Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Martin Luther’s Early Theological Anthropology: From Parts of the Soul to the Human Person as One Subject

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Subjectivity and Selfhood in Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind ((SHPM,volume 16))

  • 644 Accesses

Abstract

In Luther’s early Biblical Lectures (1513–1521) we can see a process in which the Scholastic and Mystical tripartite anthropology (body – soul – spirit) is transformed into a bipartite model of flesh and spirit. According to Luther, flesh and spirit are tied to opposite objects (visible – invisible), are in constant conflict, and experience things contradictorily to each other, almost as two distinct anthropological systems. In order to preserve the unity of the subject, Luther introduces a model borrowed from Christology, where the conflicting properties of two natures are ascribed to one person. The term person is thus brought to the center of anthropology. The model also has consequences for how Luther perceives the actions of the Christian person, which spring from the divine reality present in faith but are realized through the flesh, which resists them and makes the external deeds imperfect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This article is based on the following early biblical commentaries and lectures: First Commentary on the Psalms Dictata super Psalterium 1513–1515 (WA 55 I-II); Lectures on Romans 1516 (WA 56); (first) Lectures on the Galatians 1516–1517 (WA 57, a1-a108); Lectures on the Hebrews 1517–1518 (WA 57, b1-238); Commentary on the Galatians, first edition published in 1519 (WA 2, 443–618); Second Commentary on the Psalms (Operationes in Psalmos) 1519–1521 (WA 5, new edition of the first 10 Psalms in AWA 2) and Commentary on the Magnificat 1521 (WA 7, 538–604).

  2. 2.

    One can divide previous research in two camps based on whether these anthropological structures are kept separate. Hägglund (1959, 58–67, 321–327) and Joest (1967, 163–202) merge the two together, whereas Haikola (1958, 24–31), Olsson (1971, 454–462) and Huovinen (1981, 42–44) keep them strictly separate. Joest, furthermore, represents a German existentialist reading of Luther, where the concept of soul (anima) is taken to mean the center of the person, while ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’, instead of denoting metaphysical constituents, acquire the meaning of two different ways of relating to life (Lebensbestimmungen) which signify openness and closedness towards the action of God. Worth mentioning are also Gerhard Ebeling’s Lutherstudien II (Ebeling [1982] and [1989]), which, however, deal with Luther’s late Disputatio de homine from 1536 and fall outside the time scope of this article.

  3. 3.

    See e.g. WA 56, 476, 3–26; WA 57, b162, 24 – b164, 17; WA 2, 585, 10–30, with Luther commenting Origen, Jerome and Augustine. On the Patristic background of Luther’s anthropology, see Joest (1967), 142–148.

  4. 4.

    See WA 57, a77, 25 – a79, 2; 57, b197, 6–20; WA 7, 550, 19–551, 24. The roots of this image lie at least partially in medieval Victorine allegorical interpretation of the Bible, as can be seen e.g. in Richard St. Victor’s utilization of the Tabernacle image in his Benjamin Major, the work known in English as The Mystical Ark.

  5. 5.

    See e.g. WA 55, I, 302, 7–8; 676–678; 716–718; WA 55, II, 119, 20–23; 154, 7–12; 247, 53–57; 367, 336–368, 337; 631, 60–64; WA 56, 75, 13–15; 253, 10–11. It is commonly accepted that Luther’s early works contain the dichotomy between the visible and invisible world. There are, however, strongly divergent views concerning the ontological system in which it is embedded. The thesis of Luther’s Platonist ontology was first made by Hunzinger (1905, 1–15), but it received strong opposition. On its reception and criticism, see Scheel (1910, 164–173), Hamel (1980, 206–224), Ebeling (1951, 187–197), Bandt (1958, 44–45), Metzger (1964, 103–111), Joest (1967, 99–102), Loewenich (1982, 63–72), Ozment (1969, 87–138), and Grane (1997). The reading I’m offering here seeks to take Hunzinger’s findings seriously, while complementing his dualistic interpretation with the Church posited between the two worlds.

  6. 6.

