INTRODUCTION
Philip Schaff describes Martin Luther as the greatest figure in the European Reformation, noted particularly for his doctrine of justification by faith alone, and his posting of the ninety-five Theses in October 1517, which is regarded generally as marking of the beginning of the Reformation.[1] The purpose of this paper will describe the teachings of Martin Luther.
BACKGROUND
Martin Luther, a German theologian and religious reformer, his vast influence, extended beyond religion to politics, economics, education, and language, has made him one of the crucial figures in modern European history. He was renowned for his enduring literary contribution of translating the Bible into the German language. In 1507, he became an Augustinian friar and was ordained. In 1510, he visited Rome, where he was shocked by the worldliness. He received his doctorate of divinity and in 1512 was appointed professor of philosophy at the University of Wittenberg, where he was promoted to the position of district vicar.
Luther teachings diverged increasingly from the traditional beliefs of the Roman church. His studies had led him to the conclusion that Christ was the sole mediator between God and man and that forgiveness of sin and salvation are effected by God’s grace alone and are received by faith alone on the part of man. This point of view turned him against scholastic theology, which had emphasised man’s role in his own salvation, and the necessity of the church for salvation. In this consisted the essential break between Luther and the medieval church. He did not deny the role of the church as an instrument of God; what he denied was the widely held belief that salvation was impossible outside of it.
He saw the emphasis on penitential exercises and other good works as unhealthy and even useless for one who could see himself as a sinner justified by God himself. The doctrine of indulgences, with its mechanical view of sin and repentance, aroused Luther’s indignation. The sale by the church of indulgences the remission of temporal punishments for sins committed and confessed to a priest brought in much revenue. On October 31, 1517, Luther posted for debate his 95 Theses. He was fiercely attacked, especially by Johann Eck.
On April 18, 1521, when the 21 year old Emperor Charles V summoned him to Diet of Worms to renounce his views, Martin Luther stated: Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me.[2] Martin Luther was declared an outlaw. He was protected by Frederick III of Saxony in the Wartburg castle. There he translated the New Testament into the German language in just six months. He attempted to be a moderate, opposing the Peasant’s War and resisting the more progressive elements of reformation. In 1525, he married a former nun and together they had six children.
LUTHER’S THEOLOGICAL IDEAS
Luther’s theological ideas can be summarised as follows:
Law and Gospel
Luther maintained that God interacts with human beings in two ways through the law and through the Gospel. The law represents God’s demands as expressed, for example, in the Ten Commandments and the golden rule. All people, regardless of their religious convictions, have some degree of access to the law through their consciences and through the ethical traditions of their culture, although their understanding of it is always distorted by human sin. The law has two functions. It enables human beings to maintain some order in their world, their communities, and their own lives despite the profound alienation from God, the world, their neighbours, and ultimately themselves that is caused by original sin.
In addition, the law makes human beings aware of their need for the forgiveness of sins and thus leads them to Christ. God also interacts with human beings through the Gospel, the good news of God’s gift of his Son for the salvation of the human race. This proclamation demands nothing but acceptance on the part of the individual. Luther argued that theology had gone wrong precisely when it began to confuse law and Gospel (God’s demand and God’s gift) by claiming that human beings can in some way merit that which can only be the unconditional gift of God’s grace.
Sin
Luther insisted that Christians, as long as they live in this world, are sinners and saints simultaneously. They are saints insofar as they trust in God’s grace and not in their own achievements. Sin, however, is a permanent and pervasive feature in the church as well as in the world, and a saint is not a moral paragon but a sinner who accepts God’s grace. Thus, for Luther, the most respected citizen and the habitual criminal are both in need of forgiveness by God.
The Finite and Infinite
Luther held that God makes himself known to human beings through earthly, finite forms rather than in his pure divinity. Thus, God revealed himself in Jesus Christ; he speaks his word to us in the human words of the New Testament writers; and his body and blood are received by believers (in Luther’s formulation, called consubstantiation) “in, with, and under” the bread and wine in Holy Communion. When human beings serve each other and the world in their various occupations (which Luther called vocations) as mothers and fathers, rulers and subjects, butchers and bakers, they are instruments of God, who works in the world through them. Luther thus broke down the traditional distinction between sacred and secular occupations.
Theology of the Cross
Luther asserted that Christian theology is the theology of the cross rather than a theology of glory. Human beings cannot apprehend God by means of philosophy or ethics; they must let God be God and see him only where he chooses to make himself known. Thus, Luther stressed that God reveals his wisdom through the foolishness of preaching, his power through suffering, and the secret of meaningful life through Christ’s death on the cross.
AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
Luther’s treatment of Scripture was merely an extension of the medieval understanding. The issues of inspiration and validity of the Word of God changed little, as they passed into Luther’s reforming hands. William of Ockham, a medieval thinker who greatly influenced Luther’s early academic development, argued frequently for the sole authority of the Word as opposed to natural insight or rational ascent to an understanding of the divine. Luther likewise carried forward much of the medieval understanding of the Word without confrontation from his contemporaries, whether Erasmus, the pope, or the scholastics, since all generally held the same presuppositions regarding the basic role of Scripture as a reliable authority.
However, where Luther radically differed from all others was the degree to which he was willing to view Scripture as the ultimate authority. The general understanding had been that the authority of Scripture, though genuine, were supplemented by various elements claimed by the Roman Church. Ockham, for example, although a proponent of the authority of Scripture, presupposed a necessary link between the authority of Scripture and that of the Roman Church. In the preface of his Compendium Errorum Johannis Papae XXII (c. 1334-8), Ockham includes this disclaimer:
If I should have written something in this work which is contrary to Holy Writ or the teachings of the saints, or the assertions of the most holy Church, I submit myself and my words to correction by the Catholic Church – not the Church of malignants, or heretics, or schismatics and their protectors.[3]
However, over time, Luther shed the assumption that a transgression against the authority of the Church implied such against the Word, and visa versa. For Luther, (Sola Scriptura) would become the guiding and primary principle of his reformation. Luther’s first break with the Roman Church came during the Leipzig Debate (July 1519) in which he declared agreement with John Hus, who had been condemned 100 years earlier by the Council of Constance. By rejecting the authority of such councils, Luther had prepared the way for his applications of the sole authority of Scripture. Luther found in Galatians 1:8 that no created being is greater than the Word of God, neither Paul, nor angels, nor any other man.
