M
marca37
Guest
can someone tell me if Luther changed something “words” in the bible? or how was the first person to make protestant bible?
thankyou and God bless!
thankyou and God bless!
Help! Luther changed words & First Protestant Bible (Edited Title)
- Status
D
dondon
Guest
Hi! I could not recall anymore if Luther really changed a word in the Bible. But as regards your question on the protestant Bible, it really boils down to the question of canonicity of the biblical books. The Catholic Church accepts 73 books both in the old and new testaments as canonical compared to the 68 books accepted by the Protestants. These books are called by the Catholic Church deuterocanonical, and apocryphal by the protestant.
po18guy
Well-known member
As I recall, he added the German word “allein” (alone) in Romans, to change Saint Paul’s meaning. He did this to justify his separation from the authority of the Catholic Church, basing his authority on himself and on his private interpretation of scripture. Thus, Luther’s bible read that salvation comes through “faith alone”, when Saint Paul clearly said only “faith”.
M
marca37
Guest
M
marca37
Guest
thankyou so much!
God bless!
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
There was quite an issue made by some about the use by Luther of allein which is German for alone as in faith alone.
Luther explained that yes, it wasn’t literalistically in the Greek, but the German required it in order to transmit the meaning of the Greek into German.
It is supported by the fact he used allein exactly the same way in other passages that at the least show Luther did not simply insert it into one passage due to theological motivation.
Realize that translation is always a difficult task, and there is usually not just a list of plop this word in whenever you see that word. If that was the case, you could just use a computer and run a word substitution and have the perfect transaltion. What you really get is a wooden, incorrect, not understandable at all mess.
Anyway, you can read Luther’s explanation in his letter on translation. iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt
For some reason, people who can’t understand the process of translation read it and only want to focus on the style of writing and the insults.
For instance, if I say "You are saved by faith and not anything else, neither works, nor knowledge, nor love.
Now if I then restated it as “You are saved by faith alone, not works, nor knowledge nor love.” Do you say since you cannot see the word “alone” in the first that it is a mistranslation?
That’s really what a lot of people do reading that passage which literally says we are saved by faith not works. They look at Martin Luther’s translation of faith alone and not works, say they don’t see the alone there in a literal fashion and conclude we are saved by faith and works.
As for the canon. That was used in different ways. Luther’s Bible included the entire canon Catholics recognize but set the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonicals in a separate section, he wasn’t the first to do so. Anyway, that made a lot of sense if you were intending for a broad audience and not just the learned to have access. The learned also had access to things like the Glossa ordinaria, which taught the difference in authority of the deuterocanonicals. The Glossa ordinaria was in Latin and to my knowledge no one ever even made on into another language so the person who could read the Glossa ordinaria wouldn’t have needed you to translate.
Anyway that difference in authority is the real question, much of the rest is just what name you want to call things.
Many will tell you that the Council of Trent ruled that the Deuterocanonicals were to be accepted as authoritative scripture. That’s really not true, as revealed from The History of the Council of Trent by Catholic Historian Jedin, the Council specifically voted not to decide their authority, so if they have any authority or not is really an open question in Catholicism. The Orthodox and Protestant branches are in fundamental agreement that they are not, and if you what high level Vatican documents carefully you notice they are really pretty careful not to rely on the Deuteros either. As contrasted with the average Catholic who has been told many times they are authoritative, and so believes falsely the Catholic Church has ruled on that.
Funny what locking the writings into a vault and not letting anyone examine them for hundreds of years leads to isn’t it?
JJ
Luther explained that yes, it wasn’t literalistically in the Greek, but the German required it in order to transmit the meaning of the Greek into German.
It is supported by the fact he used allein exactly the same way in other passages that at the least show Luther did not simply insert it into one passage due to theological motivation.
Realize that translation is always a difficult task, and there is usually not just a list of plop this word in whenever you see that word. If that was the case, you could just use a computer and run a word substitution and have the perfect transaltion. What you really get is a wooden, incorrect, not understandable at all mess.
Anyway, you can read Luther’s explanation in his letter on translation. iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt
For some reason, people who can’t understand the process of translation read it and only want to focus on the style of writing and the insults.
For instance, if I say "You are saved by faith and not anything else, neither works, nor knowledge, nor love.
