The Contribution of Martin Luther’s

German Bible Translation

Protestant Reformation Seminar Paper

Submitted to Mark Terry, Ph.D.

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for CH 9551-2

The Protestant Reformation

by

Donald Barger

December 14, 2018

 ii

Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1

Scripture Usage in Germany ................................................................................................. 2

Access in the Vernacular .................................................................................................................3

Opposition .............................................................................................................................................6

The Impact of the Gutenberg Press .............................................................................................9

Luther’s Style and Philosophy of Bible Translation ...................................................12

Luther’s Purpose of Translation ................................................................................................ 13

Luther’s Style of Translation ....................................................................................................... 14

Luther’s Philosophy of Language .............................................................................................. 16

Luther’s Philosophy of Translation .......................................................................................... 18

Luther’s Six Principles of Translation .............................................................................19

The Nature of the Language ........................................................................................................ 19

Common Usage ................................................................................................................................. 20

Word Choice ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Literal Translation .......................................................................................................................... 22

Context ................................................................................................................................................. 23

Thorough Translation.................................................................................................................... 25

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................26

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................28
 1

Introduction

In Christian history, Martin Luther is perhaps most noted as the father of the

Protestant Reformation, but his translation of the German Bible was his “crowning

accomplishment.” 1 The impact of the Luther Bible is not limited to the period of the

reformer. The Bible continues to be a clear and straightforward translation in

present-day Germany. 2 It is not possible to fully understand Luther’s contributions

as a Bible translator without taking into account his influences as a reformer. The

two roles are intertwined. His notoriety as a reformer provided the perfect platform

for his German Bible translation to grow in popularity.

Luther’s nailing of the Ninety-five Theses (or complaints) to the door of the

castle church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, is frequently seen as the birth of

the Protestant Reformation.3 While Luther never intended the theses to trigger the

resulting conflict and schism within the broader Catholic Church, conflict and

schism were the results. Kenneth Scott Latourette wrote, “Although at the outset he

had no thought of breaking with the Pope or the church of Rome, he was not one to

draw back, and prudence and guarded speech were alien to his nature.”4

1Ernest G Schwiebert, Luther and His Times: The Reformation from a New
Perspective (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 643.

Mark S Krause, “Martin Luther’s Theory of Bible Translation,” Stone-

2

Campbell Journal 2 (Spring 1999): 57.

3Justo L González, The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present
Day. Volume 2 (New York: Harper One, 2010), 28.
4 Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity: Reformation to the
Present. (Peabody: MA: Prince Press, 1997), 708.
 2

Luther lit the fire of reformation which spread throughout the world. During

his lifetime, the Bible sold over a million copies and other writings sold millions

more.5 With notoriety stemming from his conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church,

a German populace desiring independence from Rome, magisterial leaders thirsty to

keep taxes collected in their territories, and corruption within the Roman Catholic

Church, Luther found a ready populace in Germany for his Bible translation, other

writings, and the reformation of the church.

Scripture Usage in Germany

Access to the Scripture before the sixteenth century was minimal. The

century preceding the Reformation was an era of transformation due to the advent

of the printing press. The original printing of the Latin Vulgate sold out prior to

publication.6 The result was thousands of printers learning the trade and opening up

shops all over Europe. According to Wayne Walden, “By the end of the century, one

thousand presses in two hundred fifty cities of twelve countries had turned out forty

thousand editions on various subjects, totaling some eight million volumes.”7 The

vast majority of the printing was in Latin and inaccessible to the masses.

5 Kenneth Strand, “Current Issues and Trends in Luther Studies,” Andrews

University Seminary Studies 22, no. 1 (1984): 129.
6Wayne Walden, “Luther: The One Who Shaped the Canon,” Restoration
Quarterly 49, no. 1 (2007): 3.
7 Ibid., 3.
 3

In the sixteenth century, demand for vernacular translations was high.

Luther’s translation was not the first German translation of the Bible. There had

already been, “no fewer than fourteen High German Bibles and four Low German

editions.”8 None of the existing translations provided the reader with the common

language interaction Luther strived for with his translation. “Luther strove to

render the Scriptures into natural, idiomatic German, intending his version to serve

as a substitute for the original text.”9 Vernacular translation was the difference

between his translations and the previous ones. Luther succeeded in providing the

German people with a copy of the Bible in the vernacular.

Access in the Vernacular

Prior to Luther’s German translation, access to the Bible in any format was

minimal. Latin was used for liturgical ceremonies. Even printed in Latin, the Bible

was not available to the general public. Only religious leaders, kings, and the social

elite had access to copies of the Bible.10 Ewal Plass observed, “Since they (the Bibles)

were usually in Latin, the prominent layman who perchance possessed one of them

8 Arnold J Koelpin. “Preparing a New Bible Translation in Luther’s Day,” Logia

10, no. 1 (2001): 5.
9John L Flood, “Martin Luther’s Bible Translation in its German and
European Context,” in The Bible in Renaissance: Essays on Biblical Commentary and
Translation in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, ed. Richard Griffiths, (Aldershot:
United Kingdom, 2001), 48.
10Ben Witherington III, “The Most Dangerous Thing Luther Did,” Christianity
Today, November 17, 2017, accessed November 13, 2018,
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2017/october/most-dangerous-thing-
luther-did.html
 4

was not particularly profited by it.”11 Literacy was not widespread during the

sixteenth century. This challenge was not limited to the laity. A number of the parish

priests were unable to read, and an even greater number could not understand

Latin.12 The reading of Scripture was primarily an exercise performed in

monasteries.

Luther’s vernacular translation was the first version accessible to the masses.

