Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 19 May 2007

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Template:Schaff-Herzog talk

• Good article delisting discussion, May 2007.

	Martin Luther was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 18, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 31, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 12, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Martin Luther. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Martin Luther at the Reference desk.

Template:WP1.0

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Cited Authors Bios Copyright of Luther's Works Archive 1: May 2003 - December 2005 Archive 2: January, 2006 Archive 3: January - March, 2006 Archive 4: April, 2006 Archive 5: April - May, 2006 Archive 6: May - July, 2006 Archive 7: July, 2006 Archive 8: July, 2006 (continued) Archive 9: July - September, 2006 Archive 10: August-September, 2006 Archive 11: September - October, 2006 Archive 12:October 2006 - January 2007 Archive 13: December 2006 - February 2007

eating worms

how long did luther have to eat worms? thats gross

Have you ever tried it? A.J.A. 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think there's a misunderstanding here. Luther never ate Worms, but rather he was summoned in 1520 to a general assembly (a Diet) in the German town of Worms headed by the emperor Charles V that eventually ruled on April 17, 1520 that Luther was an outlaw and his books be banned and burned. Because this Caucus (Diet) took place in the town of Worms It eventually became known as the Diet of Worms. --24.44.158.33 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Luther and Islam

A worthy subject, but as was just pointed out it needs a total rewrite and sourcing.--Mantanmoreland 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's even hard to tell if the first paragraph is supposed to be a quotation or not. Fishal 12:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question involves the source of that section, which appears to be the website cited, Lutherans Online. Would this be considered a reliable source? Its essay on Luther and Islam is very interesting, not to mention timely. However, the website appears to be run by a financial company.--Mantanmoreland 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath

No disrespect intended to any Protestant Christians, but I think the aftermath's "negative" section is smaller than the positive section for reasons other than lack of facts. For example, many Princes of the Holy Roman Empire converted to Protestantism to gain greater influence amongst their subjects. This led to greater decentralization and eventually, the weakening if the Empire until its overdue dissolution in 1805 or whenever. I know this is mentioned as the 30 years war.

Also, Martin Luther's reformation indirectly started the Religious tensions throughout Europe, with religious factors playing key roles in the English and French civil wars. Tourskin.

Thank you for your thoughts! If you have a reliable source for these be bold and feel free to add them, with a citation, of course. Please keep in mind a few things. We've labored hard to keep this article small, spinning off detail to new articles and writing in summary style to achieve it. Also, there's quite a bit of theorizing about the causes and effects of the reformation. We need to consider them as well. If you run into them I'd be glad to see you add them. Finally, it is often difficult to keep this article about Luther and not wander into tangents directly and indirectly related to him. This topic has that danger built into it. Does anyone else have some thoughts? --CTSWyneken 10:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"translated into German?"

The article says that his 95 Theses were "translated into German." Were they written in Latin? (If so, perhaps the article should say so.) NCdave 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course they were in Latin. Most educated people in Western Europe wrote in Latin -- until Luther started the vernacular movement. We could add the phrase, but I do not believe its necessary. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's only a two word addition, and it seems worth two words, so I'll add it. Delete it if you disagree. NCdave 09:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. It can stay if it makes folks happy. --CTSWyneken 10:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page reorganisation

For the benefit of those who haven't been to this page regularly, could the talkpage organisation on the top right be switched so as to reflect the actual content debates that are likely to come up again? For example, I see that "most scholars - some scholars" is on; I imagine there are aspects of the discussion on excommunication that are also problematic. Hornplease 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be great, but I do not have the time or the energy to do it. Also, I do not know about others, but I am willing to point out when something has been discussed before, as long aa folks talk first and edit second. --CTSWyneken 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Naturally. It was just that there seems to be a bit of warring on again, and I was wondering whether the "majority of historians" thing had actually been decided. I couldnt find any consensus on the talkpage, so I assumed it was because I wasn't looking in the right place. (It could, after all, even be in the book article or the subarticle.) Hornplease 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This one has been a bone of contention for some time, with strong opinions on all sides. Four or five editors are intent on maintaining the wording the way it is. Between three and four believe the wording is biased and incorrect, but are tired of fighting over it. I only chime in on the issue these days when another editor challenges it. As far as consensus or agreement goes, none of us have ever agreed to this, as you have noticed. We just have other things -- and articles -- to do. --CTSWyneken 12:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

CTSW, you have openly acknowledged that you are employed to develop online resources about Martin Luther, and that this includes Misplaced Pages. You therefore stand in a conflict of interest in relation to this article. I've asked you before, and I am asking you again, to stop editing this article in defense of Luther. If you feel something is unfair, by all means point it out on talk, but you must then leave it for other editors to discuss and decide on without your constant intervention and reverting.

You've been engaged in a giant filibuster over this article for probably a couple of years, doing your utmost to keep out anything negative, to the point of serious disruption. It cannot continue. Please do not remove any more criticism from this article. SlimVirgin 21:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You have already decimated this section, and you were allowed to get away with it. You are not going to dilute it any further.

No rational human being who has read anything about the history of Germany would question the sentence: "There is little doubt among historians that Luther's rhetoric may have contributed to, or at the very least foreshadowed, the actions of the Nazis when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, although the extent to which it played a direct role in the events leading to the Holocaust is debated." In addition, for those who know nothing, scholarly sources are provided. And yet still you question it. SlimVirgin 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, please stop this personal attack on me, especially if you do not have the facts at hand. If you will go back through the history of this article, you will notice that I have not touched this section in any significant way in months. I have limited my editing on this subject to backing up others who wished to improve it and to correcting footnotes. I've found it a waste of time in the light of your intention to get your way at all costs.

As far as conflict of interest goes, it seems that you have an interest in portraying Luther in the least favorable light, to the extent of intimidating other editors. Indeed, you have violated good article procedures by delisting this article, when you have been deeply involved in it, also for years. Pehaps you should refrain from editing and simply comment on the talk page here, leaving it to others to make changes on this issue.

On the point its, there are a host of Luther scholars who do not believe that Luther inspired Hitler. We list them in the paragraph below. Therefore, the statement that "there is no doubt" is overreaching. I think you would find a lot more peace here, if you simply would provide a reference in a reliable source that puts it that way (I have yet to see that anywhere), or modify the language so it is less overreaching.--CTSWyneken 23:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do question it, if only mildly: 'contributed, or at least foreshadowed' is both poorly phrased and a rather strange summary of what I recall of the discussion. Surely the active pariticipants in that sentence should be the Nazis, rather than Luther? "..rhetoric was used by the Nazis to.." etc., etc.

Also, the discussion on scholarly sources seems to be still open, particularly this matter of majority-minority. Hornplease 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I note you've archived the last discussion of this topic, where I repeatedly asked for citations for this fact, notabilty the "there is little doubt" and the "a minority"; indeed, after initially asking, last summer, for citations and not finding them forthcoming, I've researched the topic a fair bit looking for citations and not finding them. If you've got a citation where some significant historian says that there is little doubt historians have this view, please come forward with it. Same if you have one for the majority/minority point. As best I can tell, this is simply original research. Note that the reversions have not changed most of the sentances involved, simply the characterization of differing views as "undoubted" or "minority". I'm willing to be convinced otherwise - just find the citation somewhere!A Musing 02:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, thank you for the added citations. Do any of them actually say "there is little doubt...," "historians agree that..." "there is no dispute..." or something like that? In the light of the sources in the next paragraph, I'm curious as to how this is not OR. --CTSWyneken 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have requested a review of the delisting of this article. Please discuss at the Good Article Review page. --CTSWyneken 23:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Source query

Could whoever added the following please say exactly what the sources say that supports the edit. SlimVirgin 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

His translation of the Bible furthered the development of a standard version of the German language and added several principles to the art of translation. (Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003), 1:244.) His translation significantly influenced the English King James Bible.(Tyndale's New Testament, trans. from the Greek by William Tyndale in 1534 in a modern-spelling edition and with an introduction by David Daniell (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), ix–x.)

The sources included in the section: the article from the Encyclopedia of Christianity and the scholarly edition of Tyndale's Bible. If you would like, I can provide ample others.--CTSWyneken 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what the sources are; I listed them above. I'm asking what they say that supports the edit. SlimVirgin 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll pull them and provide a direct quote, if you'd like. --CTSWyneken 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could provide the quotes on the talk page, that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Has anyone discussed Luther's mental state in his later years in connection with the virulence of his language concerning Jews? Is it known whether he was suffering from some sort of dementia?

Griselinia 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There was material in an earlier version about how some of his last words were diatribes against the Jews, but it was removed, of course. SlimVirgin 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem relevant if he was otherwise known not to be in his right mind. Perhaps the diatribes fit in to the picture. Griselinia 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is not allowed in this article without a tremendous fight. Whether we try to report his antisemitism, or that he may have had dementia, or what other scholars say about his famously abusive language, it will be removed. Ironically, the article is the poorer for it. Luther was a much more interesting figure than his supporters on this page give him credit for. SlimVirgin 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember if the sunject was in the article at some point or not. I believe it was, at some point, in Martin Luther and the Jews where it certainly is germane. If the subject can be summarized effectively here, I would have no objection to it being included, if properly cited. The most thorough discussion I know of is in Mark U. Edwards's Luther's Last Battles, if you want a one-stop shopping for the subject.--CTSWyneken 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who removed it. SlimVirgin 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please produce the diff. --CTSWyneken 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read here on Misplaced Pages, Luther had many physical problems, all of which in conjunction with each other or perhaps with Alzheimeimer's disease could have produced these violent uproars. It seems undoubtable that he was some form of genius, so even in a dilapidated condition he could have produced his later works. Alzheimer's is known to create violence in its sufferers, especially men as I understand it.Obviously this is speculative.Griselinia 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Coarse language

There's also no mention that I can see of his frequent use of coarse language, which he was well known for. That was also in an earlier version and was removed. SlimVirgin 00:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Was that throughout his life or just in his later years? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Griselinia (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Throughout his life, but increasing in intensity and frequency toward the end, as I recall. SlimVirgin 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not recall that the subject was treated here, but it could be if well cited. The caution I've raised repeatedly is that we take care to the overall size of the article and that we try to follow Misplaced Pages:Summary style. I'd suggest that we use the content of several published, mainstream encyclopedia articles on Luther as a guide. I'd be happy to report what such have to say on this, the witchcraft issue and any number of other issues. Others are, of course, welcome to do so as well. --CTSWyneken 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it's too long, remove other parts. You should not remove anything else that you see as criticism. SlimVirgin 00:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not going to play that game again. We are not simply going to report what other encyclopedias say. We are going to report what scholars say. SlimVirgin 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that encyclopedia articles are not written by scholars? --CTSWyneken 00:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, I agree that the full spectrum of the person should be in place.Griselinia 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I knew this question of Luther’s “coarse language” was bound to come up sooner of later. I myself had been hesitant to broach the subject for fear of offending, something I certainly have no wish to do. However, now that this matter has been opened up, I think it should be discussed. Surely this is preferable to it continually being "hidden with embarrassment." But only as long as it is discussed in a fair and objective manner, such that it serves to deepen our understanding and appreciation of the complexities of Luther himself and of the times in which he lived.

I hope the following will help toward that end:

1. Images from the introduction to my copy of Luther’s Table Talk, vol. 54, , ISBN 0800603540, which I think are worth noting.

• http://thumbsnap.com/v/k5LeQyGr.jpg
• http://thumbsnap.com/v/bzbHnYxm.jpg

2. And below is a link to all six volumes of Luther by Jesuit Fr. Hartmann Grisar. These works, which are a monumental study of the life of Luther from a Catholic perspective, are now PD and online at the Internet archive. See volume III, pp.229-234, “Language of the Table-Talk” for a discussion of some of the 'stronger' expressions of Luther. http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=grisar

Also, let me just say that while I freely acknowledge that some of Grisar’s interpretations may be, depending on one’s perspective, dated, and perhaps biased (and who doesn’t have biases?), still, I think overall he does a good job of treating Luther with a remarkable degree of fairness.

Certainly, Grisar's work remains, even today, an invaluable source of information on Luther, if for no other reason than the great wealth of well-documented quotes which it provides from Luther himself. Delta x 21:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Protest of SlimVirgin's Full Scale remake of the page

Slim, I request that you restore the material that you have unilaterally removed, restore the at least one page that you deleted without bothering to discuss with anyone and return to discuss them. Such actions are not conducive to working together with others.

For example, the last days article was done to address summary style suggestions. Your action undoes that. It also suggests that Luther's attacks on Islam are less important than, say, his views on witchcraft. Can you support scholarship to that effect? --CTSWyneken 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Write up the Islam section properly if you want to keep it. I have no idea which material you're talking about that I removed. The last days article was completely unnecessary; far too short to need moving. This article isn't too long, so there is no need to push things off elsewhere. SlimVirgin 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The section was just a stub, to be sure. I suggest that, to show your good faith and knowledge of Luther that you write the section. Nothing I write will ever satisfy you, so what's the point? It appears you do not need the assistance of someone who's studied Luther. If you want my assistance, talk first, save the ad hominem and ask, please.

On the last days article: you have again ignored the usual procedure of proposing deletion and then allowing for comment. Don't the rules apply to you? If so, please show some good faith, restore the article and file a deletion request.

The article was created for the purpose of reducing the size of the main article. By itself the added back material does not increase the size of the article overmuch. When combined with other material that was removed to lighten the load, it sure does. If we are ever to achieve the aims of summary style, then it is necessary to remove as much detail as possible, while still givimg a good, quick introduction to Luther. Otherwise, this article will grow immensely, since there has heen much written about him.--CTSWyneken 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "just a stub"; it was an appallingly written thing added by an anon. And I don't know what article you're talking about.

Summary style does not mean that this page should consist of a list of single paragraphs and links. At some point, there has to be narrative. When others add material, and if the article gets too long, then decisions can be made. In the meantime, the length is fine. SlimVirgin

Material copied from elsewhere

How much of the article consists of material copied from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge? SlimVirgin 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that CTSW added these sections from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (acknowledged in an earlier edit summary), but I'm not sure how much of that wording is still in the article. SlimVirgin 05:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All that material was either cited, paraphrased or deleted long ago. Feel free to read the article and check it. --CTSWyneken 10:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

The lead says: "His marriage to Katharina von Bora reintroduced the practice of clerical marriage within many Christian traditions," citing Bainton. But the Encyclopaedia Britannica says he was not the first of the Reformers to marry. What does Bainton say exactly? SlimVirgin 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotation from Bainton is in the talk archive somewhere, I believe. Better yet, why not check it out of the library. It's ome of the most common biography of Luther availsblr. You should have no trouble finding it in a library near you, or, since you are so interested in the Luther, the bookstore. --CTSWyneken 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it in the meantime. SlimVirgin 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is properly cited. Otherwise, let's remove the whole sentence that started this debate. After all, I haven't had a chance to verify them. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Your lead says that his marriage reintroduced clerical marriage. But the EB says he was not the first reformer to marry. So which is correct? SlimVirgin 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that, when this phrase was included in the intro, Bainton was quoted and cited to support it. It is good faith to leave such material in place until the cite is verified. It is also good faith that, even if a statement seems to be OR, that the statement be flagged with a fact tag and editors be given enough time to research it. It is a courtesy that has been paid to you, and I would hope it would be a courtesy that you would pay to others.

