I was very disappointed by your last response Jon. Much of it was absolutely false, abusive, and very “Luther-like”. As such, it does not deserve a response. As you know though Jon, Eric sometimes posts warnings to discuss the topic, and NOT THE POSTER. Does this apply to you also or not? If not, could you please explain why, specifically and exactly of course?
Since you must have missed this question the first time around Jon, I will repost it.
Where in the world did Luther obtain the Authority to do a (supposed) translation AND inflict his radical views on Scripture so as to make it appear to support those radical views?
As you know Jon, prior to Wartburg, Luther had been released from his vows by his Order, excommunicated by the Church as a heretic, and declared an outlaw by the Empire. It would seem that if such a person undertook a translation it would be solely upon their own personal authority. At that point, he certainly did not have any authority from the Church. ** Do you think, Jon, that Luther was operating under anything more than his own personal authority in producing the Luther Bible? **
As for the influence of prior German Bibles on Luther’s ‘translation’, Hartman Grisar provides some additional information.
“J. Geffcken was probably not far wrong when he wrote in 1855 in “Der Bilderkatechismus des 15. Jahrhunderts”, “**that the similarity between Luther’s version and the old [German] translations could not be merely fortuitous.” **
The same was repeated with still greater emphasis by Krafft in 1883 after he had instituted fresh comparisons:
“Whoever compares these passages can no longer doubt that the agreement between Luther’s work and the mediaeval German Bible is not merely accidental.” The result of further research will probably be to confirm the guarded opinion expressed as long ago as 1803 by G. W. Meyer of Gottingen in his " Geschichte der Schrifterklarung ": **to assume that “the older translation was not unknown to him”, “that he consulted it here and there,” and even “made his own some of its happy renderings,” is quite compatible with a high esteem for Luther s translation. **
Modern Protestant writers in this field are also somewhat skeptical about the theory of Luther s complete ignorance of the older translation of the Bible, and the assertion that he made no use whatever of it." Grisar, Vol. 5, page 545-6
There is also the matter of Luther’s qualifications to do a translation on the NT. One would think that this would be a job for an experienced Scholar. Granted, Luther was a Professor in Biblia, but in fact, he lectured on only three NT books by 1531, which was nine years after his much celebrated ‘translation’. He spent much more time lecturing on the OT than on the NT.
If Luther used a German Translation, or more than one, then his Bible cannot really be called a ‘translation’ can it?
Grisar documents Luther’s reaction to criticism about his ‘translation’. Knowing Luther, it’s all very predicable and abusive:
“Hence he [Luther] relieves his feelings in his usual way by an outburst of noisy vituperation: “All the Papists in a lump" are not "clever enough to understand or translate a single chapter of Scripture aright, no, not even the first two words. "Their braying, their " he-haw, he-haw, is too weak to harm my translation. I know full well what art, industry, reason and common sense go to make a good translation, but, as for them, they understand this less even than the miller’s beast.” It is quite true, so he says, that the four letters, s o I a, do not occur in Romans, "which letters these blockheads stare at as stupidly as a cow does at a new gate" ; but, so he goes on, it is not our business to inquire “of the Latin letters how to speak German, as these donkeys do.” "No Pope- or mule-, who has never even attempted it himself, shall I suffer to be my judge, or to find fault with me in this matter.** Whoever does not want my version has simply to let it alone and … be rewarded with the devil’s thanks." " For the future I shall simply despise them and get others to do the same, so long as they remain such people, I beg your pardon, donkeys." Grisar, Vol. V, pg. 517
Charming!
I don’t think that anybody here is all that surprised at the way that Luther dealt with the inevitable criticism of his Bible. His comments do though reveal a great deal about his nature and the nature of his ‘translation’.
Grisar also documents the negative opinions of Luther’s Bible by other Protestant ‘Reformers”:
**“Even to the followers of the new faith Luther s translation gave offence owing to its want of fidelity, **Bullinger, writing to Bucer on a certain question, remarks: **“Luther admits that he has not been faithful in his translation of the Bible, in fact he is almost inclined to withdraw it.” **J. L. Holler, who in 1654 wrote a pamphlet about **his return from Protestantism to the Catholic Church, says that what moved him to take this step was his discovery of Luther’s dishonest rendering. He gave a long list of passages where Luther s Bible departs from the true text.” **Grisar, Vol. V, pg. 520-1
In other words, it was a little too ‘Salvation by Faith Alone’ to really be an accurate depiction of the Gospel Message.
As usual Grisar gets right down to the essence of the matter. What is shocking though is that, at least according to Bullinger, Luther admitted that his translation was not “faithful”, and that another Protestant returned to the Church as a result of learning of Luther’s ‘dishonest rendering’.
)