This, therefore, would also include the pope himself, who claimed to be the sole interpreter and arbiter of the Word. Luther viewed the papal claim as, “the accursed lie that the pope is the arbiter of Scripture or that the Church has authority over Scripture.”[4] Luther elsewhere wrote, “The pope boasts that the Christian Church is above the Word of God. No, this is not true! We must be pupils and not aspire to be masters, for the pupil must not be above his master.”[5] Also, “Years ago all the pope’s pronouncements were called Christian truth and articles of faith, yet this was simply based on man. Then it happened that people sank into the abyss and lost everything that pertains to the Word of God and Christ. Therefore, we must now declare: ‘Pope, council, and doctors, we will not believe you; but we will believe in the Divine Word.” [6]
One of the arguments put forth by the Church to defend its claims to authority over Scripture dealt with the Church’s role in the canonisation of the Word. Since the Church ultimately decided how many gospels there were, and what books were to be included or excluded, the Church therefore, it claimed, was evidentially superior to the Word. Luther attacked this argument by pointing to the fact that one’s recognition or approval of the truth does not imply superiority over it. “I approve Scripture. Therefore, I am superior to Scripture. John the Baptist acknowledges and confesses Christ. He points to Him with his finger. Therefore, he is superior to Christ. The Church approves Christian faith and doctrine. Therefore the Church is superior to them.”[7]
The Church’s use of the Fathers and councils to enforce non-Scriptural elements also fell under Luther’s scrutiny. To these, Luther held the Word as the means of determining their accuracy and applicability. On the need for councillor decisions to be grounded in the authority of the Word, Luther writes, “When anything contrary to Scripture is decreed in a council, we ought to believe Scripture rather than the council. Scripture is our court of appeal and bulwark; with it we can resist even an angel from heaven – as St. Paul commands in Galatians 1(:8) – let alone a pope and a council.”[8]
Luther did believe that much of the councillor decisions did contain truth, but only in so far as they correspond with the written Word. Luther viewed the fathers in similar fashion. Although Luther quotes the fathers frequently throughout his works, he nevertheless holds their teachings up to the light of Scripture in order to determine their truthfulness. This stance caused some to accuse Luther of rejecting all the past teachers of the Church. Luther denied this accusation, writing, “I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred.”[9]
Luther determined to follow the practice of Augustine in these matters, who in a letter to Jerome wrote, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honour of believing firmly that none of their writes has ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be truth unless they prove it to me by Holy Scripture or clear reason.”[10] Even the creeds of the Church had to first pass the test of Scriptural authority before Luther would be willing to admit their authority.
Luther did indeed accept the creeds, not because the councils of the Church had accepted them, but because he believed they conformed to the teaching of Scripture. As in the case of Scriptural inspiration and validity, Luther here does not venture far from the medieval Church in its acceptance of the creeds. However, where Luther does distinguish himself is in his understanding of the Church’s significance in all of this. Luther strips papal self-claims to authority and significance from medieval Christianity, leaving a reformed Church, which operates, solely on the principle of Sola Scripture.
Yet, at the same time, it must be pointed out that Luther does not strip medieval Christianity from reformation Christianity. That is to say, Luther does not leave the Church with nothing but the Bible. Much of the tradition and historical theology is affirmed by Luther, and maintained in his reformation of the Church. Although Luther subordinates the Church, councils, fathers, creeds and reason to the Word, he does not in any way seek to remove these elements from playing an active and crucial role in the Church.
Not only did the Roman Church, the councils and fathers fall under the sole authority of Scripture, but also so did the entire realm of human reason. Luther continually exhorted his listeners and readers to elevate Scripture to the point of becoming a guide for living. “Among Christians the rule is not to argue or investigate, not to be a smart aleck or a rationalistic know-it-all; but to hear, believe, and persevere in the Word of God, through which alone we obtain whatever knowledge we have of God and divine things. We are not to determine out of ourselves what we must believe about him, but to hear and learn it from him.”[11]
Scripture is the rule of life for the Church. Scripture allows even the most insignificant of men to discern between truth and error: “A Christian soon smells from afar which is God’s and which is human teaching. He sees from afar that the schismatic spirits are speaking their own human mind and opinion. They cannot escape me, Dr. Luther. I can soon judge and say whether their doctrine is of God or of man; for I am doing the will of God, who sent Christ. I have given ear to none but God’s Word, and say: ‘Dear Lord Christ, I want to be thy pupil, and I believe thy Word. I will close my eyes and surrender to thy Word.’
Thus He makes me a free nobleman, yes, a fine doctor and teacher, who is captive to the Word of God, and is able to judge the errors and the faith of the pope, Turks, Jews and Sacramentarians. They must fall, and I tread them underfoot. I have become a doctor and a judge who judges correctly.”[12] For Luther, therefore, Scripture became the cornerstone of all knowledge of God. The Word provided the sole foundation for both individuals and institutionalised Church.
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
Having thus established Scripture as the sole authority for the Church, Luther then needed to reckon with the manner in which Scripture was to be handled. How does one go about interpreting the Scriptures? Up through the middle ages, the popular hermeneutic employed the fourfold method of interpretation, of which the allegorical method had gradually become the predominant approach. The allegorical method allowed the commentator to seek hidden or deeper meanings in the text by seeking parallels between the passage and either history or concepts.
Inevitably, this led to wild speculations and often-meaningless applications of the Scriptural passages under consideration. Luther likewise initially employed this allegorical method, as seen in his admission, “When I was a monk, I was an adept at allegory. I allegorised everything. However, after lecturing on the Epistle to the Romans, I came to have some knowledge of Christ. For therein I saw that Christ is no allegory, and learned to know what Christ was.”[13] From the time of his understanding Christ through his encounter with Romans, Luther turned to what he referred to as the “grammatical historical sense” or “literal sense”, although he expressed his displeasure with the latter phrase due to its easily being misunderstood and ridiculed by opponents.
On the importance of the literal understanding, Luther writes, “The Christian reader should make it his first task to seek out the literal sense, as they call it. For it alone is the whole substance of faith and Christian theology; it alone holds its ground in trouble and trial.”[14] Luther saw this hermeneutic principle as a means of rescuing the meaning of Scripture from the manipulations of the allegorists and spiritualists. The individual truly interested in the meaning of the text, “should take pains to have one definite and simple understanding of Scripture and not to be a wanderer and vagabond, like the rabbis, the Scholastic theologians, and the professors of law, who are always toiling with ambiguities.”[15]
Yet, although Luther warned against the subjective and ambiguous interpretations of the allegorists and spiritualists, he did not intend to reduce Scripture to mere grammatical sentences. For in Luther’s understanding of Scripture, the Holy Spirit played a crucial role in the interpretive process. Without the participation of the Holy Spirit’s work within the reader, Scripture would yield none of its teachings. The man who approaches the Word armed with reason alone will find a virtually empty book. Luther writes, “He will never smell or taste a spark or a tittle of the true meaning of a passage or a word of Scripture. He may make much noise and even imagine that he is improving on Holy Scripture, but he will never succeed.”[16]
For Luther, no amount of scholarship or rational scrutiny will cause the Scripture to yield its fruit. Since the Scripture has its origin in the Divine, its meaning also resides in the Divine. Understanding of the Word must start with Divine initiative: “If God does not open and explain Holy Writ, no one can understand it; it will remain a closed book, enveloped in darkness.”[17] The Lord “opens and explains” His Word through the work of the Holy Spirit within the reader. The Holy Spirit, being spiritual, rises above reason, thereby allowing the reader to likewise transcend reason and grasp the spiritual Word. In response to the abuses Luther saw in the Spiritualists’ emphasis upon the leading of the Spirit as the ultimate authority for the church, he often stressed the Spirit’s work as limited to correspondence with the Word.
