On the Lack of Context in Luther Quotes
Misquoting Luther actually has a long history in RC polemics, as James Swan has amply documented. In the previous thread on Luther, there was a lot of Sturm und Drang but little if any interaction with the context of Dave Armstrong's Luther citations. I asked him several times to explain if his citations of Luther support his comments about how Luther felt, and he responded by citing completely different sources to support his contentions. Not only that, but one of his readers, Adomnan, cited by him in that thread, stated this:
You, Dave, accurately quote Luther saying A. Swan digs up the texts where Luther said A (or some other text he sees as related), and notes that he also said B, C, D and E, the "context" of A. Swan then claims that because Luther said B, C, D and E, none of which contradict A, it follows that he didn't say, or didn't mean, A.
This is false on the face of it and, in my opinion, deserves no response other than perhaps a curt dismissal.Keep in mind this was quoted approvingly by Dave Armstrong. According to Adoman, only "A" matters. Nothing else is context if Mr. Swan thinks it is related. Indeed it cannot be related because according to Admonan, context can never make "A" mean "Not A". That is a childish and naive view of how language works. We do not understand verbal communication by having a dictionary handy, nor do we ignore rhetorical devices such as irony, exaggeration etc. By ignoring context we only increase the likelihood that we will get something wrong.
8 comments:
He was not saying context doesn't matter, period (nor am I). This is a ridiculous interpretation. We are both saying that my citations were not "taken out of context" in the sense that examining five paragraphs or more before or after fundamentally change the prima facie meaning of the short citation (which is what "taking a quote out of context" normally means. As he said, "Luther said B, C, D and E, none of which contradict A." He is exactly right. That is the basic fallacy involved.
Doe put his spin on the contexts in the constant attempt to prove that I was butchering every single quote. He failed, because the contexts did not establish that there was any distortion or improper citation. He thinks they did because he went in there with his anti-Catholic and "DA is a dumbbell" spin machine and willed it to be so. But hopes and dreams and reality are often two different things.
In my current slew of papers I dealt with several topics: many related to these controversial quotes from my book. I gave plenty of context, and in almost every case provided a link so that readers can check for themselves. because I have been lied about by Doe for the zillionth time,I decided to bring something positive out of it, and so I now have ten new papers about Luther that wouldn't have been there otherwise, with all kinds of additional documented information (including one where I defend him against a common distortion of his teaching).
I think it's great: lie about my Luther research: and I will produce much more of that which is despised without cause. That doesn't further the mission of my critics (to discredit me and shut me up). I'll keep putting out truth (about history), and the truth will win out over the lies in the long run. It can never be hidden or annihilated.
If you wish to argue about Luther: particulars of his beliefs, his history, etc., you're welcome to do so at any time (IF you actually make an argument that can be fruitfully, rationally discussed). But I won't waste my time in pseudo-discussions about imaginary lousy research I have supposedly done. Been there, done that many times. It's virtually all Doe has done (literally) where I am concerned for eight years. He's a one-note tune. And the tune is badly out of tune, and the record is broken (I still have vinyl records).
In the past I spent time comprehensively refuting Doe's claims when he did his usual routine of arguing that I am a clueless idiot. He was wrong in every case when he came up against my research. He was remarkably consistent in his errors and fallacies.
I did all that, but when I decided to remove all his material (on a challenge from his co-blogger Carrie) it was gone, and I ain't bringing it back, because it is tedious and boring, and nobody cares anyway, save for a few of you guys who are obsessed with proving me wrong. My work stands on its own.
Thanks for the unintended compliment, though: that my book is so important and influential and terrifying to poor, potentially deluded non-Catholic souls out there, that hundreds of hours and insults have to be devoted to critiquing it. The particular book being critiqued sells very few copies (being a Lulu book, not one of my six books published under contract). It has probably gotten ten times more exposure from all this than it ever would have. So thanks!
And now I have ten new Luther papers to add to my already large collection. They wouldn't have been there, but for the resumed attack on my research competence and honesty (and, alas, psychological state, since Doe characterized me as a psychotic).
Dave,
"This is a ridiculous interpretation."
I don't think it is a ridiculous interpretation at all. Read the quote again--nothing will change the meaning of "A". All he did was assert your POV and didn't bother to show why Mr. Swan is wrong--apparently it is "just because".
"We are both saying that my citations were not 'taken out of context' in the sense that examining five paragraphs or more before or after fundamentally change the prima facie meaning of the short citation (which is what "taking a quote out of context" normally means."
Except that your "prima facie" interpretation is not supported by the context--that iis the very thing under discussion and needs to be shown and not merely asserted. Here are some examples OTH:
Since Germany was not all protestant, speaking about Germany's faults is not a prima facie critique of protestantism, but of Germany, which includes Jews and Catholics.
