Martin Luther's translation of the bible

[Starwarsfan2]

Hi Steve,

Luther’s ‘problems’ with several books of the NT came completely to the surface when he ‘translated’ the NT into German in early 1522. Luther’s translating the Bible into German is often portrayed as his finest achievement. I would agree, but not for the reasons that his supporters normally suggest. The “Legend” of Luther would have us believe that he was an incredibly brilliant Scholar and that he was gifted in Greek, Hebrew, the Classics, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, etc., etc. His “most excellent” translation of the Scriptures into German is often hailed as being an astonishing accomplishment. However, often when this is mentioned, the fact that there were at least 26 German translations printed on the printing press BEFORE Luther’s is not. This begs the question:

If there were already 26 Bibles in German available in 1522, then what was it, specifically and exactly (of course) that made it ‘necessary’ for Luther to do his own translation? What was it that compelled Luther to produce the 27th (or whatever) translation into German?

What would be truly astonishing about the story of Luther’s translation would be if it were actually true, meaning true as in it being an effort independent of any other German translation. That is not at all likely and in fact, it is virtually impossible as suggested by Henry Clay Vedder, a Protestant Scholar:

“In a letter to his friend Lange, dated December 18th, (1521) he announces his intention to translate the New Testament into German, in terms necessitating the inference that the work had not yet begun. On March 30, 1522, he writes Spalatin that he has translated the entire New Testament…This leaves little more than ten weeks for the completion of the work…….
**
It would be difficult in any case to believe that a complete translation of the entire New Testament could have been made by a man of Luther’s limited attainments in Greek, and with the imperfect apparatus that he possessed, in the short space of ten weeks. **And, as we shall see, another task occupied a part of his attention and time during these very weeks. **A minister today, who has had the Greek course of a college and seminary, is a far better scholar than Luther. Let such a man, if he thinks Luther’s achievement possible, attempt the accurate translation of a single chapter of the New Testament – such a translation as he would be willing to print under his own name – and multiply the time consumed by two hundred and sixty chapters. He will speedily be convinced that the feat attributed to Luther is an impossible one. **What then? Is the whole story false? That, too, is impossible – the main facts are too well attested. The solution of an apparently insoluble contradiction is a very simple one: Luther did not make an independent translation; he never claimed he did; none of his contemporaries made that claim for him. It is only later admirers who have made this statement to enhance his glory, just as they have unduly exaggerated the paucity of the Scriptures and the popular ignorance of them before Luther’s day, for the same purpose. We now know that both these assertions are untrue to historic fact, and have misled many unwary persons into inferences far indeed from the truth. The two assertions are so intimately connected, that in showing either to be unfounded the other is also and necessarily controverted.” Henry Clay Vedder, “The Reformation in Germany”, pg. 169-170

Here we have Vedder, a reputable Protestant Scholar (actually a Professor of Church history at Crozer Theological Seminary, Upland, Pennsylvania), pointing to Luther’s “limited attainments” in Greek. If Luther was “qualified” to translate from Greek, then hundreds of thousands of modern day “not so great” Scholars would be much more qualified.

What actually IS astonishing is that Luther completed his translation of the entire New Testament in only 10 or 11 weeks, and only part time at that. It took Jerome decades to produce his translation to Latin in the Vulgate. By comparison, Luther’s ‘translation’ was a slap dash effort by an average Scholar. How could he have believed that such a rushed effort was worthy of being considered a valid respectful actual translation of the Holy Scriptures?

Actually , he Was a scholar in Greek and Latin , he did make a translation with the help of Justin Jonas , Phillip , and other scholars . and furthermore, although not the first , it was the best German translation at the time , the previous ones you mention were in poor German and used mostly by clergy not the layman and women , ( from Wikipedia , Luther’s bible , which quotes from several historians on the matter )

 

[Duane1966]

Actually , he Was a scholar in Greek and Latin , he did make a translation with the help of Justin Jonas , Phillip , and other scholars . and furthermore, although not the first , it was the best German translation at the time , the previous ones you mention were in poor German and used mostly by clergy not the layman and women , ( from Wikipedia , Luther’s bible , which quotes from several historians on the matter )

