24 Luther the Translator of the Bible.

21. Luther the Translator of the Bible. A violent attack upon Luther by Catholic writers is caused by the admiration which Protestants manifest for Luther because he translated the Bible into German. Catholics, of course, cannot deny that Luther did translate the Bible, and that his translation is still a cherished treasure of Protestants; but in order to belittle this achievement of Luther, which inflicted incalculable damage on Rome, they talk about Luther’s unfitness for the work of Bible-translation and about the unwarranted liberties Luther took with the Bible.

These writers claim that Luther was, in the first place, morally unfit to undertake the translation of the Bible. To show to what desperate means Luther’s Catholic critics will resort in order to make out a case against him, we note that one of the most recent disparagers of Luther informs the public that Luther’s original name had been Luder. This name conveys the idea of "carrion," "beast," "low scoundrel." When Luther began to translate the Bible, we are told, he changed his name into "Squire George." Once before this, at the time of his entering the university, Catholics note that he changed his name from Luder to Lueder. But these changes of his name, they say, did not improve his character. We are told that, while Luther was engaged upon the work of rendering the Bible into German, he was consumed with fleshly lust and given to laziness. Luther’s own statements in letters to friends are cited to corroborate this assertion. The conclusion which we are to draw from these "facts" is this: Such a corrupt person could not possibly be a proper instrument for the Holy Spirit to employ in so pious an undertaking as the translation of the Word of God.

Catholics should be reminded that they misquote the book of matriculation in which the students at Erfurt signed their names on entering the university. Luther’s signature is not "Lueder" but "Ludher." Other forms of the name "Luder" and "Lueder" occur elsewhere. But in any form the name has a more honorable derivation and meaning than Catholic writers are inclined to give it. It is derived from "Luither," which means as much as "People’s Man," (= der Leute Herr). Another well-known form of the same name is Lothar, which some, tracing the derivation still further, derive from the old German Chlotachar, which means as much as "loudly hailed among the army" (= _hluit,_ loud, and _chari,_ army). Respectable scholars to-day so explain the name Luther. At the Wartburg, where Luther was an exile for ten months, his name was changed by the warden of the castle, Count von Berlepsch. This was done the better to conceal his identity from the henchmen of Rome, who by the imperial edict of outlawry had been given liberty to hunt Luther and slay him where they found him. The sexual condition of Luther during the years before his marriage wasthe normal condition of any healthy young man at his age. Luther speaks of this matter as a person nowadays would speak about it to his physician or to a close friend. The matter to which he refers is in itself perfectly pure: it is an appeal of nature. Do Luther’s Catholic critics mean to infer that Luther was the only monk, then or now, that felt this call which human nature issues by the ordination of the Creator? Rome can inflict celibacy even on priests that look like stall-fed oxen, but she cannot unsex men. Mohammedans are less inhuman to their eunuchs. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Luther complains of this matter as something that disturbs him. It vexed his pure mind, and he fought against it as not many monks of his day have done, by fasting, prayer, and hard work. Yes, hard work! The remarks of Luther about his physical condition are simply twisted from their true import when Luther is represented as a victim of fleshly lust and a habitual debauchee. Luther’s Catholic critics fail to mention that during his brief stay at the Wartburg Luther not only translated the greater part of the New Testament, but also wrote about a dozen treatises, some of them of considerable size, and that of his correspondence during this period about fifty letters are still preserved. Surely, a fairly respectable record for a lazy man!

Catholic writers also declare Luther spiritually unfit for translating the Bible. They say that all the time that Luther spent at the Wartburg he was haunted by the devil. He would hear strange noises and see weird shadows flit before him. He felt that he had come under the sway of the powers of darkness. This, we are assured, was because he had risen in rebellion against the divine power of the papacy. The Holy Father whom he had attacked was being avenged upon Luther by an accusing conscience. Luther was given a foretaste of the terrors that await the reprobate. He had become an incipient demoniac. The inference which we are to draw from this delightful description is this: Could such an abandoned wretch as Luther was during the exile at the Wartburg be favored with the holy calm and composure and the heavenly light which any person must possess who sets out upon the arduous task of telling men in their own tongue what God has said to them in a foreign tongue?