Now if I then restated it as “You are saved by faith alone, not works, nor knowledge nor love.” Do you say since you cannot see the word “alone” in the first that it is a mistranslation?
That’s really what a lot of people do reading that passage which literally says we are saved by faith not works. They look at Martin Luther’s translation of faith alone and not works, say they don’t see the alone there in a literal fashion and conclude we are saved by faith and works.
As for the canon. That was used in different ways. Luther’s Bible included the entire canon Catholics recognize but set the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonicals in a separate section, he wasn’t the first to do so. Anyway, that made a lot of sense if you were intending for a broad audience and not just the learned to have access. The learned also had access to things like the Glossa ordinaria, which taught the difference in authority of the deuterocanonicals. The Glossa ordinaria was in Latin and to my knowledge no one ever even made on into another language so the person who could read the Glossa ordinaria wouldn’t have needed you to translate.
Anyway that difference in authority is the real question, much of the rest is just what name you want to call things.
Many will tell you that the Council of Trent ruled that the Deuterocanonicals were to be accepted as authoritative scripture. That’s really not true, as revealed from The History of the Council of Trent by Catholic Historian Jedin, the Council specifically voted not to decide their authority, so if they have any authority or not is really an open question in Catholicism. The Orthodox and Protestant branches are in fundamental agreement that they are not, and if you what high level Vatican documents carefully you notice they are really pretty careful not to rely on the Deuteros either. As contrasted with the average Catholic who has been told many times they are authoritative, and so believes falsely the Catholic Church has ruled on that.
Funny what locking the writings into a vault and not letting anyone examine them for hundreds of years leads to isn’t it?
JJ
po18guy
Well-known member
Yes, Luther did argue that, didn’t he? And Calvin and Zwingli agreed, until they split off and continued the disintegration which brother Martin initiated. Can Luther possibly be proud of the 30,000+ disagreeing denominations that now exist?
Really? Please reveal any passages or historical documents showing the other phrases (in context) or the popular uprising that clammored for “allein” to be inserted?
Modern aircraft also have these. They are called “canards”. At least in aeronautics, they actually occurred.
YES! Please do explain the “difference in authority” (apostasy?) that suddenly came upon the church. This sounds suspiciously like Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrine.
The by now hackneyed expression “difference in authority” does exist, but it is not in the church. It was in the massive ego of Luther “allein”.
This has lapsed from fantasy into irrationality. Sorry.
Of course, you just coincidentally happen to attend the church which bears Luther’s very own name. No ego involved there, huh? A good time to reflect on what Saint Paul meant when he penned the following:
1 Corinthians 1:11-13 “My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (or Luther?)
Recall that, when challenged as to by what authority he had changed scripture, Luther declared “by my own authority”. This was consistent with other areas of his behavior.
Two questions:
- Does the Holy Spirit unite?
- Does the demon divide?
S
savedsinner
Guest
So, if I were to read a German bible today, this wording would be found in all the German bibles?
C
cydonian
Guest
Would you please share with us the entire content of these ‘high level Vatican documents’ that you are privy to?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Council of Trent:
“they declare the Vulgate to be the authentic text for sermons and disputations, although this did not exclude textual emendations.”
Since the Deuterocanonicals are included in the Vulgate they are considered authoritative scripture.
Where specifically in the Church documents of Trent does it say that we are to believe they are not authoritative?
R
Ruthie
Guest
Yes, Luther did add the word “alone” to his Bible. See here. Scroll down to about halfway between the two illustrations to read the relevant paragraph. In the 2nd illustration, you can pick it out (with difficulty). It’s spelled “alleyn” as opposed to the modern “allein.”
Why is it wrong?
First, put the verse in its context. The passage, Romans 3:27-31, speaks, not of faith as opposed to the Law, but of faith beside the Law. If God is the God of Jews only, then the Law would apply. But He is also the God of the Gentiles, to whom the Law does not apply. Both Gentile and Jew are justified through their faith - but the Law is **not **overthrown.
Paul uses two different words; in the RSV, the Jews are justified “on the ground of” their faith, and the Gentiles “through” their faith.
Looking at my Strongs Dictionary, the difference is this: The Jews are justified from a starting point (G1537), and the Gentiles through a channel (G1223).