He desired all people to have access to the Bible in the common language. 13 Luther

wrote, “If it were translated everywhere word for word (as the Jews and foolish

translators would have done) and not mostly according to the sense, no one would

understand it.”14 For Luther, it was not enough to have access to the physical,

printed text, nor was it enough to have access in the national language, but instead,

it was necessary to have access to the common language in a way that was natural

for the reader. This vernacular style of the German language Bible did not exist

before Martin Luther.

The Roman Catholic Church conducted mass, read Scripture, and sang in

Latin. Many church leaders opposed the use of the vernacular for church services.

11Ewald Plass, This is Luther: A Character Study (Concordia Publishing

House: St. Louis: MO, 1948) 329.
12Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible and Other Medieval Biblical Versions,
Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought (Cambridge: University Press,
1920), 158.
13 Koelpin, “Preparing a New Bible Translation,” 11.
14Martin Luther, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, and Helmut T Lehmann, Luther’s
Works. 35: Word and Sacrament: 1, American ed. (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia
Publishing House), 252.
 5

The Archbishop of Mainz doubted whether the German language was sufficient a

language for the translation of the Bible.15

What shall we say then of the translation of those works which rest under the
sharpest disapproval of writers of the catholic Church? We might say much:
but let the bare mention of them here suffice . . .

We therefore command and enjoin that no work, of whatever branch of

science, art or knowledge, shall be translated from the Greek or Latin or any
other tongue into the common German tongue, or when translated (even
with any change of style or title), shall be published or bought, publicly or
privately, directly or indirectly: unless both before printing, and publication,
they are licensed to be printed and published by John Bertram of Naumburg,
in the case of theological books… deputed by our letters patent. 16

The Archbishop believed the German language inadequate for translating

Scripture. He required the authorization of all religious translations to be given by

John Bertram. His criticism was not limited to ecclesiastical usage of German. He

also criticized the use of German in other academic fields that did not align with

church belief. Trusted scholars were chosen to approve German translations in the

disciplines of medicine, arts, and health. These men were to approve any

translation, printing, or sale of books. 17 Through the naming of persons authorized

to approve writings, the church controlled the content of higher learning.

15 Deanesly, The Lollard Bible, 128.

Codex Diplom. Anecdotorum (Gudenus: Frankfurt, 1758), 469-72, quoted in

16

Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible and other Medieval Biblical Versions
(Cambridge: University Press, 1920), 125.
17C H Timperley, A Dictionary of Printers and Printing, with the Progress of
Literature, Ancient and Modern (London: H Johnson, 1839), 185.
 6

Opposition

Officially, church leaders never banned vernacular translations, but barriers

to their approval were established.18 This was not a new development. The church

frowned upon vernacular translations long before Luther. In June 1199, the Bishop

of Metz inquired of Pope Innocent III how to respond to congregants studying the

letters of Paul in their own language.19 Alister McGrath claimed the genuine concern

of Innocent was the ability of the laity to gain access to knowledge previously

known only to the clergy.

The real threat posed by this activity is the usurpation of the office of
preaching, a matter in which they should be taken to task. The real objection
to the practice lies in its potential implications for the doctrine and order of
the church through the usurpation of a clerical role on the part of the laity,
rather than any problems that might arise through their deeper knowledge of
the text of the Scriptures.20

This position is contrary to the words used by leaders who claimed their

opposition was based upon preserving the Biblical meaning. The Archbishop of

Mainz said, “Who would enable simple and uneducated men, and even women, to

pick out the true meaning.”21 During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the

opposition to vernacular was widespread. Fredericus Staphylus, the counselor to

18Alister E McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation,

2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 204), 122.
19 Ibid., 123.
20 Ibid., 124.

Codex Diplom. Anecdotorum (Gudenus: Frankfurt, 1758), 469-72, quoted in

21

Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible and other Medieval Biblical Versions
(Cambridge: University Press, 1920), 124.
 7

the emperor Ferdinandus, was a vehement opponent to the translation of the Bible

into the vernacular. In response to the Protestant position of allowing the

vernacular translation, he wrote:

And in all ages, we read the gospel in our churches, we preach the word of
God in our pulpits, and interpret it to the people we express it by outward
ceremonies, rites and gestures, such as we have received of our forefathers,
even from the primitive Church and the Apostles’ time.
. . . Another thing that the Lutherans object unto me is, that they say, it
hath been by means and counsel procured that the Bible is no more read in
the vulgar tongue: especially as Luther translated it. Now although I
remember not that I ever said or wrote that the lay men ought not to have
the Bible in their vulgar tongue, yet if I had done so, it had been no great
trespass. For surely I could never yet find in holy scripture, that the common
people ought of necessity to read scripture. But that of the reading thereof
much schism and the destruction of many souls hath proceeded, daily
experience teacheth us.22

His opposition is an example of the superior position ecclesiastical leaders

demonstrated and was the common belief during this period. Staphylus believed

that an educated laity was a danger not only to the church but to the laity as well for

they could not possibly interpret Scripture correctly.23 Whether the opposition

arose out of a fear of contaminating the Gospel message by the uneducated or a loss

of ecclesiastical authority due to broader laity access is insignificant. The two

reasons for opposition both supported the other. The scriptural monopoly of the

22Fredericus Staphyuls, 1565. The Apologie of Fredericus Staphylus,

counseller to the late emperor Ferdinandus; Intreating, Of the true Right
understanding of Holy Scripture. Translated by Thomas Stapleton. Quoted in
Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible and other Medieval Biblical Versions
(Cambridge, MA: University Press, 1920), 389-90.
23 Ibid., 390.
 8

educated clergy, seen as a protectorate of an uneducated laity, provided job security

for those who have the specialized knowledge. For the educated clergy, knowledge

is power, and power is knowledge. They were unwilling to relinquish or share

either.

