Scan barcode
nerdyrev's review against another edition
5.0
The Lutheran church is about to celebrate the recognition of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation. This is when Luther wrote his critique of the Catholic Church's practice of selling indulgences, which led to a split within the church. It was the spark that ignited the future church, thanks to the invention of the printing press.
With this time, there will be countless number of books about Luther, the Reformation, theology, etc. I think I counted 8 within the next year. The one that continued to catch my eye was this one by Lyndal Roper. It was one of the first out of the gate, but it also took a path that I was interested in, namely how Luther's home town and upbringing created the man he was to become.
Roper looks at his beginnings and continues to point back to issues that Luther's hometown faced as motivating factors for why Luther did what Luther did. She goes in depth into his life, paints him as a scholar and a man who knew his stuff.
Roper also looks at the impact of the Reformation in the larger context as well. She shows it wasn't just a religious uprising, but a complex and intricate transformation with some issues having nothing to do with the church.
I think this would be a great book on any Lutheran's desk.
With this time, there will be countless number of books about Luther, the Reformation, theology, etc. I think I counted 8 within the next year. The one that continued to catch my eye was this one by Lyndal Roper. It was one of the first out of the gate, but it also took a path that I was interested in, namely how Luther's home town and upbringing created the man he was to become.
Roper looks at his beginnings and continues to point back to issues that Luther's hometown faced as motivating factors for why Luther did what Luther did. She goes in depth into his life, paints him as a scholar and a man who knew his stuff.
Roper also looks at the impact of the Reformation in the larger context as well. She shows it wasn't just a religious uprising, but a complex and intricate transformation with some issues having nothing to do with the church.
I think this would be a great book on any Lutheran's desk.
paulataua's review against another edition
4.0
A detailed and sometimes critical biography of Martin Luther that gave a fairly clear picture of the man and the period. It dealt well with the opposing poles of the reformer and the historical conditions that begged reform, and although I would have liked a little more of his theology, there was enough within to whet my appetite for further study.
scottacorbin's review against another edition
5.0
In terms of Reformation books to come out this year, I have been very much looking forward to this one. While early reviews had highlighted it to be extremely learned and critical, I wasn't expecting to find so much sympathy and care for the subject. Roper, who worked on this book for over a decade, has written one of the most fascinating accounts of Luther's life to date. She tells familiar stories but highlights often overlooked aspects, especially dealing with the relational context of many disputes. Her understanding of early modern Germany also makes this book such a treat. And while she wants to replace the Erickson model of "psychological interpretation" ala Freud, she never veers to far off the course in ungrounded speculation.
I would not recommend this as the first book on Luther for new readers looking for an introduction. But for those of us who have waded through many waters of Luther studies, this work stands at the top for its erudition, lucidity, and engagement with the subject. A wonderful read!
I would not recommend this as the first book on Luther for new readers looking for an introduction. But for those of us who have waded through many waters of Luther studies, this work stands at the top for its erudition, lucidity, and engagement with the subject. A wonderful read!
jbojkov's review against another edition
3.0
I didn't actually complete this book- I gave up. It was interesting, but there were so many historical figures and the author went into such detail- it was slow reading. That, combined with my reading schedule made for a lot of re-reading in order to remind myself where I was in the book and what was happening. Maybe I can return to it someday when I could just sit and read it straight through.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
4.0
I missed this book when it came out, I think in part due to moving to a new job. Someone who liked my review of Eric Metaxas' dreck about Luther asked if I were familiar with this book, and I said no.
Interlibrary loan did its magic and voila.
I was worried in the preface that, despite many conservative Lutherans complaining in other reviews that it was too harsh on Luther's antisemitism, that Roper might pull punches. Tis not the case.
I was also worried, from the introduction that Roper might be too kind to the late 1520s and beyond Luther vis-a-vis the Reformed, when it talked about dialogues he had with them over the Eucharist. They were actually more monologues than dialogues, and Roper spells that out in detail.
Roper starts with a good grounding on just how well off Luther's father might have been. In the late 1400s, she says Mansfeld was producing one-quarter of Europe's new copper as well as significant amounts of silver. Hans Luder was not a mine owner, but managed smelting, and later other operations, for several mine shafts. (Miners were as rough a bunch then as today, and Luther was worried about them during the Peasants Revolt.) That said, the mines were already playing out before Luther's death, a factor in the last dispute he tried settling between the counts of Mansfeld.
Chapter 2, without going specifically Freudian a la Erick Erickson, does start looking psychologically at Luther and father figures. Obviously, the papacy, il papa, was rejected. Hans had been rejected when Luther honored his vow to St. Anne and became a monk. Roper looks at Staupitz as being a father figure, also later rejected. Duke Frederick died before Luther could get to a point of possible rejection. Even though Karlstadt was younger, he was at the university first, and Roper speculates on him as also a one-time father figure. Near the end of the book, she notes that most of Luther's close associates were young enough to be his children — Melanchthon's age or so, or even younger. She does note, rightly, that this led most of them to be yes-men, but for some reason, doesn't pick up directly on this being Luther in the father figure catbird seat.
