Jason D. Lane Luther’s Criticism of James as a Key to his Biblical Hermeneutic1 Introduction Martin Luther’s most popular statements about the Epistle of James, “I will not have it in my Bible”2 and “[James] mangles the Scriptures and thus contradicts Paul and all of Scripture”3 or “St. James’ epistle is a real epistle of straw […] for it has no evangelical way about it,”4 suggest that the message of James was anti- thetical to the Reformer’s theology. In this essay, I will argue the unlikely thesis that Luther has interpretations of James and that these interpretations play an important role in Luther’s thinking. Contrary to much of the secondary literature, I contend that Luther’s criticism of James is not a result of his views concerning the biblical canon, but is instead a genuine expression of his biblical hermeneu- tic. I suggest that to understand fully Luther’s interpretation of Scripture we need to meet Luther at James, at the place where he is the most critical of a book that, although not one of the main books when compared to John’s Gospel and Paul’s letter to the Romans, is nevertheless Bible and the authoritative word of God. Oswald Bayer has observed that Luther’s hermeneutic – and here I would add Luther’s criticism of James – is not, as some have assumed, a subjective exercise. 1 The following essay is based on a portion of my dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Theo- logy at the University of Hamburg on the Lutheran interpretation of James in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This essay and the dissertation came together fully after the Tagung in Basel, during a six-month research stay at the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. In Basel, I presented on Luther’s interpretation of James 2:21–24 as it appears in his exegesis of Genesis 22. I suggested that Luther reads Genesis 22 through the lens of James, an argument I made in an- other publication. See: Jason D. Lane: Luther’s Exegesis of Genesis 22 and its Implications for the Lutheran Exegesis of James 2:21–24. In: Theology is Eminently Practical: Essays in Honor of John T. Pless. Ed. by Jacob Corzine and Bryan Wolfmueller. Fort Wayne, IN 2012, pp. 85–106. For this current volume, I wanted to address some of the larger concerns about Luther’s hermeneutic that came to my attention at the conference through some deeply edifying conversations with senior colleagues, especially Sven Grosse, Stephen G. Burnett, and Mark Elliott. I hope that, for my part, the following will help clarify some of those concerns about Luther. 2 Martin Luther: Preface to James and Jude (1522) [1931]. WA DB 7, p. 386,17. 3 Luther: James and Jude [1931] (see above, n. 2). WA DB 7, p. 385,15. 4 Martin Luther: Preface to the New Testament (1522) [1929]. WA DB 6, pp. 10,33 f. © 2017 Jason D. Lane, publiziert von De Gruyter. Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter der Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Lizenz. 112 Jason D. Lane Nicht der Ausleger ist es, der dem Text einen Sinn gibt oder den Text verständlich macht; vielmehr soll der Text von sich aus sagen dürfen, was er von sich aus zu sagen hat. […] Die Autorität der Schrift ist keine formale, sondern eine höchst materiale, inhaltliche.5 Bayer argues that, for Luther, the authority of Scripture is not an overarching for- mal principle that must be established before one can come to the material princi- ple, namely, justification by faith. According to Bayer, Luther was convinced that the content of what is presented in the Scriptures should establish and confirm the formal authority of the Bible: “Der Text in seinen verschiedenen Formen – vor allem der Forderung des Gesetzes und des Zuspruchs des Evangeliums – bringt in dieser materialen Weise seine Autorität zur Geltung.”6 Anyone who approaches Luther’s interpretation of James without first understanding that his view of biblical authority was based quite strictly on God’s address to sinful humans in the form of law and gospel will therefore misinterpret Luther’s criticism of James. What appears at first glance to be a subjective opinion is rather a genuine and clear expression of his reforming biblical hermeneutic of law and gospel. Luther’s Criticism of James as a Reform of New Testament Exegesis By the end of August 1519, weeks after his dispute in Leipzig with Johann Eck, Luther first voiced in public discourse his criticism of James, a criticism that became characteristic for the rest of his life: For although it is argued from the epistle of the Apostle James that ‘faith without works is dead,’ the style of that epistle is far inferior to the Apostolic majesty of St. Paul, and should in no way be compared with him. Paul speaks of living faith, for a faith that is dead is not faith but opinion. Yet you see theologians who hold on to this one authority and care noth- ing at all that the rest of Scripture teaches faith without works. That’s how these fellows do it. They rip out one little phrase from a text and set it up against all of Scripture.7 5 Oswald Bayer: Martin Luthers Theologie. Eine Vergegenwärtigung. Tübingen 2007, pp. 63 f. 6 Bayer: Martin Luthers Theologie [2007] (see above, n. 5), p. 64. 