Luther found himself in a constant battle with the Roman Catholic leaders

because of his insistence on the use of the vernacular. Luther was unable to ignore

his critics. He often used colorful language to respond to his detractors. In one letter,

he described those who disagreed with him as nincompoops, asses, and blockheads

while addressing one of them as Doctor Snotty-Nose.24 Plass wrote that “few have

used stronger, more vitriolic language than Martin Luther,”25 however, he also

pointed out that Luther’s use of rude language as only being a small part of his work.

“At times he called names, strong names, untranslatable names. But that was

incidental. One may say it was the condiment in his dish. The main fare consisted of

right meaty and weighty arguments.”26 The theological contributions made by

Luther made up for his poor temperament.

The coarse nature of the disparagement was far from one-sided. Pope Leo

called Luther “this son of perdition of damnation . . . this infected, scrofulous sheep . .

Martin Luther, “On Translating: An Open Letter,” in Luther’s Works: Volume

24

35, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 185-187.

25 Plass, This is Luther, 123
26 Ibid.
 9

. this wicked Martin” 27 and the “only son of Satan.”28 Aleander, one of Pope Leo’s

diplomats was even harsher in his criticism calling Luther, “the dog,” “the Lutheran

Mohammed,” and a “Satan.”29 Duke George took the criticism to an even higher level

by referring to Luther as, “the greatest, coarsest ass and fool, the damned apostate, a

foolish dog . . . a devilish monk . . . a beast . . . a perjured, faithless, honorless villain . .

. Doctor Utterly Ass . . . a hell hound. . . .”30 The critics resulted to name calling

because Luther bested them in debate and public writings. Erasmus described their

criticism as follows, “It is easier to call Luther names than to prove him wrong.” 31

The public back and forth between Luther and his detractors only made him more

popular to those who had been marginalized by the church.

The Impact of the Gutenberg Press

While Johannes Gutenberg did not invent the printing press, his adaptation

made the printing press more usable and efficient. With his adaptation of existing

Pope Leo X. “Pope Leo X to George Spalatin,” in Luther’s Correspondence

27

and Other Contemporary Letters I, Trans. Preserved Smith and Charles Jacobs
(Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1918), 130.

28 Ibid., 127.

Aleander. “Aleander to Cardinal de Medici,” in Luther’s Correspondence and

29

Other Contemporary Letters I, Trans. Preserved Smith and Charles Jacobs

(Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1918), 420.

Wilhelm Walther, Luthers Charakter, (Leipzig: Deichert, 1917), 148, trans.

30

in Ewald Plass, This is Luther: A Character Study (St Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1948), 131.
31 Plass, This is Luther, 131.
 10

technology, Gutenberg revolutionized communication methods and facilitated rapid

dissemination of information. Michael Welte claims, “From the point of view of

cultural history, modern times began with letterpress printing.”32 Prior to his

discovery of the movable type printing press, books were either copied by scribes or

printed using woodblock presses. Books copied by scribes were more vulnerable to

error than printed books.33 The process was tedious and time-consuming, while the

books were rare and expensive. Access was limited to centers of higher education, the

elite class, political leaders, and a select group of educated clergies.

Block pressed books gained in popularity during the fifteenth century, but due

to the challenging process of developing the woodcuts, their use was impractical for

the printing of text. The popularity of woodblock printing grew simultaneously with

the movable type printing press.34 Woodblock printing did not provide an adequate

solution for reproducing text, but it was an excellent alternative for printing

illustrations. Due to widespread illiteracy during this time, the Bibles included

elaborate illustrations used to reinforce the text with readers. Printers who used

moveable type to produce books often used woodblocks for printing the illustrations

found in those books.

32 Michael Welte, “The Problem of Manuscript Basis for the Earliest Printed
Editions of the Greek New Testament,” in The Bible as Book: The first Printed
Editions, ed. Paul Saenger and Kimberly Van Kampen (New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll
Press, 1999), 117.

Harvey J Graff, The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in

33

Western Culture and Society (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 109.

Anonymous, “The Way it Worked: Woodblock Printing.” 2006. Printing

34

World 293 (1): 23.

 11

The Bible was the most celebrated product of Gutenberg’s press, but it

certainly was not the only item printed. Ironically, the first items printed on the press

were the very Catholic indulgences Luther fought.35 Indulgences were certificates,

granted by the Pope allowing for the remission “. . . of the temporal punishment in

purgatory still due for sins after absolution.” 36 The church engaged in the selling of

indulgences as a fundraising effort to finish construction of Saint Peter’s Basilica.37

Luther found the selling of indulgences an appalling practice and the purpose of the

fundraising as unnecessary.38 The new efficiency of the printing press allowed the

church to print 190,000 certificates of indulgence per week. Previously, it would have

taken a scribe five years to produce the same number of indulgences.39 The church

was raising a substantial amount of money selling indulgences. Luther utilized the

same tool used by the church for printing indulgences to wage his attack on his

detractors.

The printing press grew in popularity during the sixteenth century. Printers

printed many other items on the presses in addition to Bibles. Luther and others

Jennifer Powell McNutt and David Lauber, The People’s Book: The
35

Reformation and the Bible (Downers Grove, IL IVP Academic, 2017), 95.
36Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2011), s.v. “Indulgence,”
37Reinhold Kiermayr, “How Much Money was Actually in the Indulgence
Chest?” The Sixteenth Century Journal 17, no. 3 (1986): 307.

Willam R Estep, Renaissance and Reformation (Grand Rapids, W B

38

Eerdmans, 1986), 119.

39 McNutt and Lauber, The Peoples Book, 96.
 12

produced hymn books, religious pamphlets, catechisms, and many other materials.

Most of Luther’s printing was done in Germany, and 80% of his 5000 editions were

in German.40 Prior to 1517, Wittenberg had only one printing press, but by the time

of Luther’s death, it had grown to one of the most important printing centers in all of

Germany.41 The press was a transformational agent. It facilitated the dissemination

of information and ideas throughout Germany.