    See WA 55, I, 315 gloss 7; WA 55, II, 253, 370–254, 393; 654, 282–655, 316; 918, 787–794; 1006, 3315–3334; 1019, 121–1020, 136; 1020, 161–192; 1024, 279–293; WA 57, b185, 1–8; b214, 2 – b215, 12; AWA 2, 106, 28–107, 13.

  7. 7.

    WA 55, I, 240, 3–8; WA 55, II, 335, 75–77; WA 57, b196, 22 – b197, 24; b202, 8–18; b222, 10–23.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Bonaventure, Itinerarium mentis in Deum III, 1; V, 1 as well as Benjamin Major and its appendix Nonnullae allegoriae tabernaculi foederis in PL 196, 198C-199B. Cf. McGinn (1994), 406–411.

  9. 9.

    Joest (1967), 183, agrees that the text presents a mature overall summary of Luther’s anthropology. Earlier similar texts are found at WA 57, a77, 25 – a79, 2; b197, 6–20. See also WA 57, b158, 18–b160, 1, where Luther uses the image of Noah’s Ark. On Luther’s use of the Tabernacle image, see also Olsson (1971, 454–455), and Ebeling (1982, 241–250).

  10. 10.

    WA 7, 550, 19–552, 4: “[19] Wollen ein wort nach dem andernn bewiegen: das erst ‘Meyn seele’. [20] Die schrifft teilet den menschen ynn drey teil, da S. Paulus 1. Thessal. ult. [21] sagt: ‘Got der ein got des frids ist, der mache euch heilig durch und durch, [22] alszo das ewer gantzer geist und seele und leip unstreflich erhalten auff die [23] zukunfft unszers herrnn Ihesu Christi’. Und ein iglichs dieszer dreier sampt [24] dem gantzen menschen wirt auch geteylet auff ein ander weisz ynn zwey stuck, [25] die da heissen geist und fleisch, wilch teilung nit der natur, szondernn der [26] eygenschaff ist, das ist, die natur hat drey stuck: geist, seel, leip, und mugen [27] alle sampt gut oder bosz sein, das heist denn geist und fleysch sein, davon itzt [28] nit zu reden ist. Das erst stuck, der geist, ist das hohste, tieffiste, edliste teil [29] des menschen, damit er geschickt ist, unbegreiflich, unsichtige, ewige ding zu [30] fassen. Und ist kurtzlich das hausz, da der glawbe und gottis wort innen [31] wonet. Davon David psal. l. sagt: ‘Her mach ynn meinem ynnewendigisten [32] ein richtigen geyst’, das ist einen auffgerichten stracken glawben. Widderumb [33] von den unglewbigen psal. lxxvij. ‘Ihr hertz war nit richtig zu got, und yhr [34] geyst war nit ym glawben zu got’. [35] Das ander, die seele, ist eben derselbe geist nach der natur, aber doch [36] inn einem andernn werck. Nemlich ynn dem, alsz er den leyp lebendig macht [1] und durch ynn wircket, und wirt offt ynn der schrifft fur ‘das leben’ genummen; [2] denn der geyst mag wol on den leyp leben, aber der leyp lebet nit on den [3] geyst. Disz stuck sehen wir, wie es auch ym schlaff unnd on unterlasz lebet [4] unnd wurckt. Unnd ist sein art nit die unbegriflichen ding zu fassen, szondernn [5] was die vornunfft erkennen unnd ermessen kan. Und ist nemlich die vornunfft [6] hie das liecht ynn dieszem hausze, unnd wa der geyst nit mit dem [7] glawben, als mit eynem hohern liecht erleucht, disz liecht der vornunfft regiert, [8] so mag sie nimmer on yrthum sein. Denn sie ist zu geringe ynn gotlichen [9] dingen zu handelln. Dieszen zweien stucken eygent die schrifft viel dings, als [10] sapientiam und scientiam: die weiszheit dem geist, die erkenntnisz der seelen, [11] darnach auch hasz, liebe, lust, grewel und des gleichenn. [12] Das dritte ist der leip mit seinen gelidernn, wilchs werck sein nur [13] ubungen und prauch, nach dem die seel erkennet und der geist glawbt. Unnd [14] das wir des eyn gleichnisz antzeigen ausz der schrifft: Moses macht eyn Tabernakell [15] mit dreyen underschiedlichen gepewen. Das erst hiesz sanctum sanctorum, [16] da wonet got ynnen, unnd war kein liecht drinnen. Das ander, sanctum, [17] da ynnen stund ein leuchter mit sieben rohren und lampen. Das drit hiesz [18] atrium, der hoff, das war unter dem hymel offentlich, fur der sunnen liecht. [19] Inn der selben figur ist ein Christen mensch abgemalet. Sein geist ist sanctum [20] sanctorum, gottis wonung ym finsternn glawben on liecht, denn er glewbt, [21] das er nit sihet, noch fulet, noch begreiffet. Sein seel ist sanctum; da sein [22] sieben liecht, das ist, allerley vorstannt, underscheid, wissen unnd erkentnisz der [23] leiplichen, sichtlichen dinger. Sein corper ist atrium; der ist yderman offenbar, [24] das man sehen kan, was er thut, und wie er lebt. [25] Nu bittet Paulus: Got, der ein got des frids ist, wolte unsz heilig [26] machen, nit ynn einem stuck allein szondernn gantz und gar, durch und durch, [27] das geyst, seel und leib und allisz heilig sey. Von ursachen solch gepettis [28] were viel zu sagen, kurtzlich: Wenn der geist nit mehr heilig ist, szo ist nichts [29] mehr heilig. Nu ist der groste streit unnd die groste far ynn des geistis [30] heilickeit, wilche nur ynn dem blossen lautternn glawben steet, die weil der [31] geyst nit mit begreiflichen dingen umbgaht, wie gesagt ist. Szo kommen denn [32] falsche lerer unnd locken den geist erausz, einer gibt fur das werck, der ander [1] die weisze frum zu werden. Wo denn der geist hie nit bewaret wirt und [2] weisze ist, szo fellet er erausz und folget, Kumpt auff die euszerlichen werck [3] und weiszen, meinet da mit frum zu werden: szo bald ist der glawb vorlorenn, [4] und der geist todt fur got.”

