Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind

by Michael Massing

A deeply textured dual biography and fascinating intellectual history that examines two of the greatest minds of European history—Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther—whose heated rivalry gave rise to two enduring, fundamental, and often colliding traditions of philosophical and religious thought.

Erasmus of Rotterdam was the leading figure of the Northern Renaissance. At a time when Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael were revolutionizing Western art and culture, Erasmus was helping to transform Europe’s intellectual and religious life, developing a new design for living for a continent rebelling against the hierarchical constraints of the Roman Church. When in 1516 he came out with a revised edition of the New Testament based on the original Greek, he was hailed as the prophet of a new enlightened age. Today, however, Erasmus is largely forgotten, and the reason can be summed up in two Martin Luther. As a young friar in remote Wittenberg, Luther was initially a great admirer of Erasmus and his critique of the Catholic Church, but while Erasmus sought to reform that institution from within, Luther wanted a more radical transformation. Eventually, the differences between them flared into a bitter rivalry, with each trying to win over Europe to his vision.

In Fatal Discord, Michael Massing seeks to restore Erasmus to his proper place in the Western tradition. The conflict between him and Luther, he argues, forms a fault line in Western thinking—the moment when two enduring schools of thought, Christian humanism and evangelical Christianity, took shape. A seasoned journalist who has reported from many countries, Massing here travels back to the early sixteenth century to recover a long-neglected chapter of Western intellectual life, in which the introduction of new ways of reading the Bible set loose social and cultural forces that helped shatter the millennial unity of Christendom and whose echoes can still be heard today. Massing concludes that Europe has adopted a form of Erasmian humanism while America has been shaped by Luther-inspired individualism.

Genres: History, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Biography, Christianity, European History

994 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 1, 2018

Reviews

[Marks54 · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently read the Luther biography by Eric Metaxas and really enjoyed it. That is what prompted me to read this dual biography of Erasmus and Luther by Michael Massing. It is a wonderful book that is well written, clearly organized, and thoughtful. Considering the task that the author sets out to accomplish, the book is a real achievement.

Massing has written a dual biography of Erasmus, the Renaissance humanist whom many know from history book references but fewer have actually read, with Luther who needs little introduction after last year’s 500th anniversary of the 95 theses. Dual biographies are especially valuable when there is a clear point of distinction or comparison between the two individuals being profiled - Wilson versus Lenin; Kennan versus Nitze; Churchill versus Orwell. Such is the case with Massing’s book in extreme. This is no less than a history of the tension between faith and good works that set the agenda for how Christianity and church-state relations moved out of the Middle Ages and into the modern age. It is a tension that continues today and a strength of the book is Massing’s efforts at showing how the issues between Erasmus and Luther developed in Europe and then moved into North America through the various great awakenings. The book does a great service in explaining how the different strands of Protestantism developed and spread - and by implication influenced subsequent European history. Massing also provides lots of references to the works of Luther and Erasmus (and others) in case one is interested in following up and reading more. Many of these works, by the way, are still available online for little or no cost to download.

Along the way, Massing provides the stories of these two lives and ties them together with the broader Reformation. For example, the book helps to clarify why the English Reformation under Henry VIII took such a different turn from what happened in Europe. He does a good job on the peasant revolts and in my opinion judiciously moves past the first 30 Years War without getting too bogged down - it is a separate story on its own terms. Massing’s book was particularly helpful to me because of how he covered the linguistic and philological aspects of the conflicts between Luther and Erasmus. I am past the time when I could think of learning Greek, so his explanations are helpful.

This is a long long book, but there is little in it that is unnecessary and much that is worthwhile.

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ll start by saying, if you’re a fan of intellectual history, buy the book—you will not be disappointed. Michael Massing is a fantastic writer and this work, despite being over 800 pages, is always interesting and never dull.

The Amazon description presents the book as a dual biography of Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus, but it also contains several biographical sketches of prominent figures like St. Augustine, St. Paul, Thomas More, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, Petrarch, Lorenzo Valla, William Tyndale, and more.

In chronicling the lives of Luther, Erasmus, and others, Massing provides a complete intellectual history of the Reformation and immerses the reader in the life and culture of 15th and early 16th century Europe.

The main drive of the book is the contrast between and development of two strains of thought: Christian Humanism and Christian Evangelicalism. Erasmus, the leading Christian Humanist of the era, emphasized individual moral autonomy, unencumbered rational inquiry, and the primacy of deeds over faith. Luther, the leading Evangelicalist, emphasized the primacy of faith over deeds, the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and the path to salvation through faith in Christ alone.

You can think of the difference this way: assuming you believe in God, what do you think would most please Him:

1. A life spent praising God, reading the Bible, maintaining piety, confessing sins, and participation in liturgical services, or

2. A life spent helping others in the example of Christ, embracing pluralism and toleration, and interpreting scripture through the power of your own reason.

The Evangelical Christian would choose the first, the Christian Humanist the second. As a non-religious humanist myself, I have an obvious bias for the second choice, but it would seem somewhat strange for God to prefer mere thoughts, ceremony, and praise over a life spent actually helping others and engaging in benevolent deeds.

There is, in fact, scriptural justification for the humanist position. For example, James 2:14-26:

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

Jesus himself gave the commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Luke 10:27), and prioritized caring for the sick and helping the poor.

Admittedly, due to the inconsistencies of the Bible, you can find scriptural precedence for just about anything, and Luther did just that, especially in Paul. Much of Paul’s writings portray an Evangelical bent; Here is Romans 5:1-2:

"Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."

This is why Paul exalted the story of Abraham and Isaac; Abraham’s willingness to murder his own son is the ultimate expression of faith over works, whereas the humanist would draw the opposite conclusion: that Abraham should have been punished for his willingness to harm his child (works over faith).

