Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary
6600 N. Clinton St.
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825
Phone: (260) 452-2145
Fax: (260) 452-2126
Email: library@ctsfw.edu

Te Deum Laudamus, 
Te Dominum Confitemur!

WaltherFAQ: 
Questions Frequently Asked of the Walther Library Reference Staff

Good News: The Internet is growing quickly, with new people coming online every minute.

Bad News: The Internet is growing quickly, with new people coming online every minute.

The good news is that more and more people have access to a new tool for learning about God and the world. Email discussion groups, chat rooms and help desks existon every cybercorner. The bad news is that people new to these forums like to ask the same questions over and over again.

To meet their needs and the needs of veterans in these gatherings, the Internet community invented the FAQ. Like a catechism, it provides good answers to common questions.

We at the Walther Library think this form is a very good idea. Thus, WaltherFAQ is now here to serve you. Please feel free to send in your own thoughts on the essays you find here. Like the rest of the web, Walther FAQ is always under construction!

-- Walther Library Reference Staff

WaltherFAQ
Last revised: 18 December 1998

1. Are the Lutheran Confessions available on disk or CD-ROM?

2. Did Luther use a drinking song as the basis for "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"?

3. Was Luther anti-Semitic?

4. Is there a discrepancy between Matthew 1 and Luke 3 in the genealogy of Jesus Christ?

1. Are the Lutheran Confessions available on disk or CD-ROM?

There is one CD-ROM of the Book of Concord available:

The Lutheran Confessions 1.0 Software is available from:

Northwestern Publishing House
1250 North 113th Street
Milwaukee, WI  53226-3284

Telephone: 800-662-6022

The basis for this 1998 CD-ROM is the 1917 Concordia Triglotta.  It includes the Book of Concord in German, Latin, and English (translations by F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau).  It is expandable with all Logos Library System titles.  It is currently available only in a Windows format.
 

Stock No. OL 35-0200
Price:  $99.99

If you wish simply to have a machine-readable version of the confessions, you have four choices for obtaining copies free-of-charge.  All of these choices will give you, of course, the text, but no search engine, which you would get with the purchase of the CD-ROMs above.

 
1) You can download some sections (no Apology or Formula yet) in English in HTML format from the Project Wittenberg site:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-home.html/

2) You can download most sections in English, with some texts also in German or Latin, in straight ASCII format from the Project Wittenberg archive site:

http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/boc/

3} You can download text files in straight ASCII format from any Project Gutenberg site.  The following individual files are available:

Augsburg Confession, English
Augsburg Confession, German and Latin
The Smalcald Articles, English

Use the search engine at:

http://www.promo.net/pg/

to locate these files.

4) You can download text files in straight ASCII format from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at:

http://ccel.wheaton.edu/

The following individual files are available:

Small Catechism
Large Catechism

They are listed under Luther as the author.

-- Rev. Richard Lammert, Public Services Librarian

---

2. Did Luther use a drinking song as the basis for "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"?

This is a common misconception, but the answer is an undeniable "no."

Martin Luther wrote both the words and the tune for "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" (in German "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott").  Carl F. Schalk, a well-known contemporary hymnologist, writes in Luther on Music: Paradigms of Praise (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1988) as follows: 

"Luther also set his hand to the task of writing hymn melodies.  It is generally acknowledged that at least three hymn tunes are from Luther's own pen. "Wir glauben all an einen Gott", "Ein feste Burg," and the Sanctus hymn from the German Mass, "Isaiah dem Propheten das geschah."  Considering his own musical experience and training, and living at a time when the Meistersinger tradition prescribed that poet and tune writer were one and the same person, it would be strange had he not attempted to give musical expression to his own texts" (p. 26).

Leonard Woolsey Bacon, in The Hymns of Martin Luther Set to Their Original Melodies. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883), refers to a near contemporary of Luther's in reporting that the tune is by Luther:

"It seems superfluous to add to this testimony the word of Sleidan, the nearly contemporary historian, who says expressly concerning "Ein' feste Burg" that Luther made for it a tune singularly suited to the words, and adapted to stir the heart.  If ever there were hymn and tune that told their own story of a common and simultaneous origin, without need of confirmation by external evidence, it is these" (p. xix).

