[1891]Ib., Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 126; Erl. ed., 21, p. 28.[1892]Ib., 7, pp. 551 ff., 558, 565 f., 568, 580, 596, 599, 602=45, pp. 222 ff., 231, 240 f., 244, 259, 280, 285, 289.[1893]Ib., p. 584=265; cp. p. 586=267.[1894]Ib., 2, p. 80=21, p. 160.[1895]Cp.ib., 30, 1, p. 160 ff.=21, p. 69 ff.[1896]Above, p. 84 ff.[1897]Great Catechism. Preface of 1530. See below, n. 6.[1898]Ib.[1899]To Martin Görlitz, Jan. 15, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 43: “pro rudibus paganis.”[1900]See above, vol. iv., p. 234.[1901]The passage first given by G. Buchwald, now in the Weim. Luther ed., 30, 1, p. 428 f.[1902]Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 239 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 5 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 349 ff., etc.[1903]Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 375 ff.[1904]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).[1905]Preface to the Smaller Catechism.[1906]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 2, quoted by the editor in the Introduction to the Catechisms.[1907]Cp. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 442 f. On the new Confession see above, vol. iv., p. 248 ff.[1908]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 134 f., 188, 190; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 36 f., 101, 103.[1909]Cp. vol. i., p. 187 ff., etc.[1910]Cp. the “Bibliographie zum Grossen Katechismus,” by O. Albrecht and J. Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 499 ff.; cp.ib., p. 666 ff.[1911]For proofs, see Th. Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. lxiii.[1912]“Historien,” Bl. 63´.[1913]Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 655.[1914]“Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 518.[1915]We may recall his statement that he would like to see all his books destroyed except two: “Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” To Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247. See above, p. 471, n. 2.[1916]New edition by Buchwald, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 1 ff.[1917]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 444.[1918]Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 61: “Just as at Wittenberg and in many other churches the useful custom still prevails of preaching on this Catechism four times a year for a fortnight, and of daily assembling for that purpose the children, servants and artisans. Many ministers also teach the Catechism on Sundays in addition to the Gospel, and assemble the children in summer for the recitation and explaining of the Catechism, as is, thanks be to God, the custom with us to-day.”[1919]Ib., Bl. 62´.[1920]O. Albrecht, “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers vom Jahre 1536,” 1905, p. 94.[1921]Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 441.[1922]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl. ed., 22, p. 232 (cp. p. 75=231, and Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 434).[1923]Thus Albrecht in his introduction to his new edition of the two Catechisms of Luther, Weim. ed., p. 435; he refers also to Falk’s and Battenberg’s editions of Wolff’s “Beichtbüchlein” (see vol. iv., p. 254) and to J. Greving’s “Zum vorreformatorischen Beichtunterricht” (“Veröffentl. aus dem K.-h. Seminar zu München,” 3, 1, 1907, pp. 46-81).[1924]Albrecht,ib., p. 436.[1925]Ib.[1926]Cp. Weim. ed., 26, p. 237.[1927]“Historien,” Bl. 63. Mathesius, however, will only admit that, on the whole, “some fragments of the Catechism” had been retained in Popery. Luther’s admirer cannot even recall that in Popery he “had ever heard ... the Ten Commandments, Creed, Our Father or Baptism spoken of from the pulpit.... Of the absolution and consolation arising from a believing reception of the Body and Blood of Christ I had to my knowledge never heard a word all my days before I came to Wittenberg, either in the churches or the schools, just as I cannot recall having seen any written or printed explanation of the Catechism in Popery” (Bl. 63 and 63´).—The ignorance of the facts of the case revealed in the latter statement is met with elsewhere in the rest of the passage of Mathesius’s writing; he may have been unfortunate in his own personal experience, but he certainly exaggerates. That, before Luther’s day, preaching was not everywhere sufficiently supplemented by catechetical instruction was undoubtedly to be regretted.[1928]Albrecht,ib., referring to P. Bahlmann, “Deutschlands Katechismen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrh.,” 1894, p. 38, and F. Cohrs, “Evangel. Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion,” (“Mon. Germ. Pædag.,” vol. 20 ff.; vol. 23, 1902, pp. 233, 271). For popular religious instruction before Luther’s day, see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 1, p. 25 ff.; F. Cohrs, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, p. 135 ff., and F. J. Knecht, “KL.,” 7², 1891, p. 288 ff.; cp. 249 ff.[1929]See above, p. 134 f., and vol. iv., p. 251.[1930]Albrecht,ib., p. 444.[1931]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 212; Erl. ed., 21, p. 128.[1932]Albrecht,ib., p. 445, referring to Geffcken’s “Der Bilderkatechismus des ausgehenden MA.,” 1855, pp. 86, 98 f., 108, 177, etc., and particularly to Thalhofer, “Die katechetischen Lehrstücke im MA.,” (“Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. deutsche Erziehungs- und Schulgesch.,” 15, 1905, p. 188 ff.)[1933]Cp. Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 454.[1934]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 643 (1523).[1935]Albrecht,ib., p. 454 f.[1936]F. J. Knecht,loc. cit., p. 292 f. The “Discipulus” was compiled as early as 1416. Cp. “Zeitschr. f. kath. Th.,” 1902, p. 419 ff.[1937]Albrecht,ib., p. 561.[1938]Facsimile,ib., p. 241, and better still in Otto Albrecht’s “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers,” 1905.[1939]“Katechismusversuche” (see above, p. 491, n. 1), p. 241.[1940]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 435-437.[1941]Ib., 30, 3, p. 567; Erl. ed., 26², p. 383 f.[1942]Ib., 30, 1, p. 130=21, p. 31. Cp. above, p. 147 f., the passage taken from Luther’s “Deudsche Messe.”[1943]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Bibliam græcam et hebræam lego.” To the same, June 10, 1521,ib., p. 171: “Hebraica et Græca disco et sine intermissione scribo.”[1944]To Johann Lang,ib., p. 256.[1945]Ib., p. 271.[1946]Ib., p. 325.[1947]Cp.ib., n. 4 in Enders.[1948]Dec. 12 (?), 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 37: “Bestias istas describas et nomines per species suas.” There follows the list.[1949]See the list of Luther’s writings at the end of our vol. vi.[1950]Feb. 23, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 300.[1951]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” 1530, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 636; Erl. ed., 65, p. 109.[1952]“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 277, n. 4.[1953]June 14, 1528,ib., p. 291.[1954]Paul Pietsch, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., “Deutsche Bibel,” 2.[1955]Ib., p. xxiv, in the preface by K. Drescher, the present chief editor of the Weimar edition.[1956]Pastor Risch, “Welche Aufgabe stellt die Lutherbibel der wissenschaftl. Forschung?” (“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, pp. 59 ff., 116 ff.), p. 129 f. “Die deutsche Bibel in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung,” 1907, by the same author.[1957]Cp. Risch,ib., p. 121 f. O. Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel” (“RGl. Volksbücher,” iv., 13, 1910), pp. 8, 14, 24, 31, 44.[1958]Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 32.[1959]“Historien,” Bl. 160´ ff. G. Lœsche, “Joh. Mathesius’ Ausgewählte Werke,” 3 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” 9), p. 315 ff.[1960]Discovered at Jena by Buchwald, but only known so far in extracts. See p. 501, n. 3, and “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 353, n. 12.[1961]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 139sqq.[1962]Ib., p. 142. See vol. iv., p. 109.[1963]Cp. what O. Reichert says in “Die Wittenberger Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1521 bis 1541,” in Koffmane, “Die hds. Ueberlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1, 1907, p. 97 ff., and Risch’s Articles (above, p. 499, n. 1), p. 78 ff.[1964]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 41, where examples are given from the notes and emendations to be published later.[1965]Weim. ed., 1 and 2.[1966]Reichert says,ib., p. 26: “There is hardly a more interesting document to be found in the domain of research concerned with Luther’s German Bible.” He gives a facsimile of Ps. xlv. (xliv.), xlvi. (xlv.). Four facsimiles in Thiele, vol. 2.[1967]Ib., 65, p. 110, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” Sep. 8, 1530. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 14, p. 401 ff.[1968]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 313. Table-Talk.[1969]Ib., p. 421. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 378.[1970]K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer, “Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 8-12 Jahrh.,” 1864, p. xxix.[1971]Cp. Risch, p. 138, in the article mentioned above, p. 499, n. 1.[1972]H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” 1907, p. 30, remarks: The orthodox period of Lutheranism venerated “Luther’s translation of the Bible with an admiration as boundless and naive as had it been a palladium.”[1973]Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 143, who there (in the first edition, though not in the second) points out that even Grimm’s colleagues and successors did not share his own warm appreciation of the language of the German Bible. According to Müllenhoff the foundation of New High German had been laid a century and a half before Luther, who represents, not its beginning but its zenith period (see pp. 504, note 3). “If in spite of this,” says Böhmer, “it cannot be denied that the German of Luther played an important part in reducing the German language to unity, still this was not Luther’s doing.” “The stress laid by Protestants on the language of Luther undoubtedly did more to hamper than to further the victory of the common language” (p. 144). “Luther himself was the first to protest against being considered the founder of a new German tongue” (p. 145).[1974]Ib., p. 132 f.[1975]Preface to the first volume of the Bible, p. x.[1976]Müllenhoff, etc.,ib., p. xxvii ff.[1977]P. 223 f.[1978]P. 224.[1979]P. 222.[1980]Cp. Zerener Holm, “Studien über das beginnende Eindringen der Lutherischen Bibelübersetzung in die deutsche Literatur,” 1911 (“Archiv. f. RG.,” Ergänzungsband, 4).[1981]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.[1982]Ib.[1983]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 150.[1984]Jakob Grimm, “Deutsche Grammatik,” 1, 1², 1870, Preface, p. x.[1985]In the articles referred to above, p. 499, n. 1 (p. 137 f.).[1986]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114. “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.” Before this he had said: “Of what an art and labour translating is I have full experience, and therefore I will allow no Pope-ass or Mule-ass, who has never attempted it, to set himself up as judge or critic.... If there is to be any faultfinding, I will attend to it myself.” And later: “Their abuse is my highest praise and glory. I am resolved to be a Doctor ... and they shall not rob me of this title till the Judgment Day; this much I know for certain.”[1987]“Historien,” p. 82.[1988]Ib.[1989]F. W. Nippold, “Christian Josias Freiherr von Bunsen,” Leipzig, 1868-1871, 3, p. 483.[1990]“RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen,” p. 72.[1991]“Mitteilungen,” vol. 3, Göttingen, p. 1899, p. 335 ff. (reprint of the art. in the “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1885, 2).[1992]P. 359 ff.[1993]P. 365.[1994]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” p. 642=117.