He writes, “The Spirit is given to no one without and outside the Word; He is given only through the Word.”[18] In this way, Luther sought to restrict the Spiritualists to an understanding of the authority of the Word through the working of the Holy Spirit, rather than allowing their claim that the Holy Spirit worked in ways outside and beyond the written Word. In Luther’s understanding, the written Word, through the work of the Holy Spirit, literally confronted the reader with God’s divine message in the midst of the reader’s daily life. The Word was not an intellectual challenge, it was an existential reality. In according with Luther’s conviction of Coram Deo and Christus por me, the Word likewise became the means through which God confronted the individual, and the individual experienced the will and Word of God.
Luther writes, “Experience is necessary for the understanding of the Word. It is not merely to be repeated or known, but to be lived and felt.”[19] It is this way that Luther states that Scriptural message must “inculcate” or “drive home” Christ to the believer. The Word becomes the vehicle through which the individual meets Christ.
CHRIST AND SCRIPTURE
The Christocentrism of Luther’s Christian experience and theology also becomes the central pillar to his understanding of Scripture. As seen above, Luther’s personal encounter with Jesus Christ came through his interaction with the Epistle of Romans. It was through the Word that Luther came to know the Lord Jesus. Luther saw in the Word the divine direction to the Christ. He writes, “The Scriptures begin very gently, and lead us on to Christ as a man, and then to one who is Lord over all creatures, and after that to one who is God. So do I enter delightfully and learn to know God. But the philosophers and doctors have insisted on beginning from above. We must begin from below, and after that come upwards.”[20]
In the believer’s pilgrimage to faith, the Scripture provides the sufficient guidance, which, if believed, will surely lead the individual into saving faith. Even matters of faith which seem to the mind of man most difficult to grasp become manifest through the sufficient provision of the Word: “If you can humble yourself, hold to the Word with your heart and hold to Christ’s humanity – then the divinity will indeed become manifest.”[21] Not only does Scripture lead to Christ, but, for Luther, is “concerned only with Christ when you see its inner meaning, even though it may look and sound differently on the outside.”[22] The entire message of the Word is Christ. Luther often employed the analogy of Christ being the central point of the circle of Scripture, around which everything in the Bible revolves.
In this way, Luther sought to point to Christ as the central message of the entirety of Scripture. This became a significant factor in Luther’s turn from purely allegorical interpretations to the “grammatical historical sense”, for he believed the former often merely concealed the true message, namely Christ, within a passage. During a sermon in 1515, Luther warned, “He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to the source, that is the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the centre.”[23]
Christ is the centre of not only the New Testament message, but also of the Old. This seems to have been a conclusion that was not widely presupposed by Luther’s audiences, who saw in the Old Testament a simplistic and rustic series of stories inferior to the gospel of the New Testament. To this sentiment Luther writes, “I beg and really caution every pious Christian not to be offended by the simplicity of the language and stories frequently encountered there, but fully realize that, however simple they may seem, these are the very words, works, judgments and deeds of the majesty, power and wisdom of the most high God.”[24]
Through the understanding that Christ is the message of the Word, Luther finds in the Old Testament fresh and exciting new significance: “Everything becomes new in this Christ, even the prayers of the dear patriarchs, because they call upon this very same Christ, who has now come and fulfilled what they believed and looked for. Now Scripture and the Psalms ring just as new on our lips, if we believe in Christ, as they did when David first sang them. In brief, from now on Christ wants all variation and disparity removed and everything unified, so that, as St. Paul declares, there will henceforth be but one God, one church, one faith, one prayer and worship, one Christ (Eph. 4:4-6), ‘the same yesterday and today and tomorrow’ (Heb. 13:8).
To summarize, God will hear and acknowledge only what is presented in the name of Christ.”[25] The continuously Christological perspective, which Luther takes toward the Scripture, resulted in what has come to be known as his incarnational understanding of the written Word. Rather than employing theological or philosophical terms to describe the Christocentric dimension of the word, Luther consistently uses Christological terminology. Luther drew deliberate parallels between Christ as the incarnation of God, and the Scripture as the incarnation of God as pertains to His Word and will, between the Word made flesh and the Word written. Luther referred to God’s Word in Scripture as “inlettered, just as Christ, the eternal Word of God is incarnate in the garment of humanity.”[26]
It is in this way that Christ is the message of the entirety of Scripture, and that any true understanding of that message must first come from the initiating act of God. Through the Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit, the reader is brought into an encounter with the centre of revelation, Christ Jesus. For Luther, God incarnate in the written Word is the object of faith through which the believer is justified. George concludes, In this way the formal principle (sola scriptura) of the Reformation is determined by the material principle (sola fide): Justification by faith alone based upon the grace and work of Christ alone is the key to understanding God’s revelation in Scripture alone.
CONCLUSION
From the overview above, it is clear that Luther’s understanding stemmed in part from an extension of medieval understanding, as pertains to the inspiration and validity of the Scripture for the Church. Luther also developed his understanding of Scripture from experiential factors, as seen in the profound impact his personal conversion had upon his understanding of the role of Scripture in the believer’s life and the authority it provided over matters of faith. Luther’s view of scripture was, however, predominantly guided by Scripture itself, providing him with a foundation upon which he built the resolve necessary to withstand the Roman Church. Scripture testified to itself in the matters of authority, the role of reason, the necessity of the Spirit in understanding, and the papal claims to exclusive interpretation. The Christological teachings of Scripture also formed the basis for Luther’s incarnational understanding of the written Word, through which much of his theology was unified and solidified.
It is clear, therefore, that by opening the Word, and encountering the truth therein, by the grace of God, Luther unintentionally started on the pathway leading to reformation. Although Luther was undoubtedly a great orator and thinker, Scripture alone is found to be the basis upon which Luther’s theology stands. A clear and unhindered reading and contemplation of the truth offered throughout the preceding centuries in Scripture provided Luther with the profound content and determination which is witnessed in his reformation efforts. Luther’s teachings can be summarised as follows:
Humankind is entrapped in the ancient temptation to play God (Genesis 3:5), violating the first of all divine commandments, “You shall have no other gods.”
Liberation from this original sin comes through faith of at least two people … one who tells another of Christ as the source of freedom from sin, and one who, so addressed, affirms faith in Christ alone.
The Christian life is one in which, though we are sinners by nature, we are at the same time saints by God’s grace and love. The Christian life is lived in two realms that belong equally to God, church and society. This calls for Christian commitment to education, fair economic practices, and a life of mission to the ungodly. Therefore, the church is born again and again, vigilant against the sin of idolatry (playing God) and confident that trust in Christ alone (justification by faith) is the only source of freedom and salvation. The Christian thus freed is called to serve all God’s children in the world.
[1] Philip Schaff. History of the Christian Church. Volume VII: Modern Christianity, The German Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994)
[2] John Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1980), 155
[3] A. Skevington Wood. Captive to the Word: Martin Luther: Doctor of Sacred Scripture, (Britain: Paternoster Press, 1969), 120
[4] Ibid, 123
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid, 124
[8] Ibid, 126
[9] Ibid, 125
[10] Ibid
[11] Ibid, 120
[12] Ibid, 121
[13] Ibid, 165
[14] Ibid, 164
[15] Ibid
[16] Ibid, 159
[17] Ibid, 160
[18] Ibid, 161
[19] Ibid, 167
[20] Ibid, 170
[21] Ibid
[22] Ibid,171
[23] Ibid
[24] Ibid
[25] Ibid
[26] Timothy George. Theology of the Reformers. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988), 84
June 10, 2009 at 9:29 am |
Shalom.
What do you feel about what Martin Luther said about the Jews?
June 10, 2009 at 9:44 am |
Here is a relevant article which gives a comprehensive approach to that question by Dr. Christopher Probst.
Martin Luther and “The Jews”
A Reappraisal
by Dr. Christopher Probst
The most prominent figure of the German Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther was a truly remarkable man. Whether we speak of his posting of the ninety-five theses on the church door at Wittenberg, his refusal to recant his teachings before Charles V at Worms, his marriage to Katharina von Bora in an age of clerical celibacy, or his translation of the New Testament into German, Luther was a genuine trailblazer. Yet, unknown to many Protestants – in some cases explained away – is Luther’s complex, but deeply troubling engagement with the Jewish people.
Others have tended to exaggerate Luther’s influence through an uncritical reading of history. Erroneously claiming that Luther “’called for the destruction of world Jewry’”, Alan Dershowitz opined, “’It is shocking that Luther’s ignoble name is still honored rather than forever cursed by mainstream Protestant churches.’”[1] This sad state of affairs led the late Reformation historian Heiko Oberman to lament that many would have us choose between “two Luthers” – one, the “bold Reformer, the liberating theologian, the powerfully eloquent German”; the other, an “anti-Semite” who “wrote mainly about Jews,” and “preached hatred.”[2] Such a choice is, of course, unnecessary.
Sadly, the history of Christianity has indeed been riddled by varying degrees of antisemitism, leading to oppression, marginalization, and – as in the Crusades and the Holocaust – even murder of Jews.[3] While Luther certainly did not invent antisemitism, one cannot discuss the question of Christian antisemitism without reference to him. He wrote at least five treatises on the subject of “the Jews” [4]. One in particular has fueled the greatest discussion of the reformer’s attitude toward Jews.
On the Jews and Their Lies has been variously defended, debased, and nuanced by historians and theologians in post-Holocaust literature concerning Nazi Germany, Christian antisemitism, and Jewish-Christian relations.[5] While another article on the subject could appear redundant, I hope that this contribution will impart some new appreciation for the intrinsic theological and historical realities of the treatise.
“Luther’s deeply troubling engagement with the Jewish people is unknown to many Protestants”
I will view Luther’s polemic against the Jewish people here in its medieval and sixteenth century German intellectual-theological context with an eye to social and political developments. I seek to answer whether this treatise can be said to contain anti-Judaic elements, antisemitic elements, or both. It would be helpful, at first, to entertain an important preliminary discussion regarding terminology.
One needs only to survey the literature briefly to see the divergent opinions on just what constitutes “antisemitism”. Heiko Oberman distinguished between “antisemitism” as racially motivated hatred and “anti-Judaism” as hatred motivated by theological conviction. Even so, he recognized the “crossovers and points of transgression” between the two.[6]
Nineteenth-century French Jewish intellectual and early Zionist Bernard Lazare maintained that the term “antisemitism” may only be applied to pre-nineteenth century events and attitudes anachronistically, given that the term originated in nineteenth century Germany.[7] He generally used the term “anti-Judaism” to describe theologically based hatred for Jews as it existed in the late medieval and Reformation periods.[8] He usually employed the terms “modern anti-Semitism” and “ethnological anti-Semitism” to denote the form that primarily encompasses racial and/or nationalistic overtones.[9]
The late medievalist Gavin Langmuir offered perhaps the most helpful definition of “antisemitism” in recent years, despite having to contend with the term’s bedeviled past. The term is “thoroughly contaminated with the erroneous presuppositions of the racists.” Yet, neither theories of “racism” nor “ethnic prejudice” provide us with that which is distinguishably unusual about anti-Jewish hostility.
He defined it most succinctly when he said, “Antisemitism … both in its origins and in its recent most horrible manifestation, is the hostility aroused by irrational thinking about ‘Jews’.”[10] It is irrational thought that characterizes antisemitism; nonrational thought characterizes anti-Judaism.[11] Nonrational thought, characterized by nonrational symbols, lies in fact at the heart of religion according to Langmuir. The “nonrational symbol system” of the “Cross”, for example, is only “valid” for the Christians who espouse it. Thus, he avoided characterizing religious thought as irrational.
The distinction between anti-Judaism as “theological” hostility and antisemitism as “racial” or “ethnic” hostility is not empirically demonstrable and thus should be discarded in favor of his characterization. “Empirical distinctions can be drawn” if religious phenomena are construed in the manner in which he has argued.[12] Yet, nonrational thinking is not in conflict with rational thinking and can – and does – utilize it in a “subordinate capacity.”[13] I find this aspect of Langmuir’s framework of antisemitism[14] to be both helpful and convincing because the “theological” versus “racial” distinction is extremely difficult to maintain in light of Luther’s chief writings on Jews and Judaism, which intertwine the nonrational and the irrational.
