Is the Bible simpler and clearer than any other writing?

[Tertiumquid]

I've recently come across the following Luther quote being posted on the CARM forums (see also this post)

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.5

5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.

The point of contention being raised in the posting of this quote is that Luther was wrong that the Bible is "simpler and clearer than any other writing" (along with a general misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura).

First a point of nitpicking: the reference as provided appears to be a cut-and-paste from this blog article, not an actual reading of LW 32.

As the contextualist I strive to be, I try to read materials according to their written and historical context. The quote being cited is from Luther's introductory general statement from his preface to a 1521 document in which he was responding to the papal bull Exsurge Domine. Luther's contention was that the Papal church was teaching errors not in accord with Scripture. A cursory reading of LW 32 demonstrates Luther's argument is in regard to the hierarchy of authority. Luther is simply saying the Bible is the final authority which determines the veracity of secondary authorities. In that sense, if the Bible is the final authority that judges secondary authorities, it is simpler and clearer able to be judge and jury of lesser authorities. In practice: if one picks up any volume of Christian theology, however old or new, its veracity is determined by whether or not it can be substantiated by the ultimate authority.

As an experiment, if one reads LW 32: 12-19, "The First Article," Luther called out the Papal church for saying the sacraments give grace to anyone without almost any qualifications. Read Luther's answer and ask if the Papal church in the year 1521 was teaching something simpler and clearer than the Scriptures were teaching (Note also, Luther includes citations from Augustine in his answer). Luther's answer in "The First Article" demonstrates exactly what his preface alluded to: that the Scriptures gave infallible clarity on an issue that had been obscured by the Papal church. The Bible was clearer, simpler, and more reliable than what the Papal church was saying on this particular issue.

Luther did not adhere to Scriptura Nuda. Luther says specifically in the introduction of the work cited that he does not reject "all the holy teachers of the church." He says, "...everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." He then goes on to cite 1 Thes 5:21 and... Jerome! Luther therefore did not reject all authority of the church or tradition. He rejected the church and tradition as... infallible ultimate authorities. Luther's point is that one must take all theological documents and church tradition and judge them by their adherence to the Scriptures.

 

[BJ Bear]

I've recently come across the following Luther quote being posted on the CARM forums (see also this post)



The point of contention being raised in the posting of this quote is that Luther was wrong that the Bible is "simpler and clearer than any other writing" (along with a general misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura).

First a point of nitpicking: the reference as provided appears to be a cut-and-paste from this blog article, not an actual reading of LW 32.

As the contextualist I strive to be, I try to read materials according to their written and historical context. The quote being cited is from Luther's introductory general statement from his preface to a 1521 document in which he was responding to the papal bull Exsurge Domine. Luther's contention was that the Papal church was teaching errors not in accord with Scripture. A cursory reading of LW 32 demonstrates Luther's argument is in regard to the hierarchy of authority. Luther is simply saying the Bible is the final authority which determines the veracity of secondary authorities. In that sense, if the Bible is the final authority that judges secondary authorities, it is simpler and clearer able to be judge and jury of lesser authorities. In practice: if one picks up any volume of Christian theology, however old or new, its veracity is determined by whether or not it can be substantiated by the ultimate authority.

As an experiment, if one reads LW 32: 12-19, "The First Article," Luther called out the Papal church for saying the sacraments give grace to anyone without almost any qualifications. Read Luther's answer and ask if the Papal church in the year 1521 was teaching something simpler and clearer than the Scriptures were teaching (Note also, Luther includes citations from Augustine in his answer). Luther's answer in "The First Article" demonstrates exactly what his preface alluded to: that the Scriptures gave infallible clarity on an issue that had been obscured by the Papal church. The Bible was clearer, simpler, and more reliable than what the Papal church was saying on this particular issue.

Luther did not adhere to Scriptura Nuda. Luther says specifically in the introduction of the work cited that he does not reject "all the holy teachers of the church." He says, "...everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." He then goes on to cite 1 Thes 5:21 and... Jerome! Luther therefore did not reject all authority of the church or tradition. He rejected the church and tradition as... infallible ultimate authorities. Luther's point is that one must take all theological documents and church tradition and judge them by their adherence to the Scriptures.

Yes, the comments by some in those threads are odd, out of context, and not helpful to a right understanding. What was translated in the AE vol 32 is only one of four responses to the papal bull.

A reference to Psalm 119:130 in a Latin version of the response to the papal bull ought to clarify what Luther had in mind when writing of Scripture being simpler, clearer, etc.

“The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” (Psa 119:130, KJV)

If a Christian wants to argue that the above is not a true statement or understand it in some alien context then that is on him.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Yes, the comments by some in those threads are odd, out of context, and not helpful to a right understanding. What was translated in the AE vol 32 is only one of four responses to the papal bull.

A reference to Psalm 119:130 in a Latin version of the response to the papal bull ought to clarify what Luther had in mind when writing of Scripture being simpler, clearer, etc.

“The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” (Psa 119:130, KJV)

If a Christian wants to argue that the above is not a true statement or understand it in some alien context then that is on him.