[1995]Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 142 f. Theodore Zahn the Protestant exegete says: “Luther by adding the words ‘The righteousness which is acceptable to God’ (here and iii. 21, x. 3; cp. iii. 22) exceeded the task of a translator by implying that the recognition of this righteousness by God is merely the consequence of its origin in God. ‘A righteousness that comes from God,’ as in Phil. iii. 9, would be less open to objection, though here again Luther goes beyond his text.” “Brief des Paulus an die Römer,” Leipzig, 1910, p. 82.[1996]De Lagarde (p. 358) rightly refers to Döllinger,ib., pp. 140-144, where the latter quotes another passage which calls for revision: “The commandments are givenonlyin order that man may be made aware of his inability to do what is good and thus learn to despair of himself.”[1997]Döllinger,ib., p. 144.[1998]Many other passages could be given where the sense is weakened owing to Luther’s want of accuracy. For instance, John vi. 56: “My flesh is the true meat and my blood is the true drink,” whereas Christ says: “My flesh is meat indeed (ἀληθῶς) and my blood is drink indeed.”[1999]Riehm, “Luther als Bibelübersetzer,” “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 57, 1884, p. 306; cp. p. 312 f. On the whole subject see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 401 ff.[2000]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 103 ff.; the accompanying letter to Link dated Sept. 12, 1530, in “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 257.[2001]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 637; Erl. ed., 65, p. 110.[2002]P. 640 ff.=115-117.[2003]P. 643=118 f.[2004]P. 638=112.[2005]P. 634=106.[2006]P. 633=104 f.[2007]Pp. 636, 639=108, 109, 113 f.[2008]P. 635=107. The passage was given verbally above, vol. iv., p. 345 f. The words of St. Paul which he plays upon occur in 2 Cor. xi. 18 ff.: “They are Hebrews, so am I; they are Israelites, so am I; they are the seed of Abraham, so am I.”[2009]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 197.[2010]Ib., p. 194.[2011]“Auss was Grund uund Ursach Luthers Dolmatschung über das Newe Testament dem gemeinen Man billich verbotten worden sey,” Leipzig, 1523, Bl. 3.—In Bl. 2´ Emser, having instanced the formal theological decision, goes on to remark, that Luther declared the secular authorities had no right to forbid books concerning the faith, although he and his preachers were in the habit of teaching that all were subject to the secular power. “Thus the man can never handle a matter with moderation, but either goes too far or else not far enough”; the authorities had a perfect right to punish, in life and property, “those whom the Church publicly proclaimed to be heretics.” He vainly urged the German bishops at the end of the book, “to summon one, or ten, learned, experienced and God-fearing men and to see that a trustworthy, reliable and uniform German Bible was made from the old and new [Lutheran] translation.”[2012]Soffner, “Ein Lutherspiel aus alter Zeit,” 1889, p. 16. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783. On Hasenberg see vol. iv., p. 173 f.[2013]G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 61), 1898, p. 65.[2014]In the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f. Luther’s charge against Emser, the “Dresen Scribbler,” in which he says: He “wrote hisname, a preface and glosses to it and thus sold my New Testament under his own name,” is not grounded on fact. Still more unjust and insulting to the deceased was the statement he made later to some of his friends: The miscreant “knew the truth better than he wrote it”; “he altered a word here and there against his conscience” in order to retain the favour of the Duke. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 79. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 149.[2015]Ib., p. 72.[2016]L. Lemmens, O.F.M., “Aus ungedruckten Franziskanerbriefen des 16. Jahrh.” (“RGl. Studien,” ed. H. Greving, Hft. 20), 1911, p. 38.[2017]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 429 f.[2018]Janssen,ib.[2019]Ib.[2020]Dec. 28, 1534, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 2, p. 224: “Fatetur se parum syncere biblia vertisse et eam interpretationem tantum non revocat.”[2021]A. Räss, “Die Konvertiten seit der Reformation,” 7, p. 99 f., with the list.[2022]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 145 f.[2023]In the Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 153.[2024]Preface of 1522, “Werke,”ib., p. 169.[2025]Preface of 1545,ib., p. 159. This preface replaced the former one, but, in it, he still leaves it “doubtful” whether the Apocalypse was to be taken as one of the books of the Bible or not.[2026]Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² Leipzig, 1900, p. 84.[2027]Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 158.[2028]Preface of 1522,ib., p. 156.[2029]Ib.[2030]“Truly an Epistle of straw as compared with them” (the Gospel and 1st Epistle of John, the epistles of Paul, particularly to the Romans, Ephesians and Galatians, and the 1st Epistle of Peter). These were the “best” books of the New Testament because in them “faith in Christ” is “painted in a masterly manner.”Ib., 114 f.—The conclusion of the preface in question was omitted in Luther’s own later editions but was often reintroduced later.[2031]M. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik am Jakobusbriefe nach dem Zeugnis seiner Anhänger” (“Bibl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1905), p. 273 ff. Cp. the same author, “Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Überlieferung” (“Bibl. Studien”), 10, Hft. 1-3, 1905.[2032]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 227, on Gen. xxii. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik,” etc.,ib.[2033]“Werke,” Walchs ed., 9, p. 2774 ff. Cp. Walther, “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 66, 1, 1893, p. 595 ff. Meinertz,ib.[2034]Meinertz,ib., p. 278.[2035]H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 1, p. 197 f. Carlstadt himself was doubtful as to who was the author.[2036]Meinertz,ib., p. 276.[2037]Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² p. 84.[2038]Barge,ib., p. 197 f.[2039]His mediæval predecessors, however, usually had behind them tradition and the authority of the Church.[2040]W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, No. 16.[2041]Nestle, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche” in “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ p. 73.[2042]In the article on the “revised” Luther Bible of 1883, in “Göttinger Gel. Anziegen,” 1885, Hft. 2, reprinted in De Lagarde’s “Mitteilungen,” 3, 1889, 335 ff. Cp. above, p. 512.[2043]Oettli, “Die revidierte Lutherbibel,” 1908.[2044]P. lix.[2045]Ib.[2046]De Lagarde, art. quoted, p. 524, n. 2.[2047]Ib.[2048]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 3.[2049]Ib., p. 5.[2050]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 633; Erl. ed., 65, p. 104.[2051]Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 108.[2052]Ib., p. 112 f.[2053]Ib., p. 9.[2054]Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 141.[2055]In the preface to the work “Auss was Grund,” etc. Above, p. 519, n. 1. G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser,” p. 60.[2056]Kawerau,ib., p. 66.[2057]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 95 f.[2058]Ib., p. 137.[2059]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349.[2060]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 123.[2061]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 6.[2062]“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 136.[2063]“Comment. de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 55. Cochlæus laments in this passage the disputations which the common people entered upon with the clergy, and describes the universal Bible reading of the unlearned as one of the causes of the spread of the apostasy. Nor does he conceal the fact that some of the laity were able in controversy to quote Scripture with greater fluency than the Catholic priests and monks.[2064]“Christenliche Underrichtung Dr. Johann Fabri,” etc., Dresden, 1528. Bl. Biij., Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783.[2065]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256.[2066]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114.[2067]Ib., p. 640=115.[2068]Ib., Erl. ed., 63, p. 24 f. Preface to the Old Testament.[2069]Ib., p. 25.[2070]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 265.[2071]Ib., p. 265 f.[2072]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f.[2073]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 213.[2074]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 4, Table-Talk.[2075]To Nic. Hausmann, Jan. 21, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 349: “Recudimus iam psalterium germanicum pro calumniatoribus irritandis.” Cp. to the same, Feb. 25, 1530,ib., 7, p. 232, on the fresh edition of the New Testament then undertaken with Melanchthon: “Novam furiam concitaturi contra nos apud papistas,” and to Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 15, 1531,ib., 8, p. 345: “Dabimus operam ... ut (David) purius Germanum sonet, multam occasionem calumniatoribus dantes, ut habeant, quo in translationem nostram suam rabidam invidiam exerceant et acuant, nec tamen exsaturent.”[2076]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 121.[2077]Ib., p. 121 f.[2078]Ib., p. 175.[2079]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.[2080]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 115.[2081]Cp. Preface of 1539, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 405.[2082]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 384.[2083]Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 291.[2084]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 240. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[2085]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 273.[2086]Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.[2087]Ib., p. 281.[2088]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 145, 1540.[2089]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 4.[2090]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 569.[2091]Ib.[2092]Ib.[2093]“Dignissimum opus gratitudine, qua me hactenus excepit barbara hæc et vere bestialis natio.”[2094]See the next section.[2095]See below, p. 541, his statement against Emser.[2096]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.”[2097]The saying appears in this shape in Reisch’s “Margarita philosophica,” Argentorati, 1508. See Nestle, “Jahrb. f. deut. Theol.,” 1877, p. 668. In fact it is there described as a common “proverbium inter theologos.” Another later form ran: “Si Lyra non lyrasset, totus mundus delyrasset.”[2098]Kropatscheck, “Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche,” 1, 1904, p. 163.—On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.[2099]F. Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre Verbreitung,” Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.[2100]Falk,ib., p. 27 ff.[2101]Cp. Moureck, “SB. der kgl. Böhm. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch., Phil. Kl.,” 1892, p. 176 ff.[2102]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 141.[2103]E. v. Dobschütz, “Deutsche Rundschau,” 101, 1900, p. 61 ff. Falk,ib., p. 86.[2104]E. Schröder, “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, p. 253.[2105]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 606; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther,” p. 61.[2106]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.[2107]Ib., 63, pp. 401, 402.[2108]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270; “Annis 30 ante biblia erant incognita, prophetæ innominati,” etc.[2109]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous “bench” cp. also Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv., p. 159.[2110]“Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 32.[2111]Walther, p. 742. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 303. Walther also observes: “Thus it was not from the Church that the translations emanated; it was not the Church that recommended the study of the Bible to the laity. This would indeed have been contrary to her principles. But neither did the Church show herself hostile at the outset to every translation. So long as it contained nothing to promote ‘divisions’ or to undermine reverence for the Church and her doctrines she permitted this movement, as she did every other that did not infringe her authority.”Ib.[2112]Cp. Franz Falk,ib., pp. 33-66.
