M07: M.'s private letters; “objectivity” of modern history?; "Thinking Fellows" "biased" against Bente

      This continues from Part 6 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — In this segment, Walther exposes the "astonishing" letters of Melanchthon, quite a contrast to those of Martin Luther during these times. — This portion from LuW, 22, pp. 329-331 [EN]:

 - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 7 of 28  - - - - - - -

That not too much is made of this depiction of Melanchthon is proven by many of his still existing private letters, both to certain persons among the Lutherans of whom he knew, or nevertheless believed that he did not need to get nervous in front of them, and to the south Germans and Swiss, to whom he thought he could open up his innermost being without any danger of betraying himself.  If one reads these letters, one must be astonished at how quite differently Melanchthon's position appears in them than in his public appearances and his intercourse with Luther. These letters are full of the bitterest reproaches against Luther, while in what the faithful Luther wrote, however, there is not a single line in which the same Melanchthon would have secretly belittled others in any way. [The Sad, Secret Life of Melanchthon] 

[Moritz] Meurer himself must admit the latter in his biography of Melanchthon (p. 82), even though, according to the now popular historical “impartiality” and “objectivity”, he blames both the “dear men of God” for the disproportion between Luther and Melanchthon quite equally. [Just like Prof. Mayes with Walther and Grabau, 2011!] As for Melanchthon's bitter attacks on Luther, he wrote, to only share a few things here, (LuW 330) when Luther had given a serious sermon against secret vows in 1544, including the following to his [Johann] Camerarius:

“On the day I arrived, our own” (he always means Luther by this) “preached a sermon here, in which he pestered the jurists not with the dignity of a Pericles, but with the frankness of a Cleon.” (Corp. Ref. V, 293) 

Otherwise, Melanchthon repeatedly calls Luther “our Pericles” in his letters to trusted friends, in order to mark Luther's allegedly stormy nature. (cf. pp. 292. 464. 495., where he calls Luther Xanthippides.) [John] Calvin also gives Luther this nickname (Epp. 13, 5), but whether he has borrowed it from Melanchthon or Melanchthon from Calvin is uncertain, the former being the most likely.  After Camerarius had replied to Melanchthon's letter, the latter wrote again: 

“That you think that these harsh sermons against the jurists cause me pain, you are not mistaken. What is this before the people? How untimely it is now! … Yes, they (!) [Walther’s “!” criticizes M. for excluding himself.] think that he has no cause for it and lets himself be ruled by paralysis, as he usually does against others.” (p. 310) 

By the way, this unjust rebuke was soon to cause Melanchthon great shame. Not long after that, Luther, among others, also released Melanchthon's son from a secret betrothal as an unjust one, the fulfillment of which would have been a misfortune for the family.  (See Luther's Letters, de Wette. V, 676 [StL 10, 1728 ff.]) 

Heinrich Bullinger
Reformed theologian

 Even to Bullinger of Zurich he [Melanchthon] wrote secretly already on March 25, 1544: 

“If harsher letters are written by some from these regions, we, the rest of us, want to cultivate the consensus and the friendly binding among us and not allow our churches to be torn apart even more.” (p. 342) 

But when he learned that Luther was going to let another serious letter go out against the Zwinglians, he wrote to the same Bullinger on August 30th: 

“Perhaps before this letter of mine reaches you, you will receive an extremely gruesome copy of Luther's in which he renews the dispute about the Holy Scriptures.  He has never treated this matter with greater impetuosity. I therefore no longer hope for the peace of the Church. Our enemies will be puffed up defending the idols of the monks, and our churches will be more torn asunder.” (p. 475) 

On the same occasion, he writes to Bucer on August 28th: 

“I have written to you through Milichius of our Pericles, who again began to thunder about the Holy Communion in the most violent way and wrote a horrible (atrocem) book, which has not yet been published, in which we, I and you, are being taken through the worst (sugillamur). (p. 474) 

In the same year he wrote to Veit Dietrich. 

“About the other question, how in the Lord's Supper are ten categories, I do not want you to say much; also I did not want to ask the teacher (τόν διδάσκαλον = Luther), because whoever asks him, he listens to him (LuW 331) with anger (ργίλω) and answers him indefinitely (ού σαφως).” (p. 728) 

After the publication of the “Brief Confession” he wrote to the Zwinglian-minded [Wolfgang] Musculus of Augsburg: 

“It is truly regrettable that the churches are invited in our time more, as the Homeric warriors say: ‘Let us now go to the meal, that we may reconcile the God of war’, than as Christ invites us, who wants the covenant of true and not disguised goodwill to be made in this rite. … I wish that the Swiss would not respond to Luther's latest book, nor wear fire to the fire.” (p. 525) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 8  - - - - - - - - - -

F. Bente also documents "Melanchthon's Private Views" in Chapter 200 of his history, just like Walther does. More from Melanchthon's letters and even the letters of John Calvin in the next Part 8. 