In contrast to these definite statements attributing the tune to Luther, one can note that there are scholars who question this.  For example, William Barclay Squire in his article on Martin Luther in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 5th ed., edited by Eric Blom (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1959) says:

"The following are the hymn-tunes which have been ascribed to Luther, though none with any degree of certainty: ... 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott'" (v. 5, p. 447).  One should note, however, that if Luther himself did not write the tune, absolutely no source is given for the tune.

The idea that Luther adapted his tune from a drinking song is probably from a misunderstanding of the tune in "bar form."  It is easy to see here that "bar" is a technical term, because it is precisely the same word in German.  For example, in Liederkunde, 2. Teil, edited by  Joachim Stalmann (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), we find the statement "Luther baut einen neunzeiligen Bar" ["Luther builds a bar of nine lines"] (p. 61).

Willi Apel in Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969) says the following on p. 80-81 about "Bar form." Of particular importance is the connection of the form with the Meistersingers, as seen also in the first quotation from Carl Schalk: 

"The name is derived from the medieval German term Bar, a poem consisting of three or more Gesaetze (i.e., stanzas), each of which is divided into two Stollen (section a) and an Absegang (section b). ... [The Bar form] found its way into the repertory of the troubadours ... and ultimately into that of the minnesingers and Meistersinger, who called it Bar and used it for nearly all their lyrical songs.  It is equally common in the German ... Lutheran chorales and the various compositions based on them (organ chorales, chorale cantatas, etc.). ... Of particular importance is the type of Bar in which the Stollen recurs complete at the end of the Abgesang, thus leading to the form a a b a.  An appropriate designation for this is rounded Bar form.  Several hymn melodies show this form."

"A Mighty Fortress" has the "bar form" A A B A'.  One can diagram it thus:
 

Despite the analyses of musicologists, one could still claim that Martin Luther "knew a good tune when he heard it," and adapted it for his own purposes.  To think that Luther adapted a drinking song for "A Mighty Fortress," however, goes completely against the practice of the Reformer.  This is amply stated by Richard C. Resch, "Music: Gift of God or Tool of the Devil," Logia  3 (Eastertide/April 1994) no. 2: 36, where he makes reference to Markus Jenny, Luthers geistliche Lieder und Kirchengesaenge (Koeln: Boehlau Verlag, 1985):

"Martin Luther is one of the most misunderstood church fathers with respect to the use of music in the church.  Claims that he used tavern tunes for his hymns are used in defense of a music practice that freely accepts worldly associations.  Such conclusions bear no resemblance to Luther's writings on the subjects of worship and music.  In fact, Luther's actions teach us quite a different lesson.  In his search for the right tune for his text "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm' ich her" ["From Heaven Above to Earth I Come"] , Luther learned about the power of worldly associations.  According to the Luther scholar Markus Jenny, Luther's first wedding of this text with a tune was "a classic example of the failure of a contrafacta."  He set it to a secular dance song that begins, "I step eagerly to this dance."  The dance and tune were closely associated with a Christmas wreath ceremony that was often held in taverns.  Luther found the secular associations to be so strong that he eventually wrote a fresh tune that was free of worldly associations.  He then indicated on the manuscript that this new melody was to be used in the Sunday service and with children.  Luther's modification of this beloved hymn is indication of his sensitivity to the harmful power of worldly associations in the worship practice of the church."

-- Rev. Richard Lammert, Public Services Librarian

3. Was Luther anti-Semitic?

Luther's attitudes toward the Jews can be found primarily in two works, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523) and On the Jews and Their Lies (1543).  Both of these can be found in English translation in the American Edition of Luther's Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House).  At this time, neither of these documents is available on the Internet.