[1891]Ib., Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 126; Erl. ed., 21, p. 28.[1892]Ib., 7, pp. 551 ff., 558, 565 f., 568, 580, 596, 599, 602=45, pp. 222 ff., 231, 240 f., 244, 259, 280, 285, 289.[1893]Ib., p. 584=265; cp. p. 586=267.[1894]Ib., 2, p. 80=21, p. 160.[1895]Cp.ib., 30, 1, p. 160 ff.=21, p. 69 ff.[1896]Above, p. 84 ff.[1897]Great Catechism. Preface of 1530. See below, n. 6.[1898]Ib.[1899]To Martin Görlitz, Jan. 15, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 43: “pro rudibus paganis.”[1900]See above, vol. iv., p. 234.[1901]The passage first given by G. Buchwald, now in the Weim. Luther ed., 30, 1, p. 428 f.[1902]Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 239 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 5 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 349 ff., etc.[1903]Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 375 ff.[1904]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).[1905]Preface to the Smaller Catechism.[1906]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 2, quoted by the editor in the Introduction to the Catechisms.[1907]Cp. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 442 f. On the new Confession see above, vol. iv., p. 248 ff.[1908]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 134 f., 188, 190; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 36 f., 101, 103.[1909]Cp. vol. i., p. 187 ff., etc.[1910]Cp. the “Bibliographie zum Grossen Katechismus,” by O. Albrecht and J. Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 499 ff.; cp.ib., p. 666 ff.[1911]For proofs, see Th. Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. lxiii.[1912]“Historien,” Bl. 63´.[1913]Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 655.[1914]“Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 518.[1915]We may recall his statement that he would like to see all his books destroyed except two: “Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” To Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247. See above, p. 471, n. 2.[1916]New edition by Buchwald, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 1 ff.[1917]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 444.[1918]Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 61: “Just as at Wittenberg and in many other churches the useful custom still prevails of preaching on this Catechism four times a year for a fortnight, and of daily assembling for that purpose the children, servants and artisans. Many ministers also teach the Catechism on Sundays in addition to the Gospel, and assemble the children in summer for the recitation and explaining of the Catechism, as is, thanks be to God, the custom with us to-day.”[1919]Ib., Bl. 62´.[1920]O. Albrecht, “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers vom Jahre 1536,” 1905, p. 94.[1921]Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 441.[1922]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl. ed., 22, p. 232 (cp. p. 75=231, and Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 434).[1923]Thus Albrecht in his introduction to his new edition of the two Catechisms of Luther, Weim. ed., p. 435; he refers also to Falk’s and Battenberg’s editions of Wolff’s “Beichtbüchlein” (see vol. iv., p. 254) and to J. Greving’s “Zum vorreformatorischen Beichtunterricht” (“Veröffentl. aus dem K.-h. Seminar zu München,” 3, 1, 1907, pp. 46-81).[1924]Albrecht,ib., p. 436.[1925]Ib.[1926]Cp. Weim. ed., 26, p. 237.[1927]“Historien,” Bl. 63. Mathesius, however, will only admit that, on the whole, “some fragments of the Catechism” had been retained in Popery. Luther’s admirer cannot even recall that in Popery he “had ever heard ... the Ten Commandments, Creed, Our Father or Baptism spoken of from the pulpit.... Of the absolution and consolation arising from a believing reception of the Body and Blood of Christ I had to my knowledge never heard a word all my days before I came to Wittenberg, either in the churches or the schools, just as I cannot recall having seen any written or printed explanation of the Catechism in Popery” (Bl. 63 and 63´).—The ignorance of the facts of the case revealed in the latter statement is met with elsewhere in the rest of the passage of Mathesius’s writing; he may have been unfortunate in his own personal experience, but he certainly exaggerates. That, before Luther’s day, preaching was not everywhere sufficiently supplemented by catechetical instruction was undoubtedly to be regretted.[1928]Albrecht,ib., referring to P. Bahlmann, “Deutschlands Katechismen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrh.,” 1894, p. 38, and F. Cohrs, “Evangel. Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion,” (“Mon. Germ. Pædag.,” vol. 20 ff.; vol. 23, 1902, pp. 233, 271). For popular religious instruction before Luther’s day, see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 1, p. 25 ff.; F. Cohrs, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, p. 135 ff., and F. J. Knecht, “KL.,” 7², 1891, p. 288 ff.; cp. 249 ff.[1929]See above, p. 134 f., and vol. iv., p. 251.[1930]Albrecht,ib., p. 444.[1931]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 212; Erl. ed., 21, p. 128.[1932]Albrecht,ib., p. 445, referring to Geffcken’s “Der Bilderkatechismus des ausgehenden MA.,” 1855, pp. 86, 98 f., 108, 177, etc., and particularly to Thalhofer, “Die katechetischen Lehrstücke im MA.,” (“Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. deutsche Erziehungs- und Schulgesch.,” 15, 1905, p. 188 ff.)[1933]Cp. Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 454.[1934]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 643 (1523).[1935]Albrecht,ib., p. 454 f.[1936]F. J. Knecht,loc. cit., p. 292 f. The “Discipulus” was compiled as early as 1416. Cp. “Zeitschr. f. kath. Th.,” 1902, p. 419 ff.[1937]Albrecht,ib., p. 561.[1938]Facsimile,ib., p. 241, and better still in Otto Albrecht’s “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers,” 1905.[1939]“Katechismusversuche” (see above, p. 491, n. 1), p. 241.[1940]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 435-437.[1941]Ib., 30, 3, p. 567; Erl. ed., 26², p. 383 f.[1942]Ib., 30, 1, p. 130=21, p. 31. Cp. above, p. 147 f., the passage taken from Luther’s “Deudsche Messe.”[1943]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Bibliam græcam et hebræam lego.” To the same, June 10, 1521,ib., p. 171: “Hebraica et Græca disco et sine intermissione scribo.”[1944]To Johann Lang,ib., p. 256.[1945]Ib., p. 271.[1946]Ib., p. 325.[1947]Cp.ib., n. 4 in Enders.[1948]Dec. 12 (?), 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 37: “Bestias istas describas et nomines per species suas.” There follows the list.[1949]See the list of Luther’s writings at the end of our vol. vi.[1950]Feb. 23, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 300.[1951]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” 1530, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 636; Erl. ed., 65, p. 109.[1952]“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 277, n. 4.[1953]June 14, 1528,ib., p. 291.[1954]Paul Pietsch, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., “Deutsche Bibel,” 2.[1955]Ib., p. xxiv, in the preface by K. Drescher, the present chief editor of the Weimar edition.[1956]Pastor Risch, “Welche Aufgabe stellt die Lutherbibel der wissenschaftl. Forschung?” (“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, pp. 59 ff., 116 ff.), p. 129 f. “Die deutsche Bibel in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung,” 1907, by the same author.[1957]Cp. Risch,ib., p. 121 f. O. Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel” (“RGl. Volksbücher,” iv., 13, 1910), pp. 8, 14, 24, 31, 44.[1958]Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 32.[1959]“Historien,” Bl. 160´ ff. G. Lœsche, “Joh. Mathesius’ Ausgewählte Werke,” 3 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” 9), p. 315 ff.[1960]Discovered at Jena by Buchwald, but only known so far in extracts. See p. 501, n. 3, and “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 353, n. 12.[1961]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 139sqq.[1962]Ib., p. 142. See vol. iv., p. 109.[1963]Cp. what O. Reichert says in “Die Wittenberger Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1521 bis 1541,” in Koffmane, “Die hds. Ueberlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1, 1907, p. 97 ff., and Risch’s Articles (above, p. 499, n. 1), p. 78 ff.[1964]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 41, where examples are given from the notes and emendations to be published later.[1965]Weim. ed., 1 and 2.[1966]Reichert says,ib., p. 26: “There is hardly a more interesting document to be found in the domain of research concerned with Luther’s German Bible.” He gives a facsimile of Ps. xlv. (xliv.), xlvi. (xlv.). Four facsimiles in Thiele, vol. 2.[1967]Ib., 65, p. 110, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” Sep. 8, 1530. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 14, p. 401 ff.[1968]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 313. Table-Talk.[1969]Ib., p. 421. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 378.[1970]K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer, “Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 8-12 Jahrh.,” 1864, p. xxix.[1971]Cp. Risch, p. 138, in the article mentioned above, p. 499, n. 1.[1972]H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” 1907, p. 30, remarks: The orthodox period of Lutheranism venerated “Luther’s translation of the Bible with an admiration as boundless and naive as had it been a palladium.”[1973]Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 143, who there (in the first edition, though not in the second) points out that even Grimm’s colleagues and successors did not share his own warm appreciation of the language of the German Bible. According to Müllenhoff the foundation of New High German had been laid a century and a half before Luther, who represents, not its beginning but its zenith period (see pp. 504, note 3). “If in spite of this,” says Böhmer, “it cannot be denied that the German of Luther played an important part in reducing the German language to unity, still this was not Luther’s doing.” “The stress laid by Protestants on the language of Luther undoubtedly did more to hamper than to further the victory of the common language” (p. 144). “Luther himself was the first to protest against being considered the founder of a new German tongue” (p. 145).[1974]Ib., p. 132 f.[1975]Preface to the first volume of the Bible, p. x.[1976]Müllenhoff, etc.,ib., p. xxvii ff.[1977]P. 223 f.[1978]P. 224.[1979]P. 222.[1980]Cp. Zerener Holm, “Studien über das beginnende Eindringen der Lutherischen Bibelübersetzung in die deutsche Literatur,” 1911 (“Archiv. f. RG.,” Ergänzungsband, 4).[1981]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.[1982]Ib.[1983]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 150.[1984]Jakob Grimm, “Deutsche Grammatik,” 1, 1², 1870, Preface, p. x.[1985]In the articles referred to above, p. 499, n. 1 (p. 137 f.).[1986]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114. “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.” Before this he had said: “Of what an art and labour translating is I have full experience, and therefore I will allow no Pope-ass or Mule-ass, who has never attempted it, to set himself up as judge or critic.... If there is to be any faultfinding, I will attend to it myself.” And later: “Their abuse is my highest praise and glory. I am resolved to be a Doctor ... and they shall not rob me of this title till the Judgment Day; this much I know for certain.”[1987]“Historien,” p. 82.[1988]Ib.[1989]F. W. Nippold, “Christian Josias Freiherr von Bunsen,” Leipzig, 1868-1871, 3, p. 483.[1990]“RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen,” p. 72.[1991]“Mitteilungen,” vol. 3, Göttingen, p. 1899, p. 335 ff. (reprint of the art. in the “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1885, 2).[1992]P. 359 ff.[1993]P. 365.[1994]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” p. 642=117.