His work had no sooner appeared than it was the subject of much criticism, which came chiefly from the Roman Catholics. The earliest critic was Emser, who in 1523 published a volume, in which he called attention to the many mistakes and doctrinal errors contained in the work of Luther. Emser’s work was the precursor of many others, and it is no doubt possible to point to mistakes due to a defective knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. But the best testimony to Luther's work is the permanent hold it has had on the German nation, as shown by the innumerable editions through which it has passed. Some of these are interesting because of the changes of different kinds which they introduced in many cases with the object of supporting special doc- trinal views. Others had a linguistic purpose. More modern and familiar words and constructions were introduced in place of those which had become obsolete. One of these revised editions, which ob- tained a very large circulation, is that of 1703, of which the Canstein Bible Institute at Halle has since 1717 cireulated, according to’ Nestle, more than five million copies.
ee EET
414
CONTINENTAL VERSIONS
12. Such was the position which Luther’s transla- tion occupied in Germany, that while it was gener- ally admitted that revisions and corrections were necessary, many of the attempts in this direction roused great opposition; and while some would have been content with merely removing words which were obsolete or of uncertain meaning, others were in favour of a more thorough revision. Finally, a commission, representative of various theological views, was appointed, charged to make the minimum of necessary corrections, and the first result of their labours was the NT, published at Halle in 1867; and finally in 1883 appeared at Halle, ‘The Bible, or the complete Scriptures of the Old and New Testament according to the German translation of D. Martin Luther. First impression of the Bible revised by order of the Hisenach German Protestant Church Congress.’ This is the so-called Probe-Bibel or Proof-Bible. Two years were allowed for criticism, and then the final revision of the Proof-Bible began, during which numerous opinions and reports were sent in. In January 1890 the great final conference of all who had taken part in the theological and lin- guistic revision was begun at Halle, and at last in the beginning of 1892 the revised edition was issued by the Canstein Bible Press at Halle. This completed the work begun as long ago as 1855, when Pastor Ménckeburg of Hamburg made an appeal to the Bible Societies to unite in preparing a uniform text. It was inevitable that the result should be freely and variously criticised, and the amount of literature produced has been large. The defects are due not so much to the revisers as to the limitations set in regard to the amount of change they were to make, which were fixed before the work was begun.
13. The rapid and widespread popularity obtained by Luther’s translation, when it first appeared, made other attempts in the same field rare, and the only important edition in the 16th cent. is the Ziirich Bible of 1530, which followed the publica- tion of the Prophets and Apocrypha in the preced- ing year. The translation was for the most part that of Luther, only unimportant linguistic changes being introduced. The only portion of the Bible of which a new translation was made was the Hagiographa, including Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs; and this was not satisfactory, especially on the linguistic side. A later edition of 1548 is said to be based on a comparison with the Hebrew, but the changes are not important. This edition of 1548 became itself in turn the basis of later revisions. Of such later revisions the most important is that of Breitinger, who published a NT in 1629, which introduced many changes, and aimed at extreme literalness. An attempt to secure a thorough revision aroused such opposition that it led to no result. It was not till the 19th century that any satisfactory or effective revision took place, and, as a@ consequence of these revisions, Nestle says that ‘its dialectical character has now disappeared, and in respect of accuracy it may be compared with the best : it certainly has not come from one mould, and the effort after exactness has frequently led to bombastic language and lack of clearness,’ In 1858 a commission was appointed in Switzerland to revise the work again, and in 1893 a NT and Psalter appeared, in which account has been taken of the results of scientific criticism of the Greek text.
14, Another Protestant translation of importance is that of J. Piscator, first published at Herborn in 1602, and afterwards in use at Bern and elsewhere. Nestle describes it as a weak translation, abound- ing in Latinisms, which indicate a use of the Latin versions of Junius and Tremellius. Mention should
CONTINENTAL VERSIONS
also be made of the Socinian version of Crell and Stegman (Rackau, 1630) and another by the So- cinian Felbinger which was published at Amster- dam in 1660. Another translation, which had leanings to mysticism, was the Berlenburg Bible (1726-1742), based partly on Luther’s version, partly on the Ziirich Bible. Other versions, such as the Wertheim Bible of 1735, were rationalistic in tendency, and explained away the supernatural. The same object was kept in view in Bahrdt’s translation of The latest revelations of God (Riga, 1773). Of 19th cent. translations those of de Wette (1809-1814) and Bunsen (1858-1869) are the most important. The first mentioned combined scholarly exactness with happiness in expression, the second aimed at being popular and easily understood by the masses.