That theological authoritarianism which Erasmus feared

Image: Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)

Frequently the excuse is made for him [Erasmus] that this skill [editing texts] was unknown in his time, but someone used it in preparing the text of Colines’ Greek New Testament; and the Christian Hebraists of Alcala de Henares prepared after some years of effort the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, which is still of interest to scholars. Erasmus might have created a thirst for better scholarship through the potent attraction of his name and of his edition of the New Testament, so that younger men could have done better what he had done imperfectly, if it had not been for the fact that both Catholics and Protestants, locked in an exhausting and inconclusive struggle to demonstrate each other’s errors, ended by mid-century in that theological authoritarianism which Erasmus feared would develop from Luther’s protest. In this situation there could be little scholarly advance; what was achieved was greater precision but with narrowed insights. The excessive caution shown by Beza in his edition of the text of the Greek New Testament (when he had the Western text before him to show him new possibilities) demonstrates this in the second half of the century.

Basil Hall, Humanists and Protestants (p. 66)  

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.]

Luther’s Works (Volume 54) edition of Table Talk

I recently finished reading the Luther’s Works (Volume 54) edition of Table Talk. I found it to be, as expected, a very good introduction to the man’s thought. Below are a few quotations I wrote down as I was reading through the book:

“One ought to love one’s neighbor with a love as chaste as that of a bridegroom for his bride. In this case all faults are concealed and covered over and only the virtues are seen.” (p. 28)

“For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”  (Galatians 5:6)

“Concerning the verse in Galatians [5:6], ‘faith working through love,’ we also say that faith doesn’t exist without works. However, Paul’s view is this: Faith is active in love, that  is, that faith justifies which expresses itself in acts. Now, it is assumed by some that the fruits of faith make faith to be faith, although Paul intends something different, namely, that faith makes the fruit to be fruit. Faith comes first and then love follows. This also happens to be the case of God’s works. Circumcision, in so far as it is a work by itself, is of no account. But this, he says, is what counts: ‘Believe in me and be godly.’” (p. 74)

“When somebody asked about Moses and how he could write about the creation and other things that happened so long before his time, he [Martin Luther] said, ‘I think many things had been written before Moses and that Moses took these things and added to them what God commanded him. No doubt he had the story of the creation from the tradition of the fathers.’” (pp. 40-41) 

“This is especially so if the devil turns the gospel into law. The teachings of the law and gospel are altogether necessary, but they must be distinguished even when they are conjoined, otherwise men will despair or become presumptuous. Consequently Moses describes these teachings well when he speaks of an upper and lower millstone (Deut. 24:6). The upper millstone rumbles and pounds. This is the law. It’s very well set up by God so that it grinds. On the other hand, the lower millstone is quiet, and this is the gospel. Our Lord God has suspended the upper millstone in such a way that the grain is crushed and ground only on the lower stone.” (pp. 276-277)

“In the cart [wagon] he [Martin Luther] spoke about Italian marriages [pederasty]. “These [he said] exceeded by far all the lewdness and adulteries of the Germans. The latter are nevertheless sins, but the former uncleannesses are satanic. God protect us from this devil! By God’s grace none of the native tongues in Germany was at all acquainted with this heinous offense.” (p. 278)

“This is what that fellow [Copernicus] does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.” (p. 359)

“For a long time I went astray [in the monastery] and didn’t know what I was about. To be sure, I knew something, but I didn’t know what it was until I came to the text in Romans 1 [17], ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ That text helped me. There I saw what righteousness Paul was talking about. Earlier in the text I read ‘righteousness.’ I related the abstract [‘righteousness’] with the concrete [‘the righteous One’] and became sure of my cause. I learned to distinguish between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the gospel. I lacked nothing before this except that I made no distinction between the law and the gospel. I regarded both as the same thing and held that there was no difference between Christ and Moses except the times in which they lived and their degrees of perfection. But when I discovered the proper distinction—namely, that the law was one thing and the gospel another—I made myself free.” (pp. 442-443)

Then somebody said, “It is nevertheless asserted in the Creed ‘he descended into hell.’” Luther responded, “This must be believed. We can’t understand it. That’s the way it is. There will be debate about how the Trinity is in the unity (when there’s no relation between the infinite and the finite), how nature can produce such a strange marvel as the God-man, etc. [While occupied thus with disputation] men will let the article concerning justification go. If only we would study in the meantime how to believe and pray and become godly! We’re not content with that which we can understand and insist on disputing about something higher, which we can’t possibly understand and which our Lord God doesn’t want us to understand. That’s the way human nature is. It wishes to do what is forbidden; the rest it ignores and then starts asking Why? Why? Why? This is what happens when philosophy is introduced into theology." (pp. 447-448) 

Source: Luther’s Works, Volume 54: Table Talk https://www.amazon.com/Luthers-Works-54-Table-Talk/dp/0800603540 

Also of interest is Martin Luther’s Table Talk: Abridged from Luther’s Works Volume 54 https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Luthers-Table-Talk-Abridged-ebook/dp/B074VSR8Y1