[1995]Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 142 f. Theodore Zahn the Protestant exegete says: “Luther by adding the words ‘The righteousness which is acceptable to God’ (here and iii. 21, x. 3; cp. iii. 22) exceeded the task of a translator by implying that the recognition of this righteousness by God is merely the consequence of its origin in God. ‘A righteousness that comes from God,’ as in Phil. iii. 9, would be less open to objection, though here again Luther goes beyond his text.” “Brief des Paulus an die Römer,” Leipzig, 1910, p. 82.[1996]De Lagarde (p. 358) rightly refers to Döllinger,ib., pp. 140-144, where the latter quotes another passage which calls for revision: “The commandments are givenonlyin order that man may be made aware of his inability to do what is good and thus learn to despair of himself.”[1997]Döllinger,ib., p. 144.[1998]Many other passages could be given where the sense is weakened owing to Luther’s want of accuracy. For instance, John vi. 56: “My flesh is the true meat and my blood is the true drink,” whereas Christ says: “My flesh is meat indeed (ἀληθῶς) and my blood is drink indeed.”[1999]Riehm, “Luther als Bibelübersetzer,” “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 57, 1884, p. 306; cp. p. 312 f. On the whole subject see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 401 ff.[2000]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 103 ff.; the accompanying letter to Link dated Sept. 12, 1530, in “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 257.[2001]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 637; Erl. ed., 65, p. 110.[2002]P. 640 ff.=115-117.[2003]P. 643=118 f.[2004]P. 638=112.[2005]P. 634=106.[2006]P. 633=104 f.[2007]Pp. 636, 639=108, 109, 113 f.[2008]P. 635=107. The passage was given verbally above, vol. iv., p. 345 f. The words of St. Paul which he plays upon occur in 2 Cor. xi. 18 ff.: “They are Hebrews, so am I; they are Israelites, so am I; they are the seed of Abraham, so am I.”[2009]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 197.[2010]Ib., p. 194.[2011]“Auss was Grund uund Ursach Luthers Dolmatschung über das Newe Testament dem gemeinen Man billich verbotten worden sey,” Leipzig, 1523, Bl. 3.—In Bl. 2´ Emser, having instanced the formal theological decision, goes on to remark, that Luther declared the secular authorities had no right to forbid books concerning the faith, although he and his preachers were in the habit of teaching that all were subject to the secular power. “Thus the man can never handle a matter with moderation, but either goes too far or else not far enough”; the authorities had a perfect right to punish, in life and property, “those whom the Church publicly proclaimed to be heretics.” He vainly urged the German bishops at the end of the book, “to summon one, or ten, learned, experienced and God-fearing men and to see that a trustworthy, reliable and uniform German Bible was made from the old and new [Lutheran] translation.”[2012]Soffner, “Ein Lutherspiel aus alter Zeit,” 1889, p. 16. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783. On Hasenberg see vol. iv., p. 173 f.[2013]G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 61), 1898, p. 65.[2014]In the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f. Luther’s charge against Emser, the “Dresen Scribbler,” in which he says: He “wrote hisname, a preface and glosses to it and thus sold my New Testament under his own name,” is not grounded on fact. Still more unjust and insulting to the deceased was the statement he made later to some of his friends: The miscreant “knew the truth better than he wrote it”; “he altered a word here and there against his conscience” in order to retain the favour of the Duke. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 79. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 149.[2015]Ib., p. 72.[2016]L. Lemmens, O.F.M., “Aus ungedruckten Franziskanerbriefen des 16. Jahrh.” (“RGl. Studien,” ed. H. Greving, Hft. 20), 1911, p. 38.[2017]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 429 f.[2018]Janssen,ib.[2019]Ib.[2020]Dec. 28, 1534, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 2, p. 224: “Fatetur se parum syncere biblia vertisse et eam interpretationem tantum non revocat.”[2021]A. Räss, “Die Konvertiten seit der Reformation,” 7, p. 99 f., with the list.[2022]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 145 f.[2023]In the Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 153.[2024]Preface of 1522, “Werke,”ib., p. 169.[2025]Preface of 1545,ib., p. 159. This preface replaced the former one, but, in it, he still leaves it “doubtful” whether the Apocalypse was to be taken as one of the books of the Bible or not.[2026]Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² Leipzig, 1900, p. 84.[2027]Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 158.[2028]Preface of 1522,ib., p. 156.[2029]Ib.[2030]“Truly an Epistle of straw as compared with them” (the Gospel and 1st Epistle of John, the epistles of Paul, particularly to the Romans, Ephesians and Galatians, and the 1st Epistle of Peter). These were the “best” books of the New Testament because in them “faith in Christ” is “painted in a masterly manner.”Ib., 114 f.—The conclusion of the preface in question was omitted in Luther’s own later editions but was often reintroduced later.[2031]M. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik am Jakobusbriefe nach dem Zeugnis seiner Anhänger” (“Bibl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1905), p. 273 ff. Cp. the same author, “Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Überlieferung” (“Bibl. Studien”), 10, Hft. 1-3, 1905.[2032]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 227, on Gen. xxii. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik,” etc.,ib.[2033]“Werke,” Walchs ed., 9, p. 2774 ff. Cp. Walther, “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 66, 1, 1893, p. 595 ff. Meinertz,ib.[2034]Meinertz,ib., p. 278.[2035]H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 1, p. 197 f. Carlstadt himself was doubtful as to who was the author.[2036]Meinertz,ib., p. 276.[2037]Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² p. 84.[2038]Barge,ib., p. 197 f.[2039]His mediæval predecessors, however, usually had behind them tradition and the authority of the Church.[2040]W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, No. 16.[2041]Nestle, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche” in “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ p. 73.[2042]In the article on the “revised” Luther Bible of 1883, in “Göttinger Gel. Anziegen,” 1885, Hft. 2, reprinted in De Lagarde’s “Mitteilungen,” 3, 1889, 335 ff. Cp. above, p. 512.[2043]Oettli, “Die revidierte Lutherbibel,” 1908.[2044]P. lix.[2045]Ib.[2046]De Lagarde, art. quoted, p. 524, n. 2.[2047]Ib.[2048]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 3.[2049]Ib., p. 5.[2050]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 633; Erl. ed., 65, p. 104.[2051]Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 108.[2052]Ib., p. 112 f.[2053]Ib., p. 9.[2054]Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 141.[2055]In the preface to the work “Auss was Grund,” etc. Above, p. 519, n. 1. G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser,” p. 60.[2056]Kawerau,ib., p. 66.[2057]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 95 f.[2058]Ib., p. 137.[2059]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349.[2060]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 123.[2061]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 6.[2062]“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 136.[2063]“Comment. de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 55. Cochlæus laments in this passage the disputations which the common people entered upon with the clergy, and describes the universal Bible reading of the unlearned as one of the causes of the spread of the apostasy. Nor does he conceal the fact that some of the laity were able in controversy to quote Scripture with greater fluency than the Catholic priests and monks.[2064]“Christenliche Underrichtung Dr. Johann Fabri,” etc., Dresden, 1528. Bl. Biij., Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783.[2065]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256.[2066]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114.[2067]Ib., p. 640=115.[2068]Ib., Erl. ed., 63, p. 24 f. Preface to the Old Testament.[2069]Ib., p. 25.[2070]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 265.[2071]Ib., p. 265 f.[2072]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f.[2073]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 213.[2074]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 4, Table-Talk.[2075]To Nic. Hausmann, Jan. 21, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 349: “Recudimus iam psalterium germanicum pro calumniatoribus irritandis.” Cp. to the same, Feb. 25, 1530,ib., 7, p. 232, on the fresh edition of the New Testament then undertaken with Melanchthon: “Novam furiam concitaturi contra nos apud papistas,” and to Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 15, 1531,ib., 8, p. 345: “Dabimus operam ... ut (David) purius Germanum sonet, multam occasionem calumniatoribus dantes, ut habeant, quo in translationem nostram suam rabidam invidiam exerceant et acuant, nec tamen exsaturent.”[2076]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 121.[2077]Ib., p. 121 f.[2078]Ib., p. 175.[2079]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.[2080]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 115.[2081]Cp. Preface of 1539, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 405.[2082]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 384.[2083]Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 291.[2084]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 240. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[2085]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 273.[2086]Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.[2087]Ib., p. 281.[2088]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 145, 1540.[2089]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 4.[2090]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 569.[2091]Ib.[2092]Ib.[2093]“Dignissimum opus gratitudine, qua me hactenus excepit barbara hæc et vere bestialis natio.”[2094]See the next section.[2095]See below, p. 541, his statement against Emser.[2096]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.”[2097]The saying appears in this shape in Reisch’s “Margarita philosophica,” Argentorati, 1508. See Nestle, “Jahrb. f. deut. Theol.,” 1877, p. 668. In fact it is there described as a common “proverbium inter theologos.” Another later form ran: “Si Lyra non lyrasset, totus mundus delyrasset.”[2098]Kropatscheck, “Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche,” 1, 1904, p. 163.—On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.[2099]F. Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre Verbreitung,” Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.[2100]Falk,ib., p. 27 ff.[2101]Cp. Moureck, “SB. der kgl. Böhm. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch., Phil. Kl.,” 1892, p. 176 ff.[2102]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 141.[2103]E. v. Dobschütz, “Deutsche Rundschau,” 101, 1900, p. 61 ff. Falk,ib., p. 86.[2104]E. Schröder, “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, p. 253.[2105]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 606; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther,” p. 61.[2106]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.[2107]Ib., 63, pp. 401, 402.[2108]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270; “Annis 30 ante biblia erant incognita, prophetæ innominati,” etc.[2109]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous “bench” cp. also Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv., p. 159.[2110]“Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 32.[2111]Walther, p. 742. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 303. Walther also observes: “Thus it was not from the Church that the translations emanated; it was not the Church that recommended the study of the Bible to the laity. This would indeed have been contrary to her principles. But neither did the Church show herself hostile at the outset to every translation. So long as it contained nothing to promote ‘divisions’ or to undermine reverence for the Church and her doctrines she permitted this movement, as she did every other that did not infringe her authority.”Ib.[2112]Cp. Franz Falk,ib., pp. 33-66.
