Passages in which he is slandered by the Papists.
Passages in which he is slandered by the Papists.
§ 524. Let us weigh, in particular, some passages in which the Papists suspect there is a corruption of the original text: (I) From the Old Testament.
** (1) 1 Chron. 15:1: Hiram, der König zu Tyro, sandte Boten zu David um Cedernholtz, Maurer und Zimmerleute. [“Hiram, the king of Tyre, sent messengers to David concerning cedar wood, masons, and carpenters.”] In the Hebrew this is in c. 14: “And Hiram, the king of Tyre, sent messengers to David, and cedar logs, also craftsmen … to build a house for him.” We respond that this is a typographical error. **
(2) Ps. 76:11. “Next to this verse, he placed a gloss in the margin in which he explains the psalmist’s words as being about ‘the vow of faith and divine worship.’ “We respond. The question here is about the translation of the text, not the marginal interpretation. Here, however, the discussion is not an example taken from the actual translation but about an explanation thereof, and of this we nevertheless cannot disapprove. When Scripture mentions vows, it teaches that one must make his vows only to God. Luther acted correctly, therefore, in applying the idea of making vows to God to the universal vow of piety because, concerning some special vows, we do not have in the New Testament the sort of precepts as there were in the Old.
(3) Prov. 25:27. “The Hebrew reads literally: ‘To eat honey in multiplying is not good, and the searching out of their glory is glory.’ Luther translates it with a contrary meaning: Wer schwer Ding forschet, dem wirds zu schwer. [“The person who is seriously searching out a matter, that matter becomes too difficult for him.”]” We respond. The protasis of the comparison shows that in the apodosis excessive and curious investigation is understood. Consequently, Pagninus does not hesitate to insert that word (“excessive”) into his translation. That excessive searching out, however, is not glory. Consequently, Pagninus repeats the particle of negation from the protasis in the apodosis and translates it in this way: “Excessive searching out of their glory is not glory,” and on this point Piscator also follows Pagninus. Luther’s translation agrees well with the Hebrew text, for 
means “was heavy” in quantity or quality, magnitude or multitude (Job 33:7; 2 Sam. 13:25; etc.).
(4) Prov. 31:10. “In the margin next to this, Luther put this little verse: Nichts liebers ist auf Erden, denn Frauenlieb, wems kan werden. [“There is nothing so pleasant on earth as the love of a woman for whomever this can occur.”]” We respond. The question is about the translation of the text, not about a marginal gloss. Furthermore, Luther is speaking about licit marital love according to the diction of the Holy Spirit in 2 Sam. 1:26 and Dan. 11:37, and similar things concerning this occur in Solomon (Prov. 5:19; 18:22).
(5) Isa. 9:6. “Luther translated the Hebrew words 
as Kraft, Heldt [“might, hero”], which is taken as an argument that weakens the deity of the Son concerning the text.” We respond. The Hebrew 
also means “heroic” or “brave.” So Luther has not corrupted the text, and one should not look for an argument on which to build the divinity of the Messiah so much in that little word as in the context of the entire chapter. In his Postill. eccles., Luther himself explains why he rendered it as Kraft: because that word signifies might and power, and here the names of an office are being reported, and we do not lack other stronger passages for confirming Christ’s deity. Nonetheless he clearly deduces that this is also correctly expressed by the word Gott [“God”] (De ult. verb. David., German edition of Jena, vol. 8, f. 145b). (Cf. our Disp. 4. de gloria Dei, § 5.)
Ezek. 34:16. “The Hebrew reads: ‘I shall strengthen the weak sheep, and the fat and the strong 
, I shall destroy,’ that is, ‘I shall destroy the one that oppresses the other sheep.’ Luther translates it in contrary fashion: Was fett und starch ist, will ich behüten [“What is fat and strong I shall protect”].” We respond. Luther read this as 
instead of 
because of the similarity of the letters 
and 
. He took that word into a good description of the strong sheep, in which instance he followed the Septuagint and the Latin translations that read 
. On the other hand, the Targum reads it as 
, from which it translates 
, “I shall destroy.” (Cf. Schindler, Lexic., p. 1885.)
(6) Daniel 3. “Luther has omitted sixty-six whole verses of Daniel 3, as well as the last two chapters that include the accounts of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon.” We respond. Luther did not omit this in his translation of the Bible; rather, he put them in their proper and special place among the apocryphal books. It was right and correct for him to do this, because they are not found in the Hebrew text, that is, in the sources of truth. In this point, Luther has followed the teachers of the ancient Church who remove these pericopes from the chastity of the canon, and especially Jerome, who writes as follows: “I have not found the words that follow in the Hebrew manuscripts” (preface to Daniel 3); and at the end of the hymn: “This is as far as we read Daniel in the Hebrew. What follows until the end of the book has been translated from the edition of Theodotion.” Jerome also calls the account of Bel and the Dragon “fables.”
§ 525. (II) From the New Testament. First, from the evangelists and from Acts.