Historical Context
Christians and Jews in the Late Medieval Context
During the late medieval period, Christians accused Jews of a myriad of crimes and religious offenses. One example of such an accusation is the charge that they blasphemed the Virgin Mary and Jesus. The Quiver of the Catholic Faith was a late fifteenth century “manual for condemning Jews” which included the charge that blaspheming the Virgin is “typically Jewish.” A particularly “ferocious” German version of the text was widely circulated in Nuremberg in 1513. [15]
The late medieval Christian also viewed the Jew as a usurer, with the terms “Jew” and “usurer” becoming “synonymous” by the late twelfth century.[16] Léon Poliakov detailed the medieval history of Jewish usury, a story which entwines their marginalization in society and – in the case of the Holy Roman Empire – their economic worth to the German emperors.[17] Josel of Rosheim, protector of German Jewry during Luther’s time, struggled throughout his career with the thorny issue of actual and supposed Jewish usury – which seldom went unpunished – and hypocritical Christian usury, which often was overlooked by the authorities.[18]
Jews also supposedly profaned the sacred host of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Fantastic charges abounded that they stole and pierced communion wafers, causing the blood of Christ to miraculously flow out. The claim that Jews purportedly kidnapped Christian children and drained their blood for use in the Passover liturgy (ritual murder) was commonplace in medieval Europe.[19]
Christians and Jews in the Sixteenth Century
In order to put Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies in some immediate religious context, it is helpful to see what other Christian figures were saying about Jews just prior to 1543. In 1529, Andreas Osiander authored a tract[20], published anonymously in 1540, that systematically and forcefully refuted the charge of Jewish ritual murder of Christian children. Osiander was a Christian Hebraist who engaged in the study of Cabbala and had a thorough knowledge of rabbinic literature and the Talmud. He argued that it is “inconceivable that the Jews should murder children and make use of their blood” when their own Kosher laws forbade them even to eat the meat of animals containing blood. The treatise appeared just as the investigation of one such supposed murder at Tittingen was ongoing.[21]
Enraged by Osiander’s defense of the Jewish community and called upon by the Bishop of Eichstätt to rebut it, Johannes Eck, Catholic theologian and Luther’s nemesis, wrote what amounts to a lengthy retort to Osiander and a denigration of Judaism. It has been described as “a compendium of every horror story medieval anti-Jewish polemic could encompass.”[22] In Refutation of a Jew-Book, Eck based his passionate argument of the historical reality of Jewish ritual murder on his own personal experience. According to Eck, he had actually “placed his own fingers in the wound of a child who had died four weeks before at the hand of the Jews of Waldkirch in the Breisgau in 1503.”[23] The book also includes a call for “new and more stringent laws” against Jews[24] and strong condemnation of usury.
Justus Jonas, Luther’s close friend and confidant, took a strikingly different view than his mentor on “the Jews.” In fact, he went so far as to distort Luther’s position when he translated Against the Sabbatarians into Latin. What resulted was a rather pro-Jewish viewpoint that was in marked contrast to Luther’s increasingly harsh anti-Jewish stance.[25]
While medieval Christian theologians [26] influenced Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies, perhaps the most direct contemporary influence on Luther’s treatise is Anthonius Margaritha’s The Whole Jewish Faith.[27] Margaritha was from a prominent Jewish family, the grandson of a distinguished Talmudic scholar. He converted to Christianity and was baptized in 1522.[28]
The Whole Jewish Faith was first published in 1530. A third edition of the work was published a year later, just twelve years prior to the publication of On the Jews and Their Lies. This edition, argues Stern, exerted “a powerful influence on Luther.”[29] The treatise contains the accusations that Jews commit blasphemy against Jesus and Mary, are guilty of usury and theft, and that they wish to violently overthrow Christian authorities.[30] That Luther approvingly appealed to the treatise multiple times in On the Jews and even encouraged his readers to read it for themselves is evidence that it exerted a fairly significant influence on the reformer. [31]
What may we conclude regarding the actions and writings of these figures in sixteenth century Germany? When we approach Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies, we must recognize that with respect to both Catholic and Protestant views about Jews in Germany in the late 1530’s and early 1540’s, the air was highly charged. There was a flurry of propaganda on the subject from every side of the issue. The responses of Eck, Osiander, Jonas, and Margaritha demonstrate the decided diversity of views on the matter in the sixteenth century. A fair analysis of “Luther and the Jews” must take into account what these contemporaries were saying about Jews.[32]
Luther’s Writings about Jews
While Luther wrote five treatises concerning “the Jews”, his commentaries, sermons, and “table talk” also contain material about them.[33] I realize that I cannot say everything there is to say about “Luther on the Jews” in an article of this size. Thus, I will focus here upon On the Jews and Their Lies. I want first, however, to set this work in the context of some of his other treatises about “the Jews.”
That Jesus Christ was born a Jew (1523)
Luther’s earliest known treatise relating to Jews and Judaism was occasioned by the rumor that he was teaching that Mary was not a virgin either before or after Jesus was born. This was a very serious charge in the religious climate of the early years of the Protestant Reformation.[34] Luther’s twofold purpose was to show that according to Scripture “Christ was born a Jew of a virgin” and that he “might perhaps also win some Jews to the Christian faith.”[35]
I will make but a few brief observations about the content of the treatise. First, it is in the main a biblical and theological treatment of a religious issue. As such, its main source of argumentation is nonrational in nature. He argues extensively from his understanding of Scripture, for example, that “the Jews” cannot deny that Isaiah (7:14) was speaking of a virgin being pregnant and that “Christ was a genuine Jew of Abraham’s seed.”[36]
Second, there are seeds of philosemitism that regrettably do not grow into full form in those later works. “The Jews” in fact are “blood relatives” of Christ. Christians should deal kindly and gently with them – the Apostles, after all, were Jews who dealt with Gentiles in a “brotherly fashion.” Christians “must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love.”[37] He further recognizes that Christians are not the moral superiors of Jews. “If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either.”[38]
“Luther recognizes that Christians are not the moral superiors of Jews.”
Thirdly, the venom of the “later Luther” is clearly absent here. Absent are the typical medieval accusations of host profanation, ritual murder, and usury. There are no crude or scatological references. This is not to suggest that direct confrontation is lacking in the work. The Jews are wrong, for example, about both Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ and the Genesis 49 prophecy that the sceptre (i.e., kingship) would depart from Judah when the Shiloh (i.e., Messiah) comes.[39] They, in fact, are guilty of crucifying Jesus.[40] Yet, never in this work does Luther descend into the depths of (irrational) antisemitism.
Against the Sabbatarians (1538)
Fifteen years after Luther wrote That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, he composed this open letter to his “good friend” Count Wolf Schlick. The member of a prominent Moravian family, Count Schlick reported that many Christians in Bohemia and Moravia were developing “Sabbatarian tendencies.”[41] Just what these inclinations were is not perfectly clear, but they no doubt involved the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. What is important for our purposes is that Luther blamed them primarily on Jews, and this is where he directed most of his attacks.[42]
Luther’s arguments against Jews in this treatise contain elements that are found in his other tracts about them. They have not kept covenant, they have sinned, rejected the Messiah; they are in exile and – most tellingly – they do not reside in “the land” and no longer possess the temple.[43] While there are “reasonable” and “obdurate” Jews, as a whole they “are given to babbling and lying.”[44] This rather mild slander is one indication of the gradual increase in harshness of tone towards the Jews to which I have previously referred. The argumentation is very similar to the earlier tract, but the tenor has become decidedly less sympathetic.