Luther said that there were less alms than under the pope, but also that those alms were not given out of love but out of a seeking after praise and so were worthless. This does not amount to a critique of protestantism either as for Christians it is the intent that matters most.
The examples could be multiplied. This was shown by Mr. Swan in his posts on Beggars All.
"And now I have ten new Luther papers to add to my already large collection. They wouldn't have been there, but for the resumed attack on my research competence and honesty (and, alas, psychological state, since Doe characterized me as a psychotic)."
BTW, write anything you wish and as often as you wish. I don't think anyone fails to post based on material you may write. And to be honest, you gave as good as you got in the psychoanalysys department, as well as the name calling department.
I don't think it is a ridiculous interpretation at all. Read the quote again--nothing will change the meaning of "A".
You are the one who needs to read it again. You have massively distorted what he wrote (which is altogether delicious and ironic, given what I have been accused of). Adomnan wrote:
"B, C, D and E, none of which contradict A"
In other words, it is a statement of fact [in this situation alone], as he sees it (and as I see it). The contextual material does not in fact contradict the quotes ("A"). Earlier he went and read the posts, so he knows what he is talking about. He's talking concretely, not abstractly and in theoretical terms.
But you distort that to mean "nothing will change the meaning of "A", as if he and I are asserting that no conceivable contradiction can exist (which is a fantastically more ambitious claim).
You made this quite clear in the initial post when you wrote: "Indeed it cannot be related because according to Admonan, context can never make "A" mean "Not A". That is a childish and naive view of how language works."
We are denying the fact of contradiction in this instance, not all possibility of it.
Your argument is surreal; unbelievable. You are the one who hasn't even followed the basic laws of logic and grammar, and the definitions of words. And you have taken Adomnan massively out of context and have distorted his meaning. I don't say you necessarily did this willingly (probably not), but you did it, assuredly.
And you are sabotaging your efforts at showing how incompetent I am with research by openly manifesting for one and all your own pathetic ineptitude in this one case. Doe did the same yesterday when he claimed that I called him a slimeball sewer scum, when context made it crystal clear that I was calling falsehoods (things) that, not persons. He has already retracted it. Nothing I can imagine shows more than these two incidents who is truly taking things out of context and who isn't.
It's a gift from heaven . . .
BYE (as I said in the other thread). I have to get back to real work now.
Dave,
"In other words, it is a statement of fact [in this situation alone], as he sees it (and as I see it). The contextual material does not in fact contradict the quotes ("A"). Earlier he went and read the posts, so he knows what he is talking about. He's talking concretely, not abstractly and in theoretical terms."
This is the very thing under discussion. You have not shown that the context supports your conclusions. It is, as you stated above, an opinion stated as fact. Since the broader context has been supplied by James Swan, isn't it incumbent upon you to show that your use of the quote is proper? As I pointed out earlier, Germany is not protestantism. This is simply true on the context of the remarks from Luther yo uused. This is why my gloss of your reader is accurate--he didn;t interact with the context James supplied either, and then asserted that only "A" matters.
You don't have to do so, of course. But making statements about my arguments without addressing them does not make it look like you have a very strong argument at all.
And you are free to post here or not--no skin of my apple. But the bottom line is that you have not engaged with the context James gave of the quotes you used, you prefer to open new lines of discussion and bring in citations which are beside the point. That does not amount to a refutation of James at all. Indeed, it looks like that old lawyer saying: "if the facts are on your side, argue the facts, if the law is on your side, argue the law; If neither is on your side, holler!" You seem to be in the last iteration of this proverb; you have not argued the facts, merely asserted your opinion as if it is a fact, the law is not with you, as it is proper to discuss context when supplying a quote. But you have hollered a lot, including dubeous claims of victory and claims about your opponents' arguments which ar lacking in factual content. Unfortunately they ring rather hollow.
Nothing personal, but you are out to sea on this one. It appears that you weren't even able to follow the logic of my reply. You made claims that were erroneous, even about what my friend said. The first task in any constructive discussion is to understand the opponent's point of view. And you didn't. You misrepresented it; badly so. It was embarrassing.
I don't wish to be harsh, but in the circumstances, with you and your buddies trashing my work for supposed profound incompetence and even dishonesty, and making false accusations all down the line, you deserve all that you are getting now.
Secondly, Adomnan did provide one example of why one of the contextual arguments completely failed, on my blog. But first, here is his initial reply:
***
Mr. Reiss is assuming that I was making some generalization that a writer can never qualify what he writes to the extent of contradicting his original statement or that one's interpretation of a statement can never be modified by further context.
Of course I wasn't saying anything of the sort. As I wrote, and you reiterated, I actually read what Swan wrote and saw that none of his "context" undermined your interpretation of the Luther quotes you provided.