That's why I asked you what the source said. You told me to do the work myself. Therefore, I'm going to remove it. We don't know what your source says, but we do know that the EB appears to contradict it. SlimVirgin 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And we have only your word that it says so. If you cannot show this much good faith, then don't expect it from others. --CTSWyneken 12:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As to the point at hand: clerical marriage in the West was practiced at the fringes until Luther's marriage. His marriage gave legitimacy to the newly revived practice and his family life was used as a model for the protestant parsonage. This phrase has taken many forms over time in our article and may need adjusting. My point is that the fact that it has been cited means that the source should be checked before deleting the thing out of hand. It may be that Bainton actually uses the phrase. --CTSWyneken 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Then check it. SlimVirgin 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the text is properly cited, this is your responsibility, not mine. --CTSWyneken 12:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a moment to check the Encyclopedia Britannica Online. The article appears to be a new one, by Hans J. Hillerbrand (last a remembered, the article was by Gordon Rupp) Anyway, I cannot find any reference here to marriages prior to Luther's in the reformation community nor a discussion of the significance of the marriage. Slim, would you provide a more precise reference to the point you're trying to make so I can check it? --CTSWyneken 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bainton book is searchable in Amazon, and other Bainton material is available in Google books - no one need leave their terminal to check these citations. As I read both the cited page and the subsequent chapter in Bainton, I'm not sure "reintroduced" is the right word as it certainly sounds like marriage was "in the air" in reformer circles, and perhaps somewhere there is a history of clerical marriage. At the same time, it is clear from this source and every other one I've seen discuss the point that Luther's marriage is an important, high profile one. So, I think a sentance on the marriage is essential to this introduction, but will defer to others on what verb is used to highlight the importance of that marriage. But something other than "introduced", or a different cite.A Musing 14:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here’s the marriage reference from Bainton, whose work is now online at the Internet archive. Now all references from Bainton can be quickly and easily checked, along with the surrounding context. I hope this helps.

“If he could not reform all Christendom, at any rate he could and he did establish the Protestant parsonage.”

HERE I STAND ALIFE OF MARTIN LUTHER (c. 1950), Ch. 17, THE SCHOOL FOR CHARACTER, p. 286.

and here's a link to a latter edition at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Here-I-Stand-Martin-Luther/dp/0452011469 (c. 1995). Delta x 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

<cite> tags_tags-2007-05-14T11:20:00.000Z">

Slim, please restore the <cite> tags you deleted. This bit of HTML marks titles so that Google will give them more weight when someone searches for the title.--CTSWyneken 11:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)_tags"> _tags">

Can you show me where it says that? Also, why do we want to give them more weight? SlimVirgin 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the tag: it's basic HTML, Slim. If you'll go to www.w3.org and any number of tutorials, you'll find info about it. Why we would want to do it? When a student is looking for reviews of a book or article, I teach them to search Google, Google Books and Google Scholar, putting the title in quotation marks. The results are a bit better than raw resultsm, presenting pages that discuss the work. This is especially valuable when the title is used in a note. It indicates the work was important enough or respected enough to be quoted in someone else's essay. The cite tags make it easier for search engines to do this. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where it says that, rather than hand-waving about basic HTML. If what you're saying is right, it sounds like another POV-pushing mechanism. We're not here to make certain authors easier to find on Google. SlimVirgin 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're once again jumping to conclusions, Slim. The point is to mark all titles in cite tags so that people who are looking for information about a title can find our discussion, which cites it, more easily. When time permits (which it may not this week of graduation in Fort Wayne), please stop deleting them at least or show the good faith to restore them. --CTSWyneken 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Missing Citation

I note that I have indeed read all of the material cited for the proposition that "there is little doubt" as to what historians believe and for the idea that there is a "minority view" regarding Luther, causation and the Holocaust. None of them stand for the idea that "there is little doubt" or that questioning caustion of the Holocaust by Luther and his writings is a minority view. I'd hope that editors can focus on the article, and on getting it right. Again, I've done the research on each of these points. As to the minority/majority, I've found nothing characterizing any of these viewpoints as minority or majority. It appears the editors here wish to write a survey article making some conclusions about the prevalance and dominance of certain position - that's great, and once it's published in a peer reviewed article, we should cite to it. A Musing 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, thanks, that's actually one I'd read earlier and hadn't thought to go back to - since it was mainly being cited for the opposite point down below, but that does indeed give us a prevailing opinion. I tweaked the language slightly to track the quote, but believe the substance is the same.A Musing 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputes

Has anyone looked into an RFC for this article? I would suggest it given the disputes here. Quadzilla99 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we mediate the issue - perhaps if there is someone who can push aside the personal friction, it would be possible to focus on the article. Is anyone else up for mediation?A Musing 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has said in the past that she will, under no circumstances accept mediation. I do not think it will be fruitful without a major party of the debates here sitting it out. So, unless her position has changed, I do not think it will work. The same thing will happen, I'm afraid, with an RfC on the article. A fair number of people have come by, only to have their work undone, as just happened yesterday. --CTSWyneken 18:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the undoing of work has been a good thing, not a problem. I am still trying to get my hands around how Luther's last sermon, which I had understood from this article to be a conciliatory and pleasant missive when it comes to Jews, was actually anything but.--Mantanmoreland 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction, Last sermon but one.--Drboisclair 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? What brings you to that novel conclusion? Jayjg 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin Brecht brings me to that conclusion. cf. the above chain. Still looking in to this.--Drboisclair 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See thread "Note 77; Luther's last Sermon." No point in duplicating it here. --Mantanmoreland 23:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One Thing to Remember When Criticizing Luther

More to the point, something to remember when remarking on his anti-semitism, and his harsh and violant language. Martin Luther, for all his education, was still a man of his times. We are talking about a time in history where the MAJORITY of people were still relativly uneducated, therefore the best way to relate in words and letter your opinions was to use as very expressive speech or prose that could lead little doubt in your point of view. As well, being a man of his times, it only stands to reason that he so easily shifted towards anti-semetic mindset, as, obviously, there was very little toleration in his day. Remember, and this applies to any person, that when analyzing a historical figure, one must also not only be aware of that person's time, but also measure that person's actions and ideas against the status-quo of the point in time. I am not taking any stance for or against Luther (as indeed he did have a, shall we say, low opinion of Jews, and did use very harsh and violent language in his tracts...), I am only wanting to remind people that context is as important as content.

Also I apologize for any spelling or grammar errors asit is late and I am both tired and tipsy....... =)

John 04:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your point is understood and accepted. That is why the issue of his "last" (or second last, etc.) sermon is troublesome. I am anything but a Luther expert, and I had relied upon the material here and believed that there had been a mellowing of his point of view on Jewish people toward the end. This was not so. --Mantanmoreland 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If anything, his POV on the Jewish peoples became harsher as time went on. One theory is that he believed his new ideas on the faith and on the church would entice Jews to convert to Christianity. When he saw that this was indeed not so, he became virulently bitter because of it. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Luther's Last Sermon

Let's try to move beyond ad hominem and take a look at the sermon that the LCMS resolution calls "Luther's last sermon" If I miss something, please feel free to add it.

The sermon appears as the last entry under "Predigten des Jahres 1546" in volume 51 of the definitive critical edition of Luther's works, the Weimar Ausgabe. It is numbered 8 and dated 15. Februar 1546 and titled: "Predigt über Matth. 11,25 ff. zu Eisleben gehalten: Die vierde Predigt." It is located from page 187 to 196 and appears in two parts, the last on pages 195-196 entitled "EIne vermanung wider die Juden." This last has been typed from the St. Louis Edition text by DRBoisclair at the talk page of Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews. The first part is mostly a critique of the papcy and its theology, only one reference to the Jews made in the passage: "EBen solche weisheit hatte Caiphas auch, da er mit den Jüden zu rat gieng: Ir grobe Narren, ir habt keine köpffe, ir wisset und verstehet nichts, Ists nicht besser, das ein man sterbe, denn das das gantze Volk verderbe?" (p. 190, lines 12-14) The last two pages appear to contain both the material quoted by the LCMS and that in the long quotation Slim has found. The translation of the short passage done by the LCMS is from Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Witness 123 (2004)no. 4:18. I'm not sure where the translation provided of the longer passage comes from.--CTSWyneken 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text of the appendix from which this quotation is taken:

Saint Louis Edition of Luther's Works, vol. 12, col. 1264-1267:

Eine Vermahnung wider die Juden. 1. Nachdem ich nun eine Zeitlang allhier gewesen und euch gepredigt habe, auch nun anheim muß und vielleicht euch nicht mehr predigen möchte, so will ich euch hiermit gesegnen und gebeten haben, daß ihr fleißig bei dem Wort bleibet, das euch eure Prediger und Pfarrherr von der Gnade GOttes getreulich lehren, und euch auch gewöhnet zum Beten, daß euch GOtt vor allen Weisen und Klüglingen behüten wolle, so die Lehre des Evangelii verachten; denn sie oft viel Schaden gethan und noch thun möchten. 2. Ueber andere habt ihr auch noch die Juden im Lande, die da großen Schaden thun. Nun wollen wir christlich mit ihnen handeln, und bieten ihnen den christlichen Glauben an, daß sie den Messiam wollen annehmen, der doch ihr Vetter ist und von ihrem Fleisch und Blut geboren, und rechter Abrahams Same, deß sie sich rühmen; wiewohl ich Sorge trage, das jüdische Blut sei nunmehr wässerig und wild worden. Das sollt ihr ihnen erstlich anbieten, daß sie sich zu dem Messia bekehren wollen und sich taufen lassen, daß man sehe, daß es ihnen ein Ernst sei; wo nicht, so wollen wir sie nicht leiden. Denn Christus gebietet uns, daß wir uns sollen taufen lassen und an ihn glauben. Ob wir nun gleich so stark nicht glauben können, wie wir wohl sollten, so trägt doch GOtt Gedult mit uns. 3. Nun ists mit den Juden also gethan, daß sie unsern HErrn JEsum Christum nur täglich lästern und schänden. Dieweil sie das thun und wir wissens, so sollen wir es nicht leiden. Denn soll ich den bei mir leiden, der meinen HErrn Christum schändet, lästert und verflucht, so mache ich mich fremder Sünden theilhaftig, so ich doch an meinen eigenen Sünden genug habe. Darum sollt ihr Herren sie nicht leiden, sondern sie wegtreiben. Wo sie sich aber bekehren, ihren Wucher lassen und Christum annehmen, so wollen wir sie gern als unsere Brüder halten. 4. Anders wird nicht daraus, denn sie machens zu groß. Sie sind unsere öffentlichen Feinde, hören nicht auf, unsern HErrn Christum zu lästern, heißen die Jungfrau Maria eine Hure, Christum ein Hurenkind, uns heißen sie Wechselbälge oder Mahlkälber, und wenn sie uns könnten alle tödten, so thäten sie es gerne. Und thuns auch oft, sonderlich die sich für Aerzte ausgeben, ob sie gleich je zu Zeiten helfen; denn der Teufel hilfts doch zuletzt versiegeln. So können sie die Arznei auch, so man im Wälschland kann, da man einem ein Gift beibringt, davon er in einer Stunde, in einem Monat, in einem Jahr, ja, in zehn oder zwanzig Jahren sterben muß. Die Kunst können sie. 5. Darum seid unverworren mit ihnen, als mit denen, die da nicht anderes bei euch thun, denn daß sie unsern lieben HErrn JEsum Christum greulich lästern, stehen uns nach Leib, Leben Ehre und Gut. Noch wollen wir die christliche Liebe an ihnen üben, und für sie bitten, daß sie sich bekehren, den HErrn annehmen, den sie vor uns billig ehren sollten. Welcher solches nicht thun will, da setze es in keinen Zweifel, daß er ein verböster Jude ist, der nicht ablassen wird, Christum zu lästern, dich auszusaugen und (wo er kann) zu tödten. 6. Darum bitte ich, wollet euch fremder Sünde nicht theilhaftig machen, ihr habt genugsam GOtt zu bitten, daß er euch gnädig sei und euer Regiment erhalte; wie ich noch täglich bete, und tücke (ducke) mich unter den Schirm des Sohnes GOttes, den halte und ehre ich für meinen HErrn, zu dem muß ich laufen und fliehen, wo mich der Teufel, die Sünde oder ander Unglück anficht; denn er ist mein Schirm, soweit Himmel und Erde ist, und meine Gluckhenne, darunter ich krieche vor GOttes Zorn. Darum kann ich mit den verstockten Lästerern und Schändern dieses lieben Heilandes keine Gemeinschaft noch Geduld haben. 7. Das hab ich als ein Landskind euch zur Warnung wollen sagen zur Letzte, daß ihr euch fremder Sünde nicht theilhaftig macht; denn ich meine es ja gut und treulich, beide mit den Herren und Unterthanen. Wollen sich die Juden zu uns bekehren, und von ihrer Lästerung, und was sie uns sonst gethan haben, aufhören, so wollen wir es ihnen gerne vergeben; wo aber nicht, so sollen wir sie auch bei uns nicht dulden noch leiden.

--Drboisclair 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevant material from Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church 1532-1546, p. 350: "Several times in his sermons in Eisleben he attacked the Jews. He realized, of course, that they were the firstborn, and that Christians had to thank them for the law, the prophets, and even Christ himself, but this gave the Jews no right to set themselves up against God and to kill Christ and Christians. (footnote 58: WA, Br 11:275, line 5-276, line 2=LW 50:290-291. WA Br 11:286, line 15-287, line 24. WA 51:172, line 32--173, line 2.) He appended An Admonition Against the Jews probably to his last sermon but one. He wanted people initially to deal in a Christian way with them and call upon them to accept the Messiah, their 'cousin,' and to be baptized, but the Jews blashemed Christ daily. This could not be tolerated, or people would be participating in the sins of another. The princes shold expel such Jews, but in case they converted, abandoned usury, and accepted Christ they should be considered brothers. There was no other option."--Drboisclair 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note 77; Luther's last Sermon

Slim, I do not believe the Weimar contains any English text. Would you kindly cite the source of the translation? Also, have you read this sermon? If not, please cite the secondary source that summarizes it in this way. --CTSWyneken 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, your edit summary is untrue. My point is that you quote a secondary source and cite it to the primary source. How are we to know who the translator or paraphrasing party is? Your citation, apart from being inaccurate, gave the impression that Luther wrote in English. It is as if I quoted the Book of Exodus in the words of the King James Version, but cited the Hebrew text. Such an approach is at best misleading. I have no objection to you quoting it, just cite it accurately.

That having been said, I have no objection to your latest summary with citation. It is a good start. --CTSWyneken 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't cited it to the primary source. Read the citation. SlimVirgin 19:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you, for 18 months, allow the summary below of his final sermon to remain either in Martin Luther or in Martin Luther and the Jews, without changing it or at least alerting us to how one-sided and misleading it was?

Luther's final word on the Jews was: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).

SlimVirgin 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason I let this one stand; I didn't notice the cite because I didn't do a systematic analysis of the citations in the subarticles. My attention was on the notes and text here. And, yes, with the quote itself you did cite the original version to back up a secondary source. And, like this one, the pagination is off to boot. So, in short, if you cite the translation of this quotation, I do not have a problem with including it. I'd only ask that the size be kept as limited as possible. --CTSWyneken 19:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about the citation. I'm asking why you didn't do anything about Misplaced Pages containing, for 18 months, a seriously misleading description of Luther's final sermon. SlimVirgin 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said for you, Slim. It seems that you didn't notice this aspect of the articles either. Frankly, I've avoided working on this topic as much as possible, knowing that you and those who edit with you would not allow the slightest change in your prose.

Now, can we stop the ad hominem? On the point: the passage that the LCMS translates in its resolution condemning Luther's anti-Jewish comments (Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) No. 4:18) is actually from the page cited (WA 51:195). If used, it can have both references in it. I have yet to check the longer quote, since I do not know where the translation is from, nor the pagination for it, since it is miscited (probably a typo). I have no reason to believe it's not there. As with much of Luther's work, the matter of this is likel much more complex than you make it out to be. Luther is quite capable of swinging from sweet to acidic and back again, especially at this time of his life. If the sermon is to be discussed, it ought to mention both aspects. --CTSWyneken 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like a straight answer to this, please. Don't try to muddy the waters by discussing citations.

The issue is simple. You say you are an expert on Luther. You've made 878 edits to this article and 145 edits to the article the summary of the sermon was moved to. You must therefore have seen it quite a few times. But it is deeply misleading, and you would have known that. I am therefore asking you why you didn't change it, or at least alert us to the fact that Misplaced Pages contained a highly misleading summary of Luther's last sermon for 18 months — misleading to the point of distortion. This hinges on intellectual honesty, which goes beyond matters of POV, and is therefore important. SlimVirgin 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What if the answer is that He was unaware of this. There was an instance of the Hallsall material being used in a faulty manner. I think that you should give CTS the benefit of the doubt here. If he had known of this problem, he would have corrected it. We work with sources here, and the sources may be in error. Have you examined the Weimar Ausgabe volume to determine that this quotation is not there?--Drboisclair 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the quotation wasn't there. I said it was highly misleading to use only that part of the sermon, and doing so was designed to give the impression that Luther had had some sort of volte face at the end of his life, whereas scholars describe the sermon as yet another diatribe against the Jews.

What about you, Drboisclair? Why didn't you fix it? SlimVirgin 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is wrong with it? Please specify what the problem is. I do not understand.--Drboisclair 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious that you can read through this thread and "not understand" the simple issue involved here?--Mantanmoreland 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop being uncivil, Manta, spell it out for me.--Drboisclair 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He's not being uncivil, Dr. I'll try to make it clearer. Do you feel that this ...

Luther's final word on the Jews was: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).

... is an accurate summary of Luther's final sermon? SlimVirgin 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will have to go to the library to check it. I think that it is a case of trusting a secondary source here. Consulting one of the resources at my disposal here in my office seems to indicate that p. 195 of the WA is the page after "The Last Sermon Preached at Eisleben, February 15, 1546"; this is contained in WA 51,187-194. If there was a mistake here, it is in the secondary source. I will check this out. I think that imputing bad motives to editors is uncivil, though. If there is a mistake, we cannot be blamed for it IF we were unaware of it, and I was unaware of it and CTS was unaware of it. So, in answer to your question: as of this very moment, I don't know. I am checking it out for myself. If you have volume 51 of the WA or volume 51 of the American edition, you could be helpful. Please give other editors the benefit of the doubt.--Drboisclair 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

<---But it is a famous sermon among Lutheran scholars, Drb, and you've indicated elsewhere that you're an expert on Luther, as has CTSW. I also don't see how it can be a problem with secondary sources, when you didn't quote a secondary source, but Luther himself. You can read the Misplaced Pages article now for a brief summary from secondary sources of the tone of that sermon. It's described as "brimming over with biting condemnation and vulgarities for the Jews." Your description made it sound like a love letter. SlimVirgin 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it was a "love letter". Among some it would be considered to be patronizing. Isn't it from the Siemon-Netto article? On the surface the citation itself looks like a mistake WA, vol. 51, p. 195. Maybe American Edition, vol. 51, p. 195 is meant. You have to understand that there are over 100 700+ pages of Luther's works. I think that the problem is with the secondary source. I can't say whether it is right or wrong without following all the leads.--Drboisclair 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is from volume 3 of Martin Brecht's Martin Luther, p. 350: "He appended An Admonition Against the Jews probably to his last sermon but one. He wanted people initially to deal in a Christian way with them and call upon them to accept the Messiah, their "cousin," and to be baptized, but Jews blasphemed Christ daily." Even looking at this I would say that it cannot be considered a "love letter." CTS does not say that this quotation comes from the last sermon. It is the last sermon but one. Still looking into this.--Drboisclair 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no secondary source. Here it is once again, with the only source it had:

Luther's final word on the Jews was: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).

The source is Luther, and the question is not whether he said it (he may well have done), but whether it is an accurate summary of his final sermon. Are you saying you're completely unfamiliar with that sermon? SlimVirgin 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: his final word on the Jews. Not his final word but one. And one of you later changed it to read "his last sermon" or "his final sermon." SlimVirgin 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is where I finally realized it was a distortion, just yesterday. It said:

In his final sermon shortly before his death, Luther preached "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord." (Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1920),51:195. Hereafter cited WA.)

Those cite tags suggest it was CTSW who edited it. SlimVirgin 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My dear Slim, if you look at the quotation it simply says Luther's last word on the Jews. It does not say that it is from his last sermon. It is apparently from his second last sermon. The citation "Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195" is apparently an error. --Drboisclair 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you now think it is from his second last sermon? Not only did the Misplaced Pages article say it is from his final sermon, but Heiko Oberman says it is from his last sermon. However, as is clear, it is a tiny snippet of a quotation taken out of context, and completely represents the actual tenor and content of his final sermon. Jayjg 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have just reread the last sermon in Wittenberg and his "last sermon" in Eisleben, and there is no quotation like this there. There must be another sermon that occurs in Weimar Ausgabe, vol. 51, page 195, but I do not have that book here. I have access to the American edition, which has provided the information. Jay, you have just corroborated Brecht in what you have quoted. The next step is to consult the Weimar Ausgabe, which I will do, but it will take a little time. Be patient.--Drboisclair 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding this hard to understand. Please look at the quotes above, which I've cited maybe four times now. "In his FINAL sermon ..." "His FINAL word on the Jews ..." SlimVirgin 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, Jay, and Mantanmoreland, I have an answer for you. As you can see there are secondary sources Brecht and Oberman, who say that there is this statement in Luther's last sermon. Actually, it is in the appendix to his last sermon, which is Eine Vermahnung wider die Juden (Warning against the Jews). I can type in here the entire document, which is perhaps one or two pages long, but I will do that only if you would like to read it. The quote in question is: "Noch wollen wir die christliche Liebe an ihnen üben, und für sie bitten, daß sie sich bekehren, den HErrn annehmen, den sie vor uns billig ehren sollten." This could very well be on page 195 of WA 51, since it is an appendix to Luther's last sermon. This is corroborated by Oberman and Brecht, so this is not an error. Q.E.D.--Drboisclair 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In this document Luther mentions his allegations against the Jews of blasphemy against Jesus and Mary as Brecht says, but his advice is the statement about praying for them and using them in a "Christian" manner. Yes, it is not a "love letter", but it is different from Luther's Von den Juden. As you can see, too, CTS is simply following Brecht and Oberman. I have the entire appendix in question in an electronic document if anyone wants me to send it to them or post it here.--Drboisclair 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Drb, please read carefully, because we are talking at cross purposes. I am not questioning that Luther said the above in his last sermon, or in his appendix. I am saying that it is NOT AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE SERMON AS A WHOLE. I am saying that it is misleading; that the quote was taken out of context and is highly misleading, because it gives exactly the wrong impression of the sermon. Do you understand?

My question to you again is: Do you feel that the quote I've repeated three or four times is an ACCURATE SUMMARY of the final sermon?

I am repeating the quote again below for your convenience. SlimVirgin 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In his final sermon shortly before his death, Luther preached "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord." (Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1920),51:195. Hereafter cited WA.)

My short answer: after having read the sermons in question and the appendix, NO. However, you cannot blame CTS or me for this as being misleading. You will have to blame Oberman and Brecht. He and I were simply following acknowledged scholars. I have the electronic text of the appendix if you would like to read it as I know that you can read German.--Drboisclair 02:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't cite Oberman and Brecht, and they do not summarize the sermon the way you did. Please take this seriously, drb, because it's starting to look like intellectual fraud. Please cite the source that told you this was an accurate summary of the final sermon. SlimVirgin 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not going answer your ad hominems any longer. Since you are not inclined to be fair-minded, I will not explain my actions to you at all. If you wish to discuss the matter of the sermon itself and what, if any, of it should be included in this article or another, that is fine.

Let me repeat myself. As long as the quotation from this sermon is accurately cited in the future, I do not object to its inclusion in this article or any other that deals with the matter.

So, for those who actually care about moving the article forward, let me explain, again, what I found when I pulled WA 51 this afternoon. First of all, the sermon is in German. Second, the source for the short quotation is the LCMS resolution condemning Luther's harsh words against the Jews. It, in turn, is a translation of text that appears at WA 51;195. I do not know where the translation of the longer passage comes from. If someone knows where it comes from, plase post the cite here. If time permits tomorrow, I will scan the sermon for text that looks like the source of this translation. I will post the page numbers if I find it.

Once we have it all sourced, then perhaps someone can read the whole sermon a summarize it for us. Only when we have read the whole thing can we hope to judge what is representative of that work.

I'm finished for now. Go ahead and attack me again, if you wish. --CTSWyneken 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You've gone too far this time. That was a complete distortion of the message of the final sermon, and you must have seen that text hundreds of times as you edited around it over the last 18 months, and indeed I believe you added the cite tags to the reference. A journalist or academic who did that would probably lose their jobs. SlimVirgin 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Drboisclair, how can you blame Oberman, when Oberman clearly quotes Luther as saying that the Jews are "our public enemies ... and if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so. And so often they do."? How did that sentence get left out? Oberman didn't leave it out. Jayjg 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you cannot blame CTS or me. Misplaced Pages has a rule about OR, so we simply made that citation on the basis of a secondary source that cited that quotation.

Which secondary source? Please name your source. SlimVirgin 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The best explanation that I can come up with for why this point was made in a secondary source is that it is a softening of Luther's advice given in On the Jews and Their Lies. Perhaps Luther should have given that advice earlier about treating the Jews in a Christian manner. He certainly didn't. I am embarrassed that he made such shameful comments at all: we all are. CTS or I DID NOT FORMULATE THE POINT ABOUT LUTHER'S LAST SERMON. We simply trusted the secondary sources that had used it because we thought them reputable. I think that there should be a courtesy extended to editors that their motives should not be questioned: they should be given the benefit of the doubt, and to accuse us of misleading when we were unaware of any misrepresentation is simply unjust to say the least and unbecoming of the WP:CIVIL principle. As to the appendix in question: there appears to be a selective quotation of it on the Martin Luther and the Jews, it seems that the translation of "Noch wollen wir die christliche Liebe an ihnen üben, und für sie bitten, daß sie sich bekehren, den HErrn annehmen, den sie vor uns billig ehren sollten" is strangely absent. I think that that shows that that translation is POV and biased by not having that sentence in there.--Drboisclair 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, I don't think that we or any others should be blamed because other sources like Shirer, Johnson, Michael, Halsall are taken at face value as well. Did someone check up on all of their citations of primary sources? If there was misrepresentation of the character of the last things that Luther said about the Jews and I had any part in it, though ignorantly, then I apologize for it. I think that this matter should be ended. Simply omit the sentence that is alleged to be misleading.--Drboisclair 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please name your source, Drb, because none of the sources I have found describes the final sermon that way. SlimVirgin 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, while you're at it, could you respond to my requests for citations for your OR? It's odd, the first time you ask, I see people working hard to respond. Yet I ask repeatedly, and you don't name your sources and spend your considerable edit time on the article instead questioning others. Come on, support your own work here, or remove the OR.A Musing 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not initially enter this statement about the final sermon, but one source is Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, vol. 3, p. 350. CTS above has cited: Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) No. 4:18. There may be a quotation of it in Siemon-Netto's book against what he calls the Shirer myth. I need to check that. Is this sufficient? Please let this matter rest with the simple removal of the misleading sentence. Let there be an end to accusations, please.--Drboisclair 04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Drboisclair, you are the editor who first added this to Martin Luther, then later it was moved to Martin Luther and the Jews when it was decided to create a subpage. The matter can't be allowed to rest, because this appears to be intellectual fraud, rather than an error, or a simple matter of POV. It was Luther's final sermon, it is well-known among Luther scholars, and yet the only mention our article made of it for 18 months was this very short, completely misleading paragraph?

This is a quotation from that Lutheran Witness issue: "in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: ‘We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.’"--Drboisclair 05:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text of the entire appendix in modern German: --Drboisclair 05:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies

Drboisclar, are you saying you are not familiar with Luther's work? That you saw this mention of the last sermon in the Lutheran Witness, and that was the only thing you knew about it? You didn't realize that Luther had attacked the Jews in the very same sermon, and that it is the attack that the sermon is known for?

Here are how scholarly sources describe that sermon (or the appendix to it, the Admonition):

The sermon says: "Worse than these are the Jews that you have in your land, and who do great harm. . . . This is how the Jews act: every day they blaspheme and insult our Lord Jesus Christ. If this is done with our knowledge, we should not allow it. So long as we tolerate those among us who defame, blaspheme, and curse our Lord Jesus Christ, we thereby participate in their sins. . . . Therefore you rulers should not endure them but instead drive them out. If, however, they convert, give up their usury, and accept Christ, then we should gladly consider them our brothers. . . . Nothing will come of it though, for they go too far. They are our public enemies. . . . if they could kill us all they would do so gladly. And often they do, too, especially those who claim to be doctors, although they occasionally help. But it is the Devil who finishes up their work. This is what makes their practice of medicine so potent. And in foreign countries there are some who can poison someone so that he will die within the hour, a month, or a year, even in ten or twenty years. This is one of their skills. . . . So don't get involved with them. For they do nothing among you other than horribly blaspheme our dear Lord Jesus Christ and exploit our bodies, our lives, our honor, and our possessions. . . . He who will not do this , let there be no doubt, is a malicious Jew who ceaselessly blasphemes Christ, impoverishes you, and when he can, kills you. . . . I can have no fellowship or patience with these obstinate blasphemers and slanderers of this dear Savior."

— Translation is by an academic asked by SlimVirgin whether he knew what the text of the final sermon was; name will be provided if he agrees; CTSW has confirmed above that this material is in the German text.

appended An Admonition Against the Jews probably to his last sermon but one. He wanted people initially to deal in a Christian way with them and call upon them to accept the Messiah, their 'cousin,' and to be baptized, but the Jews blashemed Christ daily. This could not be tolerated, or people would be participating in the sins of another. The princes shold expel such Jews, but in case they converted, abandoned usury, and accepted Christ they should be considered brothers. There was no other option.

