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.
“As expected, you use selective quoting.”
Nope. I said there was no “common German” - which you claimed. And there wasn’t a common German - which is what I said.
I said he used court Saxon. Did you even know that before this thread?
“made the modern High German the common book language”
And where did I say otherwise? I never mentioned “modern High German” or “common book language” so there’s no selective quoting going on except on your part. Seriously, how do you think you’re going just make up things like that?
“He gave it wings, and made it intelligible to the common people of all parts of Germany.”
And, again, where did I ever say otherwise? Honestly, can you read? Saying there was no “common German” in his day and that he used “court Saxon” does not mean he did not shape the German dialect into a standardized form that would become Modern High German. Do you understand how pointing out the former DOES NOT negate the latter?
“I think you may be afraid to say anything positive about the man!”
I’m not afraid to say something positive about him. I just don’t think the positives out weigh the negatives. About a Christian man its hard to say his influence on orthography, morphology and syntax somehow outweighs his heresy and schism. Does helping standardize a language really blot out heresy?