I didn't see that reference in the intro of the response, but it does not surprise me that Luther would've used it, his Biblical knowledge was incredible. LW 32 mentioned their translation was a revision of the English version found in the earlier Philadelphia edition. I dusted off my copy (literally) and noticed the earlier version states,

"The Holy scriptures must needs be clearer, easier of interpretation and more certain than any other scriptures, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own writings to be established and explained by them."

I haven't checked WA to see what word is used for "scriptures," but LW's translation appears to make more sense.

Regardless, the CARM participant using this Luther quote appears to have an issue with Luther's argument that the Bible is clearer than other writings because there are "other" writings which help explain what the Bible means (see for instance, the comments here). I think there's a blatant historical and contextual issue going on causing this participant's confusion, as well as incorrect application of a reductio ad absurdum to what Luther said. With the later, If I were to apply a reductio ad absurdum to Luther's words, I'd take it back to the point that people typically need to know how to read in order to understand the Bible... but this would be pushing Luther's passing comment to an absurd place he did not intend. For the former, Luther's point, as I understand it, is that in 1521 the Papal church was proving their deviations as the Word of God from secondary sources which did not line up with what the Scriptures were saying. A simply reading of Luther's response, point by point, demonstrates that the Scriptures were "clearer, easier of interpretation and more certain."

 

[BJ Bear]

I didn't see that reference in the intro of the response, but it does not surprise me that Luther would've used it, his Biblical knowledge was incredible. LW 32 mentioned their translation was a revision of the English version found in the earlier Philadelphia edition. I dusted off my copy (literally) and noticed the earlier version states,



I haven't checked WA to see what word is used for "scriptures," but LW's translation appears to make more sense.

In Luther's day, "schrifft," WA 7, 317, 1.

Regardless, the CARM participant using this Luther quote appears to have an issue with Luther's argument that the Bible is clearer than other writings because there are "other" writings which help explain what the Bible means (see for instance, the comments here). I think there's a blatant historical and contextual issue going on causing this participant's confusion, as well as incorrect application of a reductio ad absurdum to what Luther said. With the later, If I were to apply a reductio ad absurdum to Luther's words, I'd take it back to the point that people typically need to know how to read in order to understand the Bible... but this would be pushing Luther's passing comment to an absurd place he did not intend. For the former, Luther's point, as I understand it, is that in 1521 the Papal church was proving their deviations as the Word of God from secondary sources which did not line up with what the Scriptures were saying. A simply reading of Luther's response, point by point, demonstrates that the Scriptures were "clearer, easier of interpretation and more certain."

Yes, once a person insists upon a creative misinterpretation it will then require a creative justification. That's what happens when a person finds himself on the wrong side of Scripture but still feels a need to say something, anything.

 

[rakovsky]

Regardless, the CARM participant using this Luther quote appears to have an issue with Luther's argument that the Bible is clearer than other writings because there are "other" writings which help explain what the Bible means (see for instance, the comments here).

The problem is not just that Luther's statement says that the Bible is clearer than "other writings", such as arcane Gnostic writings,
but that it "must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writing", such as: children's Bible stories, Dictionaries, a short writing meant to explain the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed, etc. etc.

 

[rakovsky]

I analysed this statement by Luther in more detail here in messages # 229-231:

My Saul Challenge

Luther's statement that the Bible is the simplest and clearest of any writing on earth is false, whether in or out of the context of debating the Papal Bull. No, one must read statements in context, that's how honest evaluations of texts should be performed. I seriously doubt you've actually...

forums.carm.org

 

[Tertiumquid]

The problem is not just that Luther's statement says that the Bible is clearer than "other writings", such as arcane Gnostic writings,
but that it "must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writing", such as: children's Bible stories, Dictionaries, a short writing meant to explain the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed, etc. etc.

The "problem," as I see it... is you're taking Luther out-of-context and applying a reductio ad absurdum to the phrase, "other writings." Read the actual source you're allegedly citing. He was writing to a particular person / group during a particular time period: the papists. When he used the phrase, "other writings" he had them in mind. Do what your signature states: be a seeker by actually looking at a context and understand that context before citing something. In this modern age, there's an emphasis on what a text means to someone personally. While it's really nice that texts mean stuff personally to people, that's not how the game of church history should be played.

 

[rakovsky]

The "problem," as I see it... is you're taking Luther out-of-context and applying a reductio ad absurdum to the phrase, "other writings." Read the actual source you're allegedly citing. He was writing to a particular person / group during a particular time period: the papists. When he used the phrase, "other writings" he had them in mind.

OK, so in your view, he just was referring to other writings as the papists' writings.
In the next sentence though, he reiterates his sweeping manner of speech:

"Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers."​

​

First, is it just all papists who verify their statements through the Bible? In his writings, he claimed approvingly that the Church fathers do this too, like when he claimed:

• "Be it known, then, that Scripture, without any gloss, is the sun and the sole light from which all teachers receive their light, and not the contrary. This is proved by the fact that when the fathers teach anything they do not trust their teaching, but fearing it to be too obscure and uncertain, they go to the Scriptures and take a clear passage out of it to shed light on their teaching ...all the fathers concede their own obscurity and illumine Scripture by Scripture alone. And that is the true method of interpretation which puts Scripture alongside of Scripture in a right and proper way; the father who can do this best is the best among them."
  