— Martin Brecht (Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church 1532-1546, p. 350)

It was "entirely devoted to the obdurate Jews, whom it was a matter of great urgency to expel from all German territory

— Léon Poliakov.(Poliakov, Léon. From the Time of Christ to the Court Jews, Vanguard Press, p. 220.)

It concluded with a "fiery summons to drive bag and baggage from their midst, unless they desisted from their calumny and their usury and became Christians."

— J James Mackinnon (Mackinnon, James. Luther and the Reformation. Vol. IV, (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962, p. 204.)

Here is how Drboisclair describes it in Misplaced Pages in November 2005 (later edited to "In his final sermon shortly before his death), where it sat until May 2007, unchanged by User:CTSWyneken, the other Luther expert:

Luther's final word on the Jews was: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)."

Please explain the discrepancy. SlimVirgin 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see below. Executive summary: there is some confusion over whether or not the text of the Admonition is a part of the last sermon or not. If it is, then it is inaccurate to call the more positive statement of Luther the last word he said on the Jews. It is also inaccurate to say that the sermon was mostly an attack on the Jews. It was mostly an attack on the Pope with some very nasty things added about the Jews, with a more positive note about the Jews to lead the section off. If it is not a part of the Sermon, then all parties are in error. It is not about the Jews at all. The Vermanug is a separate document, then, with the more positive comment leading and the invective following. Now, can we move below and talk about the matter rather than editors? --CTSWyneken 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No more obfuscation. You knew then and you know now that this — "Luther's final word on the Jews was: 'We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord' — is a highly misleading summary. You have no credibility left in this matter. SlimVirgin 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't see the research we put here. SlimVirgin has deleted it for the third time today. --CTSWyneken 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Read above. It is there. SlimVirgin 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the delete comment. Please move it back down here so it is in sequence. This research did not start the debate, it follows it as an attempt to settle it. --CTSWyneken 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please address the substantive issue instead of messing around with the order of comments on the talk page. Why didn't you correct the inaccurate account of the last sermon during the 18 months that it sat in Misplaced Pages? SlimVirgin 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) Slim, it is you who are messing around with the talk page. You are burying research two of us spent a fair bit of last night and today accumulating and posting. Now, please move it back. Finally, I will not dignify anymore your assaults on my character. If you have something to the issue itself, then present it. So, are you going to address the points I made above? --CTSWyneken 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to get in the middle of your personal quarrel here, but why are you so demanding of others when you have been constantly reverting to preserve your own original research here, without providing the support requested, repeatedly, since last July. I think CTSW has now responded to you several times - take a few minutes and try responding to my questions above.A Musing 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin for discovering that the Martin Luther quote that was in this article was not representative of what he said during that sermon. I also see evidence that the longtime and active editor of this article, CTSWyneken (aka Rev. Robert E. Smith) probably knew that it was not a representative quote.

Despite being Electronic Resources Librarian at Concordia Theological Seminary, and having the enormous resources of his employer (LCMS), and being “coordinator of Project Wittenberg, an electronic text initiative dedicated to providing freely accessible versions of works by and about Martin Luther and other Lutherans” it is worth noting that it was always others who published English translations of “On the Jews and Their Lies” and “Vom Schem Hamphoras” to reveal the previously suppressed writings of Martin Luther. It was never LCMS, or Reverend Smith.

Wasn’t it Reverend Smith who lamented on these pages about the days when encyclopedia articles contained little or nothing about Martin Luther’s anti-Semitic writings and toilet language?

Wasn’t is Reverend Smith who went out of his way to claim “copyright infringement” when others tried to post link to web pages that contained the English translation of some of Martin Luther’s most disturbing works?

Wasn’t it Reverend Smith who tried to make a point that Martin Luther never wrote these things (the English translations of what he wrote in German) because he didn’t speak English? Why didn’t Reverend Smith also point out to us that Martin Luther didn’t write the English version of “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”?

Wasn’t it Reverend Smith who calls for “Summary Style” whenever someone else discovers and tries to post another bit of true, but unflattering, writings by Martin Luther?

Who is Reverend Smith serving here? Who is Reverend Smith trying to protect here? Who “called” Reverend Smith to do this?

A man cannot serve two masters. Meister Brau 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be constructive and offer changes in the article feel free. But I am done responding to personal attacks. --CTSWyneken 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You do have to address this, CTSW. This goes way beyond POV or simple error. It looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead. SlimVirgin 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also want to thank SlimVirgin for doing the research and discovering this distortion that was deliberately placed in the Martin Luther Misplaced Pages article(s). I know that for at least a year there has been a campaign here to thwart anyone who tried to tell the complete truth about Martin Luther. The paid agents of the Lutheran church would frequently revert anything that they did not want, and label it as "Original Research". You are a hero to us for standing up to these thugs. They can't handle the truth. ThankYouVeryMuch 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of the editing of the final sermon summary

In case the timeline is hard to follow, this should clarify it. It shows that both the Luther "expert" editors edited the summary several times, but allowed it to stand.

For anyone new looking at this, the issue is that Luther's final sermon is described by secondary sources as "entirely devoted to the obdurate Jews, whom it was a matter of great urgency to expel from all German territory" (historian Léon Poliakov), but was presented on Misplaced Pages by Drboisclair and CTSWyneken, who both say they are experts on Luther, as a change of heart by Luther, who wanted to "treat with Christian love".

• 1. Drboisclair first added the summary on November 3, 2005 at 12:31 to Martin Luther. He wrote: "Luther's final word on the Jews was: 'We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord' (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)."

There is nothing false or misleading about this in that it is a shift in Luther's "Vermahnung": I didn't know it at the time. I was simply using material that was given to me in a secondary source that I trusted.--Drboisclair 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• 2. Drboisclair edited it a few minutes later on Nov 3, 2005 at 12:33, adding "in his last sermon," with the edit summary "A final word is always authoritative", so that it now read: "Luther's final word on the Jews was in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)."

There was no intention on the part of the secondary source to use this sentence as an exhaustive summary. The quotation is not untrue.--Drboisclair 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• 3. When Martin Luther and the Jews was created on Nov 5, 2005, it was moved by Jayjg to the new page, still reading: "Luther's final word on the Jews was in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)."

• 4. Drboisclair changed it on Nov 5, 2005 to: "In Luther's final sermon he again indicates his desire that Jews would convert to Christianity: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)."

There is nothing false about this. The full quotation does not dispute this intention of Luther.--Drboisclair 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• 5. CTSWyneken changed it on Nov 14, 2005 to: "In his final sermon shortly before his death, Luther preached "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar ed., vol. 51, p. 195)."

• 6. Humus sapiens created a header for it on December 19, 2005 called "Schem Hamephoras and Luther's final sermon". The new section makes it even more misleading (Humus didn't know it was a misleading summary to start with), because it gives the impression that, although a few months before his death, Luther was still attacking the Jews, he changed his mind shortly before his death.

"Several months after publishing On the Jews and Their Lies, Luther wrote another attack on Jews titled Schem Hamephoras, in which he explicitly equated Jews with the Devil.

"In his final sermon shortly before his death, Luther preached "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord'."

• 7. CTSWyneken expanded the citation for it on January 16, 2006 from "Weimar ed., vol. 51, p. 195" to "Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1920),51:195. Hereafter cited WA."

• 8. Bravehearted gave the summary its own header "Luther's final sermon" in July 2006. It still reads: "In his final sermon shortly before his death, Luther preached "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord." <ref>Martin Luther, <cite>D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe</cite>, Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1920),51:195. Hereafter cited WA.</ref>"

• 9. It stayed like that until May 14, 2007, when I merged On the Jews and their Lies into Martin Luther and the Jews. During that series of edits, I moved the summary out of its own section. I then realized that we had no evidence that Luther had had such a drastic change of heart toward the Jews in his final days, and if he had, CTSW and Drboisclair would doubtless have made much more of it than just adding this one quote. I also vaguely recalled that Luther's last sermon is famous for being another rant against the Jews. I therefore removed Drboisclair's summary of it.

• 10. I e-mailed a Luther expert and asked whether he knew what the final sermon said. He e-mailed the following German-English translation of it, which I added to the article: This includes the text added by Drboisclair, but as you can see, the context shines a very different light on the statement (that Jews should be accepted if they convert), because Luther goes on to say: "Nothing will come of it though, for they go too far. They are our public enemies ..."

"Worse than these are the Jews that you have in your land, and who do great harm. . . . This is how the Jews act: every day they blaspheme and insult our Lord Jesus Christ. If this is done with our knowledge, we should not allow it. So long as we tolerate those among us who defame, blaspheme, and curse our Lord Jesus Christ, we thereby participate in their sins. . . . Therefore you rulers should not endure them but instead drive them out. If, however, they convert, give up their usury, and accept Christ, then we should gladly consider them our brothers. . . . Nothing will come of it though, for they go too far. They are our public enemies. . . . if they could kill us all they would do so gladly. And often they do, too, especially those who claim to be doctors, although they occasionally help. But it is the Devil who finishes up their work. This is what makes their practice of medicine so potent. And in foreign countries there are some who can poison someone so that he will die within the hour, a month, or a year, even in ten or twenty years. This is one of their skills. . . . So don't get involved with them. For they do nothing among you other than horribly blaspheme our dear Lord Jesus Christ and exploit our bodies, our lives, our honor, and our possessions. . . . He who will not do this , let there be no doubt, is a malicious Jew who ceaselessly blasphemes Christ, impoverishes you, and when he can, kills you. . . . I can have no fellowship or patience with these obstinate blasphemers and slanderers of this dear Savior.

This translation is only bits and pieces. If you are going to quote the man, then give the full quote. This cut and paste version is also misleading as it deletes an important line.--Drboisclair 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• 11. Even after this, CTSW objected that it was a translation by an unknown person, so I removed it again until the translation is confirmed. However, CTSW has confirmed on Talk:Martin Luther that this text is in the original German version.

• 12. I added a section on the final sermon to Martin Luther on May 14, 2007, relying only on the description of it by secondary sources, and a brief quote from Luther that was used by a secondary source.

His last sermon was delivered at Eisleben, his place of birth, on February 15, 1546, three days before his death. It was "entirely devoted to the obdurate Jews, whom it was a matter of great urgency to expel from all German territory," according to Léon Poliakov.<ref>Poliakov, Léon. From the Time of Christ to the Court Jews, Vanguard Press, p. 220.</ref> James Mackinnon writes that it concluded with a "fiery summons to drive bag and baggage from their midst, unless they desisted from their calumny and their usury and became Christians."<ref>Mackinnon, James. Luther and the Reformation. Vol. IV, (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962, p. 204.</ref> Luther said, "we want to practise Christian love toward them and pray that they convert," but also that they are "our public enemies ... and if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so. And so often they do."<ref>Luther, Martin. Admonition against the Jews, added to his final sermon, cited in Oberman, Heiko. Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, New York: Image Books, 1989, p. 294.</ref>

I repeat the question I've now asked several times. Why did Drboisclar and CTSWyneken — who both claim to be Luther experts — add, edit several times, and fail to correct such a misleading account of Luther's final sermon during the 18 months that it sat in Misplaced Pages? SlimVirgin 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This really needs to be addressed; the attempts to blame this on Brecht or Oberman won't wash, because neither of them say this, and in any event Drboisclair and CTSWyneken didn't credit this to Brecht or Oberman, but to the original sources, to which they have access. The summary was, to put it baldly, a complete falsification of Luther's "final word"; a snippet of text taken so far out of context that it completely reversed the meaning and import of Luther's sermon. Jayjg 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(removing my comments, which were inappropriate.--Drboisclair 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

I've read your and CTS's numerous responses, and I have yet to see a direct response to the very serious issues raised here.--Mantanmoreland 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't see it because of your antipathy toward us.--Drboisclair 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't see it because there hasn't been one.--Mantanmoreland 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop being uncivil.--Drboisclair 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

I am not going to dignify the above attacks by replying to any of it anymore. End of story. I am not going to post here for a few days to give you all a chance to calm down. If you wish do then do what we're supposed to be doing, trying to produce a good article, fine. If not, I simply will not reply at all. --CTSWyneken 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It will have to be addressed, CTSW, whether now or in a few days time. It is too much of a distortion to be ignored. SlimVirgin 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(Removing material I posted that violates WP:CIVIL).--Drboisclair 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading a bit of this talk page for a few days now since the GA/R started, and I gotta say, it looks like its long past time for user conduct RfC's one way or another at least.... Homestarmy 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It may have gone beyond that, Homestarmy. This is why I'm asking for an explanation, on the off-chance that there is one. SlimVirgin 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is one to impartial readers. See below.--Drboisclair 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that I can be accused of here

As I see it: the only thing that I can be accused of here is simply taking the word of secondary sources about Luther's last word about the Jews. I did not read the primary source, which is some distance away from me. I had reason to trust the secondary source that was used. I acted in concert with fellow editors. I resent the slander that is being made against me on this talk page.--Drboisclair 01:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which secondary source? Please quote exactly what the source said. Also, are you saying you had no independent knowledge of the contents of the final sermon? SlimVirgin 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the high degree of concern expressed here? Do you not agree that this was a major error and distortion (putting aside for a second the issue of fault)? I am surprised that Luther scholars, interested in publishing the truth about the historical record, would be so nonchalant about such a significant misstatement of the historical record, and would not be publicly teed off about the error. All I see are remarks like "tempest in a teapot" that minimize what has happened here.--Mantanmoreland 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This "high degree of concern" is misrepresentation and slander against CTS and me. The abbreviated translation of the document in question is also misleading in that it even leaves out the sentence in question. That also may be construed as deliberate censureship because it is chocked full of lacunae. The only end that appears in this is to discredit editors by exaggerating this matter that occurred 2 years ago. I have corrected at least two or three misleading edits on the part of another editor to these articles without making a big "to do!" about it.--Drboisclair 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Drb, are you being deliberately obtuse? The point is this: Luther's last sermon consisted of another rant against Jews. You presented it instead as an expression of brotherly Christian love. You have blamed a secondary source for this, but you've not yet said which source and exactly what that source said. You also didn't cite any secondary source; you cited Luther directly and you have easy access to the whole sermon. To say that you are guilty of serious misrepresentation is not a slander, because it is true. I am very willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, if you can present me with any doubt, but so far you've not been able to explain.

If you were an editor who is not very familiar with Luther, then I would, of course, extend good faith and assume this was a simple error. But you say you are very familiar with him. So what happened? SlimVirgin 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ma'am, I simply repeated what is in the material that I posted below. I did not check the original source. I took the secondary source for granted. That is my only error. I did not deliberately falsify. To tell you the truth I wasn't aware of the entire content of the appendix in question. I didn't see the text in question until I looked into it after you raised this matter, which I still think is greatly out of proportion.--Drboisclair 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More detailed presentation of the secondary sources in question for my defense

This document is one of the secondary sources that we used for making the case for what Luther wrote in his last sermon and its appendix. .