There is hardly a period in Luther’s life that is entirely free from spiritual affliction. In this respect Luther shares the common lot of godly men in responsible positions in Church or State during critical times. Moreover, Luther with all Christians believed in a personal and incessantly active devil. Luther’s devil was not the denatured metaphysical and scientific devil of modern times, which meets us in the form of the principle of negation, or logical contradiction, or a demoralizing tendency and influence, but an energetic devil, possessed of an intelligence and will of his own, and going about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Luther accepted the teaching of the Bible that this devil is related to men’s sinning, that men can be made to do, and are doing, his will, and are led about by the devil like slaves. Luther knew that for His own reasons God permits the devil to afflict His children, as happened to Job and Paul. Add to this the reaction that must have set in after Luther had quitted the stirring scenes and the severe ordeals through which he had passed before the imperial court at Worms. In the silence and solitude of his secluded asylum in the Thuringian Forest the recent events in which he had been a principal actor passed in review before his mind, and he began to spell out many a grave and ominous meaning from them. If it is true that the devil loves to find a lonely man, here was his chance. And if the devil ever had material interests at stake in attacking a particular person, he made no mistake in assailing this isolated monk, Martin Luther, in his moments of brooding and depression. Lastly, Luther’s physical condition at the Wartburg must be taken into consideration. Trained to frugal habits in the cloister and habituated to fasts and mortification of the flesh, Luther found the new mode of living which he was compelled to adopt uncongenial. He was the guest of a prince and was treated like a nobleman. The rich and abundant food that was served him was a disastrous diet for him, even though he did not yield overmuch to his appetite. He complains in his letters to friends during the Wartburg period about his physical distress, chiefly constipation, to which he was constitutionally prone. But after all these elements have been noted, it must be stated that the reports about diabolical visitations to which Luther was subject at the Wartburg are overdrawn for a purpose by Catholics. Luther’s references to this matter in his letters written at the time suggest only spiritual conflicts, but no physical contact with the devil. Reminiscences of his first exile which he relates at a much later period to the guests at his table are also exaggerated. These soul-battles, far from unfitting him for the work of translating the Bible, were rather a fine training-school through which God put His humble servant, and helped him to understand the sacred text over which he sat poring in deep meditation.

Lastly, Catholic critics have pronounced Luther intellectually disqualified for translating the Bible. His Greek scholarship, they say, was poor. He had barely begun to study that language. It stands to reason that his translation must be very faulty. They also emphasize the rapidity with which Luther worked. The translation of the entire New Testament was completed between December 8, 1521, and September 22 the following year. (It will be remembered that Luther had returned to Wittenberg in the first days of March, 1522, and all through the spring and summer of that year was busily engaged, with the aid of friends, on his German New Testament.) Finally, Catholics, in their efforts to belittle Luther’s works, have claimed that he plagiarized a German translation already in existence, the so-called Codex Teplensis.