7 Martin Luther: Resolutiones Lutherianae super propositionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis (1519) [1884]. WA 2, p. 425,10–16: “Quod autem Iacobi Apostoli epistola inducitur ‘Fides sine operi- bus mortua est’, primum stilus epistolae illius longe est infra Apostolicam maiestatem nec cum Paulino ullo modo comparandus, deinde de fide viva loquitur Paulus. Nam fides mortua non est fides, sed opinio. At vide theologos, hanc unam autoritatem mordicus tenent, nihil prorsus curantes, quod tota alia scriptura fidem sine operibus commendet: hic enim mos eorum est, una abrepta oratiuncula textus contra totam scripturam cornua erigere.” Luther’s Criticism of James as a Key to his Biblical Hermeneutic 113 Two things stand out from Luther’s criticism: 1) Luther counts James as an author- ity, though less of an authority than Paul’s letters, and 2) Luther does not reject James, but criticizes the exegesis and false interpretation of his opponents. In his Defensio against Eck that same year, Luther explains with a familiar quote from St. Augustine how he determines which biblical books are authoritative: I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers have erred. As for the other writings, no matter how much the authors outrank me in holiness and doctrine, I read them in this way: I evaluate what they say, not on the basis of their own argument, but only insofar as they can convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason.8 Standing in the Augustinian tradition, Luther accepted the undisputed books of the canon without question, because their doctrine and form were unquestiona- bly apostolic. But for the antilegomena or disputed books (Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), he needed to be convinced of their authority not solely on account of their internal testimony but also based on their harmony with the external authority of the canonical books. We must however make a dis- tinction at this point. Luther never factually or formally rejects James or any of the antilegomena, a point I will discuss in more detail below. He is, however, clearly concerned that reading James or the other antilegomena in isolation from the canonical books can lead to false interpretations and a false biblical theology, as he also, years later, explains to a doctoral candidate with his typical rhetorical wit: That epistle of James causes us so much trouble, because the papists latch onto it alone and leave all the rest [of Scripture]. Thus far I have been accustomed to dealing with and inter- preting it according to the sense of the rest of Scripture. For you will agree that from it noth- ing can be set forth against the revealed Holy Scripture. If therefore they will not accept my interpretations, I will pulverize it. I’m about ready to throw Jimmy in the oven like the priest in Kalenberg [Jch wil schier den Jeckel in den offen werffen wie der pfaff vom Kalenberg.].9 8 Martin Luther: Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium […] Martini Lutheri defensio (1519) [1884]. WA 2, p. 626,33–38: “Tu vero, lector, illud Augustini utrinque adhibeto fidelissimum documentum, quo dicit: Ego solis eis libris, qui Canonici appellantur, hunc honorem deferre didici, ut nullum scriptorem eorum errasse firmissime credam: caeteros vero, quantalibet sanc- titate doctrinaque praepolleant, ita lego, ut non ideo verum existimem, quia ipsi sic senserunt, sed si canonicorum librorum autoritate vel probabili ratione mihi persuadere potuerunt.” Cf., Augustine’s Letter to Jerome, No. 82, § 3 (405 A.D.). In: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series, Volume 1. Ed. by Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA 2004, p. 575. Hereafter: NPNF1, 1:575. 9 Martin Luther: Doctoral Disputation of Heinrich Schmedenstede, 7 July 1542 [1932]. WA 39/II, p. 199,19–25. 114 Jason D. Lane These citations help us to see that Luther has interpretations of James that agree with the rest of Scripture. In other words, Luther has interpretations of the letter that go deeper than his criticisms. In recent years, modern scholars have claimed that Lutherans, starting with Luther, have been a distraction to an honest reading of James.10 According to Richard Bauckham, any attempt to measure James or any book of the New Tes- tament against the Pauline corpus, as Luther did, “is really Marcion in modern Lutheran dress.”11 The general perception that Luther could not understand James because the letter failed to fit his conception of Pauline theology extends to Luther’s students and heirs, too.