- - - - - - - -   The LC-MS Opposing Theologians, "Podcasters":   - - - - - - - - -

Drs. Scott Keith, Adam Francisco Rod Rosenbladt, host Caleb Keith

 

      Walther scoffs at “the now popular historical ‘impartiality’ and ‘objectivity’” of the German church historian Meurer of his time. This is matched in our times by Dr. Lowell Green, in his 1980 book, when he lowers the honor due to Martin Luther in order to raise the estimation of Philip Melanchthon. (More about this in a future blog.) — Today “The Thinking Fellows” podcasters are even more explicit in promoting this “popular” methodology against… what? Maybe imagination? They speak thus in their podcast of May 19, 2017 (using the first names they use among themselves):

• Scott (~06:08): If you look at, if you listen to one of the past episodes, I don't know when this is going to air, as opposed to the episode we did on Luther biographies. And, and Adam [Adam Francisco] pretty much took the first half and explained to us what makes a good history. His historical account, something. And one of the things that was brought up was, you know, do your best to put your biases on the shelf, or at the very least, acknowledge your biases. Um, the problem with Bente is he does neither with that. His bias towards Melanchthon is neither, put on the shelf, nor is it acknowledged.

“Bias”? Dear God! If Bente was not "biased" towards the Lutheran Confessions (i.e. he subscribed to them as accurately teaching what Scripture teaches), then he could hardly call himself a "confessional Lutheran"! Franz Pieper’s counsel on “Historical Theology” is the perfect response to this charge in his Christian Dogmatics I, p. 100:

“It is the function of historical theology not only to give a historically true picture of the events, but also to evaluate these established facts in the light of Scripture.  Historical theology is the divinely taught art of ascertaining from Scripture God's verdict on the historical events and conditions.  That is what makes church history a theological discipline.  When the church historian judges events according to his subjective view or any other extra-Biblical norm, church history is no longer a theological discipline.”  (my bolding)

Host Caleb Keith then adds youthful emphasis to the above charge

• Caleb (06:45): I remember reading Bente years ago, 15 years, more than 15 years ago, and then a couple years ago I was reading it again, and I remember texting Scott saying, what the <emphasis> heck is this? … And I don't remember what it was, but it was, he’s just this constant critique. And sometimes it's, it's total, um, what Paul Maier [Paul L. Maier, the “44” sympathizer] would call B.S. [Bull Sh__?] Before Scholarship <EMPHASIS> NONSENSE  about Melanchthon. … it's a confessional <emphasis> punch against this guy [Melanchthon] who's a, who's the, the boogieman if you will.

Caleb Keith offers no basis for his change from 15 years earlier where he apparently did not have the same judgment of Bente as he did in this podcast. Why? Dr. Scott Keith then offers this comment against Bente's history:

• Scott (07:20): Bente's work is largely based on a German work by, I think it's, I want, uh, somebody Kolde, [Kolde’s book] a, I forgot the first name, is K o l d e.

Dr. Keith is referring to Theodore Kolde of whom the 1927 Concordia Cyclopedia said was "one of the most noted historians of the Reformation period and defender of Luther against Catholic attacks." This is also a strange comment as even his mentor, Dr. Lowell Green, in his 1980 book, offers no critical remarks against Kolde’s scholarship, even praising Kolde’s edition of Corpus Reformatorium on p. 127 f.n.#6. Even more, Bente's history is hardly based on Kolde as Bente judiciously uses dozens of other sources, like a good historian would.  The "Thinking Fellows" can "think" all they want, but they cannot charge Bente with being un-Lutheran, anti-confessional, or teaching against the Holy Scriptures. More will be brought out from this podcast later. In the next Part 8 we hear from another podcast under the umbrella of Dr. Keith's organization. Refreshingly, we will also, later in Part 9, hear from a commanding testimony, from today's LC-MS, refuting the above charges against Bente's history.