[1891]Ib., Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 126; Erl. ed., 21, p. 28.[1892]Ib., 7, pp. 551 ff., 558, 565 f., 568, 580, 596, 599, 602=45, pp. 222 ff., 231, 240 f., 244, 259, 280, 285, 289.[1893]Ib., p. 584=265; cp. p. 586=267.[1894]Ib., 2, p. 80=21, p. 160.[1895]Cp.ib., 30, 1, p. 160 ff.=21, p. 69 ff.[1896]Above, p. 84 ff.[1897]Great Catechism. Preface of 1530. See below, n. 6.[1898]Ib.[1899]To Martin Görlitz, Jan. 15, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 43: “pro rudibus paganis.”[1900]See above, vol. iv., p. 234.[1901]The passage first given by G. Buchwald, now in the Weim. Luther ed., 30, 1, p. 428 f.[1902]Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 239 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 5 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 349 ff., etc.[1903]Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 375 ff.[1904]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).[1905]Preface to the Smaller Catechism.[1906]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 2, quoted by the editor in the Introduction to the Catechisms.[1907]Cp. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 442 f. On the new Confession see above, vol. iv., p. 248 ff.[1908]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 134 f., 188, 190; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 36 f., 101, 103.[1909]Cp. vol. i., p. 187 ff., etc.[1910]Cp. the “Bibliographie zum Grossen Katechismus,” by O. Albrecht and J. Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 499 ff.; cp.ib., p. 666 ff.[1911]For proofs, see Th. Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. lxiii.[1912]“Historien,” Bl. 63´.[1913]Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 655.[1914]“Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 518.[1915]We may recall his statement that he would like to see all his books destroyed except two: “Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” To Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247. See above, p. 471, n. 2.[1916]New edition by Buchwald, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 1 ff.[1917]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 444.[1918]Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 61: “Just as at Wittenberg and in many other churches the useful custom still prevails of preaching on this Catechism four times a year for a fortnight, and of daily assembling for that purpose the children, servants and artisans. Many ministers also teach the Catechism on Sundays in addition to the Gospel, and assemble the children in summer for the recitation and explaining of the Catechism, as is, thanks be to God, the custom with us to-day.”[1919]Ib., Bl. 62´.[1920]O. Albrecht, “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers vom Jahre 1536,” 1905, p. 94.[1921]Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 441.[1922]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl. ed., 22, p. 232 (cp. p. 75=231, and Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 434).[1923]Thus Albrecht in his introduction to his new edition of the two Catechisms of Luther, Weim. ed., p. 435; he refers also to Falk’s and Battenberg’s editions of Wolff’s “Beichtbüchlein” (see vol. iv., p. 254) and to J. Greving’s “Zum vorreformatorischen Beichtunterricht” (“Veröffentl. aus dem K.-h. Seminar zu München,” 3, 1, 1907, pp. 46-81).[1924]Albrecht,ib., p. 436.[1925]Ib.[1926]Cp. Weim. ed., 26, p. 237.[1927]“Historien,” Bl. 63. Mathesius, however, will only admit that, on the whole, “some fragments of the Catechism” had been retained in Popery. Luther’s admirer cannot even recall that in Popery he “had ever heard ... the Ten Commandments, Creed, Our Father or Baptism spoken of from the pulpit.... Of the absolution and consolation arising from a believing reception of the Body and Blood of Christ I had to my knowledge never heard a word all my days before I came to Wittenberg, either in the churches or the schools, just as I cannot recall having seen any written or printed explanation of the Catechism in Popery” (Bl. 63 and 63´).—The ignorance of the facts of the case revealed in the latter statement is met with elsewhere in the rest of the passage of Mathesius’s writing; he may have been unfortunate in his own personal experience, but he certainly exaggerates. That, before Luther’s day, preaching was not everywhere sufficiently supplemented by catechetical instruction was undoubtedly to be regretted.[1928]Albrecht,ib., referring to P. Bahlmann, “Deutschlands Katechismen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrh.,” 1894, p. 38, and F. Cohrs, “Evangel. Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion,” (“Mon. Germ. Pædag.,” vol. 20 ff.; vol. 23, 1902, pp. 233, 271). For popular religious instruction before Luther’s day, see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 1, p. 25 ff.; F. Cohrs, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, p. 135 ff., and F. J. Knecht, “KL.,” 7², 1891, p. 288 ff.; cp. 249 ff.[1929]See above, p. 134 f., and vol. iv., p. 251.[1930]Albrecht,ib., p. 444.[1931]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 212; Erl. ed., 21, p. 128.[1932]Albrecht,ib., p. 445, referring to Geffcken’s “Der Bilderkatechismus des ausgehenden MA.,” 1855, pp. 86, 98 f., 108, 177, etc., and particularly to Thalhofer, “Die katechetischen Lehrstücke im MA.,” (“Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. deutsche Erziehungs- und Schulgesch.,” 15, 1905, p. 188 ff.)[1933]Cp. Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 454.[1934]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 643 (1523).[1935]Albrecht,ib., p. 454 f.[1936]F. J. Knecht,loc. cit., p. 292 f. The “Discipulus” was compiled as early as 1416. Cp. “Zeitschr. f. kath. Th.,” 1902, p. 419 ff.[1937]Albrecht,ib., p. 561.[1938]Facsimile,ib., p. 241, and better still in Otto Albrecht’s “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers,” 1905.[1939]“Katechismusversuche” (see above, p. 491, n. 1), p. 241.[1940]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 435-437.[1941]Ib., 30, 3, p. 567; Erl. ed., 26², p. 383 f.[1942]Ib., 30, 1, p. 130=21, p. 31. Cp. above, p. 147 f., the passage taken from Luther’s “Deudsche Messe.”[1943]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Bibliam græcam et hebræam lego.” To the same, June 10, 1521,ib., p. 171: “Hebraica et Græca disco et sine intermissione scribo.”[1944]To Johann Lang,ib., p. 256.[1945]Ib., p. 271.[1946]Ib., p. 325.[1947]Cp.ib., n. 4 in Enders.[1948]Dec. 12 (?), 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 37: “Bestias istas describas et nomines per species suas.” There follows the list.[1949]See the list of Luther’s writings at the end of our vol. vi.[1950]Feb. 23, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 300.[1951]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” 1530, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 636; Erl. ed., 65, p. 109.[1952]“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 277, n. 4.[1953]June 14, 1528,ib., p. 291.[1954]Paul Pietsch, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., “Deutsche Bibel,” 2.[1955]Ib., p. xxiv, in the preface by K. Drescher, the present chief editor of the Weimar edition.[1956]Pastor Risch, “Welche Aufgabe stellt die Lutherbibel der wissenschaftl. Forschung?” (“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, pp. 59 ff., 116 ff.), p. 129 f. “Die deutsche Bibel in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung,” 1907, by the same author.[1957]Cp. Risch,ib., p. 121 f. O. Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel” (“RGl. Volksbücher,” iv., 13, 1910), pp. 8, 14, 24, 31, 44.[1958]Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 32.[1959]“Historien,” Bl. 160´ ff. G. Lœsche, “Joh. Mathesius’ Ausgewählte Werke,” 3 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” 9), p. 315 ff.[1960]Discovered at Jena by Buchwald, but only known so far in extracts. See p. 501, n. 3, and “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 353, n. 12.[1961]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 139sqq.[1962]Ib., p. 142. See vol. iv., p. 109.[1963]Cp. what O. Reichert says in “Die Wittenberger Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1521 bis 1541,” in Koffmane, “Die hds. Ueberlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1, 1907, p. 97 ff., and Risch’s Articles (above, p. 499, n. 1), p. 78 ff.[1964]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 41, where examples are given from the notes and emendations to be published later.[1965]Weim. ed., 1 and 2.[1966]Reichert says,ib., p. 26: “There is hardly a more interesting document to be found in the domain of research concerned with Luther’s German Bible.” He gives a facsimile of Ps. xlv. (xliv.), xlvi. (xlv.). Four facsimiles in Thiele, vol. 2.[1967]Ib., 65, p. 110, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” Sep. 8, 1530. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 14, p. 401 ff.[1968]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 313. Table-Talk.[1969]Ib., p. 421. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 378.[1970]K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer, “Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 8-12 Jahrh.,” 1864, p. xxix.[1971]Cp. Risch, p. 138, in the article mentioned above, p. 499, n. 1.[1972]H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” 1907, p. 30, remarks: The orthodox period of Lutheranism venerated “Luther’s translation of the Bible with an admiration as boundless and naive as had it been a palladium.”[1973]Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 143, who there (in the first edition, though not in the second) points out that even Grimm’s colleagues and successors did not share his own warm appreciation of the language of the German Bible. According to Müllenhoff the foundation of New High German had been laid a century and a half before Luther, who represents, not its beginning but its zenith period (see pp. 504, note 3). “If in spite of this,” says Böhmer, “it cannot be denied that the German of Luther played an important part in reducing the German language to unity, still this was not Luther’s doing.” “The stress laid by Protestants on the language of Luther undoubtedly did more to hamper than to further the victory of the common language” (p. 144). “Luther himself was the first to protest against being considered the founder of a new German tongue” (p. 145).[1974]Ib., p. 132 f.[1975]Preface to the first volume of the Bible, p. x.[1976]Müllenhoff, etc.,ib., p. xxvii ff.[1977]P. 223 f.[1978]P. 224.[1979]P. 222.[1980]Cp. Zerener Holm, “Studien über das beginnende Eindringen der Lutherischen Bibelübersetzung in die deutsche Literatur,” 1911 (“Archiv. f. RG.,” Ergänzungsband, 4).[1981]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.[1982]Ib.[1983]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 150.[1984]Jakob Grimm, “Deutsche Grammatik,” 1, 1², 1870, Preface, p. x.[1985]In the articles referred to above, p. 499, n. 1 (p. 137 f.).[1986]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114. “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.” Before this he had said: “Of what an art and labour translating is I have full experience, and therefore I will allow no Pope-ass or Mule-ass, who has never attempted it, to set himself up as judge or critic.... If there is to be any faultfinding, I will attend to it myself.” And later: “Their abuse is my highest praise and glory. I am resolved to be a Doctor ... and they shall not rob me of this title till the Judgment Day; this much I know for certain.”[1987]“Historien,” p. 82.[1988]Ib.[1989]F. W. Nippold, “Christian Josias Freiherr von Bunsen,” Leipzig, 1868-1871, 3, p. 483.[1990]“RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen,” p. 72.[1991]“Mitteilungen,” vol. 3, Göttingen, p. 1899, p. 335 ff. (reprint of the art. in the “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1885, 2).[1992]P. 359 ff.[1993]P. 365.[1994]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” p. 642=117.[1995]Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 142 f. Theodore Zahn the Protestant exegete says: “Luther by adding the words ‘The righteousness which is acceptable to God’ (here and iii. 21, x. 3; cp. iii. 22) exceeded the task of a translator by implying that the recognition of this righteousness by God is merely the consequence of its origin in God. ‘A righteousness that comes from God,’ as in Phil. iii. 9, would be less open to objection, though here again Luther goes beyond his text.” “Brief des Paulus an die Römer,” Leipzig, 1910, p. 82.[1996]De Lagarde (p. 358) rightly refers to Döllinger,ib., pp. 140-144, where the latter quotes another passage which calls for revision: “The commandments are givenonlyin order that man may be made aware of his inability to do what is good and thus learn to despair of himself.”[1997]Döllinger,ib., p. 144.[1998]Many other passages could be given where the sense is weakened owing to Luther’s want of accuracy. For instance, John vi. 56: “My flesh is the true meat and my blood is the true drink,” whereas Christ says: “My flesh is meat indeed (ἀληθῶς) and my blood is drink indeed.”