It seems a mere waste of time to answer these criticisms. They remind one of a scene in the life of Columbus: the learned Catholic divines of Salamanca had to their own satisfaction routed the bold navigator with their arguments that he could not possibly start out by his proposed route. No doubt, some of them contended that he never made his famous voyage even after his return. What profit can there be in arguing the impossibility of a thing when the reality confronts you? Luther’s translation is before the world; everybody who knows Greek can compare it with the original text. The Teplensian translation, too, can be looked into. In fact, all this has been done by competent scholars, and Luther’s translation has been pronounced a masterpiece. Not only does it reproduce the original text faithfully, but it speaks a good and correct German. Luther’s translation of the Bible is now regarded as one of the classics of German literature. It is true that the philological attainments of the world have increased since Luther, and that improvements in his translations have been suggested, but they do not affect any essential teaching of the Christian religion. Bible commentators to-day are still citing Luther’s rendering as an authority. The movement recently started in Germany to replace Luther’s translation by a modern one deserves little consideration because it originated in quarters that are professedly hostile to Christianity. The things in Luther’s German Bible which vex Catholics most are in the original Greek text. Luther did not manufacture them, he merely reproduced them. It is the fact that Luther made it possible for Germans to see what is really in the Bible that hurts. To please the Catholics, Luther should not have translated the Bible at all. The truth of this remark is readily seen when one examines specific exceptions which Catholics have taken to Luther’s translation. They find fault with Luther’s translation of the angel’s address to Mary: "Du Holdselige," that is, Thou gracious one, or well-favored one. The Catholics demand that this term should be rendered "full of grace," because in their belief Mary is really the chief dispenser of grace. They complain that inMatthew 3:1-17;Matthew 2:1-23Luther has rendered the Baptist’s call: "Tut Busse," that is, Repent, instead of, Do penance. They fault Luther for translating inActs 19:1-41;Acts 18:1-28: "Und verkuendigten, was sie ausgerichtet hatten," that is, They reported what they had accomplished. Catholics regard this text as a stronghold for their doctrine of confession, especially for that part of it which makes satisfaction by works of penance a part of confession; they insist that the text must be rendered: They declared their deeds, that is, the works which they had performed by order of their confessors. Catholics charge Luther with having inserted a word inRomans 4:1-25;Romans 15:1-33, which he translates: "Das Gesetz richtet nur Zorn an," that is, The law worketh only wrath, or nothing but wrath. They object to the word "only," because in their view man can by his own natural powers make himself love the Law. They set up a great hue and cry about another insertion inRomans 3:28, which Luther translates: "So halten wir es nun, dass der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werk’, allein durch den Glauben," that is, We conclude, therefore, that a man is justified without the deeds of the Law, by faith alone; they object to the word "alone," because in their teaching justification is by faith plus works. It is known that there are translations before Luther which contain the same insertion. On this insertion Luther deserves to be heard himself. "I knew full well," he says, "that in the Latin and Greek texts ofRomans 3:28the word solum (alone) does not occur, and there was no need of the papists teaching me that. True, these four letters sola, at which the dunces stare as a cow at a new barn-door, are not in the text. But they do not see that they express the meaning of the text, and they must be inserted if we wish to clearly and forcibly translate the text. When I undertook to translate the Bible into German, my aim was to speak German, not Latin or Greek. Now, it is a peculiarity of our German language, whenever a statement is made regarding two things, one of which is affirmed while the other is negatived, to add the word solum, ’alone,’ to the word ’not’ or ’none.’ As, for instance: The peasant brings only grain, and no money. Again: Indeed, I have no money now, but only grain. As yet I have only eaten, and not drunk. Have you only written, and not read what you have written? Innumerable instances of this kind are in daily usage. While the Latin or the Greek language does not do this, the German has this peculiarity, that in all statements of this kind it adds the word ’only’ (or ’alone’), in order to express the negation completely and clearly. For, though I may say: The peasant brings grain and no money, still the expression ’no money’ is not as perfect and plain as when I say: The peasant brings grain only, and no money. Thus the word ’alone’ or ’only’ helps the word ’no’ to become a complete, clear German statement. When you wish to speak German, you must not consult the letters in the Latin language, as these dunces are doing, but you must inquire of a mother how she talks to her children, of the children how they talk to each other on the street, of the common people on the market-place. Watch them how they frame their speech, and make your translation accordingly, and they will understand it and know that some one is speaking German to them. For instance, Christ says: _Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur._ If I were to follow the dunces, I would have to spell out those words and translate: ’Aus dem Ueberfluss des Herzens redet der Mund!’ Tell me, would that be German? What German would understand that? What sort of thing is ’abundance of heart (Ueberfluss des Herzens)’ ? No German person could explain that, unless he were to say that, possibly, the person had enlargement of the heart, or too much heart. And that would not be the correct meaning. ’Ueberfluss des Herzens’ is not German, as little as it is German to say ’Ueberfluss des Hauses (abundance of house), Ueberfluss des Kachelofens (abundance of tile-oven), Ueberfluss der Bank (abundance of bench).’ This is the way the mother speaks to her children and the common people to one another: ’Wes das Herz voll ist, des gehet der Mund ueber.’ That is the way to speak good German. That is what I have endeavored to do, but I did not succeed nor achieve my aim in all instances. Latin terms are an exceedingly great hindrance to one who wishes to talk good German." (19, 974.) In insisting on the principle that a translation must reproduce the exact thought of a language, that idiomatic utterances of the one language must be replaced by similar utterances in the other, and that the genius of both the language from which and the one into which the translation is made must be observed by the translator, Luther has every rhetoric and grammar on his side. Those who find fault with him on this score deserve no better titles than those which he applied to them, all the more because he knew the true reason of their faultfinding. The Catholic charges of Bible perversion against Luther flow, not from a knowledge of good grammar, but from bad theology. Luther was, of course, fundamentally in error according to the opinion of Catholics by not making his translation from the approved and authorized Latin Vulgate, the official Catholic Bible, but from the Greek original. To return favor for favor, we shall note a few places where Catholics might bring their own Bible into better harmony with the original text. InGenesis 3:1-24;Genesis 15:1-21their translation reads: "She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." This rendering has been adopted in order to enable them to refer this primeval prophecy of the future Redeemer to Mary.Genesis 4:1-26;Genesis 13:1-18they have rendered: "My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon." This is to favor their teaching of justification on the basis of merit. The rendering "Speak not much" for "Use not vain repetitions" inMatthew 6:1-34;Matthew 7:1-29weakens the force of the Lord’s warning. InRomans 14:1-23;Romans 5:1-21the Catholic Bible tells its readers: "Let every man abound in his own sense," whatever the sense of that direction may be. What the apostle really means is: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." InGalatians 3:24the Catholic Bible calls the Law "our pedagog in Christ"; the correct rendering is: "our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." In the Catholic Bible the following remarkable event takes place inLuke 16:1-31;Luke 22:1-71: "The rich man also died: and he was buried in hell." The pall-bearers, funeral director, and mourners at these obsequies deserve a double portion of our sympathy. InActs 2:42we are told that the disciples at Jerusalem were persevering "in the communication of the breaking of the bread." The last verse in Galatians, chap. 4, is made to read: "So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free." The next chapter begins: "Stand fast," etc.