Since the Law is not overthrown, I figure that must be the “starting point” of the Jews faith. The Gentiles do not have the Law to base their faith on. Their faith comes “through a channel:” the miracles, the Resurrection, the teachings of Jesus, or some kind of “burning bush,” perhaps.
So, since we have the Jews’ faith from the Law, and the Gentiles’ faith through something else, then the Law is overlooked in this passage, but not completely disregarded. Paul brings it back in, specifically, in verse 31.
Therefore, to add “alone” to Rom 3:28 is to contradict the meaning of the passage.
Your sister in Christ,
Ruthie
Why is it wrong?
First, put the verse in its context. The passage, Romans 3:27-31, speaks, not of faith as opposed to the Law, but of faith beside the Law. If God is the God of Jews only, then the Law would apply. But He is also the God of the Gentiles, to whom the Law does not apply. Both Gentile and Jew are justified through their faith - but the Law is **not **overthrown.
Paul uses two different words; in the RSV, the Jews are justified “on the ground of” their faith, and the Gentiles “through” their faith.
Looking at my Strongs Dictionary, the difference is this: The Jews are justified from a starting point (G1537), and the Gentiles through a channel (G1223).
Since the Law is not overthrown, I figure that must be the “starting point” of the Jews faith. The Gentiles do not have the Law to base their faith on. Their faith comes “through a channel:” the miracles, the Resurrection, the teachings of Jesus, or some kind of “burning bush,” perhaps.
So, since we have the Jews’ faith from the Law, and the Gentiles’ faith through something else, then the Law is overlooked in this passage, but not completely disregarded. Paul brings it back in, specifically, in verse 31.
Therefore, to add “alone” to Rom 3:28 is to contradict the meaning of the passage.
Your sister in Christ,
Ruthie
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
For a passage that uses the same language turn to Mark 13:32.
(Mar 13:32 DRB) But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.
Note how Luther tanslated it: (Mar 13:32 GLB) Von dem Tage aber und der Stunde weiß niemand, auch die Engel im Himmel nicht, auch der Sohn nicht, sondern allein der Vater.
Only the Father. But the text has no word for only there. The DRB translates it more word for word.
But both are really the same. The meaning is that the Father alone knows the time, no one else.
I sure wouldn’t think Catholics would object to it since first, it is proper language that accurately transmits the meaning. Matter of fact, I know for a fact the Catholic Church doesn’t object, look how they more recently translate it.
(Mar 13:32 NAB-A) But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
There is no Greek word in the passage that translates as only. But the meaning is there.
That’s one example. Do we need to search down and go through every other use of allein by Luther? Many of them do have a Greek word that would translate as allein in the passage but some others do not.
Luther argued that good German demanded the usage and my point was that is supported by the fact he did not follow the practice in only one passage, which if he did, it could be argued that he did it only out of doctrinal motivation. Since he did it in other passages as well, passages not in controversy, can we now agree that it at least represented Martin Luther’s normal usage of German?
JJ
(Mar 13:32 DRB) But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.
Note how Luther tanslated it: (Mar 13:32 GLB) Von dem Tage aber und der Stunde weiß niemand, auch die Engel im Himmel nicht, auch der Sohn nicht, sondern allein der Vater.
Only the Father. But the text has no word for only there. The DRB translates it more word for word.
But both are really the same. The meaning is that the Father alone knows the time, no one else.
I sure wouldn’t think Catholics would object to it since first, it is proper language that accurately transmits the meaning. Matter of fact, I know for a fact the Catholic Church doesn’t object, look how they more recently translate it.
(Mar 13:32 NAB-A) But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
There is no Greek word in the passage that translates as only. But the meaning is there.
That’s one example. Do we need to search down and go through every other use of allein by Luther? Many of them do have a Greek word that would translate as allein in the passage but some others do not.
Luther argued that good German demanded the usage and my point was that is supported by the fact he did not follow the practice in only one passage, which if he did, it could be argued that he did it only out of doctrinal motivation. Since he did it in other passages as well, passages not in controversy, can we now agree that it at least represented Martin Luther’s normal usage of German?
JJ
po18guy
Well-known member
However, the Name of the Father is singular and exclusive, so “alone” or “allein” are actual redundancies. Faith is not an exclusive term and was and is used in combination with many other words. The act of Luther inserting the word has more to do with his rebellious personality than a scrupulous search for grammatical errors in scripture.
