The old edition of Walch contains in its fourteenth volume two main parts, each of which is provided with special pagination. The first part contains Luther's prefaces, as well as historical and philological writings; the second part contains the Latin translation of the Bible, which was published anonymously in Wittenberg in 1529 and is attributed to Luther. It contains the Pentateuch, the Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, the Books of Kings and the entire New Testament. We have retained the first part, but with the elimination of many pieces that are not by Luther, as will be shown soon, and in the same order as Walch. On the other hand, the second part has been omitted, because it does not belong in our complete German edition, and also has only an archaeological interest. The space thus freed has been used by us to accommodate the extremely rich material, which has been brought to light by the finds of recent times, and in our sixth volume, where it actually belongs, could not be included due to lack of space. Thus, the second part of this volume has become a supplement to the sixth volume. We have arranged it with consecutive pagination.
The name of the cursor is the same as the name of the cursor.
Walch has four subsections for Luther's prefaces. The first section contains Luther's prefaces to the German translation of the Bible, arranged according to the sequence of the biblical books. In this section, we have added Luther's "Warning" from the Bible edition of 1545, as well as the "Preface of Jesus Sirach to his Book", which were missing in Walch's edition, and have placed the "Preface to the Revelation of St. John" from 1522 in the text, which Walch, because Luther later suppressed it, had relegated to his preface to the 14th volume. We have given the fourth number a more correct chronology.
In the second subsection, "Luther's Prefaces on Some Interpretations of Biblical Books Prepared by Others," which are also arranged according to the Holy Scriptures, we have made no other change than that we have here (as everywhere in this volume) newly translated from Latin all the prefaces whose original is Latin.
The third subsection, "Luther's Prefaces on Various Books and Writings Prepared by Others," has already been
by Walch in chronological order. Here and there we have helped to determine the correct time, e.g. in the first two numbers. However, we had to leave the last two numbers at their previous place, because a transfer was not well thunlich. We have omitted the "Preface on Joh. Walther's Spiritual Songs" because it is duplicated in Walch's work and is therefore already included in our edition in Vol. X, 1422. Likewise, the "Preface on Antonius Corvinus' Büchlein wider des Erasmus Tractat" etc. is also duplicated in Walch, and is already found in our edition, vol. XVIII, 2006. The "Preface on the Latin and German Begräbnißgesänge" is already printed in the St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1424, and is therefore omitted here. Also the title of several writings had to be changed, because it was either wrong or misleading. For example, Walch's No. 62 has the title: "Vorrede über das Passionalbüchlein" ("Preface to the Passional Booklet"), which gives the impression that this preface is part of the "Passional Christi und Antichristi" ("Passion of Christ and Antichrist"). However, it should read: "Preface to the Prayer Booklet with the Calendar and Passion. Walch's No. 54 has the title: "Preface to the Harmony of the Passion of Christ", whereby one naturally thinks of a Gospel harmony. However, it should read: "Preface to the Songs of the Passion of Christ.
The "Passional Christi und Antichristi" has been provided with Cranach's pictures, and a detailed introduction according to the Weimar edition has been added.
The preface No. 53a, which forms a whole with the following, has been transferred here from Walch's 21st volume, Col. 181*.
In the fourth subsection, which in Walch has the title: "D. M. Luthers Vorreden über die Sammlungen und Editiones seiner Schriften, nebst den vor den lateinischen und deutschen Wittenbergischen, auch Jenischen, Eislebischen, Altenburgischen und Leipzigischen Theilen befindlichen Vorreden und Zueignungsschriften", we have found it necessary to tidy up sharply. Of the forty-seven numbers Walch has in this section, we have retained only seven; of these, five are by Luther. The sixth piece, Melanchthon's preface to the second part of Luther's Latin writings, is important and deserves a place in a collection of Luther's writings, because it offers a brief biography of Luther; the seventh piece, Amsdorf's preface to the first volume of the Jena German edition (the only preface ever added to this important edition), which also precedes the Latin parts in a Latin translation, is historically valuable and interesting. It should only be noted here that the "Preface of Luther before his farewell", which precedes the second part of the Wittenberg edition and is reprinted in all previous Luther editions (except the Jena edition), is not a preface by Luther, but a conglomerate of his writings, which Walch has already stated several times as a conjecture. The beginning of this so-called preface is, as we have already noted in the 20th volume of the St. Louis edition, Col. 1619, from Luther's writing: "Wider die Antinomer"; then follows a small middle sentence, whose location we have not succeeded in finding; the conclusion, however, is taken from Luther's "Preface to the Urban Rhegius
Refutation of the Münster New Valentinians" etc., in this volume Col. 348 ff., 4-9. Therefore, we think we have rightly omitted this piece. It would be difficult for anyone to agree with us about the other omissions as well. For if we had wanted to follow Walch's path and continue along it, we would have had to exclude, in addition to the forty pieces we have omitted, all of Walch's prefaces and introductions, the Erlangen edition, and the Weimar edition (as far as it has been published). But that would be a strange "collection of Luther's works"!
In the last section of the first main part of this volume, "Luther's Historical and Philological Writings", we have been able to make significant improvements in Luther's Chronikon. We have purged it of Aurifaber's many additions, especially in the New Testament period, and cut off its continuation from 1540 to 1559. The arrangement is clearer and more concise than Walch's, because we have, as was done in the old editions, always brought fifty years out of each page, so that the two facing pages make up a hundred years. This writing, as well as the following "Namenbüchlein" we have newly translated from the Latin and freed from many errors. No. 5 of this section, "Aesop's Fable of the Lion and the Donkey", which was previously given in all editions in the wrong order, is now in the correct order. The only text in this volume that was written in Latin and could not be retranslated by us, because we did not have the original Latin, is "Luthers Bernunftkunst". Des
We were forced to reprint it after the translation by Aug. Tittel from Walch.
Now we turn to the second main part of this volume, the supplement of the sixth volume, which brings the conclusion of Luther's interpretation of the Old Testament, namely the interpretations on the prophets Obadiah to Malachi. The interpretations of the prophets Jonah, Habakkuk and Zechariah were published by Luther himself in German, therefore the old editions do not bring any other relation besides these. We, however, like the Erlangen and Weimar editions, have added to these three prophets the Altenburg manuscript and to the first two also the Zwickau manuscript; why this was not also done for Zechariah can be seen from the first note to the second interpretation of the prophet Zechariah. Luther's interpretation of the prophet Haggai was not available at the time the Wittenberg edition was published. Therefore, Melanchthon wrote a short explanation about this prophet, which was added to the Wittenberg edition, but found no exception in the other editions. We now bring the interpretation of the prophet Haggai according to both the Altenburg and the Zwickau manuscripts after the Weimar edition. In the case of the other prophets, in addition to these two manuscripts, we have only reproduced the text of Micah according to Veit Dietrich's edition, because Luther had approved of it. For the others, the text of the Altenburg manuscript has been used as a basis, but the deviations of Dietrich are as follows
find referred to in the notes. We have discussed what led us to this procedure in the first note on the Prophet Joel, Vol. VI, 1414 ff. Only in Malachi do these two manuscripts fail, and we have included this according to the Wittenberg edition.
