SECTION VII.

 
 

Luther did not admit 1 John v. 7. into his German translation of the Bible.

Neither the truth of the doctrine, which this controverted passage contains, nor the clamorous of the catholics against those, who rejected the passage, could induce Luther to insert a translation of it in his German Bible. He must therefore have believed, that the Complutensian editors did not derive it from ancient Greek manuscripts; and that the Codex Britannicus, from which it came into the third edition of Erasmus, was a manuscript of no authority. This suspicion has been fully confirmed by later inquiries: and at present it is well known, that the Codex Britannicus, which is not other than the Codex Montfortianus, is a very modern manuscript. Luther's critical learning was not equal to that of Erasmus: but in strength of understanding no man ever surpassed him, and in resolution and integrity he was superior to all the learned of his age. In the present instance at least he ventured further, than any other translator, who lived at that time in the west of Europe, would have done: and not only did not translate it in his first edition of the German Bible, but refused to admit it, as long as he lived, in any of the subsequent editions {1}.

The last edition, which was printed, while Luther was living, and indeed was not quite finished till after his death, was that of 1546. In the preface to this edition, which comes immediately after the title page, he delivers the following request.

"Dr. Martin Luther. I request my friends, and my foes, my masters, printers, and readers, to let this New Testamen continue mine. If they find faults in it, let them make another. I know well what I make, I see also well, what others make. But this Testament shall remain Luther's German Testament. Now a days there is neither measure nor end of mending and bettering. Let every man therefore take heed of false copies, for I know how unfaithfully and untruly others have reprinted what I have printed."

Now one should suppose, that every author has a right to expect, that a request, like this, would be granted: and that, since he never admitted 1 John v. 7. into any edition of his German translation, no future editor would presume to insert it, ans still retain the name of "Luther's translation" on the title. But Luther had not been dead thrity years, when the passage was interpolated in his German translation.

The first edition {2}, in which this act of injustice took place, and in which Luther's text at least was corrupted, is that, which was printed at Francfort in 1574. But in the edition of 1583, printed in the same place, and also in several still later Francfort editions, the passage was again omitted. The oldest Wittenberg edition, which received it, was that of 1596: and in the Wittenberg edition of 1599 it is likewise contained, but is printed in Roman characters. In 1596 it was inserted also in the Low German Bible, printed in that year at Hamburg. In the seventeeth century, if we except the Wittenberg edition of 1607, which remained true to Luther's text, the insertion was general: and of the editions, which have been printed in the present century, I know of none, which does not contain it. Later editors however are much more excusable, than the first corrupters of Luther's text. For not every one knows at present, that the passage was never admitted into any of Luther's own editions: and they, who do know it, would not be permitted perhaps in every university, to print Luther's translation, which is the established version of our country, without the passage.

Knittel {3} has endeavoured to show, that Luther altered his opinion, and in the latter part of his life allowed, that the passage was genuine: whence Knittel infers, that Luther must have seen the passage in a Greek manuscript. But I cannot admit the premises, and still less the conclusion {4}. It is true, that Luther rejected in positive terms 1 John v. 7. in a public lecture delivered in 1522, because (to use his own words)

"it was not contained in the Greek Bibles:"

but that in a lecture delivered many years afterwards, at least after the year 1532, he did not repeat this assertion, on the contrary, that he read 1 John v. 7. from the Greek Testament, and even explained it. But this argument proves nothing. For the assertion, which Luther had made in 1522, that the passage was not contained in the Greek Bibles, though true at that time, was not true ten years afterwards, and consequently Luther could not repeat it after the year 1532. Namely, the editions of the Greek Testament published before 1522 did not contain the passage: but in almost all the editions published after that year, it was inserted. As to the circumstance, that Luther in his latter lecture, explained 1 John v. 7. after he had read it from the Greek Testament, without entering into any critical inquiry in respect to its authenticity, it shows nothing more, than that Luther distinguished exegetical from critical lectures, and that in explaining the Greek Testament, he interpreted what he and his hearers had before them. That he then received it as genuine, is an inference, which we are not warranted to make: and indeed it would be inconsistent with his unremitting resolution to reject it from his German translation, and with his last request, in the preface to that very edition, during the printing of which, he died.

Before I conclude this section, I must make the following remarks.

1. Whether it be granted, that 1 john v. 7. is spurious, or whether it be not, it is no part of Luther's version, and they, who have inserted it have been guilty of an act of injustice to the author.

2. It is not only unjust, but unjudicious, to insert 1 John v. 7. in Luther's catechism. For children are thus accustomedf to consider this passage as the chief proof of the doctrine of the Trinity: the consequence of which is, that, when they are grown up, and have been informed, that the passage is spurious, they naturally conclude, that the doctrine itself is ungrounded.

3. It is uncandid in the extreme, when one Protestant condemns another for rejecting 1 John v. 7. since it was rejected by the author of our Reformation. Nor can it be said, that Luther, were he now alive, would be of a different opinion, since every inquiry, which has been instituted since the age of Luther, has brought to light fresh evidence, not in favour of the passage, but against it.
 
 

Footnotes to Sect. VII.

{1} --- See the Memoirs of a Library in Halle, Vol. III. p. 16. N. 202.

{2} --- See the "Catalogue of Bibles in the possession of the Dowager Duchess of Brunswick."

{3} --- New Criticisms on 1 John v. 7. p. 131 --- 138.

{4} --- See the Neue Orient. Bibl. Vol. II. p. 132 --- 137. where I have reviewed Knittels' work.