This tension between Paul and James, works and faith, would play out in the thinking of Luther and Erasmus and would produce the Christian Humanism/Evangelicalism divide we still see today.

My personal preference would be to see religion replaced with a more rational ethical system like secular humanism, but this is unlikely. Humanity has a strong disposition to believe in the supernatural, and in terms of our ultimate origins to prefer any explanation to no explanation at all.

Since religion in this sense is probably here to stay, the best form it can hope to take is expressed in the views originally proposed by Erasmus, where the drive of religion is in works and deeds and individual autonomy, and where the more absurd and barbaric and fundamentalist parts of the Bible are ignored or rejected. If Massing’s work helps to spread that message, then this book may turn out to be more useful and powerful than even those of the New Atheists.

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.

It was Erasmus that drew me to read this book. As the man who launched the Reformation, Martin Luther has many biographies dedicated to him, but it is much more difficult to find a readable, popular biography of Erasmus, whose reputation and legacy were ruined and all but obliterated by that same Reformation. Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind is a dual biography of Luther and Erasmus and a history of the Reformation that linked them. Its author takes the clash between these two giants of their age as the raisin d’etre of his book:

”While books about Luther and Erasmus invariably touch on their famous rivalry, few place it at their center.”

”Their rivalry represented the clash of not just two intellectuals, but also of two world views; the humanist, embracing the common bonds of humanity and the diversity of cultures and viewpoints within it, and the evangelical, stressing God’s majesty and Christ’s divinity, and insisting that all recognized those truths as supreme and incontestable.”

And Massing makes it clear through his writing which of these competing world views he admires:

”Erasmus was an architect of the Northern Renaissance…In some ways, he represents the path not taken. In a time of rising nationalism he was a committed internationalist. In an age of persecution and incessant war he urged tolerance and promoted peace. And he argued that religion should be more about conduct than doctrine. Erasmus was, in short, the leading exponent of Christian Humanism, extolling human dignity, modest piety, and brotherhood in a world gripped by zealotry, ranker, and sectarianism.”

Several things you should note before deciding whether to commit to this book. Michael Massing isn’t a historian, he’s a journalist. This isn’t a scholarly book — it’s not breaking any new ground about the Reformation or the principle players involved in it. But it is an extremely well told story that manages to hold your attention all the way through its nearly 1000 pages. It also doesn’t assume the reader is already familiar with the period, and takes many interesting detours that explain the foundations of the world view as it existed at the time, with chapters dedicated to Jerome, Augustine, Paul, Aquinas, Scotus, and others. Finally, despite writing from a clear viewpoint, this book is no hagiography of Erasmus, nor does it demonize Luther. It’s a tale well told of a critical moment in Western history and two remarkable men who shaped it.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really massive, extremely well-written book. It patiently explores all the major developments in Christian history foreshadowing the events of the Renaissance and Reformation. All previous books I’ve read on the humanist and evangelical movements have been condensed summaries by comparison. Massing gives the lives and times of Erasmus and Luther in highly personal detail. I never really made the connection between Erasmus’s efforts to check the accuracy of received scriptures against ancient texts in other languages, with the modern research of scholars like John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, Elaine Pagels, Walter Wink, Bart Ehrman, or Karen Armstrong.

I never realized how Luther’s early calls for freedom of the individual conscience seemed to crash and burn with his demands that the peasant revolts he helped inspire must be crushed without mercy. Massing examines the evolving consequences of Luther’s division of the moral universe, with its utterly different standards for the spiritual and earthly realms. One realm required the courage to follow one’s own convictions whatever the cost. The other realm required unconditional obedience of earthy inferiors to superiors. Erasmus treated religion as a work in progress, to be furthered through learning and rational discussion. He saw his own views of scripture’s meanings as partial human perspectives, to be challenged or expanded through cordial discussion. Luther seemed the stronger man of true faith. He was certain that his understanding was God’s will.

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little bit of a if it’s Tuesday it must be Belgium experience through some of the most momentous intellectual terrain in history. Very few nuggets brought cause for pause in themselves, although the author‘s vocabulary range is outstanding.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 4 out of 5]

You ever wonder why 80% of white Evangelical Christians support Donald Trump. Erasmus is a humanist and Luther (and Trump’s Evangelical base) are anti-humanist. This book shows why the reformation is still relevant to today and connects the dots from then to today by considering the past that made up the then through the relevance of today.

Luther starts what he called the Evangelical Church in Germany (German: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland) and allows for a strain of anti-intellectualism to take root, denounces the peasants and their peasant revolt since power from above trumps the individual, makes every man a priest thus no one a priest, and devalues the individual’s dignity by polluting it with original sin and usurping it with God’s Grace above all else, appeals to ‘scripture alone’ as long as it is understood narrowly through his own myth interpretation lens and allows for no deviation from his privileged norm, and most of all sees the world through Augustinian terms especially that ‘man is born in sin’ and human nature is corrupt ever since ‘the fall of Adam and Eve’ and original sin is a stain that we all have since birth. Those are all characteristics of Luther’s anti-humanism and are a variation of beliefs shared by most of Trump’s white Evangelical Christian supporters. To understand the racism of today as espoused by Trump it’s often best to understand the anti-humanist of yesterday.

Erasmus supported moderation, tolerance, dignity of the individual, good works matter, and free will of the individual, and believed that understanding needs grammar, semantics, syntax, context and philology especially in understanding scripture. All these items would go towards characterizing a humanist. In addition, all of them would be antithetical to what the anti-humanist, or typical (80%) white Evangelical would tend to believe one way or another today.

Luther believed that we are not the ‘master of our will but its slave’ and our salvation comes from God’s Grace (or ‘God’s favor’ as Tyndale would translate it and is quoted in this book to have said). Aristotle (and Erasmus) would say that the builder learns to build good houses by striving to build a good house and practicing and learning and fine tuning his art, while Luther will say that good houses are built by good builders who become good only through God’s grace.