[1999]Riehm, “Luther als Bibelübersetzer,” “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 57, 1884, p. 306; cp. p. 312 f. On the whole subject see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 401 ff.[2000]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 103 ff.; the accompanying letter to Link dated Sept. 12, 1530, in “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 257.[2001]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 637; Erl. ed., 65, p. 110.[2002]P. 640 ff.=115-117.[2003]P. 643=118 f.[2004]P. 638=112.[2005]P. 634=106.[2006]P. 633=104 f.[2007]Pp. 636, 639=108, 109, 113 f.[2008]P. 635=107. The passage was given verbally above, vol. iv., p. 345 f. The words of St. Paul which he plays upon occur in 2 Cor. xi. 18 ff.: “They are Hebrews, so am I; they are Israelites, so am I; they are the seed of Abraham, so am I.”[2009]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 197.[2010]Ib., p. 194.[2011]“Auss was Grund uund Ursach Luthers Dolmatschung über das Newe Testament dem gemeinen Man billich verbotten worden sey,” Leipzig, 1523, Bl. 3.—In Bl. 2´ Emser, having instanced the formal theological decision, goes on to remark, that Luther declared the secular authorities had no right to forbid books concerning the faith, although he and his preachers were in the habit of teaching that all were subject to the secular power. “Thus the man can never handle a matter with moderation, but either goes too far or else not far enough”; the authorities had a perfect right to punish, in life and property, “those whom the Church publicly proclaimed to be heretics.” He vainly urged the German bishops at the end of the book, “to summon one, or ten, learned, experienced and God-fearing men and to see that a trustworthy, reliable and uniform German Bible was made from the old and new [Lutheran] translation.”[2012]Soffner, “Ein Lutherspiel aus alter Zeit,” 1889, p. 16. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783. On Hasenberg see vol. iv., p. 173 f.[2013]G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 61), 1898, p. 65.[2014]In the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f. Luther’s charge against Emser, the “Dresen Scribbler,” in which he says: He “wrote hisname, a preface and glosses to it and thus sold my New Testament under his own name,” is not grounded on fact. Still more unjust and insulting to the deceased was the statement he made later to some of his friends: The miscreant “knew the truth better than he wrote it”; “he altered a word here and there against his conscience” in order to retain the favour of the Duke. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 79. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 149.[2015]Ib., p. 72.[2016]L. Lemmens, O.F.M., “Aus ungedruckten Franziskanerbriefen des 16. Jahrh.” (“RGl. Studien,” ed. H. Greving, Hft. 20), 1911, p. 38.[2017]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 429 f.[2018]Janssen,ib.[2019]Ib.[2020]Dec. 28, 1534, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 2, p. 224: “Fatetur se parum syncere biblia vertisse et eam interpretationem tantum non revocat.”[2021]A. Räss, “Die Konvertiten seit der Reformation,” 7, p. 99 f., with the list.[2022]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 145 f.[2023]In the Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 153.[2024]Preface of 1522, “Werke,”ib., p. 169.[2025]Preface of 1545,ib., p. 159. This preface replaced the former one, but, in it, he still leaves it “doubtful” whether the Apocalypse was to be taken as one of the books of the Bible or not.[2026]Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² Leipzig, 1900, p. 84.[2027]Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 158.[2028]Preface of 1522,ib., p. 156.[2029]Ib.[2030]“Truly an Epistle of straw as compared with them” (the Gospel and 1st Epistle of John, the epistles of Paul, particularly to the Romans, Ephesians and Galatians, and the 1st Epistle of Peter). These were the “best” books of the New Testament because in them “faith in Christ” is “painted in a masterly manner.”Ib., 114 f.—The conclusion of the preface in question was omitted in Luther’s own later editions but was often reintroduced later.[2031]M. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik am Jakobusbriefe nach dem Zeugnis seiner Anhänger” (“Bibl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1905), p. 273 ff. Cp. the same author, “Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Überlieferung” (“Bibl. Studien”), 10, Hft. 1-3, 1905.[2032]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 227, on Gen. xxii. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik,” etc.,ib.[2033]“Werke,” Walchs ed., 9, p. 2774 ff. Cp. Walther, “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 66, 1, 1893, p. 595 ff. Meinertz,ib.[2034]Meinertz,ib., p. 278.[2035]H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 1, p. 197 f. Carlstadt himself was doubtful as to who was the author.[2036]Meinertz,ib., p. 276.[2037]Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² p. 84.[2038]Barge,ib., p. 197 f.[2039]His mediæval predecessors, however, usually had behind them tradition and the authority of the Church.[2040]W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, No. 16.[2041]Nestle, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche” in “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ p. 73.[2042]In the article on the “revised” Luther Bible of 1883, in “Göttinger Gel. Anziegen,” 1885, Hft. 2, reprinted in De Lagarde’s “Mitteilungen,” 3, 1889, 335 ff. Cp. above, p. 512.[2043]Oettli, “Die revidierte Lutherbibel,” 1908.[2044]P. lix.[2045]Ib.[2046]De Lagarde, art. quoted, p. 524, n. 2.[2047]Ib.[2048]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 3.[2049]Ib., p. 5.[2050]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 633; Erl. ed., 65, p. 104.[2051]Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 108.[2052]Ib., p. 112 f.[2053]Ib., p. 9.[2054]Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 141.[2055]In the preface to the work “Auss was Grund,” etc. Above, p. 519, n. 1. G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser,” p. 60.[2056]Kawerau,ib., p. 66.[2057]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 95 f.[2058]Ib., p. 137.[2059]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349.[2060]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 123.[2061]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 6.[2062]“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 136.[2063]“Comment. de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 55. Cochlæus laments in this passage the disputations which the common people entered upon with the clergy, and describes the universal Bible reading of the unlearned as one of the causes of the spread of the apostasy. Nor does he conceal the fact that some of the laity were able in controversy to quote Scripture with greater fluency than the Catholic priests and monks.[2064]“Christenliche Underrichtung Dr. Johann Fabri,” etc., Dresden, 1528. Bl. Biij., Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783.[2065]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256.[2066]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114.[2067]Ib., p. 640=115.[2068]Ib., Erl. ed., 63, p. 24 f. Preface to the Old Testament.[2069]Ib., p. 25.[2070]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 265.[2071]Ib., p. 265 f.[2072]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f.[2073]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 213.[2074]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 4, Table-Talk.[2075]To Nic. Hausmann, Jan. 21, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 349: “Recudimus iam psalterium germanicum pro calumniatoribus irritandis.” Cp. to the same, Feb. 25, 1530,ib., 7, p. 232, on the fresh edition of the New Testament then undertaken with Melanchthon: “Novam furiam concitaturi contra nos apud papistas,” and to Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 15, 1531,ib., 8, p. 345: “Dabimus operam ... ut (David) purius Germanum sonet, multam occasionem calumniatoribus dantes, ut habeant, quo in translationem nostram suam rabidam invidiam exerceant et acuant, nec tamen exsaturent.”[2076]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 121.[2077]Ib., p. 121 f.[2078]Ib., p. 175.[2079]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.[2080]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 115.[2081]Cp. Preface of 1539, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 405.[2082]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 384.[2083]Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 291.[2084]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 240. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.[2085]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 273.[2086]Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.[2087]Ib., p. 281.[2088]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 145, 1540.[2089]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 4.[2090]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 569.[2091]Ib.[2092]Ib.[2093]“Dignissimum opus gratitudine, qua me hactenus excepit barbara hæc et vere bestialis natio.”[2094]See the next section.[2095]See below, p. 541, his statement against Emser.[2096]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.”[2097]The saying appears in this shape in Reisch’s “Margarita philosophica,” Argentorati, 1508. See Nestle, “Jahrb. f. deut. Theol.,” 1877, p. 668. In fact it is there described as a common “proverbium inter theologos.” Another later form ran: “Si Lyra non lyrasset, totus mundus delyrasset.”[2098]Kropatscheck, “Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche,” 1, 1904, p. 163.—On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.[2099]F. Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre Verbreitung,” Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.[2100]Falk,ib., p. 27 ff.[2101]Cp. Moureck, “SB. der kgl. Böhm. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch., Phil. Kl.,” 1892, p. 176 ff.[2102]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 141.[2103]E. v. Dobschütz, “Deutsche Rundschau,” 101, 1900, p. 61 ff. Falk,ib., p. 86.[2104]E. Schröder, “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, p. 253.[2105]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 606; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther,” p. 61.[2106]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.[2107]Ib., 63, pp. 401, 402.[2108]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270; “Annis 30 ante biblia erant incognita, prophetæ innominati,” etc.[2109]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous “bench” cp. also Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv., p. 159.[2110]“Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 32.[2111]Walther, p. 742. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 303. Walther also observes: “Thus it was not from the Church that the translations emanated; it was not the Church that recommended the study of the Bible to the laity. This would indeed have been contrary to her principles. But neither did the Church show herself hostile at the outset to every translation. So long as it contained nothing to promote ‘divisions’ or to undermine reverence for the Church and her doctrines she permitted this movement, as she did every other that did not infringe her authority.”Ib.[2112]Cp. Franz Falk,ib., pp. 33-66.
[1891]Ib., Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 126; Erl. ed., 21, p. 28.
[1892]Ib., 7, pp. 551 ff., 558, 565 f., 568, 580, 596, 599, 602=45, pp. 222 ff., 231, 240 f., 244, 259, 280, 285, 289.
[1893]Ib., p. 584=265; cp. p. 586=267.
[1894]Ib., 2, p. 80=21, p. 160.
[1895]Cp.ib., 30, 1, p. 160 ff.=21, p. 69 ff.
[1896]Above, p. 84 ff.
[1897]Great Catechism. Preface of 1530. See below, n. 6.
[1898]Ib.
[1899]To Martin Görlitz, Jan. 15, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 43: “pro rudibus paganis.”
[1900]See above, vol. iv., p. 234.
[1901]The passage first given by G. Buchwald, now in the Weim. Luther ed., 30, 1, p. 428 f.
[1902]Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 239 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 5 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”10ed. Müller-Kolde, p. 349 ff., etc.
[1903]Ed. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff. Formerly Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff.; “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 375 ff.
[1904]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).
[1905]Preface to the Smaller Catechism.
[1906]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 2, quoted by the editor in the Introduction to the Catechisms.
[1907]Cp. O. Albrecht, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 442 f. On the new Confession see above, vol. iv., p. 248 ff.
[1908]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 134 f., 188, 190; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 36 f., 101, 103.
[1909]Cp. vol. i., p. 187 ff., etc.