You better read some other sources. From the link I posted earlier. These are a few excerpts:

The learned Lutheran pastor of St. Michael’s in Hamburg, Johannes Geffcken (1803–1864), wrote in 1855 that the youthful experiences of a poor mendicant are an inadequate measure of the educational level of the entire German people at that time, and that the language of the pre-Reformation translations was nowhere near as bad or as lacking in influence on Luther’s translation as some have argued:

The experiences of a poor mendicant are not sufficient to describe the state of education of the entire German people. In any case the works of the fifteenth century provide unambiguous proof that a quite thorough acquaintance with Scripture was no rarity. …] It is admittedly the easiest thing in the world to put together, and in short order, a long list of the errors in both the High and Low German editions and which are mostly the result of a word-by-word rendering of the Latin. But it would be a great error to imagine that these translations were utterly clumsy, had no influence on the people, and passed nothing on to Luther’s translations. We find that a sort of German Vulgate had developed over the fifteenth century, which Luther often adopted without having to change much.86

In 1883, Wilhelm Krafft (Lutheran scholar) questioned the reigning orthodoxy concerning Luther’s unique genius, arguing that vernacular Bibles circulated widely before Luther’s time, and echoing Geffcken’s point by arguing** Luther was able to translate the New Testament so quickly because so much of the Bible—especially the Sunday Gospels and Epistles—was already widely known and read,** thus providing a “large storehouse of usable Biblical linguistic material on which he could draw.” Krafft compared in parallel columns a large number of passages from the “ninth” printed German Bible (Nuremberg: Anton Koberger, 1483) with Luther’s September Testament, then with passages from the Hebrew Scriptures in Luther’s 1541 German Bible. Krafft concluded, on good evidence, that these passages are too similar for Luther not to have drawn on the older German tradition.87 The Catholic scholar Hermann Wedewer supported him,88 and the debate opened by Malou took on a new shape, this time as a scholarly campaign of the Kulturkampf. The Luther scholar Paul Pietsch, who was happy to insist on the idea that Luther’s Bible was better than its predecessors because it was based on the original texts and reached a much higher literary standard, attempted to strike a balance between Protestant allegiance and dispassionate scholarship when he wrote in 1881 that

It is not our task to decide whether or not a specious enthusiasm for the Protestant cause has contributed to this neglect [of the pre-Lutheran German Bible]. Biltz89 … is very much inclined to the position that many are indeed still caught in the trap of imagining that Luther’s accomplishments might be lessened if the existence of a pre-existing German Bible translation were admitted and accorded any sort of closer attention.… Luther’s Bible translation … does not need us to consider, falsely, the older translation to be a mere slavish imitation of the Vulgate. Luther’s importance is not lessened by** the recognition that an active concern for the German Bible existed throughout the Middle Ages, that it was stronger than ever in the 14th and 15th centuries, and that the greatest manifestation of this concern was precisely the pre-Lutheran printed German Bible.90**

Right after the war, in 1949, we find the archaeologist and Landeskonservator of Baden-Württemberg (not a professional scholar of the Bible or of the Reformation), Oscar Paret (1889–1972)** claiming that Luther had relied solely on Erasmus’ Greek New Testament**. Paret does admit that the latter left a good deal to be desired itself.95 We find the same position in the great Yale church historian Roland Bainton’s 1952 textbook, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century.96 Bainton seems to have been unaware of the debate and of the strong evidence for Luther’s reliance on earlier German versions. He simply asserts that the translation was made entirely from Erasmus’ Greek text; this article of faith is repeated in the article by Hans Volz on German Bibles to 1600 in the1963 Cambridge History of the Bible97 and in the 2001 Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible.98

And about those pre-Reformation translations, 14 of those German vernacular bibles were in Early New High German. Luther’s version was also in Early New High German, so the argument that the lay could not read those translations, falls by the wayside.

In 2001, Owen Chadwick noted in a book addressed to a larger readership that there were many printed editions of the Bible before Luther: in Latin, 94; and he mentions 16 in German.** In fact there were 14 in early new High German**, 4 in early new Low German, and 4 in early modern Netherlandish, for a total of 22 Germanic editions by 1518.