This book will connect the dots and contextualize the main characters with the background of the reformation always front and center and the author will nicely connect the foundation necessary in order to understand the story he is telling. For example, he brings the scholastics into his story and will give a summary of the key players by connecting them to the reformation events. Not to ruin the story for you, Luther wants a return to Augustine and doesn’t really care much for the scholastics and thinks that Aristotle is only okay for those who want to go to hell, and Erasmus in general loves the scholastics except he believes they value contemplation too much and wants to put the emphasis back on good works, good practices and good thoughts. Those ‘damn Pelagians’, they always think they are so much smarter than the anti-humanist as exemplified by Luther or Trump. Luther’s most favored insult at Erasmus was to call him a ‘Pelagian’, and I would highly recommend ‘Bondage of the Will’ by Luther which I had read shortly before reading this book in order to understand today’s modern Evangelicals, anti-humanist, conservatives and Trump’s fascist supporters.

Of the two recent books I’ve read on the Reformation, this one and ‘Reformations: The Early Modern World’ by Eire, I would recommend Eire’s book. It’s not fair to this author, Massing, to compare the two books because Eire wrote a flawless book with deep understandings and is most certainly a superior teller of history. At times I felt like Massing would be telling me things that he only had understood from reading what other people had said about what they had read as when he would talk about Kant, for example. Eire was always a master of his subject. In addition, I felt that Massing was not telling me anything that I had not read elsewhere since there didn’t seem to be any originality to this text. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and Massing does tell a good story but just not with much historical originality.

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fatal Discord is not only a dual biography of the two most prominent intellectuals of the Reformation period; it is an entire theological and political history of the Reformation—as well as its Biblical and medieval antecedents—recapitulated in the comparative lives of Luther and Erasmus, and in their fateful literary confrontation.

In one corner stood Erasmus: Christian humanist, heir of Jerome, James, and Cicero; the illegitimate son of a priest who revolutionized Biblical exegesis and midwifed modern textual criticism with his groundbreaking (though flawed) translation of the New Testament, which drew from older Greek manuscripts and thus subverted the Latin Vulgate and its centuries of editorial accretions; a near-total pacifist—he transmitted to modern readers Pindar’s observation that “war is sweet to those who have no experience of it”—and an internationalist, who was the first to describe himself, in a letter to Huldrych Zwingli, as a “citizen of the world”; satirizer of Papal pomposity and champion of the simple, humane teachings of Jesus.

In the other stood Luther: the crude, abrasive, and astonishingly prolific miner’s son and Augustinian friar who spawned one of the great cultural revolutions of Western history; devotee of Augustine and Paul; proclaimer of sola scriptura (under a distinct Erasmian influence) and justification through faith alone (though Luther and Augustine misread Paul by conflating justification and salvation); translator of the New Testament into an earthy German (which arguably took more liberties with the scriptures than did the Vulgate, which both Luther and Erasmus came to reject); forefather of German nationalism; evangelist for the liberating power of Christ crucified.

Both men were fierce critics of the opulence and corruption of the Church. Both sought a return to first principles and advocated a model of Christian life that was simple, modest, and true to the example of Christ and the Apostles; a life motivated by true inner devotion rather than the mere outward performance of ritual. One illustration of this is the inspiration that Erasmus and Luther both drew from the Dutch scholar’s rediscovery of the Greek word for “repentance”: metanoia. The word refers to a “turning around”, a redirection of one’s attention, a total inner and outer conversion of the one who repents; quite a different connotation from the poenitentia of the Vulgate, which was traditionally interpreted to refer to the sacrament of penance—i.e., going to confession.

Luther was a great admirer of Erasmus, who was about seventeen years his senior, and relied heavily upon his New Testament as he formulated his own criticisms of Church practices. Indeed, the very first two of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, his famous attack on the sale of indulgences, refer to Erasmus’s aforementioned “Greek” understanding of repentance:

"1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.”

In the early days of the Lutheran controversy, Luther and Erasmus were widely understood, by their admirers and critics alike, to be closely aligned. A common expression of the time held that “Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched,” suggesting that Luther’s Reformation was merely the natural outgrowth of the Erasmian project of applying humanist textual criticism to Scripture with the aim of resurrecting primitive Christianity. Erasmus, for his part, initially returned Luther’s admiration, but became increasingly alarmed at his radicalism and the militancy of his followers. Erasmus wanted to reform the Church from within in a kind of elite-driven, international, cosmopolitan project; but Luther and his detractors were constantly pushing one another into taking ever more extreme positions in a process that brings to mind the radicalizing tendencies of social media today.

Reading this book has convinced me that the internet is, in some sense, much older than we typically think. Many of the disturbing features of today’s online world—the vitriol, the cliquishness, the jockeying for attention, the “outrage mobs”, the demand that everyone have an opinion about everything, and the interpretation of silence as a sign that one is on “the other team”—were fully present in the discourse of the Reformation, in which the European intelligentsia engaged in ever more acrimonious and polarizing debate through the medium of the printing press. There’s something almost uncanny about imagining Luther alone in the Wartburg dashing off sixteenth-century hot takes. We’re all in the Wartburg now. There’s also something uncanny about the monumental efforts undertaken by the baroque Church to suppress Luther’s movement and gain control over the burgeoning communications revolution. It was perhaps the first time in history when a single institution sought to completely seal off the flow of information—but as we’re seeing today, it would not be the last. “The Cathedral” is alive and well.