  The Quotable Luther #5: "Opponents Using the Early Church Fathers"

  Here are a few quotes from Luther responding to a 16th Century Catholic apologist (Jerome Emser) who used quotes from the early church fathe...

  beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com

ie. "When the fathers teach anything", they go to the Bible and take a clear passage to shed light on the fathers. This matches what Luther says in the opening quote about "all teachers" using the Scriptures, desiring that their own writings be "explained by them (the Scriptures)."

Second, the actual direct context is his series of statements in a train of logic leading to the declaration that the Scripture alone is the true lord and master of "all writings on earth." Papists' writings are not "all writings on earth." He is using his declarations about how "all teachers" verify their writings through the Bible and then making the declaration in this context that the Bible is the master of "all writings on earth", not just the master of papists' writings.

If he was just saying that all papists verify their writings through the Bible, then it wouldn't be especially connected with his declaration that the Bible is the true master of "all writings" "on earth."

🌍🌏🌎🌐

 

[Tertiumquid]

OK, so in your view, he just was referring to other writings as the papists' writings.
In the next sentence though, he reiterates his sweeping manner of speech:

1. Even though I'm probably older than you, I don't need text excessively being bolded and font sizes being changed in order to understand a context.

2. The "sweeping manner of speech" is a helpful clue. The context previous to your cherry-picked quote discusses the writings of "the holy teachers of the church." Luther says he doesn't reject them but will trust them only when their "opinions are proved from Scripture." Then comes your cherry-picked quote. The "any other writings" (LW 32), "writings of all the others" (Plass), "any other scriptures" (PE 3:16) refers to that preceding paragraph, for the sentence then says, "for all teachers prove their statements by them." Further, the entire overarching context is Luther's scriptural response to a confused Papal bull. The papists went at him with secondary sources, Luther responded with Scripture. Luther is not intending to use "any other" or "all the others" as an open-ended "every" "all" (as your reductio ad absurdum posits "children's Bible stories" etc.).
This is basic textual exegesis 101.

How would you treat the Bible when it says "People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of Jordan"? Does the verse mean every single person? Or, "When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him"? Was it every single person in Jerusalem? Or: "So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick"? Was it every sick person?

The Quotable Luther #5: "Opponents Using the Early Church Fathers"

Here are a few quotes from Luther responding to a 16th Century Catholic apologist (Jerome Emser) who used quotes from the early church fathe...

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com

[/URL]
[/LIST]
ie. "When the fathers teach anything", they go to the Bible and take a clear passage to shed light on the fathers. This matches what Luther says in the opening quote about "all teachers" using the Scriptures, desiring that their own writings be "explained by them (the Scriptures)."

Second, the actual direct context is his series of statements in a train of logic leading to the declaration that the Scripture alone is the true lord and master of "all writings on earth." Papists' writings are not "all writings on earth." He is using his declarations about how "all teachers" verify their writings through the Bible and then making the declaration in this context that the Bible is the master of "all writings on earth", not just the master of papists' writings.

If he was just saying that all papists verify their writings through the Bible, then it wouldn't be especially connected with his declaration that the Bible is the true master of "all writings" "on earth."

🌍🌏🌎🌐

3. I'll have to get to this later... but... be careful where you find your links. You never know exactly who you're talking to.

 

[rakovsky]

((OK, so in your view, he just was referring to other writings as the papists' writings. In the next sentence though, he reiterates his sweeping manner of speech:

"Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers."))
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The "sweeping manner of speech" is a helpful clue. The context previous to your cherry-picked quote discusses the writings of "the holy teachers of the church." Luther says he doesn't reject them but will trust them only when their "opinions are proved from Scripture." Then comes your cherry-picked quote. The "any other writings" (LW 32), "writings of all the others" (Plass), "any other scriptures" (PE 3:16) refers to that preceding paragraph, for the sentence then says, "for all teachers prove their statements by them."

Tertium,

OK, so in your view, he just was referring to other writings as the writings of the holy teachers of the church.

I am curious whether it says "any other writings" or "writings of all the others" in Latin. PE, LW, and Plass seem to point 2 to 1 to the Latin phrase likely saying literally "any other writings/scriptures", with Plassmaking an explanatory-style interpretation that Luther meant just the teachers' writings like you take it to mean.

Luther follows it by saying that "Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth." This final phrase makes it sound like he is talking about literally all writings on earth, eg. children's books, not just holy teachers' books. In turn, this would imply that "any other writings" might be meant literally too.

If "Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth" in this expansive sense, then how would the paragraph explain this thesis when it comes to "all writings... on earth"? He follows it by saying that you must grant this thesis, or it devalues Scripture.

Accepting that Scripture is the "master" of all books on earth, then this statement brings to mind what he said in the preceding sentence: that necessity forces us to run to the Bible with all teachers' writings. This would explain how the Bible would be a "master" of other books: It would be used to "judge" other books. So the statement that the Bible is the "master" of all books on earth means that it's the "judge" of all books on earth. And he says that you can't substantiate an obscure statement by what is more obscure, and that the Bible must therefore be clearer than the teachers' writings. And if this axiom is true, then it also would apply to all other writings that the Bible was "judging" and "substantiating." That is, the same logic that Luther is using about the Bible being simpler and clearer than all teachers' writings would apply to all other writings that the Bible was judging, ie. "all writings... on earth."

