844 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 1530.
variations of the MSS. of the Vulgate, which was in a very unsettled condition before the Clementine recension (1592), The revisers are as unknown as the translators.
The spread of this version, imperfect as it was, proves the hunger and thirst of the German people for the pure word of God, and prepared the way for the Reformation. It alarmed the hierarchy. Archbishop Berthold of Mainz, otherwise a learned and enlightened prelate, issued, Jan. 4, 1486, a prohibition of all unauthorized printing of sacred and learned books, especially the German Bible, within his diocese, giving as a reason that the German language was incapable of correctly rendering the profound sense of Greek and Latin works, and that laymen and women could not understand the Bible. Even Geiler of Kaisersberg, who sharply criticised the follies of the world and abuses of the Church, thought it “an evil thing to print the Bible in German.”
Besides the whole Bible, there were numerous German editions of the Gospels and Epistles (Plenaria), and the Psalter, all made from the Vulgate.!
Luther could not be ignorant of this medizval version. He made judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns. Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the short space of three months. But this fact doés not diminish his merit in the least; for his version was made from the original Hebrew and Greek, and was so far superior in every respect that the older version entirely disappeared. It is to all intents a new work.
1 Τῇ the royal library of Munich there are 21 MSS. of German versions of the Gospels and Epistles. The Gospels for the year were printed about 25 times before 1518; the Psalter about 18 times before 1513. See besides the works of Panzer, Kehrein, Keller, Haupt, above quoted, Alzog, Die deutschen Plenarien im 15. und zu Anfang des 16. Jahrh., Freiburg-i-B., 1874.
2 Luther’s use of the older German version was formerly ignored or denied, but has been proved by Professor Krafft of Bonn (1883). He adds, however, very justly (1.6. p. 19): ‘‘ Es gereicht Luther zum groéssten Verdienst, dass er auf den griechischen Grundtext zuriickgegangen, den deutschen Wortschatz zundchst im N. T. wesentlich berichtigt, dann aber auch mit seiner Genialitadt bedeutend vermehrt hat.’? See Notes below, p. 352.
§ 62. LUTHER’S TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE. 948
LInther’s Qualifications.
Luther had a rare combination of gifts for a Bible translator: familiarity with the original languages, perfect mastery over the vernacular, faith in the revealed word of God, enthusiasm for the gospel, unction of the Holy Spirit. A good translation must be both true and free, faithful and idiomatic, so as to read like an original work. This is the case with Luther’s version. Besides, he had already acquired such fame and authority that his version at once commanded universal attention.
His knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was only moderate, but sufficient to enable him to form an independent judgment.! What he lacked in scholarship was supplied by his intuitive genius and the help of Melanchthon. In the German tongue he had no rival. He created, as it were, or gave shape and form to the modern High German. He combined the official language of the government with that of the common people. He listened, as he says, to the speech of the mother at home, the children in the street, the men and women in the market, the butcher and various tradesmen in their shops, and “looked them on the mouth,” in pursuit of the most intelligible terms. His genius for poetry and music enabled him to reproduce the rhythm and melody, the parallelism and symmetry, of Hebrew poetry and prose. His crowning qualification was his intuitive insight and spiritual sympathy with the contents of the Bible.
A good translation, he says, requires “a truly devout, faithful, diligent, Christian, learned, experienced, and practiced heart.”
1 “* Teh kann,’”’ he says in his Tischreden, ‘‘ weder griechisch noch ebreisch, ich will aber dennoch einem Ebreer und Griechen ziemlich begegnen. Aber die Sprachen machen fir sich selbst keinen Theologen, sondern sind nur eine Hiilfe. Denn soll einer von einem Dinge reden, so muss er die Sache [Sprache ?] zuvor wissen und verstehen.’”’? Erl.-Frkf. ed., vol. LXII. 313.