Luther, Esther & Armstrong (Part 2)
previous entry: Luther, Esther, & Armstrong (Part 1)
I noted to Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong that Luther’s Bible and Prefaces tend to be his definitive statement as to how he felt about which books were canonical. Missing are comments about the non-canonicity of Esther. Found is Esther among the canonical books in his translation of the Bible. The question is: how does this fact fit into Armstrong’s opinion that Luther rejected the canonicity of Esther? Some of you may enjoy reading Armstrong’s answer word for word. If so, please see his blog entry. For the rest of you, I sifted through his blog entry, and tried to find the main thrust of his answer to this question. None of his other points have any interest to me.
I summarized Armstrong's response in 3 points:
1. Luther was subjective in regard to the canon
Luther had a subjective view of the canon. Luther does not accept the canon as an extra-biblical infallible fact defined by an infallible church. He relies on his own opinion to establish the canon. Luther’s opinion on the canonicity of Hebrews and Revelation fluctuated, why couldn’t the same be said of his view of Esther?
2. Luther accepted the received tradition to avoid disputes
Sometimes Luther accepts the received tradition of the church to avoid time-wasting disputes. Therefore, Luther kept a non-canonical book (Esther) in the canonical section of his Bible for such a reason.
3. The evidence supports Luther’s lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther
The evidence of Luther’s writings suggests he held a lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther. In Bondage of the Will, Luther says Esther has less basis than any other apocryphal book to be regarded as canonical. In an older version of the Table Talk, Luther says Esther is at least as bad as 2 Maccabees, this proves Esther is non-canonical as well.
Evaluation
1. Luther was subjective in regard to the canon
This point allows for Luther to at least have held to the canonicity of Esther and then changed his mind, or vice versa, or even repeatedly changing throughout his life. I would not have a problem with the logic of this answer. In applying this answer to Luther’s Bible and his Prefaces, it would be possible that Luther included Esther as canonical, and later changed his mind. Armstrong really isn't arguing this, he seems to simply raise it as a possibility. Thus, i'm granting him his hypothetical point.
As a point of tedium, in his response Armstrong cites Paul Althaus as holding Luther was subjective on the canon, particularly page 336 of The Theology of Martin Luther. Had Armstrong continued reading Althaus, the next few sentences say: “Roman Catholic theology has up until the present day, frequently condemned Luther’s method of approaching and validating the authority of Scripture as subjective and arbitrary. But Luther is as far from heaven is from the earth in determining the center of Scripture by himself and self-confidently presenting his theology as this center” [Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 336 – 337]. By “center of the Scripture” Althaus is referring to that which determined canonicity for Luther. Of course, Armstrong can list numerous scholars who hold Luther was subjective. That’s not the point. The point I’m making is Althaus cannot be lumped in with them, based on the quote I have provided. Thus, I think this is a clear misuse of Althaus by Armstrong.
2. Luther accepted the received tradition on the canon to avoid a dispute
In regard to his writing against Erasmus in Bondage of the Will, this is indeed the case. When compiling his Bible though, Luther made a strong effort to sort out the canonical material from the non-canonical material in both the Old and New Testaments. Thus, his method was to sort the books according to his own theological purpose combined with the testimony of church history. Perhaps Armstrong could argue Luther made a mistake, or simply didn’t care, or was simply accepting a tradition to avoid a dispute. This would be an argument from silence, and to my knowledge, it would be his argument only. I have not read any scholar using it. Simply because it’s his own personal theory does not mean it’s wrong. It would mean though, a case would need to be presented that included evidence from Luther’s Bible and Prefaces substantiating this claim.
Mr. Armstrong cites a quote I used from Jaroslav Pelikan about Luther’s “canon within a canon”. The citation should have been given a fuller context (which I provided in the paper Armstrong cited). Pelikan begins the quote by saying, “[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.” True, Luther retained the Old Testament Apocrypha in his Bible, but he made sure to place these books in a clearly defined section at the end of the Old Testament. Recall, Esther was included with canonical books. The received tradition was all of the books purported to be Scripture in the 16th Century. Luther though made very specific points and arguments to substantiate what the canon within the canon was. Those books falling outside of the true canonical material were regulated to the back of both Testaments.