On the Jews and their Lies (1543)
The immediate occasion for the controversial tract was a May 1542 request from his friend Count Schlick to refute a Jewish apologetic pamphlet, which the Count enclosed together with his request.[45] While at the end of Against the Sabbatarians Luther hinted that he might write such a treatise as this[46], he begins here by saying, “I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them.”[47] It is difficult to say to what degree the contents of the aforementioned Jewish apologetic pamphlet influenced Luther to change his mind.
The treatise is rather lengthy (approximately one-hundred-thirty-five pages in the original text). Thus, it will be useful to briefly outline it.[48] It falls into four major parts. In the first section, Luther describes and decries the “false boasts” of the Jews. In the second part, Luther presents debate on the exegesis of significant and relevant biblical passages. In the third section, Luther repeats the supposed Jewish blasphemies against Jesus and Mary. In the fourth and most infamous part of the treatise, Luther makes recommendations to church and state authorities for actions against the Jewish people.
My first observation about the tract is its scathing tone. This is most readily seen in Luther’s deprecating, sometimes crude language[49] and in his scornful sarcasm. Luther in places calls “the Jews” “a defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut”, a “whoring and murderous people”[50], and “bloodthirsty bloodhounds and murders of all Christendom.”[51] While the Gentiles give them everything they have, including “land and people”, still they “curse, spit on, and malign” the Goyim.[52] While Luther is aware of the objection that Jews of biblical times and Jews of his day are to be distinguished from each other[53], he frequently applies Scripture’s condemnation of the Jews of biblical times to Jews who are his contemporaries.
Indeed, he often intermingles Scriptural deprecation with typical late medieval pejoratives. In one illustrative example, he says that they are “stiff-necked, disobedient, prophet-murderers, arrogant, usurers, and filled with every vice, as the whole of Scripture and their present conduct bear out.” In fact, Luther’s “incorrigible” Jewish contemporaries are more “conceited” than “David and other pious Jews” of biblical times.[54] Further, he argues “that their present exile must be due to a more heinous sin than idolatry, the murder of the prophets, etc. – namely, the crucifixion of the Messiah.”[55]
Second, we observe the myriad of accusations that he levels at them. They are guilty of stealing and of usury. Three Jews with whom he had met “called Christ a tola, that is, a hanged highwayman.” Their Talmud says that it is no sin for a Jew to kill a Gentile.[56] They curse Christians in their synagogues.[57] They practice witchcraft, “conjuring signs, figures, and the tetragrammaton of the name, that is, with idolatry, envy, and conceit.”[58]
They defame Christ and Mary in various manners, calling Jesus a “sorcerer and a tool of the devil”, denigrating his name through Cabbalistic numerology, even calling him a “whore’s son.” [59] A “malicious rabbi” has supposedly called Mary a “dung heap.” They have been “accused” of poisoning wells, kidnapping and piercing children, “hacking them in pieces”, and using the blood of Christian children (i.e. in ritual fashion) to “cool their wrath”.[60] Luther strongly implies that these “accusations” may be true, despite Jewish denials:
“Whether it is true or not, I do know that they do not lack the complete, full, and ready will to do such things either secretly or openly where possible. This you can assuredly expect from them, and you must govern yourself accordingly.”[61]
Nearly all of these accusations were common in medieval antisemitic rhetoric.[62]
One final observation about the tract is its most widely known aspect, its anti-Jewish social programme. Luther makes seven severe recommendations concerning “the Jews.” Their synagogues and schools should be burned to the ground, their houses should be “razed and destroyed”; their “prayer books and Talmudic writings” should be confiscated; their rabbis should be “forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb”; they should be denied safe-conduct on the highways; usury should be prohibited to them and their gold, silver, and cash should be taken from them; finally, they should be subjected to harsh labor.[63] To the ears of post-Holocaust readers, these words are deeply troublesome and chilling.
Typical Interpretations of Luther “On the Jews”
Luther’s Diatribes as “Theological” Anti-Judaism
Heiko Oberman described late medieval and Reformation Germany as “a religious world that viewed truth as indivisible, banned deviation as error, and dreaded patent heresy as blasphemy fatal to a life with God.”[64] How, then, did he portray Luther’s anti-Jewish treatises? The “motive” for these treatises was “to reclaim the Scriptures in their entirety from the perversities they were suffering at the hands of the Jews …” Like German theologian Wilhelm Maurer before him[65], he believed that Luther was guilty of a primarily theological anti-Judaism. While Luther was not a conscious antisemite, nor did he think in “racial categories”, he nevertheless left no room for Jews as Jews.
Thus, his opposition to Judaism “in effect became opposition to Jews”; this was a view that allowed the image of the Jew to enter the service of “racial” antisemitism. [66] Oberman is not prepared to call Luther’s vitriol antisemitic. He chooses instead to label it as anti-Judaic, but recognizes in it an image of the unconverted Jew that would serve modern “racial” anti-Semitism quite well.
Luther’s Diatribes as the Product of Old Age, Sickness, or Disappointment
Mark U. Edwards’s analysis of Luther’s series of serious physical illnesses during the latter part of his life is enlightening. Over the course of his life, he experienced hemorrhoids, heart congestion, fainting spells, dizziness, an “open, flowing ulcer on his leg” and severe constipation. During the last fifteen years of his life, he lived through “more frequent and more serious illnesses” including uric acid stones, which caused him “great agony.”[67]
Luther also struggled with all sorts of mental anxieties. Edwards lists as symptoms Luther’s “frequent bouts of depression”, his “death-wish”, his “vulgar and scatological language”, his “outbursts of rage and vilification”, and his “visions of and contests with the devil.”[68] He questions, however, applying the term “mental imbalance” to a sixteenth century man with a “biblically-based view of the world” that was hardly unusual. Further, Luther’s later polemics contain lucid, “persuasive exposition of doctrine and exegesis of Scripture.”[69] Nevertheless, he speculates that Luther was neurotic, while rejecting the notion that he was psychotic.[70]
Edwards also elucidates a view of Luther’s harshness that accords with the literary evidence. “The trend towards greater harshness was relatively gradual and extended over a number of years …”[71] As I noted earlier, That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) was indeed philosemitic (especially for its era), Against the Sabbatarians (1538) was mildly slanderous of Jews[72], and On the Jews and Their Lies was quite virulent in tone.
The question naturally arises as to why Luther became harsher and harsher. Nevertheless, close examination of Luther’s thinking about Jews over the span of his lifetime might reveal that there is less of a distinction between the “old Luther” and the “young Luther” than this increasingly harsh tone might intimate.[73] Further, to attribute to this apparent change in tone any number of causes – sickness, old age, disappointment with the lack of Jewish conversions – is tempting, but perhaps should be call for further research rather than the typical speculation that occurs in the historiographical literature.[74] As Edwards rightly notes elsewhere, Luther consciously used “vulgarity and violence” for effect, and they are typical of his polemic against not only Jews, but “Turks” (Muslims) and Roman Catholics as well.[75]
Conclusion
Upon beginning, I asked whether Luther’s On the Jews and their Lies could be said to contain “anti-Judaic” elements, “antisemitic” elements, or both. I believe I have shown that this infamous treatise contains both anti-Judaism and antisemitism. Acceptance of the now-commonplace division of “theological anti-Judaism” from “racial antisemitism” has led many a historian – and many a theologian – to the erroneous conclusion that Luther’s vitriol is almost solely “theological” in nature.
Whether one construes the biblical-exegetical portions of Luther’s polemic as theological or nonrational, one is still faced with the prospect that at the very least the socio-political recommendations of the last section of the treatise rise to the level of antisemitism. The antisemitism of the treatise, however, is not limited to these severe recommendations. For Luther the sixteenth century Jew was in reality indistinguishable from the biblical era Jew. In fact, he was worse. He blasphemed Christ and Mary, slandered Christians, stole, practiced usury, and may have even murdered Christian children to use their blood in their rituals.
In saying all of this, I am not contending that the sole or even the primary impetus of Luther’s antisemitism is “racial” in the modern sense of the term. Luther did not think in terms of biology when he criticized Jewish behavior. There is no doubt that a large portion of On the Jews is dedicated to biblical-theological argumentation. Yet, even these religious arguments are not free from typical medieval slander. To depict his vitriol as “theological” anti-Judaism is reductionistic and does not suit all of the evidence. Further, the emphasis on discontinuities between late medieval/early modern anti-Judaism and modern antisemitism, while perhaps necessary to draw important distinctions about the manner of thinking about Jews in changing historical situations, nevertheless often conceals the continuities of thought that in fact traverse both periods.
Next, let us consider how much bearing Luther’s late medieval context played in shaping the antisemitism of On the Jews. Luther saw the Jewish people as eschatological enemies of God; in his mind, they were in league with the devil, the Turks, and the “papists.” There is no question, either, as to whether Margaritha’s The Whole Jewish Faith exerted some influence on Luther’s view of “the Jews.”
“Luther saw the Jewish people as eschatological enemies of God; in his mind, they were in league with the devil, the Turks, and the ‘papists.’”
While I agree with much of Oberman’s approach – particularly his portrayal of Luther in his late medieval context — and conclude that Luther did not rely solely upon Jewish ritual murder or usury to make his case against the Jewish people, he nonetheless did significantly buttress his “theological” (i.e. nonrational) polemic with such irrational late medieval rhetoric. We must not attempt to diminish the force of such speech, interspersed as it is between much larger blocks of text that are essentially biblical and theological in nature. Simply because the quantity of such rhetoric is significantly less than the biblical rhetoric, one should not conclude that the impact of the antisemitic slander was somehow lost on his audience.
If we accept the view of antisemitism which I have espoused here, how does this affect our understanding of the nature of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes? Clearly, if we adopt the strict “theological anti-Judaism” vs. “racial antisemitism” rubric, then we are left with no choice but to either centre our answer in his theology because he was a theologian who lived prior to the advent of nineteenth century biological notions of race or to anachronistically project modern notions about race onto his view of the Jewish people. Neither of these two answers, I think, deals with the question either historically or holistically. Luther’s “theology of the Jews” included both nonrational anti-Judaic and irrational antisemitic components.
While it has been customary for many Protestants especially to rebut the charge that Luther’s polemic is antisemitic on the grounds of its theological nature, his frustration with the lack of Jewish conversions, or his failing health in old age, such approaches are in my view overly speculative and apologetic. For some in the Jewish community and elsewhere, Luther is seen primarily as the prototypical modern antisemite. Surely this too is not an accurate picture of Luther’s vast body of work and practically ignores the theological content of even his anti-Jewish works.
If Protestant Christians are to sincerely proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples, including Jews, such an enterprise must be entered into with full knowledge of the horrendous mistakes – indeed sins – of Christian forebears, including Luther’s. They cannot breezily dissociate themselves from their Christian past when it saves them embarrassment and shame to do so. Protestant Christians also believe that Jesus died for sinners. Public acknowledgement and confession of such sins can serve as an example of integrity and humility to others and be a means to make the Good News of Christianity attractive to them.[76]
Footnotes
1.
[1] Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah (Boston: Little, Brown, 1991) 107, in Carter Lindberg, “Tainted Greatness: Luther’s Attitudes toward Judaism and Their Historical Reception”, Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes, ed. Nancy A. Harrowitz (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994) 15.
[2] Heiko Oberman, The Roots of Antisemitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, trans. James I. Porter (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 94.
[3] See, e.g., Léon Poliakov, The History of Anti-Semitism, 4 Vols. (London: Routledge/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974-1985); Christopher R. Browning, “Background” in The Origins of the Final Solution: the Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy 1939-1942 (London: Arrow Books, 2005) 1-11.
[4] That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, Against the Sabbatarians, On the Jews and Their Lies, On the Ineffable Name and on the Lineage of Christ, and On the Last Words of David. I put the phrase “the Jews” in quotes because of its generally negative usage by those, including Luther, who have an unreal image in mind, rather than real Jews, when they speak about Jewish people. See, e.g., Betsy Halpern Amaru, “Martin Luther and Jewish Mirrors”, Jewish Social Studies 46 (1984): 95-102.
[5] See, e.g., Mark U. Edwards, “Toward an Understanding of Luther’s Attacks on the Jews” in Christians, Jews, and Other Worlds: Patterns of Conflict and Accommodation, ed. Phillip F. Gallagher (London: University Press of America, 1988) 1-19. Eric W. Gritsch argued that Luther was “not an anti-Semite in the racist sense. His arguments against Jews were theological, not biological.” See “Was Luther Anti-Semitic?”, Christian History 1993, Vol. 12 Issue 3, 38-39.
[6] Oberman, Roots, 22.
[7] Lazare, Antisemitism: Its History and Causes, trans. not identified. (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1995) 8, 116-117.
[8] Ibid., chapters 5-7.
[9] Ibid., 95, 116, 118.
[10] Langmuir, History, Religion, and Antisemitism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990) 275.
[11] Ibid., 105-107, 130, 276.
[12] Langmuir, History, Religion, and Antisemitism, 276.