      It may be noted that as Melanchthon interspersed Greek in his private letters to hide his most critical opinions, "The Thinking Fellows" and "Banned Books" podcasters put their most critical opinions against Bente in verbal podcasts, without transcripts, instead of in writings that search engines can discover and present as a truly public presentation.

Thank God for Bente's “bias”, his “partiality”

for the Lutheran Confessions 

and Holy Scripture!

[The full transcript of the podcast excerpt (~ 05:30 to 09:34), with my highlighting, notes and comments interspersed in red lettering, concerning Bente's history is available below in the "Read more" section:]

ROD (5:30): Almost outta heaven itself, [Scott: right] Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And then he made some bad moves under political pressure. [“Political pressure” as justification for doctrinal error??] Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, terrible pressure   <great emphasis> [NOW COMES ROD’S RANT AGAINST BENTE] that in case you're not clear about it, Bente's book on,

SCOTT (05:48): i’m glad you said that <laugh> [Why glad? Why the laugh (snicker?)?]

ROD (05:49): the Historical background to the Historical

SCOTT (05:51): Introduction to the Book of Concord

ROD (05:52): Yeah. To the Book of Concord. And as, as Lowell Green [NOW WE GET TO THE REAL AUTHORITY IN THE LC-MS TODAY: LOWELL GREEN] said one time, (Scott and I [Rod] were both in class) he will look <with emphasis> for ways to criticize Melanchthon and he'll bring in anything <double emphasis> to put Melanchthon in a black hat. Well, [Cp. with actual quotes of Melanchthon from Bente with links]

SCOTT (06:08): If you look at, if you listen to one of the past episodes, I don't know when this is going to air, as opposed to the episode we did on Luther biographies. And, and Adam [Adam Francisco] pretty much took the first half and explained to us what makes a good history. Right. His historical account, something. And one of the things that was brought up was, you know, do your best to put your biases on the shelf [“biases”?? cp. to Pieper’s counsel on “Historical Theology”] , or at the very least, acknowledge your biases. Yeah. Um, the problem with Bente is he does neither. (ROD: Yep.] with that. Right. His bias towards Melanchthon is neither, put on the shelf, nor is it acknowledged. [Do you have a Christian “bias” or a Christian faith? What the “The Thinking Fellows” (TTF) of 1517.org call adhering to Scripture: BIAS; cp. Gillespie and Riley here ff.;]

ROD (06:35): Yeah. Yeah.

SCOTT (06:36): But It's just, it's readily apparent.

ROD (06:38): Do you [know], and it's throughout our clergy [horror of horrors!], they all <emphasized>, if they went to one of our two seminaries, all <emphasized> picked that up. [How could this have happened?? Robert Preus, who Dr. Keith calls on, did he teach the same as Dr. Lowell Green on “Bente’s bias”?] 

CALEB (06:45): I remember reading Bente years ago, 15 years, more than 15 years ago, and then a couple years ago I was reading it again, and I remember texting Scott saying, what the heck <emphasis>[hell?] is this? [Why the different response to Bente this time?? Did you receive training that directly contradicted Bente’s account… perhaps by your Dr. Scott Keith, or Dr. Franscisco?? Caleb does not reveal this.] Right? (Rod or Scott: Uh huh, <affirmative>.) And I don't remember what it was, but it was, was he’s just this constant critique. And sometimes it's, it's total [BS!], um, what Paul Maier [Paul Maier, the “44” sympathizer] would call B.S. [Caleb repeats this inflammatory wording of Maier] <Rod or Scott: Uhhuh <affirmative>> Before Scholarship [Caleb’s passion against Bente might suggest he would use the other meaning of “BS” (Bull S___) in private with “The Thinking Fellows”?]. 

SCOTT (07:09): Yeah, [garbled by CALEB talking at same time]

CALEB: NONSENSE <EMPHASIS> SCOTT trying to interject: Bente CALEB: about Melanchthon. SCOTT interjecting: I don't wanna go have to…  CALEB: is a confessional punch <emphasis> [“confessional punch”? Is that not a slur against using the Confessions to defend Christian doctrine? “Confessional”?] against this guy who's a, who's the, the boogieman. SCOTT: Yeah. Right  CALEB: if you will [“if you will” agree on the term “boogieman”].

