Note to readers: this essay segues into another article on the development of Biblical Criticism as an unintended consequence of the Protestant Reformation
Martin Luther mistranslated 'fide' as 'Glaubens'. Thus faith has come to mean credulity. But 'credo' is not 'fido'. We call a dog Fido because a dog is loyal; anyone who has faked throwing a tennis ball for a dog to fetch knows that what a dog believes is worthless. And anyone who has lived with a dog knows about a dog's loyalty.
The letter to the Hebrews makes the point that loyalty (to God) is accounted as righteousness. This is a Roman value. At the time that document was composed, the Roman Emperor had a lifetime appointment, and the risk that the appointment would be cut short was high enough to make loyalty the supreme virtue. And, given the frequency of civil conflict in Rome, it wasn't just for the Emperor. Thus the letter to the Hebrews marks a transition in Christianity from being a sect of Judaism to becoming a Roman religion.
The starting point for loyalty as a virtue is Paul's vision that people are saved by 'pistis Christou', the loyalty of the Messiah to God. Of course, today that is mistranslated as faith in Christ, thanks to Luther's mistranslation.
Contrasting with the letter to the Hebrews is Jesus's definition of Righteousness in Matthew 25: feed the hungry, quench the thirsty, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, visit the confined. These are specific actions, not an orientation (loyalty), certainly not a belief. I like to point out that an atheistic homosexual could meet Jesus's definition of righteousness. Also, recall the point in James that loyalty without righteous actions is dead. These people were Jews, not Romans. And Jesus was crucified as an enemy of the Roman Empire (see Josephus Flavius's explanation of 'listoi', translated as 'thieves', but referring to people violently resisting the collection of taxes for Rome; also Jesus's riposte that the Temple, by allowing Romans to have sacrifices done for them, had become a den of 'thieves').
Buddha did not teach Buddhism, and Jesus did not teach Christianity. Religions are social constructs.
So fascinating how scriptural literalism and a desire to centre the word of God paved the way for a critical reading of scripture and questioning of God.
Thank you for your post David. I enjoy History but only have knowledge of the more basic/ popular eras studied in schools/ on TV etc. Your writing is broadening my knowledge. I’d not heard of any of this History and it’s peaked some interest in ‘religious History’. I also appreciate you linking words/phrases to other pages 😊
Maybe it’s because I have terrible cold and feel a bit foggy-headed, but I cannot help but see the US political world of 2025 in this piece. It is brilliant.
There’s the buying and selling of access, new technology upending knowledge delivery, and the desire of one brilliant man to reach the hearts and minds of masses of humanity. (Anyone in the Opposition paying attention here?)
Anyway, thoroughly enjoyed this post. Thank you for enlarging my understanding of history.
And because you (David) cite Reimarus, I hope that I may add to this subject by citing, The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer, trans. W. Montgomery, 1911, which I have trudged through in recent years. Schweitzer begins with Reimarus, and it is only in his closing pages that Schweitzer unveils his own beliefs: "Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also."
Nice essay; I'm ready to read the follow-up on Biblical Criticism.
It seems to me that serious Biblical textual analysis started a century or so earlier, with Luther's "nemesis" Erasmus being the most famous (though not first) example of scholars giving serious thought to the Bible's origins etc.
It also seems to me that Luther's (and others') desire to have the "common man" read the Bible led to level of literalism and fundamentalism that didn't exist before -- the average person is just not capable of thinking in abstract and symbolical terms, they take everything literally. This literalism may be partly responsble for the later disenchantment? Just a thought...
As I'm reading this, I see the parallels between Martin Luther and Alexander Hamilton - both brilliant minds whose efforts changed the course of history - yet certainly imperfect humans. As a Lin Manuel Miranda fan, of course this means I'm picturing a Martin Luther musical on Broadway 😂 Thank you for the lovely morning read with my coffee!
Fascinating to think how the world could have been if only the printing press came about a few centuries earlier or later. Also interesting what sort of unintended consequences Luther and other Reformers succeeded to unleash.