[13] Ibid., 152. Aquinas is cited as an excellent example of this kind of thinking.
[14] Langmuir also helpfully discussed two types of antisemitism, xenophobic and “chimeric”, in “Prolegomena to any Present Analysis of Hostility Against Jews”, Social Science Information 15 (1976): 689-727. The equation of the term “Jew” with “usurer” might be considered an example of the xenophobic variety, while ritual murder of children would fall under the chimeric category (see Christians and Jews in the Late Medieval Context). For this short article, however, I will discuss antisemitism solely in terms of its relationship to rationality.
[15] Oberman, Roots, 84-85.
[16] Andrew Colin Gow, The Red Jews: Antisemitism in an Apocalyptic Age, 1200 – 1600, ed. Heiko Oberman. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995) 47-48.
[17] Poliakov, The History of Anti-Semitism, Vol. I: From Roman Times to the Court Jews, (London: Routledge, 1974) 73-83.
[18] Selma Stern, Josel Of Rosheim — Commander Of Jewry in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, trans. Gertrude Hirschler (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1965) 32-35.
[19] See, e.g., R. Po-chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder: Jews and Magic in Reformation Germany (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988).
[20] Oberman translated the lengthy title as Whether It be True and Credible That the Jews Secretly Strangulate Christian Children and Make Use of Their Blood. See Roots, 35.
[21] Stern, Josel, 180-183.
[22] Steven Rowan, “Luther, Bucer, and Eck on the Jews”, Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985) 86.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Stern, Josel, 183.
[25] Oberman, Roots, 48-49. There is in fact no evidence that Luther and Jonas ever reconciled their disparate views on the “Jewish question.”
[26] E.g., Nicholas of Lyra and Paul of Burgos. Bertram’s Introduction to Luther, “On the Jews”, 131; Luther, “On the Jews”, 138.
[27] Bertram, Introduction to “On the Jews”, 130.
[28] Stern, Josel, 98-99.
[29] Ibid., 103.
[30] Ibid., 98-99.
[31] See e.g., Luther, The Christian in Society IV, Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, ed. Franklin Sherman, trans. Martin H. Bertram. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) (Hereafter, LW 47) 257.
[32] Oberman, Roots, 72.
[33] See, e.g., Martin Luther, Luther’s Correspondence, Vol. II, ed. and trans. Preserved Smith (Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, 1918) 185 – 187; Luther, “Lectures on Romans, 1516” in Lectures on Romans, Luther’s Works, Vol. 25, ed. Hilton C. Oswald, trans. Jacob A. O. Preus. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972) 380.
[34] Walther I. Brandt, Introduction to Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew” in The Christian in Society II, Luther’s Works, Vol. 45, ed. and trans. Walther I. Brandt. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1962) (Hereafter LW 45) 197-198.
[35] Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew”, LW 45: 200.
[36] Ibid., 213, 228.
[37] LW 45: 229.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid., 214.
[40] Ibid., 228.
[41] Bertram’s Introduction to Luther, “Against the Sabbatarians: Letter to a Good Friend”, LW 47: 59.
[42] Ibid., 59-61.
[43] “Against the Sabbatarians”, LW 47: 65-70, 80, 96-97.
[44] Ibid., 78.
[45] Bertram’s Introduction to Luther, “On the Jews”, LW 47: 133. In a footnote, Bertram also notes that the pamphlet is no longer extant.
[46] Luther, LW 47: 97 – 98.
[47] Ibid., 137.
[48] What follows is a summary of Bertram’s outline, Introduction to “On the Jews”, LW 47: 133-135.
[49] For a helpful view of Luther’s use of scatological language, see Heiko Oberman, “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology in the ‘Old’ Luther”, Sixteenth Century Journal 19 (1988) : 435-450.
[50] LW 47 : 166, 167. Luther’s use of the image of “whore” and “slut” for the Jews is in fact a Jewish, Old Testament prophetic pejorative for the Israelites in times of waywardness. See, e.g., the book of Hosea. It is also perhaps an ironic jab at them, since they supposedly call the Virgin Mary the same.
[51] Martin Luther, “Von den Juden und ihren Lügen” (“On the Jews and their Lies”) in D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 53. (Weimar: Böhlau, 1919-1920) 520.
[52] LW 47: 255.
[53] Ibid., 166-167.
[54] Ibid., 167.
[55] Ibid., 226. Emphasis mine.
[56] LW 47: 226.
[57] Ibid., 228. The cursing of Christians is probably a reference to the “twelfth benediction of the ‘Amidah’ prayer against the Christians” used during the early years of Christianity. For discussion of the plight of Judaism in sixteenth century Europe, see Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson, “The Reformation in Contemporary Jewish Eyes”, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1971): 239, 260-270.
[58] Ibid., 242. While medieval Jews did spread “scurrilous stories” about Christians, the kind of tales that Luther and Margaritha attribute to them are highly dubious. Langmuir, History, Religion, and Antisemitism, 282.
[59] Ibid., 256-260. “The Jews” are even purported to believe that Mary conceived Jesus during her “menstrual uncleanness”, implying that Jesus is thus insane or a demon.
[60] Ibid., 261, 217.
[61] Ibid., 217.
[62] See, e.g., Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, 131-136.
[63] LW 47 : 268-272.
[64] Oberman, Roots, 25.
[65] Wilhelm Maurer, “Luthers Stellung zur Judenfrage” (“Luther’s Position on the Jewish Question”) in Kirche und Synagoge. Motive und Formen der Auseinandersetzung der Kirche mit dem Judentum im Laufe der Geschichte. (Church and Synagogue. Motifs and Forms of the Debate of the Church with Judaism in the Course of History.) (Stuttgart, 1953).
[66]Oberman, Roots, 50.
[67] Mark U. Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531- 46 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983) 9.
[68] Ibid., 15. Contra Edwards, Oberman contended that Luther used scatological language throughout his entire career; that this kind of crudity had “absolutely nothing to do with disappointment or senility in the last years of life.” See “Teufelsdreck”, 444.
[69] Ibid., 17-19.
[70] Ibid., 8-9.
[71] Ibid., 17.
[72] Ibid., 125. Edwards here calls Against the Sabbatarians his first “major attack on the Jews.”
[73] Maurer, for example, argued that Luther’s theological view of Jews underwent little change during his lifetime. „Luthers Stellung“, 42-43.
[74] Oberman, for example, believed that Edwards bought into a misleading form of psychohistory regarding the “old” Luther. See “Teufelsdreck”, 438.
[75] Edwards, “Luther’s Attacks on the Jews”, 11. Luther viewed Jews, “Turks”, the pope and “papists” as part of a “great coalition” of eschatological enemies of God. See Oberman, Roots, 104, 105, 109.
[76] Titus 2: 1-10.