That's a PDF copy of a magazine. Can you say which page, please? SlimVirgin 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Page 14 (15 out of 18) I guess was in the location box at the bottom of the Adobe screen.--Drboisclair 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The page in question is as follows: THE SYNOD’S RESPONSE The Lutheran Witness, in the “Q&A” column for October 1994, addressed the matter of “Luther and the Jews.” Here’s what the column said. — Ed.Late in life, Luther became quite frustrated in his hope that large numbers of Jews would be converted by an honest presentation of the Gospel. That frustration—even bitterness—shows in some of his writings. That’s not to say that we should excuse Luther’s invective. And the Missouri Synod hasn’t excused it. The 1983 Synod convention resolved that we “deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people.” Rather, we are encouraged to adopt the attitude toward Jewish people taken by Luther in his last sermon: “We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.” The convention noted that “it is widely but falsely assumed that Luther’s personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements . . .).” At the same time, it said, the Scriptural mandate to proclaim the Gospel “to all people—that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18–20) . . . is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism.” The convention resolved that:

• “we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins”;
• “while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite anti-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment”;
• “we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such”;
• “in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament . . . with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about “Jews” in the Old Testament (“Israelites” or “Hebrews” being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ”;
• “we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts”; and
• “in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: ‘We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.’”

This was taken from The Lutheran Witness, vol. 123 (April 2004), and anyone who would be interested in giving a fair and impartial hearing to my defense would carefully read it rather than disregard it. My only fault was in not looking at the primary source but simply repeating what the secondary source presented. I think that it is unfair for everything that I have posted here to be set aside. Emphasis added for the relevant material.--Drboisclair 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're defense is that you, a scholar of Martin Luther, learned about the contents of that sermon by reading about it in twelve-year-old edition of a Lutheran magazine ? You can't be serious. --Mantanmoreland 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, my defense is that I took this quotation at face value without looking at the original source.--Drboisclair 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

But you said it came from the "Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195" How did you know that? Was it in the newsletter as well? Jayjg 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

From this posting on the LCMS Website: --Drboisclair 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I simply took the official document of the LCMS at face value. It was linked to the Luther article at the time.--Drboisclair 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't the website cited as a source? Why was the publication not cited as a source? Why are we learning about this now, after the damage was done?--Mantanmoreland 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Luther page was linked to it, look for yourself: under the LCMS response to Luther's antisemitic writings.--Drboisclair 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1983, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod made an official statement () disassociating themselves from Luther's anti-Semitic statements. Copied from the Luther article on the date in question in 2005.--Drboisclair 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Here is the material:

Luther's Anti-Semitism

 Q. What is the Missouri Synod's response to the anti-Semitic statements made by Luther?

A. While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther's theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world; and

WHEREAS, Some of Luther's intemperate remarks about the Jews are often cited in this connection; and

WHEREAS, It is widely but falsely assumed that Luther's personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements, if not complicity in them); but also

WHEREAS, It is plain from scripture that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all people--that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18-20); and

WHEREAS, This Scriptural mandate is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism; therefore be it

Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further

Resolved, That we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine and practice are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such; and be it further

Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther's negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite ant-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment; and be it further

Resolved, That in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled "Yahwism") with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about "Jews" in the Old Testament ("Israelites" or "Hebrews" being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ; and be it further

Resolved, That we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts; and be it finally

Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)."--Drboisclair 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop the filibustering. There is no need to copy the entire resolution.

Yes, the official statement was properly linked in the context of the synod disassociating itself with Luther's bigotry -- NOT as a source of the "last sermon" material.

When someone cites a particular document, the assumption is that that document has been read by the person citing it. That assumption is particularly so for people purporting to be experts in the subject matter. This is, in my view, terribly misleading -- citing that material in this way. I thought you gents speak German and all that, and it turns out you're taking stuff off websites without consulting the document cited. Amazing.--Mantanmoreland 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of a proper rendition of the historical record, we got politically motivated and INACCURATE spin from the synod, parrotted in Misplaced Pages by obviously biased "scholars" with no effort made to check the actual source. --Mantanmoreland 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I assumed you not only knew the original source backwards and forwards but could practically recite it from memory. You'te the "experts," after all. This is outrageous.--Mantanmoreland 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the truth if you want to believe it or not. I am not filibutering. I am simply presenting where I got the material from, period. I never read the sermon and I never saw the appendix until yesterday. Since you have always been antagonistic toward me, I don't expect you to believe me. That is the truth of it.--Drboisclair 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't believe you. On the contrary, I find this explanation both credible and disgraceful. --Mantanmoreland 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone."--Drboisclair 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made mistakes, but I don't think you'll find a single edit of mine that could seriously be construed as a deliberate misrepresentation. SlimVirgin 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The same is true for me.--Drboisclair 07:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to forgive and forget if what I read on this talk page was an apology and an acceptance of responsibility for a significant error, and not obfuscation, minimization and defiance. Sorry, this is not the time for Biblical platitudes, and the one you've cited above is offensively inappropriate under the circumstances.--Mantanmoreland 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to be lectured by you. This is the last time I will respond to your statements.--Drboisclair 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you have a lot more explaining to do, but I am done with you.--Mantanmoreland 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoted from above: And furthermore, I don't think that we or any others should be blamed because other sources like Shirer, Johnson, Michael, Halsall are taken at face value as well. Did someone check up on all of their citations of primary sources? If there was misrepresentation of the character of the last things that Luther said about the Jews and I had any part in it, though ignorantly, then I apologize for it. I think that this matter should be ended. Simply omit the sentence that is alleged to be misleading.--Drboisclair 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)" There's an apology.--Drboisclair 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you had no knowledge whatsoever of Luther's final sermon, apart from what you read in that magazine and on the Luther website? SlimVirgin 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As to its contents, yes. I read it for the first time yesterday as I have said.--Drboisclair 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you again referring to Shirer, Johnson, Michael, Halsall? They did not say what you said. You did not take any information from them about this.

The reason we're pressing this, Drb, is that it casts into doubt everything you and CTSW have contributed to these articles. Do you see that? Everyone has a POV, and everyone makes mistakes. That is accepted. But this was taking a quote out of context to the point of making Luther appear to have said exactly the opposite of what he actually said. Then letting it sit there for 18 months, even though you both have easy access to all the primary and secondary source material.

Are you or aren't you a specialist in Luther? SlimVirgin 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a good one if I have simply taken something at face value without checking up on it. I guess I thought I could trust the secondary source, which is not a good idea in scholarship.--Drboisclair 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I've been casually following this debate and frankly I'm amazed at how much time you guys have on your hands :) Is it really necessary to drag this out to the bloody end? Slim, I think you have done a great job making your point, and I think Drboisclair and CTSWyneken should be thoroughly embarrassed by this situation. Whether or not the distrotion was a concious effort or merely a lapse of critical judgement, only Drboisclair and CTSWyneken will know for sure. Trying to force some kind of confession from them doesn't seem to be doing much good, IMO. Yes, I'm sure both of them have a pro-Luther POV (which isn't much of a revelation), but we're not dealing with LaRouche style POV-pushing here. Let's try to keep the discussion productive. Just my 2 cents :) Kaldari 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari, thanks for your opinion, but this goes beyond POV pushing. SlimVirgin 06:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari, when I asked this editor if he understood why there was a high degree of concern about this major and damaging error, he responded last night: "'high degree of concern' is misrepresentation and slander against CTS and me." This is the kind of in-your-face arrogance that has been the problem here for months on end.

Yes, there is now, finally, after massive pressure and lengthy foot-stomping and counter-accusations, something other than deflection and shoulder-shrugging. But I am sorry, this is not just some kid who edited Wiki and made a good faith boo boo. These are professionals and experts in a particular field who are held, or should be held, to a much higher degree of culpability and responsibility. These are individuals who (in contrast to the Essjay controversy) have accurately (I assume) held themselves out to be experts on Martin Luther (see response below). Although holding a strong POV, and taking positions that did not always seem right, non-experts and laypeople like myself were intimidated by their evident expertise (such as the lengthy quotes in German you see here) and did not question that they were accurately putting information in the article.

Now it turns out that, in at least one significant instance, it was all a lot of bull and they were pulling out quotes from websites and not properly citing the information. This puts the accuracy of this entire article into question.

So yes, this is more than just POV-pushing. --Mantanmoreland 16:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Drboisclair's response

Slim Virgin, I can say that I am a Luther scholar, and that my graduate masters degree specializes in Luther, but that does not mean like another editor posted that I have all of Luther memorized. As you have determined: I posted this information in 2005, and I remembered that it had come from a secondary source. In this case I have proven my point that it came from this LCMS 1983 statement. In 2005 I simply posted what it said with the WA citation. I did not look it up because I simply assumed it was true. To my knowledge I never read Luther's final sermon until yesterday. I found out yesterday that the English translation of Luther's final sermon did not contain the quotation that was quoted, but that was because this sermon only went to page 194 in WA 51. I do not have WA 51 at my home, but I do have the St. Louis edition that contains this sermon. I also discovered that Martin Brecht had something to say about it in volume 3 of his Martin Luther, page 350. As you saw I posted the material that does contain the German sentence that was translated by the sentence put into the article. Yesterday was the first time that I have looked at the primary source. This is an innocent mistake in that I did not check it out in 2005. I simply took the LCMS official statement at face value, but, yes, that is not good scholarship. In that I made a mistake. I apologize for not looking up the primary source at the time. You may choose to disbelieve me, but I am telling the truth. I had no idea that this was not the sermon but an appended "Vermahnung". There was no intention of covering anything up. Had I known then what I know now, I would never have posted the information in that manner. I think that it was rightly pointed out that the secondary source should have been cited. That was another mistake. This is all the culpability that I will admit to. I think that the secondary source I have adduced that comes from 1983 shows the probability of what I am saying. To read more into it is unjust and unfair. I have spent many hours on this website, and I like it. I would like to make it a reputable source of information. I do not think that I rate such opprobrium as I am being subjected to. I hope that this is sufficient.--Drboisclair 07:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As you assure us it was an innocent error — and because you say that, if you knew then what you know now, you would not have made those edits — I'm prepared to accept your apology and explanation. We all make mistakes.

What troubles me greatly about this (which is why I'm continuing to post about it), is that one of the two Luther experts who has written this article has admitted to being employed to develop online resources about Luther. That person, as a librarian in a Luther library, has easy access to all the primary sources. That sermon is famous. A glance at that summary should have been enough to tell him that it was a problematic summary. Even I could see it was problematic, and I know very little about Luther.

It's the combination of the payment, the error, and the 18-month overlooking of that error, that troubles me, together with the fact that none of the rest of us has the expertise to correct these errors. I only discovered that one because it seemed so out of character for Luther to speak that way, and that made me suspicious enough to e-mail an independent academic.

Do you see how ludicrous it is that we have two Luther experts writing these articles, but I have to e-mail another academic to uncover an obvious error? It's not just this article that's at stake, but all the Luther and Lutheran church articles that have been written by the same editors.

This kind of editing also makes the Missouri Synod look bad, do you see that? So it's not only Misplaced Pages's reputation at stake here.

In my experience at Misplaced Pages, people who are genuine scholars in a field tend to make their articles three dimensional, even if they have a POV themselves, because of intellectual pride. This article on Luther doesn't read as though it was written by a scholar. It reads as though it's a tribute to Luther (apart from the antisemitism section, which neither you nor CTSW wanted to contribute to, except in Luther's defense).

I would like something good to come of this episode. One thing you could do is to make sure that all the articles on Luther are as three-dimensional as possible i.e. that they include academic criticism, and that they include material about any of his scandals. We are not in a position to do that easily, because we don't have the baseline knowledge, and we don't have access to the primary or secondary sources. You do. If you could start to write for the enemy sometimes, I think all the Luther articles would be massively improved, to everyone's benefit. SlimVirgin 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments here. I wish to apologize for my rude post above in which I bitterly accused you. I lost it, and I should have simply provided the requested information. I am not infallible, and I would welcome your request for three dimensionalism. I have learned the lesson of not simply putting something into an article without checking the sources. I have apologized for that. I hope that we can work cooperatively here.--Drboisclair 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Drb, look, the other thing that's troubling was CTSW's response when I posted the academic's translation. He demanded to know where it had come from. He didn't say it was correct. He didn't say "thank you for correcting the error." He didn't post the German or do anything helpful. He just demanded to know where it came from, demanded that I find the original German, and so on, even though he had access to the German and probably to a dozen translations. So you see, even at that point, it was obstructionism all the way. Genuine scholars don't behave that way. They take pride in their subject, and they want people to know the truth about it, not read some doctored, slanted whitewash. SlimVirgin 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I long for an end of strife here. CTS is a long time Wikipedian, and his concern is to follow WP policies. I hope for cordial, candid, and constructive conversation here, and I humbly request the same. As you can see he has retired for a short while until this can be taken up after a "cooling off" period.--Drboisclair 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What Was The Effect of Putting This False Information in the Martin Luther Articles?