Further, the entire overarching context is Luther's scriptural response to a confused Papal bull. The papists went at him with secondary sources, Luther responded with Scripture. Luther is not intending to use "any other" or "all the others" as an open-ended "every" "all" (as your reductio ad absurdum posits "children's Bible stories" etc.).
This is basic textual exegesis 101.

That would make sense, but he puts "all writings and doctrines on earth" in the same paragraph, and contrasts the Bible with "men's books and men's teachers." Are science books "men's books" according to Luther? It's true that his overall goal is to dispute Papal apologists and that previously he was talking about "holy teachers of the church". However, in this paragraph he drops the words specifying "holy" teachers "of the Church" and makes his declaration about "all writings" "earth" as if he is going beyond just saying that the Bible is clearer than the Fathers or the master of theological writings and making a statement about the Bible's relations to "any other writings" in the normal sense of the term.

So there are a bunch of reasons why "any other writings" in this sentence does not just mean patristics.

How would you treat the Bible when it says "People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of Jordan"? Does the verse mean every single person?

Or, "When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him"? Was it every single person in Jerusalem? Or: "So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick"? Was it every sick person?

Only your second and third examples really apply because all Judea could just literally mean every county in Judea. People going out from "all" of a region is ambiguous, because it doesn't imply that everyone went out, but rather that the whole place was somehow represented.

I get your point - the Bible is making a generalization here while speaking in terms of "all."

Still, there are two problems. One is that Luther, while often using Biblical language, was not a 1st century Jewish Christian writer. I would caution against equating Luther's way of speaking about issues with the Biblical dialect. One reason is that the Gospels were telling a story in a colloquial fashion, whereas Luther was speaking in a modern Western academic precise doctrinal context.

Nonetheless, I expect that Luther sometimes spoke in generalities and made broad-sounding statements (eg. all... any...)

But the second and basic problem is that Luther's point in the paragraph is not just to say that lots of patristic writings are obscure or confusing and using the term "all writings" in some overbroad sense.

Rather, Luther spoke exclusively here by contrasting the Bible with "any other writing" (be it literally so or just of the fathers) and declaring the Bible "Alone" the lord and master of all writings on earth.

If the Bible said that "Herod was more disturbed about the news than any other person in Jerusalem," I think that those who take the plain meaning, and I suppose even Luther, would take such a phrase literally.

If the Bible said that "Herod alone was the true person responsible, over all people on earth, of trying to persecute the infant Christ," the implication would seem to be that the Bible would be speaking very exclusively of Herod alone, and not of Herod's soldiers or literally anyone else, as being the most responsible party.

Luther wasn't saying that the Bible and some other church writings were clearer than most other church writings, nor that "the Bible and some other writings" were the master of "most other Church writings." Luther was speaking exclusively here about one book, "the Bible alone" to the exclusion of all other writings, as he specified, "on earth".

Regards.

 

[Tertiumquid]

OK, so in your view, he just was referring to other writings as the writings of the holy teachers of the church.

-snip-

Luther follows it by saying that "Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth." This final phrase makes it sound like he is talking about literally all writings on earth, eg. children's books, not just holy teachers' books. In turn, this would imply that "any other writings" might be meant literally too.

-snip-

Luther wasn't saying that the Bible and some other church writings were clearer than most other church writings, nor that "the Bible and some other writings" were the master of "most other Church writings." Luther was speaking exclusively here about one book, "the Bible alone" to the exclusion of all other writings, as he specified, "on earth".

you know that Wengert book you put up on your other thread as some sort of authoritative source on Luther? Did you happen to catch this:



Then notice footnote 44:


Granted, this is not the writing from Luther you're quibbling about, but it's from roughly the same time period and explains the thrust of where Luther's head was at during this time period, saying the same thing I did about whom Luther was referring to in his contrasts and the distinction between primary and secondary authorities. You're over-fixating on Luther's rhetoric "on earth," of which he was a master. Luther is using rhetoric within the confines of his argument with the Papists. You're over-thinking the text word-for word at the expense of the historical context.

DON"T MISS THIS!
I typically don't argue by using the "head count" method, but I'll make an exception: could you (or would you) produce any meaningful scholarship that shares your interpretation of Luther's use of the word "earth" in the context you're scrutinizing and comes to your same conclusion? I don't care if you respond to anything else of mine, simply respond to this question. I've not searched out my excessive databases, so maybe you can, so I would certainly be interested in scholarship on Luther's use of the word "earth" and the scope of his meaning of that word in that paragraph in Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind. I'm always willing to learn something new, however much I might dislike it. If I'm completely wrong in my synopsis, you would be doing me favor by correcting me with credible sources.

If you can't produce any meaningful source with your same argument of this context, I can think of at least two possibilities:

1. You've uncovered something no one else has, which, though not impossible, is incredible. Scholars have spent their entire lives scrutinizing the German / Latin texts of Luther, as have many of his scholarly detractors. You "alone" were able to take an English document and make an argument without having consulted the primary German source (or even compared the source to the previous versions of the text Luther put together) that no one in the history of Reformation scholarship has. That's incredible! Kudos to you!

2. Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[BJ Bear]

If you can't produce any meaningful source with your same argument of this context, I can think of at least two possibilities:

1. You've uncovered something no one else has, which, though not impossible, is incredible. Scholars have spent their entire lives scrutinizing the German / Latin texts of Luther, as have many of his scholarly detractors. You "alone" were able to take an English document and make an argument without having consulted the primary German source (or even compared the source to the previous versions of the text Luther put together) that no one in the history of Reformation scholarship has. That's incredible! Kudos to you!

2. Your argument is ridiculous.

Good points. I was thinking along the same lines today. If I had seen this I would have asked the Lortz question here.

 

[rakovsky]

DON"T MISS THIS!
I typically don't argue by using the "head count" method, but I'll make an exception: could you (or would you) produce any meaningful scholarship that shares your interpretation of Luther's use of the word "earth" in the context you're scrutinizing and comes to your same conclusion? I don't care if you respond to anything else of mine, simply respond to this question. I've not searched out my excessive databases, so maybe you can, so I would certainly be interested in scholarship on Luther's use of the word "earth" and the scope of his meaning of that word in that paragraph in Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind. I'm always willing to learn something new, however much I might dislike it. If I'm completely wrong in my synopsis, you would be doing me favor by correcting me with credible sources.

If you can't produce any meaningful source with your same argument of this context, I can think of at least two possibilities:

1. You've uncovered something no one else has, which, though not impossible, is incredible. Scholars have spent their entire lives scrutinizing the German / Latin texts of Luther, as have many of his scholarly detractors. You "alone" were able to take an English document and make an argument without having consulted the primary German source (or even compared the source to the previous versions of the text Luther put together) that no one in the history of Reformation scholarship has. That's incredible! Kudos to you!

2. Your argument is ridiculous.

It sounds like you are suggesting that "Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth" is not meant literally to apply to every writing on earth, from children's books to dictionaries.
That however is how I understand the term. Not only does he say that it's meant to apply to all writings, but then adds the term on earth, as if to clarify this. This is how the term "all writings on earth" would seem to be used in typical speech. For example, Bernard Fell writes in a poem:

The Scriptures live on: O let them now speak
A word to the weary, the strong or the weak.
This Book of rare treasures transcends in its worth,
All libr'ies combined, and all writings on earth.

SOURCE: sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=category&cid=843

Mark Thompson in his book A Sure Ground on Which to Stand cites Luther's quote in his discussion on Luther's teaching of the clarity of Scripture. Thompson opens his paragraph with these words:

"It is in connection with the external clarity of Scripture that Luther declared 'nothing at all is left obscure or ambiguous, but everything there is in the Scripture has been brought forth into the most definite light by the Word, and published to all the world." (WA XVIII, 609.12-14=LW, 28.
SOURCE:

A Sure Ground on Which to Stand

Martin Luther's importance in the history of the doctrine of Scripture is universally acknowledged. However, many modern studies of this aspect of Luther's thought are colored by attempts to acquire him for one side or other of the contemporary theological debate. Luther has been variously...

books.google.com

When Luther uses the phrase on earth elsewhere in this context, he means the same thing. R. Shelton writes in his thesis for the Quaker George Fox University in Martin Luther's Concept of Biblical Interpretation in Historical Perspective:

Perspicuity of Scripture
The second major hermeneutical principle which Luther presents is the essential clarity or perspicuity of Scripture. He firmly believes, in c ontrast to the medieval exegetes, that each passage of the Bible contains one clear and definite meaning. He says, "There is not on earth a book more lucidly written than the Holy Scripture. Compared with all other books, it is as the sun compared with all other lights."

https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=gfes

In Luther's Principles of Biblical Interpretation, A. Skevington Wood writes:

Scriptura sua radiat luce was his slogan. 'There is not on earth a book more lucidly written than the Holy Scripture', he announces. 'Compared with all other books, it is as the sun compared with all other lights.'[68] ... In Luther's opinion, the Diatribe of Erasmus 'not being able to endure the brightness, nay the lightning of the most clear Scriptures, pretending by every kind of manoeuvre that it does not see (which is the truth of the case) wishes to persuade us that our eyes are also covered that we cannot see'.[73] Elsewhere in De Servo Arbitrio Luther refers emphatically to 'the all clear Scriptures of God' and 'the all clear light of the Scripture'.[74]

Wood rephrases Luther's statement about how rejecting the Scriptures leads to being satisfied "with the books of men and human teachers." this way: "If we cannot look to the Bible for the light of knowledge, where else shall we find it?" Luther is giving a categorical dichotomy here for the "light of knowledge", and I don't think that Luther would agree that dictionaries, children's books, and science books were a place to look for knowledge outside the Bible. Hence his dichotomy seems to be juxtaposing the Bible vs. literally all other works as sources for the "light of knowledge."

