Once again I’ll just post the truth as I did before: Luther did not write his translation in “common German” since there was no such thing at the time. He used court Saxon.
When you post this:
“He chose as the basis the Saxon dialect, which was used at the Saxon court and in diplomatic intercourse between the emperor and the estates, but was bureaucratic, stiff, heavy, involved, dragging, and unwieldy”
you’re only proving my point.
“So what?”
Two things:
1) It shows Luther was probably less than honest regarding his own translation (the brevity of its translation, for instance).
2) It means that many Protestants whom labor under the moronic belief that Luther was the first to translated the Bible in any European language since Latin (and not just the first to do it from Greek) are ignorant.
As expected, you use selective quoting. I think you may be afraid to say anything positive about the man! The paragraph stated:
Two things: 1) It shows Luther was probably less than honest regarding his own translation (the brevity of its translation, for instance). 2) It means that many Protestants whom labor under the moronic belief that Luther was the first to translated the Bible in any European language since Latin (and not just the first to do it from Greek) are ignorant.
You really need to do a bit more study on the subject for someone who claims to be such a knowledgeable sort. From the same Schaff source:
If he had done nothing else, he would be one of the greatest benefactors of the German-speaking race. (1) His version was followed by Protestant versions in other languages, especially the French, Dutch, and English. The Bible ceased to be a foreign book in a foreign tongue, and became naturalized, and hence far more clear and dear to the common people. Hereafter the Reformation depended no longer on the works of the Reformers, but on the book of God, which everybody could read for himself as his daily guide in spiritual life. This inestimable blessing of an open Bible for all, without the permission or intervention of pope and priest, marks an immense advance in church history, and can never be lost.
I've never seen anyone say that here but I agree that people ought to check their facts before they post them on a forum. By the same token, there are many Catholics whom ignorantly labor under the mistaken (I'll not call them moronic) belief that Martin Luther also cut books from the New Testament canon as well as from the Old Testament. It would be pleasant to not have to constantly correct that on these threads.
Additionally, Luther was not and never has been considered the "pope" of Protestants nor is he the "founder". You have said in the past everyone who is a non-Catholic Christian is a Protestant. These mistaken ideas would also be nice to dispel for once.
Have a blessed Easter.
HMMMmmm...
Seems to be a common Catholic condition.