Martin Luther mistranslated 'fide' as 'Glaubens'. Thus faith has come to mean credulity. But 'credo' is not 'fido'. We call a dog Fido because a dog is loyal; anyone who has faked throwing a tennis ball for a dog to fetch knows that what a dog believes is worthless. And anyone who has lived with a dog knows about a dog's loyalty.
The letter to the Hebrews makes the point that loyalty (to God) is accounted as righteousness. This is a Roman value. At the time that document was composed, the Roman Emperor had a lifetime appointment, and the risk that the appointment would be cut short was high enough to make loyalty the supreme virtue. And, given the frequency of civil conflict in Rome, it wasn't just for the Emperor. Thus the letter to the Hebrews marks a transition in Christianity from being a sect of Judaism to becoming a Roman religion.
The starting point for loyalty as a virtue is Paul's vision that people are saved by 'pistis Christou', the loyalty of the Messiah to God. Of course, today that is mistranslated as faith in Christ, thanks to Luther's mistranslation.
Contrasting with the letter to the Hebrews is Jesus's definition of Righteousness in Matthew 25: feed the hungry, quench the thirsty, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, visit the confined. These are specific actions, not an orientation (loyalty), certainly not a belief. I like to point out that an atheistic homosexual could meet Jesus's definition of righteousness. Also, recall the point in James that loyalty without righteous actions is dead. These people were Jews, not Romans. And Jesus was crucified as an enemy of the Roman Empire (see Josephus Flavius's explanation of 'listoi', translated as 'thieves', but referring to people violently resisting the collection of taxes for Rome; also Jesus's riposte that the Temple, by allowing Romans to have sacrifices done for them, had become a den of 'thieves').
Buddha did not teach Buddhism, and Jesus did not teach Christianity. Religions are social constructs.
So fascinating how scriptural literalism and a desire to centre the word of God paved the way for a critical reading of scripture and questioning of God.
Thank you for your post David. I enjoy History but only have knowledge of the more basic/ popular eras studied in schools/ on TV etc. Your writing is broadening my knowledge. I’d not heard of any of this History and it’s peaked some interest in ‘religious History’. I also appreciate you linking words/phrases to other pages 😊
Thankyou for your kind words Charlotte - much appreciated. Best regards David M
Great read, the just shall live by faith!
Maybe it’s because I have terrible cold and feel a bit foggy-headed, but I cannot help but see the US political world of 2025 in this piece. It is brilliant.
There’s the buying and selling of access, new technology upending knowledge delivery, and the desire of one brilliant man to reach the hearts and minds of masses of humanity. (Anyone in the Opposition paying attention here?)
Anyway, thoroughly enjoyed this post. Thank you for enlarging my understanding of history.
Thanks Bonnie - I hope you are feeling better soon 🙂
Ditto
Ditto Abraham Charles's praise.
And because you (David) cite Reimarus, I hope that I may add to this subject by citing, The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer, trans. W. Montgomery, 1911, which I have trudged through in recent years. Schweitzer begins with Reimarus, and it is only in his closing pages that Schweitzer unveils his own beliefs: "Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows through our time also."
Thoughts ?
Nice essay; I'm ready to read the follow-up on Biblical Criticism.
It seems to me that serious Biblical textual analysis started a century or so earlier, with Luther's "nemesis" Erasmus being the most famous (though not first) example of scholars giving serious thought to the Bible's origins etc.
It also seems to me that Luther's (and others') desire to have the "common man" read the Bible led to level of literalism and fundamentalism that didn't exist before -- the average person is just not capable of thinking in abstract and symbolical terms, they take everything literally. This literalism may be partly responsble for the later disenchantment? Just a thought...
As I'm reading this, I see the parallels between Martin Luther and Alexander Hamilton - both brilliant minds whose efforts changed the course of history - yet certainly imperfect humans. As a Lin Manuel Miranda fan, of course this means I'm picturing a Martin Luther musical on Broadway 😂 Thank you for the lovely morning read with my coffee!
Fascinating to think how the world could have been if only the printing press came about a few centuries earlier or later. Also interesting what sort of unintended consequences Luther and other Reformers succeeded to unleash.
Well done writing and research David.
Thank-you Abraham for your kind words - I really appreciate your comment, it means a lot to me. Very best regards, David M