Wood continues:

One of the most valuable of Luther's hermeneutical principles is his insistence on the primacy of the literal sense. He resolutely sets aside the verbal jugglery involved in multiple exegesis and firmly takes his stand upon the plain and obvious significance of the Word. 'The literal sense of Scripture alone', he asserts, 'is the whole essence of faith and Christian theology.'[103] And again: 'If we wish to handle Scripture aright, our sole effort will be to obtain the one, simple, seminal and certain literal sense.'[104]

This meant the rejection of what Dean Farrar dubbed 'the fatal dream' of the fourfold sense, so dear to the Medieval Schoolmen.[105] Scripture was expounded by means of the Quadriga, or fourfold rule, around which, according to Guibert of Nogent, every sacred page revolved as on wheels.[106] Luther himself explains it: 'In the schools of theologians it is a well-known rule that Scripture is to be understood in four ways, literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical.'[107] 'The literal meaning speaks of acts, the allegorical of what you believe, the moral of what you do, the anagogical of what you hope.'[108] The text was held to contain a double meaning, literal and spiritual. The spiritual sense was further subdivided into the moral or tropological, the allegorical and the anagogical. The tropological sense applied to the individual believer, the allegorical to the Church and the anagogical to the future. Since so much capital has been made out of the abuses to which this type of exegesis was prone, it ought to be observed that throughout the Middle Ages and into the period of the Reformation only the literal sense was valid in disputations and in exegesis it was not considered essential to search for all four possibilities in every verse. Whatever its weaknesses, this discipline at least provided an incentive to examine the text thoroughly from a variety of angles.

As we shall see later, Luther did not altogether set aside spiritual interpretation, but he emphatically urged the priority and superiority of the literal sense.

This is also another contradictory issue, whereby Luther at times proclaimed that the literal sense is the whole essence of theology and our sole effort in handling scripture is the literal sense, yet Wood says that he did not set aside the other nonliteral, spiritual sense, and just gave the literal sense priority. This could be a theory/doctrine vs. praxis conflict, ie. Luther could say that one should only follow the literal sense, but then his practice could diverge from this.

This teaching of insisting on the literal sense comes up in Luther's claim that in a debate you must stick with the literal meaning:

You must offer us a firm and simple understanding of Scripture, as I do and have done. That is what it behooves a theologian to do; the other way is that of the sophists. You know that in a debate you must operate only with the literal meaning of the Scriptures, which is uniform throughout the whole Bible. Origen, Jerome, and all who have interpreted Scripture in many ways are of no account in this business. They assert, but they do not prove. 18, 1447. [ quoting from Prof. W. H. T. Dau]

http://wordofgodlutheran.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/lutheronthebible.pdf

 

[rakovsky]

In Luther Examined and Reexamined, published by Concordia Publishing House in 1917, William Herman Theodore Dau writes:

Luther voices his profound reverence for the Scriptures in innumerable places throughout his writings. "The Holy Scriptures," he says, did not grow on earth." (7, 2094) ... Again: "The Scriptures are older and possess greater authority than all Councils and Fathers. Moreover, all the angels side with God and the Scriptures... If age, duration, greatness, multitude [of followers], holiness, are inducements to believe something, why do we believe men who live a short time rather than God, who is the Oldest, the Greatest, the Holiest, the Mightiest of all? ... Why do we not believe the Bible, when one passage of Scripture outweighs all the books in the world?" (19, 1734.) ... [Dau quotes Luther here about the Bible alone being the master of all writings on earth.] Again: "All Scripture is full of Christ, the Son of God and Mary. ... The Scriptures are ajar to him who has the Son, and in the same proportion as his faith in Christ increases the Scriptures become clear to him."

Luther Examined and Reexamined

books.google.com

Let's think about these statements:

1. "The Scriptures did not grow on earth." This implies that when he says that the Scripture is the master of all books on earth, he could be creating two separate categories: A. The Bible, and B. books that grew on earth, like when he complained about being satisfied with "men's writings."
2. The Scriptures are older... than all Councils Fathers. Is the Bible older than the Council of Jerusalem narrated in Acts? Were John's Gospel and 2 Peter finalized before the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and the Didache?
   Since the Bible establishes all doctrine, per Luther's Smallcald articles, do the Scriptures establish Luther's doctrine that the Scriptures are older than all Fathers?
3. One passage of Scripture outweighs all the books in the world? Does one passage of Scripture outweigh all academic books, including science books? I think that Luther's answer would be Yes, and that all the books in the world is meant literally, since he sees the Bible, unlike Science books, as God's words. This in turn implies that when Luther says that the Bible is the Master of all books on earth, he means the same thing: The Bible is the master of literally all books, including science books, dictionaries, etc. This in turn suggests that when he says that the Bible is simpler and clearer than any writing, he is talking expansively there too.
4. All Scripture is full of Mary. Would Lutherans typically agree with this statement?
5. As a person's faith in Christ increases, the Scriptures become clear to him. Calvinists reject the objective Presence in the Eucharist, whereas Luther saw the Words of Institution alluding to this. Mark Thompson however, claimed that "Luther would later argue that even a heathen, a Jew, or a Turk could explain what the words of Institution at the Last Supper mean", citing Luther's German words. (https://books.google.com/books?id=JqFLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230) One way to resolve the dilemma regarding understanding the Words of Institution would be to say that Calvinists understand the Bible better overall than Turks.

