Whew! So far, this has been a week of close battles unparalleled in Lent Madness history. On Monday Mechtild of Magdeburg defeated Odo of Cluny 52% to 48%. On Tuesday Raymond Nonnatus bested Moses the Black 51% to 49%. And yesterday Augustine of Canterbury snuck past Scholastica 51% to 49%.
This heart-pumping saintly action is enough to make you want to do some yoga. Or deep breathing exercises. Or drink some chamomile tea. Something calming! But instead, the battles just keep coming. Today it's the scrappy Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky taking on the heavyweight Martin Luther. Is an upset in the making? Another tight race? Or will a blowout break the string of hotly contested, halo-busting battles?
Note that yesterday's battle was not without controversy. The following was posted by the Supreme Executive Committee:
The SEC noticed an irregular surge of votes for Scholastica around midnight. Well over 6,000 votes were found to be cast irregularly in an attack using bots around the world. We have removed what we believe to be the correct amount of votes, and will continue to monitor this race. One person, one vote. If you break this rule, your votes will be removed and you will be cast off into the outer darkness of Lent Madness.
We are confident in the final result. But remember, Big Lent is watching.
Joseph Schereschewsky
SIJ Schereschewsky was a cleric, missionary, and renowned translator of the prayer book and Bible. He knew 13 languages, and spent the last twenty years of his life typing out his translations with the fingers he still could move. (Sources vary on whether it was one or two fingers. Either way--that sounds hard.)
First off, his last name is pronounced “Share-es-shev-ski”. Think of Duke men’s basketball’s famous head coach from that OTHER bracket game for reference.
Schereschewsky’s translation of the Bible into Mandarin was so well-done that it became the standard translation that is still in use today. It took him from 1862-1875, so all that time was clearly justified. But he didn’t stop there. He believed that people couldn’t be truly faithful without also being educated, so he founded St. John’s University at Shanghai, and then went to work translating everything also into Wenli--another Chinese dialect. It was the Wenli manuscript that he meticulously typed out using two fingers, after Parkinson’s disease left him entirely paralyzed. The disease had caused him to resign his seat as the bishop of Shanghai, but he was determined that it should not stop his ministry. He produced over 2,000 pages just by sitting in his chair, and hen-pecking.
His contemporary biographer describes him thus: "paralysed in every limb, and with his powers of speech partly gone, sitting for nearly twenty-five years in the same chair, slowly and painfully typing out with two fingers his Mandarin translation of the Old Testament and Easy Wen-li translation of the whole Bible."
Schereschewsky grew up Jewish, and until his conversion, intended to be a rabbi. This affinity for Judaism didn’t disappear after his ordination; while in China, a small group of Kaifeng Jews--a tiny minority of Jews who emigrated to central China from Persia in the Middle Ages, came to visit him. This began a friendship, and Shereschewsky gave their community the Hebrew Scriptures that he translated into Mandarin. The community termed it “The Two-Finger Bible” because of Schereschewsky’s disability. This also contributes to the longevity of his biblical translation. Because he knew Hebrew, and understood midrash and rabbinic ideas, modern scholar Irene Eder notes that his version “can be regarded as the only Chinese Old Testament to reflect not only the traditional Jewish text but to also included elements of the Jewish exegetical tradition.”
Regarding his work, he said, “I have sat in this chair for over twenty years. It seemed very hard at first. But God knew best. He kept me for the work for which I was best fitted.”
Martin Luther
Martin Luther’s life was filled with quirky meanderings. The path of his life bemused even him, “I am the son of a peasant…and the grandson and the great grandson. My father wanted to make me into a burgomaster. He went to Mansfeld and became a miner. I became a baccalaureate and a master. Then I became a monk and put off the brown beret. My father didn’t like it, and then I got into the pope’s hair and married an apostate nun. Who could have read that in the stars?” (Table Talk).
When he discovered that the people living around Wittenberg were not properly schooled in the basics of the faith, he wrote the Small Catechism, proposing this learning regimen “Children should be taught the habit of reciting [the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Our Father] daily... Until they recite them they should be given nothing to eat or drink.”
Luther took his faith and work seriously, but he also loved life: “Tomorrow I have to lecture on the drunkenness of Noah, so I should drink enough this evening to be able to talk about that wickedness as one who knows by experience.”
“Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.”
And, scholars throughout history have been amused, occasionally appalled, by his scatological humor and insults: “Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there and wants to dispute with me. I have come to this conclusion: When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn’t help, I instantly chase him away with a fart.” (Table Talk)
“Perhaps you want me to die of unrelieved boredom while you keep on talking.” (Luther’s Works)
And, some things haven’t changed even 500 years after Luther so pointedly highlighted time-wasting meetings: “If you who are assembled in a council are so frivolous and irresponsible as to waste time and money on unnecessary questions, when it is the business of a council to deal only with the important and necessary matters, we should not only refuse to obey you, but consider you insane or criminals.” (Luther’s Works).
[poll id="192"]
326 comments on “Joseph Schereschewsky vs. Martin Luther”
If you haven't yet voted and are struggling with Luther's strident anti-Semitism, please note Robert's comment at 3:14. Those writings were in the last couple of years of Luther's life, when he may have been non compos mentis.
I'm thinking possibly alcoholic dementia. Even if I didn't know about Martin's anti-Semitism I couldn't have voted for him. The "humorous" quotes cited certainly don't sound so funny to anyone who lived with alcoholics, even if they were brilliant and witty alcoholics.
My vote is for Marty..."Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."
Martin Luther would seem the obvious choice, but I am totally turned off by his being anti-Semitic.
SIJ Scherescewsky translated the scriptures and the BCP so that souls coul be won for Christ. What an incredible follower of the Lord.
I had to go with Scherescewsky. While I appreciate greatly the quotes from Luther, what won me over was Scherescewsky's love for the Jews. In this day and age, we get bound up far too often in doctrinal, or political, or whatever distinctives that divide us (and rightly or wrongly this was a good chunk of what Luther was about) that I admire it greatly when a person can see their neighbor, and see differences, yet love them anyway. So Scherescewsky got my vote!
The image of Joseph pecking out the translation, one letter at a time, brought me to tears.
Plus, besides being a church sexton, I'm a synagogue custodian.
And while we're not to be taking ourselves too seriously, I think Martin should miss the Golden Halo here, for not taking things seriously enough.
wow! a nail-biter!
Wow! Another close one in the works! I'm a huge SIJS fan, but today Luther's great quotes won me over.
Lou Florio, our companion in Lent Madness, shared his "95 theses" on why to vote for (or at least appreciate) Luther. It's here: https://2pennyblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/95-lent-madness-theses-round-2/
I am learning so much here! In the past, I thought Luther was an epithet.
Luther, for historical and musical reasons!
The Rt. Rev. Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky was a Jewish convert.
Martin Luther was, ahem, anti-Semitic.
I voted for the Bishop who despite great physical hardship did not turn from the work he was called to do to spread the Gospel in China and did not forget his heritage.
The outlines for the two "contestants" are heavily weighted against Martin Luther. Many of his accomplishments stand today, as noted in the original bio in the first round. And, he was the force that rose against the abuses in the Catholic church.
Even though he was such a rascal and must not have read Romans 6 : 1-2, I voted for Martin Luther
This year, I seem to be backing the loser each time. Woo hoo!
You're on a roll, Kim. 🙂
Maybe two votes by two votes, all the way to the end, his fans will come through for him with a come from behind victory of perserverance.
Well, at least I can't see why the Russians would have any interest in Scholastica, do you?
Am I the only person in all of this who, before today, never heard of Bishop Scherescewsky in my entire life?
Nope. You're not, Ray. I never heard of him before Lent Madness. And I think that's the point of this madness: to introduce us to some of these worthies.
In my first vote , it was for SCHERESCEWSKY..AND i REPEAT IT AGAIN. BUT IT IS JUST TOO LATE TO GO INTO "WHY'. Good Night.
Martin Luther! It's 500 years of reformed faith, how can we not honor this amazing human being? THINK of how your inner life and faith has benefited because of Martin Luther. If nothing else, vote for him because MLK was named for him!
This is such a tough choice. Both inteligent writers for the people. I had voted for St Sam early on. Rewarding him with evangelism. I didn't vote for ML, but this had become such a tough choice I read more of these two fela's. What I can up with is there is way to much negative extras about ML. That my heart keep sinking. So...... it's Saint Sam all the way baby!!! GO SAM!!! The references depict this man with a heart.
I'm going to try not to sound cranky, for I certainly don't feel cranky.
But, seriously, how is this even a contest? Luther revolutionized Christendom for 500 years. The good and faithful Schereschewsky did some fine translations that helped in China.
Luther's life has lots of documentation, some of which offends some Madness fans. But there is also much marvelous documentation of his faith, his writing, his labors, his good works, his rich family life. But many are willing to blot out all that because of his virulent anti-Semitism in the last years of his life, when he may not have had his full faculties.
Meanwhile, we have little documentation of Schereschewsky's life and picadillos.
Some are judging Luther because of a couple of great sins. I wonder how many we might find in Schereschewsky's life if anyone had bothered to document his life?
And God forbid that I be judged on a couple of serious sins/failings rather than on the overall arc of my life. Tough crowd here. 🙂
You sound cranky.
I was afraid of that, Paul. But, seriously, I'm not feeling cranky. Just perplexed by some of the comments here. I am glad God's grace is more generous to Martin Luther than many of the commenters here.
Think of it: If we rail against Luther because he exhibited signs of anti-Semitism, how do we vote for any "saint" in the ages of the Crusades or other embarrassing eras of historic Christianity. St. Paul apparently at one time condoned the murder of Christians. Thank God every Christian can be forgiven and every sinner can become a saint!
THANK YOU! Spot on and agreed, how is this even a contest? So much of this contest was swayed by the lopsided blogger's report.
ML held abherrant views relative to Jews, and those were typical of Christians and everyone else in his time. As you say, a great sin. I could not help but see parallels so some of his views then with modern views held by the Israeli state towards Palestinians which are wholeheartedly defended by the American Christian church: house raising, removal, dispossession, on it goes. Not to excuse Luther so much as to say we're vulnerable to that garbage , too.
So sinner, throw that stone.
Thank you, Lily.
I have to agree. And let's be clear that the mission effort at this time, in China and elsewhere, was neo-colonialism, paternalistic at best and imperialist at worst and definitely lacking contextualization. I say this partly based on letters I have read from my own grandparents about decades of service in China. Of their faith I have NO DOUBT--they make me look pathetic--but they were engaged in an extremely flawed endeavor and it was more pronounced in the early days of mission there. Schereschewsky was an intellectual--he knew very little about the lives of the people he was serving. (I don't think, btw, that he would have been guilty of peccadillos.) Most of the whole two-fingered Gospel movement was replaced by more contextual work in healing, teaching and raising up the Chinese than in those early days of just delivering an unfiltered Gospel message. I think this has to be understood about every saint of the whole church--that all were promulgators to some extent of its flaws as well as being great difference makers. We are all inheritors of both the blessings and the sins of the church.
I have to agree. And let's be clear that the mission effort at this time, in China and elsewhere, was neo-colonialism, paternalistic at best and imperialist at worst and definitely lacking contextualization. I say this partly based on letters I have read from my own grandparents about decades of service in China. Of their faith I have NO DOUBT--they make me look pathetic--but they were engaged in an extremely flawed endeavor and it was more pronounced in the early days of mission there. Schereschewsky was an intellectual--he knew very little about the lives of the people he was serving. (I don't think, btw, that he would have been guilty of peccadillos.) Most of the whole two-fingered Gospel movement was replaced by more contextual work in healing, teaching and raising up the Chinese than in those early days of just delivering an unfiltered Gospel message. I think this has to be understood about every saint of the whole church--they were, to some extent, all promulgators of its flaws as well as being great difference-makers. Likewise we are left with both their blessings and their flaws to help redeem.
One has to wonder about "some people" following the big revelation that someone has had robo-votes coming in for one of the candidates. I mean, sure, I think ML is the better candidate, but that is no reason to give Bishop Sch. the finger! Had he won, life would have gone on. He just was outclassed, is all.
We used to value the victory for the manner in which it was got, but now, it means nought how you played, but only who wins. And that despite the SEC injunction, "It's LENT fer cry-sakes!!"
Am distressed that the vote seems to be on fame and massive effect and not on pure qualities of saintliness, isn't that what a golden halo is for? Sure Martin revolutionized Christianity for 500 years, but was it for the best in all ways? He did bear a violent hatred of Jews, even if he was not completely sane at the time; that is some incendiary talk. And still waiting to hear about the state rape of women!!! I go for Joe who seems to have done a lot of good and no harm that anyone can name, at least.
Here's one vote for Schereschewsky from a born and bred Lutheran. Am expecting to be struck by lightning any moment now. 😉 I greatly admire his patience, a quality brother Martin had in short supply.
One for Dr. Luther. "Here I stand, I can do no other!"