In this age of extremes, poor Erasmus stood in the middle of the road and got run over. The last great humanist, Erasmus opposed both the pre-humanism of the medievals, who sought to subject human freedom to the power of the institutional Church, and the post-humanism of the evangelicals, who sought to subject it to their understanding of the sovereignty of God. As such, he resisted enormous pressure to declare himself for or against Luther until he was left with no other choice. Their great debate on the subject of free will reflected a theological tension that stretches back into the New Testament itself: that between faith and works; between Jesus as the teacher of the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus as the scapegoat of Calvary. The modern world erupted through the chasm between Jesus the teacher and Christ the savior.

It would be difficult to read this book without coming away with a profound, if sometimes begrudging, respect for both of these men and the legacies they created. Though I suppose in both intellectual and temperamental terms I’m more of an Erasmian than a Lutheran, it’s hard to be unmoved by Luther’s courage and bravado, or to avoid cringing at Erasmus’s vacillations during one of the West’s most critical intellectual crises. On the other hand, Erasmus perhaps displayed a quieter courage of his own when he sought to maintain his independence and integrity in an environment that allowed little room for either.

In the short term, Luther won the day. His Reformation swept through Northern Europe while Erasmus faded into obscurity, denounced as a lackey of the Catholic Church by Protestants and as a proto-Protestant by the Catholic Church (his debate with Luther did not stop his entire corpus from being placed on the Vatican’s Index of Prohibited Books). Nonetheless, Erasmus has made a comeback in Europe since the Second World War, admired for his pacifism, his cosmopolitanism, and his belief in human freedom and reasoned dialogue. Luther’s star has faded in Europe, but Massing believes that his legacy has thrived in America after being brought to her shores by the likes of John Wesley.

Though there are relatively few Lutherans in the United States, the Pope of Wittenberg has made his presence felt in the American evangelical community, and especially among the Southern Baptists, who carry on Luther’s emphasis on the saving power of the individual’s faith and the sacrality of his own personal encounter with Scripture. Though much has been made of the Calvinist legacy in America, Massing holds that Luther is the true theological forebear of the most politically-potent forces in American Christianity due to his emphasis on individual conscience over the communal piety exemplified by the Calvinists of colonial New England.

So Luther and Erasmus live on—now with an ocean between them.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many people shy away from "tomes" but when they are well written and researched, I am most happy to read them. This is one such tome. From my Catholic upbringing and education, all I was really told about Luther was that he was constipated all the time and that led him to formulate the ideas that he did. That is one reason for my reading the book- it was actually a historical pursuit since I have little interest in finding a new religion. I have enough issues with my own. All that said, the book traced the beginnings and motivations for Erasmus for promoting the ideas that he did and for Luther for promoting his. Of course, Erasmus was never interested in forming a new religion, his purpose was to discover more accurate translations of the Vulgate and eventually, the Old Testament. He discovered that the Bible of his time was written in Latin but that it had originally been written in Greek and the more research he did, the more errors of translation he uncovered. Those errors, he contended were responsible for many errors in the teachings of the Church. Of course, the Catholic Church being the Catholic Church did not appreciate his work.

Luther, on the other hand, was disheartened by the corruption of the Church and initially sought to change it from within. His 95 Thesis marked the beginning of the German Reformation, Luthers' excommunication, and his eventual founding of his own church. The tragedy of this is that the issues had with the Church were, for the most part, legitimate although some were just a matter of his interpretation of scripture. Perhaps if the Church had been willing to stop selling indulgences and generally clean up its act, the religious wars that ensued as a result of the scisms between Christians might not have happened.

I learned a great deal from this book finding it interesting and very educational. It is not a book that very many people might be interested in reading mainly because of its length but it is worthwhile.

[Toby · Rating 3 out of 5]

This mammoth double biography of Erasmus and Luther is written by a journalist with a wide field of interest, though no specialism in Reformation History. This brings with it very big advantages and disadvantages, and your view will be coloured by whether you feel one outweighs the other.

The advantages are its sheer readability. To read through over 800 pages without a moment’s boredom demonstrates the work of a master story teller. Erasmus's life really was pretty dull, and Luther's, whilst having its moments of excitement, is nevertheless bound up with some fairly esoteric issues of Christian theology. Massing does an excellent job of painting a picture of these two contrasting and contrary men and fills in a lot of the background to their times and thought..

That is another advantage: unlike other biographies of Luther which assume that the reader will have a working knowledge of the Sixteenth Century religious milieu, Massing takes nothing for granted. The length of the book is at least part due to the sidetracks that we are taken down as Augustine, St Paul, Jan Hus, Jerome etc. are given their own moment in the sun. Despite having now read four biographies of Luther, I felt that this one was the first that really filled in all the basic details for me.

But there are disadvantages as well. Massing has an agenda, which he is open about. Europe took the Erasmian humanist path, America the Reformed Christianity path and America is the worse off for it. Erasmus is therefore the hero (though not without flaws) and Luther the villain, if not for his own personality but because of the chaos that ensued from his campaign.

From the beginning Medieval is used almost exclusively as a pejorative term. Paris, in 1485 is still a medieval city (as presumably was London, Madrid and Rome), ie. unsanitary and crowded, as though we are to be surprised that the Eiffel Tower and Pompidou Centre are nowhere to be seen. Reuchlin, in his love of languages, is distinguished from the Medievals. John Colet remains a medieval man because he continues to interpret Scripture on its own terms rather than use the classics. Ultimately, Erasmus looks towards the bright Renaissance future whilst Luther looks back into the medieval past. This kind of characterising just won't do.

And then there are the oddities that crop up. Most scholars certainly don't think that Paul's letter to the Romans was dashed off hastily, nor is there a recognised contradiction in the first three chapters of the book (I re-read it, to make sure). The antichrist comes from 1 John, not Revelation. Oecolampadius means "house light", not "shining light."

So a great introduction to two of the most important theologians and linguists of the early modern era but it needs to be read with some caution.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's not a lot of new stuff here for me, especially on the Luther side, but the dual biography concept, when done well, can stimulate some 'aha' and Massing generally does well.