Luther has expressed opinions of certain books of the Bible which question their divine authorship. These opinions are being assiduously canvassed by Catholic writers to prove that Luther accepted only such portions of the Bible as suited his purpose, and rejected all the rest as spurious. He is said to have arrogated to himself the authority to declare any book of the Scriptures inspired or not inspired, and is, therefore, justly regarded as the father of the higher criticism of modern times, which has taken the Bible to pieces and destroyed its power. But Catholic writers fail to state that the uncertainty which Luther occasionally manifests regarding the divine origin and authenticity of certain books of the Bible is due to the confusion which the Catholic Church has created by decreeing that the apocryphal books shall be considered on a par with the canonical writings of the Bible. Setting aside the verdict of the ancient Church, and even of their famous church-father Jerome, the Catholic Church has by an arbitrary decree ruled the following books into the Bible: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees. These writings are called apocrypha because their divine origin is in doubt. Scrupulously careful to keep the divinely inspired writings separate from all other writings, no matter how godly their contents might seem to be, the Church of the Old Covenant excluded these writings from the canon, that is, from the list of fully accredited inspired writings. Besides, in the Catholic Bible in Luther’s days there were apocryphal portions inserted in canonical writings like Esther. In the course of his studies Luther learned that certain writings in the Catholic Bible represented as Biblical were no part of the Bible. Acting upon the direction which the Lord gave to the Jews: "Search the Scriptures . . . they are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39), he considered this a good test of the genuineness of any portion of the Bible, viz., that it conveyed to him knowledge of Christ and the way of salvation. The Bible, he held, can speak only for, never against Christ. By this principle he determined for himself the respective value of various writings in the Bible. Ecclesiastes and Jonah did not appeal to him as very full of Christ. In the New Testament he seems strongly attracted by the Gospel of John. But there are statements in his writings in which he expresses a preference for Matthew, Mark, and Luke. One must understand Luther’s view-point and aim on a given occasion to grasp these valuations. In regard to Job he expressed the opinion that the book is dramatic rather than historical: it does not relate actual occurrences, but rather points a moral in the form of a narrative. In the New Testament the overgreat emphasis which he thought James placed on works as against faith caused him to depreciate this Epistle and to question its apostolic authorship. Luther also knew that in the earliest centuries of the Christian era the question had been raised whether Second Peter, Jude, James, Revelation, really belonged in the canon.