This misleading information was inserted in the Martin Luther article (and was then repeated in other related articles) in direct response to the accurate anti-semitic quotes that had been discovered by independent researchers. The false information was put there to soften, mitigate, diffuse, and humanize the hatefull, foul mouthed words that Luther actually wrote. It inaccurately "proved" that Luther somehow "came to his senses" at the end of his life. It was not just a random error in the article that had no effect on the public perception of who Martin Luther really was. It was part of a long term, on-going, deliberate effort to hide information by not translating it, and when others found the resources to fund independent translations there was an attempt to block access to the translations by claiming copyright infringement, claiming that these writings had no effect on the Nazis (until someone eventually pointed out that Hitler had named Martin Luther in Mein Kampf), and discouraging and reverting the posts of numerous independent editors. The two people responsible for inserting and perpetuating this error are both Lutheran pastors and describe it as an "innocent mistake". One is a paid employee of LCMS. Meister Brau 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, I don't think there's many people on Misplaced Pages who can translate German text like that though, and I doubt that Slim paid actual money to someone for her translation, it sounds like she e-mailed someone the text in german and asked for a translation. Homestarmy 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I can read German myself. I didn't have the text of the final sermon in English or German, but I was suspicious of Drboisclair's rendition, so I e-mailed an academic and Luther scholar to ask if he could tell me about it. He sent me that translation. SlimVirgin 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Meister Brau, you are a new editor here. Please review Misplaced Pages principles before you step in and make accusations like this.--Drboisclair 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Homestarmy about that. I was refering to the English translations of “On the Jews and Their Lies” and “Vom Schem Hamphoras” which were independent translations. The LCMS and their paid researchers who post here were not the ones who translated them for us. They did however, post incorrect information here that minimized the impact of what Luther wrote. Meister Brau 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

@Drboisclair, I believe that the facts speak for themselves. Dispute them if you must. I do not wish to engage anyone in an argument, but please do not try to "pull rank" on me here. Meister Brau 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true that CTSW tried for a long time to keep certain information/translations out of the articles claiming copyright infringement. Basically, for two years, he has done nothing but cause problems for any editor wanting to add criticism, no matter what kind of criticism. He has done everything in his power to keep this and other Luther articles whitewashed, while at the same time pushing for them to have FA or GA status. This is why this latest sermon incident is instructive, and I hope it will act as a catalyst to put an end to the kind of editing we've seen here. Then at least something constructive will have emerged from it. SlimVirgin 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Meister Brau, you speak as if you have had a long time familiarity with this website, but you are very new. This seems unusual.--Drboisclair 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

@Drboisclair, It is called Research. Are you trying to change the subject?Meister Brau 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to research, but we all have to be concerned about "no original research."--Drboisclair 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

@Drboisclair, I understand your concern. What would you advise people to do when they believe that the LCMS is not translating some of the controversial works of Martin Luther? Meister Brau 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an "American Edition" of Luther's Works that translates merely a fraction of all he wrote. It was done by scholars who are not only from the Lutheran Church. Luther's works are contained in a monumental 100+ volume collection known as the Weimar Ausgabe. The compilation of that resource, which began in 1883 has taken over 100 years to complete, and it is still being revised. The fact that Luther's Von den Juden has been translated by an ELCA scholar shows that there is no desire to hide anything. I am willing to translate the text that I have posted above if there are editors who would like me to do so; however, while my translation skills are fair they are not as perfect as that of others. As far as I know there is no desire to conceal anything.--Drboisclair 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Drb, by all means translate the material if you have time, but bear in mind there's no rush for it, as it would be a lot of work. I read German so I can help out, and we have the academic's translation to refer to as well. SlimVirgin 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So it was an ELCA scholar (and not one from LCMS) who translated “On the Jews and Their Lies”. What about “Vom Schem Hamphoras”? Meister Brau 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vom Schem Hamphoras was never translated into English as far as I know.--Drboisclair 20:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was translated into English. It was published 15 years ago (in 1992). Dr. Gerhard Falk, "sociologist, historian. Born Gerhard Falck in Hamburg, Germany. Has lived in Buffalo since 1957. Author of over fifty scholarly works, including Murder: An Analysis of its Forms, Conditions and Causes (1990), American Judaism in Transition: The Secularization of a Religious Community (1994), Hippocrates Assailed: The American Health Delivery System (1999), Stigma: How We Treat Outsiders (2001), and Man's Ascent to Reason (2002). Dr. Falk's book The Jew in Christian Theology (1992), which traces the origins and history of Christian teachings about Jews, includes the only English translation of Martin Luther's violently antisemitic booklet, Vom Schem Hamphoras (Of the Hidden Name)". Definitely not a member or employee of LCMS. It was quoted and linked from THIS WIKIPEDEA MARTIN LUTHER ARTICLE. Meister Brau 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How could Dr. Boisclair and Rev. Smith know about the translation into english? It did not appear in Lutheran Quarterly.IreneDunaway 23:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

With the apology from Drboisclair, and CTSW's removal of himself from the current discussion, perhaps we can now get back to the article and leave this discussion behind? It appears (I could be wrong) that the material in question has been removed, and the person responsible for adding it has apologized. Now let's get this back up to GA. Pastordavid 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PD, are there any significant areas missing from the article? I saw that the bigamy scandal was absent, so I added a paragraph. I noticed that one source mentioned the stress of that scandal as having affected Luther's health, so I wondered whether we should have more detail. Also, there was mention on the GA review that a section on anti-Catholicism had been removed. Should that be restored? Is there anything else that's missing? SlimVirgin 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not overplay the bigamy issue, and in mention of it note the political expediancy of Luther's approval of Hesse's second marriage. Further, as I noted in the discussion about it a few months ago, I think the witchcraft issue is a red herring -- Luther's views were the same on that front as the vast majority of his contemporaries (but whether it stays or goes is not a major issue for me).

As for what's missing? The section on Luther's Bible is too small in proportion to the impact that it had. Modern German was shaped by Luther's Bible in a manner analogous to the combined impact of KJV and Shakespeare on the shape of modern English (or better, late victorian English). There should be mention of the Black Cloister of Erfurt, which was an observant (i.e., strict) branch of Augustinianism - shaping Luther's antagonism toward more lax monastic orders and his understanding of the severity of the Law (McGrath's Theology of the Cross is an excellent sourcefor this, although I don't have it in front of me for a citation). Finally, I think the article screams for some mention of Jan Hus, and how the events of 100 years prior shaped the interpretation of the events of the Reformation and the reaction to Luther.

That's all that really stands out to me in a first pass through the article. Pastordavid 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I also feel the writing is problematic. It's unencyclopedic, and often reads as though it was written by someone who didn't quite understand it, or as though sentences have been copied and pasted in from other sources, without paying attention to flow or sense. For example: "The Emperor had granted Luther a safe-conduct for his return to Wittenberg. Frederick the Wise, who had arranged for Luther's safe-conduct, arranged for him to be taken into safe custody on his way home by a company of masked horsemen; he was then carried to Wartburg Castle at Eisenach, where he stayed for about a year."

Various problems: the repetition of "safe conduct" or "safe custody" three times in two sentences; that Luther was "carried" to the castle; that he was taken into "safe custody" by a "company of masked horsemen." It has the tone of having been pieced together from elsewhere, but there are no references. Most of the article is written in the same tone. That Luther "affectionately called "Katy"." How do we know this? How do we know that everyone didn't call her Katy? And anyway, why does it matter what he called his wife? The whole thing has that homespun flavor to it.

Other paragraphs are impenetrable to anyone who doesn't already know the issues: "Luther, still under the Imperial Ban, was left behind at the Coburg fortress while his elector and colleagues from Wittenberg attended the diet. The Augsburg Confession, a summary of the Lutheran faith authored by Philipp Melanchthon but influenced by Luther, was read aloud to the emperor. It was the first specifically Lutheran confession included in the Book of Concord of 1580, and is regarded as the principal confession of the Lutheran Church." What on earth does it mean? There's no context, no narrative. Reminds me of something out of a school textbook.

The whole article needs to be written in a more scholarly style, from the point of view of secondary sources — "A has argued that Luther intended this or that; B has written that, after establishing X, Luther proceeded to argue that Y. Here is the significance of this or that." As things stand, we have no way of knowing what's accurate, or what's important and what isn't, and the point of our content policies is to make it easy for the general reader to go find the sources and check the accuracy and notability of our material.

I agree with you about the Bible issue. The only two things I remember about Luther from school were his translation of the Bible into the vernacular, and the revolutionary nature of it; and the influence of his work on the Nazis. SlimVirgin 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I made pretty much the same observation about nine-ten months ago, and said that the whole article needed a rewrite, and I was ripped to shreds and attacked. That is the kind of thing that has been a problem and that cannot be repeated. The article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite, pure and simple. Take a look at the discussion under "Culling Needed" from last August . Just one of many frustrating and fruitless attempts to reduce the hagiographic content of this article.--Mantanmoreland 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The other thing I meant to say is that, in sticking too closely to summary style, the article almost entirely lacks narrative flow, staggering from one truncated point to the next. Summary style shouldn't mean that none of the issues are explained properly on this page. The bottom line is that a reader coming to this who knew nothing about Martin Luther wouldn't learn much, because very little is really developed. It's hard to explain a complex issue like Luther's life and influence in simpler terms, but it would be good to try. SlimVirgin 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as long as we're moving on, here's something else to chew over while we're doing so: Why do we need Theology of Martin Luther? Take a look at the talk page and note the comment from Fishal at 01:40, 5 September 2006, about predominance of sources from the Missouri Synod. --Mantanmoreland 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki Jewish Cabal is at it again, using their multiple identifies and fake names to gum up things here again. It's a shame that a handful of fanatics who obviously do not have a life can so badly ruin the integrity of Misplaced Pages. It is precisely this kind of behavior that makes Misplaced Pages a well-deserved laughing stock.

I denounce the anti-Semitic hate-speech contained in the post immediately above. Meister Brau 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered ... I've never been a part of a Jewish cabal before ...;) Pastordavid 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For some info about the "black cloister" of Erfurt, see the section "Reform Movements" in Hermits of St. Augustine - its not that well written (I would guess a copy-paste from the old Catholic Encyclopedia), but it gets the idea across. Pastordavid 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Readability

Leaving aside the stickier issues around content disputes, I am doing some re-writing over the next few days - looking to improve the overall readability of the article. I am trying to NOT change the meaning of any statements in the article, and to not change any of the content. If I accidentally do so, please feel free to change it back - my only interest in these revisions is improving the prose. Pastordavid 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration between Luther and Cranach

You have seen the portrait of Martin Luther by Cranach which is at the beginning of the article. But there is more to the story than has been reported here. Luther also commisioned Cranach to illustrate a particulary foul criticism of the Pope. I do not have access to primary sources, but here is the information.

Against the Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil (1545) is said to be one of Luther's most coarse and vehement works he ever produced. Scatological satires of the Pope and Rome accompany it. http://www.online-literature.com/martin-luther/

In the last five or six years of his life, for example, Luther published violent attacks on Catholics, Turks, Jews, and other Protestants. The most notorious of these polemics are his attacks on the Jews, especially his On the Jews and Their Lies and his On the Ineffable Name and On Christ's Lineage, both of 1543. These treatises contain considerable exegesis of the Old Testament, but this is overshadowed by the pervasive vulgarity of Luther's language and by the incredibly harsh recommendations he offered for the treatment of contemporary Jews. Their synagogues and schools should be burned, their homes destroyed, their books seized, their rabbis forbidden to teach, and their money taken away from them. They should be put to work in the fields or, better yet, expelled from Germany. Even contemporary Protestants were shocked by these writings. Rivaling his anti-Jewish treatises for vulgarity and violence of expression is Against Hanswurst of 1541. Luther outdid even the violence and vulgarity of Against Hanswurst in his 1545 Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil. On the heels of these treatises he published a series of scatological and violent woodcuts that, in most graphic terms, suggested how good Christians should treat the papacy. I n these and other treatises, Luther bestialized his opponents, most frequently likening them to pigs or asses, or called them liars, murderers, and hypocrites. They were all minions of the devil. He directed the devil to his ass, he renamed the papal decretals "decraptals" and the Farnese pope "Fart-ass" (farlz Esel) and "Her Sodomitical Hellishness Pope Paula 111," and he threw around words for excrement with great abandon. In the woodcuts by Lucas Cranach that Luther commissioned at the end of his life, he had the papal church depicted as being expelled from the anus of an enormous she-devil and suggested, once again in picture, that the pope, cardinals, and bishops should be hung from gallows with their tongues nailed alongside. http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1468

graphic illustration at http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-this-religious-anti-catholicism-you.html

Meister Brau 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not add a section quoting that? I attempted to do so the greater part of a year ago and was hooted down.--Mantanmoreland 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is another situation where I would question the relevence. Yes, there were insults hurled from Luther toward Rome. Just as there were in the opposite direction. Indeed, the insult woodcuts from the era are all sort of like this - crude, mean-spirited, etc. If this is a notable fact, I would be more likely to expect it in an article on Cranach than on Luther. Pastordavid 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant here, and interesting. SlimVirgin 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Yes, I was about to say that. In what conceivable way could a work by Martin Luther attacking the pope not be "relevant" to an article on the author of the work? --Mantanmoreland 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The other point is that it brings Luther alive. I've been arguing for a long time that this article makes him sound deadly dull. But someone as revolutionary as Luther must have been a complex, probably difficult, probably courageous and irreverent (i.e. rude and annoying), human being. To present a three-dimensional portrait of him, we need the good and the bad. SlimVirgin 17:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand Pastordavid to suggest that this pamphlet is relevant to an article on the illustrator of the pamphlet (if there is one) but not the author? I thought we were "moving on." We don't seem to be.--Mantanmoreland 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did state that I thought that the woodcuts themselves would be more relevent in an article on Cranach than on Luther. And, I do not see how having discussion is "not moving on." A comment was made, which I responded to. I did not edit war, revert, or respond unncivilly in response to the comment. If it is going to be a roadblock every time there is a difference of opinion, this will not get very far.

I do appreciate the description of possibilities for the article given by SV just above. My concern is that -- while attempting to add color/dimension to the article -- it is very easy to spend more time on rabbit trails that are interesting and colorful, but which focus on trivial and tangential topics rather than the core focus. Pastordavid 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're not opposed to adding a section making reference to Against the Papacy at Rome -- or are you? If you are, please state why it is a "rabbit trail" or whatever.--Mantanmoreland 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My reason for posting this on the Talk page was first to illustrate that there are some significant works by Luther that are known to the subsidized Luther researchers, but are not even mentioned here. I agree with the point that this reveals some dimensions about Luther that are interesting and lifelike. Not the sanitized version that many generations were provided. Notice that we have two Luther works, "Against Hanswurst" (1541) and "Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil" for which there are no known English translations. I do not understand the reasoning for suggesting that this be in the Cranach Misplaced Pages article but not the one for Luther. Meister Brau 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that there is an objection outstanding at present. Why not add a section referring to it? If there's something wrong with the section, it can be removed or changed easily enough.--Mantanmoreland 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more appropriate to post it here for comments...

Recent Trends in Martin Luther Research

In recent years, there has been significant translation and "discovery" of some of Martin Luther’s most controversial works. This has augmented the large body of Luther’s work that was translated and published by various Lutheran Church organizations and their related publishing companies, and presented a more controversial picture of this very prolific writer and complex personality.

An English translation of “On the Jews and Their Lies” was published commercially in 1971, and revealed to many readers a side of Martin Luther that they had not previously known.

Another of Martin Luther’s works was “Vom Schem Hamphoras” which contains graphic “toilet talk” against the Jews that was translated and published independantly as part of “The Jew In Christian Theology” by Gerhard Falk in 1971.

There is no known English translation of “Against the Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil” (1545), but it has been described as “one of Luther's most coarse and vehement works”. It is said to contain scatological satires of the Pope, along with illustrations by Cranach (who is known for painting Luther’s portrait).

Another of Luther’s works, "Against Hanswurst" (1541) was translated as part of "Luther's Works" and is described as “rivaling his anti-Jewish treatises for vulgarity and violence of expression”.

Since some of these works are only now being revealed, and the only English descriptions are often “secondary sources”, this has been a source of some disagreement among researcers as to their relevance. But the trend has been toward translation, publication and review, rather than silent archiving.