 

[BJ Bear]

It sounds like you are suggesting that "Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth" is not meant literally to apply to every writing on earth, from children's books to dictionaries.
That however is how I understand the term. Not only does he say that it's meant to apply to all writings, but then adds the term on earth, as if to clarify this. This is how the term "all writings on earth" would seem to be used in typical speech. For example, Bernard Fell writes in a poem:

SOURCE: sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=category&cid=843

Mark Thompson in his book A Sure Ground on Which to Stand cites Luther's quote in his discussion on Luther's teaching of the clarity of Scripture. Thompson opens his paragraph with these words:


When Luther uses the phrase on earth elsewhere in this context, he means the same thing. R. Shelton writes in his thesis for the Quaker George Fox University in Martin Luther's Concept of Biblical Interpretation in Historical Perspective:


In Luther's Principles of Biblical Interpretation, A. Skevington Wood writes:

Wood rephrases Luther's statement about how rejecting the Scriptures leads to being satisfied "with the books of men and human teachers." this way: "If we cannot look to the Bible for the light of knowledge, where else shall we find it?" Luther is giving a categorical dichotomy here for the "light of knowledge", and I don't think that Luther would agree that dictionaries, children's books, and science books were a place to look for knowledge outside the Bible. Hence his dichotomy seems to be juxtaposing the Bible vs. literally all other works as sources for the "light of knowledge."

Wood continues:

This is also another contradictory issue, whereby Luther at times proclaimed that the literal sense is the whole essence of theology and our sole effort in handling scripture is the literal sense, yet Wood says that he did not set aside the other nonliteral, spiritual sense, and just gave the literal sense priority. This could be a theory/doctrine vs. praxis conflict, ie. Luther could say that one should only follow the literal sense, but then his practice could diverge from this.

This teaching of insisting on the literal sense comes up in Luther's claim that in a debate you must stick with the literal meaning:

At five hundred years distance the context is being overlooked or ignored. The following is from Exsurge Domine, the Papal Bull condemning the purported errors of Martin Luther. It provides context to the dispute over Scripture.

"Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, “It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s, or what is worse, the devil’s.”

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm

Astoundingly, Exsurge Domine was written and approved by the top of Papal food chain of authorities. Think for a minute about the state of mind and spiritual condition of the people who wanted to put their opinions above what the Lord says and means in Scripture according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it He gave it.

All things considered, Luther was temperate in his response to those who think reading Scripture in the context inwhicg it was given is to, "twist and adulterate the scriptures," and then conclude that reading Scripture according to it's immediate context is to make Scripture, "no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s, or what is worse, the devil’s.”

Praise God for preparing and raising up a guy like Luther to reform the Papal church so that five hundred years later a Roman Catholic at least responds with a question about Scripture rather than make the illogical and evil assertions of Exsurge Domine.

 

[Tertiumquid]

It sounds like you are suggesting that "Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth" is not meant literally to apply to every writing on earth, from children's books to dictionaries.

Scripture, if it is written by an infinite holy God. is necessarily the "true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth." How could it not be? If an infinite perfect being writes a book, in the category of "all" books, that book is the most important book ever written. Its contents are the true lord and master of not only the people on planet earth, but everything they produce, whether it's a book, a work or art, a scientific discovery. Yes, it is the Master of children's books and dictionaries.

That however is how I understand the term. Not only does he say that it's meant to apply to all writings, but then adds the term on earth, as if to clarify this. This is how the term "all writings on earth" would seem to be used in typical speech.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that Luther is saying the Scripture "must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writing on earth, such as: children's Bible stories, dictionaries, a short writing meant to explain the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed, etc. etc." Even I know a children's book is simpler than the Bible. Therefore, I think your argument is that... Luther is wrong. Do you think Luther thought the Bible was simpler than a children's book? Are we agreed that you're making this argument?

I realize you recently quote bombed me in a number of posts. I don't want to venture into that mine field until we agree on exactly what you're arguing. What I'm asking you to produce is any scholar on planet earth that makes the argument you're making above. If I've misconstrued your argument, I will certainly amend my line of inquiry.

 

[Tertiumquid]

In Luther Examined and Reexamined, published by Concordia Publishing House in 1917, William Herman Theodore Dau writes:

This is a tangent, but I own a physical copy of this book, which I spent a lot of $$ to get... before it was easily available online like it is now. Dau is another Lutheran scholar i would have loved to have met.

 

[BJ Bear]

I can't tell if your reply is serious or done tongue in cheek for grins and giggles. Either way, I will play along.

In Luther Examined and Reexamined, published by Concordia Publishing House in 1917, William Herman Theodore Dau writes:


Let's think about these statements:

1. "The Scriptures did not grow on earth." This implies that when he says that the Scripture is the master of all books on earth, he could be creating two separate categories: A. The Bible, and B. books that grew on earth, like when he complained about being satisfied with "men's writings."

There are two separate categories. So my question back to you is what non prophetic and non immediateltely called by Christ apostolic or non apostolic confirmed secretary do you point to as having lent their great knowledge, wisdom, or spirituality to the beggarly Holy Scriptures that were in desperate need of their help? And if someone comes to mind then what did he lend to the the poor, destitute, and helpless word of God?

If you don't consider the word of God to be poor, destitute, and helpless then from whom did your question come?

1. The Scriptures are older... than all Councils Fathers. Is the Bible older than the Council of Jerusalem narrated in Acts? Were John's Gospel and 2 Peter finalized before the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and the Didache?
   Since the Bible establishes all doctrine, per Luther's Smallcald articles, do the Scriptures establish Luther's doctrine that the Scriptures are older than all Fathers?