  11. 11.

    On the imago Dei, with an emphasis on Luther’s later works, see Hägglund (1959), 77–91, Olsson (1971), 277–302, Huovinen (1981), 29–39, Peura (1990), 121–161, Huovinen (2009), 127–132, and Raunio (2010), 34–38. In the Finnish school of Luther research represented by Peura, the notion becomes a central concept in understanding the restoration of human nature that takes place through participation in Christ.

  12. 12.

    See Pasnau (2011).

  13. 13.

    See Mulligan (1955) and Ebeling (1982), 211–227. On the distinction in Luther’s works, see e.g. WA 57, a78, 16 – a79, 2 and WA 9, 97, 1–5.

  14. 14.

    See e.g. AWA 2, 202, 24–204, 5. Luther’s criticism seems to target especially Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Lyra.

  15. 15.

    See Luther’s glosses to Tauler’s sermons, WA 9, 97, 1–5; 99, 36–40; 103, 39–41. Cf. Joest (1967), 175–178, Hägglund (1967), 91, Ozment (1969), 2–3, Olsson (1971), 489–494, Ebeling (1982), 241–250, Stoellger 2010, 220–222, 230.

  16. 16.

    See StA I, 321 fn. 7 as well as Burger (2007), 41–47. On older attempts to trace the division to Gerson’s De mystica theologia speculativa, pars 2, consideratio 9 (Opera omnia III, 370 C), see Hägglund (1959), 321, fn. 36. Gerson’s distinction there (intelligentia, ratio, sensualitas) is closer to Luther’s text but does not contain the Tabernacle image. See also Olsson (1971), 490–491.

  17. 17.

    Gerson, Tractatus septimus super magnificat (Opera omnia IV, 330).

  18. 18.

    “Triclinium eleganter exposuit, & distinxit, venerabilis Richardus, & ante eum Hugo, fundantes se in Augustino praecipue” (Gerson, Tractatus septimus super magnificat [Opera omnia IV, 331]).

  19. 19.