A reading especially of the second work, On the Jews and Their Lies, written three years before Luther's death, shows Luther saying much which today is regarded as being intemperate, insensitive, and anti-Semitic.  While examining Luther's attitude towards the Jewish people and attempting to understand it, here are a few things to keep in mind:
  Luther was at one time or another during his life hostile towards just about everybody, including his own parishioners, good friends, allies, opponents and, himself.  Like most geniuses, he often found it impossible to understand why others could not comprehend what was, to him, obvious.  His most obvious flaw was his temper.  He often berated himself for this, even in print.
  Luther did not live in the 20th Century, where we have learned to deal gently with each other in public.  It was simply part of the times in which he lived that one did not mince words.  He was more abusive toward the papists and the "Sacramentarians" (Reformed) for a longer period of his life than he ever was toward the Jews, and these were fellow Christians.  To this list we can readily add the following: the Turks (Muslims), the rulers, the peasants, and many others.  While we should not excuse or emulate the extreme nature of Luther's polemical language, it was part of the age in which he lived.
  The Church and the State were closely connected in Luther's day.  There was a certain amount of toleration of unbelievers of whatever conviction as long as they were quiet about it.  But to publicly teach heresy or deny and insult the Christian faith was not tolerated.  Doing so could get one exiled, imprisoned, or worse.  Luther himself was never more than 50 miles away from death by burning at the stake for his views.  In Calvinist Geneva a notorious anti-Trinitarian was publicly executed, although the Lutherans never went that far (except in the case of one radical Schwaermer ["enthusiast"], but in this case the charge against him was disturbing the peace and leading a revolt against the government, not false doctrine as such, although the reason he had done those things was because of religious conviction).  The Jews who frustrated Luther later in his life were openly criticizing the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, and Luther was simply advising (albeit in intemperate language) that the laws against public blasphemy be carried out. One must keep in mind that Luther's whole approach was religious.  Luther was anti-Judaic, not anti-Semitic.  He opposed Judaism as, from his perspective, a false religion, which carries its followers off to hell.  He did not oppose Jews and heretics as persons--Luther is known, for example, for intervening with authorities to protect individual Jews and, in at least one case, putting up his personal Christian opponent, a former friend and a theological enemy, to protect that man from the authorities.
 

So, what do we make of it all?  First, we need to be fair and credit Luther for the good things he did and said about the Jews.  We also should abhor the intemperate language and his cruel approach to opponents.  All of this needs to be set against the background of the time and place in which Luther lived.  However, it is grossly unfair to Luther to call him anti-Semitic.

--Rev. Timothy D. Schellenbach, Pastor, Grace Lutheran Church, Marble, Minnesota
Rev. Robert E. Smith, Electronic Resources  Librarian 
Rev. Richard Lammert, Public Services Librarian

Is there a discrepancy between Matthew 1 and Luke 3 in the genealogy of Jesus Christ?

William Arndt, who was professor of New Testament exegesis and hermeneutics at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., wrote the following in _Does the Bible Contradict Itself? A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible_, 5th ed., rev. (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1976), pp. 54-56:

 
"Let the case be calmly considered.  Joseph was the son of Jacob, says Matthew.  Joseph was the son of Heli, is apparently what Luke states.  I say apparently, for his words admit of a different construction.  

If we translate Luke 3:23 literally from the Greek, the passage reads thus: "Jesus, when He began, was about thirty years old, being the son of Joseph, as it was thought, of Heli, of Mathat," etc.  This could indicate that Joseph was the son of Heli, but does not necessarily do so.  The meaning of the holy writer may be: Jesus was indeed considered to be the son of Joseph, but in reality He was the son of Heli, of Mathat, etc.  

According to this view the words "Jesus was the son of" must be supplied by the reader before every proper name in the list.  The term "son," then, has the wider significance of descendant.  Accepting this interpretation, we assume that Heli was the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and hence the actual ancestor of our Lord according to the flesh.  

If we adopt this view, the difficulty which confronted us has vanished.  Luke desires to give the actual genealogy of Jesus and enumerates the persons from whom Christ is descended according to His human nature.  He mentions Joseph, but immediately eliminates him with the statement that it was only through error that he was considered as belonging to the ancestors of Jesus.  We may conclude, then, that Luke does not present the genealogy of Joseph at all, but that of Mary, and that he must not be understood to say that Joseph was the son of Heli.  

The question may be asked, Why does Luke not mention Mary in the genealogy of Jesus?  The reason is obvious.  That Mary was the mother of Jesus, Luke had mentioned a number of times in the first two chapters of his Gospel.  No more words were needed on that head.  Furthermore, a genealogy ordinarily includes the name of the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc., of the person concerned.  Luke follows this rule and mentions, not the name of Mary, but the name of the father, adding, however, the statement that it was only in the opinion of the people that Joseph was the father of Jesus, not in reality.  The longer one ponders the genealogy given by Luke, the more strikingly apt and well considered it will appear to be.  The contention, then, that there is a discrepancy between Matt. 1 and Luke 3 may safely be dismissed as having no foundation in fact."

--Rev. Richard Lammert, Public Services Librarian