Of course the Scriptures are older than the council of Jerusalem. What does the incarnate Lord tell the unbelievers? “39. You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which testify about Me. 40. But you are unwilling to come to Me, so that you may have life.” (Joh 5:39-40, EMTV)

Christ's person and work is in fulfillment of the Scriptures. The Apostles and Evangelists weren't making stuff up as they along, unlike so many of the reputed church fathers.

1. One passage of Scripture outweighs all the books in the world? Does one passage of Scripture outweigh all academic books, including science books? I think that Luther's answer would be Yes, and that all the books in the world is meant literally, since he sees the Bible, unlike Science books, as God's words. This in turn implies that when Luther says that the Bible is the Master of all books on earth, he means the same thing: The Bible is the master of literally all books, including science books, dictionaries, etc. This in turn suggests that when he says that the Bible is simpler and clearer than any writing, he is talking expansively there too.

In your opinion, or in that of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church, which science book or children's book has ever lent something to the poor, destitute, and beggarly word of God? If you can't name something then Scripture is necessarily clearer and simpler than all other writings on earth.

1. All Scripture is full of Mary. Would Lutherans typically agree with this statement?

Do you really not recognize that the mention of Mary in Luther's words is in reference to Christ? Do you really not recognize that Mary's significance in Scripture is in reference to Christ? If you do then why did you place the cart without the horse by mentioning Mary alone?

1. As a person's faith in Christ increases, the Scriptures become clear to him. Calvinists reject the objective Presence in the Eucharist, whereas Luther saw the Words of Institution alluding to this. Mark Thompson however, claimed that "Luther would later argue that even a heathen, a Jew, or a Turk could explain what the words of Institution at the Last Supper mean", citing Luther's German words. (https://books.google.com/books?id=JqFLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230) One way to resolve the dilemma regarding understanding the Words of Institution would be to say that Calvinists understand the Bible better overall than Turks.

The dilemma in this regard is only in the imagination of the person who took words out of context in order to try and fabricate one. Obviously, the measure of one's faith and the measure of one's knowledge of the Scriptures isn't limited to one topic, even an important one.

 

[Tertiumquid]

rakovsky said: All Scripture is full of Mary. Would Lutherans typically agree with this statement?

Do you really not recognize that the mention of Mary in Luther's words is in reference to Christ? Do you really not recognize that Mary's significance in Scripture is in reference to Christ? If you do then why did you place the cart without the horse by mentioning Mary alone?

This is a great practical observation. Going through the tedium of the question posed by Rakovsky will demonstrate that it's a blatant misreading of the context.

1. Rakovsky quotes a passing comment from Dau's Luther Examined and Reexamined, in which the author mentions the name, "Mary." Contextually, Dau isn't doing anything more than simply mentioning the name "Mary." Dau quotes Luther saying,

"All Scripture is full of Christ, the Son of God and Mary. Its sole object is to teach us to know Him as a distinct person, and that through Him we may in eternity behold the Father and the Holy Ghost, one God. The Scriptures are ajar to him who has the Son, and in the same proportion as his faith in Christ increases the Scriptures become clear to him.” (3, 1959.)

2. Rakovsky asks us to "think about" the statement "All Scripture is full of Mary"!!! BJ Bear was spot on about asking about the cart and the horse. The answer to BJ's question as to why "Mary" was mentioned alone is that Rome's defenders and EO defenders practice sola Maria. Their theological glasses have lenses that will fixate on Mary at the expense of an obvious context.

3. To make matters worse for Rakovsky, if one searches Dau's book, Dau actually does have an extended context discussing Mary. That discussion is not favorable to any sort of devotion to Mary. In fact, Dau is sarcastic in his presentation of veneration and worship, making jest at the distinction between "worship" and "venerate."

Conclusion
Rakovsky's citation that "All Scripture is full of Mary" is an example of what I've dealt with for twenty years in interacting with people on contexts. Rome's defenders have taught me the valuable lesson of looking stuff up to read the context before granting what they say is accurate. It appears are EO friends teach the same lesson!

To bring this back around, when Luther fought with the papists, he tried to reason with them using the ultimate primary source, sacred scripture. Rather, many of the papists wanted to cite fathers, traditions, bulls, etc. One of the battle cries of the Renaissance was ad fontes. Likewise, the Reformers used the same slogan applied to the Bible. Now in the year of Lord 2022, the Internet makes it possible for almost anyone to read the primary source of almost anything!

 

[Tertiumquid]

All Scripture is full of Mary. Would Lutherans typically agree with this statement?

Some further tedium:

Dau: "All Scripture is full of Christ, the Son of God and Mary. Its sole object is to teach us to know Him as a distinct person, and that through Him we may in eternity behold the Father and the Holy Ghost, one God. The Scriptures are ajar to him who has the Son, and in the same proportion as his faith in Christ increases the Scriptures become clear to him.” (3, 1959.)

Dau cites "3,1959." This is a reference to the Saint Louis edition of Luther's writings. That page can be found here. If cross-checked to LW, it can be found at LW 15:339-

"Thus all of Scripture, as already said, is pure Christ, God’s and Mary’s Son. Everything is focused on this Son, so that we might know Him distinctively and in that way see the Father and the Holy Spirit eternally as one God. To him who has the Son Scripture is an open book; and the stronger his faith in Christ becomes, the more brightly will the light of Scripture shine for him."