    “[Col.0191C] Per tabernaculum foederis intellige statum perfectionis. Ubi perfectio animi, ibi et inhabitatio Dei. Quanto ad perfectionem appropinquatur, tanto mens arctius Deo foederatur. Ipsum autem tabernaculum debet habere circumadjacens atrium. Per [Col.0191D] atrium intellige disciplinam corporis, per tabernaculum disciplinam mentis. Ubi exterior disciplina deest, interior pro certo observari non potest. Disciplina vero corporis inutilis certe sine disciplina mentis. Atrium sub divo et aperto jacet et disciplina corporis omnibus patet. Quae in tabernaculo erant forinsecus non patebant. Et nemo novit quod interioris hominis est, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est. Habitus interioris hominis dividitur in rationalem et intellectualem. Rationalis habitus intelligitur per tabernaculum exterius, intellectualis vero habitus per tabernaculum interius. Sensum rationalem dicimus, quo nostra discernimus; intellectualem hoc loco dicimus, quo ad divinorum [Col.0192C] speculationem sublevamur. Exit homo de tabernaculo in atrium per operis exercitium. Intrat homo tabernaculum primum, cum redit ad seipsum. Intrat in secundum, cum transcendit seipsum. Transcendendo [Col.0192D] sane seipsum elevatur in Deum. In primo moratur homo per considerationem sui, in secundo vero per contemplationem Dei. Ecce de atrio, ecce de tabernaculo primo, vel secundo. Dicta autem atria habebant quinque sanctificia. Atrium habebat solum unum, sicut et secundum tabernaculum. Reliqua horum duorum habebat tabernaculum primum. In atrio tabernaculi erat altare holocausti. In tabernaculo priori candelabrum, mensa, altare incensi. In tabernaculo interiori arca testamenti. Altare exterius, afflictio corporis; altare interius, contritio mentis. Candelabrum, gratia discretionis, mensa, doctrina sacrae lectionis. Per arcam foederis intellige gratiam contemplationis. In altari exteriori animalium carnes concremabantur, et per afflictionem [Col.0193A] corporis carnalia desideria annullantur. In altari inferiori fumus aromatum Domino adolebatur, et per cordis contritionem coelestium desideriorum flagrantia inflammatur. Candelabrum est gestatorium luminis, et discretio est lucerna interioris hominis” (Richard St. Victor, Nonnullae allegoriae tabernaculi foederis [in PL 196, 0191C–0193A]).

  20. 20.

    See McGinn (1994), 406–407.

  21. 21.

    See e.g. WA 55, I, 520 gloss 18; 631 gloss 7; WA 55, II, 179, 79–81; WA 56, 170, 26–171, 8; WA 2, 538, 15–16; WA 57, b143, 23 – b144, 12; AWA 2, 108, 6–14; 140, 30–141, 32.

  22. 22.

    Gerson, De mystica theologia speculativa, consideratio XVII (Opera omnia III, pars 2, 375).

  23. 23.

    WA 56, 76, 3–7; 76 gloss 1; 356, 17–357, 17; WA 57, b143, 7 – b144, 12.

  24. 24.

    WA 55, II, 754, 11–18; 804, 138–143.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Olsson (1971), 456–459. On the dual nature of the soul, see also Hägglund (1959), 61–66, and Raunio (2010), 42–47.

  26. 26.

    WA 55, I, 244 gloss 11; 520 gloss 17; WA 55, II, 179, 79–180, 98.

  27. 27.

    AWA 2, 202, 21–204, 5; WA 56, 176, 14–177, 34.

  28. 28.

    AWA 2, 43, 4–44, 17.

  29. 29.

    See WA 55, II, 342, 126–140; 916, 753–917, 761.

  30. 30.

    WA 2, 588, 21–589, 13. See also the large section of the commentary on the Magnificat quoted above (fn. 11).

  31. 31.

    WA 5, 393, 12–27.

  32. 32.

    See e.g. WA 55, I, 520 gloss 20; 676 gloss 4, 1–5; WA 55, II, 66, 15–68, 29; 213, 124–214, 151; 366, 297–304; 367, 33–368, 345; 949, 1650–950, 1682; 955, 1844–956, 1865; WA 56, 75, 9–15; 356, 18–357, 11; 372, 26–373, 12; WA 5, 418, 9–32.