“God alone” is clear and accurate. “Faith alone” is not - especially since so much else in scripture contradicts it. James 2:24 is 100"% opposed to Luther’s modification stating that we are “NOT (saved) by faith alone”. Again, James stresses that he demonstrates his faith by his works, and that faith without works is dead. How can one expect favorable judgment if his faith is dead?.
Since Paul did not say “alone” and James said “not by faith alone”, you are treading upon thin scriptural ice here. Faith is not a self-centered, private possession, but rather leads one to a loving and sacrificial relationship lived out amongst one’s neighbors.
Faith must lead to works of mercy. Revelation 20:12-13 mentions nothing about being judged by faith, rather by what each soul had “done”. Now, faith is certainly a part of that, but not nearly all.
Paul himself writes this in the same book: Romans 2:6-8 God "will give to each person according to what he has done.“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”
There is no “faith alone” in scripture. Until Luther.
Again, I must ask:
- Does the Holy Spirit unite?
- Does the demon divide?
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Did you know that Luther wasn’t the first to place “alone” in that verse and that Catholics before him did the same thing?
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, JJ!
Isn’t it also funny that one person highjacks the Holy Spirit, condemns the Church founded by Christ and inserts his own theology into the world… then, in just a matter of seconds, his correction explodes into several corrections which spouse hundreds which give birth to thousands?
Funny, isn’t it, how Christ Command to be One results in tens of thousands “me,” “me,” “me?”
Funny too how Luther reference to the Epistle of St. James (as the Gospel of Straw) is not reflective of his personal theology?
Funny, still, that even those things that Luther did not reject were later rejected by the next generations of protestants and how some of the books (St. James, Apocalypse…) that he removed from the Canon were later retrieved by the next generations of protestants… funny, right?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Nope!
Do you have documentation that these other Catholics (Luther was Catholic) produced their own Biblical text and theology to reflect this insertion? Did they too claim self-authority?
Maran atha!
Angel
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
See further:
Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.
Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).
Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.
Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.
po18guy
Well-known member
Even if, he taught denial of Church authority and begin teaching the faith of the ego. He HAD to change scripture, as it did not support even one of his “solas”. His contemporaries, and his followers being quick studies, quickly fell away from him and formed their own truths.
He opened the door to contradictory scripture, welcoming private interpretation. Since then, it’s become a shambles.
D
drtwhite
Guest
If you want a brief, good book on the Bible and its evolution of sorts, you need to read the following book, “Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church” (ISBN 0-89555-137-3), available from Amazon.com, among other sources. The book is inexpensive (less than $10.00) and easy to read; it should answer most questions one would have about the formation of the Bible and the later attempts of Reformationists to alter the Bible (sola scriptura, etc.).
One mnemonic I learned in (Catholic) high school was to remember “T J Web II” as a way of remembering the books of the Catholic Bible that weren’t included in the revised (Protestant) bibles–those books being: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of the Macabees (spelling errors, if any, are mine).
The book, once read, becomes an excellent “loaner” (I have several myself used in this manner) to give to others (Catholic and non-Catholic) to let them know from whence the Bible comes. I have given such to an ordained Baptist minister with whom i continue a dialog about Catholicism; he read it and had no comeback to refute anything written in that book; so it’s well documented and referenced.
“Scientia vincit omnia” (knowledge conquers all things).
One mnemonic I learned in (Catholic) high school was to remember “T J Web II” as a way of remembering the books of the Catholic Bible that weren’t included in the revised (Protestant) bibles–those books being: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of the Macabees (spelling errors, if any, are mine).
The book, once read, becomes an excellent “loaner” (I have several myself used in this manner) to give to others (Catholic and non-Catholic) to let them know from whence the Bible comes. I have given such to an ordained Baptist minister with whom i continue a dialog about Catholicism; he read it and had no comeback to refute anything written in that book; so it’s well documented and referenced.
“Scientia vincit omnia” (knowledge conquers all things).
J
jcrichton
Guest
Did any of these writers create their own theology, formed a seperate religious group and deconstructed the Bible’s Canon to reflect their personal belief?
Maran atha!
Angel
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Unfortunately they probably held most of the same errors you hold.
I don’t know if they believed the apocrypha to be canonical or not…it’s a pitty if they did.
- Status