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

part 2.

Not to get sidetracked on Luther himself, but was he lying or just mistaken when he said this?

In his ‘Table Talk’, Luther is reported to have presented an example of the ‘extreme blindness’ under the Papacy, on the 22nd of February, 1538, namely that “Thirty years ago, no-one read the Bible,** and it was unknown to all**. The prophets were not spoken of and were considered impossible to understand. And when I was twenty years old, I had never seen a Bible. I thought that the Gospels or Epistles could be found only in the postills [lectionaries] for the Sunday readings…

…a few of Luther’s contemporaries saw things quite differently. Henri Daniel-Rops, in The Protestant Reformation addressed the question from the point of view of a putative late-medieval decadence in faith:

Was the Church in Germany in need of reform? The need here was no greater and no less than elsewhere in Christendom. Faith was very much alive in Germany. In 1494 a worthy merchant wrote in his diary:** “My country abounds in Bibles, works on salvation, editions of the Fathers, and other books of a like sort.**

”76

Would not a merchant who travels have a good feel for the abundance of bibles in a country? Or was that merchant lying, or mistaken? Or did a ton of bibles disappear in a relatively short amount of time?

 

[steido01]

Not to get sidetracked on Luther himself, but was he lying or just mistaken when he said this?

This post is in poor taste. If you are as well-read on Luther as you portray yourself to be, then you know perfectly well that anything from the “Tabletalk” is second-hand hearsay. Furthermore, it’s not difficult to see that he’s talking in hyperbole (though, frankly, it’s not far from the truth). If you are aware of these facts, then it seems this sort of comment serve no purpose but to precisely ‘get sidetracked on Luther himself.’ You’re more charitable than this.

Would not a merchant who travels have a good feel for the abundance of bibles in a country?

You’re taking the word of a nameless merchant over that of a learned, widely-published, Church-educated doctor who had traveled to Rome and across the Empire? If you’re serious, this demonstrates quite a bit of bias.

Or was that merchant lying, or mistaken? Or did a ton of bibles disappear in a relatively short amount of time?

What constitutes “a ton of bibles?” Were they full “bibles,” or books from the “bible?” Remember, your church hadn’t codified the canon yet – that came well after Luther’s death. What was the context of your merchant’s letter? Was he trying to convince his audience that his land was particularly pious (that certainly would have fit the times, what with the selling of indulgences, fake relics and the like)? Was he speaking in hyperbole?

**Oh, and one last note about your mysterious merchant. “He” was quoted in L’Eglise de la Renaissance et de la Réforme. Une révolution religieuse: La Réforme Protestante, published in Paris in 1955. But the author “doesn’t bother to cite his source—neither its origin nor the original German text.” (I’m quoting the author of your link) As far as you or I know, this was entirely made up.

So your entire argument to discredit Luther is based on poorly-inferred arguments, which are themselves based on hearsay of two individuals, one of whom is an anonymous compiler of ‘likely quotes,’ and the other — well, no one can even speculate the author’s name, as he may not have even existed. Sorry, it’s not very compelling.**

 

[Topper17]

Note to the thread:

“Table Talk” is viewed by Lutheranism as being something MUCH greater than ‘second hand heresy’. In fact, there are several versions of Table Talk, including one in my 55 Volume set of Luther’s Works. All of these versions of Table Talk are published by Lutherans. Seriously, who else would publish them?

As a matter of fact, there are TONS of Lutheran Biographers and Church Historians who routinely quote from “Table Talk”. The suggestion that Table Talk should not be posted here has a lot more to do with the ‘inconvenient FACTS’ being revealed than with it being less than factual. If Lutheran Scholars find it reputable enough to quote in their books, then there is no problem quoting it here.

 

[steido01]

Note to the thread:

“Table Talk” is viewed by Lutheranism as being something MUCH greater than ‘second hand heresy’ [sic]. In fact, there are several versions of Table Talk, including one in my 55 Volume set of Luther’s Works. All of these versions of Table Talk are published by Lutherans. Seriously, who else would publish them?

As a matter of fact, there are TONS of Lutheran Biographers and Church Historians who routinely quote from “Table Talk”. T**he suggestion that Table Talk should not be posted here **has a lot more to do with the ‘inconvenient FACTS’ being revealed than with it being less than factual. If Lutheran Scholars find it reputable enough to quote in their books, then there is no problem quoting it here.

Note to the thread:

Please don’t let Topper twist my words to mean something else. I did not even suggest that Table Talk posts “should not be posted here.” Topper said that. Topper said that just now.

I, on the other hand, simply noted the truth; that the Table Talks are not works published by Luther, they are sayings attributed to him by others. That’s the very definition of hearsay. Sure, they may (and often do) capture the essence of his views – but they could just as well not. No serious scholar uses the Table Talks alone to access Luther. That’s absurd.

Also, please keep in mind how we got to discussing the Table Talks in the first place. A poster tried to discredit Luther through ad hominem attacks unrelated to the thread, insinuating that Luther was either entirely incompetent or a liar. The poster attempted to do this by citing the Table Talks, which may or may not have actually been said and are certainly misapplied, and by citing an internet article which cites an out-of-print French book which cites “a merchant” without citation, who may or may not have existed.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Note to the thread:

“Table Talk” is viewed by Lutheranism as being something MUCH greater than ‘second hand heresy’. In fact, there are several versions of Table Talk, including one in my 55 Volume set of Luther’s Works. All of these versions of Table Talk are published by Lutherans. Seriously, who else would publish them?

As a matter of fact, there are TONS of Lutheran Biographers and Church Historians who routinely quote from “Table Talk”. The suggestion that Table Talk should not be posted here has a lot more to do with the ‘inconvenient FACTS’ being revealed than with it being less than factual. If Lutheran Scholars find it reputable enough to quote in their books, then there is no problem quoting it here.

Catholic scholar Franz Possett disagrees. See The Real Luther (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 2011). Posset argues that the Table Talk does not qualify unconditionally as a primary source (p. 1, 30-31). He states “the real distortion of the Luther image occurred with the Table Talk” (p.30) and that the Table Talk should be read for entertainment rather than as a serious historical guide.

Who to believe? An anonymous person on a discussion board, or a Catholic scholar? Hmm… that’s a serious brain teaser!

 

[FollowChrist34]

I would add that no one (at least I am certainly not) is trying to claim that Luther was infallible. The impact of Luther’s Bible on Christian history is undeniable (and irreversible). I suspect most of us are laymen, Catholic or nonCatholic - not theologians. The fact that this thread exists, that this forum exists, that the CCC exists, in English, as opposed to Latin, is attributable in no small part to Luther and his work. (hope that is not a problem for anyone)

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

Thanks, Topper. That info seems more realistic to me than some of the other references to Luther’s translation of the Bible.

The Legend grows taller on down the line…at reformation time as they say.

As you note, the “Legend of Luther” depicts him as translating, from the original languages of course, the entire NT, in 10 weeks, with NO HELP. Of course that is ridiculous, or if in fact, he actually did this, then he treated Holy Scripture with tremendous disrespect by doing something as important as a translation in such a rushed manner. Our Protestant Scholar points out additional evidence as to ‘Luther’s translation’:

“Authorities differ concerning the number of editions of the Bible in German before Luther’s version appeared, but none enumerate fewer than fourteen in High German and three in Low German. Those in High German, which are all that we need consider here, are apparently reprints of a single MS. version, **of which two copies are still preserved, one in a monastery at Tepl, Bohemia, the other in the library of the university at Freiburg in the Breisgau. The former, known as the Codex Teplensis has recently been printed and is accessible to all scholars. **As this MS. contains seven articles of faith that are evidently Waldensian, many have been led to attribute to this version a Waldensian origin. Others have pointed out that no more is proved by the MS. than a Waldensian ownership of it at some time, and have asserted a Catholic origin for the version. We need not enter into this controversy, which concerns a question of technical scholarship rather than the historic effect of the version; for, whatever theory of its origin may prevail, the fact of it a frequent reprinting and wide circulation cannot be hi any wise affected.

This (German) version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the “deadly parallel.” It appears from a verse-by- verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther’s version is to call it a careful revision of the older text.” Vedder, pg. 170-71

According to Vedder, not only was it impossible for Luther to have translated the NT from Greek into German, he certainly didn’t. Furthermore, what we have always thought of as ‘Luther’s translation’ was not a translation at all, but really just a ‘revision’ of an earlier German NT. It would seem that these facts help us get a little closer to what motivated Luther to ‘translate’ the NT into German. Obviously it wasn’t to ‘give the German people the Scriptures in their native language’, because they already had German Bibles. It wasn’t because Luther thought he could produce a ‘superior’ German version, because Luther must have realized that nothing ‘superior’ would result from an incredibly rushed 10 week effort.

The only conclusion we can draw is that Luther, who had now been declared an excommunicated heretic by the Church and an outlaw by the Roman Empire at Worms, and of course, recognized that his version of Salvation by Faith Alone was going to be resigned to the dustbin of Christian History if he didn’t “do something” fast. That ‘something’ was to publish the NT in German, and to write Prefaces for each book which would ‘assist’ the readers to ‘discover’ Salvation by Faith Alone EVERYWHERE. Of course, officially ‘demoting’ James to a secondary status, from which doctrine is not established, would ‘help’ to bend the minds of the populace. Who wouldn’t ‘prefer’ a “salvation” in which Only Faith (or more radically – Only Belief) was important?

Luther’s motivation behind his ‘translation’ was to gain support for his radical, never before seen in Scripture, opinion about Salvation by Faith Alone.

How interesting is it that the German Bible that Luther ‘used’ to do his ‘translation’, at the very least, demonstrated Waldensian leanings.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s motivation behind his ‘translation’ was to gain support for his radical, never before seen in Scripture, opinion about Salvation by Faith Alone.

Yes, and Luther says so… wait.

That’s Topper that says so, because Topper knows exactly what Luther was thinking.

You keep putting quotes around translation. It was a translation, despite your “opinion”.

Since you just questioned Luther’s motivation, may I now question yours?

Here’s what he said:

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.

   In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
   not the Latin or Greek usage.  It is the nature of the German
   tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be
   clearer and more complete.  To be sure, I can also say "The farmer
   brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do
   not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer
   brings allein grain and kein money."  Here the word "allein" helps
   the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete
   German expression.

   We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
   speak German - as these asses do.  Rather we must ask the mother
   in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
   market about this.  We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
   of their speech, and do our translating accordingly.  Then they
   will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
   them.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

The fact that this thread exists, that this forum exists, **that the CCC exists, in English, as opposed to Latin, is attributable in no small part to Luther and his work. ** (hope that is not a problem for anyone)

The part I bolded, can you give me a link to some scholars that hold to this theory?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Stars,

Thanks for your response.

Actually, he Was a scholar in Greek and Latin , he did make a translation with the help of Justin Jonas , Phillip , and other scholars . and furthermore, although not the first , it was the best German translation at the time , the previous ones you mention were in poor German and used mostly by clergy not the layman and women , ( from Wikipedia , Luther’s bible , which quotes from several historians on the matter )

Actually there is a great deal of difference between having studied Greek and Hebrew, and being capable of taking on a task as important and huge as translating the NT from the original languages. The Legend of Luther depict him as being an excellent Greek and Hebrew Scholar. He wasn’t, but then this fact isn’t really all that important since he didn’t base his ‘translation’ on the original languages, but rather on an existing German Bible. This is not to mention that he produced his NT ‘translation’ completely on his own. Jonas and Melanchthon were not there at the Wartburg. But back to Luther’s Greek and Hebrew capabilities:

Remember that Protestant Scholar Vedder speaks of Luther’s ‘limited attainments in Greek”, and also that a 'minister today, who has had the Greek course of a college and seminary, is a far better scholar than Luther. In addition, a Lutheran Professor speaks of Luther’s relative inexperience with Greek.

**“Luther probably did not begin to study Greek seriously until 1514….In 1516, when Luther began to use Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, he was still a novice; but as he matured through 1517 and 1518, **his mastery of Greek and Hebrew became more apparent and with it, also, his understanding of the Bible. By 1520 Luther was developing into an able linguist……….As Luther thus matured into a Biblical Humanist, he rediscovered and recaptured the spirit of early Christianity. He was now capable of supplying exegetical interpretations to determine in what respects the Roman Church had departed from the faith of the Fathers…….He had begun to drift from the pale of the Roman Church as early as 1506, but he did not realize the full extent of his departure until the Leipzig Debate in 1519.” Lutheran Professor E. G. Schwiebert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 281-2

Schweibert points out that Luther didn’t begin to study Greek until 6 years before he (supposedly) took it upon himself to ‘translate’ the NT. Furthermore, he reveals that Luther had begun to stray from the ‘pale of the Roman Church as early as 1506’, but didn’t realize it. Shouldn’t one of the most important duties of a Theologian be to recognize when HE himself is straying from the faith that he was ordained to teach.

Lutheran Professors Schramm and Stegerna point out that Luther was not a very good Hebrew expert:

“…by his own admission his competence in Biblical Hebrew did not approach that of his Greek and much less his Latin. This did not deter him, however, from often making very bold theological claims based on his (faulty) understanding of certain nuances of the Hebrew language.”, Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People”, pg. 14.

This is an astonishing admission by these two Lutheran Scholars. Not only was Luther NOT a good Hebrew Scholar, but that fact did not keep him from wading in and making bold theological claims based on that ‘faulty understanding of certain nuances of the Hebrew Language.

As for me, if I am going to go looking for someone to translate the NT from the original languages, I am going to look for somebody who is an actual expert in those languages. Of course, this point is moot given that Luther didn’t ‘translate’ the NT from the original languages, but used existing German translations.

God Bless You Stars, Topper

 

[steido01]

As you note, the “Legend of Luther” depicts him as translating, from the original languages of course, the entire NT, in 10 weeks, with NO HELP. Of course that is ridiculous, or if in fact, he actually did this, then he treated Holy Scripture with tremendous disrespect by doing something as important as a translation in such a rushed manner.

So when, as legend says, the 72 elders individually and simultaneously translated the Hebrew Bible into the Septuagint in one night, they “treated Holy Scripture with tremendous disrespect” as well?

Anyone who thinks Luther had a “tremendous disrespect” for Holy Scripture doesn’t know much about that whole ‘Reformation’ thing and its mantras. Now what was that one? Oh, yes! *Sola Scriptura! *

Luther was a man driven to do service to God and his fellow man, and he attempted to do just that. His motivations are really not debatable. Now, if you want to debate whether his attempts were successful or harmful, that’s fair game.

 

[Duane1966]

This post is in poor taste. If you are as well-read on Luther as you portray yourself to be, then you know perfectly well that anything from the “Tabletalk” is second-hand hearsay. Furthermore, it’s not difficult to see that he’s talking in hyperbole (though, frankly, it’s not far from the truth). If you are aware of these facts, then it seems this sort of comment serve no purpose but to precisely ‘get sidetracked on Luther himself.’ You’re more charitable than this.

I believe I could have worded the question better.

The part I bolded in your above statement is refuted by Lutheran scholars, and others.

As the Catholic polemicist and Bishop of Bruges Jean Baptiste Malou argued in 1846,14the Lutheran Professors of Theology Wilhelm Krafft (1821–1897) at Bonn in 1883, 15and Friedrich Kropatschek (1875–1917) at Breslau in 1904,16the Catholic polemicist Franz Falk (1840–1909) in 1905,17and Erich Zimmermann (1938) and Hans Rost (1939) demonstrated before the middle of the twentieth century, vernacular Bibles circulated and were read widely, especially in the Empire and with the exception of fifteenth-century England, all through the later Middle Ages…

…Scholars generally agree that** vernacular Bible translations abounded in the later Middle Ages,** both in manuscript and in early printings, and were framed by an even more voluminous literature of Biblical piety and devotion, and by countless partial Biblical text editions in the vernacular (Gospels, Psalters, harmonized Gospel renderings [Diatessera] and Bible retellings [historiated Bibles])…

…In 2001, Owen Chadwick noted in a book addressed to a larger readership that there were many printed editions of the Bible before Luther: in Latin, 94; and he mentions 16 in German. In fact there were** 14 in early new High German, 4 in early new Low German, and 4 in early modern Netherlandish, for a total of 22 Germanic editions by 1518.** (As the author stated earlier, these 22 bibles were** full **translations)