[1910]Cp. the “Bibliographie zum Grossen Katechismus,” by O. Albrecht and J. Luther, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 499 ff.; cp.ib., p. 666 ff.
[1911]For proofs, see Th. Kolde, “Symbol. Bücher,”10p. lxiii.
[1912]“Historien,” Bl. 63´.
[1913]Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 655.
[1914]“Symbol. Bücher,”10p. 518.
[1915]We may recall his statement that he would like to see all his books destroyed except two: “Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.” To Capito, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 247. See above, p. 471, n. 2.
[1916]New edition by Buchwald, Weim. ed., 31, 1, p. 1 ff.
[1917]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 27, p. 444.
[1918]Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 61: “Just as at Wittenberg and in many other churches the useful custom still prevails of preaching on this Catechism four times a year for a fortnight, and of daily assembling for that purpose the children, servants and artisans. Many ministers also teach the Catechism on Sundays in addition to the Gospel, and assemble the children in summer for the recitation and explaining of the Catechism, as is, thanks be to God, the custom with us to-day.”
[1919]Ib., Bl. 62´.
[1920]O. Albrecht, “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers vom Jahre 1536,” 1905, p. 94.
[1921]Albrecht, Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 441.
[1922]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 19, p. 76; Erl. ed., 22, p. 232 (cp. p. 75=231, and Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 434).
[1923]Thus Albrecht in his introduction to his new edition of the two Catechisms of Luther, Weim. ed., p. 435; he refers also to Falk’s and Battenberg’s editions of Wolff’s “Beichtbüchlein” (see vol. iv., p. 254) and to J. Greving’s “Zum vorreformatorischen Beichtunterricht” (“Veröffentl. aus dem K.-h. Seminar zu München,” 3, 1, 1907, pp. 46-81).
[1924]Albrecht,ib., p. 436.
[1925]Ib.
[1926]Cp. Weim. ed., 26, p. 237.
[1927]“Historien,” Bl. 63. Mathesius, however, will only admit that, on the whole, “some fragments of the Catechism” had been retained in Popery. Luther’s admirer cannot even recall that in Popery he “had ever heard ... the Ten Commandments, Creed, Our Father or Baptism spoken of from the pulpit.... Of the absolution and consolation arising from a believing reception of the Body and Blood of Christ I had to my knowledge never heard a word all my days before I came to Wittenberg, either in the churches or the schools, just as I cannot recall having seen any written or printed explanation of the Catechism in Popery” (Bl. 63 and 63´).—The ignorance of the facts of the case revealed in the latter statement is met with elsewhere in the rest of the passage of Mathesius’s writing; he may have been unfortunate in his own personal experience, but he certainly exaggerates. That, before Luther’s day, preaching was not everywhere sufficiently supplemented by catechetical instruction was undoubtedly to be regretted.
[1928]Albrecht,ib., referring to P. Bahlmann, “Deutschlands Katechismen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrh.,” 1894, p. 38, and F. Cohrs, “Evangel. Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion,” (“Mon. Germ. Pædag.,” vol. 20 ff.; vol. 23, 1902, pp. 233, 271). For popular religious instruction before Luther’s day, see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 1, p. 25 ff.; F. Cohrs, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, p. 135 ff., and F. J. Knecht, “KL.,” 7², 1891, p. 288 ff.; cp. 249 ff.
[1929]See above, p. 134 f., and vol. iv., p. 251.
[1930]Albrecht,ib., p. 444.
[1931]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 212; Erl. ed., 21, p. 128.
[1932]Albrecht,ib., p. 445, referring to Geffcken’s “Der Bilderkatechismus des ausgehenden MA.,” 1855, pp. 86, 98 f., 108, 177, etc., and particularly to Thalhofer, “Die katechetischen Lehrstücke im MA.,” (“Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. deutsche Erziehungs- und Schulgesch.,” 15, 1905, p. 188 ff.)
[1933]Cp. Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 454.
[1934]“Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 643 (1523).
[1935]Albrecht,ib., p. 454 f.
[1936]F. J. Knecht,loc. cit., p. 292 f. The “Discipulus” was compiled as early as 1416. Cp. “Zeitschr. f. kath. Th.,” 1902, p. 419 ff.
[1937]Albrecht,ib., p. 561.
[1938]Facsimile,ib., p. 241, and better still in Otto Albrecht’s “Der kleine Katechismus Luthers,” 1905.
[1939]“Katechismusversuche” (see above, p. 491, n. 1), p. 241.
[1940]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 31, 1, pp. 435-437.
[1941]Ib., 30, 3, p. 567; Erl. ed., 26², p. 383 f.
[1942]Ib., 30, 1, p. 130=21, p. 31. Cp. above, p. 147 f., the passage taken from Luther’s “Deudsche Messe.”
[1943]To Spalatin, May 14, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 154: “Bibliam græcam et hebræam lego.” To the same, June 10, 1521,ib., p. 171: “Hebraica et Græca disco et sine intermissione scribo.”
[1944]To Johann Lang,ib., p. 256.
[1945]Ib., p. 271.
[1946]Ib., p. 325.
[1947]Cp.ib., n. 4 in Enders.
[1948]Dec. 12 (?), 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 37: “Bestias istas describas et nomines per species suas.” There follows the list.
[1949]See the list of Luther’s writings at the end of our vol. vi.
[1950]Feb. 23, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 300.
[1951]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” 1530, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 636; Erl. ed., 65, p. 109.
[1952]“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 277, n. 4.
[1953]June 14, 1528,ib., p. 291.
[1954]Paul Pietsch, in “Werke,” Weim. ed., “Deutsche Bibel,” 2.
[1955]Ib., p. xxiv, in the preface by K. Drescher, the present chief editor of the Weimar edition.
[1956]Pastor Risch, “Welche Aufgabe stellt die Lutherbibel der wissenschaftl. Forschung?” (“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, pp. 59 ff., 116 ff.), p. 129 f. “Die deutsche Bibel in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung,” 1907, by the same author.
[1957]Cp. Risch,ib., p. 121 f. O. Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel” (“RGl. Volksbücher,” iv., 13, 1910), pp. 8, 14, 24, 31, 44.
[1958]Reichert, “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 32.
[1959]“Historien,” Bl. 160´ ff. G. Lœsche, “Joh. Mathesius’ Ausgewählte Werke,” 3 (“Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” 9), p. 315 ff.
[1960]Discovered at Jena by Buchwald, but only known so far in extracts. See p. 501, n. 3, and “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 353, n. 12.
[1961]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 139sqq.
[1962]Ib., p. 142. See vol. iv., p. 109.
[1963]Cp. what O. Reichert says in “Die Wittenberger Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1521 bis 1541,” in Koffmane, “Die hds. Ueberlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1, 1907, p. 97 ff., and Risch’s Articles (above, p. 499, n. 1), p. 78 ff.
[1964]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 41, where examples are given from the notes and emendations to be published later.
[1965]Weim. ed., 1 and 2.
[1966]Reichert says,ib., p. 26: “There is hardly a more interesting document to be found in the domain of research concerned with Luther’s German Bible.” He gives a facsimile of Ps. xlv. (xliv.), xlvi. (xlv.). Four facsimiles in Thiele, vol. 2.
[1967]Ib., 65, p. 110, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” Sep. 8, 1530. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 14, p. 401 ff.
[1968]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 313. Table-Talk.
[1969]Ib., p. 421. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 378.
[1970]K. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer, “Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, 8-12 Jahrh.,” 1864, p. xxix.
[1971]Cp. Risch, p. 138, in the article mentioned above, p. 499, n. 1.
[1972]H. Stephan, “Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche,” 1907, p. 30, remarks: The orthodox period of Lutheranism venerated “Luther’s translation of the Bible with an admiration as boundless and naive as had it been a palladium.”
[1973]Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 143, who there (in the first edition, though not in the second) points out that even Grimm’s colleagues and successors did not share his own warm appreciation of the language of the German Bible. According to Müllenhoff the foundation of New High German had been laid a century and a half before Luther, who represents, not its beginning but its zenith period (see pp. 504, note 3). “If in spite of this,” says Böhmer, “it cannot be denied that the German of Luther played an important part in reducing the German language to unity, still this was not Luther’s doing.” “The stress laid by Protestants on the language of Luther undoubtedly did more to hamper than to further the victory of the common language” (p. 144). “Luther himself was the first to protest against being considered the founder of a new German tongue” (p. 145).
[1974]Ib., p. 132 f.
[1975]Preface to the first volume of the Bible, p. x.
[1976]Müllenhoff, etc.,ib., p. xxvii ff.
[1977]P. 223 f.
[1978]P. 224.
[1979]P. 222.
[1980]Cp. Zerener Holm, “Studien über das beginnende Eindringen der Lutherischen Bibelübersetzung in die deutsche Literatur,” 1911 (“Archiv. f. RG.,” Ergänzungsband, 4).
[1981]Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.
[1982]Ib.
[1983]“Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” p. 150.
[1984]Jakob Grimm, “Deutsche Grammatik,” 1, 1², 1870, Preface, p. x.
[1985]In the articles referred to above, p. 499, n. 1 (p. 137 f.).
[1986]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114. “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.” Before this he had said: “Of what an art and labour translating is I have full experience, and therefore I will allow no Pope-ass or Mule-ass, who has never attempted it, to set himself up as judge or critic.... If there is to be any faultfinding, I will attend to it myself.” And later: “Their abuse is my highest praise and glory. I am resolved to be a Doctor ... and they shall not rob me of this title till the Judgment Day; this much I know for certain.”
[1987]“Historien,” p. 82.
[1988]Ib.
[1989]F. W. Nippold, “Christian Josias Freiherr von Bunsen,” Leipzig, 1868-1871, 3, p. 483.
[1990]“RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen,” p. 72.
[1991]“Mitteilungen,” vol. 3, Göttingen, p. 1899, p. 335 ff. (reprint of the art. in the “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1885, 2).
[1992]P. 359 ff.
[1993]P. 365.
[1994]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” p. 642=117.
[1995]Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 3, p. 142 f. Theodore Zahn the Protestant exegete says: “Luther by adding the words ‘The righteousness which is acceptable to God’ (here and iii. 21, x. 3; cp. iii. 22) exceeded the task of a translator by implying that the recognition of this righteousness by God is merely the consequence of its origin in God. ‘A righteousness that comes from God,’ as in Phil. iii. 9, would be less open to objection, though here again Luther goes beyond his text.” “Brief des Paulus an die Römer,” Leipzig, 1910, p. 82.
[1996]De Lagarde (p. 358) rightly refers to Döllinger,ib., pp. 140-144, where the latter quotes another passage which calls for revision: “The commandments are givenonlyin order that man may be made aware of his inability to do what is good and thus learn to despair of himself.”