The two biggies on differences are first, one of personality and temperament. Erasmus' irenic style never could have led a Reformation and Luther never could have calmed his down enough even to be the best of organizers of what a Reformation needed in terms of management.

As a result, Erasmus in general was more kindly disposed to human fraility and at least occasionally meeting people halfway. Had he been in Luther's shoes, he never would have treated Melanchthon as shoddily as Luther sometimes did.

As an aside, Massing also gives a good base-level explanation of how differences between Luther and Zwingli, in terms of how they developed their reformations differently, were sociological as much as theological.

I did learn a few tidbits, one of which I could have learned in Lutheran seminary, had it been taught there. And that is that Luther's polemics against the Jews weren't just a late-life, poor-health issue. They started with his lectures on the Psalms years before the 95 Theses. He later tamped them down, after the Reformation took off, in hopes of converting Jews. Until they didn't.

And, it was Karlstadt, not Zwingli, who first questioned the "Real Presence" in the Eucharist, and he did so on the basis of Greek grammer and not metaphoric speech common to Greek, German and English. Karlstadt pointed out that the "this" in "This is my body," can NOT refer backward to "bread" because it's a different gender in Greek. That, too was never mentioned in Lutheran seminary, probably because, although Luther railed against Karlstadt for this, he never refuted it — because, of course, he couldn't.

There is one notable error here that doesn't affect the flow, and a matter of framing that kind of does.

Given that the second big difference between Luther and Erasmus was on free will, and that BOTH had an Augustinian background, it would have been nice for Massing to include a little bit more about just how "minor" of a saint Augustine is seen as being in the East. He does talk a small bit about Orthodoxy's take on Augustine, but not a lot.

The outright error? Paul never claimed to be a Roman citizen, contra Massing. The unknown author of Acts claimed it for him.

[John David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Massing is best known for writing about current events and international affairs, which makes him an unusual candidate to take up the ideas of two intellectual giants of the sixteenth century. Historically, I’ve been disappointed with books by journalists for their tendency toward the superficial or perfunctory. I’m glad I let myself have another go as this ended up being a contender for the best book I read in 2023. In it, Massing takes up the lives and ideas of two men – Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther – who had widely diverging visions of salvation, human will, Biblical exegesis, and the future of the Church in the wake of the Reformation.

Massing’s book is a study in stark contrasts as told through a dual biography that alternates between chapters about Erasmus and Luther. Both men agreed that the late medieval Church was in a state of disrepair and corruption, and that reform was badly needed. After this point of initial concord, nothing but discord followed. For Erasmus, good works were a hallmark of a pious Christian. For Luther, they were dangerous spiritual virtue-signaling that gave false comfort. Erasmus embodied the finest of the Renaissance humanist tradition, most certainly a reflection of the thoughtful, searching, inward person he was. Erasmus was worldly, gregarious, and one of the best writers of his time. Luther was also a gifted writer, but his style couldn’t have been more different. His jeremiads were loud, brash, dismissive, vituperative, and eager to call nearly anyone who disagreed with him a tool of Satan. His virulent antisemitism also left an indelible mark on the next five centuries of Protestant theology.

Without getting too into the weeds, one of the fundamental disagreements between Erasmus and Luther was whether there should be dialogue between believers and textual ambiguity. For Erasmus, yes; for Luther, no. Was it permissible for people to break away from the church in schism in pursuit of doctrinal purity? For Erasmus, no; for Luther (who obviously gave his name to another brand of Christianity to attain said purity), yes. Should the emphasis of Christianity be on the moral virtue, reason, and free will of this world or the salvation and redemption of the next? For Erasmus, the former; for Luther, the latter.

Massing’s book is a one-volume education in the coming and immediate aftermath of the Protestant Reformation that, despite its size at around 1,000 pages, can be enjoyed even by people with no background in Christian theology or philosophy. This book is even better when read in conjunction with “Brand Luther,” Andrew Pettegree’s fascinating and equally immersive book examining how Luther turned the small university town of Wittenberg in eastern Germany into a publishing hub while at the same time leveraging one of the most consequential pieces of technology in human history – the new printing press.

[Joost Nixon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a sweeping attempt to set the debate between Erasmus and Luther in its context, and to make the case that they are father-figures of respective worldviews alive today. Erasmus represents tolerance, broad-mindedness, and free inquiry and is registered in the EU. Luther represents a fidelity to Scripture as the only infallible authority, and is represented by American evangelicals today.

I quibble with Massing on some bits regarding evangelicals, but am grateful for the context. He has some valid points and observations, and he's good at introducing relevant players as far back as Jerome and Augustine, and add far forward as Moody, Graham, and 20th century German liberal scholarship.

4.5 stars.

[J. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A dense and meandering read about distant 16th century theological writers, their polemical feuds and massive egos, Massing's work nevertheless comes across surprisingly relevant (see link below). If you, like me, disdain Martin Luther's crude zeal and advocate Desiderius Erasmus' high-minded humanism, this book may be a humbling experience. Instead of an elegy to Erasmus and a "Protestantism that might have been," Massing plays a less harmonious historical tune. In our time of populist upheaval and revanchism, consideration should be given to why the earthy, parochial fury of Luther won out over the seemingly genteel, cosmopolitan wisdom of Erasmus. Old caricatures cast shadows here and there (they are hard to avoid), but the temperaments of these two men and the Reformation their dispute influenced shines through. It seems this discord is with us still in subtle ways, though with stakes that make The German Peasants' War pale in comparison.

https://www.thenation.com/article/how...