Meister Brau 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Against Hanswurst was translated in 1966 and is in volume 41 of the 55 volume American Edition of Luther's Works. On the Councils and the Church and On the Roman Papacy, which you mention in this post are also in this volume.--Drboisclair 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I like the neutral tone, and I think it would be good, if appropriated sourced.--Mantanmoreland 21:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentences have a bit of WP:OR in them. But the rest is quite good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but the tone is what appealed to me about it. I think that this kind of objective tone is what is lacking generally in the article. I'd suggest that Meister Brau provide citations, fix the first paragraph and insert it in the article. I imagine the end is a good place for it. --Mantanmoreland 21:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Meister has fixed the first paragraph of his proposed section. I think that, as per Jossi, the main thing is to source it. --Mantanmoreland 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We should give other editors a chance to comment. Meister Brau 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Just the kind of thing that's needed in this article. SlimVirgin 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism section

On the issue of this article improving, I've received a detailed critical analysis of the antisemtism section from an independent Wikipedian, an experienced and respected editor. I'm thefore going to try a copy edit of that section. Basically, his criticism is that the edit warring has led to poor writing (X says, but Y argues, and Z insists ...). He also feels it lacks substance. I can do a fairly quick copy edit, but adding more substance will take longer, as I'm waiting for some reading material to arrive. Anyway, I'll try to make a start. SlimVirgin 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten it for flow, reduced it by 500 words, added material from Robert Michael, and tried to make it more of an explanatory narrative, rather than just a series of claims. I still have citations to add. If people disagree with it, I'd appreciate comments here rather than reverting. In particular, if anyone feels it's still too long, please suggest here exactly which bits could be cut without losing narrative flow. SlimVirgin 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As Sacha Cohen (my favorite Jewish antisemite) would say, "Very nasse!" Kaldari 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) SlimVirgin 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

The other problem is that many of the footnotes used a Harvard-style reference (Smith 1990) instead of giving the full details, but the article doesn't have a full references section, so readers can't quickly look up who Smith 1990 is. It also means that if the first citation disappears after an edit, subsequent footnotes relying on it are left hanging. I'm therefore going to go through the citations at some point and give full citations in the notes. SlimVirgin 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work. Meister Brau

Fascinating stuff, Slim. It reads very well. Thank you and the anonymous user for this rewrite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I like the new section about the recent publications. Thank you, Meister Brau.

In case anyone wonders why I don't have page numbers for the Robert Michaels book I've used as a source in the antisemitism section, I only have a copy of one chapter and the footnotes, and it has no page numbers on it. I've ordered the book and I'll add numbers as soon as it arrives. SlimVirgin 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to do some research, if needed. What do we need to get this article back to FA status? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It was GA status. I think we might need to expand or add any areas that have been downplayed or left out, and make the writing flow better. There's been an overuse of summary style to the point where some of the sections are hard to understand because no context is provided.

Does anyone know what this means exactly? "Luther worked to reintroduce the practice of receiving Holy Communion in both kinds, that is, receiving both the consecrated bread and wine, rather than the practice of denying the wine to lay people." SlimVirgin 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Early Christians received under both species, I think, but the teaching of the Catholic Church has always been the Christ is present, whole and entire, under either species. In other words, if you receive one crumb from the host, you have received the blood as well as the body, and if you receive one drop from the chalice, you have received the body as well as the blood, because after the Resurrection, his body and blood can no longer be separated. So, under Catholic teaching, you don't get "more" of Jesus by receiving a bigger host, or by receiving from the chalice as well as under the form of bread. You don't get more graces. But it's a "fuller sign".

A priest, while saying Mass, MUST receive under both forms, as otherwise the sacrifice is considered to be incomplete. But a priest attending Mass said by another priest would normally only receive under one form.

For various reasons, danger of spillage being one, it became uncommon for lay people to receive under both kinds. At the time of the reformation, I think some Protestants argued that you hadn't fully received unless you received under both kinds. The Catholic Church considered this a heresy, and I think after the Council of Trent, communion under one kind became even more firmly emphasised in the Catholic Church as a way of reinforcing the doctrine that Christ was present "whole and entire" under either species. It's now becoming more common for Catholic churches to offer communion under both kinds (at least in the UK). Musical Linguist and/or Str1977 might be able to add to that. ElinorD (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, Elinor, that's very helpful. What I'm looking for is a way to present this that anyone could understand, and without making the section much longer. I tried to copy edit it last night then realized I didn't have a clue what it was about. :-)

If the body and blood are considered inseparable, why did a priest saying Mass have to receive both forms? And why did the Reformers argue that you hadn't fully received unless you received both? (And why are they called forms, kinds, and species?) SlimVirgin 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask ML and Str to chime in if they're around, in case I ignorantly lapse into heresy :), but I'll have a shot at answering anyway.

The Mass, according to Catholic teaching, is the Sacrifice of Calvary made present, and the priest is offering the sacrifice in persona Christi. Nevertheless, Christ does not die again. ("Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more." Romans, 6,9.) So the way that Calvary is made present (making the Mass trulyl a sacrifice) is that his body is separated from his blood, which occur by the priest consecrating them separately. I think that the priest consuming both species is in some way connected to that, because if the priest doesn't receive Communion, the Mass is incomplete, whereas a lay person can attend Mass without receiving.

The reformers rejected transubstantiation, and, depending on denomination, accepted that Christ was present "in the bread and wine" (not that the bread and wine were changed into the body and blood in such a way that there was no bread or wine left), or that he was present "with the bread and wine" or that he was present "spiritually", etc. Some reformers believed that the bread was changed into the body alone and the wine was changed into the blood alone, so that the people who received under one form were in some sense "deprived" of something.

Regarding species and form and kinds, perhaps ML or Str could weigh in. Some Catholics use those words to avoid a so-called heretical use of the words "bread" and "wine" by themselves, but of course there must be some deeper, original meaning that I'm ignorant of. It's okay to say that someone received "under the form of wine", or "under the appearance of wine", but not to say that they received "the wine". I'm not really sure of the difference between "form" and "species" and "appearance" and "kinds". However, most Protestants wouldn't have problems calling them "bread" and "wine", because they only believe in some kind of spiritual presence.

Hope that helps, but if ML or Str disagree, then I think you'd be better off going by what they say! I'm not quite sure what Lutherans call the two species after consecration, but I'd feel it would be safer for the article to say "the practice of denying the CUP to lay people". ElinorD (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Elinor is right on the mark IMHO.

I do not know where the words "form", "species" etc. come from. But I think they were used to refer to the two gifts of the eucharist because a) bread and wine may imply that they have not been changed, and b) Body and Blood may imply a restriction of the Body to the one gift and the Blood to the other. (On the other hand, when distributing communion, either species is called the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ respectively.

Receiving under both kinds is the normal way of receiving and of course the two gifts sensualize (if that is a word) one "aspect" more then the other. IMHO, it is not that the Host is so much both body and blood but that whoever receives the host shares in the whole Christ (of course, that is just my own reflection).

Because it is the normal way to receive the priest receives always under both kinds. (And a practical aspect: the Cup is an essential part of the Eucharistic sacrifice. And of course someone has to consume it, either all the congregation or the priest alone.)

In the Eastern Churches, BTW, the faithful receive both kinds together, the Body soaked in the Blood and distributed via a spoon.

As for the restriction of the Cup to priests: the Church's de facto position changed a bit throughout history, depending on the issues of the time: in the 5th century, Pope Gelasius excommunicated anyone who would refuse to receive in the Cup to combat certain ascetic-gnostic heresies that rejected the use of wine. Later on, in the Early Middle Ages Eucharistic piety went along strange paths: many people avoided receiving the Eucharist for fear they wouldn't be worthy - the Church insisted that frequent communion is a good thing, introduced the idea of an obligatory communion once a year (usually at Easter, to this the annual confession goes back). But the notion of unworthiness continued, now specialising on the Cup (as the Blood is often thought as the real saving substance, washing us clean from sin, it was to be somehow "more holy" than the Host, compare all the Blood miracles, Grail literature etc.): they would insist on abstaining from the Cup while receiving the Host. The Church de facto yielded to these practices but insisted that whoever receives under one species receives the whole Christ, not just a part of Him.

This then became the standard practice for centuries, with practical reasons (the danger of spillage) playing a role too. It was only challenged around 1400 by the Hussite movement who saw the restriction of the Cup to the priest as some clerical privilege. Therefore they rejected this and demanded communion "sub utraque forma". The moderate wing of the movement therefore is termed "Utraquists", content with being allowed to receive under both species. The Popes however would allow this only grudingly and used every opportunity to return to the restriction.

The reformation took up the issues of the Hussites and rejecting a special priesthood they had to reject such a restriction as well. In Luther's case, concerns for receiving the whole Christ played a part as well (as Luther fervently believed in the Christ's presence in the gifts not just during communion but continually - a view not shared by Lutherans) - Luther believed that the bread and wine were the Body and Blood of Christ - despite his rejection of transubstantiation - while other Protestants, notably Zwingli and Calvin rejected this, taking it "merely as a symbol". To those, I guess, the "clerical privilege" line was more important.

The Church reacted to many Protestant views by emphasizing the challenged aspects of the faith, e.g. Marian piety, the ordained priesthood, Eucharist piety. However, the restriction of the Cup to the priest was only a very common practice and not in any way unalterable. After Vatican II the trend reversed, generally allowing the faithful to receive under both species, though whether and how far this is actually done differs from country to country and congregation to congregation. But a common thing is to receive under both species on Maundy Thursday (when the Mass especially commemorates the institution of the Eucharist by Christ).

Str1977 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek and Martin Luther

Please see: "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". Who's Lokai and who's Bele here? Does it make a difference? Griselinia 08:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know the show in question but I have no idea what the person above is referring to. Could you perhaps clarify a little? John Carter 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Luther and anti-semitism

The current section does not give enough context to Luther's views. In the middle ages anti-semitism was widespread and to fairly represent his writings in the setting of the time this needs to be referred to. I am by no means an expert and reading this talk page is enough to scare off anyone from being bold so I'm bringing a link here for discussion to see whether others think it could be of use in balancing the section. The only problem with this is that the section is currently the largest despite having a whole article devoted to the Jews and their lies book. Sophia 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not think that you should be scared to be bold. If you are uncomfortable making these additions, you can always use the talk page and make proposals. I am sure that there should material about this aspect, probably from contemporary Lutheran bodies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that that section, takes only but a small percentage of the whole article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume you mean the language in italics, which appears to originate from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook at Fordham University . That's certainly a reputable project, and from a fine institution. I certainly don't see a problem with mentioning somewhere in the article a reference to the coarseness of his language, as that would apply to all quotes and not just this section.--Mantanmoreland 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your lack of boldness, Sophia, especially with this section. Do you have any sources showing how widespread antisemitism was in the Middle Ages? The point about Luther is that his was the work that was remembered. Bear in mind that we're not talking about the man here; we're talking about the work. It is the work that has survived; it is the work that has been influential. And it is the work that Robert Michael argues acquired the status of scripture in Germany, with Luther becoming the most widely read author of his time, and therefore having a tremendous influence on the development of German antisemitism.

As for the length, there has been an overuse of summary style on this page, to the point where certain sections are hard, if not impossible, to understand for people who don't already know the subject. Therefore, please don't judge any section too long simply because it's longer than the shorter ones.

Mantan, I'd like to see a section on the coarseness of his language, because he's famous for it, and we don't mention it, except in passing in a couple of the other sections. I don't know where to find a good source on it though. SlimVirgin 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the Internet Medieval Sourcebook might be considered a proper source? Lamentably it is not footnoted on the "coarseness" passage.--Mantanmoreland 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks okay to me. SlimVirgin 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph in the final section.--Mantanmoreland 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the sourcebook -- my concerns were unwarranted. The Internet History Sourcebooks Project, of which the Medieval Sourcebook belongs, is a significant endeavor and has a lengthy article of its own.--Mantanmoreland 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good addtion. SlimVirgin 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash) As I said I'm no expert but on most articles the largest section is usually about the most influential aspects of a subject. The way this article currently reads it looks as if Luther founded Nazism which does not concord with what I know (Wagner is acknowledged as a much bigger influence but look how that section is balanced by the whole). Here are some links from which hopefully a starting point for an NPOV balance can be achieved. . Looking at The Merchant of Venice gives a pretty good idea of a stereotypical Jew according to Middle Age views. As for not being bold - I think some of the comments further up are disgraceful and do nothing to enchance the positive editing atmosphere of Misplaced Pages. It is heartening to see things moving on but I think the pillorying of long time editors to clear the field will be counter productive to the quality of the article. Steps need to be taken to be able to work constructively wih all - even those who have made errors. No one should feel uncomfortable editing on an article when they approach it in good faith. Sophia 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same concerns as you for many months. Hopefully the air is cleared and we can move forward.--Mantanmoreland 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The section doesn't state or imply that he founded Nazism. It says that his work was influential in the development of German antisemitism, and that it provided a convenient foundation for the antisemitism of the Nazis. As for Wagner, he is not acknowledged to be a "much bigger influence," and the sections in his article dealing with Nazism are 845 words long with only six sources, not something that would work here.

As for the "errors," that issue is settled, Sophia, so there's no need to bring it up again. Editing and discussion in the last few days has been the most constructive here for a long time. SlimVirgin 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm wrong about Wagner then so are many others. Sophia 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) Interesting article. As a (admittedly lapsed) Catholic but ardent anti-capitalist I must say I appreciate this rigorous take on Luther... however, focusing on his influence on the Nazis seems a bit much. Didn't the Protestant Reformation also, directly and indirectly, lead to the deaths of countless numbers of people, and set conditions allowing for the development of global capitalism, per Weber? I don't think the Nazis were Lutherans, as intriguing as the concept may be, such as the impression the summary leaves... and in any case I don't think you can realistically blame Luther for events which occured centuries later, for which, if you want to point fingers, Nietzsche was a much closer antecedent who probably deserves more blame for the Holocaust even though he was not anti-Semitic. Though modern state capitalism does take on fascist tendencies, which can be said to have originated, ideologically at least, at some far removed point and distant point, with Luther, perhaps the most shocking aspect of Nazi fascism was how ahead of its time it was? (per Adorno, Horkheimer "The Dialectic of Enlightenment.")—ACADEMY LEADER 04:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In keeping what Sophia wrote, the article shouldn't imply that anti-semitism is the main heritage of Luther. It is merely a side-note, albeit a very smelly one.

Luther's view shouldn't be identified with Nazism or made the sole cause, nor should his view be drowned in supposedly anti-semitic Middle Ages (using anti-semitism as a shorthand for judaeophobic, actually there was not anti-semitism in the narrow sense before the 19th century.)

Luther didn't found Nazism anymore than Wagner did. Neither did. Hitler did, of course receiving some ideas from them. However Hitler did not read Luther's book in his formative years.

Shylock is not the medieval stereotype of a Jew because the play is not from the Middle Ages. He is a vice figure known from morality plays like Everyman and also present in other Elizabethan plays, though he looks a bit more human than Barabbas. There were no Jews (officially) in England at the time and the Merchant of Venice does not concern itself with Jews at all but rather with motives of loyalty, friendship, vengeance, grace, law (though the latter two have a connection to theological anti-Judaism).

Academy Leader, the Weber thesis is just that a thesis and cannot be treated as established fact. And the same goes for Adorno's great but nonetheless very speculative and ahistorical book. Capitalism does not equal fascism does not equal Nazism. Luther has nothing to do with the rise of capitalism (not even Weber claims that) and also nothing to do with the rise of Nazism (Fascism anyway happening in another country) apart from his contributions to the omnipotent state and the described element of anti-semitism.

