Dr. Emser, one of the most learned opponents of the Reformation, singled out in Luther’sNew Testament several hundred linguistic blunders and heretical falsifications.^453 Many of them
were silently corrected in later editions. He published, by order of Duke George of Saxony, a new
translation (1527) for the purpose of correcting the errors of "Luther and other heretics."^454
The charge that Luther adapted the translation to his theological opinions has become
traditional in the Roman Church, and is repeated again and again by her controversialists and
historians.^455
The same objection has been raised against the Authorized English Version.^456
In both cases, the charge has some foundation, but no more than the counter-charge which
may be brought against Roman Catholic Versions.
The most important example of dogmatic influence in Luther’s version is the famous
interpolation of the word alone in Rom. 3:28 (allein durch den Glauben), by which he intended to
emphasize his solifidian doctrine of justification, on the plea that the German idiom required the
insertion for the sake of clearness.^457 But he thereby brought Paul into direct verbal conflict with
James, who says (James 2:24), "by works a man is justified, and not only by faith" ("nicht durch
den Glauben allein"). It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to harmonize the two
apostles in this article, and characterized the Epistle of James as an "epistle of straw," because it
had no evangelical character ("keine evangelische Art").
(^453) Annotationes des hochgel. und christl. doctors Hieronymi Emsers über Luthers neuw Testament, 1523. I have before me an edition
of Freiburg-i.-B., 1535 (140 pages). Emser charges Luther with a thousand grammatical and fourteen hundred heretical errors. He suspects
(p. 14) that he had before him "ein sonderlich Wickleffisch oder Hussisch Exemplar." He does not say whether he means a copy of the
Latin Vulgate or the older German version. He finds (p. 17) four errors in Luther’s version of the Lord’s Prayer: 1, that he turned Vater
unser into Unser Vater, against the German custom for a thousand years (but in his Shorter Catechism he retained the old form, and the
Lutherans adhere to it to this day); 2, that he omitted der du bist; 3, that he changed the panis supersubstantialis (überselbständig Brot!)
into panis quotidianus (täglich Brot); 4, that he added the doxology, which is not in the Vulgate. In our days, one of the chief objections
against the English Revision is the omission of the doxology.
(^454) Das gantz New Testament: So durch den Hochgelerten L. Hieronymum Emser seligen verteutscht, unter des Durchlauchten
Hochgebornen Fürsten und Herren Georgen Hertzogen zu Sachsen, etc., ausgegangen ist. Leipzig, 1528. The first edition appeared before
Emser’s death, which occurred Nov. 8, 1527. I find in the Union Seminary four octavo copies of his N. T., dated Coln, 1528 (355 pp.),
Leipzig, 1529 (416 pp.), Freiburg-i.-B. 1535 (406 pp.), Cöln, 1568 (879 pp.), and a copy of a fol. ed., Cologne, 1529 (227 pp.), all with
illustrations and marginal notes against Luther. On the concluding page, it is stated that 607 errors of Luther’s are noted and corrected.
The Cologne ed. of 1529 indicates, on the titlepage, that Luther arbitrarily changed the text according to the Hussite copy ("wie Martinus
Luther dem rechten Text, dem huschischen Exemplar nach, seins gefallens ab und zugethan und verendert hab"). Most editions contain
a Preface of Duke George of Saxony, in which he charges Luther with rebellion against all ecclesiastical and secular authority, and
identifies him with the beast of the Apocalypse, Rev. 13 ("dass sein Mund wol genannt werden mag der Mund der Bestie von welcher
Johannes schreibet in seiner Offenbarung am dreizehnten").
(^455) Dr. Döllinger, in his Reformation, vol. III. 139 sqq., 156 sqq., goes into an elaborate proof. In his Luther, eine Skizze (Freiburg-i.
-B., 1851), p. 26, he calls Luther’s version "ein Meisterstück in sprachlicher Hinsicht, aber seinem Lehrbegriffe gemäss eingerichtet, und
daher in vielen Stellen absichtlich unrichtig und sinnentstellend." So also Cardinal Hergenröther (Lehrbuch der allg. Kirchengesch., vol.
III. 40, third ed. of 1886): "Die ganze Uebersetzung war ganz nach Luthers System zugerichtet, auf Verbreitung seiner Rechtfertigungslehre
berechnet, oft durch willkührliche Entstellungen und Einschaltungen seinen Lehren angepasst."
(^456) By older and more recent Romanists, as Ward, Errata of the Protestant Bible, Dublin, 1810. Trench considers the main objections
in his book on the Authorized Version and Revision, pp. 165 sqq. (in the Harper ed. of 1873). The chief passages objected to by Romanists
are Heb. 13:4 (where the E. V. translates "Marriage is honorable in all" for "Let marriage be honorable among all"); 1 Cor. 11:27 ("and"
for "or"); Gal. 5:6 ("faith which worketh by love;" which is correct according to the prevailing sense of ἐνεργει̑σθαι, and corresponds to
the Vulgate operatur, against the Roman view of the passive sense, "wrought by love," in conformity with the doctrine of fides formata),
and the rendering of εἰδωλον by image, instead of idol. The E. V. has also been charged with a Calvinistic bias from its connection with
Beza’s Greek text and Latin notes.
(^457) But he omitted allein in Gal. 2:16, where it might be just as well justified, and where the pre-Lutheran Bible reads "nur durch den
Glauben." However correct in substance and as an inference, the insertion has no business in the text as a translation. See Meyer on Rom.
3:28, 5th ed., and Weiss, 6th ed. (1881), also my annotations to Lange on Romans (p. 136).