[Awais Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a tour de force. Over the last two weeks I have been transported into 15th and 16th century Europe - its lively and dangerous debates and its cities and castles and monasteries. I’ve felt myself travel together with Erasmus in Europe and England and I’ve experienced Luther’s heroic stand at Worms. While mainly being a biography of these two towering giants, the book also provides so much context around the historic events of the time and the whims and fancies of its kings and princes. I would actually go as far as to say this is a book everyone must and should read to really understand how the world became what it is today. It’s a mirror to our own age, showing how the philosophical and political fractures of that time still echo in ours.

The way the book also weaves their intellectual evolution with vivid digressions into the past is nothing short of masterful. Nearly 900 pages and yet it flies. Unputdownable. Essential.

[Gideon Yutzy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderfully told. Compares the impact of Erasmus on Western thought with the impact of Luther. I don't think I've ever read a historical work that employed such rich use of language (metaphor, imagery, turn of phrase, etc).

I think the author had a clear bias toward Erasmus, but he wove in so much original writing from both men that it was hard to disagree. Luther was so anti-semitic you literally have to fast forward some parts (if you're listening to the audiobook, that is, which is 34 hours long, just so you know).

[Jonny Parshall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dense this book is. And thorough. Too thorough. The title implies it is a narrative on the accounts of Erasmus, Martin Luther, their correspondence, collaboration, and rivalry, and how these interactions shaped Protestantism and the Renaissance. Rather, it is a complete biography of Luther, a complete biography of Erasmus, AND outlines their interactions and how each shaped Protestantism, the Reformation, et cetera, as well as many of the other figures such as Zwingli, Melanchthon, Thomas More, et al, etc.

It is awfully ambitious Massing undertook such a project, as there are so many good works regarding the subject already. Had it been more narrow in scope and focus, it would probably be a finer addition to this preexisting gallery.

[Illiterate · Rating 2 out of 5]

On Luther/evangelicalism and Erasmus/humanism. More readable than insightful.

[Baylor Heath · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve been wanting to tackle this beast since it came out in 2018 and I’m glad I finally did. It is a thoroughly comprehensive and just as equally engaging dual biography of Martin Luther and Erasmus which skillfully compares and contrasts their lives and theologies to display how their dueling legacy can be seen in Western culture even today. If you don’t know who Erasmus is (I didn’t) then you already have an idea who won the “fight for the Western mind” — at least initially.

Who won the fight for my mind upon reading it? Well, being exposed to Erasmus’ Christian Humanism was a broadening experience given my background of rigid thinking (“Christian Humanism! That’s an inherent paradox!” I thought at first). Having man, not God, at the center of a worldview cannot be Christian. Indeed, that would be Secular Humanism, but Erasmus is not placing man at the center, just carefully reframing his role and emphasizing his free will, his conscience, and his God-given faculties for inquiring into and living God’s truth. He advocated the reading of classics and, revolutionarily, approaching the divine text as literature in a time where biblical scholasticism reduced Scripture into something to be only dissected into answerable propositions.
Manning also shows how these two medieval men picked up a centuries old battle between Augustine & Pelagius concerning man’s role in his own salvation. Pelagius, Jerome, and Erasmus all leaned toward man being able to live according to God’s commands in of himself, whereas Augustine, Luther, and later Calvin, disputed man was completely incapable of living according to God’s standards without receiving his grace due to his utterly sinful state (God doing for him what he could not do for himself). In this respect, Luther wins over my mind as he emphasizes exactly what makes the good news, Good News (which is why they were calling his movement the New Gospel, even if what seemed to be New was really quite old).

On the other hand, Erasmus comes out on top in being the only leading thinker durning the Reformation without blood on his hands. Luther, Thomas Moore, Zwingli, & Calvin all honestly have abysmal records of condoning or enacting violence in their causes which tarnishes whatever good there is in their good news — whereas Erasmus manages always to be civil and purposely non-violent in a time that can make your stomach turn with its gruesome, senseless accounts of bloodshed.

Well, at any rate, I walk away from this entertaining book a more nuanced thinker around the core doctrines at the center of the Reformation which counts for a lot.

Highly recommend.

[Rod Innis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was written by a Jewish author, yet it is about the Reformation and the differences between Erasmus, who was trying to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within, and Martin Luther, who rebelled against that church. It is quite a detailed description of both men and their differences, and the results of the division. It is not a straight line. At times, they seemed to be in total agreement, and later, when the debates became very vitriolic. I appreciate the fact that a Jewish author seems willing to state the views of these men very clearly. The gospel preached by Luther of justification by faith alone without works was clearly presented. It also showed so many of the faults of both men. It also showed some of the horrible consequences of the fiery debate and the serious error of these men. The fact that Martin Luther became antisemitic later in life is clear from his writings, yet the author of this book treated him fairly. It is quite a detailed history of the time period of the Reformation.

[Chad D · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm finished. Finally.

This was a hard slog. Primarily because its two protagonists just aren't very likeable or inspiring. I'm wondering if biography might've not been the most appropriate medium for Massing's enthusiasms and theses. He wants to show how Erasmus represents a road not taken in Western intellectual history (until much later, after he'd been mostly forgotten) and Luther represents the road taken, and there were a few years when the outcome was not clear. Fair. But that's mostly about their ideas, not about the dudes themselves. The book has narrative drive primarily between 1519 and 1530.

And the book has so many interspersed digressions on various topics in Western intellectual history that it becomes a summa of the whole thing . . . which is just a lot to bite off and a lot to chew. Major characters and movements get handled in a page or two, and while the generalisations are often reasonable, and there are even some helpful illustrative examples, there's a lot of complexity and controversy ironed out.

Tries to do too much, basically. There's maybe a gripping three-hundred-page book in here.

[Ray LaManna · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very thorough dual biography of the lives and teachings of Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther. At over a 1000 pages it interweaves all the historical antecedents to the Protestant Reformation and the consequences up to the present time. It's very thorough and easy to read. Massing does a great job with this complicated history. If you want to know about this important period in Western civilization...read this book.