(1) “In Matt. 6:11 he translates 
as ‘daily,’ though he ought rather to have translated it ‘heavenly’ or ‘supersubstantial.’ “We respond. The Vulgate version has “daily” because Luke adds to 
(11:3), “which is necessary every day.” Luther has followed this. Jerome indeed translated it “supersubstantial” because he thought heavenly bread was being indicated, which is supersubstantial, surpassing everything created and all substances. But if heavenly and supersubstantial bread were meant in the Fourth Petition, there would be no petition left in which we would ask God for the necessities to sustain this life. This does not harmonize with the perfection of the Lord’s Prayer. Furthermore, we have asked God for spiritual bread or spiritual gifts already in the first three petitions; therefore it remained for us to ask God also for physical bread. Some Papists take heavenly and supersubstantial bread to mean the Eucharist, such as Gregorius de Valentia (vol. 3., disp. 6, q. 2, punct. 5. col. 1630) and Barradius (Concord. evangel., vol. 2, bk. 7, c. 24, p. 475). The Eucharist, however, had not yet been instituted when Christ taught the apostles the Lord’s Prayer. How, then, would the apostles have known that He was denoting the eucharistic bread with these words? This is the argument of Cornelius Jansenius (Conc. evang., c. 41, p. 506). Finally, if we had to take this to mean supersubstantial and heavenly bread, He would not have said 
but 
. Jerome says that 
is the same as 
, “uncommon and special” (Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Titus 2:14). Bellarmine himself, however, repudiates this in De operibus in particul., bk. 1, c. 6, § 1, where he adds: “The Greek fathers, who knew best the force of the Greek word (such as Basil, QQ. brevior., q. 252; Gregory of Nyssa, De orat. Domin., orat. 4; Chrysostom; Theophylact; and Euthymius, commentary on Matthew 6), say that 
is ‘substantial bread,’ that is, bread accommodated to our substance.” The ancient translator also referred to this. He translated it “daily,” that is, the bread that we need every day. (Cf. Dr. Chemnitz, Harmon., c. 51, p. 427; and Dr. Meisner, Sob. philos., part 2, sect. 1, c. 2, q. 19.)
(2) “In Matt. 6:13 he has added a closing for the Lord’s Prayer: ‘For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever,’ but this does not exist in the Greek manuscripts.” We respond. We discussed this matter in detail earlier (§ 361).
(3) “In Mark 11:26 he has omitted these words: ‘If you will not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive you.’ “We respond. Pistorius himself admits that such a clause is not found in all the Greek manuscripts. Therefore, he should settle with those who first omitted it. It is not probable that Luther omitted this by any means as a bad deceit, because those words that they say are lacking here are present in Matt. 6:15. Nor did Luther ever teach the contrary, and the first part of the antithesis gives the judgment of the latter. Likewise, the statements and parables of Christ affirm the same thing more expressly (Matt. 5:25; 18:35). Erasmus, whom Leo X praised, does not have this statement either.
(4) “In Luke 1:28 he has changed what we have in the Latin version—Ave, gratia plena [“Hail, full of grace”]—and has translated it as du Holdselige [“O favored one”].” We respond. He expressed the Greek 
aptly. He did not consider nor should he have considered the Latin translation as authentic.
** (5) In Invict. demonst., p. 243, Hunnius accuses Luther of having maliciously corrupted the testimony of John 1:29 by translating it das der Welt Sünde trägt [“which carries the sin of the world”] because the Greek says 
, which means “to remove.” We respond. The word 
means not only “to remove” but also “to carry.” Dietenberger translates Ps. 91:12 as daß sie dich auf den Händen tragen [“that they may carry you with their hands”] and Matt. 27:32 as daß er ihm seine Kreuz trug [“to carry His cross for Him”]. In Isa. 53:12 and 1 Pet. 2:24 Christ is said to have carried our sorrows and sins. Dietenberger translated as getragen [“carried”]. **
(6) “In Acts 13:23, the Greek has ‘Of this one’s seed, God, according to promise, raised up a Savior for Israel: Jesus.’ Luther translated this Aus dieses (David’s) Samen hat Gott, wie er verheissen hat, gezeuget Jesum dem Volk Israel zum Heiland. [“From this one’s (David’s) seed God, as He promised, has begotten Jesus as Savior for His people Israel.”]” We respond. We could say that the word zeugen [“beget”] here is used in a more general sense. We admit, however, that in this place Luther’s translation is somewhat unfitting and should be corrected according to the Greek text. You see, we do not consider Luther’s translation to be authentic, as Bellarmine has attributed to us by a great lie (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 10). Rather, we claim that one must pass judgment on it, just as on all other translations, on the basis of the sources.
(7) “In Acts 15:41, he omitted these words: ‘commanding them to keep the commandments of the apostles.’ “We respond. These words are not found in the Greek text nor even in all of the Latin editions. The Syriac paraphrast and Erasmus do not have them. There does appear something similar in Luther’s translation in Acts 16:4. Hence from this omission one cannot conclude that Luther was a despiser of the laws of the Church.