3. The evidence supports Luther’s lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther
The evidence available in English on this subject is sparse. In the standard English set of Luther’s Works, only the Bondage of the Will Esther quote addresses the canonicity of the book. The comment would be around the time Luther translated Esther for his Bible. Perhaps supporting point 2? Or perhaps supporting point 1? Or both? Or neither? I don’t know.
I noted previously, Roger Beckwith (author of The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church) has said, “It is sometimes said that Luther, following certain of the Fathers, denied the Canonicity of Esther, but Hans Bardtke has questioned this, as not taking into account of all the evidence (Luther und das Buch Esther, Tubingen Mohr, 1964).” I have ordered this book, and look forward to reading a full treatment of this topic, using evidence probably not available in English. The book should arrive next week.
In regard to the Tabletalk quote, note it is not contained in the more recent standardized edition. This doesn’t mean Luther didn’t say it, it does mean though the compilers left it out for reasons unknown to us. They give general reasons for the material included and not included. Obviously, unreliable Tabletalk’s from earlier versions were left out. I have no way of knowing why this entry was left out- so it doesn’t do any good to speculate as to it being reliable or not. That being said, I have often made the point that the Table talk cannot be used to dictate Luther’s opinion, as it is not an official writing of Luther’s. It can provide perspective on an already established fact, but it itself cannot establish Luther’s opinion. I also don’t recall if the entry in question was ever dated. I simply don’t remember. If Armstrong has a date for this entry, it could be an interesting fact in evaluating the evidence.
Conclusion:
I think Dave Armstrong’s point #1 can be valid in regard to Luther’s Bible and prefaces. It is indeed possible his opinion fluctuated, even if Esther was considered at first canonical, and then later rejected. To my knowledge, this did not happen to any of the books in Luther’s Bible. That is, I know of no book he considered canonical, and then later went on to doubt as being canonical. But it could be the case. Is it likely? I don’t think so, because there is no evidence of him ever doing this. Could it be Luther was simply using the apocrypha against Erasmus in Bondage of the Will? Indeed, it could. Could it be Luther woke up every day with a different view of Esther? Indeed it could. When one bases an opinion on Luther’s subjectivity, anything is possible.
Point #2 is the obstacle for Mr. Armstrong. He needs to explain why Luther did not place Esther with the other apocryphal writings. It doesn’t help to suggest Luther accepted the received tradition on Esther to avoid disputes. If there is one thing Luther didn’t care about, it was avoiding disputes. He was very accurate in how he wanted his Bible laid out. It doesn’t follow that the placement of Esther provoked him to avoid a dispute, as Esther is not nearly as important for Luther as the books of the New Testament and many of the Old Testament books. Also, there was already a dispute on Esther, so whatever Luther did, would not have been so shocking. Also note, the dispute in Bondage of the Will about the validity of Biblical books would have indeed sidetracked the discussion with Erasmus. In the subject of the canon, Luther hit this head on in his Prefaces. It would not have been a sidetrack to the topic.
Point #3 really rests on one citation, the Bondage of the Will quote. The Table Talk is interesting, but it’s a Table Talk. It is evidence, but evidence that will always have more than an element of doubt, because of reasons I noted above, and also for the reason that brought about this entire discussion: a mis-citation that I brought back to the light, buried in books from the 1800’s. I await my book from Bardtke for more evidence (hopefully) on this subject. I have no more to say on this topic until I receive this book (and I mean it).
Update: Ok, I tried to take Dave Armstrong seriously and I got back exactly what I expected. Once again, Dave has given me an entire response filled with mocking and silliness, mixed in with attempts at fruitful dialog. Ok, back to not taking Dave Armstrong seriously. That was a nice exercise in fultility. It reaffirms exactly what I decided a few years ago.
I noted to Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong that Luther’s Bible and Prefaces tend to be his definitive statement as to how he felt about which books were canonical. Missing are comments about the non-canonicity of Esther. Found is Esther among the canonical books in his translation of the Bible. The question is: how does this fact fit into Armstrong’s opinion that Luther rejected the canonicity of Esther? Some of you may enjoy reading Armstrong’s answer word for word. If so, please see his blog entry. For the rest of you, I sifted through his blog entry, and tried to find the main thrust of his answer to this question. None of his other points have any interest to me.
