Erasmus and Luther: The Holy Spirit and the Bible Translator

Erasmus' New Testament edition of 1516

If it is possible and desirable to translate the Scriptures into different languages, who should be the translators? Is translation merely a work of scholarship, or is special insight required? Two answers are possible and these two answers are represented by the work of two translators: Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus, the humanist, translated the New Testament into Latin; Luther, the Reformer, translated the whole Bible into German.

Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was a Christian humanist from Rotterdam. He opposed the view that translators should be theologians and church leaders. This view was exemplified by the belief that the Septuagint translators were inspired in some way and in the ecclesiastical authority that had been granted to the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus wished to liberate the church from the dominion of Scholastic theologians and lead it back to the simplicity of the old church. According to Erasmus, translating was primarily the work of the philologist or linguistic scholar. As an impartial scholar reads and translates the ancient texts, he mediates between the modern age and antiquity. He frees people from scholastic speculation so that they may read the original truth in the writings of the ancient world. The scholar well versed in text and languages may tell the church what is written. Only after the linguist has done his work may the theologian begin his reflections upon meaning. Philology can be compared to Jethro, theology to Moses. Moses (theology) needs the help of Jethro (philology) to do his work. The root of the matter is the distinction between philology and theology. Christian scholarship has always held that a knowledge of the language was necessary for one to translate, but knowledge was not held to be neutral. It was also believed that a spiritual insight into Scripture was required.

No one objected to Erasmus’ publishing the Greek text of the New Testament. Much exception was taken, however, to the fact that Erasmus did not print the Vulgate translation alongside the Greek. He offered instead his own Latin translation. Erasmus thus gave the impression that a philologist could determine on his own how to read Scripture.

Luther opposed Erasmus precisely at this point: That the pure philologist should be the translator of Scripture. Luther also translated the Bible, but he did not ground his right to act as translator on his knowledge of the original languages, but rather on the theological insight into Scripture that the Lord had given him. Luther believed that the translator needed grace to understand the Bible. For example, the scholar who does not necessarily understand certain Psalms to be Messianic or prophetic of the Lord Jesus Christ may choose alternative readings that obscure the Messianic meaning. It is Christ who opens the eyes of the translator to the meaning of Scripture. This does not mean that the translator receives an inspiration similar to that received by the original authors, but it does point up the fact that philology alone is not enough. Translators invariably must interpret, and godly interpretation requires the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Luther did not oppose Scholasticism by means of philology, but by means of a better and more scriptural theology. He did not depreciate the value of linguists—Melancthon assisted him in Greek and Aurogallus in Hebrew—but theology was his battlefront. Luther respected the gifts of the Holy Spirit; each scholar in his circle used the gift or gifts God had given him in the common task. In practice, Luther’s translation is an accomplishment of fellow-workers in the Spirit, but Erasmus’ is the work of an individual linguist. Luther treasured the work of linguists, but he believed that Bible translating demands faith and a deep understanding of the Scriptures as a whole.

The viewpoints of Erasmus and Luther were really an intensification of those held before by Jerome and Augustine. Erasmus extended Jerome’s position to a belief in an antidogmatic and independent philological translation. Luther emphasized Augustine’s belief that spiritual insight must underlie a translation. The differences between Erasmus and Luther are important. Erasmus offered a translation in the language of scholars, but Luther provided a translation for the German people and for the church, and for centuries his translation has helped many find the way to God.

Jakob Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (pp. 44-46)

[Note: I believe these (two) views also apply to text criticism.]