Luther's Translation of the Bible Part 1

Hey everybody! We hope that you enjoyed the short story we shared with you all! The next thing we want to share is a more scholarly type of work; this will be shared in parts. Here is the first part and we would really really appreciate it if you gave us feedback on whether you're interested in continuing to read about this topic or not! We always appreciate your comments, questions, and concerns and thank you for reading our blog! Please pray for us!

Luther’s Translation of the Bible

Written by Youstina Guirguis

     Martin Luther is considered to be one of the most controversial figures in history. While some may think that he is a hero for breaking away from the Catholic church and its corrupt ways at the time, others may come to a different conclusion based on evidence of his writings and the writings of his critics about him. Martin Luther essentially started the movement known as “The Reformation” and spurred on the rise of Protestantism. Luther is most commonly known for his “95 theses” which were his complaints against the Catholic church. While there were certain things that were deemed as corrupt in the Catholic church that Luther rightly wanted to “reform,” one may begin to wonder how Protestantism, a new sect of Christianity arose instead of the “reform” that was supposed to take place. One possible explanation of this is that perhaps Luther used his new translation of the New Testament as propaganda to spur on the rise of Protestantism rather than reform the Catholic church.

There are many inconsistencies between Martin Luther’s speech and actions. In his book Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther, Edwards (1994) says: “Scripture, Luther insisted, interpreted itself” (pg. 109). Despite this claim made by Martin Luther, Edwards says that “Luther decided in issuing his German translation of the New Testament that it was necessary to fit out the text of Scripture with aids to its interpretation” (pg. 110). It’s ironic that Luther would first claim that Scripture “interpret[s] itself” yet provides a means to derive interpretation from it. Edwards (1994) also says that “both Luther’s translation and the accompanying glosses encouraged a reading of the text that differed sharply from a Catholic reading” (pg. 118). One could infer that Luther did not necessarily believe that Scripture “interpreted itself,” rather that he was dissatisfied with the Catholic and Evangelical interpretations and therefore, sought to promote what he thought was the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Edwards (1994) makes another important point in regards to Scripture interpreting itself. He says: “Using forewords and introductions, marginal glosses, polemical illustrations, rearranged paragraphing, and a theologically inspired translation, Luther sought to assure that at least the printed text of Scripture interpreted itself....his preface to Romans represented Luther’s most elaborate attempt to influence how Scriptures were read” (pg.111 and pg.116). This implies that Luther did not truly believe that Scripture interpreted itself or that he was concerned that Christians would not come out with the “proper” interpretation (i.e. what he thought the proper interpretation was). Edwards (1994) is making the argument that only when printed with other additions Scripture interprets itself (or rather, interprets itself according to what Martin Luther thought was proper). Edwards (1994) also says of the additions: “Of course, it also reinforced his theological concerns and assisted readers in reading the text as Luther thought they should” (pg. 122). He also says: “It suffices to note that Luther chose to translate crucial passages in a way not only consistent with his theological program but in a way that tended to reinforce the points he wanted the reader to take away from the text” (pg. 122). In addition to the interpretations he included in the margins and other things to help readers interpret Scripture, Edwards says that Luther changed the paragraph sequence in that instead of breaking the text into paragraphs similar to that in contemporary Bible translations, he created new paragraphs beginning with verses he thought were very important.

What is also ironic is that Luther regards the Catholic pope’s interpretations of Scripture as not authoritative (pg. 109). This belief on Luther’s part begs the questions: who is given the authority to interpret Scripture and how is that authority bestowed and/or established? If Luther had previously claimed that Scripture interprets itself, what is the need for the interpretation guides he placed within his translation of the Bible? If indeed Scripture interprets itself and thus it is not necessary to interpret it (making all interpretations of the Bible lack authority), what gives Luther the authority to interpret the Bible? Wood (1969) also comments on Luther’s lack of trust in the pope’s or the Catholic church’s authority (pg. 119). Wood (1969) states: “Although the apostolic provenance of the New Testament books carried weight in the acceptance of the canon, Luther refused to defer to apostolic authority as such” (pg. 124). This is interesting because Luther esteems the epistles of St. Paul and the Gospel according to St. John. The authors of those books, Paul and John respectively, were both apostles. This is contradictory in that he esteems Paul’s epistles and yet at the same time he “refuse[s] to defer to apostolic authority.” Ironically enough, the Catholic church deems itself as an apostolic church, meaning that they can trace their roots back to the apostles (namely, Peter). With the Catholic church being able to trace their roots back to the apostles, this would certainly give them a certain degree of authority in interpreting Scripture. This could be a reason why Luther rejected apostolic authority; if he had accepted it, then he would not have had an excuse to reject the pope’s or catholic church’s authority in interpreting Scripture.

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

Wood, A. S. (1969). Captive to the word: Martin Luther: Doctor of sacred scripture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.