[Garrett Mullet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Discord?

'Mot juste.'

[Helen]

I dearly wish I’d had this when I took my senior level history class on the Renaissance and Reformation in undergrad. These aren’t new ideas, but their presentation as a a dual biography brings fresh points to light. Comprehensive. The roots of so much of the modern are here.

[Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fatal Discord (FD) is partly a dual biography of Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther and partly a history of "Reformation events" between the posting of Luther's 95 theses in 1517 and the formation of the Schmalkaldic League in 1531. Of course, the book goes beyond these events, but, in my opinion, in a bit less detailed way. There are reasons for this, I imagine. One is that Erasmus was aging after a long life of celebrated scholarship accompanied by intense and hostile criticism. Another is that Luther lost some of his charisma after the Peasants' War of 1524-25 and definitely had no control over reform theology and behavior with the rise of competing reformers like Zwingli.

Erasmus does not come out well in FD. He seems a person who liked his comforts and liked to be left alone to do exactly what he wanted. He spent time currying favor and sometimes with persons who could be brutal in the disputes of the day (e.g., Thomas More). Granted he was always under scrutiny, he did spend effort and ink in distinguishing himself from Luther's ideas and promoting a type of humanistic and very ideal Christianity. Sometimes he was a coward as in the Reuchlin controversy over the learning of Hebrew. He made sure to hold to the side of the Pope and to make sure he had friends in Rome. Most importantly, perhaps, Erasmus was a member of the elite, though not by birth, and spoke to the elite.

On the other hand, he did have bad health -- stone and stomach problems, it seems. And his work like his eight editions of the New Testament in Greek was controversial, and dangerous. To be painted with the brush of tampering with Scripture could bring down the most horrendous penalties. I point to Tyndale who was strangled at the stake and then burned mainly for his translation of the New Testament into English. Luther was a little less exposed since he was under the protection of the Elector Frederick of Saxony, for example, and was relatively safe if he did not travel. (Not to say his situation would not have produced the proverbial stomach ulcers!)

Luther is presented as a man who is definitely not of the elite. He presents as a man of spirit rather than primarily of intellect (though he was brilliant). There is a reason that his theology of salvation by faith alone, reached after years and years of consideration, appealed widely to all classes of persons who could now see themselves directly approached by God. It was not an elite doctrine or theory; it could be understood by the uneducated: it was definitely not elite. Together with Luther's good use of the medium of printing, this led to a Reformation.

The book also gives a good overview of Luther's headaches in general. He had to fight with Rome as well as with other independent reformers in places like Strasbourg and Zurich. He had to maintain good relationships with at least some German lords. He had to deal with people who, particularly after the Peasants War, were disillusioned with him (because of his active non-support) and/or in desperate straits. He had to deal with persons who took on radical approaches like Muentzer. And deal with persons who took an antinomian attitude on the foundation of the "faith alone" doctrine.
He had to worry about money and raise a family.

All in all, this is a major and quite good book. It tries to cover all the territory, including by giving background on earlier reformers, Hus, in particular. The afterwords are less successful in my opinion. There are brief histories of European and American religious movements (e.g., Methodism and Mennonites) up to the present day and of intellectual/enlightenment movements (e.g., Spinoza). This is all quite compressed, but I suppose it does fit with the author's thesis of the differences in the thoughts and attitudes of Erasmus and Luther and their effect on Western thinking. And it is good to see how the author tries to find a common cause for Western life of the spirit and the mind. But I think I am not convinced by the afterwords as I believe there are other theories on this topic.

One of the "curses" of this type of book is that it raises questions that would drive a reader to other books. For example, I would like to see a better explanation of the battle between Erasmus and Luther on the nature of free will and how "free will" did or did not have a role in salvation. This is the sort of thing that drives scholarship. I suppose. But it means that I just have to sigh and look for another book!

FD is well written and well organized. I enjoyed reading it very much. Hence, the month it took was not an effort.

Lawrence says: Check it out.

[Caleb Ringger]

This massive double biography does much more than just tell the story of two (or at least one) of history's most fascinating and influential thought leaders. It also uses their life stories as a vehicle to explain and explore basically every major thread of religious and intellectual thought to emerge in Europe between the Crucifixion and the Peace of Westphalia. This enormous undertaking is helped by the fact that Massing is a journalist by trade. He synthesizes, simplifies, and draw connections between each of these disparate threads, making this book easily readable despite its extraordinarily broad subject matter.

Massing argues that Luther and Erasmus epitomize the two broad threads of thought that have defined European and American intellectual history over the last 500 years. On one hand, Erasmus is the cosmopolitan, the humanist, the elitist, the pacifist, the international, the slightly-less-anti-Semitic, and the skeptic of religious zealotry; the forerunner to Kant, social democracy, and the European Union. Erasmus liked genteel dinner parties and apologized to the king whenever he stepped on his toes. On the other, Luther is the German nationalist, the zealot, the populist, the raging polemicist, who made poop and fart jokes at the dinner table and drew a picture of a the Pope climbing out of the Devil's anus. Massing sees Luther as the forerunner to the nationalistic wars from 1525 to 1945, American evangelicalism, and, for different reasons, both global capitalism and communist revolutionaries.

Massing doesn't come down hard on either "side." While Erasmus's ideas might be more recognizably modern in the 21st century, Massing recognizes that Erasmus was, literally, a loser--his ideas were suppressed and mostly forgotten for centuries, and even today the average person hasn't heard of him. His high-minded rational humanism failed to resonate with just about anybody for centuries. Luther's message, on the other hand, was embraced by both the peasant masses and a significant chunk of the ruling elites who each wanted to challenge the status quo for their own reasons. He smartly recognizes that the downfall of both medieval and modern "Erasmians" frequently is brought about by elitism, condescension, and a failure to respond to the needs and concerns of the common person.