Luther’s Style and Philosophy of Bible Translation

On September 15, 1530, Luther published, An Open Letter on Translating. He

wrote the letter to a friend to answer two questions. First, why had Luther chosen to

translate Romans 3 to reflect salvation coming through faith alone, and second, the

question of whether or not the dead intercede on behalf of the living. 42 Both

questions were points of contention between Roman Catholic leaders and Luther.

His response, in the form of an open letter, not only answered these questions, but

he also used it as an opportunity to explain his purpose and style of translation. This

letter has provided generations of Bible translators a model for how to complete

translations of the Bible into other languages.

Andrew Pettegree, Brand Luther: 1517, Printing, and the Making of the
40

Reformation (New York: Penguin Books, 2015), 334.

41 Ibid., xiii.
42 Martin Luther, An Open Letter on Translating, trans. by Gary Mann (1530),
in the Internet Christian Library, accessed November 11, 2018,
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt.
 13

Luther’s Purpose of Translation

Luther undertook the responsibility of Bible translation because no one had

previously constructed a widely understood translation for the German people.

“From the very beginning of his work on the text, Luther aimed to produce more

than a faithful translation. He wanted a text that was crisp and pleasant to hear.” 43 It

was not good enough to provide an easy reading translation; he also wanted the

text, when read, to sound good. Luther was unimpressed by other German

translations. Johann Walther observed:

Even those who attempted to speak good German, with few exceptions, had
no idea as to what was required of a good translation. They were satisfied if
they were readily understood. That the German Bible must also be a work of
art, that the different moods of the originals were to be reproduced. . . was a
knowledge of which we find only very slight traces in a very few of the
translators. Most of them were fearfully prosaic, all on one note, and
insufferably tedious.44

The purpose of Luther’s translation was to create a Bible that would

transcend all levels of society and all dialects of Germany. At the beginning of the

sixteenth century, the literacy rate was possibly three to four percent. 45 Because the

majority of Germans would hear and not read the Bible, “Luther produced his

43 Koelpin, “Preparing a New Bible Translation,” 11.

44Wilhelm Walther, Die deutsche Bibelubersetzung des Mittelalters,
Translated by Michael Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation
Together with a Collection of Sources, (Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934),
26-27.
45Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work
(Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1986), 117.
 14

translation with a view to the public reading of the book.” 46 The public preaching

and reading of Scripture in the vernacular assured that teaching and Scripture

reading was available to the masses. In order to accomplish this task, Luther unified

the language into one that both peasant and the bourgeois could understand as

directly speaking to them.47 This translation strategy resulted in widespread

acceptance of the Bible.

Luther’s Style of Translation

Luther’s style of translation was to communicate Scripture in a way that was

clearly understood by everyone. In An Open Letter on Translation, he explained his

style of translation:

We do not have to inquire of the literal Latin, how we are to speak German,
as these asses do. Rather we must inquire about this of the mother in the
home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We
must be guided by their language, the way they speak, and do our translating
accordingly. That way they will understand it and recognize that we are
speaking German to them.48

Luther complained that the Latin was not helpful because the vast majority of

people did not understand Latin. In his translation, there was no expectation of

maintaining a rigid, word for word translation from Latin.

46 Koelpin, “Preparing a New Bible Translation,” 11

47 Kasdorf 217.
48 Luther, An Open Letter on Translating.
 15

Luther’s translation was done specifically for the German people, so it

reflected the idiosyncrasies of German. In a letter to Nicholas Gerbal, Luther wrote,

“I am born of Germans, who I want to serve.” 49 He sought to communicate the

Gospel using the same language families used in their homes. He explained, “I try to

speak as men do in the marketplace. Didactic, philosophic, and sententious books

are, therefore hard to translate, but narrative easy. In rendering Moses, I make him

so German that no one would know that he was a Jew.”50 Luther desired that the

German people could see the Bible as German and not a translation.

Luther was amicable to others critiquing and speaking into his translation

but only if their purpose was a better translation. His Bible translation was under

constant revision throughout his life. 51 He assembled a translation committee and

welcomed input from others to improve upon the work. In a letter to a friend,

Luther described his style of translation as, “I translated to the best of my ability. I

have compelled no one to read it, but have left that open, doing the work only as a

service to those who could not do it better. No one is forbidden to do a better piece

49Martin Luther, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther’s

Works. 48: Letters: 1, American ed. (Saint Louis: MO: Concordia Publishing House,
1963), 320.
50 Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (Boston, Houghton
Mifflin, 1901), 266.
51Berhanrd Lohse, Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work
(Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1986), 119.
 16

of work.”52 This was the first Bible consultation model and continues to be used by

Bible translators today.

One critic of Luther’s dynamic equivalent translation found over 1,400

“errors and lies” within the translation. Luther responded to the critic by claiming

to know of at least 40,000 inconsistencies if he counted all of the places where he

contextualized the translation for clearer understanding in German.53 Clearly

communicating the meaning of the text was more critical to Luther than maintaining

the word for word translation.

Luther’s Philosophy of Language

Luther’s philosophy of language influenced his style of translation. He

believed God always communicated with humanity in their heart language. Just as

God chose Hebrew to communicate in the Old Testament and Greek to communicate

in the New Testament, likewise, he chose the German language to communicate with

the German people. For Luther, this meant when the German people read or heard

the Bible, they heard God speak to them in German. They did not hear God speaking

in Greek, Hebrew, or Latin. 54 Luther further explained this in a letter “To the

Councilmen of All Cities in Germany:”

The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit [Eph.6:17] is
contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the

52 Martin Luther, An Open Letter on Translating.

Hans Kasdorf, “Luther’s Bible: A Dynamic Equivalence Translation and

53

Germanizing Force,” Missiology: An International Review 6, no. 2 (April 1978), 226.

54 Kasdorf, “Luther’s Bible,” 217.
 17

vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is
stored; and, as the gospel itself points out [Matt. 14:20], they are the baskets
in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments.55

Luther believed that the use of the vernacular was critical for understanding the

message.

Luther strove to use a common German language in order that the Bible

would be understood by the regional dialects and the high and low German dialects.

He created a written version of the language that was spoken broadly but not

unified or formalized. Heinz Bluhm explained it as:

If a translation of the Bible is to reach the people, it must be couched in their

language. Since his translation was most definitely made for the people,
Luther did his utmost to put it in the language they used in everyday life. This
is the real issue so far as Luther is concerned. He thought it was his task to
make the Word of God as readily understandable as he could to the masses.
This is why he translated as he did. 56

The result of his efforts was a translation of the Bible which made it possible for the

“. . . habit of using (Luther’s translation) so that the reading of it could become more

an act of devotion than a scholarly exercise.” 57 Prior to his translation, an

overwhelming number of Christians did not have any access to Scripture except for

church services. Personal devotional reading was not an option because few people

55 Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol 35, 360.

56Heinz Bluhm, Martin Luther: Creative Translator (Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1965), 130.
57Frederic Blume, Martin Luther and Our English Bible Translation,
Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 62 (January 1965): 20.
 18

had access to Scripture in any form, much less in a medium that was

understandable.

Luther’s Philosophy of Translation

Luther’s philosophy of translation has influenced generations of Bible

translators. Eugene Nida would later coin Luther’s emphasis on capturing the

meaning of the text as dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence. 58 This model

realizes the “genius of each language,” as God communicates through the receptor

language as opposed to formal correspondence translation which utilizes a rigid,

word for word translation.59 Wonderly summarized the difference between the two

approaches:

What we have then, to use modern linguistic terms, is not a “formal-

correspondence translation” that attempts to preserve the formal features of
the source language, but rather a “dynamic-equivalence translation” that
seeks to convey the meaning of the source message in terms of
understandable language of the receptors. 60

For Luther, the goal of translation was to “translate the idiom of the one language

into the idiom of the other.” 61 He knew that a clear understanding of the source

language was critical for translation, but faithfulness to the structure of the receptor

58Nigel Statham. “Nida and Functional Equivalence: The Evolution of a

Concept, Some Problems, and Some Possible Ways Forward,” The Bible Translator
56,
59Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, Theory and Practice in Translation (Leiden,
United Bible Societies, 1969), 4.
60William Wonderly, Bible Translations for Popular Use (London, United
Bible Societies, 1968), 50, no. 1 (2005), 30.
61 Blume, “Martin Luther and Our English Bible Translations,” 23.
 19

language was equally important if it was to be utilized and understood by common

people.

Luther’s Six Principles of Translation

Luther never published a systematized philosophy for translating the Bible,

but John Bechetel identified six translation principles from Luther’s Open Letter on

Translating. In answer to the question of why he translated Romans 3:28 as “by faith

alone,” Luther provided insights into his principles of translation.

The Nature of the Language

The translator must have a clear understanding of the receptor language in

order to be able to translate into that language. Clear understanding means that the

translator must understand even the nuances of the language. The first principle of

translation identified by Bechtel was that “the translator is to translate into the

nature of the German language.”62 Luther certainly fulfilled this principle.

Luther had a broad knowledge of the German language and culture. His

background spanned different social segments of society and uniquely qualified him

for the translation task. Kasdorf explained it as, “Luther knew not only the

coarseness and directness of the peasants’ lingo and the finesse and elegance of the

bourgeois speech but also the religious vocabulary of the mystics with all of its

62John Bechtel, “Modern Application of Martin Luther’s Letter on

Translating,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 11 (July 1973), 147.
 20

meditative inwardness and depth of adoration.” 63 Luther was a son of the peasant

culture, studied in a university setting, and trained as a priest.64 This background

allowed him to work within the language of the lower classes, educated classes, and

the special religious vocabulary. Even with this background, translation did not

come easy for Luther. He complained that, while he was well educated, he struggled

with German translation because the Germans were inventing new words and that

no one paid attention to speaking “real German.” 65

Common Usage

A challenge Luther faced was bringing God’s word to the common man but

without the unfamiliar verbiage of the church. The second principle identified by

Bechtel was that translators needed to know “how the common man would use the

language.”66 Luther explained this challenge in his letter, In Defense of Psalms, “Pray

tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation? Once he has the German words to

serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely

in the best German he knows.”67 Finding the proper word in a translation was not

63 Kasdorf, “Luther’s Bible,” 218.

64 Krause, “Martin Luther’s Theory of Bible Translation,” 60.
65Martin Luther, Jaroslave Jan Pelikan, and Helmut T Lehmann, Luther’s
Works. 35: Word and Sacrament: 1, American ed. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia
Publishing House), 250.
66 Betchel, “Modern Application of Martin Luther’s Letter,” 147.
67 Luther, Luther’s Works. 35: Word and Sacrament, 192.
 21

always an easy task. At times, Luther and his translation team would spend weeks to

find the appropriate word.68

Word Choice

Choosing the proper word for the translation is often not straightforward.

Most languages have a variety of options for a particular word or expression. The

translator must choose the option which best communicates the original intent and

meaning. Bechtel wrote, “Translators are to have a great store of words for each

word or expression in the original because one vernacular word may not fit all

contexts.”69 Testing in the language is required in order to develop the skillset of

choosing which word or phrase.

Luther used Luke 28 as an example of the Germanization of the text using a

variety of words. The literal translation for German would have been translated,

“Daniel, thou man of desires,” but Luther claimed no German would know what this

meant in the context of the passage. Instead, he substituted the term “You dear

Daniel” because it provided a clear understanding for the context. 70 The passage

required the substitution of a literal translation for an idiomatic expression in order

to communicate the original intent.

68 Ibid., 188.
69 Betchel, “Modern Application of Martin Luther’s Letter,” 148.
70 Ibid., 148.
 22

Literal Translation

While a translator must be willing to choose between the best vernacular

word for a particular text, the translator may find it necessary to use the literal

translation, “where important issues depend upon precise terminology.” 71 Luther

chose not to change John 6:27 in his translation. He decided that the literal

translation, “Him has God the Father sealed,” could not be changed to a more

German option like, “Him has God the Father signifies.” 72 He preferred the second

option but kept the word for word translation because the alternative would change

the overall meaning of the passage.

This principle of sometimes maintaining of the original language and form

appears to contradict the previous principle of choosing the proper word. Luther

explained this in An Open Letter on Translating, “I have been very careful to see that

where everything turns on a single passage, I have kept it to the original quite

literally and have not lightly departed from it.” 73 If the passage in question were a

key passage and changing the verbiage would alter the overall text, Luther kept the

original language even if it were not the most precise interpretation in the receptor

language. When given a choice between a clear representation of the passage and

71 Ibid., 148.
72 Luther, An Open Letter, 194.
73 Ibid.
 23

clarity of language, he would “rather do violence to the German language than to

depart from the word.”74

The literal translation is also justified when the true meaning of the passage

is unclear or open to various interpretations. 75 When interpreting Psalm 91, Luther

did not change the verbiage found in the Hebrew because the meaning was unclear.

He wrote:

Since they are expressed in obscure and veiled words, one man might well
interpret differently from another these four torments or misfortunes which
a righteous person must endure for God’s sake. Therefore, we tried to leave
room for each person to understand them according to the gifts and measure
of his spirit. Otherwise, we would have rendered them in such a way as to
give fuller expression to our own understanding of the meaning. 76

Luther was very careful when translating passages where the meaning was unclear,

or there were varying interpretations. His philosophy for translating these passages

was to utilize the literal translation, even at the expense of a clear understanding in

the German language.

Context

Translators are required to interpret Scripture in light of the overall meaning

of the text. 77 Occasionally, the translation must be modified in an effort to

74 Ibid., 194.
75 Krause, “Luther’s Theory of Bible Translation,” 62.
76Martin Luther, “Defense of Translation of Psalms,” in Luther’s Works,
American Edition (55 vols.; ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann;
Philadelphia: Meuhlenberg and Fortress, 1955-86), 217.
77 Betchel, “Modern Application of Martin Luther’s Letter,” 148.
 24

communicate the message clearly. An example of this is found in Luther’s

translation of Romans 3:28. Luther added the word solum (alone or only) in this

verse. The Roman Catholic leaders criticized Luther’s translation of this verse

because he added a word which was not present in the Latin translation. In, On

Translating: An Open Letter, he explained:

Here, in Romans 3:28, I knew very well that the word solum is not in the
Greek or Latin text; the papists did not have to teach me that. It is a fact that
these four letters s o l a are not there. . . . At the same time, they do not see
that it conveys the sense of the text; it belongs there if the translation is to be
clear and vigorous. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it
was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation. 78

Luther’s position is that sometimes context requires the addition or subtraction of

words in the translation.

There are at least two reasons why the addition of a word is justified in the

translation. The first, as discussed above, is that without the addition, the

translation would be incorrect. The second reason why a word should be added is

that the word was implied in the original language but not explicit. In the case of

Romans 3, it could be implied that Luther believed that the word alone was implied

in the Latin; therefore it should be included in the German translation.

There are occasions when not adding to or deleting from the text actually

makes the translation incorrect. By adding the word, he was able to clearly

communicate in the receptor language the intent of the original author. Luther was

true to the principle of taking into account the contextual meaning when translating.

78 Luther, “On Translating,” 188.

 25

Key to Luther’s dynamic equivalent approach to Bible translation is the preservation

of the original intent of the original author.

Thorough Translation

Luther believed that translation should be plain and as full as possible.79 He

was a proponent of simplifying translations, but he was not satisfied with anything

less than full translation. Concerning adding words for a fuller contextualization,

Luther once again referred to the defense of his Romans 3:28 translation. He wrote

that he should have gone even further with the translation, “I am only sorry that I

did not also add the words alle and aller, and say, without any works of any laws, so

that it would be expressed with perfect clarity.” 80

For Luther, translation was about communicating the full intent of the

original author. Kasdorf describes Luther’s translation strategy as being “more

concerned with the communication of meaning than the transposition of form.”81

Advocating for a plain yet full translation, Luther returned to a recurring theme of

his translation philosophy: the clear communication of the original author’s original

meaning and intent rendered in the simplest receptor language verbiage. Luther

accomplished this by translating the thought instead of the exact word.

79 Betchel, “Modern Application of Martin Luther’s Letter,” 149.

80 Luther, “On Translating,” 198.
81 Kasdorf, “Luther’s Bible,” 226.
 26

Conclusion

Martin Luther is one of the most well-known protagonists of the Protestant

Reformation. Luther did not set out to be the revolutionary that he became, but the

rapid diffusion of his Ninety-Five Theses provided him with the platform needed to

revolutionize opposition to what he believed the unbiblical practices and

widespread corruption inside the Catholic Church. He might not have initially

sought the notoriety, but once his controversial role was bestowed upon him, he did

not shy away.

Luther was the right revolutionary at the right time to bring about the right

reform. The invention and widespread use of the printing press facilitated the

diffusion of Luther’s Reformation ideas. The nationalistic pride and fervor of the

German people and the opposition to the monopoly of Roman leadership created a

fertile soil for the Reformation movement to take root. The greed of regional

princes, eager to receive the taxes otherwise headed to Rome, provided the

protection needed for Luther and other reformers to solidify the movement. God

orchestrated all of the details which allowed for this renewal to occur.

The most significant contribution of Martin Luther was his translation of the

Bible into the vernacular. Luther’s translation made the Bible accessible to the

masses. Unlike other attempts at translating God’s Word into German, Luther

actually Germanized the Bible. He painstakingly took the thought and intent of the

original Greek and Hebrew and translated them into a common German language

which could be understood by both prince and pauper. The translation focused on

clearly communicating the message and not maintaining a rigid, word for word,
 27

translation from Latin. Luther’s philosophy of translation, model of translation, and

principles of translation have influenced generations of Bible translators. His

concept of thought-for-thought translation created the field of Bible translation. The

emphasis on communicating the intent of the original language into the receptor

language was the forerunner of what eventually became known as the dynamic

equivalence theory of Bible translation, the standard Bible translation theory used

by Bible translators today.

 28

Bibliography

Books

Bordwell, David. Catechism of The Catholic Church Revised. London: Burns & Oates,
1999.

Bainton, Roland H. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, 2013.

Bluhm, Heinz. Martin Luther, Creative Translator. St Louis: Concordia Publishing

House, 1965.

Botha, Pieter J. J. Orality and Literacy in Early Christianity. Biblical performance

criticism 5. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2012.

Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church. 1st English language
ed. Vol. 3. 4 vols. Martin Luther. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.

Chiang, Samuel E, and Grant Lovejoy. Beyond Literate Western Contexts: Honor &
Shame and Assessment of Orality Preference, 2015.

Deanesly, Margaret. The Lollard Bible and Other Medieval Biblical Versions.
Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought. Cambridge: University Press,
1920.

Dyer, Paul D. “The Use of Oral Communication Methods (Storytelling, Song/Music,

And Drama) In Health Education, Evangelism, And Christian Maturation.”
Theological Research Exchange Network (TREN): Theses & Dissertations
(January 1994): 1.

Edwards, Mark U. Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther. Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 2005.

Estep, William Roscoe. Renaissance and Reformation. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1986.

Fortosis, Stephen. The Multilingual God: Stories of Translation. Pasadena, CA: William
Carey Library, 2012.

Foxe. Narratives of the Days of the Reformation: Chiefly from the Manuscripts of John
Foxe the Martyrologist. London: Westminster Press, 1859.

Frazier, Alison. The Bible as Book: The First Printed Bibles. London: British Library;
Oak Knoll Bks, 1999.
 29

González, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Volume 2: The Reformation to the Present
Day. Rev. and updated [ed.], 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins, 2010.

Graff, Harvey J. The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in Western

Culture and Society. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Pr, 1987.

Greer, Ivor. “Orality and Christian Discipleship.” Bangor University, 2011.

Griffiths, Richard, ed. The Bible in the Renaissance: Essays on Biblical Commentary
and Translation in the Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Centuries. St. Andrews
studies in Reformation history. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2001.

Johnson, William A., and Holt N. Parker, eds. Literacy Studies in Classics: The Last 20
Years. Oxford: Oxford University. Press, 2009.

Kapr, Albert, and Douglas Martin. Johann Gutenberg: The Man and His Invention.
Aldershot, England: Scholar Press, 1996.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History Of Christianity: Reformation To The Present.

Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1997.

Luther, Martin, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther’s Works. 35:
Word and Sacrament: 1. American ed. Saint Louis, MO.: Concordia Publ.
House [u.a.], 1960.

———. Luther’s Works. 48: Letters: 1. American ed. Saint Louis, MO.: Concordia Publ.
House [u.a.], 1963.

Maxey, James A. From Orality to Orality: A New Paradigm for Contextual Translation
of the Bible. Biblical performance criticism 2. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books,
2009.

McGrath, Alister E. The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation. 2nd ed.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

McNutt, Jennifer Powell, and David Lauber, eds. The People’s Book: The Reformation
and the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, an imprint of
InterVarsity Press, 2017.

Nichols, John Gough. Narratives on the Days of the Reformation. Westminster: JD

Nichols and Sons, n.d.

Nida, Eugene, and Charles Taber. Theory and Practice in Translation. Leiden: United
Bible Societies, 1969.
 30

Parshall, Phil. “Lessons Learned in Contextualization.” In Muslims and Christian on

the Emmaus Road, 251–265. Monrovia, Calif: MARC, 1989.

Pettegree, Andrew. Brand Luther: 1517, Printing, and the Making of the Reformation.
New York: Penguin, 2015.

Plass, Ewald. This Is Luther: A Character Study. St. Louis: MO: Concordia Publishing
House, 1948.

Schwiebert, Ernest G. Luther and His Times: The Reformation from a New Perspective.
St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950.

Smalley, William Allen. Translation as Mission: Bible Translation in the Modern

Missionary Movement. Macon, Georgia: Mercer, 1991.

Smith, Preserved. The Life and Letters of Martin Luther. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1911.

Smith, Preserved, and Charles Jacobs. Luther’s Correspondence and Other

Contemporary Letters, Volume 1. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Lutheran
Publication Society, 1918.

———. Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Volume 2. Vol. 2. 2

vols. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1918.

Stevenson, Angus, and Maurice Waite, eds. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. 12th
ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Stork, T. “Luther and the Bible.” In Luther & the Bible, 1–215, 1873.

Strand, Kenneth A. Reformation Bibles in the Crossfire: The Story of Jerome Emser, His
Anti-Lutheran Critique and His Catholic Bible Version. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann
Arbor Publishers, 1961.

Timperley, C. H. A Dictionary of Printers and Printing, with the Progress of Literature,

Ancient and Modern. London: H Johnson, 1839.

Walker, Brandon. Memory, Mission, and Identity: Orality and the Apostolic Miracle
Tradition. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2015.

Waterman, John T. A History of the German Language. Seattle: University of

Washington Press, 1966.

Weber, Rob. “Evangelistic Hospitality in Preaching: Welcoming Everyone to the

Story.” In Considering the Great Commission: Evangelism and Mission in the
Wesleyan Spirit, 159–176. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005.
 31

Westhelle, Vítor, and David Tracy. Transfiguring Luther: The Planetary Promise of
Luther’s Theology. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016.

Wonderly, William. Bible Translations for Popular Use. London: United Bible
Societies, 1968.

Journals

Anonymous. “The Way It Worked: Woodblock Printing.” Printing World 293, no. 1
(January 5, 2006): 23–23.

Bechtel, John L. “Modern Application of Martin Luther’s Open Letter on Translating.”

Andrews University Seminary Studies 11, no. 2 (July 1973): 145–151.

Bluhm, Heinz S. “Martin Luther as a Creative Bible Translator.” Andrews University

Seminary Studies 22, no. 1 (1984): 35–44.

Blume, Frederic E. “Martin Luther and Our English Bible Translations Part 1.”
Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 62, no. 1 (January 1965): 20–47.

———. “Martin Luther and Our English Bible Translations Part 2.” Wisconsin
Lutheran Quarterly 62, no. 2 (April 1965): 121–134.

Brown, Perry. “Preaching from the Printshop.” Christian History 11, no. 2 (May
1992): 33.

Clark, Charles Allen. “The Nevius Methods.” International Review of Mission 24, no.
94 (April 1935): 229–36.

Dyikuk, Justine John. “Christianity and the Digital Age: Sustaining the Online
Church.” International Journal of Journalism and Mass Communication 3, no. 1
(August 2017): 43–49.

Gane, Erwin R. “Luther’s View of Church and State.” Andrews University Seminary
Studies 8, no. 2 (July 1970): 120–143.

Grafton, Anthony. “How Revolutionary Was the Print Revolution?” American

Historical Review 107, no. 1 (February 2002): 84–87.

Gravelle, G. “Bible Translation in Historical Context: The Changing Role of Cross-

Cultural Workers.” International Journal of Frontier Missiology, 27, no. 1
(2010): 11–20.
 32

Graves, Thomas H. “Communicating the Gospel in the Modern World: Trends and
Issues in Evangelism.” Faith and Mission 2, no. 2 (Spr 1985): 1–75.

Hunkin, J W. (Joseph Wellington). “The Reformation and the Scriptures.” Modern

Churchman 22, no. 5–7 (August 1932): 274–290.

Kasdorf, Hans. “Luther’s Bible: A Dynamic Equivalence Translation and Germanizing

Force.” Missiology: An International Review 6, no. 2 (April 1978): 213–234.

Kelber, Werner H. “Orality and Literacy in Early Christianity.” Biblical Theology

Bulletin 44, no. 3 (August 2014): 144–155.

Kiermayr, Reinhold. “How Much Money Was Actually in the Indulgence Chest.” The
Sixteenth Century Journal 17, no. 3 (1986): 303–318.

Koelpin, Arnold J. “Preparing a New Bible Translation in Luther’s Day.” Logia: A

Journal of Lutheran Theology 10, no. 1 (2001): 5–12.

Krause, Mark S. “Martin Luther’s Theory of Bible Translation.” Stone-Campbell

Journal 2, no. 1 (1999): 57–73.

Saenger, Paul. “Colard Mansion and the Evolution of the Printed Book.” The Library
Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy 45, no. 4 (1975): 405–418.

Schaefer, Trevor. “Luther Bible.” ANZTLA, no. 17 (July 2016): 78–84.

Statham, Nigel. “Nida and ’Functional Equivalence’ : The Evolution of a Concept,

Some Problems, and Some Possible Ways Forward.” Bible Translator 56, no. 1
(January 2005): 29–43.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “Bible Translations among Luther’s Heirs.” Logia 10, no. 1
(2001): 13–20.

Stolt, Birgit. “Luther’s Translation of the Bible.” Lutheran Quarterly 28, no. 4 (2014):
373–400.

Strand, Kenneth Albert. “Current Issues and Trends in Luther Studies.” Andrews
University Seminary Studies 22, no. 1 (1984): 127–156.

Walden, Wayne. “Luther: The One Who Shaped the Canon.” Restoration Quarterly 49,
no. 1 (2007): 1–10.

Walsham, Alexandra. “Unclasping the Book: Post-Reformation English Catholicism

and the Vernacular Bible.” The Journal of British Studies 42, no. 02 (April
2003): 141–166.
 33

Watt, M. L. “More on Luther’s Bible Translation Principles.” Notes on Translation 11,

no. 3 (1997): 25–37.

Wendland, E. R. “Martin Luther, the Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence

Bible Translation.” Edited by E. R. Wendland. Notes on Translation 9, no. 2
(1995): 47–60.

Witherington, Ben III. “Sola Scriptura and the Reformation: But Which Scripture,
and What Translation?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60, no.
4 (December 2017): 817–828.

Zecher, Henry. “The Bible Translation That Rocked the World.” Christian History
1992 (January 1, 1992): 35-37.

Electronic Documents

Luther, Martin. An Open Letter on Translating, trans. by Gary Mann (1530), in the
Internet Christian Library, accessed November 11, 2018,
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-
translate.txt.

Reu, Michael. Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with a

Collection of Sources. Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934. Accessed
December 5, 2018.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015079297951;view=1up;seq
=4.

Witherington III, Ben. “The Most Dangerous Thing Luther Did.” Christianity Today,
November 17, 2017. Accessed November 13, 2018.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2017/october/most-
dangerous-thing-luther-did.html.