In any case, this shouldn't be a game of "blaming X for the Holocaust" - the blame should remain with those considering, planning and executing the Shoa. (Just as I don't see Rousseau directly blamed for the reign of terror in 1794.) I am not denying that Nietzsche had a profound influence not just on Nazism but on other inhuman developments (Nietzsche apologetics being too vocal recently) - but Nietzsche was just an influential philosopher in his time and/or someone who put into writing (in extreme form) currents present in his society - currently trickling down to a vagabond like Hitler. Str1977 08:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the information probably belongs in a separate article "Origins of Nazi Ideology" or "History of German anti-Semitism," not in a front page biography of Luther. References to his anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic texts I am ok with, making these the basis for inferring that he was responsible for the rise of the Third Reich seems another thing altogether.

On an unrelated note, a friend of mine is a graduate student instructor for an undergraduate history course on the Holocaust. She says one of the most shocking things about teaching the material is how the some of the students will speak admiringly of German military achievements and say, "If only the Nazis weren't anti-Semitic." This is why there is no massive outcry in the US against the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Adorno and Horkheimer were right.—ACADEMY LEADER 21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Some notes, if they would be any help

I long ago gave up editing here because I felt that my edits were not in keeping with the drive for brevity. I don't blame CTS or Drboisclair for that but a red-name slasher who took the article down from over 76kb to about 48kb without even moving anything per summary style. In the process he reduced, for example, a complex section about the response of the papacy which I had worked on (it's difficult material) to almost nothing, and I became discouraged (if you wonder why Miltitz appeared out of the blue it's because the previous mention of him was removed). The worst thing for me was that no one any longer seemed interested in mapping the incremental shifts in Luther's position, which are precisely mappable, if you look carefully (removal of the Leipzig debate, for example, was particularly damaging to the article's narrative, in my opinion).

At the time I gave up I was working on some of the central sections, which are badly written. I know little about Luther, but what I was trying to do was rewrite the word-for-word Schaff into our own words, and to do that I went back and read Schaff and sometimes chose different information to include. If my rough (I emphasize rough) drafts are of any use, they are here: User:Qp10qp/Sandbox (I have checked all the refs unless noted). The two most interesting elements there, for me, are Melanchthon's comment about the way Luther was living, with his mildewed bed, etc. (humanises him), and his attack on the peasants as mad dogs, because the language is of a piece with that he used against the Jews and the witches. On the other hand, his tone in the Invocavit Sermons and in his response to the peasants who petitioned him with the Twelve Articles was mellow and sane, it seems to me. Which makes me wonder if he was bipolar or something.

Anyway, I won't be editing the article, but best of luck to those who do. Don't let it age you too much. qp10qp 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Qp10, thanks for your notes, but please come back. You're exactly the kind of editor we need here: a great writer and researcher. Look, folks, this is a great man we're writing about. He was revolutionary in his time, and not only then, but still. The attitude that he promoted — let the people have direct access to knowledge! — is exactly the attitude that Misplaced Pages is still having to promote hundreds of years later, because until very recently, the loftier-than-thou position that the masses can't be trusted with certain types of information remained firmly in place, and it's really only the Internet that's killing it completely. Martin Luther was one of the first people to question it, taking on arguably the most powerful institution in the world at the time, and succeeding.

We do him no justice by writing in this mealy-mouthed fashion. Let it all come out! The coarse language, the legacy of his antisemitism, and anything else that brings his work alive, that tells us why his legacy is still being argued about. SlimVirgin 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, maybe you could get Martin Luther designated “the Grandfather of the Internet.” Or maybe “a co-founder of Misplaced Pages…” Jimbo might take issue with being associated, though, and I don’t know if Luther himself would have approved of “a free scripture that anyone can edit,” but still, yes, “let it all come out!” as it were.—ACADEMY LEADER 04:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this series of edits by User:Justas Jonas. Justas Jonas's entire Misplaced Pages career lasted approximately 3 weeks, most of that devoted to slashing material out of the Martin Luther article. I see no reason why his deletions should be kept. Jayjg 19:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but I see from his user page that he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Mantanmoreland 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I forgot, Justus Jonas was the infamous Ptmcain! Jayjg 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me that Keesiewonder, who was responsible for making this discovery in the first place, should be invited back to the page.--Mantanmoreland 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Qp10, thanks for your notes, but please come back. You're exactly the kind of editor we need here: a great writer and researcher."

Hey, Qp10m, for what it's worth my fellow Wikipedian, I more than second SlimVirgin's opinion. Please come back! Luther was/is an incredibly dramatic figure, and in many ways (thought I disagree with him on certain theological points) a great soul, whose life and work (regardless of one's opinions of the man) are deserving of the very best editors. Therefore I implore you, hang tight and don't be discouraged. I - and I'm willing to bet not a few others - are rooting for you!

And Slim, if I may say so, what great words of passion and encouragement! It's folks like you (and of course all the wonderful regular editors here: CTS, Drbois, Matan, etc.) that make me proud to be, if only in a feeble sort of way, a part of this marvelous enterprise known as Misplaced Pages. Delta x 06:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Flattery will get you everywhere.:)--Mantanmoreland 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as going into too much detail in an article like this one. Anytime someone thinks something needs to be summarized, it would be helpful to hive it off to its own article. Every section in this article ideally, in my opinion, should eventually be a summary of an entire article elsewhere at wikipedia, which in turn can be structured the same way, so that in the end, an entire book's worth of sourced data can exist here in useful sized chunks. Bottom line - don't throw away good stuff, hive it off to its own article. WAS 4.250 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but there has been a problem in the past with overuse of summary style, which has made it hard for laypeople and non-Lutherans to understand specific aspects of the article.--Mantanmoreland 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Delta. :-) I've restored Qp10qp's material. It's good stuff; makes those sections a lot clearer. SlimVirgin 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Recent Research"

The "recent research" section is a little misleading. Perhaps there are some historians for whom this is their focus, but having just completed my masters a short while ago (and the same is true while working on my bachelor's), I did not find this to be the focus of anyone's "recent research" among church historians and theologians (which is where I would say the majority of Luther research is done). Much more time, energy, and ink is being spent on the so-called "Finnish school" of Luther studies: a group led by Tuomo Mannermaa of the U of Helsinka, which reads Luther through the eyes of Finnish Lutherans' conversations with their Orthodox brothers and sisters (much more emphasis on deification, sanctification, and the ways the great Greek Fathers shaped Luther as much as the Latin Fathers). Some published examples -just to name a few of the better known ones - of this strain of "recent recearch" (in English), include:

• Rob. Jenson and Carl Braatan, eds., Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Eerdmans, 1988).
• Tuomo Mannerma, Christ Present In Faith: Luther's View Of Justification (Augsburg Fortress, 2005).
• Veli-Matti Karkkainen, One with God: Salvation As Deification and Justification (Liturgical Press, 2005)

-- Pastordavid 13:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to add some material about other recent research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is more serious. Until such material is added, this section should be entitled "Recent research on Luther's controversial writings" or something like that. It is not accurate to end the article with a section implying controversy is the direction of contemporary Luther scholarship! Ideally, a bold WikiGenius would give this article some structure, splitting up Luther's Life, Theology/Writings, Impact/Legacy, and Controversies. The Norwegians have managed to create a Featured Article without splitting things up, but if we must dwell on controversy (and of course we must, we are the English Misplaced Pages), then at least a Wagner-like structure would be more appropriate in my opinion. --Merzul 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Influence

Martin Luther is credited with great influence during his life with regard to religious beliefs and power structures. Is he credited with influencing and changing people's behaviors or beliefs during his life with regard to jews; as opposed to being credited with expressing opinions that reflected the opinions of his time and were later used as an excuse by Nazis to do what they were already going to do? Or does my question presuppose something counterfactual? WAS 4.250 15:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. His impact on subsequent antisemitism is a matter of record, but his impact on the persecution of Jews in his day needs to be addressed.--Mantanmoreland 16:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are examples in the section of his influence during his lifetime. SlimVirgin 18:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: "Luther successfully campaigned against the Jews in Saxony, Brandenburg, and Silesia. Michael writes that the city of Strasbourg was asked by Josel of Rosheim to forbid the sale of Luther's anti-Jewish works; they refused initially, but relented when a Lutheran pastor in Hochfelden argued in a sermon that his parishioners should murder Jews. Luther's influence persisted after his death. Throughout the 1580s, riots saw the expulsion of Jews from several German Lutheran states."--Mantanmoreland 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Material

And the Witnesses Were Silent: The Confessing Church and the Persecution of the Jews by Victoria J. Barnett, Wolfgang Gerlach; University of Nebraska Press, 2000. pp.113-4, ISBN 0-803-22165-7

A third statement, a September 1937 essay by Gerhard Schmidt, illustrates that Confessing Christians who fought to retain the Old Testament did not necessarily hold pro-Jewish attitudes, even theologically. Referring to Luther, Schmidt characterized "the fusion of the Jewish question with the things of the Old Testament" as a "false path": "Exactly at the point where Martin Luther criticizes the insolence and impertinence of contemporary Jews, he commits himself with all his power on behalf of the Old Testament and its character as revelation. . . . He does not reject the Old Testament because of the Jews, but rather the other way around: Because of the Old Testament, he rejects the Jews."

With this text from Luther, Schmidt, a Confessing pastor and contributor to Junge Kirche, sacrificed the Jews in order to save the Old Testament. The Nazi state, he wrote, intended to destroy the Jews in order to liquidate the Old Testament as well. That same year, "the city of Nuremberg presented a copy of the rare edition of Luther's text 'On the Jews and Their Lies,' published in the year 1543 with a frontispiece by Lucas Cranach, to the Gauleiter Julius Streicher in honor of his birthday." 57 The Confessing Church had protested too quietly or not at all and had failed to interfere with state treatment of the Jews. Ironically, the 4 April 1937 issue of Nationalkirche (National church), edited by Thuringian German Christian leaders Leffler and Leutheuser, compared the Confessing Church to Der Stürmer: "They are united in their radical rejection. The one for anti-Jewish reasons, the other for anti-Christian reasons. Common to both is the anti-Christian attitude, the hostility toward Christ, the anti-Jew and Liberator of the human soul to God."

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Robert G. L. Waite; Da Capo Press, 1993, ISBN 0-306-80514-6

pp.117-8

A little known pamphlet apparently written jointly by Hitler and Eckart and published in 1924 is an important source for Hitler's political ideas during these years. Despite its ambitious title, Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me, there is virtually nothing in the pamphlet about Bolshevism. In the pamphlet, Hitler and Eckart were ambivalent about Martin Luther. They praised him for his anti-Semitism and approved of the synagogue burning he recommended, but they found that in splitting the Christian church Luther increased the power of the Jews. Hitler and Eckart also expressed disappointment with Luther's draconian "solution to the Jewish Problem" (see Chapter 4), which they found much too moderate. The pamphlet calls for "rooting out" the Jews.

pp.248 - A Legacy of Luther

"Side by side with Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner." -- Adolf Hitler

pp. 249-250

Centuries before Hitler, Luther was convinced that the Jews were pernicious parasites who exploited and enslaved honest Germans. While Germans toiled by the sweat of their brow, Jews "stuff themselves, guzzle and sit around the stove . . . fart and roast pears . . . they fleece us of our money and goods." He had specific ideas for dealing with "this depraved and damned people of the Jews." Luther's program, which Hitler would carry out in every detail, was set forth in 1543:

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools. . . . Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. . . . Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such adultery, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. . . . Fourth, I advise that their Rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. . . . Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. . . . Sixth, I advise that . . . all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. . . . Seventh, . . . Let whosoever can, throw brimstone and pitch upon them, so much the better . . . and if this be not enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of the land. . . .

It is one of those jarring accidents of chronology that Hitler launched his first pogrom against the Jews, known as Kristallnacht, setting fire to their synagogues and schools, on the night of 9-10 November 1938--on Luther's birthday.

pp.251

Martin Luther was a Christian theologian who made imperishable contributions to the religious life and thought of the Western world-contributions far greater than can be acknowledged here. But there is another legacy pointed to by a thoughtful German, who, writing after Hitler's Holocaust, concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful. (nb: Waite refers here to Wilhelm Röpke, The Solution to the German Problem, (1946), pp117).

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

About research into Luther from 1900 onwards (from the German WP)

I wonder if anything in here would be of use to us? SlimVirgin 19:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Luthers Theologie wird erst seit Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, systematisch erst seit etwa 1900 erforscht. Dabei war ihre Deutung stets eng mit der aktuellen Geschichte des Protestantismus verbunden. Wichtige Vertreter der Lutherforschung und -deutung waren Theodosius Harnack (konfessionelle preußisch-konservative Restauration), Albrecht Ritschl und Wilhelm Herrmann (neukantianischer Individualismus), Karl Holl und Erich Seeberg (Lutherrenaissance), Friedrich Gogarten, Karl Barth (Dialektische Theologie), Rudolf Bultmann, Gerhard Ebeling (existentiale Interpretation), Ernst Wolf, Hans Joachim Iwand (sozialkritisches Luthertum nach 1945).

Wegmarken der Lutherforschung waren die kritische Weimarer Gesamtausgabe, begonnen 1883, eine Fülle zwischen 1900 und 1920 neu aufgefundener Handschriften vor allem des frühen Luther (z.B. Vorlesungen 1509-1518), aber auch des späten Luther (Predigtnachschriften, Disputationsprotokolle 1522-1546), die Gründung der Luthergesellschaft 1917 und nach 1945 zunehmend interkonfessionelle und internationale Lutherkongresse (1956 Aarhus, 1960 Münster/Westfalen u.a.) sowie eine Fülle von Studien zu bestimmten Lebensabschnitten oder Einzelfragen.

Lange Zeit hatte bei den Protestanten die Erforschung der reformatorischen Wende das Übergewicht; dank der neueren Textfunde und interkonfessioneller Forschungsprojekte wurde allmählich das differenzierte und komplexe Verhältnis Luthers zur katholischen Tradition aufgehellt.

Luthers Jugendeinflüsse und Frühschriften hat zuerst der Kirchenhistoriker Otto Scheel erforscht und festgestellt, dass Luther vor seinem Theologiestudium mit keinen häretischen, humanistischen und kirchenkritischen Strömungen seiner Zeit in Berührung kam (Die Entwicklung Luthers bis zum Abschluß der Vorlesung über den Römerbrief, Leipzig 1910; Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung (bis 1519), Tübingen 1911).

Der schwedische Psychoanalytiker Erik H. Erikson unternahm 1958 den - in der Fachdiskussion heute weithin als überholt angesehenen - Versuch, Luthers Theologie aus frühkindlichen Deformationen seiner Sexualität und angestauten Schuld- und Hassgefühlen gegenüber seinem Vater zu erklären (Der junge Mann Luther. Eine psychoanalytische und historische Studie).

95 Theses image

There's a great image here of Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the church, thereby triggering the Reformation (insofar as any one act can be said to have triggered it). It'd be good to use this but I can't see where it's from. Does anyone know offhand? SlimVirgin 19:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I searched and searched and could not find the name of the painting, or its location. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Seems that the image is from a book cover and not from an oil painting, but I am not 100% sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Luther, Martin. Sermon No. 8, "Predigt über Mat. 11:25- , Eisleben gehalten," February 15, 1546, D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar 1914), 51:197-96.

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles