Did Martin Luther really nail his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenberg cathedral 1517?

Some believe that it is a striking fundamental error to state that the German theologian and religious reformer Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517.

For this, they give several reasons.

The Arguments

They usually pointed out the following reasons:

  (1) Among others, a renowned Catholic Church historian, Erwin Iserloh (1915-1996) questioned Luther’s nailing of his theses;

(2) There are neither chronicles, letters, kept journals, eye witnesses nor the original documents or printed posters of the 95 theses (written in Latin) that could prove that the event dated on the 31st of October had actually taken place;

(3) The 400-year old tradition based itself solely on the remarks of Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) after Luther’s death (1546) in a speech saying that Luther, with burning eagerness presented his theses onto the cathedral near the castle of Wittenberg. However, Melanchthon himself, they say, is not a reliable source, for during the supposed incident he was a student at a university (Tübingen) far from Wittenberg; and;

(4) The theses were composed in Latin and to have nailed them on the doors of the cathedral for everyone to see and read is viewed as highly improbable on account of the illiterate citizens who couldn’t even read German, not to mention Latin.

Using these as their main premises, they conclude that it is an error to empathically state that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the doors of the cathedral in Wittenberg.

Some replies

Regarding premises 1 and 3, one may wonder why we are supposed to take the stand of a Catholic historian Erwin Iserloh (1915-1996) [who was born 369 years after Luther’s death] and reject the speech of Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) [who was himself a contemporary, and as references say, a close friend and co-worker of Luther].

Logically, we know that Melanchthon’s being a student at a university (Tübingen) far from Wittenberg during the supposed incident does not necessarily prove that his speech was erroneous.

Even the statement that “Erwin Iserloh (1915-1996) questioned Luther’s nailing of his theses” is not clear whether he (Iserloh) was just trying to prove that the “nailing” could be doubted (i.e. not certain), or he was proposing a categorical stand that the “nailing” didn’t happen. The two are different. If he were just suggesting that the “nailing” could be doubted, then it would be illogical on anyone’s part to use his position as premise in a categorical and definite conclusion that it is a “striking fundamental error” to say that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the cathedral in Wittenberg.

On the other hand, if Iserloh were proposing a categorical stand that the “nailing” did not take place, then it would be like saying that he (who was born more than three hundred years after Luther’s time) is 100 percent sure that the incident did not happen—something which Iserloh will not probably put forward.

As regards premise 2, to use the absence of chronicles, letters, kept journals, eye witnesses or the original documents or printed posters of the 95 theses (written in Latin) that could prove that the event dated on the 31st of October had actually taken place as a basis to a clear-cut claim that the incident did not take place is to commit the fallacy Logicians call argumentum ad ignorantiam. (It is equivalent to concluding that a certain person [say, Apostle Peter] did not take a bath in his whole life simply because there are neither chronicles, letters, kept journals, eye witnesses nor testimony that could prove that he did. Take note that in the case of Luther’s nailing the theses, there is at least Melanchthon’s speech as a testimony of a contemporary, close friend, and co-worker.)

Luther’s theses’ being composed in Latin and the citizens’ being not able to read the language (premise 4) still do not rule out what many historians have written that Luther nailed his theses on the doors of the cathedral. Among other possible reasons, nailing them on the cathedral seemed to be a good way to let the people (the victims of clerical abuse and indulgences) know that he’s challenging the administrators of the cathedral (i.e. the Catholic authorities who understand Latin) in a debate or discussion. Doing such could add pressure to the Catholic authorities not to ignore his challenge.

At the most, the arguments submitted could only render the statement that “Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517” as “not certain” (or could be doubted), but not necessarily a “striking fundamental error.”

Many historical knowledge could indeed be doubted and it is the task of the historians to determine what should be considered as a convention. And for practical reasons, many believe that it is safer not to go against the conventions decided upon by historians as long as there is no solid opposing evidence that counter them.

Read also:

Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook
The Worldview of Atheism
Why I Am Not an Evolutionist 
From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories