Martin Luther's translation of the bible

[Duane1966]

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

Keep the faith Duane , Starwars

No misrepresentation, just the facts.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

No misrepresentation, just the facts.

That’s a laughable claim

Keep the faith Duane , Starwars

 

[Starwarsfan2]

How does Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible hold up today? I read where he took almost two years to do it, and eventually sold 100,000 of them. This would have been in the early 1500’s.

Did he make any huge mistakes? I am assuming that the Catholic church eventually authorized a German edition- did it vary much from Luther’s?

I just read a very good book on the reformation, creatively based on the wife of Martin Luther. Here is an Amazon link.

amazon.com/Daughter-The-Reformation-Historical-Perspective/dp/0989527778

Never paid much attention to the reformation, but those were very interesting times. I didn’t realize that the reformation was caused in large measure by the building of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome. It was financed by the Fugger’s bank of Germany. Fugger’s forced agents of the Church to travel around selling indulgences with the money going straight into the accounts of Fugger’s to pay off the loans.

At one point, Fugger’s owned 4 percent of the entire wealth of Europe!

Luther and other German figures did not like this practice and eventually broke from the Vatican.

Anyway , to answer the question it was revised in the 1980 s to bring it up to date with modern German , I’m told it’s doing very well soon.

 

[MaryT777]

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

I was thinking the same thing.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

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 necessarily equate to being right. And I disagree whole heartedly on whether his motivations are not debatable.

Peace be with you.

Well said, Duane.

 

[Duane1966]

I’m told it’s doing very well soon.

Is it ill now?

 

[steido01]

I believe I could have worded the question better.

If there was/is a question, I have yet to read it. All I’ve seen is a false choice positing that Luther was either “lying or just mistaken,” based on the hearsay of two potentially made-up sources. Ask a legitimate question, and we can have a more fruitful discussion.

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

No, it’s not. Read your own quotes carefully; they mention “Biblical material” and bibles read by the “literate townspeople, clerics and nobles,” who comprised less than ten percent of the population. So when the author of the Table Talks alleges an old Luther to have said conversationally over dinner, “Thirty years ago, no-one read the Bible, and it was unknown to [practically] all,” this fictional Luther is not wrong. Only 1 in 10 could have read the bible if it was available to them!

For the sake of argument, let’s say that said nameless merchant did exist.
…
I did offer that Luther might have been mistaken.

If we are to remain good stewards of history, we cannot accept one illegitimate source while neglecting another. Relying on a mythical, nameless merchant while discounting the alleged, legendary discussions of a doctor of the church is not only logically inconsistent, it’s academically dishonest. We can do better.

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

That’s lamentable – and irrelevant.

Being driven in service to fellow man and God, does not necessarily equate to being right.

Precisely. And that’s where we can discuss Luther. On the merits of his teachings (or, if you prefer, the lack thereof). That’s fair game.

And I disagree whole heartedly on whether his motivations are not debatable.

Motivation will always be speculative. Even with a notarized, fingerprinted, public statement from Luther himself, you and I still could never know his heart. What we perceive as his (or any other historical figure’s) motivations are largely based on our own biased presumptions. And when you couple those personal ideas with unsubstantiated, spurious sources, then you’re no longer studying history, but imposing anachronistic views onto a fantasy of your own invention.

Peace be with you.

And with you, brother. God bless and keep you.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Stars,

Thank you for your response.

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 )

You seem to be insistent that Luther did an actual ‘translation’ based on only the original languages and that he did not use any existing German editions. At this point, I don’t have any evidence that you have even read the quotes that Duane and I have posted which indicate that Luther did NOT do a translation from only the original languages. A summary of those quotes are as follows:

Protestant Professor Vedder: “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……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…….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.”**

Geffckin: “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.”

Krafft: “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.”

Gow: ** “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.”

Vedder again: “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.”

The Myth of Luther has him doing a translation from only the original languages and that Myth seems to me at least to have a great deal of power over Luther’s followers, but I am completely mystified as to why you continue to claim that Luther made a complete translation of the NT using ONLY the original languages. What is the danger of ceding the point made by all these Scholars, or at least dealing with what they have to say, or at least reacting to their quotes?

God Bless You Stars, Topper

 

[Duane1966]

That’s a laughable claim

Keep the faith Duane , Starwars

Glad you laughed. I laugh at sola scriptura all the time, so we are both full of laughter.

 

[Topper17]

Yes, and Luther says so… wait.

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

Actually Jon, its not just me who says so, that Luther’s motivation for his ‘translation’ was to further his radical, never before noticed in Scripture doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone. Furthermore, by placing Himself at the center of the controversy which divided Western Christendom, Luther very much invited us to question his motives.

Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch very much supports this notion:

**“The Bible was unmistakably a Luther Bible. Prefaces and glosses read like an evolving catechism of Luther’s theology. It’s center is the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’.” Gritsch, “Companion”, **pg. 65.

Another Lutheran Scholar, Markus Wriedt chimes in supporting the exact same conclusion:

“It is right here that Luther’s greatest work, the continuously revised and improved translation of the Bible, has its systematic-theological place. The translation of course is determined by his theological approach……Accordingly creative, Luther sets out on his translation work, leaving traditional methods of translating word for word and letter for letter in favor of a gospel-centered translation in the language of the time……For Luther everything is at stake, the rediscovery of the gospel and the message of the free and absolute gift of God’s grace.” Wriedt, “Companion”, pg. 112-3

For Luther, the ‘Gospel’ was Salvation by Faith Alone. Luther’s ‘gospel-centered’ Bible took every opportunity to make the Bible support Salvation by Faith Alone.

Luther’s radical doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA) was what drove him and was an integral part of not only how he interpreted Scripture but also how he translated Scripture. In addition, SBFA had a great deal to do with his criticism of and also his disrespectful attitudes towards whole books of inspired Scripture. The following quotes help flesh out this point:

**
“But the text never mattered much to him (Luther).** If he did not have (when preaching), the Pauline words, “The just shall live by faith,” he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured.” Bainton, pg. 361

This is a startling admission from an unusually pro-Luther biographer. Luther was so intent on ‘discovering’ SBFA in as many places as he could ‘find’ it that he had to ‘find’ it where it didn’t exist. The comment “the text never mattered much to him” should be troubling to Protestants, especially with respect to Luther as a translator of Sacred Scripture, or as a judge of books of the Bible.

One of the things common to all heresies is that they tend to focus on one (poorly understood) aspect of Christian teaching, emphasizing that aspect to the detriment of the whole gospel message.

**“He extracted dogmas from the Bible according to the profound needs in his own psyche. **He raged against those who disagreed with him, although such disagreements were inevitable. How he read the Bible is an essential part of his biography, and we cannot talk about his doctrines and his furious defense of them unless we can see, by examining the Bible, how tenuous these dogmas were on all sides.” Marius pg. xiii

“It was partly the defects of the translation itself, partly the cleverly calculated and thus all the more dangerous marginal glosses, which called forth objections and warnings from Catholic writers as soon as the work was published. Emser complains that Luther “made Scripture to turn everywhere on faith and works, even when neither faith nor works are thought of.” Emser speaks of more than 1400 passages which Luther had rendered in a false and heretical sense, though many of the passages he instances are not of any great importance.” Grisar, pg. 518-9, Volume V

“The German Bible reveals as clearly as anything what Luther wanted to believe and where he felt he had to struggle to overcome problems and doubt.” Marius, pg. 347

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

As we have seen Jon from numerous Scholars, and with a great deal of compelling evidence, Luther’s ‘translation’ was no translation at all. He used existing German Bibles. Neither he nor any of his contemporaries claimed that he had made a translation. That was done much after the fact and specifically to enhance his reputation. You seem to put a lot of importance on Luther having done an independent translation. Don’t all of my and Duane’s quotes indicating that Luther’s ‘translation’ was simply a non-translation’ of existing German Bibles mean anything to you? Why do you continue to claim that ‘It was a translation, despite your “opinion”.’ What about all of these Reputable Scholars Jon? Why don’t you mention them and comment on their writings and instead just focus on me and my “opinion”? It seems to me that your position is at odds with that of all of these Scholars, and if you want to disagree, then you should deal with what THEY say.

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

Actually Jon, I don’t feel that I have the freedom to question YOUR motivations, so unless you are willing to allow me to do so………….That being said, rather than spending your time questioning my motives, I would suggest that you actually deal with the quotes and points that I post, rather than evading them.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Some scholars on the matter
Martin Brecht
The place of Luthers Bible translation in literature is solely the result of the masterful linguistic and theological achievement reflected in the translation itself

Another scholar called the translation " one of Luthers greatest achievements " Kenneth S. Latourette

Your and Duane quote from scholars that state the he was mastering Greek and Hebrew , Luther himself stated that he translated into the vernacular , and Duane s quote stated that previous translations were for " clergy and learned layman " i.e. That means that before luthers bible hardly any of the men and women had the bible , so it IS a translation, he , Phillip ( a recognized scholar in the biblical Languages) , Justin Jonas and other reformers helped translate the bible , the first one for the majority of the German people not just for clergy , it’s a historical FACT, and questioning his motives are ad hominem.

Btw , this thread is about the translation itself , it’s effect in the German language , how good it is , not the one who translated it , I’m saying this to care for and encourage you to love others , not question there intelligence, motivation, and love for Christ in general as you have repeatedly done on this forum ok, not trying to hurt, just trying to help .

Keep the faith Topper , Starwars

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;13364758]Actually Jon, its not just me who says so, that Luther’s motivation for his ‘translation’ was to further his radical, never before noticed in Scripture doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone. Furthermore, by placing Himself at the center of the controversy which divided Western Christendom, Luther very much invited us to question his motives.

Do you believe Pope Leo’s motives should be questioned? How about Tetzel.

Instead of questioning motives, why not evaluate what they said, and believed?

**“The Bible was unmistakably a Luther Bible. Prefaces and glosses read like an evolving catechism of Luther’s theology. It’s center is the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’.” Gritsch, “Companion”, **pg. 65.

Prefaces and glosses. I agree, they sound very much like his theology. His preface on Galatians, and his preface on 1 Maccabees are particularly good. Romans, too.

Another Lutheran Scholar, Markus Wriedt chimes in supporting the exact same conclusion:

“It is right here that Luther’s greatest work, the continuously revised and improved translation of the Bible, has its systematic-theological place. The translation of course is determined by his theological approach……Accordingly creative, Luther sets out on his translation work, leaving traditional methods of translating word for word and letter for letter in favor of a gospel-centered translation in the language of the time……For Luther everything is at stake, the rediscovery of the gospel and the message of the free and absolute gift of God’s grace.” Wriedt, “Companion”, pg. 112-3

First, note, no where are motives questioned in the quote. Also, no where does he put the term translation in quotes. He further uses the term “rediscovery”, which means discovered again. Luther’s theology is not, as you imagine in your dislike of him, something wholly new and different from what the apostles taught. Let’s remember that Luther’s education by the Catholic Church was of Biel, and the like.

For Luther, the ‘Gospel’ was Salvation by Faith Alone. Luther’s ‘gospel-centered’ Bible took every opportunity to make the Bible support Salvation by Faith Alone.

You “conclusion” in no way can be even imagined from the quotes provided. And there you are with your quotes again.

Luther’s radical doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone (SBFA) was what drove him and was an integral part of not only how he interpreted Scripture but also how he translated Scripture. In addition, SBFA had a great deal to do with his criticism of and also his disrespectful attitudes towards whole books of inspired Scripture. The following quotes help flesh out this point:

Again, all your “opinion” out of an obvious dislike for him. Catholic scholars have been cited to you over and over who highly value Luther’s deep abiding respect for scripture, the Church, and the faith.

**"… The poetic soul finds in this translation evidences of genius and expressions as natural, as beautiful, and melodious as in the original languages." **(The French Catholic Audin, cited in Plass 1948:338)
Please note, no quotations around the term translation.

continued

 

[JonNC]

**
“But the text never mattered much to him (Luther).** If he did not have (when preaching), the Pauline words, “The just shall live by faith,” he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels, whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured.” Bainton, pg. 361

Amen, that Luther felt so moved by Paul’s words: “The just shall live by faith”, and “For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”
But more importantly, Baintain’s words here refer to Ernst R. Wendland states:

Every translation revolves somewhere between the two poles of “form” and “meaning.” The principle that the meaning of the biblical message has priority over the linguistic form whereby it is conveyed is the foundation of functional equivalence methodology.
Form refers to the overt and language-specific phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic, and structural elements whereby a given message is conveyed from source to receptor. Meaning encompasses not only denotative (cognitive, referential, conceptual, propositional) content, but also the connotative aspects of feeling, intensity, and beauty, as well as the intentional (illocutionary, functional) facets which pertain to authorial purpose, for example, warning, rebuke, encouragement, instruction, commission, and condemnation. Meaning is just as complicated as form-and quite a bit more difficult to detect and differentiate in the case of Greek or Hebrew because we are working with a text that is linguistically, semantically, historically, and culturally remote.

---

It is important to point out that the “meaning” that Luther focused upon during translation was the content intended by the biblical author. Luther tried to imagine himself in the place of the original writer and compose his text accordingly-in natural German forms (see his discussion of Rom. 3.28 in Luther 1960:195ff.). He stressed the fact that a literal rendering often turns out to be not only awkward and difficult to understand in the RL [receptor language], but also patently wrong.

This is a startling admission from an unusually pro-Luther biographer. Luther was so intent on ‘discovering’ SBFA in as many places as he could ‘find’ it that he had to ‘find’ it where it didn’t exist. The comment “the text never mattered much to him” should be troubling to Protestants, especially with respect to Luther as a translator of Sacred Scripture, or as a judge of books of the Bible.

There you go with your quotes again. First, there is little in Luther that should be troubling to any communion but Lutheranism, and his observation that Paul’s phrase, " the just shall live by faith" is central to the catholic faith. But here you again miss the point. It is not a matter of luther rewriting the scripture to suit his own ends, but to render source languages - Greek, Latin, Hebrew - into German, and German for the people.

“It was partly the defects of the translation itself, partly the cleverly calculated and thus all the more dangerous marginal glosses, which called forth objections and warnings from Catholic writers as soon as the work was published. Emser complains that Luther “made Scripture to turn everywhere on faith and works, even when neither faith nor works are thought of.” Emser speaks of more than 1400 passages which Luther had rendered in a false and heretical sense, though many of the passages he instances are not of any great importance.” Grisar, pg. 518-9, Volume V

Esmer complains, then uses his translation.

As we have seen Jon from numerous Scholars, and with a great deal of compelling evidence, Luther’s ‘translation’ was no translation at all.

There’s no evidence here. Some random quotes you’ve searched for. Further, not one of your quotes puts the word translation into quotes, none of them say it is not a translation.
You draw your conclusion first, then try to find bit quotes to support it. As you can see, there are lots of scholars, some of them Catholic, who do not share your anti-Luther bias, and are therefore willing to evaluate his translation in an unbiased manner.

He used existing German Bibles.

And Esmer, whom you quote, used Luther’s.

"During his involuntary stay at the Wartburg, despite “the pestering of the Devil”, Luther devoted his time to a major project: translating the New Testament from Greek into German in only eleven weeks. Later the work would be edited by Melanchthon and other specialists (for example, Caspar Cruciger), and was published in 1522 as the so called September Bible. Through this Bible, Luther became the creator of the New High German written language."
luther.de/en/sprache.html

This quote also puts to rest your oft-stated charge that he did even the NT alone. The September bible was edited by Melanchthon prior to publication.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Neither he nor any of his contemporaries claimed that he had made a translation.

So, the scholars that helped him with the translation denied he did a translation?
Are you saying that Cruciger, mentioned above, denied Luther made a translation? Here’s a few more:
"Therefore, Luther’s subsequent revision of his initial New Testament version, as well as his translation of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, was undertaken with the help of a scholarly translation committee (collegium biblicum), which he affectionately referred to as his Sanhedrin. Luther, realizing his limitations, selected committee members who were recognized scholars and specialists in their field, men like Philip Melanchthon for Greek and Matthew Aurogallus for Hebrew."
These guys denied Luther made a translation? Source.

That was done much after the fact and specifically to enhance his reputation.

So, they were lying?

You seem to put a lot of importance on Luther having done an independent translation.

Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Please find a post where I said his was an independent translation? Luther had significant help, from a number of colleagues.
He even called it his “sanhedrin”.

In fact, this is an important point. It was not Luther’s “independent” translation.

[Johann Matthesius of the committee in session]:
Then, when D. (Luther) had reviewed the previously published Bible and had also gained information from Jews and friends with linguistic talents, and had inquired of old Germans about appropriate words … he came into the assembly (Konsistorium) with his old Latin and a new German Bible, and always brought the Hebrew text with him. M. Philip brought the Greek text with him. D. Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to the Hebrew. [sic] The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text, with which he was very familiar. Each one had studied the text which was to be discussed and had examined Greek and Latin as well as Hebrew commentators. (cited in Reu 1934:212-13)

Thereupon the president [Luther] submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the ancient doctors. Wonderful and instructive discussions are said to have taken place in connection with this work, some of which M. Georg (Roerer) recorded, which were afterwards printed as little glosses and annotations on the margin. (cited in Plass 1950:649)

Don’t all of my and Duane’s quotes indicating that Luther’s ‘translation’ was simply a non-translation’ of existing German Bibles mean anything to you?

Umm, no.

Why do you continue to claim that ‘It was a translation, despite your “opinion”.’ What about all of these Reputable Scholars Jon?

I think I’ve just shown that random quotes from here and there, interspersed with you “opinion”. does not prove that the translation was not a translation. Infact, there is plenty of proof that it was.

Why don’t you mention them and comment on their writings and instead just focus on me and my “opinion”? It seems to me that your position is at odds with that of all of these Scholars, and if you want to disagree, then you should deal with what THEY say.

No, its opposed to your spin of what they say, interspersed with misrepresentations. As I’ve shown, Luther and his team worked from Greek and Latin, with the help of Jews on the Hebrew.
So, no, I actually find your “opinion” a rather a weak polemic.

Actually Jon, I don’t feel that I have the freedom to question YOUR motivations

Meaning what?

so unless you are willing to allow me to do so

You’ve always been so quick to challenge motives of anyone who disagrees with you, including Catholics.

………….That being said, rather than spending your time questioning my motives, I would suggest that you actually deal with the quotes and points that I post, rather than evading them.

And there you are, questioning my motives.
Sufficiently dealt with.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

If there was/is a question, I have yet to read it. All I’ve seen is a false choice positing that Luther was either “lying or just mistaken,” based on the hearsay of two potentially made-up sources. Ask a legitimate question, and we can have a more fruitful discussion.

Wait a minute. Just because you did not like the options that I posed in that question, does in no way mean a question was not asked. And the fact that you responded, even though you responded with disdain for it, means you obviously did read it. But you have just stated that you did not read it. Must be more hyperbole.

No, it’s not. Read your own quotes carefully; they mention “Biblical material” and bibles read by the “literate townspeople, clerics and nobles,” who comprised less than ten percent of the population. So when the author of the Table Talks alleges an old Luther to have said conversationally over dinner, “Thirty years ago, no-one read the Bible, and it was unknown to [practically] all,” this fictional Luther is not wrong. Only 1 in 10 could have read the bible if it was available to them!

Would it be fair to reply to this fictional Luther and ask him “what’s your point, by your parameters it’s still unknown to all?” But the point that the author was making, and what I was trying to make clear, is that if you had a desire to read sacred scripture, the availability of it was to be had. And I would argue that the Church was doing all that she could to make Christendom literate, which would make the bible known to even more.

If we are to remain good stewards of history, we cannot accept one illegitimate source while neglecting another. Relying on a mythical, nameless merchant while discounting the alleged, legendary discussions of a doctor of the church is not only logically inconsistent, it’s academically dishonest. We can do better.

Do not believe that I either neglected said source, or discounted said alleged source. I did ask if he were mistaken, or something else, as I felt based on the texts I had posted, and the nameless merchant, who may or may not have existed, that the availability of the bible was at odds with what Luther allegedly said.

That’s lamentable – and irrelevant.

You’re right. Oooooh that pained me to say that.

Motivation will always be speculative. Even with a notarized, fingerprinted, public statement from Luther himself, you and I still could never know his heart. What we perceive as his (or any other historical figure’s) motivations are largely based on our own biased presumptions. And when you couple those personal ideas with unsubstantiated, spurious sources, then you’re no longer studying history, but imposing anachronistic views onto a fantasy of your own invention.

Actually, that spurious source was not needed at all in relationship to alleged statement in question, as I had posted quotes from German Lutheran scholars stating that the availability of the bible in Germany pre-Reformation was much greater than had been believed post-Reformation.

And with you, brother. God bless and keep you.

Back at ya. Keep you away from me that is.

 

[Duane1966]

Another scholar called the translation " one of Luthers greatest achievements " Kenneth S. Latourette

I agree, it definitely may be one of ***his ***greatest achievements. Notice the emphasis that I put on his. Read into that what you will.

Your and Duane quote from scholars that state the he was mastering Greek and Hebrew , Luther himself stated that he translated into the vernacular , and Duane s quote stated that previous translations were for " clergy and learned layman " i.e. That means that before luthers bible hardly any of the men and women had the bible , so it IS a translation, he , Phillip ( a recognized scholar in the biblical Languages) , Justin Jonas and other reformers helped translate the bible , the first one for the majority of the German people not just for clergy , it’s a historical FACT, and questioning his motives are ad hominem.

This post makes no sense, and proves that you are either: not reading the posts, and just rehashing what Don said, or reading only parts of the posts. If you had read the full post, or better yet, the full text of the link I posted, you would have seen this:

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.

and this:

.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.

See the bolded Stars, that is the editor wanting the common lay person to read it. So that disproves your point about it only being for clerics and learned lay people. The FACT, that Lutheran scholars have admitted, is that if you could read, the bible in the vernacular, was readily available for the German people, well before the Revolution, er I mean Deformation, er Reformation, yeah that’s it. Since it is agreed that the majority of the German people at this time could not read, 10% literacy is the statistic that seems to be agreed upon, was their bible truly for the German people, on only the literate ones (the educated lay people)? If it is only for the literate ones, I do not see how that is any different than all the ones that were printed for pre-Reformation literates. And those bibles were available to be bought by the common people. But why buy if you cannot read?

Btw , this thread is about the translation itself , it’s effect in the German language , how good it is , not the one who translated it , I’m saying this to care for and encourage you to love others , not question there intelligence, motivation, and love for Christ in general as you have repeatedly done on this forum ok, not trying to hurt, just trying to help .

Very odd comment.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I agree, it definitely may be one of ***his ***greatest achievements. Notice the emphasis that I put on his. Read into that what you will.

This post makes no sense, and proves that you are either: not reading the posts, and just rehashing what Don said, or reading only parts of the posts. If you had read the full post, or better yet, the full text of the link I posted, you would have seen this: and this:See the bolded Stars, that is the editor wanting the common lay person to read it. So that disproves your point about it only being for clerics and learned lay people. The FACT, that Lutheran scholars have admitted, is that if you could read, the bible in the vernacular, was readily available for the German people, well before the Revolution, er I mean Deformation, er Reformation, yeah that’s it. Since it is agreed that the majority of the German people at this time could not read, 10% literacy is the statistic that seems to be agreed upon, was their bible truly for the German people, on only the literate ones (the educated lay people)? If it is only for the literate ones, I do not see how that is any different than all the ones that were printed for pre-Reformation literates. And those bibles were available to be bought by the common people. But why buy if you cannot read?

Very odd comment.

First , in the Holy Roman Empire literacy was higher than 10 percent , it was closer to 30-40 percent .
Second read your own quote in section 4 , it repeatedly states that previous translations were for clergy and learned layman ( learned layman being scholars and nobles ) , so how am I Mistaken on this ?

Third how is it a strange comment , topper repeatedly questions the motivation , and intelligence of opponents views , I merely asked him to stop , then told him it was honestly and concern that motivated me to make the comment .

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I agree, it definitely may be one of ***his ***greatest achievements. Notice the emphasis that I put on his. Read into that what you will.

This post makes no sense, and proves that you are either: not reading the posts, and just rehashing what Don said, or reading only parts of the posts. If you had read the full post, or better yet, the full text of the link I posted, you would have seen this: and this:See the bolded Stars, that is the editor wanting the common lay person to read it. So that disproves your point about it only being for clerics and learned lay people. The FACT, that Lutheran scholars have admitted, is that if you could read, the bible in the vernacular, was readily available for the German people, well before the Revolution, er I mean Deformation, er Reformation, yeah that’s it. Since it is agreed that the majority of the German people at this time could not read, 10% literacy is the statistic that seems to be agreed upon, was their bible truly for the German people, on only the literate ones (the educated lay people)? If it is only for the literate ones, I do not see how that is any different than all the ones that were printed for pre-Reformation literates. And those bibles were available to be bought by the common people. But why buy if you cannot read?

Very odd comment.

First , in the Holy Roman Empire literacy was higher than 10 percent , it was closer to 30-40 percent .
Second read your own quote in section 4 , it repeatedly states that previous translations were for clergy and learned layman ( learned layman being scholars and nobles ) , so how am I Mistaken on this ?

Third how is it a strange comment , topper repeatedly questions the motivation , and intelligence of opponents views , I merely asked him to stop , then told him it was concern that motivated me to make the comment .

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Why did it repeat the comment when I sent it only once

 

[Duane1966]

First , in the Holy Roman Empire literacy was higher than 10 percent , it was closer to 30-40 percent .
Second read your own quote in section 4 , it repeatedly states that previous translations were for clergy and learned layman ( learned layman being scholars and nobles ) , so how am I Mistaken on this ?

Third how is it a strange comment , topper repeatedly questions the motivation , and intelligence of opponents views , I merely asked him to stop , then told him it was concern that motivated me to make the comment .

But not in Germany, literacy rate was 10% around 1500, this is a statistical fact that you can look up. Again, just about the only way to be a literate lay person was to be an educated lay person.

And again, the preface to that 1480 vernacular German bible is exhorting all good hearts, clerical and LAY PEOPLE (notice, it doesn’t say educated lay people), to read it, and unite themselves with God. Starwars, if you, yourself, had lived in Germany in the latter part of the 15th century, and you, Starwars could read, the fact of the matter is, you, Starwars, would have had relatively easy access to either purchase a bible, in the vernacular, if you so chose, or to borrow one, in the vernacular, from the local convent. That is the FACT that those Lutheran scholars I quoted arrived at.

p.s. Don’t keep the faith, share it.