Now we continue with the critique of the Weimar edition, which we began in the sixth volume. Only occasionally do we touch upon the Erlangen edition, because, given the condition it has in the exeg. opp. tom. XXIV-XXVIII, it gives too much opportunity for justified criticism.
In Obadiah according to the Altenburg manuscript, in the Weimar edition vol. XIII, p. 215, line 5 (at the beginning of the introduction) 4th Regum is found, for which 3rd Regum is to be read, because the passage is I Kings 18, 4. - p. 217, line 5 v. u. (v. 5. in Meirich's editing) is to be read furabuntur instead of firmabuntur. The wrong reading is found in all editions. - P. 222, line 27 (v. 20.) we read: pressuros totum terram, for which possessuros totam terram is to be put. In addition, we encounter several insignificant typographical errors. Two verse numbers are missing. In Obadiah according to the Zwickau manuscript, six verse numbers are missing. This has, as one can see from the following, bad consequences. - P. 209, line 8 (v. 2.) is to be read cogitur instead of eoxit. - P. 209, line 19 (v. 3.) Quia Kallas is to be read instead of Qui habitat. - S. 210 the. Remark is made, "The Zwickau manuscript has thus contracted pp. 5-7. and the Hallische manuscript has arranged the individual cues." However, it does not behave this way. The verse number "6." would have preceded "eyn" on p. 210, line 19, and the relevant
Keyword should have been added. The verse number "7." should not have been placed first line 19, but line 16 before emittent te etc., and these words had to be emphasized as a keyword. - The verse number "9." should have been placed p. 211, lines-4 before Timebunt; the verse number "11." should have been p. 211, line 13 before In die; the verse number "13." should have been p. 211, line 24 before Ruinae. - P. 212, line 20 should be read possidebunt instead of possederunt. - P. 212, line 25, the verse number "18." should be inserted before In i8ta and the relevant keyword should be added. Because this was not done, we have here in the text quite incomprehensible things: In Ili ista generali possessione gentium possi [debit] etiam pars domus Jacob, domus Joseph, regnum Israel. First, therefore, the eighteenth verse would have to be inserted as a keyword, instead of possidebit to add: possidebitur, and then, according to the Hallic and Altenburg manuscripts, the text would have to be completed thus: In ista generali possessione gentium possidebitur etiam pars, domus Esau. Domus Jacob i. e. reliquiae salvatae per Christum. Domus Joseph i. e. regnum Israel. - P. 213, line 13 (v. 19.) is wrongly interpointed: [The Christians] "these are such" valles versus occidentem. Possidebunt Philistim. It should read: . . . valles. Versus occidentem possidebunt etc.
In the interpretation of the prophet Jonah according to the Altenburg manuscript, in the Weimar edition vol. XIII, p. 249, line 34 (Cap. 2, 3.) fidendum is found where diffidendum will have to be read; p. 250, line 32 (Cap. 2, 5.) sententiis instead of conscientiis p. 255, line 28 (Cap. 4, Einl.) dissimilis instead of similis. In the interpretation of Jonah according to the Zwickau manuscript p. 225, line 7 (introduction)
(according to Luther's German interpretation) will read: foliis similis cauli. - S. 239, Z. 27 (Cap. 4, 8.) is instead of deli
ciens according to the Vulgate: deficient. - P. 240, line 14 (end of the interpretation) offers the Weimar: nonne Ninive plus hic quam Jonas etc.. Instead read: Viri Ninivitae . . .; plus hic quam Jonas etc. These are the first and the last words of the scriptural quotation Matth. 12, 41, which was easy to recognize, since immediately the words: Iterum citat in Matthaeo:" precede it.
Because the thirteenth volume of the Weimar edition contains the interpretation of all minor prophets, we no longer give the number of this volume in the following, but only the page number. In the notes on Micah according to the Altenburg manuscript p. 300, line 2 (middle of the introduction) is to be read aeternum instead of externum; ibid. line 23 Babyloniam instead of externum; line 24 Babyloniorum instead of Assyriam. - p. 301, line 4 is (according to the Vulgate) instead of ducent: to be read ducet. - S. 305, Z. 11 (Cap. 1, 9.) should be read Babylonica instead of Assyriaca - S. 310, Z. 6 (Cap. 2, 4.) should be read ejus instead of eis. - In the third chapter the first four verse numbers are missing, and the fifth is incorrectly placed on p. 314, line 28, while it should have been placed already on line 22. - In the fourth chapter, the verse number "4." is only on p. 319, line 20, but should have been placed already on line 17. - The verse number "7." should have been inserted on p. 320, line 22 before ponam, etc. - S. 322, Z. 34 (Cap. 4, 11.) the second non is to be deleted. This is not a printing error, because the Erlanger also reads: non habitabis non amplius. - S. 328, line 16 (Cap. 5, 7.) should have read
Tales according to the Vulgate the verse number "8." should be put and the keyword should be added. - S. 331, Z. 28 (Cap. 6, 5.) should be read Gilgal instead of Gilead - S. 333, Z. 31 (Cap. 6, 8.) should be read placeamus instead of placemus. - S.334, Z.25 (Cap. 6, 8.) in the margin should be instead of "Weish." Sirach should be put. - S. 336, Z. 36 (Cap. 6, 14.) the first non is to be deleted. The Erlanger has noted here: Deleas: non. - S. 338, Z. 3 (Cap. 7, 2.) we read: ut Ozeas supra ait: Rectus non est in hominibus. Here one thinks to have to do with a quotation from Hosea; but this is not the case. It should read: ut Ozeas supra ait [Cap. 4, 1. sq.]. The following words: Rectus etc. should have been assigned to the following paragraph, because they are a part of the next keyword. On this occasion, we do not want to leave it unmentioned that the editor of the 13th volume of the Weimar edition did not take any special trouble to prove the scriptural passages that occur in the interpretations. As proof of this, we cite the fact that on pages 319 to 343, only five Scripture citations are given in the margin, and of these five, two are incorrect, namely p. 324, line 25 (which we have already mentioned) Weish. 3, 20., and p. 340, Z. 12: Ps. 97, 11. where Ps. 112, 4. should be given. The third passage, p. 327, line 8: Hoc est verbo Dei, gladio spiritus, ut inquit apostolus, where "Eph. 6, 17." is mentioned in the margin, is not a citation, nor would it have been necessary, because it is well known. The fourth passage, p. 319, line 4: Ps. 19, 5. is also not a citation; neither is the fifth passage, p.339, line 6: 2 Sam. 23, 6. With these marginal notes, especially the more remote and more difficult to recognize Scriptures should have been cited.
The author intended to take into account the citations in the 13th volume, p. XXXVI, so that he would be able to prove his assurance: "The scriptural citations, not allusions to scriptural passages, have been proven, only in the case of frequent recurrence of the same passage this was omitted. But this has not been fulfilled. In the case of the passage from Ephesians, there is no direct citation, but Eph. 6, 17. is noted in the margin. In Hosea, as it appears from the Weimar edition, there is an undoubted citation, but nothing given in the margin. We have now endeavored to discover the passage in question in Hosea; -first with the help of the Concordance; but in vain. Then we searched Hosea, first in the German Bible, then in the Vulgate, but without success. So, after much trouble and work and loss of time, we finally had to decide to move on without having solved the problem. But behold, at the next step we took, we realized that this was not a quotation from Hosea, but a part of the next keyword! Thus, on twenty-four pages of the Weimar edition, we find only five scriptural passages in the margin, of which two are incorrect and three are unnecessary. Now one would like to object: Perhaps in this designated space there was no opportunity for the introduction of real scriptural quotations. We answer this by referring to the direct citations, which the Weimar edition itself has made recognizable by a colon. S. 318, Z. 35 should be in the margin: Luc. 24, 47.; p. 318, Z. 40: Rom. 1, 16.; p. 322, Z. 24: Hoh. 16, 21.; p. 323, line 7: Ps. 54, 9.; p. 323, line 10: Ps. 137, 7.; p. 325, line 8: Ps. 90, 1.; p. 325, line 11: Joh.
8, 58.; p. 325, line 18: Joh. 16, 28.; p. 325, line 35: Luc. 1, 17.; p. 327, line 6: Eccl. 11, 2.; p. 327, line 12: Matth. 10, 34.; p. 327, line 35: 1 Cor. 3, 6.; p. 328, line 7: Ps. 72, 16.; p. 329, line 2: 1 Cor. 4, 11.; p. 329, line. 3: 2 Cor. 6, 4. 10.; p. 329, Z. 24: Ps. 14, 3.; p. 329, Z. 25: Ps. 14, 5.; p. 331, Z. 9: 5 Mos. 32, 6.; p. 332, Z. 34: Jer. 7, 5.; p. 333, Z. 12: Matth. 9, 13.; p. 334, Z. 9: Ps. 51, 5.; p. 334, Z. 18: Matth. 6, 3. s.; p. 334, Z. 34: Proverbs 8, 14; p. 335, line 2: Tit. 1, 5; p. 335, line 35: Proverbs 16, 11; p. 336, line 38: Ps. 38, 7; p. 337, line 22: Deut. 32, 32; p. 337, line 30: Isa. 5, 2; p. 338, line 18: Matt. 7, 15; p. 338, line 19: Isa. 5, 20.p. 339, line 1: Ps. 118, 27. p. 339, line 6: Matth. 7, 16. p. 339, line 16: Zeph. 1, 12. p. 340, line 21: Ps. 91, 8. p. 340, line 21: Ps. 54, 9. p. 340, line 35: Proverbs 8, 27. Here we have thirty-six Scripture quotations. Although most of these are only additions to the number of verses, since the chapters are given correctly in the original, and in the case of the Psalms also the change of the counting of the Vulgate to that of our Bible, this work would still have been worthwhile, because it saves the reader from searching. However, not only in the case of direct citations is a scriptural reference very desirable, but also in many other cases, e.g. where it is a historical fact that is referred to (p. 317, line 24, Jer. 32, 7. ff. would have been appropriate), a doctrine, a custom, the correct understanding of a word, or whatever else may occur. If the editor of the 13th volume of the Weimar edition had not let this trouble spoil his work, and had done his best to follow the good example of the Weimar edition, he would have been able to find a solution.
If he had followed the same form that he had in other volumes of the Weimar edition, he would have been spared many an error. This is already shown by the next error, which is found on p. 338, line 11: ut est in Numeris, for which one should read: ut est in Levitico [cap. 27, 28. sq.] Thus, it would not have been inappropriate to explain the words on p. 338, line 32: psalmus, qui est de antichristo by the marginal gloss: Ps. 10.
Now we turn to the Zwickau manuscript on Micah. P. 260, line 24 is to be read Babyloniorum instead of Assyriorum. - P. 261, line 8 is to be read Hieremia instead of Ezechiele, and line 9 is to be read Ezechiele instead of Hieremia. - P. 261, Z. 14 in the margin is to be read Luc. 3, 4. instead of Luc. 4, 17. which also offers the Erlanger, because it depends on the word sermones, which is not found in the latter place. - S. 262, Z. 7 the verse number "4." should stand before rumpentur. - S. 262, Z. 10 (Cap. 1, 4.) should be read inimpe- dibiliter instead of impedibiliter. - P. 263, line 2 (Cap. 1, 7.) is to be read with the Altenburg handwriting per instead of in. - S. 264, line 1 (Cap. 1, 8.) has the Weimar edition (as well as the Erlangen): p. 264, line 8 (Cap. 1, 9.) is to be read Babylonica instead of Assyriaca. - p. 264, line 8 should read pavore vicinae captivitatis instead of pavore vicino captivitati. - p. 264, line 11 is to read mali ftatt male. - P. 264, Z. 29 (Cap. 1, 10.) is to read latete, [nolite] palam flere instead of latere, palam flere.... - p. 266, Z. 5 (Cap. 1, 12.) is to be read accipiet instead of incipiet according to the Vulgate - p. 266, Z. 15 (Cap. 1, 13.) is to be read (according to Joshua 19, 47.) Lesem instead of Lastum. - S. 267, Z. 19 (Cap. 1, 15.) is (according to the Hand-.
The text in the Weimar edition is written ieres instead of Such incorrect and therefore quite useless renderings of Hebrew words are encountered frequently. - P. 268, line 16 (Cap. 2, 1.) is to be read meditatus est instead of meditamini. Both the Erlanger and the Weimarsche have added medi incorrectly and highlighted it as a keyword, while it belongs to the broader interpretation of Ps. 36, 6. (according to the Vulgate). - P. 268, line 17 is to be read nunquam instead of iniquitas, according to the Altenburg and Hall manuscripts. - S. 268, Z. 26 (Cap. 2, 1.) we are commanded: Huc spectamus omnes clerici ut divites fiamus et bene pasti. It would be inconsistent to put this into Luther's mouth, so we have assumed spectant and fiant instead of spectamus and fiamus in the Hall manuscript. - S. 269, Z. 27 (Cap. 2, 4.) we find Schebed instead of and immediately following adjectivo instead of adverbio. - S. 270, Z. 9 (Cap. 2, 6.) we find the (by false jnterpunction)'unrhymed sentence: "Ecclesia: ubi est adhuc verbum Dei?" When could ever the Church ask like that? It should read, [Coetus Domini est] ecclesia, ubi est adhuc verbum Dei. - S. 271, Z. 33 (Cap. 2, 11.) has the Weimar one in the margin: Hos. 12, 1. (likewise the Erlanger), but it should read Hos. 9, 7. - S. 271, Z. 9 (Cap. 2, 8.) lacks the word adversarius after meus. - On p. 272, line 28 (Cap. 2, 12.) the Weimar version (as well as the Erlanger) says in the margin: "Col. 1, 13." But it should be Col. 1, 23. Obviously, "Col. 1, 13." in the Erlangen edition is a misprint, which the Weimar edition has taken over without looking it up. Since it now repeatedly occurs that the Weimar edition
has cited the same inapplicable scriptural passages in the margins as the Erlangen edition, it is reasonable to assume that the Weimar edition has blindly followed the Erlangen edition, even in the few scriptural passages it has cited, in order to save itself the often great (and yet sometimes unsuccessful) effort of searching, Z.32 (Cap. 2, 12.) should read instead of dabar - S. 273, Z. 12 (Cap. 2, 13.) should read impediunt instead of impendunt. - S. 273, Z. 21 is to be read semper instead of saepe, because our duke and head does not alone often go before us to overcome death etc., but always. - P. 274, line 16 the verse number "6." should have been placed before Contra. - P. 274, Z. 28 (Cap. 3, 6.) is to be read Ezechiam instead of Hiere- miam. This error would not have remained unnoticed if the passage in Jeremiah had been consulted. For from (Jer. 26, 18.) one would have recognized the correct reading, although the words sicut est in 3. Regum (that is 1 Kings 22, 24.) mislead, since our prophet is confused with Micah, the son of Jemla (1 Kings 22, 9.), who lived about two hundred years before Micah of Maresa. This error, however, is not attributable to Luther, but to the scribe who omitted that the behavior of Zedekiah against Micah of Jemla was cited as an example of how shamefully the prophets were treated. This is shown in the Hall manuscript. - S. 276, Z. 6 (Cap. 3, 6.) is to be read eorum instead of suum. - On p. 276, line 21 (Cap. 3, 7.) ut is to be deleted because it is too much. - On p. 279, line 23 (Cap. 4, 6.) read sit instead of in; in the same line, put a period before si. - P. 279, Z. 29 (Cap. 4, 6.) should be read sic hic ftatt dic, hic etc. - S. 280, Z. 17 it would have been well ge-.
The words without the addition of arx legis are misunderstandable. - S. 280, Z. 22 (Cap. 4, 8.) is to be read: ubinam habitant etiam homines instead of ubi non. For where men do not dwell, the gospel cannot progress and reign. Immediately after it is to be added before locum obscurum: Significat Eder. - S. 282, Z. 12 (Cap. 4, 13.) is to be read: Ferrum, aes, instead of: P. 282, Z. 17 (Cap. 4, 13.) Domino is to be inserted before universae terrae. - S. 282, Z. 25 (Cap. 4, 14.) reads in the original: Sic in- terpre, which the Erlanger and the Weimarsche have added thus: Sic interpretandum. But in this way a contradiction occurs against the following interpretation, that by filia latronis ["warrior woman"] Babylon is to be understood. Therefore, we have assumed interpretatum (that is, so it has been interpreted). Immediately following, to give sense, we have assumed cohaerentia twice instead of controversia, according to the Altenburg manuscript. - On p. 283, line 4, belli is to be read instead of bellis. The word is taken from a verse of Virgil (Aen. I, 14). - On p. 283, line 10 (Cap. 4, 14.) in the keyword either judicis or judicum is to be read instead of judicii. - P. 285, Z. 13 (Cap. 5, 3.) Es[aia] 11[, 2.] is to be read instead of x8. 2 - Neither the Erlangen nor the Weimar edition has recognized that p. 287, line 2 (Cap. 5, 6.) quae is a new keyword, but it is there in direct connection with the preceding (ros, quae), which neither gives a right sense, nor is permissible according to grammar. - S. 287, Z. 6 (Cap. 5, 6.) the Weimarsche has as well as the Erlanger in the margin Ps. 103, 16. instead of Ps. 72, 16. Because the
Weimarsche has not looked up, or perhaps also has not found the correct place, so the same expresses its surprise about the correct citation of the place in the Hall manuscript: "et florebunt de civitate [?]." The Weimar edition has added this question mark in the notes p. 286, line 4 v. u.. - S. 287, Z. 14 (Cap. 5, 7.) reads: Erit etc. Pecoribus pecorum omnium interibunt, eradicabuntur, sic etiam hoc de spiritu sancto apostoli et patres primi, qui fundamentum posuerunt, sumpti sunt de filiis Israel etc. What might the editors of the Erlangen and Weimar editions have thought with this sentence, and how would they translate it into German? Here, the scribe of the manuscript has united through wrong writing, the decipherers of the manuscript through wrong reading, and the editors of the manuscript through wrong interpunging to produce this meaningless passage. Instead of Erit etc., according to the Vulgate, the keyword should have been: Et erunt etc. Then follow two word explanations, which Luther often anticipates; one to this verse, the other to the following verse, namely: Gregibus pecorum [i. e.] ovium. At (Gregibus Roth has mistaken, and instead, prompted by the following pecorum, has written: Pecoribus. The decipherers of the manuscript have read omnium out of ovium, which will be found in the manuscript, which has already happened to them once, as we have shown in the interpretation of the prophet Joel (Cap. 1, 18.) according to the Altenburg Hanoschrift. Also there we had (Weim. Ausg. Bd. XIII, p. 93, Z. 20) greges omnium instead of greges ovium. The second word explanation is:
Interibunt [i. e.] eradicabuntur. Now follows the interpretation: Sic [sc. ut praecedens versus] etiam hoc de spiritu sancto [dictum est]. Apostoli et patres primi etc. - p. 287, line 21 is to be read diripuit instead of diripiunt. - p. 287, line 4 v. u. is to be read sortilegos instead of sacrilegos in the Hall manuscript..- p. 288, line 3 f. (Cap. 5, 9.) is to be read: tanquam nihil habentes instead of nihil habentes tanquam. - p. 288, Z. 6 (Cap. 5, 9.) is to be read: non egebis quadrigis, non verbo [humano] etc. The original reads egeb, which is supplemented by the editions, not well, to egebitis. - P. 288, line 25 (Cap. 5, 12.) should be the first stitch word: [Non] ultra, not evellam, which here the Weimar edition has put instead of vetra (probably read from vitra) in the Erlanger; and as the second stitch word after Et should be inserted evellam, whose explanation is destruam. The verse number "13th" should be placed before Et evellam. P. 289, Z. 29 (Cap. 6, 5.) should be read robur or vires instead of verbum. - P. 290, Z. 1 (Cap. 6, 5.) Gilgal is to be read instead of Gilead. - S. 290, Z. 9 we find the words: ,,cultum, quo praeveniam dominum." appended to v. 5. But it closes the interpretation of the fifth verse with the word oultuiu. The following should have been drawn to the following paragraphs as an explanation of the first words of the 6th verse: Quid dignum offeram Domino? This error is all the more disconcerting because on the same page in the Hallic manuscript it is offered: Quid, Heb. quo praeveniam dominum? (The question mark is added by us.) - p. 290, Z. 25 (Cap. 6, 8.) is written as keyword: Judicabo instead of Indicabo. "This is not a typographical error, because also the.
Erlanger reads like this. - S. 291, Z. 7 (Cap. 6, 8.) we read: Non sacerdotum est docere, scribere. Who would like to sign that the priests should neither teach nor write? The context requires that it be added thus: Non [solum] sacerdotum est docere, scribere, oportet [eos] opere adimplere, ideo dicit ,,facere" etc. - S. 291, Z. 15 (Cap. 6, 8.) is suitably: Secundo eingefcpoben bor: ut diligas misericordiam, which in our original is separated from the preceding only by a comma. - S. 292, line 1 (Cap. 6, 8.) we even read: indamnabile vitium. Which vice is "indamnabile"? If the manuscript is correct, we will probably find indomabile vitium, an indomitable vice, which is also indicated by the similes of the thistle head, which always stands upright, and (in the Altenburg manuscript) of the onion, which always has one skin under the other.-But a few lines later, p. 292-, line 7, it seems as if Luther -for with whose most just interpretation we are dealing here, as in the acrius examinata editio (namely, this is what the Erlangen Exeg. opp., tom. XXV, x. 129), because in the 24th volume p. 4 it says: Res ita se habet, ut . . . commentarius Cygnensis a Rothio descriptus opus ãíçóþôáôïí sit aestimandus - really has such an unpardonable vice statuirt, namely the xenodochia (the hospitality), against which, however, one has to fight like against the philautia (the selfishness). Of course, such nonsense is far from Luther's mind. Instead of xenodochia, rather xEvo^la, (vain honor) is to be read. May now also at least the xenodochia be on Roth's account
the decipherers of the manuscript and the editors of the same should certainly have objected to this. - P. 294, line 5 (Cap. 6, 16.) is to be read quia instead of quis. - On p. 294, line 6 (Cap. 6, 16.), the word per should be replaced by pater. In the next line, voluptatibus seems to us to be either an auditory or a typographical error on Roth's part, for the Vulgate reads voluntatibus. Therefore, here the Hallic manuscript offers: Voluptatibus, potius: voluntatibus. - S. 294, Z. 17 (Cap. 7, 1.) we read: in Ozea simile verbum etc. This passage has given us almost as much trouble as the above mentioned alleged citation from Hosea (in the Altenburg manuscript Cap. 7, 2.). For instead of in Ozea it is to be read: in Amos [cap. 8, 1. sq]. - S. 295, Z. 29 (Cap. 7, 4.) the word terra is to be inserted at the end of the line. - P. 295, Z. 32 (Cap. 7, 4.) is to be put instead of Aven. - P. 297, line 6 (Cap. 7, 11.) is Psalmus in the text (Erlanger: p8.) and in both editions in the margin: Ps. 104, 9. But instead of it Prov. [8, 29.] is to be read. This passage is quoted here literally. Another thing that speaks against the Psalm passage is that the word lex, which is important here, is not found in it. - S. 298, Z. 25 (Cap. 7, 19.) stands in the original fa, which both the Erlanger and the Weimarsche have (not well) added to faciant. It should be read faciet. The subject to this is God: he will make consciences entirely free. In the faciant reading, the sins would have to be set as the subject. But of these it could hardly be said, "that they shall make consciences wholly free".
In Nahum after the Altenburg hand
writing is p. 374, line 27 (Cap. 1, 3.) instead:
non nocentabit to read: non innocentabit. This is confirmed by the Zwickau manuscript. - S. 375, line 14 (Cap. 1, 4.) is to be read adducere instead of abducere. - On p. 376, line 24 (Cap. 1, 8.) the passage Is. 28, 18. is read like this: Flagellum inundans cum transierit, non veniet super nos. The Vulgate reads: Flagellum inundans cum transierit, eritis ei in conculcationem. Luther translated thus, "If a flood comes along, it will crush you." Accordingly, instead of: non veniet super vos, it will read: veniet super vos. It is remarkable that the Zwickau manuscript at the corresponding place (p. 351, Z. 2.) brings exactly the same wording. We can see that both the Altenburg and the Zwickau editions have used one and the same source, in which the scriptural word cited by Luther has been turned into its straight opposite out of misunderstanding. Luther's intention with this quotation was only to prove that the Hebrew expression: "A flood is coming" is also found in other places. - An equally inverted citation is found on p. 377, line 9 [Cap.1, 8.). There Prov. 31, 18. (not ? Proverb. 28, which the Weimar one offers): non extinguetur in nocte lucerna ejus is cited as the scriptural passage with which Luther wanted to prove that "light" in Scripture means as much as well-being. However, this passage does not prove that, but lucerna is there "a light", with which a diligent woman also works at night. Luther did not quote this passage at all, but, as we see from the Zwickau manuscript, Prov. 13, 9: Lucerna impiorum extinguetur. - P. 377, Z. 16 (Cap. 1, 9.) is instead of comminatione To read comminationis, which is likewise
is confirmed by the Zwickau manuscript. - P. 379, line 4 (Cap. 1, 11.) is to be read structores instead of destructores,
as is evident from Isa. 49, 17. - S. 390, line 28 (Cap. 3, 11.) is to be read instead of venite: vomite, as Jer. 25, 27. proves. - In Nahum according to the Zwickau manuscript there are only a few errors. S. 351, Z. 6 (Cap. 1, 8.) is in the original in prover, which the Weimar edition has added thus: in prover [bio], but in the margin (as well as the Erlangen) has cited Jes. 57, 20. We think that it should be read in proverbiis, namely Prov. 10, 25, which the Altenburg manuscript also offers. Against the passage of Isaiah speaks especially that pertransire does not stand in the same, what is important here. - S. 352, Z. 9 (Cap. 1, 10.) is instead of the second sicut to read sic. - S. 355, Z. 26 (at the end of the first chapter) is instead of Esa. 5. is to be read Esa. 25, 8. - p. 358, line 15 (Cap. 2, 6.) is to be read regia [the royal castle] instead of regio. This is not a misprint, for the Erlanger also reads this way. - On the same page, the Hall manuscript reads irrigua instead of arrigua. - S. 363, Z. 12 (Cap. 3, 4.) is instead of Esa. 51. is to be read Esa. 52. and in the following line instead of 3. reg. 27 read 3. reg. 21, 25. - p. 365, line 3 (Cap. 3, 8.) reads quae habitat. The marginal gloss to this (in the notes, line 8 v. o.) reads in the Weimar: vel quaesita est instead of: quae sita est. This is not a printing error, because the Erlangen also reads this way.
We have determined the time when Luther's interpretation of the prophet Habakkuk first appeared more precisely than has been done so far. See the first note to this writing. - In the interpretation of this prophet according to the Altenburg manuscript, in the Wei
The following errors have been corrected by us in the first edition of St. Mark's: p. 424, line 24 (Cap. 1, 2.) we have put mihi instead of mea. - On p. 426, line 23 (Cap. 1, 5.) we have accepted the remark of the Erlanger that quod daselbst mangele as correct. The Weimar one, however, which thought it could be done without this quod, had it printed that way: Hic est me mo- yet, and thereby burdened Luther with a completely inconsistent conclusion. - S. 429, line 7, (Cap. 1, 12.) is to be read autem instead of antea. - On p. 432, line 26 (Cap. 2, 2.) Gabrielem is to be read instead of Michaelem.
- P. 444, line 40 (Cap. 3, 8.) is to be read flumen instead of lumen. The latter is not a printing error, because also the Erlanger reads so. - In the interpretation of Habakkuk according to the Zwickau manuscript we note the following: S. 396, Z. 20 (Cap. 1, 1.) is to be read Hieronymus instead of Hieremias. - P. 397, line 21 (Cap. 1, 4.) is to be read instead of: non prodit: pro- pterea prodit. By mistake, the scribe has confused the first place in this verse: non prodit judicium ad finem with the second: propterea prodit judicium tortuosum, which could easily have happened in the hurry of scribbling. The editors, however, should have corrected this error, which offers the exact opposite of the correct meaning. - S. 400, Z. 7 (Cap. 1, 9.) the Weimar already has the verse number "10.", while it should only be Z. 13. - S. 400, Z. 21 (Cap. 1, 10.) is to be read munita instead of immunita. - On p. 404, line 31 (Cap. 2, 3.) the verse number "3." is to be placed before quoniam, while on p. 405, line 5 is to be deleted. In addition, there is a very confusing jnterpunstion in the quoted passage. - On p. 407, line 8 (Cap. 2, 6.) 6i is to be read instead of tidi. - P. 408, line 3 v. u. in the notes (Cap. 2, 10.) is instead of
Philistaei to read Philautias. - S. 411, line 10 v. u. in the notes (Cap. 2, 16.) is to be read Babylonius instead of Assyrius. - S. 412, line 12 (Cap. 2, 20.) is to be read instead of: ibi cessabunt sculptilia jactantia: ibi cessabit sculptilium jactantia. - S. 412, Z. 24 (Cap. 3, 1.) is instead of ignoravit to read ignorabit; Z. 25 instead of confidentiam to read conscientiam; Z. 26 instead of aptius to read captis. - S. 413, Z. 1 (Cap. 3, 2.) is instead of exhibenda To read exhibita; Z. 2 instead of specialius to read specialia. - S. 413, Z. 22 (Cap. 3, 2.) is to be read consumptum instead of sepultum according to the Vulgate. - S. 414, line 10 (Cap. 3, 3.) is to be read ab austro instead of ab alto. - S. 415, line 30 (Cap. 3, 6.) is to be read according to the Vulgate fugiamus Israelem instead of fugere Israel. - p. 416, line 31 (Cap. 3, 7.) is to be read XXXXX instead of Ragas - p. 417, line 30 (Cap. 3, 9.) is to be read regnum instead of regum. - P. 418, Z. 6 (Cap. 3, 9.) is instead of meis to read tuis; instead of Seon to read Og. - P. 418, Z. 10 (Cap. 3, 9.) is instead of "'statio' cumillis" to read zik: (sentio cum illis). - S. 418, Z. 26 (Cap. 3, 10.) is to be read instead of "they": themselves. - On p. 418, line 34 (Cap. 3, 10.) instead of sublimis read sublimia. - On p. 419, line 32 (Cap. 3, 13.) read Assyrio instead of Aegyptio.
In Zephaniah according to the Altenburg manuscript, p. 489, line 18 (Cap. 1, 13.) is to be read allevarentur instead of elevarentur (Vulg. Ps. 73, 18.). - On p. 498, line 12 (Cap. 2, 14.) Babylonios is to be read instead of Assyrios. - p. 501, line 19 (Cap. 3, 4.) is to be read justiciarius instead of judiciarius. - In the Zwickau manuscript on Zephaniah, p. 454, line 5 (Cap. 1, 14.) the verse number "14." is to be put, not first line 17: - Ibid.
Z. 5 is to be read prope (Vulg. juxta) instead of proper. This is not a typographical error, for the Erlangen edition also reads this way. - Ibid. Z. 6, a solum is to be inserted after the first non. Without this addition, the sentence is meaningless. - Ibid. Z. 8 is to be read dimidiant instead of divinant (Ps. 55, 24. Vulg.: dimidiant). - P. 460, Z. 4 stands the verse number "16." but should be placed before Clangoris only Z. 5. Similarly, line 11 contains the verse number "17.", but it should not be placed before Et tribulabo until line 12. - S. 461, line 1 (Cap. 1, 17.) must, in order to make sense, be followed by a dot after facient and then by Sanguis. Similarly, in line 19, evadere is to be inserted after justitiis. - p. 466, line 2, the verse number (Cap. 2,) should be "12.", not first line 12. -- p. 467, line 7 (Cap. 2, 15.) is in the original: glo Ninive, which both the Erlanger and the Weimarsche have rendered by gloria Ninive. But it should be read gloriosa. - P. 468, line 15 (Cap. 3, 2.) should be read non instead of suo. The verse number "2." should have been placed Z. 14. - S. 470, Z. 1 (Cap. 3, 5.) we read: sed perrumpet Christus et agnoscent iniquitatem ignominiae ut de domino: etc. It should read, as the Altenburg and Hall manuscripts attest: sed perrump et Christus. Etnon agnoscet iniquitatem ignominiae. Ut de Domino [dictum est]: re. - p. 471, line 2 (Cap. 3, 7.) a quae is to be inserted after xroptor: propter quae te visitavi. - Similarly, p. 472, line 3 (Cap. 3, 8.) after scriptura the word ntitnr is to be inserted.- Similarly, p. 473, line 29 (Cap. 3, 10.) after externus: cultus. - Idid. Z. 31, instead of filia dispersionis (Erlanger: "filia disper[sorum]") according to the Vulgate is to be inserted
read Filii dispersorum. - S. 474, line 7 (Cap. 3, 11.) will be read ernt instead of erit. - P. 474, lines 18 f. (Cap. 3, 12.) is wrongly interpointed: et reliquias Israel, adipem populi, tollam electos et magnos etc. It should be: et reliquias Israel. Adipem populi tollam, electos et magnos etc. - S. 475, Z. 31 (Cap. 3, 15.) is to be added after fert either inimicos, or it must be read in Z. 32 castigari instead of castigare. - p. 476, line 9 (Cap. 3, 16.) is to be resolved by praesentem in the original, which the Hall manuscript offers, not by patrem, as it was done in the Erlanger and in the Weimar edition. - P. 477, line 3 (Cap. 3, 17.) is to be read in domino instead of in mundo. Likewise, line 11 should be read sua instead of sui. Z. 14 is to be read exultabit instead of exaltabit according to the Altenburg and Hall manuscripts. - P. 477, line 23 (Cap. 3, 18.) is to be read fecit instead of facit. p. 478, line 1 (Cap. 3, 18.) is to be read Aravissima instead of rarissima. - P. 479, Z. 20 (Cap. 3, 20.) is to be read universalem instead of vilem according to the Altenburg manuscript. - In addition, we have inserted several keywords that are necessary but missing in the editions.
In the interpretation of the prophet Haggai according to the Altenburg manuscript, p. 533, line 19 (in the second part of the preface) is to be read tantnm instead of landein, because the word of God is not "also finally" received by the weak, oppressed and poor, but "also only" by them. The reading landein will be based on a hearing error. - P. 538, Z. 24 f. (Cap. 1, 13.) is continued after the saying: "If God is for us, who may be against us?": nonminus nobis nocere poterit hostis quicunque
quam ut deo non potest nocere. We have assumed instead: multo minus nobis nocere poterit hostis quisquam, ut Deo etc. - S. 539, Z. 12 f. (Cap. 2, 1.) we are commanded: Videtur discrepantia esse, in octo scii, dierum distantia. This seems to us to make no sense, so we have assumed (according to the Hall manuscript, which offers: Supra dictum): Videtur discrepantia esse in dicto, scil. etc. - p. 541, Z. 42 (Cap. 2, 9.) instead of exivit, according to the Vulgate, is to be read exibit..- p. 544, Z. 5 (Cap. 2, 19.) instead of mense primo is to be read mense sexto die primo. - Furthermore, in this relation, as usual, a whole number of verse numbers are missing in the Weimar edition. - In the Zwickau manuscript p. 512, line 14, we seem to be missing a non: "Thus the promise by which he [Cyrus] gave them permission [ to rebuild Jerusalem] does not seem to have been kept, because nothing was accomplished except that they returned to Judea." - S. 513, Z. 31 (Cap. 1, 2.) is to be read volunt instead of vult. In the original it is only v. d., which the editions have wrongly resolved by vult dicere instead of volunt dicere. Already the biblical text shows that these are not words of God or the prophet, but of the people, as is also expressed in the immediately preceding: repetit verba populi. For the same reason I. o. Z. 33 is to be read ut reaedificetur [per nos] templum instead of ut reaedificetis templum. - p. 513, line 4 v. u. is to be read in the Hall manuscript instead of resistere as desistere, and in the following line instead of resistas as desistas. - p. 514, line 19 (Cap. 1, 4.) instead of mala is to be read millia after Ps. 3, 7. - p. 520, line 20 (Cap. 2, 1.) instead of conferre is to be read confortare. -
P. 522, Z. 4 will be creavit instead of crevit (according to the context). - Idid. Z. 5 have the issues: Repetit eundem sermonem angelus etc. But it is to be interpung thus: Repetit eundem sermonem [cap. 1, 13.] : Angelus etc. - p. 522, Z. 7 (Cap. 2, 5.) we read: Tureis dabo ego deus gentes, robustior sum illis. Instead of Tureis we read Territis (you, who are frightened]. In the Altenburg manuscript: si timetis. - S. 523, Z. 14 (Cap. 2, 7.) offers our original: Si textus [scii, prophetae] non esset verus. - Ibid. Z. 18 is to be read venerit instead of veniret, for Luther says: "It follows inevitably that Christ has come, or the prophet is lying, which is impossible." - S. 523, Z. 27 (Cap. 2, 7.) the Weimar edition has in the margin "Dan. 7, 27.", but it should be Dan. 9, 25. - P. 524, line 7 (Cap. 2, 8.) should be read illa instead of alia. - P. 525, line 21 (Cap. 2, 8.) should read ubi instead of vel. - p. 527, line 11 (Cap. 2, 11.) is to be read opus instead of qui, and the comma after festinetis is to be deleted. - On p. 527, line 19, instead of carnem read panem (according to the text of the Bible). - P. 527, Z. 30 f. (Cap. 2, 14.) are several impulses. First, we read: "Respondetur sic." It should read: Respondetur: Sic (i.e. Yes]. After that, after neque should be added: pollueretur homo. Instead of the first immundum, immundum should be read; and in the following, instead of immunda, munda should be read, which the Altenburg manuscript confirms: "By nature everything is pure" etc. - S. 529, line 8 (Cap. 2, 15.) will be read credunt instead of credo. Without this or a similar alteration, the sentence is meaningless: Promisi me adhaerere suis lateribus, hoc non credo. - Ibid. Z. 11
offers our template: Sic hac similitudine idem significat factis multa non curo, quia sunt minima legis. Instead of factis, facitis should be read and thus interpungited: Sic hac similitudine idem significat: facitis multa. Non curo, quia sunt minima legis. - The verse number "16." and the keyword: Et nunc ponite should have preceded p. 529, line 14: Repetit idem should have been placed, as in the Altenburg manuscript. But this is already found on p. 528, line 24, where it is to be deleted. - S. 529, Z. 16 we are commanded: Ex damno eorum vultis eorum oculos aperire. Instead of vultis, vult is to be read. Through their harm he wants to open their eyes. - Idid. P. 529, Z. 23 (Cap. 2, 18.) will be read Tam instead of Jam. - S. 529, Z. 29 has the Weimar edition in the margin 5 Mos. 32, 24. but it should be put 5 Mos. 28, 22. - S. 531, Z. 5 we read (in the last line of this interpretation): ne videretur deus penitus Judaeos contempsisse ut Paulum, etc. Such hair-raising sayings should have been eliminated by suitable additions. Here like this: so that it does not seem as if God has completely despised the Jews, (but he has accepted some] like Paul etc.
The last text that we have shared from the latest discoveries is the interpretation of the prophet Zechariah according to the Altenburg manuscript. Although the Weimar edition has "read the manuscript better in many places" than the Erlangen edition, we have also had the opportunity to make significant improvements in several places to the text of the Weimar edition, which is generally very good. P. 547, line 13 (Preface)
either non is to be deleted or instead of non enim is to be read. Otherwise the sense of the sentence runs completely contrary to the context. - S. 549, Z. 11 (Cap. 1, 2.) is to be read instead of Matth. 22: Luc. 14, 18. 8^. - p. 556, line 6 (Cap. 1, 8.) is to be read instead of cum signis verba: cum verbis signa, which also the Zwickau manuscript offers. - S. 560, line 6 (Cap. 1, 12.) is to be read instead of expositionis with the Zwickau manuscript consolationis. - S. 569, Z. 21 (Cap. 2, 5.) is to be read instead of suos: suae; likewise S. 570, Z. 1 instead of Item Zu lesen: Idem and Z. 6 instead of videre to read: videri. - S. 588, Z. 7 (Cap. 4, 6.) instead of propheticis will be read: prophetis. -
On p. 594, line 25 (Cap. 4, 14.) the word splendoris, which is the explanatory word for oloi, is erroneously included in the keyword. - On p. 595, line 4, instead of item, it should be read: idem, as the Zwickau manuscript also indicates. - On p. 596, line 24 (Cap. 5, 2. ) instead of hunc should be read: hanc, referring to porticus. - P. 598, Z. 40 (Cap. 5, 7.) instead of auri is to be read: plumbi. -S. 599, line 14 (Cap. 5, 8.) instead of nobis quoque accidet contemptoribus evangelii we have assumed nostris etc., because we do not consider it credible that Luther had joined with the despisers of the Evangelii. - On p. 600, line 21 (Cap. 5, 11.), instead of versionis, read: visionis. - On p. 606, line 3 (Cap. 6, 8), instead of vitro, which makes no sense, nitro should be read. - S. 607, line 12 (Cap. 6, 10.) is to be read instead of arcam (ark): arcum [rainbow], because not the ark but the rainbow was the sign for Noah (Gen. 9, 13.). - S. 608, Z. 35 (Cap. 6, 13.) is to be read in Numeris [cap. 27, 20.] instead of Deuteron. - P. 610, last line of the sixth.
In the first chapter, instead of intricabili, read inextricabili. - On p. 612, line 10 (preface to Cap. 7), instead of Esaiam, read Hieremiam (Cap. 39-44). The Weimar edition has the note: "Should Luther look at Esa. 30and the Assyrians instead of stopping at Ierem. 39-41? In the margin of the manuscript is Esa. 30," but yet did not dare to change. - S. 614, Z. 41 (Cap. 7, 12.) is to be read instead of Esaia: Hosea 16, 5]. - S. 615, Z. 21 (Cap. 7, 14.) is to be read instead of Genesi: Aggeo (2, 8.). - p. 617, line 1 (Cap. 8, 3.) instead of templum is to be read: in templo; perhaps versus after templum may have fallen out. In any case, however, what the text offers cannot exist: cum templum adorarent. - S. 621, Z. 12 (Cap. 8, 20.) is to be read instead of Actor. 1 is to be read: Actor. 2, 5. - S. 623, Z. 13 (Cap. 9, 1.) offers instead of Weimar's Kadrach: Hadrach. This is not a misprint, for the Erlanger also reads thus. - S. 630, line 20 (Cap. 9, 12.) will be read with the Erlanger instead of ut: et. - The carelessness in setting the verse numbers, which shows itself throughout the thirteenth volume of the Weimar edition, as we have demonstrated several times, reaches an incredible height in the tenth chapter of Zechariah. Of the twelve verse numbers of this chapter, only one, the verse number "2.", is impeccably placed. Five are not set at all, namely 1. 8. 9. 10. 12. Six are in an incorrect place: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 11. The last two are set twice; once in the wrong place, once correctly. Where "12." should stand, we find the verse number "13.", which does not exist. - P. 643, Z. 15 (Cap. 10, 10.) is to be read in the margin§ instead of Joh. 4, 23: Joh. 4, 21. - p. 643, line 23 (Cap. 10, 11.) is instead of sonus according to the Vulgate sonum
to be read; likewise line 30 to be read instead of Kleine: Assur. - p. 647, line 7 (Cap. 11, 7.) both the Erlangen and the Weimar editions have incorporated a citation (namely Cap. 11, 13.), which still belongs to the previous section, into the following keyword (from v. 7.)! - P. 649, line 2 (Cap. 11, 10.) is to be read instead of priorum: piorum. - P. 649, Z. 39 (Cap. 11, 13.) is to be read instead of in Esaia: in Psalmo (103, 14.]; likewise in the following line instead of Hieremiam: Ecclesiasticum [33, 13th]. - S. 653, Z. 32 (Cap. 12, 1.) instead of cogantur will be read cogitent, because it is not permissible that the ungodly are "forced" to destroy the faithful. - S. 654, Z. 33 (Cap. 12, 2.) is instead of Esa. 29 is to be read: Esa. 51, 17; similarly, in line 35, in the margin, instead of Ps. 59, 5. read Ps. 60, 5. - As a curiosity, we mention that p. 656, line 23 (Cap. 12, 5.) in this one line seven necessary commas are missing, for we read: Ita crux sanguis tyranni violentia carceres mala mors persecutio, omnia illa etc- p. 659, line 1 (Cap. 12, 8.) the citation from 2 Sam. 12, 13: Dominus transtulit peccatum, which belongs to the previous section, is highlighted as a keyword. This is nu,r made possible by the fact that the editors (also the Erlanger reads so) in the immediately preceding words: Statim enim subjicit propheta, under the prophet not Nathan, but the prophet Zechariah understood. - S. 664, line 40 (Cap. 13, 4.) is to be read instead of Hieremiae Jesaiae (20, 2.); immediately following in the saying instead of salve to be read: solve. - p. 667, line 36 (Cap. 13, 8.) instead of Et erit according to the Vulgate Et. erunt should have been put as a keyword. - p. 668, line 3 (Cap. 13, 8.)
is to be read instead of possumus: possemus. - S. 668, Z. 28 (Cap. 13, 9.) is to be read instead of in Ozea: in Joele [3, 5.], because in Hosea such a place is not found. - S. 668, Z. 38 s. (Cap. 13, 9.) is to be read (according to Phil. 4, 6. in the Vulgate) instead of nihili solliciti etc. sed etc.: nihil solliciti sitis, sed etc.
We have also been able to make some improvements in the interpretation of the prophet Malachi in the text printed in the editions after the Wittenberg. Cap. 2, 7. (Weim. Ausg. Bd. XIII, p. 686, Z. 18) is to be read instead of perfecti either perplexi or with the Hallic manuscript indocti. For not "the perfect," but those in distress of conscience or unlearned, will inquire and desire the law and the will of God from the priests. - Cap. 2, 8. (Weim. p. 687, Z. 7) is instead of repulistis according to Hof. 4, 6. is to be read: repulisti. - Cap. 3, 2. (p. 694, Z. 12) is to be followed by a question mark instead of a period after moritur. Ibid. Z. 21 the word humana is missing in the Weimar one. - Cap. 3, 3. (p. 695, Z. 14) instead of emendator is to be read emundator, for in the keyword is mundator; in the Vulgate: emundans. Ibid. Z. 22 is to be read instead of omnium according to 2 Tim. 3, 9.: omnibus. - Cap. 3, 5. (p. 696, Z. 24) has the Weimar, probably reprinted from the Erlanger, superabuntur instead of the correct separabuntur in the Wittenberger. - Cap. 3, 6. (p. 697, line 8) is to be read instead of ullus: ullis. A printing error. Similarly, Cap. 3, 8. (p. 698, Z. 4) will have failed due to a printing error tam.-Cap. 3, 9. (p. 698, line 18) will have to read possessione instead of professione according to the context. In the Hall manuscript, the corresponding place is found: si multa
venerint in domum vestram. - Cap. 3, 13. (p. 699, line 13) is to be read instead of: cap. 3. a principio should be read: Cap. 2. in fine [v. 17.]. In the Hall manuscript it reads: In fine 3. cap.; instead of "3.", "2." should be put. Ibid. Z. 24 will read pullati instead of polluti with the Hallic manuscript. - Cap. 4, 2. (p. 701, line 8) is to be read in mysterio instead of in ministerio, which the old translator already indicated.
has taken? - Moreover, as usual, many verse numbers are missing in the interpretation of this prophet.
So now, with God's help, we have completed the difficult work of translating the prophets, and ask the dear Lord to place His blessing on it and to create some benefit from it, for the sake of Jesus Christ His dear Son, Amen.
St. Louis, on Reformation Day, 1898.