of peculiarity, either from some secret commerce with a Demon, or (according to certain other indications) from the disease of epilepsy. They thought this especially, because several times in the Choir, when during the Mass the passage from the Evangelist about the ejection of the deaf and mute Demon was read, he suddenly fell down, crying 'It is not I, it is not I.' And thus it is the opinion of many, that he enjoyed an occult familiarit with some demon, since he himself sometimes wrote such things about himself as were able to engender a suspicion in the reader of this kind of commerce and nefarious association. For he says in a certain sermon addressed to the people, that he knows the Devil well, and is in turn well known by him, and that he has eaten more than one grain of salt with him. And furthermore he published his own book in German, About the 'Comer' Mass (as he calls it), where he remembers a disputation against the Mass that the Devil held with him at night. There are other pieces of evidence about this matter as well, and not trivial ones, since he was even seen by certain people to keep company bodily with the Devil.”

Cochlaeus does what later Catholic critiques of Luther promise: to present the real “facts” about Luther, undistorted from Luther’s own writings. The Catholic Encyclopedia says Cochlaeus had no “effect on the masses”, but in actuality, his work did have a great effect on subsequent Catholic understanding of Luther. The Encyclopedia goes on to say that “His greatest work against Luther is his strictly historical "Commentaria de Actis et Sciptis M. Luther" (extending to his death), an armoury of Catholic polemics for all succeeding time.” The Encyclopedia also states that Cochlaeus is “in the main followed by Catholic investigators” doing research on Luther.

Cochlaeus, in essence, became one of Luther’s most influential opponents. His biography “deeply influenced the image of Luther held by Catholics for more than two centuries.”[17] His overall “image of the devilishly destructive Luther dominated Catholic popular understanding of Luther for centuries.”[18] The scholars agree:

“There can be no doubt of the sincerity and conviction of Cochlaeus, but neither can there be any doubt that it was he who poisoned the well of historical studies. Roman Catholic historians have drawn their prejudice against Luther from this polemical source, which in its animosity has an almost total disregard for objective truth and historical facts. Denifle, Grisar, Cristiani, Paquier, and Maritain (to cite the most famous and influential) have all drunk deep of this poisoned well-too deeply- and lesser historians have adopted their position.”[19]

“An answer to this question of why the more scientific and accurate Catholic depiction of Luther is so recent was well stated at the time of World War II by Catholic scholar Adolf Herte in a three-volume work, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochlaeus. His clear and, for many Catholics, embarrassing answer was this: Catholic Luther interpretation for the previous 400 years had more or less repeated what Johannes Cochlaeus, a contemporary of Luther, set forth in his extremely negative Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri.. Cochlaeus' writings were basically nothing but fiction, calumny, and lies. In the rude style of that time, Cochlaeus depicted Luther as a monster, a demagogue, a revolutionary, a drunkard, and a violator of nuns.”[20]