Now, since you agree that this is the case, Dave, what are you supposed to do, to satisfy critics like Mr. Reiss? Clearly, you're not going to engage Swan's "context" in detail, because you see nothing there. Besides, if Swan thinks a tangentially related statement by Luther somehow undermines your understanding of something else Luther wrote, when you don't see it, how can one possibly even begin to discuss such a thing, much less come to any meeting of the minds? It would be a complete waste of time, and wasting time is the one thing that the tiresome Swan knows how to do well.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/02/taking-luther-out-of-context-reply-to.html?showComment=1267573620941#c1634812510934351893
And here is his concrete example. After this I am DONE. Say about me what you wish. There are few things that are more exasperating than illogical nitpickers, who can't see the forest for the trees, and who make false accusations.
***
Edward Reiss: Luther said that there were less alms than under the pope, but also that those alms were not given out of love but out of a seeking after praise and so were worthless. This does not amount to a critique of protestantism either as for Christians it is the intent that matters most.
Adomnan: This is a perfect example of why Swan's "context" does nothing to undermine Dave's interpretation of Luther's statements.
Swan and Mr. Reiss are claiming that Luther was not dismayed, as Dave asserted, by the neglect of almsgiving among Protestants. Yet the mere fact that Luther accused Catholics of giving alms with the wrong intent does not in any way imply that Luther was indifferent to or happy with his followers' lack of generosity. On the contrary, Luther thought that his Protestants, motivated by "gratitude" to God, should be generous in giving, and was sorely disappointed that they weren't.
Dave never denied that Luther had issues with Catholic teaching about meritorious almsgivings. Everyone knows about Luther's rejection of meritorious works, and no one would deny such an obvious fact. Dave said only that Luther's own words show that he was bitterly disppointed with the stinginess in his church and that he lamented, as Mr. Reiss himself admits, that the Protestants gave less than Catholics had; i.e., the "gratitude" they were supposed to have for the "gospel" was missing.
So, Swan's and Reiss's assertion that context undermines Dave's point is baseless.
And this is typical. The same is true of all their arguments about context. None of Luther's supposedly qualifying statements weaken in any way Dave's construal of Luther's frequent laments over the sorry results of his reformation.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/02/taking-luther-out-of-context-reply-to.html?showComment=1267580478161#c44805226567329052
DAve,
Here is the reply I left on your blog. As you can see, there is no "agony" or anything like it. There isn't even a sense that things are worse now.
"Swan and Mr. Reiss are claiming that Luther was not dismayed, as Dave asserted, by the neglect of almsgiving among Protestants. Yet the mere fact that Luther accused Catholics of giving alms with the wrong intent does not in any way imply that Luther was indifferent to or happy with his followers' lack of generosity. On the contrary, Luther thought that his Protestants, motivated by "gratitude" to God, should be generous in giving, and was sorely disappointed that they weren't."
No, I am afraid it ns not "baseless".
Here is the Luther quote:
"Under the papacy it snowed alms, foundations, legacies. Under the Evangel, on the contrary, no one will give a farthing."
Dave stated that this is evidence of Luther's agony over the state of protestantism.
Here is one of the citations supplied by James Swan:
"It is incredible how common this blasphemy and vice is in the world, especially among the best people, and how few people there really are who do good works without seeking the honor or favor of the world this way. Take all the alms ever given in the whole papacy, and just count how many you will be able to find that were not given with this intention in mind. Alas, the world will never learn what real almsgiving is. That is how we are all inclined. If the praise of the people, their honor, gratitude, and favor were not forthcoming, every one of us would soon pull his hand back. What if the pope had said to the princes and the donors, “Gentlemen, I will not give you a heller for all your foundations and alms”? How much do you imagine they would have donated for churches and other institutions then? Not a stone would have been hauled or laid in place. We can see that now. We are teaching correctly and urging these works on the basis that they should be given for God’s sake, out of a pure and simple heart, and not for the sake of increasing our own honor or merit. Therefore nobody wants to give a heller nowadays. In former days, when they had praise and honor for it, the alms, endowments, and wills came down like snow. Of course, their notion that they were earning heaven by this did have a great deal to do with it. Still this was not the main reason; but as Christ says here, the main reason was the fact that this was something great and praiseworthy in the eyes of the people. Otherwise they would have paid no attention to it, and they would not have done it for the sake of God and the kingdom of heaven. "
There is no hint of agony over the state of protestantism. Nor is there a hint that things were better under the papacy. It simply isn't there, unless alms like "...their notion that they were earning heaven by this did have a great deal to do with it. Still this ... was something great and praiseworthy in the eyes of the people" are to be considered good alms. Luther states there were no alms before, and there are no alms now--though before people thought they were giving alms and gave them for selfish reasons.
Perhaps you can point out the agony and/or the superiority of alms under the pope for me?
Like I said, your claims of victory ring hollow.
Post a Comment