Luther's Translation of the Bible Part 3

Hello everyone! We hope you all enjoyed the last post! Here is the final part in the Martin Luther series!! Please let us know what you thought of it and give us feedback on whether or not you would like to see more writings like this!! We would also like to take this opportunity to welcome a new writer for the blog, Feven Berhane!! Her writings will be featured shortly, stay tuned! :) Thank you for your support thus far. Please remember us in your prayers as always and pray for this service! Without further ado, we present the final part of our series...
     


     Additionally, according to Edwards (1994), Luther “would rather do without knowledge of the works of Christ than do without his preaching” (pg. 112). There is a popular saying that says: “Actions speak louder than words.” It may very well exist in many different languages and cultures and Christ specifically spoke of this concept also in condemning the Pharisees for telling people what to do but never actually doing it themselves. Christ says in the Gospel according to St. Matthew: “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers” (Matthew 23:3-4). If Christ Himself spoke of the importance of doing good works rather than just preaching, how is it that Martin Luther can justify sola fide? If he wanted his readers to focus so much on Christ’s teachings rather than His works, how is it that he can so easily dismiss what Christ said in regards to doing good works? Edwards (1994) quotes Luther as saying: “‘For the works do not help me at all but his words give life’” (pg. 112). The works that Christ did and are documented in the Gospel accounts are the example and the witness to His divinity (which the Gospel according to St. John speaks much of). Without any account of the miracles or events that were documented in the other three Gospel accounts, how would anyone have evidence to support their faith that Christ was the Messiah or God? They would not; Christ would simply be seen as a normal human being. Also, with any historical figure, how is he or she deemed a wicked character or a prominent one? Is it not through the evil or good things they have done? If the terrible things that occurred during the holocaust were not documented and Hitler’s evil works were not documented, would anyone have considered him or known him to be a terrible man? If one were to read only the Gospel according to St. John, they may get a distorted view of Christ; this is ironic because Luther attempted to put focus on the Gospel according to St. John, hoping to present Christ as simply and fully as possible.

     Edwards (1994) also brings to light the fact that Luther both translated things the wrong way as well as added words that were not found in the original Greek text. He says that Emser, a critic of Luther, wrote a treatise “to explain how and where Luther distorted the text and how he employed glosses and prefaces to mislead readers ‘from the ancient Christian way’….Emser sought to show that the interpretation that seemed to Luther natural and proper was in fact forced and contrived. Without Luther’s glosses and particular translation, Emser maintained, the text yielded a quite different meaning” (pg. 119). The two examples Edwards gives in which Luther improperly translated or added words are verses 23 and 28 in chapter 3 of Romans.

     Edwards (1994) quotes Emser: “‘Just as no one may say that he is without sin, thus no one may truly say that all works are sin, for if fasting, giving of alms, praying, doing penance, etc., were sins, then God would have commanded sin and Christ himself would have sinned, for he himself also fasted, prayed, preached, and did good works….he mistranslates the words of Paul, who does not say, ‘they are all sinners,’ but rather ‘they have all sinned and lack the glory of God.’” (pg. 121). This is an important point which Emser dwells on here. By translating this particular verse to mean “they are all sinners,” Luther basically tells readers of the Bible that no matter what they do, they can not be saved. In essence, this dismisses the entire belief system of the Catholic church and all its sacraments such as baptism and confession, through one is forgiven his or her sins (pg. 122).

     Luther is also thought to have reversed word order and added words in certain verses in order to promote his interpretation of it (pg. 122). Edwards (1994) says: “To make his theological point emphatic, Luther had added a word not in the Greek or Latin texts, the word “solely” or “alleyn”: “solely” through faith [alleyn durch dē glawben]” (pg. 122). While Luther states that “this addition was necessary to translate the Greek into good German” (pg. 122), it is clear that he was trying to manipulate the text of the Bible to promote his interpretation of that particular verse and the rest of Scripture. The fact that Luther used the Greek text of Scripture to translate it to German means that very few people would know of the added words since not many people during this time were well-educated or knew Greek. Thus, he would be misleading people.

     Luther’s biased compilation of the list of most important books in the New Testament and his manipulation of the text of Scripture poses a question: was Luther really trying to “reform” the Catholic church’s corrupt ways at the time or was he using all of this as propaganda to break away from the religious and political ties of the Catholic church? The definition of propaganda according to the Oxford English Dictionary is “an organization, scheme, or movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine, practice, etc.; the systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view” (Oxford English Dictionary). Edwards reveals an important detail regarding the publishing and distribution of Luther’s translation of the New Testament that may shed some light on this question. Edwards (1994) claims that sometimes the publishers who were printing and distributing editions of Luther’s translation didn’t put that Luther was the one who translated it (pg. 127). He says: “By omitting his name, the printers assured a larger market, including readers who remained loyal to the Catholic church, and helped propagate Luther’s message to as large an audience as possible (pg. 127). Based on the above evidence, one may come to the conclusion that Luther did indeed “disseminat[e] information in a biased and misleading way,” mainly to promote his interpretation of Scripture.

     As discussed earlier, some of the evidence for Luther using his translation of the New Testament as propaganda is: he refused the authority of the fathers of the church unless it agreed with his interpretation of it, he selectively chose which books in the New Testament were authoritative and the most important also based on what he thought was the correct interpretation, he provided commentary in the margins of the Bible he translated presumably to help readers understand the “correct” meaning of Scripture, and he improperly translated and added words not found in the original Greek text he used. There is one theme that unites all of these points: Luther’s main goal was to promote his understanding of Scripture to readers of the Bible. While some may think that he is a hero and the father of Protestantism as well as a reformer, there is some evidence to suggest otherwise.

Works Cited

Edwards, M. U. (1994). Printing, Propaganda and Martin Luther.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Propaganda. (n.d.). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com.

St. Athanasius Orthodox Academy. (2008). The Orthodox study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.