  33. 33.

    WA 55, II, 882, 55–69.

  34. 34.

    See WA 55, I, 680, 3–22; 681 glosses 18, 19, 20 and 21; 684, 1–4; 684 gloss 5; 819 gloss 1; WA 57, b222, 24–b223, 23.

  35. 35.

    WA 55, I, 208 gloss 6; WA 55, II, 189, 139–190, 150; 216, 42–47; 282, 62–283, 83; 349, 26–350, 49; 398, 419–432; 453, 137–155; 499, 2–500, 22; 624, 328–331; 926, 1039–927, 1051; 936, 1286–1292; 991, 2877–992, 2912; 997, 3069–998, 3093; 1025, 2–1026, 37; WA 56, 73, 3–11; 361, 6–363, 7; WA 2, 456, 29–457, 19; 517, 19–31.

  36. 36.

    WA 55, I, 520, 4–18; 520 gloss 20; WA 55, II, 56, 19–58, 1; 75, 25–76, 1; 179, 79–180, 107; 213, 124–140; 366, 291–304; 481, 481–488; 628, 430–445; 734, 109–735, 131; 758, 50–759, 55; 903, 342–364; 921, 872–897; WA 56, 70, 15–17; 445, 13–447, 27; WA 57, a93, 21 – a94, 12; WA 57, b159, 5–15; WA 2, 578, 40–579, 7; AWA 2, 45, 17–18; 70, 16–23; 106, 19–108, 13; 132, 1–16; 139, 7–141, 18; 178, 24–29; 179, 17–182, 18; 199, 25–204, 5; 318, 5–19; 547, 16–548, 1–4;559, 17–560, 2; 617, 7–18; WA 5, 410, 36–38; 418, 9–419, 21; 474, 13–21; 506, 9–34; 555, 28–40; 570, 8–17; 623, 17–40. Note however, that Luther applies the terms ‘seeing’ (visio) and ‘appearance’ (species) (as opposed to ‘reality’ [res], etc.) from two different viewpoints. One is that of natural cognition, in which respect the spiritual things are unseen and not present in re. The other is the cognition of faith and the viewpoint of the spiritual man, from whose respect the spiritual things are present and seen in faith, and therefore more real than carnal appearances. The other terms can also be used with respect to the natural capacities, see WA 55, II, 903, 364–367; 916, 751–917, 761; WA 56, 58, 15–17; 424, 27–425, 5; AWA 2, 132, 10–11; 141, 8–10; 178, 29; 201, 14–15; 348, 15–19; 379, 4–8.

  37. 37.

    WA 56, 344, 23–30; WA 2, 497, 13–498, 1; 584, 35–585, 7; AWA 2, 317, 6–321, 5. This is also one of the reasons why there is still always sin and the need for its forgiveness in the life of the Christian.

  38. 38.

    Cf. WA 55, II, 122, 23–26; WA 55, II, 864, 336–344.

  39. 39.

    WA 56, 343, 8–344, 17:“[8] Sextum: Scio, Quia non habitat in me, hoc est in carne mea, [9] bonum [7, 18]. Vide, quomodo carnem, partem sui, sibi tribuit, quasi [10] ipse sit caro. ideo supra dixit: ‘carnalis | sum |’; ita nunc se non bonum, [11] Sed malum fatetur, quia facit malum. Propter carnem est carnalis et [12] malus, quia non est bonum in eo et facit malum; propter spiritum est [13] spiritualis et *bonus, quia facit bonum. Ideo Notandum, Quod [14] hoc verbum ‘Volo’ et ‘odio’ ad spiritualem hominem seu [15] spiritum, ‘facio’ autem et ‘operor’ ad carnalem seu ad carnem [16] | refertur |. Sed quia ex carne et spiritu idem vnus homo constat [17] totalis, ideo toti homini tribuit vtraque contraria, que ex contrariis [18] sui partibus veniunt. Sic enim fit communio Ideomatum, Quod idem [19] homo est spiritualis et carnalis, Iustus et peccator, Bonus et malus. [20] Sicut eadem persona Christi simul mortua et viua, simul passa et beata, [21] simul operata et quieta etc. propter communionem Ideomatum, licet [22] neutri naturarum alterius proprium conueniat, Sed contrariissime dissentiat, [23] vt notum est. Heṃc autem in Carnali homine nequaquam habent [24] locum, Vbi omnino totus homo caro est, quia non permansit in eo [25] spiritus Dei […] Quia persone prouenit heṃc vtilitas [16] vtraque, licet partes sint diuerseṃ, propter quas prouenit. Communicant [17] enim ideomata partes toti suo singulas suas.”