Unbiased readers will see in all these remarks of Luther nothing but the earnest struggle of a sincere soul to get at the real Word of God. A person may express a preference for certain portions of the Bible without declaring all the rest of the Bible worthless. Doubts concerning the divine character of certain, portions of the Scripture arise and are occasionally expressed by the best of Christians. But Luther’s critical attitude toward certain books of the Bible is either misunderstood or misrepresented when it is made to appear that Luther permanently rejected, or tore out of his Bible, such books as Esther, Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Second Peter, James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. Some Catholics go so far as to charge Luther with having rejected the Pentateuch, the first five books in the Bible, because he speaks slightingly of Moses’ law as a means of justification. Not only did Luther translate and take into his German Bible all the writings just named, but he also cites them in his doctrinal writings as proof-texts. In the Index of Scripture citations which Dr. Hoppe, the editor of the only complete edition of Luther’s works printed in America, has added to the last volume we find 11 such references toJob 12:1-25toEcclesiastes 6:1-12to Jonah, 48 to 2 Peter, 18 to James, 6 to Jude, 61 to Hebrews, 17 to Revelation. We have counted only such references as show that Luther employed these writings as divine in his doctrinal arguments. By actual enumeration it would be found that he has referred to them much more frequently. On Jonah, Second Peter, and Jude he wrote special commentaries, and for all the books of the Bible he furnished illuminating summaries, in some cases, as in Revelation, the summaries are furnished chapter for chapter. This goes to prove that Luther had ultimately reached very clear and settled opinions regarding the authenticity and divine character of those books of the Bible which he is charged with having blasphemously criticized. Luther’s criticism of these portions of the Bible is the most respectable criticism that has come to our knowledge. It shows his scrupulous care not to admit anything as being God’s Word of the divine origin of which he was not fully convinced. It is Rome, not Luther, that has vitiated the Bible and created confusion in Christian minds, by admitting into the sacred volume portions which do not belong there.

Luther’s questioning attitude towards the books of the Bible, which we have named is the attitude of the early Christians. There was doubt expressed in the first centuries as to the genuineness of these books, and it required convincing information in those days when facilities for communication were poor to secure the adoption of the books which we now have in the Bible. Why do not the Catholics embrace the early Christians in their charge of Bible mutilation? Nor were those early Christians who questioned the divine authorship of certain books about the origin of which they had no definite knowledge any less Christian than those who had convincing information about them. For the former possessed in the writings which they had accepted as authentic the same truths which the latter had embraced.

Luther voices his profound reverence for the Scriptures in innumerable places throughout his writings. "The Holy Scriptures," he says, "did not grow on earth." (7, 2094.) Again: "When studying the Scriptures, you must reflect that it is God Himself who is speaking to you." (3, 21.)

Again: "The Scriptures are older and possess greater authority than all Councils and Fathers. Moreover, all the angels side with God and the Scriptures. . . . If age, duration, greatness, multitude [of followers], holiness, are inducements to believe something, why do we believe men who live but a short time rather than God, who is the Oldest, the Greatest, the Holiest, the Mightiest of all? Why do we not believe all the angels, since a single one of them has greater authority than the Pope? Why do we not believe the Bible, when one passage of Scripture outweighs all the books in the world?" (19, 1734.) Again: "The Bible alone is the true lord and master over all writings on earth. If this is not so, of what use is the Bible? Then let us cast it aside, and be satisfied with the books and teachings of men." (15, 1481.) Again: "All Scripture is full of Christ, the Son of God and Mary. Its sole object is to teach us to know Him as a distinct person, and that through Him we may in eternity behold the Father and the Holy Ghost, one God. The Scriptures are ajar to him who has the Son, and in the same proportion as his faith in Christ increases the Scriptures become clear to him" (3, 1959.) How little Luther would have in common with the destructive higher critics of the Bible in our day, we can gather from the following statement: "If cutting and tearing the Bible to pieces were a great art, what a famous Bible would I produce! Especially if I were to lay my hand on the important passages, those on which the articles of our faith rest. . . . My position, then, is this: In view of the fact that our faith is supported by Holy Writ, we must not depart from its words as they read, nor from the order in which they are placed. . . . Otherwise, what is to become of the Bible?" (20, 213.)