…In the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries,** Biblical material was widespread, popular and well known among literate townspeople, **clerics and nobles alike, especially in the Empire…

…Because they were under the direction of a warden or house confessor, nuns had relatively good access to vernacular translations. A fifteenth-century Netherlandish manuscript specified that the sister who was in charge of the books was to see that if anything in the book appeared to be false, it should be brought before the rector of the house for him to examine, before it is allowed to be commonly used by the sisters. (…) Great care is to be taken not to lend books to outsiders without the permission of the rector. (…) Uncommon books are not to be read at meals until the rector has first seen that their contents are good and profitable. (…) Books are not to be lent to ignorant people.42Although great care was enjoined on the sister in charge to see that such vernacular books did not fall into the ‘wrong’ hands, such an admonishment documents both the relatively mild attitude of the church regarding such books and the interest of the unlearned laity in them** (the learned laity also had good access to vernacular books, including Bibles).** In those important female houses whose library catalogues have survived, we notice the existence not merely of many vernacular works of Biblical piety and devotion, but also of vernacular Bibles…

…Earlier generations of German scholars unravelled Luther’s polemic about the inaccessibility of the Bible.49*Rost notes that eighteenth-century scholars were often surprised to discover that** German Bibles had been circulating in large numbers well before Luther’s translation, **so steeped were they in the story of Biblical inaccessibility started by Luther himself…

…In 1883, Wilhelm Krafft entered the lists with a short piece (published as a monograph) arguing **that the large number of editions of the German Bible before Luther proves that it was not merely kept in the libraries of princes and religious houses or schools, but that it was read “in accordance with the repeated urgings of the editors and other Christian writers by educated lay-people”. For example, he cites the editor of the 1480 Cologne Bible, who wrote in his preface that all ‘good hearts’, clerics and lay-people, **who see and read this Bible should unite themselves with God and ask the Holy Spirit, master of this text, to help them to understand this translation according to His will and for the salvation of their soul. Other editors of German Bibles and writers of the later fifteenth century also recommended that their readers read for themselves in the Bible.

 

[Duane1966]

You’re taking the word of a nameless merchant over that of a learned, widely-published, Church-educated doctor who had traveled to Rome and across the Empire? If you’re serious, this demonstrates quite a bit of bias.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that said nameless merchant did exist. Based on what I have bolded in the above posts, do I have any reason to doubt what the merchant said?

What constitutes “a ton of bibles?” Were they full “bibles,” or books from the “bible?”

A ton of full bibles. Hyperbole on the ton, not on the full. ,

What was the context of your merchant’s letter? Was he trying to convince his audience that his land was particularly pious (that certainly would have fit the times, what with the selling of indulgences, fake relics and the like)?

Maybe. But is trying to convince someone of piousness exclusive of telling the truth? ( I like you throwing in the selling and fake so I could grasp the piousness!)

So your entire argument to discredit Luther

I did offer that Luther might have been mistaken.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I believe I could have worded the question better.

The part I bolded in your above statement is refuted by Lutheran scholars, and others.

You do realize that your quotes just said things like " learned layman and clergy " had those German bibles ( i.e. Top one percent , NOT the everyday families) so you’ve just proven my point .

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Hi Stars,

Thanks for your response.

Actually there is a great deal of difference between having studied Greek and Hebrew, and being capable of taking on a task as important and huge as translating the NT from the original languages. The Legend of Luther depict him as being an excellent Greek and Hebrew Scholar. He wasn’t, but then this fact isn’t really all that important since he didn’t base his ‘translation’ on the original languages, but rather on an existing German Bible. This is not to mention that he produced his NT ‘translation’ completely on his own. Jonas and Melanchthon were not there at the Wartburg. But back to Luther’s Greek and Hebrew capabilities:

Remember that Protestant Scholar Vedder speaks of Luther’s ‘limited attainments in Greek”, and also that a 'minister today, who has had the Greek course of a college and seminary, is a far better scholar than Luther. In addition, a Lutheran Professor speaks of Luther’s relative inexperience with Greek.

