My response to the professor would be as follows:
1. Martin Luther's attacks on Judaism were theological in nature. If we read his earlier writings we even see he wrote a work entitled Jesus Christ the Jew which he wrote in 1523. He became frustrated over time because many Jews were rejecting Christ and was seeking their conversion and that is where much of the hostility stemmed . In contrast Hitler's attack was racial and biological on a evolutionary basis since he believed in Darwinian Evolution and Survival of the Fittest. Luther if he had been alive during that time would of objected to it.
There have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current Antisemitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. If one frames the issues with these categories, Luther was not Antisemitic.
Post World War II though, there has been much discussion about the nuances and etymology of the term
Antisemitism. The contemporary use of the word "
Antisemitism" does not typically have its distinction from anti-Judaism considered. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history. For a brief overview of this, see Eric Gritsch,
Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012)]. As I've looked at this issue from time to time, I'm thinking more along the lines of Gritsch's revised view (previously, Gritsch used to put forth the theological not biological view). I accept the modern definition of Antisemitism, and I think that it does include anti-Judaism. While Luther may have been primarily against the religion of Judaism, his harsh recommendations could have effected them as human beings.
2. The Professor also fails to take into account that Luther had just as many harsh things to say towards the Roman Catholic Church just as much as he did concerning Judaism. Read his writings attacking the Papacy and heresies of his day they are much more colorful.
That's a great point. Luther made polemical comments towards Rome, Islam, lawyers, the schwärmer, political leaders, etc. We don't have anything to gain by an exoneration of Luther's obvious societal stereotype against the Jews, or any of these groups. Luther was not infallible. He said a number of things ranging on the scale of
brilliant to
typical to
ridiculous to
offensive. From my perspective, Luther's theology neither stands nor falls because of statements on the negative side of the scale.
3. The Old Testament itself even uses harsh language when it denounces Israel's idolatry see for example the book of Isaiah where God calls Israel a rebellious child (Isaiah 30:1,9. In addition the Old Testament and New Testament has harsh things to say about Gentiles as well (Deuteronomy 7:1-5; Ezra 9:1-2; Romans 3:9-10; Ephesians 4:17-19).
Another good point. I did find one Lutheran writer brave enough to place Luther's anti-Jewish writings in a biblical framework.
Ronald F. Marshall, Luther's Alleged Abri-Semitism. Frankly, I'm not sure exactly how I feel about Marshall's approach. The author insists that Luther "
favored punishments (for the Jews)
first to witness to the Holy Scriptures, for Jesus himself rebuked the Jews (AE 47: 277). Second, he intended these punishments to scare the Jews straight so that they might receive God’s blessings (AE 47: 267)." It's certainly one thing for the Scriptures to do this, quite another for a society to act on it. The strength of this article is placing Luther's comments in his theological and Biblical framework, a framework Luther was fluent in. The weakness, as I see it, is that the church and state were connected in such a way during the sixteenth-century that a theologian with political powers could have acted on Luther's suggestions. In God's providence, Luther's harsh statements were not acted on, which shows at least that Protestant princes simply did not put in to practice whatever came from Luther's pen. All in all, the article is food for thought and a significant contribution to the study of this issue.
4. Hitler actually published his own Bible entitled
Die Botschaft Gottes (The Message of God), in which all Jewish references in the New Testament were removed. In it Hitler replaced titles such as the Lamb of God and Servant with words such as Warrior in order to recreate Christ into an Aryan Freedom Fighter. In fact you can find a copy of it here:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/botschaft-gottes/oclc/427292657
Wow, I didn't know that!
As I've surveyed the Luther literature, I find it interesting that in Luther studies previous to World War II, there's not as much emphasis on Luther's writings about the Jews. After World War 2, you'll find all this scrambling on linking Hitler to Luther... but it's typically selective. They'll sift through Luther's later writings to find any thing remotely connective at the expense of everything that's not connective. Hitler was not interested in Luther's paradigm of Law and Gospel. Hitler was not interested in the theology of the cross against a theology of glory. Hitler was not interested in comprehending the difference between the hidden and revealed God, the joyous exchange, the two kinds of righteousness, etc. Hitler was interested in propaganda- taking anything he could to utilize for his worldview.