Massing's dichotomy is an oversimplification, of course. But I'm less worried about whether any particular movement or person can literally trace their ideological lineage back to Erasmus or Luther than the way this dichotomy helps a modern observer make sense of both historical and modern Western thought. As I read, I couldn't help but see parallels in modern American politics and society: parallels too obvious, or maybe too crude, to be elaborated on further here.

Rating: A-

[Johnny Mettlach · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book (a 4.5 rating). It is a very comprehensive, detailed, all encompassing look at irenic Luther and diplomatic Erasmus and the whole era, how the Reformation flowed out of the monastic culture (education, markets, etc), stimulated modernism and eventually many of today's ideologies, politically and religiously, that result. The alternating chapters on each person highlights their similarities and more numerous differences (especially in temperament, personality, style) and the contrasting view of The Western Mind (including distinct views of conscience, change, church and state, Greek philosophy, religious authority, dealing with conflict or differences, & much more). The details of their individual faiths and formations are key. Far from demonizing the Roman Church or culture of the Middle Ages as a whole, the author nonetheless elaborately describes the rampant political and ecclesial corruption and oppression, all of which are deeply disturbing (how the common people were treated, the 98% of mortals), and thus part and parcel to the upheaval and titanic change that would impact history forever. In particular, I was struck by the massive (up to 20,000 in one) bands of roving people in the Peasants Revolts, as well as Luther's acidic and merciless call for their "slaying" and more (see below), and his theology behind it as well as his equally violent hate for Jews (starting from the very beginning with his very first writings on the Psalms with only a few spared any anti-Semitism, as well as in his second book on Romans). Massing's description of how Luther (and others) interacted (often in contention) with Zwingli, Calvin, (future) Anglicans (Henry the VII), the Anabaptists/Mennonites/etc. (maligned and slaughtered by Protestants & Catholics), Moravians (Count Zinzendorf ), and other sects was very helpful in explaining how various branches of Protestantism formed.
Going through the extensive linguistic (original scriptural languages as well as Latin translations) and philological and philosophical differences between the Luther and Erasmus was revelatory, but it like other topics covered so in depth made the book extremely long (more than 800 pages). I wish he had done a much more thorough job of connecting the current contemporary religious and political climate (of the last 50 years) with the two men and their impact on that era and the rest of history, especially in the West. LUTHER: "Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! No mercy, no toleration is due to the peasants [attacking castles, churches, & monasteries]; on them should fall the wrath of God and of man...Let whoever can--stab, strangle, and kill the peasants like mad dogs...I advocate the slaughter of the poor captured peasants without mercy...I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead. All their blood is upon my head. But I put it all on our Lord God: for he commanded me to speak thus.." [in 1525, many tens of thousands of German peasants in giant roving bands revolted against longstanding poverty, injustice, & governmental and ecclesial corruption]

[Jessica Jin · Rating 4 out of 5]

initial thought dump, may update later:
🥵the way early theologians were absolutely ravaged by horniness and the way monks literally policed each others wet dreams is pretty funny
😬 makes total sense why everyone was a huge fan of martin luther early in his career because the catholic church was corrupt as hell. but then he kanyes himself as he starts telling the aristocracy to violently put down peasant riots that his ideas (whether he liked it or not) helped incite. he tells the peasants they should suffer like jesus did and... obey the government, submit to the state, twiddle their thumbs at gaping feudal class differences?? he marries a nun immediately after like 200,000 peasants are slaughtered?? he starts spewing some of the most vile antisemitic shit? and then tells some buddy of his he can totally get a 2nd wife and marry some 13yo girl he's obsessed with to avoid divorcing his 1st wife? bro read the room????
⭐️ erasmus seemed like committed, bookish, and crotchety old man who had great ideas but wasn't down be burned at the stake for them like martin luther was, very relatable tbh. like a 16th century "just vote!" tshirt wearer
☪️ one fun fact is that protestantism prob wouldnt have survived if not for islam-- european rulers were so busy fending off the ottomans that they didnt have the capacity to crush reformers!

[Daniel Stepke · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this! It was clear, accessible, and put Luther and Erasmus in truckloads of context, from the Thomists to Tyndale. The major thematic tension was (as the title indicates) between Christian humanism (where the emphasis of the Christian experience is living the good life, reason, the will, and human dignity) and Christian evangelicalism (where the emphasis of the Christian experience is divine grace, piety, devotion, and human depravity). I must say that as the book presented Luther and Erasmus, Erasmus seemed to display real Christianity much better than Luther. If their lives have anything to say, they were both deeply flawed. Truly, man cannot save himself or merit salvation, as Luther says. But at the end of the day, it seems Christians should be focused on truly intending to live the good life with God's help, rather than proclaiming one's devotion without the life accompanying it.

[Zach Brandt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Luther/Erasmus dichotomy works, but it does feel forced at times. Especially because the ideas of both men are almost entirely absent from modern mainstream intellectual patterns. The “Erasmian” tradition has turned into secularism and the “Lutheran” tradition has either turned evangelical (in America and majority world) or, well, Erasmian (in Europe).

The most fascinating component was for me to think through regionalism vs internationalism. Erasmus is clearly the hero of the book, but his viewpoint is under attack today because it strips away cultural identify in an effort to make everyone a citizen of the world.

[C. A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the author is not a historian but a journalist, he does a decent job. The first 95% of the book is gripping and informative. But as the book draws to a close, Massing displays typical anti-calvinism of the "but Servetus!!!" tier. He also ends with an assessment of the 20th and 21st century context of American Christianity, by trying to link Luther or Erasmus to different movements of contemporary society; this last part seems to have been written with less rigour than the rest.