[1997]Döllinger,ib., p. 144.
[1998]Many other passages could be given where the sense is weakened owing to Luther’s want of accuracy. For instance, John vi. 56: “My flesh is the true meat and my blood is the true drink,” whereas Christ says: “My flesh is meat indeed (ἀληθῶς) and my blood is drink indeed.”
[1999]Riehm, “Luther als Bibelübersetzer,” “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 57, 1884, p. 306; cp. p. 312 f. On the whole subject see Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 401 ff.
[2000]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 632 ff.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 103 ff.; the accompanying letter to Link dated Sept. 12, 1530, in “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 257.
[2001]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 637; Erl. ed., 65, p. 110.
[2002]P. 640 ff.=115-117.
[2003]P. 643=118 f.
[2004]P. 638=112.
[2005]P. 634=106.
[2006]P. 633=104 f.
[2007]Pp. 636, 639=108, 109, 113 f.
[2008]P. 635=107. The passage was given verbally above, vol. iv., p. 345 f. The words of St. Paul which he plays upon occur in 2 Cor. xi. 18 ff.: “They are Hebrews, so am I; they are Israelites, so am I; they are the seed of Abraham, so am I.”
[2009]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 64, p. 197.
[2010]Ib., p. 194.
[2011]“Auss was Grund uund Ursach Luthers Dolmatschung über das Newe Testament dem gemeinen Man billich verbotten worden sey,” Leipzig, 1523, Bl. 3.—In Bl. 2´ Emser, having instanced the formal theological decision, goes on to remark, that Luther declared the secular authorities had no right to forbid books concerning the faith, although he and his preachers were in the habit of teaching that all were subject to the secular power. “Thus the man can never handle a matter with moderation, but either goes too far or else not far enough”; the authorities had a perfect right to punish, in life and property, “those whom the Church publicly proclaimed to be heretics.” He vainly urged the German bishops at the end of the book, “to summon one, or ten, learned, experienced and God-fearing men and to see that a trustworthy, reliable and uniform German Bible was made from the old and new [Lutheran] translation.”
[2012]Soffner, “Ein Lutherspiel aus alter Zeit,” 1889, p. 16. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783. On Hasenberg see vol. iv., p. 173 f.
[2013]G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” No. 61), 1898, p. 65.
[2014]In the “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f. Luther’s charge against Emser, the “Dresen Scribbler,” in which he says: He “wrote hisname, a preface and glosses to it and thus sold my New Testament under his own name,” is not grounded on fact. Still more unjust and insulting to the deceased was the statement he made later to some of his friends: The miscreant “knew the truth better than he wrote it”; “he altered a word here and there against his conscience” in order to retain the favour of the Duke. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 79. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 149.
[2015]Ib., p. 72.
[2016]L. Lemmens, O.F.M., “Aus ungedruckten Franziskanerbriefen des 16. Jahrh.” (“RGl. Studien,” ed. H. Greving, Hft. 20), 1911, p. 38.
[2017]Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 14, p. 429 f.
[2018]Janssen,ib.
[2019]Ib.
[2020]Dec. 28, 1534, in Lenz, “Briefwechsel Philipps von Hessen,” 2, p. 224: “Fatetur se parum syncere biblia vertisse et eam interpretationem tantum non revocat.”
[2021]A. Räss, “Die Konvertiten seit der Reformation,” 7, p. 99 f., with the list.
[2022]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 145 f.
[2023]In the Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 153.
[2024]Preface of 1522, “Werke,”ib., p. 169.
[2025]Preface of 1545,ib., p. 159. This preface replaced the former one, but, in it, he still leaves it “doubtful” whether the Apocalypse was to be taken as one of the books of the Bible or not.
[2026]Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² Leipzig, 1900, p. 84.
[2027]Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 158.
[2028]Preface of 1522,ib., p. 156.
[2029]Ib.
[2030]“Truly an Epistle of straw as compared with them” (the Gospel and 1st Epistle of John, the epistles of Paul, particularly to the Romans, Ephesians and Galatians, and the 1st Epistle of Peter). These were the “best” books of the New Testament because in them “faith in Christ” is “painted in a masterly manner.”Ib., 114 f.—The conclusion of the preface in question was omitted in Luther’s own later editions but was often reintroduced later.
[2031]M. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik am Jakobusbriefe nach dem Zeugnis seiner Anhänger” (“Bibl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1905), p. 273 ff. Cp. the same author, “Der Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Überlieferung” (“Bibl. Studien”), 10, Hft. 1-3, 1905.
[2032]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 5, p. 227, on Gen. xxii. Meinertz, “Luthers Kritik,” etc.,ib.
[2033]“Werke,” Walchs ed., 9, p. 2774 ff. Cp. Walther, “Theol. Stud. u. Krit.,” 66, 1, 1893, p. 595 ff. Meinertz,ib.
[2034]Meinertz,ib., p. 278.
[2035]H. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 1, p. 197 f. Carlstadt himself was doubtful as to who was the author.
[2036]Meinertz,ib., p. 276.
[2037]Zahn, “Einleitung in das N.T.,”² p. 84.
[2038]Barge,ib., p. 197 f.
[2039]His mediæval predecessors, however, usually had behind them tradition and the authority of the Church.
[2040]W. Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, No. 16.
[2041]Nestle, Art. “Bibelübersetzungen, deutsche” in “RE. f. prot. Theol.,”³ p. 73.
[2042]In the article on the “revised” Luther Bible of 1883, in “Göttinger Gel. Anziegen,” 1885, Hft. 2, reprinted in De Lagarde’s “Mitteilungen,” 3, 1889, 335 ff. Cp. above, p. 512.
[2043]Oettli, “Die revidierte Lutherbibel,” 1908.
[2044]P. lix.
[2045]Ib.
[2046]De Lagarde, art. quoted, p. 524, n. 2.
[2047]Ib.
[2048]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 3.
[2049]Ib., p. 5.
[2050]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 633; Erl. ed., 65, p. 104.
[2051]Preface of 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 108.
[2052]Ib., p. 112 f.
[2053]Ib., p. 9.
[2054]Cp. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 141.
[2055]In the preface to the work “Auss was Grund,” etc. Above, p. 519, n. 1. G. Kawerau, “Hier. Emser,” p. 60.
[2056]Kawerau,ib., p. 66.
[2057]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 95 f.
[2058]Ib., p. 137.
[2059]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 461; Erl. ed., 21, p. 349.
[2060]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 123.
[2061]“Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 6.
[2062]“Luthers Leben,” 1, p. 136.
[2063]“Comment. de actis et scriptis Lutheri,” p. 55. Cochlæus laments in this passage the disputations which the common people entered upon with the clergy, and describes the universal Bible reading of the unlearned as one of the causes of the spread of the apostasy. Nor does he conceal the fact that some of the laity were able in controversy to quote Scripture with greater fluency than the Catholic priests and monks.
[2064]“Christenliche Underrichtung Dr. Johann Fabri,” etc., Dresden, 1528. Bl. Biij., Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 783.
[2065]“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 256.
[2066]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 640; Erl. ed., 65, p. 114.
[2067]Ib., p. 640=115.
[2068]Ib., Erl. ed., 63, p. 24 f. Preface to the Old Testament.
[2069]Ib., p. 25.
[2070]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 265.
[2071]Ib., p. 265 f.
[2072]“Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 634 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 106 f.
[2073]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 213.
[2074]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 57, p. 4, Table-Talk.
[2075]To Nic. Hausmann, Jan. 21, 1531, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 349: “Recudimus iam psalterium germanicum pro calumniatoribus irritandis.” Cp. to the same, Feb. 25, 1530,ib., 7, p. 232, on the fresh edition of the New Testament then undertaken with Melanchthon: “Novam furiam concitaturi contra nos apud papistas,” and to Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 15, 1531,ib., 8, p. 345: “Dabimus operam ... ut (David) purius Germanum sonet, multam occasionem calumniatoribus dantes, ut habeant, quo in translationem nostram suam rabidam invidiam exerceant et acuant, nec tamen exsaturent.”
[2076]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 121.
[2077]Ib., p. 121 f.
[2078]Ib., p. 175.
[2079]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.
[2080]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 115.
[2081]Cp. Preface of 1539, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 405.
[2082]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 384.
[2083]Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 291.
[2084]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 240. Cp. “Aufzeichn.,” p. 82.
[2085]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 273.
[2086]Do., “Aufzeichn.,” p. 251.
[2087]Ib., p. 281.
[2088]Do., “Tischreden,” p. 145, 1540.
[2089]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 37, p. 4.
[2090]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 569.
[2091]Ib.
[2092]Ib.
[2093]“Dignissimum opus gratitudine, qua me hactenus excepit barbara hæc et vere bestialis natio.”
[2094]See the next section.
[2095]See below, p. 541, his statement against Emser.
[2096]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122, “Sendbrieff von Dolmetzscheñ.”
[2097]The saying appears in this shape in Reisch’s “Margarita philosophica,” Argentorati, 1508. See Nestle, “Jahrb. f. deut. Theol.,” 1877, p. 668. In fact it is there described as a common “proverbium inter theologos.” Another later form ran: “Si Lyra non lyrasset, totus mundus delyrasset.”
[2098]Kropatscheck, “Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche,” 1, 1904, p. 163.—On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.
[2099]F. Falk, “Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre Verbreitung,” Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.
[2100]Falk,ib., p. 27 ff.
[2101]Cp. Moureck, “SB. der kgl. Böhm. Gesellschaft d. Wissensch., Phil. Kl.,” 1892, p. 176 ff.
[2102]“N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 141.
[2103]E. v. Dobschütz, “Deutsche Rundschau,” 101, 1900, p. 61 ff. Falk,ib., p. 86.
[2104]E. Schröder, “Gött. Gel. Anzeigen,” 1888, p. 253.
[2105]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 606; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther,” p. 61.
[2106]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.
[2107]Ib., 63, pp. 401, 402.
[2108]Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270; “Annis 30 ante biblia erant incognita, prophetæ innominati,” etc.
[2109]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 23, p. 69; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous “bench” cp. also Weim. ed., 6, p. 460; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv., p. 159.
[2110]“Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA.,” p. 32.
[2111]Walther, p. 742. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 303. Walther also observes: “Thus it was not from the Church that the translations emanated; it was not the Church that recommended the study of the Bible to the laity. This would indeed have been contrary to her principles. But neither did the Church show herself hostile at the outset to every translation. So long as it contained nothing to promote ‘divisions’ or to undermine reverence for the Church and her doctrines she permitted this movement, as she did every other that did not infringe her authority.”Ib.
[2112]Cp. Franz Falk,ib., pp. 33-66.