**“Luther probably did not begin to study Greek seriously until 1514….In 1516, when Luther began to use Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, he was still a novice; but as he matured through 1517 and 1518, **his mastery of Greek and Hebrew became more apparent and with it, also, his understanding of the Bible. By 1520 Luther was developing into an able linguist……….As Luther thus matured into a Biblical Humanist, he rediscovered and recaptured the spirit of early Christianity. He was now capable of supplying exegetical interpretations to determine in what respects the Roman Church had departed from the faith of the Fathers…….He had begun to drift from the pale of the Roman Church as early as 1506, but he did not realize the full extent of his departure until the Leipzig Debate in 1519.” Lutheran Professor E. G. Schwiebert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 281-2

Schweibert points out that Luther didn’t begin to study Greek until 6 years before he (supposedly) took it upon himself to ‘translate’ the NT. Furthermore, he reveals that Luther had begun to stray from the ‘pale of the Roman Church as early as 1506’, but didn’t realize it. Shouldn’t one of the most important duties of a Theologian be to recognize when HE himself is straying from the faith that he was ordained to teach.

Lutheran Professors Schramm and Stegerna point out that Luther was not a very good Hebrew expert:

“…by his own admission his competence in Biblical Hebrew did not approach that of his Greek and much less his Latin. This did not deter him, however, from often making very bold theological claims based on his (faulty) understanding of certain nuances of the Hebrew language.”, Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People”, pg. 14.

This is an astonishing admission by these two Lutheran Scholars. Not only was Luther NOT a good Hebrew Scholar, but that fact did not keep him from wading in and making bold theological claims based on that ‘faulty understanding of certain nuances of the Hebrew Language.

As for me, if I am going to go looking for someone to translate the NT from the original languages, I am going to look for somebody who is an actual expert in those languages. Of course, this point is moot given that Luther didn’t ‘translate’ the NT from the original languages, but used existing German translations.

God Bless You Stars, Topper

He used the masioric Hebrew text , and the tr , to translate the bible , he didn’t use existing bibles that the clergy and upper class used , and your quote said he was mastering the languages , so that would mean that he was capable of translation , and whether he or the church leadership strayed is debatable, ( can you stop using ad hominem arguments to try and fail to discredit the reformation for once and appreciate that it’s a good translation that has helped millions )

Keep the faith Topper , Starwars

 

[Duane1966]

So when, as legend says, the 72 elders individually and simultaneously translated the Hebrew Bible into the Septuagint in one night, they “treated Holy Scripture with tremendous disrespect” as well?

The legend is: Septuagint’ literally means ‘seventy’, on account of a legend that70 translators took 70 daysto complete it. The one day legend is a new one to me.

Anyone who thinks Luther had a “tremendous disrespect” for Holy Scripture doesn’t know much about that whole ‘Reformation’ thing and its mantras. Now what was that one? Oh, yes! *Sola Scriptura! *

We hear sola, but all we see in action is solo scriptura.

Luther was a man driven to do service to God and his fellow man, and he attempted to do just that. His motivations are really not debatable. Now, if you want to debate whether his attempts were successful or harmful, that’s fair game.

Being driven in service to fellow man and God, does not necessarily equate to being right. And I disagree whole heartedly on whether his motivations are not debatable.

Peace be with you.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

The legend is: Septuagint’ literally means ‘seventy’, on account of a legend that70 translators took 70 daysto complete it. The one day legend is a new one to me.

We hear sola, but all we see in action is solo scriptura.

Being driven in service to fellow man and God, does not equate to being right. And I disagree whole heartedly on whether his motivations are debatable.

Peace be with you.

You see sola scriptura, you misrepresent it to mean something else

Keep the faith Duane , Starwars

 

[Duane1966]

You do realize that your quotes just said things like " learned layman and clergy " had those German bibles ( i.e. Top one percent , NOT the everyday families) so you’ve just proven my point .

Lol, and what percentage of those everyday families could read? And further on the text says laypeople, no educated in it. And these are German Lutheran scholars saying that the vernacular was widespread.

Point that you gave yourself is null and void.