SCOTT (07:18): I don't want to go too much down this rabbit hole [Why not? Don’t want to take too much time with it, or don’t want to expose your disdain of Bente any more than already done? The interjecting of Caleb’s harsh comment seems to indicate a cutting off], but Bente's work is largely based on a German work by, I think it's, I want, uh, somebody Kolde, [Kolde’s book] a, I forgot the first name, is K o l d e. [Dr. Green offers no critical remarks against Kolde’s scholarship, even praising Kolde’s edition of C.R. on p. 127 f.n.#6] Okay. Um, and it's obvious when you read through them [Kolde and Bente] that he sort of [only “sort of”?] just brought over the supposition from Kolde and, and it's not much checking. There's not even [“even”? how horrible that, assuming Dr. Keith is correct, Kolde got pagination wrong. ] much, um, checking on pagination between when he cites something from Melanchthon out of the Corpus Reformatorum, and he puts it in there, he's citing it from Kolde without really checking it. [See above. This is hardly worthy of condemnation. Why not cite a theological example of incompetence?] And if you go and check the C.R. [Corpus Reformatorum], you can see that the pagination is off and everything. [“and everything”? Everything what?  “Everything” of pagination?? I found Bente’s citation of M.’s letter to Carlowitz correctly cited.]

ADAM (07:50): Oh, wow. [“O wow”? Such a scholarly comment. How horrible.  Can’t trust Bente if he gets a page number cited incorrectly! But there’s no charge that Bente misquoted M. Did you check Dr. Green if he got all his page numbers correct?  And of course Kolde did not use the StL Edition that Bente quotes.] SCOTT: Yeah. Its not, he's not

SCOTT (07:52): It's not very careful. [But is he correct? While adding hyperlinks to nearly all of Bente's references I did not find errors in the ones that I checked.]

ADAM (07:53): He's not paying attention to detail. [Adam has another arrow in his arsenal against Bente, along with charging him with (Christian) “bias”]

SCOTT (07:55): Yeah. It's not very 

ADAM (07:55): (not) careful scholarship.

SCOTT (07:56): Um, so,

ROD (07:57): But It should…  the students have gotten that over the years that they've picked up that Melanchthon wears a black hat, not a white hat, or Melanchthon is mm-hmm. <affirmative> the arch whatever, that they got.

SCOTT (08:08): Yeah. So I'd say that most LCMS, most Lutheran pastors in general, if they have a perception of Melanchthon that they're passing on to their congregation, it's either from their professors who are basing it on Bente on in large part, or from reading Bente themselves. I'm not even sure they read it anymore. [But you are an “Adjunct Professor of Theology at Concordia University, Irvine and you can’t find out? Are you banned from approaching the Seminary teachers?] Yeah, yeah. Of course. The state of things is so odd now that I'm not sure what is read. There's a, there's a very good new historical introduction to the Book of Concord [Fortress, 2012] done by, um, Robert Kolb, Jim Nestingen, and Charles Arand, which I would highly recommend that people use instead of Bente. [“Instead of”? Are you banning Bente’s book?] mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Um, and if they need a supplement to that, then the book that 1517 through New Reformation publications just published by Wade Johnson, Uhhuh <affirmative>, An Uncompromising Gospel fills in the gaps there. Uhhuh,

CALEB (or ADAM?) (08:54): From a historians vantage point, um, Bente is a classic example, what we call confessional historiography. [Oh, sorry for subscribing to the Confessions!  I thought they would explain the truth behind the doctrinal conflicts, but evidently I need to keep an “open mind”!] Right. Filtering history through the lens of a particular confession. [Is CALEB/ADAM really saying this?] Right. That's, I mean, [GARBLED TALKING OVER EACH OTHER TO 09:09]

SCOTT (09:07): A very

Speaker 2 (09:08): Pick confession. It's probably most, it's not that

ROD? (09:09): That would be done well.

CALEB? ROD? ADAM? (09:10): Right. SCOTT: But, CALEB/ADAM: but, and, and really, Korey Maas wrote an article on the rise of modern historiography, and he pits it back not to the Renaissance historians, but to the, the confessional historians who had to get it right. Otherwise they'd be exposed as being fraudulent. Um, but Bente is not a good example of that. [“that” = “modern historiography”; Korey Maas appears to be complimentary of “confessional historians”, but Bente was just labeled above as presenting a “confessional historiography”, and now he is censured vehemently.] SCOTT? ROD?: Yeah. CALEB: Um, yeah. ROD?: Enough. <dismissive emphasis>, [as if to dump Bente in the trash] Yeah.

SCOTT (09:34): That was good. <laugh> glad you brought it up. Actually. I was gonna <laugh> hmmm-hmmm, hey hey [gonna what?]. Yeah.