  40. 40.

    WA 56, 344, 23–345, 2:“[23] Septimum: Velle mihi adiacet, perficere autem non Inuenio [24] [7, 18]. Istud ‘Velle’ est promptitudo spiritus, queṃ ex Charitate est, de [25] qua dixit: ‘Non, quod volo bonum.’ Et psalmo 1.: ‘Sed in lege Domini [26] Voluntas eius.’ Sic nunc ‘Velle mihi adiacet’ i. e. beneplacitum et delectatio [27] boni, quod lex precipit, vt et infra: ‘Condelector legi Dei secundum [28] interiorem hominem’, Sed ‘perficere’, scil. hoc bonum legis, resistente [29] carne non potest. Quia Vult non concupiscere et bonum Iudicat [30] non concupiscere, et tamen concupiscit *et non perficit hoc velle suum [31] Et ita secum ipse pugnat, Sed quia spiritus et caro coniunctissime sunt [1] vnum, licet diuerse sentiant, ideo vtriusque opus sibi toti tribuit, quasi [2] simul sit totus caro et totus spiritus.”

  41. 41.

    In my opinion, the concept has no explanatory role in regard to the function of the human being in relation to the visible or the invisible world, and apart from denoting the subject of the two natures’ contradictory experiences, it plays no significant role in Luther’s anthropological hierarchies. The other instance where Luther uses the term ‘person’ of the human being is the concept of God’s equality, related to the juridical use of the concept: God does not look to the person (i.e. the role), but is equal to everyone. In this meaning the term ‘person’ refers in a negative sense to the distinguishing properties of the individual. See WA 55, I, 657, gloss 13; WA 55, II, 94, 10–96, 11; 108, 15–109, 13; WA 57, a67, 14 – a68, 10; a100, 17–102, 4; WA 2, 480, 11–25; 530, 1–27; 577, 19–27; 578, 39–579, 16; AWA 2, 34, 9–35, 11; 49, 7–19; 308, 18–29. A good overview of these two uses of the concept of person on Luther is Ebeling (1989, 192–207).

  42. 42.

    Joest (1967), 232–233.

  43. 43.

    WA 55, II, 80, 28–82, 2.

  44. 44.

    AWA 2, 317, 7–14. See also Stoellger (2010), 293–298.

  45. 45.

    AWA 2, 302, 9–303, 19. On the motive of suffering see also Stoellger (2010), 215–222, 287–293.

  46. 46.

    AWA 2, 320, 25–321, 5.“Voluntas vero incarnata seu in opus externum effusa recete potest dici cooperari et activitatem habere, sicut gladius in suo motu prorsus nihil agit, mere autem patitur; at in vulnere facto cooperatus est per motum suum secanti per ipsum. Quare sicut gladius ad sui motum nihil cooperatur, ita nec voluntas ad suum velle, qui est divini verbi motus, mera passio voluntatis, quae tum cooperatur ad opus manuum orando, ambulando, laborando etc.”

Bibliography

Primary Sources

  • Bonaventure. (1891). Itinerarium mentis in Deum. In Opera omnia S. Bonaventurae (Vol. 5, pp. 295–316). Ad Claras Aquas: Ex typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, J. (1987). In L. E. Du Pin (Ed.), Johannes Gerson. Opera Omnia. Nachdruck der Ausgabe Antwepen 1706. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin Luther. (1981). In G. Hammer & M. Biersack (Eds.), Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe der Werke Martin Luthers, Band 2. Operationes in Psalmos 1519–1521. Teil II. Psalm 1 bis 10 (Vulgata). Köln/Wien: Böhlau Verlag. (= AWA 2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin Luther. (1883). D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesammtausgabe. Weimar: H. Böhlau. (= WA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin Luther. (1979). In H.-U. Delius (Ed.), Martin Luther Studienausgabe. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsantalt. (= StA).