Nor does she look at Luther's explanation to the commandments in his Small Catechism: "We should fear and love god ..." Isn't that exactly what a 1500s German paterfamilias expected? Love, but love following fear?
I also got to wondering about his monastic years, if his emotional self-abuse was a form of emotional masochism, ultimately a source of mental pleasure. Roper misses this point.
The one full chapter, and parts of others, on Karlstadt are simply excellent. Though not an Anabaptist, his Gelassenheit combined with his reforming instincts led him more that way (though NOT a "Schwarmer") than Luther's or the Reformed's ideas in some ways. He was trying to combine medieval mysticism and reform.
Roper also shows the first hints of the late-life Luther in his treatment of Karlstadt. The groveling that he made Karlstadt do at times reinforces Luther seeking the father figure upper hand, though Roper doesn't comment specifically on that.
Roper also misses something that doesn't directly connect to Luther, but yet. When Staupitz left the Augustinians and became a Benedictine, his last letters to Luther? Sure are open, at least, to the possibility that Staupitz had erotic interest in Luther.
After this, as noted above, Roper shows how Luther's battles with the Zwickau prophets et al, then with the Reformed, left him more and more surrounded by yes men. But it was left to others, like Duke John and Melanchthon, to establish a new church that eventually became known as Lutheran.
Meanwhile, Roper, like others, shows Karlstadt had the draw on Luther on Greek exegesis, specifically the words of Institution of the Eucharist. Maybe this is part of why Luther hated Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. It becomes clear that Luther never had an intent of moving, per the famous tablecloth story with "hoc est meum corpum" (in Latin, not Greek of course) written underneath it. That said, given that I've read elsewhere long ago that Melanchthon wanted Luther to be firm in the hope of some Catholic compromise, maybe this too is myth?
I had never before heard that Luther went as far as accusing the Reformed of being Nestorians. Interestingly, my conservative Lutheran seminary didn't mention it. Perhaps even they recognized it was a bridge too far.
Especially after Marburg and other such colloquies and so forth, it's clear that Luther was monologing, not dialoging. And, he didn't care — and also apparently didn't recognize — how much so much of south Germany was against him.
On the Eucharist, as a secularist ex-Lutheran, I accept that he was wrong exegetically on the Eucharist. Given his slowness to abandon the veneration of the host, the Reformed weren't all wet (maybe partially so) in wondering if Luther wasn't still peddling a version of the sacrifice of the Mass. That's doubly true when one looks at their different stances on what the unbelievers receive (and although papered over) what the "unworthy" receive. On this, it's not a matter of Calvinists limiting the power of Christ; nor is it tied to the limited atonement, since Zwingli, Bucer and others before John Calvin felt this way.
That said, exegetically, and going beyond Roper, it's laughable that the Reformed appealed to John 6, and that Luther did as well to spots in the end of the chapter. Today, it seems clear that John 6 had at least three editorial rewrites before the final version of the gospel, and that Jesus almost surely said about none of those words.
Roper does a decent job on Bondage of the Will and the broader issues with Erasmus.
On father figures, near the end of the book, she goes back to Luther's thunderstorm. She has Luther wondering if his dad weren't right and this was Satan, not God, though god ultimately using it.
She misses the chance to speculate on why the man who called so many things in church liturgy and ritual "adiaphora" couldn't say that many acts of life were "adiaphora," just "happenings" uncontrolled by either a god or a devil.
Anyway, again, a good to very good book, but ... there could have been more.
Interlibrary loan did its magic and voila.
I was worried in the preface that, despite many conservative Lutherans complaining in other reviews that it was too harsh on Luther's antisemitism, that Roper might pull punches. Tis not the case.
I was also worried, from the introduction that Roper might be too kind to the late 1520s and beyond Luther vis-a-vis the Reformed, when it talked about dialogues he had with them over the Eucharist. They were actually more monologues than dialogues, and Roper spells that out in detail.
Roper starts with a good grounding on just how well off Luther's father might have been. In the late 1400s, she says Mansfeld was producing one-quarter of Europe's new copper as well as significant amounts of silver. Hans Luder was not a mine owner, but managed smelting, and later other operations, for several mine shafts. (Miners were as rough a bunch then as today, and Luther was worried about them during the Peasants Revolt.) That said, the mines were already playing out before Luther's death, a factor in the last dispute he tried settling between the counts of Mansfeld.
Chapter 2, without going specifically Freudian a la Erick Erickson, does start looking psychologically at Luther and father figures. Obviously, the papacy, il papa, was rejected. Hans had been rejected when Luther honored his vow to St. Anne and became a monk. Roper looks at Staupitz as being a father figure, also later rejected. Duke Frederick died before Luther could get to a point of possible rejection. Even though Karlstadt was younger, he was at the university first, and Roper speculates on him as also a one-time father figure. Near the end of the book, she notes that most of Luther's close associates were young enough to be his children — Melanchthon's age or so, or even younger. She does note, rightly, that this led most of them to be yes-men, but for some reason, doesn't pick up directly on this being Luther in the father figure catbird seat.