I summarized Armstrong's response in 3 points:
1. Luther was subjective in regard to the canon
Luther had a subjective view of the canon. Luther does not accept the canon as an extra-biblical infallible fact defined by an infallible church. He relies on his own opinion to establish the canon. Luther’s opinion on the canonicity of Hebrews and Revelation fluctuated, why couldn’t the same be said of his view of Esther?
2. Luther accepted the received tradition to avoid disputes
Sometimes Luther accepts the received tradition of the church to avoid time-wasting disputes. Therefore, Luther kept a non-canonical book (Esther) in the canonical section of his Bible for such a reason.
3. The evidence supports Luther’s lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther
The evidence of Luther’s writings suggests he held a lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther. In Bondage of the Will, Luther says Esther has less basis than any other apocryphal book to be regarded as canonical. In an older version of the Table Talk, Luther says Esther is at least as bad as 2 Maccabees, this proves Esther is non-canonical as well.
Evaluation
1. Luther was subjective in regard to the canon
This point allows for Luther to at least have held to the canonicity of Esther and then changed his mind, or vice versa, or even repeatedly changing throughout his life. I would not have a problem with the logic of this answer. In applying this answer to Luther’s Bible and his Prefaces, it would be possible that Luther included Esther as canonical, and later changed his mind. Armstrong really isn't arguing this, he seems to simply raise it as a possibility. Thus, i'm granting him his hypothetical point.
As a point of tedium, in his response Armstrong cites Paul Althaus as holding Luther was subjective on the canon, particularly page 336 of The Theology of Martin Luther. Had Armstrong continued reading Althaus, the next few sentences say: “Roman Catholic theology has up until the present day, frequently condemned Luther’s method of approaching and validating the authority of Scripture as subjective and arbitrary. But Luther is as far from heaven is from the earth in determining the center of Scripture by himself and self-confidently presenting his theology as this center” [Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 336 – 337]. By “center of the Scripture” Althaus is referring to that which determined canonicity for Luther. Of course, Armstrong can list numerous scholars who hold Luther was subjective. That’s not the point. The point I’m making is Althaus cannot be lumped in with them, based on the quote I have provided. Thus, I think this is a clear misuse of Althaus by Armstrong.
2. Luther accepted the received tradition on the canon to avoid a dispute
In regard to his writing against Erasmus in Bondage of the Will, this is indeed the case. When compiling his Bible though, Luther made a strong effort to sort out the canonical material from the non-canonical material in both the Old and New Testaments. Thus, his method was to sort the books according to his own theological purpose combined with the testimony of church history. Perhaps Armstrong could argue Luther made a mistake, or simply didn’t care, or was simply accepting a tradition to avoid a dispute. This would be an argument from silence, and to my knowledge, it would be his argument only. I have not read any scholar using it. Simply because it’s his own personal theory does not mean it’s wrong. It would mean though, a case would need to be presented that included evidence from Luther’s Bible and Prefaces substantiating this claim.
Mr. Armstrong cites a quote I used from Jaroslav Pelikan about Luther’s “canon within a canon”. The citation should have been given a fuller context (which I provided in the paper Armstrong cited). Pelikan begins the quote by saying, “[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.” True, Luther retained the Old Testament Apocrypha in his Bible, but he made sure to place these books in a clearly defined section at the end of the Old Testament. Recall, Esther was included with canonical books. The received tradition was all of the books purported to be Scripture in the 16th Century. Luther though made very specific points and arguments to substantiate what the canon within the canon was. Those books falling outside of the true canonical material were regulated to the back of both Testaments.
3. The evidence supports Luther’s lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther
The evidence available in English on this subject is sparse. In the standard English set of Luther’s Works, only the Bondage of the Will Esther quote addresses the canonicity of the book. The comment would be around the time Luther translated Esther for his Bible. Perhaps supporting point 2? Or perhaps supporting point 1? Or both? Or neither? I don’t know.
