R
rfournier103
Guest
Did Martin Luther ADD the word “ALONE” to Romans 3:28, and is it still present in Protestant bibles today? If so, why?
- Status
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Yes. His defense in his own words is as follows (where you see ***, Luther called Catholics a word for donkey): *You also tell me that the Papists are causing a great fuss because St. Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to be tolerated.
…
I]f your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They write books? So do I.
I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together.
…
Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.” Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them. They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. An *** truly does not have to sing much as he is already known for his ears.
For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word “sola” - even though in Romans 3 it wasn’t “sola” I used but “solum” or “tantum”. That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! However, I have used “sola fides” in other places, and I want to use both “solum” and “sola”. I have continually tried translating in a pure and accurate German.
…
I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a vast number of such everyday cases.
(Martin Luther, An Open Letter On Translating, 1530)*
…
I]f your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They write books? So do I.
I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together.
…
Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.” Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them. They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. An *** truly does not have to sing much as he is already known for his ears.
For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word “sola” - even though in Romans 3 it wasn’t “sola” I used but “solum” or “tantum”. That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! However, I have used “sola fides” in other places, and I want to use both “solum” and “sola”. I have continually tried translating in a pure and accurate German.
…
I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a vast number of such everyday cases.
(Martin Luther, An Open Letter On Translating, 1530)*
J
janhendrik
Guest
You ask : “Did Martin Luther ADD the word “ALONE” to Romans 3:28, and is it still present in Protestant bibles today? If so, why?”
Well, in 1545 Luther translated Romans 3:28 as: “So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben”.
The word “allein” translates as “alone”, and this is not found in any “Protestant” Bible that I am familiar with. In fact, in most of the older Protestant English translations Romans 3:28 is a variation on what is found in the Douay-Rheims translation, e.g. -
Douay Rheims (1899 edition) - For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.
King James Version (1611) - Therefore wee conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the deeds of the Law.
Bishops Bible (1568) - Therfore, we holde that a man is iustified by fayth, without the deedes of the lawe.
Geneva Bible (1587) - Therefore we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Lawe.
In the newer translation the verse is put a little differently but the word “alone” still does not appear -
American Standard Version (1901) - We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
International Standard Version (1996-2001) - For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works prescribed by the law.
New International Version (2005-2007) - For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observingy the law.
Who knows where Luther got that “allein” from? In the history of Bible translations it is not unknown for translators to “strengthen” their position a bit. On the other hand, I for one does not know which source document Luther used. Did he translate from the Greek? From the Latin? Or did he indeed add that “allein”, to better prove the point that he was trying to make?
So! My answer to your first question is: “I do not know whether or not Luther added to the Bible”.
And to you second question: “I have not been able to find that “alone” in any other “Protestant” Bible - and that includes a number of translation into Afrikaans and Dutch, languages you are possibly not acquainted with.”
Jan
Well, in 1545 Luther translated Romans 3:28 as: “So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben”.
The word “allein” translates as “alone”, and this is not found in any “Protestant” Bible that I am familiar with. In fact, in most of the older Protestant English translations Romans 3:28 is a variation on what is found in the Douay-Rheims translation, e.g. -
Douay Rheims (1899 edition) - For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.
King James Version (1611) - Therefore wee conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the deeds of the Law.
Bishops Bible (1568) - Therfore, we holde that a man is iustified by fayth, without the deedes of the lawe.
Geneva Bible (1587) - Therefore we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Lawe.
In the newer translation the verse is put a little differently but the word “alone” still does not appear -
American Standard Version (1901) - We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
International Standard Version (1996-2001) - For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works prescribed by the law.
New International Version (2005-2007) - For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observingy the law.
Who knows where Luther got that “allein” from? In the history of Bible translations it is not unknown for translators to “strengthen” their position a bit. On the other hand, I for one does not know which source document Luther used. Did he translate from the Greek? From the Latin? Or did he indeed add that “allein”, to better prove the point that he was trying to make?
So! My answer to your first question is: “I do not know whether or not Luther added to the Bible”.
And to you second question: “I have not been able to find that “alone” in any other “Protestant” Bible - and that includes a number of translation into Afrikaans and Dutch, languages you are possibly not acquainted with.”
Jan
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
Och Jan, allemaal vooroordelen, dat is toch nergens goed voor?
I’m in the Dutch Reformed church too
- Status