    Google Scholar 

Secondary Sources

  • Bandt, H. (1958). Luthers Lehre vom verborgenen Gott. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, C. (2007). Marias Lied in Luthers Deutung. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebeling, G. (1951). Die Anfänge von Luthers Hermeneutik. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 48, 172–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebeling, G. (1982). Lutherstudien. Band II. Disputatio de homine Zweiter Teil. Die philosophische Definion des Menschen. Kommentar zu These 1–19. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebeling, G. (1989). Lutherstudien. Band II. Disputatio de homine. Dritter Teil. Die Theologische Definition des Menschen. Kommentar zu These 20–40. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grane, L. (1997). Christus finis omnium. Eine Studie zu Luthers erster Psalmenvorlesung. In O. Bayer, R. W. Jenson, & S. Knuuttila (Eds.), Caritas Dei: Beiträge zum Verständnis Luthers und der gegenwärtigen Ökumene: Festschrift für Tuomo Mannermaa zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 171–191). Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hägglund, B. (1959). De homine: Människouppfattningen i äldre luthersk tradition. Lund: Berlingska boktryckeriet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haikola, L. (1958). Studien zu Luther und zum Luthertum. Uppsala: Lundequistska bokhandeln.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, A. (1980). Der junge Luther und Augustin. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunzinger, A. W. (1905). Luthers Neuplatonismus in der Psalmenvorlesung von 1513–1516. Naumburg: Lippert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huovinen, E. (1981). Kuolemattomuudesta osallinen. Helsinki: Suomalainen teologinen kirjallisuuseura.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huovinen, E. (2009). Der Unsterblichkeit teilhaftig. Das ökumenische Grundproblem in der Todestheologie Luthers. In E. Huovinen (Ed.), Baptism, Church and Ecumenism: Collected essays – Gesammelte Aufsätze (pp. 124–142). Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joest, W. (1967). Ontologie der Person bei Luther. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenich, W. v. (1982). Luthers Theologia crucis. Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, B. (1994). The presence of God: A history of Western Christian mysticism.Vol. 2: The growth of mysticism. New York: Crossroad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, G. (1964). Gelebter Glaube: Die Formierung reformatorischen Denkens in Luthers erster Psalmenvorlesung, dargestellt am Begriff des Affekts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, R. W. (1955). Ratio superior and ratio inferior: The historical background. The New Scholasticism, 29, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, H. (1971). Schöpfung, Vernunft und Gesetz in Luthers Theologie. Uppsala: Uppsala Universität.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozment, S. E. (1969). Homo spiritualis: A comparative study of the anthropology of Johannes Tauler, Jean Gerson and Martin Luther (1509–16) in the context of their theological thought. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasnau, R. (2011). Divine Illumination. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/illumination/

  • Peura, S. (1990). Die Teilhabe an Christus bei Luther. In S. Peura & A. Raunio (Eds.), Luther und Theosis: Vergöttlichung als Thema der abendländischen Theologie. Referate der Fachtagung der Luther-Akademie Ratzeburg in Helsinki 30.3.–2.4.1989 (pp. 121–161). Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raunio, A. (2010). The human being. In O. Vainio (Ed.), Engaging Luther: A (new) theological assessment (pp. 27–58). Eugene: Cascade Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheel, O. (1910). Die Entwicklung Luthers bis zum Abschluss der Vorlesung über den Römerbrief. Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 100, 61–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoellger, P. (2010). Passivität aus Passion: zur Problemgeschichte einer “categoria non grata”. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Ilmari Karimies

Authors
  1. Ilmari Karimies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilmari Karimies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Jari Kaukua

  2. Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Tomas Ekenberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Karimies, I. (2016). Martin Luther’s Early Theological Anthropology: From Parts of the Soul to the Human Person as One Subject. In: Kaukua, J., Ekenberg, T. (eds) Subjectivity and Selfhood in Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy. Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26914-6_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation