In Walch's old edition, this volume contains 2983 colums, of which only 385 are originally written in German, namely "der Psalter deutsch", "die Summarien über die Psalmen" and "die Auslegung über die sieben Bußpsalmen"; everything else has had to be edited from the Latin. Completely newly translated are "Luther's works on the first 22 Psalms" (operationes in psalmos), the "short interpretation on the 23rd, 24th and 25th Psalms" and "the interpretation on the fifteen songs in the higher choir", together 2216 colums. Revised from the Latin are "Luther's short interpretation of the first 25 Psalms" and his "short interpretation of several other Psalms", 382 colums. Why such an extensive new translation was necessary will be seen from the following.
Luther did not want to eliminate his first translation "in the manner of the Hebrew language" of 1524 by the changes he made with the Psalter translation up to the year 1531, but rather the same, as he says in the final speech to the Psalter edition of 1531,
"We also leave it as it is, for the sake of those who wish to see our examples and footprints of how to get closer and closer through interpretation. That is why we, like Walch, have added this translation to this volume.
In the "Summaries on the Psalms" we have been able to gain a clearer understanding in some places by comparing the Latin translation of Jonas.
Of the translation of the first nine Psalms of the operationes in psalmos and of the 22nd Psalm by Stephan Roth (Rodt) we have already said in the first note to this writing that it is all too free and extremely incomplete. It would rather be called a free adaptation of Luther's writing than a translation of it. We have given proof of this in the note to § 69 of the first Psalm. Large sections are missing at the end of the first and second Psalms, more than a third of the third Psalm is omitted, and about half of the fourth Psalm. In the fifth psalm, at § 294, six pages (of the Latin Erlangen edition) are omitted-.
In the eighth Psalm, §§ 8 and 9 do not make up one column in Roth, but seven pages in the Latin; § 12 and § 13 are placed there. Such arbitrariness and omissions are found throughout in large numbers, but also several times very gross errors, since not only a word, but the whole sense is missed, which we now want to prove with some examples. The Latin is given according to the exegetica opera of the Erlangen edition, Roth's translation according to the fourth volume of Walch's old edition.
In § 36 of the first Psalm Luther says: "But this will [voluntas, the desire for the law] comes from faith in God through JEsum Christum", and then continues (Art. XIV, 25): Ceterum voluntas, quae metu poenarum extorquetur, servilis est et violenta, quae autem cupiditate praemiorum allicitur, mercenaria est et simulata, that is: On the other hand, the will, which is wrung out by the fear of punishment, is a servile and forced one; but the will, which is brought about by the request of reward, is that of a hireling and a pretended one. Roth (Col. 287, § 36): "The other desire, which is forced out of fear of punishment, is a fictitious, coerced, and hypocritical desire or will, which looks only to the promise and to the reward or merit." - Ar! XIV, 29: [qui] suas beatitudines de- spiciat == who despises their [the world's] blessedness. Roth (Col. 293, §48): "that.
he despises his own righteousness (sic) (of which the hypocrites alone know)". - Ar. XIV, 265: si interna videas - when you look at what is inside. Roth (Col. 595, § 268): "when you look at their outward walk". - Erl. XVI, 244: Neque enim sub lege ceremoniali factus est tantum = For he [Christ is not merely done under the ceremonial law. Roth (Col. 1640, § 17): "But he is not alone put under the law, that he should stand in ceremonies and outward pomp". At the end of the same paragraph he has taken odium as nominative, while it is accusative. - Ar. XVI, 249: in quae mersi sumus Roth (Col. 1648, § 30 z. E.) refers the quae to necessitate instead of mala, thus letting it reign in the nominative. - Ar. XVI, 263: haec tria, which refers to Ps. 22, 5. and the two parts of v. 6. Roth (Col. 1668, § 73) understands from v. 4. - Erl. XVI, 275: et leviathan vocatur, Roth (Col. 1689, § 115) refers leviathan to the law, while it should be understood by the devil. - Erl. XVI, 297: tarnen res gesta subintelligi doceret - yet the fact would teach that it [the missing verbum should be completed. Roth (Col. 1730 §184): "nevertheless the thing itself can be understood by it". - About a passage quoted (Ar! XVI, 332) from the 35th Psalm according to the Vulgate, Roth says (Col. 1787, §283): "according to the Greek text".
What now the translation of the remaining
The text of the first Psalms, from the tenth to the twenty-first, by M. Joh. Jakob Greiff, is indeed correct, as the Leipzig edition states in its preliminary report to the fifth and sixth volumes, and Walch, Vol. IV, preface p. 9, about "his having used praiseworthy diligence" and "having followed Latin exactly. 9, state "that he has applied praiseworthy diligence" and "has followed the Latin exactly", but it cannot be denied that his understanding of the Latin words, although his translation is mostly literal and possible according to the words, does not correspond to Luther's meaning in many cases. This can already be proven in the first preface to this writing "to the students of theology" (Col. 2U f.), since in it, as short as it is, multiple proofs for our assertion can be found. In this preface, Luther appeals to the slanderers and blasphemers who accuse him of being driven by ambition to be seen as an interpreter of the most difficult and most important books of Scripture, to the fact that the teaching office, the doctorate, was given to him, which (despite his incompetence and unworthiness) required him to proclaim God's word in wider circles. He also expresses the same in his letter to the Elector. Greiff did not recognize this main purpose of the preface, and therefore also missed the correct translation. Creditum est, that is (Gal. 2, 7.), "it is trusted to me [the Magisterium]", he translates: "One has believed until now" etc. - The words: quam lingua per regiones vagari == as far
wander around with my speech through the countries (the opposite is: to murmur in the corner), Greiff translates: "than to let speak of me in all countries". - eo magis mihi displicet professio - the more we dislike my teaching ministry. Greiff: "the less I am pleased with my profession". This translation is not wrong, but because he did not translate the word professio, it is insufficient and doubtful, because professio can also mean monastic vow. - quando eo mihi venerit, ut gravioribus intento == since it has come to this with me, as one who subjects himself to grave things. Greiff: "when it will come to that with me that I will be challenged with harder temptations". The word ut is here adverbium similitudinis, but Greiff takes it as consecutivum and yet constructs it with the indicative; intento, which is participium perfecti passivi of intendo, he takes as first person Ind. praes. of intentare and translates this by the future tense. - Hoc vos agite is translated twice by Greiff in the two possible ways: "kehret euch nicht daran" and "thut diese Liebe an mir". The correct translation here is the former. - All of the above occurrences are in the Latin (Erl. XIV 14) in the range of less than one page, so we have omitted to indicate the location here,
An interesting example from Melanchthon's preface demonstrates in a striking way how fundamentally wrong an approach to the
quo- rundam [librorum canonicorum] talis est conditio, ut in reliquos vel elenchi vel commentarii vice esse possint - some [of the canonical books] are of such a nature that they can serve as an instruction or instead of an interpretation for the others. Greifs (Col. 2671 ): "and some are of such a nature that they can be used by the others, either instead of a refutation, or interpretation". So he lets poor Melanchthon say that some canonical books can also be used to refute other canonical books!
The translation of the interpretations of the Psalms themselves, which Greifs provided, is teeming with errors. Erl. XV, 146: Si quem nostra translatio movet, . . . potest eo fugere - If someone takes offense at our [Latin] translation, . ... he can thereby get out of the offense. Greifs (Col. 892, § 24): "Whoever likes our translation,... can refer to the fact that" etc.; he thus regards "our translation" as Luther's translation. - Likewise XV, 150: quod noster dixit - that our [Latin] translator has said. Greifs (Col. 898, § 34): "What we have translated here." - This mixing and confusion of Luther's translation and the Vulgate runs pretty much through Greiff's entire translation. Url. XVI, 8: Xostra autem translatio, etsi abundet suo sensu, Hebraeo tamen an quadret videbimus, non quod ideo
damnandum censeam, aut ecclesiam Dei calumniari velim, quod usa sit hac translatione tanto tempore == Although our [Latin] translation follows its own sense very much, let us see if it agrees with the Hebrew. Not that I think it should be rejected for that reason, or that I want to blame the Church of God for using this translation for such a long time. Greifs (Col. 1271 f., § 13): "Although our translation is only made according to our discretion, we want to see if it does not rhyme with the Hebrew text. My opinion is by no means this, as if I wanted to condemn the Hieronymum because of this, or blaspheme the Church of God, because it has used this translation for so long." He seems to take "our translation" for Luther's translation, because it is "only made according to our discretion", and for the Vulgate, because "Jerome and the Church of God have used this translation for so long". - Erl. XVI 13 f.: Sequitur alius versus - "Now follows the other verse." This translation, which Greifs also has, is of course correct, but he adds (Col. 1279 z. E.): "which in the Latin Bible thus reads". Now Luther did not give the following text according to the Vulgate, but in his own translation. - Col. 1327, § 97 at the beginning (Erl. XVI, 45) takes Greif's nostram (the Vulgate) again for Luther's translation.
Such errors as the ones just mentioned impair the understanding of whole, partly extensive, sections. In addition, as already mentioned, Greifs does not lack numerous misunderstandings in detail. Pontifices (Erl. XV, 144 and 148) is Col. 889, § 19 rendered by "popes" and Col. 895, § 29 by "high priests"; in both cases, "bishops" should have been substituted. - Eri. XV, 149: Sed diabolo et iniquitati deputant [verbum et opus Dei] - but assign it to the devil and to iniquity. Greifs (Col. 896, §31): "they dedicate it to the devil and their wickedness". - Erl. XV, 167: conscientia malae fidei-his [of fraud] evil conscience. Greiff (Col. 923, § 72): "one to whom his evil conscience says that he does not have the right faith." - Eri. XV, 181: Peccatorem et peccatum pro impio et impietate dixit- The Latin translator has said "sinner" and "sin" instead of "the ungodly" and "ungodliness". Greiff (Col. 944, § 109): "The Holy Spirit has here set the word, sinner and sin, before the ungodly and ungodliness." He makes the Holy Spirit the subject of this sentence, although Luther, immediately after in the same sentence, states that Jerome spoke more correctly. - Erl. XV, 195: Si unus est, qui elabatur -- If there is one man who escapes them. Greiff (Col. 968 f. § 18): "If only one arrow (unus [sagitta]! ) escapes them." - Erl. XV, 198: Qui sordent, sordescant adhuc
-- He who is unclean, de33r be unclean after all [Revelation 22:11]. Greiff (Col. 972, §21 z. E.): "That those who are deaf may become still more deaf." - DrI. XV, 199: Non enim latine dicitur --- That is not how one speaks in Latin. Greiff (Col. 974, §24): "hat der lateinische Uebersetzer gar wohl gegeben." - Erl. XV, 201: Coelum et terra nihil differunt nisi fide et specie - Heaven and earth are distinguished in nothing but in faith and specie. Greiff (Col. 976, § 26): "Heaven and earth are distinguished by nothing but by faith and specie." - Erl. XV, 226: non habet satis nec audisse nec obedisse - he does not have enough in that he neither hears nor obeys us [but also wants to rule over us]. Greiff (Col. 1014, § 26): "he is not content with this, that he has the honor to hear and obey us." - Erl. XV, 283: fiduciam -- a trust. Greiff (Col. 1100, §62): "no trust". - Erl. XV, 288: et Paulo opus est credi ----- it is necessary that one believes Paul. Greiff (Col. 1107, § 71): "just as Paul also had to have faith". - Erl. XV, 306: partis frui - to enjoy this part [that works]. Greiff (Col. 1132, § 112): "to enjoy a part of it". - Erl. XV, 310: crucifixi --- of the crucified. Greiff (Col. 1138, §124): "of the crucifix". - Erl. XV, 311: ne temporalia temporalia sint -- so that the temporal goods are not temporal [but spiritual. Griffin
(Col. 1139, § 124): "so that the goods lent for a time may bear perpetual interest", - Erl. XV, 319 the author of the epistle, is taken by Greifs (Col. 1151, § 143) as Judas Iscarioth. - Lid. XV, 325: suffragia - way of help [that is, intercession]. Greifs (Col. 1163, §14): "canonization." - Erl. XV, 332: pro palliis --- for the pallia [which we must buy from them. Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. XVIII, 1008, §7]. Greifs (Col. 1174, § 33): "for our [wool and] coats, stie they take from us,]" - Erl. XV, 333: Annon movetur persona paupertatis, . . . oppressionis eorum? - Does he [the righteous] not let himself be moved by their [the godly's] low standing, which they have because of their poverty, ... their oppression? Greifs (Col. 1174, §34): "Does not the contemptible reputation of his person, according to which he is poor.... and oppressed?" - Erl. XV, 337: Ita etiam eos damnat -- So they also unanimously condemn those. The subject of this sentence is omnium sensus. Greifs (Col. 1182, § 43): "So also GOtt condemns those". - Erl. XV, 360: Consummationem et abbreviationem faciet Dominus, that is (according to Is. 10, 23. in the Vulgate): because the destruction, and that the destruction is controlled, that will the Lord do. Greifs (Col. 1220, §43): "for the Lord will do this, and make your great multitude smaller, and bring them to nought". - Erl. XV, 369: ut
intellectus sit id ipsum consilium --so that intllectus [in the Vulgate] is just the council. Greifs (Col. 1236, § 69): "that the intellect would be: this very rath" etc. - Erl. XVI, 19 f.: qui sciam, quam soleas me dignanter audire --- since I know how you graciously hear me. Greifs (Col. 1289, § 38): "as I know how thou art wont to hear me according to dignities." More dignified here is: condescending, graciously, not: according to dignities; the latter would violate right doctrine. - Lrl. XVI, 35: ut non sit impius - that the wicked be no more [that is, no longer exist]. Greifs (Col. 1312, § 74): "that he be no more an ungodly man." - Erl. XVI, 44: quibus nihil non impendunt --- to whom they turn everything. Greiff (Col. 1325, §92): "to whom they may turn nothing".- Erl. XVI, 59: irreparabilis poena --- a punishment that cannot be averted. Greifs (Col. 1353, §33): "an irreparable punishment". - Erl. XVI, 122: Coram hominibus, ubi exemplum valet, non videtur nisi via ecclesiae esse ----- Before men, where the example applies, it seems to be only the way of the Church [not of God]. Greifs (Col. 1446, § 173): "Before men's eyes, where their exemplum counts for nothing, it seems to be no other than the general Church's way." - Erl. XVI, 135: Docemur christianum esse ----Uns is taught that it is Christian. Greifs (Col. 1465, § 209): "We are taught to be Christians." - Erl. XVI, 142: facere
quod in se est - that man does as much as is in him. Greifs (Col. 1478, § 17): "the doing out of one's own strength, which is already in us. Greifs seems to have lost the context of "of one's own strength" and then translated quod in se est by "that is already in us. - Erl. XVI, 158: ad revelationem gentium paratus - [Luc. 2, 31. f.] prepared to enlighten the Gentiles. Greifs (Col. 1503, § 53): "who has been prepared for the discovery and revelation of the Gentiles". - Erl. XVI, 173: quam plurimi and plures -- "very many" and "a great number." Griffin (Col. 1527, § 86): "not many" and "fewer". - Erl. XVI, 175: [Testimonium] de non parentibus docet - The testimony teaches of the things not seen [Heb. 11, 1.]. Griffin (Col. 1530, §91): "it teaches of those who are not obedient to it". That parentibus must be translated here as we have given it proves §61 ff.
Since there are so many gross, palpable errors in Greiff's translation, one will not be mistaken if one concludes that there is no lack of lesser errors. However, we hope that the reader will gladly refrain from proving this, since he certainly has enough of the given evidence. In addition, here and there quite clumsy expressions are chosen, e.g. "an elevated silver" (Col. 1029, §54) instead of: purified silver (argentum sublimatum); "in which [Haderwasser] the judges
and elect in Israel are swallowed up" (Col. 1116, § 86), instead of: were carried away (absorbebantur).
A pleasant contrast to this work is the excellent translation of the following text, "Luther's Short Interpretation of the First 25 Psalms", the best that the present editor of Luther's writings has come across so far. It is made by Basilius Faber, the same who also translated the first two parts of Luther's great interpretation of the first book of Moses, as he rightly says, "in the most simple and faithful way". Only rarely is there an oversight, which, by the way, could also have happened to another good translator. Because the errors are so few, we place them here in their entirety, Erl. XVII, 64: verbo Dei institutus Faber (Col. 1917, § 5) translates: "instructed and kept with God's word", which is correct according to the words. But according to the context it should have been translated: [David is] instituted by the word of God [to be king. - Col. 1920, § 12 the word majoribus (Erl. XVII, 66) is translated by "their ancestor", it should mean: their superior. - Erl. XVII, 80: in fide, since it continues a German speech, Faber took for a German word and therefore put (Col. 1942, § 5): "im Friede" instead of: im Glauben. - Erl. XVII, 142: tum Faber translates (Col. 2030, § 21): "in their time" [of the prophets]; it should have been said: then [at the time of the exodus from Egypt], - Erl.
XVII, 167: Sed hoc est nihil dicere -- But that is nothing said. Faber (Col. 2064, § 26): "But what is this but that one says." - Twice he has thoughtlessly followed the original, namely Col. 2148, § 38: "not to reckon," where it should be "to reckon," and Col. 2153, § 55, where it is "the sin of reconciliation," instead of: the reconciliation of sin.
With such good condition of this writing it was not necessary to translate it anew, but we could limit ourselves to improving it. However, one must not think that this was done by inserting these few corrections. Several times there are obsolete, now no longer comprehensible idioms, which had to be replaced by more acceptable ones, e.g. Col. 1906, §15: "Is mildly spoken", that is: this is an exaggerated speech (est w#pβολη); Col. 2041, §61: "wandelhastig", that is, not without change, corrupt (corrupti). Often, in order to make the translation more accurate and the expression more appropriate for our time, whole sentences had to be rearranged. We will also give an example of this. One sentence, Col. 2028, § 17, reads in Faber: "I have, he says, suffered perilous hardship, at the same time by force and cunning, and have been assaulted with mighty and deceitful deeds, even to the death, and so that I have also often been overpowered, that I have thought I must remain. Our translation (Erl. XVII, 140): I have suffered dangers
both by force and by guile, and have been attacked by force and by guile, to the death, and so that they have also often had the upper hand that I have thought: I must stay. - Likewise, at the end of the same paragraph; Faber: "Now he continues to tell his opportunity." Our translation: Now he adds a narrative. - Furthermore, there are a large number of different readings, which, according to all appearances, are to be put on the printer's account. In Col. 1877, we find the superscription: "Faith and suffering. These words read in Latin (Erl. XVII, 37): Crede et patere -- believe and suffer, and should form the conclusion of § 10. - Col. 1907, § 17 should be read instead of: "sin" hour; Col. 1917, § 7 instead of: "someone" those; Col. 1924, §5 instead of: "prayer" Gebäu (this reading is confirmed by Col. 1933, § 6); Col. 1935, § 9 instead of: "unworthy" immature; Col. 1951, § 34 instead of: "bleibet" leidet; Col. 1955, § 4 instead of: "der Worten" der Orten (this correction had already been made by Walch); Col. 1959, §16 instead of "Kind" Kunde; Col. 1970, § 8 instead of: "wir" will (this correction had been made by Walch; but the Erlanger has put the wrong reading back into the text, Erl. Vol. 38, p. 113); Col. 2037, § 50 instead of: "leidlich" leiblich (corporale); Col. 2105, § 58 instead of: "rühmet" rühret; ibidaselbst instead of: "behavior" herhalten. All these things, taken together with the necessary comparison, reading and rereading, require such an effort of time and effort that the ver-
The new translation of such a good manuscript is almost equivalent to the new translation of a manuscript that is half as large.
It is not necessary to say anything here about the following writings of Luther, because at the beginning of each of these writings the necessary information has been given in the form of a note to the superscription, sometimes in great detail. However, we consider it our duty, and we are sure that the friends of Luther will be grateful to us, to put in a good word for the last text of this volume, "Die Auslegung der fünfzehn Lieder im höhern Chor". The conditional praise of Seckendorf (Hist. Luth., lib. III, § 81, p. 301), which Walch reproduces in his preface, p. 20 f., as follows: "although Lutherus could not exactly [have] overlooked this work because of his overloaded business, nevertheless one finds much in it by which one can recognize how godly and spiritual Lutherus was, and therefore such explanations can be read with edification," is also printed in the Latin Erlangen edition, tom. XIX, p. 155, without adding anything itself. This faint praise, which is more like a rebuke, may well have some justification if one forms one's judgment according to the very different German translations. Seckendorf
used the German Altenburg edition almost throughout and also quotes from it. Some of these translations are, however, highly deficient, and especially those of the man who has the most famous name among the translators of these interpretations, Georg Majors. Our judgment, which is based on the Latin original, is completely different. Veit Dietrich has rendered Luther's interpretation in an excellent manner. We believe that this work is on a par with the "Detailed Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians", which Georg Rörer copied, and with the Hauspostille, which also did not come from Luther's own pen, but was recorded by M. Veit Dietrich. In the same way as these two aforementioned writings, this one can also become a rich treasure trove for theologians and provide them with material for sermons of various kinds. However, every householder would like to use it with rich edification for himself and his family for home worship.
God grant that we may faithfully use these and other writings of Luther for our salvation and that of those who are commanded to us. Amen.
St. Louis, Michaelis 1895.