§ 526. Second, from the apostolic Epistles.
(1) “In Rom. 3:28 he inserted an exclusive particle: ‘We hold that a man is justified by faith alone.’ “We respond. We discuss this point in detail in our treatise On Justification [Commonplace XIX], § 182.
(2) “In Rom 4:15, he also adds an exclusive that does not appear in the Greek text: Das Gesetz richtet nur Zorn an [“The Law works only wrath”]” We respond. He did not count the words; he merely wished to express their meaning. The apostle is proposing here the question whether justification comes by the Law or by faith, and to it he responds that it is not by the Law. Therefore because the Law does not justify but produces wrath, he was rightly able to add an exclusive to the latter part, “the Law works only wrath.” You see, the two expressions “to justify,” that is, to absolve from sin, and “to work wrath,” that is, to accuse and condemn sin, are directly opposed to each other.
(3) “In Rom. 14:6, the Greek reads: ‘He who observes the day observes it to the Lord, and he who does not observe the day, he does not observe it to the Lord.’ Luther seems to have translated it in a contrary way: Welcher auf die Tage hält, der thuts dem Herrn, und welcher nichts drauf hält, der thuts auch dem Herrn [“He who holds to the day does it to the Lord; and he who holds nothing to it does it to the Lord.”]” We respond. To be sure, he does change the wording, but the meaning is the same in both readings. Luther is not saying, “He who does not observe the day observes it to the Lord,” but that “he does this to the Lord,” that is, by not observing the day, he does this in honor of the Lord.
(4) “In 1 Cor. 7:9, the Greek reads: ‘It is better to marry than to burn.’ Luther has translated this: Es ist besser freien, denn Brunst leiden [“It is better to marry than to suffer passion” or “heat”]. However, it is one thing to feel the burnings and another ‘to burn,’ that is, to be incontinent. The former can occur without consent and consequently without sin, but the latter occurs by consent.” We respond. Luther has translated this correctly because 
denotes those inner flames of lust that not only sting on the surface but also penetrate the heart like a fire, when, as the poet sings, “there is a flame of the soft insides,”83 though those flames do not yet erupt in outright fornication nor does any inner consent occur. (Cf. our treatise On Marriage [Commonplace XXVIII], § 531, where with several arguments we have confirmed this explanation against Bellarmine.)
(5) “In 1 Cor. 9:5, the Greek reads: ‘Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister woman [or ‘wife’]?’ Luther did a preposterous thing and applied this to marriage: Haben wir nicht macht eine Schwester zum Weibe mit umher zu führen? [“Do we not have the right to take a sister as wife with us?”]” We respond. In our treatise On the Ministry [Commonplace XXVI], § 333, we confirmed Luther’s explanation with many arguments.
(6) “In Gal. 3:10, the Greek reads: ‘All who are of the works of the Law are under a curse.’ Luther has translated thus: Die mit des Gesetzes Werken umgehen, die sind verflucht [“Those who deal with the works of the Law are cursed.”]” We respond. He has expressed the sense; he has not rendered it word for word. You see, what German would have understood his intent had he translated it word for word as die aus den Werken des Gesetzes sind? But now, from Luther’s translation it is clear that he means those who are looking for righteousness in works of the Law and who have confidence in them before God’s judgment.
(7) “In Eph. 5:18, he translated ‘debauchery’ as ein unordentliches Wesen [“an unrestrained character”].” We respond. In the Greek, the word is 
, which signifies sumptuous living and a dissolution of behavior. In Luke 15:13 the prodigal son is said to have lived 
[“dissolutely”]. The people of Asoti [populus Asotorum] were so called by the Greeks because they were destroyed by their extravagance, given as they were to partying so that they never saw the sun rise nor set. Tannerus ought not to have accused Luther’s translation without substituting a more suitable word.
(8) “In 1 Thess. 4:3, he omitted these words: ‘that you abstain from fornication.’ “We respond. This “truth” is of Pistorius, for these words are in all the versions of the German Bible. They are read publicly in our churches in the Epistle for Reminiscere Sunday.84
(9) “In 2 Pet. 1:10, he omitted the words ‘through good works.’ “We respond. These are not found in the Greek editions. Some Papists write that “they found them in one Greek codex,” but perhaps the same codex is in that library in which Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 12) found the feminine 
[“she”] in Gen. 3:15!
(10) “In James 4:6, he omitted the words ‘Therefore it says, God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.’ “We respond. We do not find this in all the Greek editions. It is not likely that he omitted them deceitfully because they are contained in 1 Peter 5. These words are also omitted in Dietenberger’s translation.
(11) “1 John 5:7, he omitted an entire verse about the Trinity: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.’ “We respond. We have discussed this matter in detail in our Disput. prior. on this passage, which was held in 1619.
82 Read tibi with Cotta instead of sibi.
83 Virgil, Aeneid, bk. 4.
84 That is, the second Sunday in Lent.