I noted previously, Roger Beckwith (author of The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church) has said, “It is sometimes said that Luther, following certain of the Fathers, denied the Canonicity of Esther, but Hans Bardtke has questioned this, as not taking into account of all the evidence (Luther und das Buch Esther, Tubingen Mohr, 1964).” I have ordered this book, and look forward to reading a full treatment of this topic, using evidence probably not available in English. The book should arrive next week.
In regard to the Tabletalk quote, note it is not contained in the more recent standardized edition. This doesn’t mean Luther didn’t say it, it does mean though the compilers left it out for reasons unknown to us. They give general reasons for the material included and not included. Obviously, unreliable Tabletalk’s from earlier versions were left out. I have no way of knowing why this entry was left out- so it doesn’t do any good to speculate as to it being reliable or not. That being said, I have often made the point that the Table talk cannot be used to dictate Luther’s opinion, as it is not an official writing of Luther’s. It can provide perspective on an already established fact, but it itself cannot establish Luther’s opinion. I also don’t recall if the entry in question was ever dated. I simply don’t remember. If Armstrong has a date for this entry, it could be an interesting fact in evaluating the evidence.
Conclusion:
I think Dave Armstrong’s point #1 can be valid in regard to Luther’s Bible and prefaces. It is indeed possible his opinion fluctuated, even if Esther was considered at first canonical, and then later rejected. To my knowledge, this did not happen to any of the books in Luther’s Bible. That is, I know of no book he considered canonical, and then later went on to doubt as being canonical. But it could be the case. Is it likely? I don’t think so, because there is no evidence of him ever doing this. Could it be Luther was simply using the apocrypha against Erasmus in Bondage of the Will? Indeed, it could. Could it be Luther woke up every day with a different view of Esther? Indeed it could. When one bases an opinion on Luther’s subjectivity, anything is possible.
Point #2 is the obstacle for Mr. Armstrong. He needs to explain why Luther did not place Esther with the other apocryphal writings. It doesn’t help to suggest Luther accepted the received tradition on Esther to avoid disputes. If there is one thing Luther didn’t care about, it was avoiding disputes. He was very accurate in how he wanted his Bible laid out. It doesn’t follow that the placement of Esther provoked him to avoid a dispute, as Esther is not nearly as important for Luther as the books of the New Testament and many of the Old Testament books. Also, there was already a dispute on Esther, so whatever Luther did, would not have been so shocking. Also note, the dispute in Bondage of the Will about the validity of Biblical books would have indeed sidetracked the discussion with Erasmus. In the subject of the canon, Luther hit this head on in his Prefaces. It would not have been a sidetrack to the topic.
Point #3 really rests on one citation, the Bondage of the Will quote. The Table Talk is interesting, but it’s a Table Talk. It is evidence, but evidence that will always have more than an element of doubt, because of reasons I noted above, and also for the reason that brought about this entire discussion: a mis-citation that I brought back to the light, buried in books from the 1800’s. I await my book from Bardtke for more evidence (hopefully) on this subject. I have no more to say on this topic until I receive this book (and I mean it).
Update: Ok, I tried to take Dave Armstrong seriously and I got back exactly what I expected. Once again, Dave has given me an entire response filled with mocking and silliness, mixed in with attempts at fruitful dialog. Ok, back to not taking Dave Armstrong seriously. That was a nice exercise in fultility. It reaffirms exactly what I decided a few years ago.
Labels: Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong, Luther and the Canon
1 Comments:
James,
Don't you think that the RC Canon must be labeled subjective as well?
Canon = a list of infallible teachings, or, if you will, documents.
Thus, for us, the Canon is the list of books of Scripture since only those books contain infallible teachings and are infallible themselves.
But the RCC has confusion over their own Canon of Scripture (see the White-Michuta debate) and, much worse, cannot give a list of their infallible teachings, such as ex cathedra statements from the Pope.
Therefore, they have no list at all.
I plan to ask this question at the upcoming Svendsen-Pacwa if Fr. Pacwa brings up the issue of the Canon.
Whatcha think?
ALAN
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home