Nor does she look at Luther's explanation to the commandments in his Small Catechism: "We should fear and love god ..." Isn't that exactly what a 1500s German paterfamilias expected? Love, but love following fear?
I also got to wondering about his monastic years, if his emotional self-abuse was a form of emotional masochism, ultimately a source of mental pleasure. Roper misses this point.
The one full chapter, and parts of others, on Karlstadt are simply excellent. Though not an Anabaptist, his Gelassenheit combined with his reforming instincts led him more that way (though NOT a "Schwarmer") than Luther's or the Reformed's ideas in some ways. He was trying to combine medieval mysticism and reform.
Roper also shows the first hints of the late-life Luther in his treatment of Karlstadt. The groveling that he made Karlstadt do at times reinforces Luther seeking the father figure upper hand, though Roper doesn't comment specifically on that.
Roper also misses something that doesn't directly connect to Luther, but yet. When Staupitz left the Augustinians and became a Benedictine, his last letters to Luther? Sure are open, at least, to the possibility that Staupitz had erotic interest in Luther.
After this, as noted above, Roper shows how Luther's battles with the Zwickau prophets et al, then with the Reformed, left him more and more surrounded by yes men. But it was left to others, like Duke John and Melanchthon, to establish a new church that eventually became known as Lutheran.
Meanwhile, Roper, like others, shows Karlstadt had the draw on Luther on Greek exegesis, specifically the words of Institution of the Eucharist. Maybe this is part of why Luther hated Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. It becomes clear that Luther never had an intent of moving, per the famous tablecloth story with "hoc est meum corpum" (in Latin, not Greek of course) written underneath it. That said, given that I've read elsewhere long ago that Melanchthon wanted Luther to be firm in the hope of some Catholic compromise, maybe this too is myth?
I had never before heard that Luther went as far as accusing the Reformed of being Nestorians. Interestingly, my conservative Lutheran seminary didn't mention it. Perhaps even they recognized it was a bridge too far.
Especially after Marburg and other such colloquies and so forth, it's clear that Luther was monologing, not dialoging. And, he didn't care — and also apparently didn't recognize — how much so much of south Germany was against him.
On the Eucharist, as a secularist ex-Lutheran, I accept that he was wrong exegetically on the Eucharist. Given his slowness to abandon the veneration of the host, the Reformed weren't all wet (maybe partially so) in wondering if Luther wasn't still peddling a version of the sacrifice of the Mass. That's doubly true when one looks at their different stances on what the unbelievers receive (and although papered over) what the "unworthy" receive. On this, it's not a matter of Calvinists limiting the power of Christ; nor is it tied to the limited atonement, since Zwingli, Bucer and others before John Calvin felt this way.
That said, exegetically, and going beyond Roper, it's laughable that the Reformed appealed to John 6, and that Luther did as well to spots in the end of the chapter. Today, it seems clear that John 6 had at least three editorial rewrites before the final version of the gospel, and that Jesus almost surely said about none of those words.
Roper does a decent job on Bondage of the Will and the broader issues with Erasmus.
On father figures, near the end of the book, she goes back to Luther's thunderstorm. She has Luther wondering if his dad weren't right and this was Satan, not God, though god ultimately using it.
She misses the chance to speculate on why the man who called so many things in church liturgy and ritual "adiaphora" couldn't say that many acts of life were "adiaphora," just "happenings" uncontrolled by either a god or a devil.
Anyway, again, a good to very good book, but ... there could have been more.
philipbbooks's review against another edition
4.0
Very thorough and scholarly work. Develops a very detailed picture of the man, his times, the people, and the places he interacted with. Focus is given to certain other reformers and relationships that are lacking in other biographies. The psycho-historical approach with a feminist bent is lamentable but generally not overbearing. An enjoyable read and would recommend for careful reading
coldlimebars's review against another edition
4.0
edit: on second thought, this book taught me more about Protestantism than years of Sunday school and is surprisingly memorable
justkatiejust's review
3.0
I started this book not knowing much about the Reformation, other than the fact that Luther started the Reformation by nailing 95 theses to the church door on October 31, 1517. I had hoped that this book would talk a lot about the theses and the Reformation; it mentioned these but also seemed to assume readers would have prior knowledge of various sects and religious leaders and German history. I really needed some table to keep track of every person in this book, and there were some chapters in which I was so lost on the religious debate at hand that I just pushed through without comprehending. Luther was an interesting character full of discrepancies in his mannerisms. He had a revelation that faith alone was needed for salvation but also held fast to beliefs about performing church sacraments in certain ways. He spoke scathingly about anyone who disagreed with him. He lived frequently isolated and with passionate opinions that sometimes edified the political leaders of the day. The last chapter dealt with the difficulty of defining his legacy, but accepting that he was the catalyst behind a split between Catholicism and the new modern age of denominations and Protestant churches and should be appreciated as such.