Luther Bible — Germany's deception: Fuerbringer's report

      One of my more popular blog posts has been about revisions made to Luther's German translation of the Bible.  That post reported the article in 1890 in Lehre und Wehre, and the 1914 scholarly research of Prof. Eduard Pardieck on the Hebrew words in Genesis 4:1.  Below is a report from the time between these two, from Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer's 1902 report in Der Lutheraner on the same subject matter.  It gives a good snapshot view of what was happening then in the world, especially among German speaking people. —  Fuerbringer's report adds more details of the deception going on in Germany, of not only changes to Luther's wording, but also changes to the commonly used chapter headings.
      I recall that in researching online copies of Luther's German Bible, it was difficult to find an authentic version because the "revised text" versions did not identify themselves as such.  I had to go to Genesis 4:1 (German: 1 Moses 4, 1) to know for sure because the title page did not give an indication whether it was authentic or "revised".  And Fuerbringer gave his readers a full report so that they could make an informed decision on which Bible translation to use.
      The confusion today of the many English Bible translations is not a new problem, the Germans were faced with it over 100 years ago. Unfortunately for us English speakers, we have no "Luther Bible"… (sigh).  But what amazes me is that it seems that no American Lutherans, including the Wisconsin Synod people's recent effort, want to use Luther's translation as a basis for their newer English translations.  Everyone thinks they know the Biblical languages and the intent of the Bible message better than… Martin Luther. (sigh again).
= = = = = = = = = = = = =

Text extracted from 1902 Der Lutheraner, vol. 58, p. 180-182. Translated by BackToLuther. Highlighting and hyperlinks added.

The right Luther Bible and the revised Luther Bible.

[by Prof. Ludwig Fürbringer]

The Lutheraner has already repeatedly pointed out under the "Church Chronicle" that the new-fashioned, falsified Luther Bible in Germany is distributed more and more, and at present is as good as generally spread. It has also repeatedly discussed and recommended the writings published by the Saxon Free Church against the revised Bible. *) Recent observations and experiences, however, make it seem justified that we should discuss the matter in more detail and warn our readers to be careful when buying a Bible so that they do not receive a Bible edition modified in many places instead of the genuine German Luther Bible, as it has been used by German Christendom for centuries. For the so-called revised Bible, which is now printed almost exclusively in Germany by the major Bible societies and Bible institutes, is sent to America every year in thousands of copies. A well-known publishing house in New York also prints exclusively the revised text. The German bookshops in our country usually stock and sell the revised Bible. Even booksellers in our circles sell the revised Bible without informing the buyers of the difference between it and the old Luther Bible. So it is explainable that out of ignorance the revised Bible is given away in our circles, that students come to our institutions with the revised Bible. And all those who are now immigrants from Germany will as a rule bring along the revised Bible because, as we have been told several times, they do not know at all that there is another edition.

—————————

*) O. Willkomm, "Hold what you have!" A warning to the German Lutheran Christian people against the revised Bible. —  O. Willkomm, "Bible, Luther Bible, Revised Bible." Both texts are available from Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo.

—————————

What is the reason for the revised Bible, how can it be recognized, and why do we not want to know anything from it, but rather have to warn against it?

The revised Bible is a Bible edition that has been procured by a commission of German professors and pastors. The beginning was made in the sixties of the last century, [1860s] and after twenty-six years of work, it was completed about ten years ago. The Commission based its work on the old Luther text, but changed it in 4000 places, and therefore it is called the "changed" or "revised" or "reviewed" Luther Bible.

Except after the title page, the revised Bible is not easy for the uninformed to recognize. For either the title page does not say at all, or only very covertly, that one has to do with a Bible changed in so many places. There are four different editions of the revised Bible before us. The first, printed in Stuttgart in 1893, has the following title: "Die Bibel oder die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach der deutschen-Übersetzung v. Martin Luthers. Reviewed on behalf of the German Evangelical Church Conference" Who would suspect that behind the harmless "Reviewed" there are thousands of changes? And wouldn't it be considered a gross forgery all over the world if the works of a secular writer, Shakespeare's or Schiller's say, were altered in 4000 places and then simply placed on the title page: "Reviewed Edition"? If one wanted to present Luther's magnificent Bible translation, which is like no other book the treasure and property of German Christendom, in a changed form, then one had to say this clearly and honestly and not let the changed Bible turn out to be Luther's translation without further ado. — The second edition before us, printed in Berlin in 1899, has the same title as the first one, only that it then says briefly, but again unclearly: "Revised Edition" — The third edition, also printed in Stuttgart, but printed by another publisher, a magnificent picture Bible, has the following title: "The Bible, that is all the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments according to Doctor Martin Luther's translation." There is nothing further, and only from the preface one learns that "the complete Lutheran translation is given in the revised text of the Eisenach Conference for Germany". — The fourth edition, finally printed in New York in 1902, says nothing at all on the title page and has no preface whatsoever. After the title: "The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, after the German translation by Martin Luther", every buyer must expect to receive the genuine, unadulterated Luther text, and soon finds himself deceived. *)

—————————

*) Many of our readers probably own the Bible published in Leipzig and Dresden by B. G. Teubner, [Google Books] with the words "Revised Edition" on its title page. Let them be reassured that this Teubner edition with the new revised Bible, which we are talking about here, has nothing to do at all. The Teubner edition is rather a very correct and good edition, according to which our St. Louis Bibles were also produced. The term "Revised Edition" does not refer to a change, but to a restoration of the old, original Luther text.

(continued in "Read more »" section below)

“Dr. Pieper—the Teacher.” Th. Graebner, Luth. Witness 1931

      This continues from a previous blog series of testimonies on Franz Pieper after his passing in June 1931, published in The Lutheran Witness. I present another one now by the chief editor himself, Prof. Theodore Graebner.  He also wrote a 61-page "biographical sketch" in book form.  It is somewhat superficial compared to Ludwig Fuerbringer's two essays (see here and here). This post is bittersweet for me because of all the heartache that came by Graebner's later turnaround in the doctrines of the "Missourians".  But evidence for his later turnaround was not clearly visible in this testimony for Pieper.  And so, it is a worthy addition to my blog:

The Lutheran Witness, vol. L (50), August 4, 1931, vol. L (50), no. 16, p. 262:

Dr. Pieper — the Teacher.

Those penetrating black eyes of Dr. Walther had recognized in the young student Francis Pieper the gift of clear thinking and clear speech. This gift characterized his co­worker through all the years of his teaching at the Seminary. He possessed a ringing voice, a beautiful enunciation. But this was not all. It was the soul which spoke from his fea­tures and eyes that made his lectures so impressive; the earnestness of conviction, the liveliness of imagination, the eagerness to be understood, that shone forth from voice and mien; these characteristics made him after the death of Dr. Walther the most influential teacher by word and mouth that our Church has had.

He spoke rapidly, rarely became involved in his sentence structure, and there were few lectures in which he did not rise to eloquence in the presentation of his thoughts. 

His knowledge of the Scripture was astonishing, quota­tions from the original Hebrew and Greek being interlarded with great frequency and utmost ease. Luther was ever at the command of his tongue, and the pages of his Christliche Dogmatik will convey an idea of the scholastic learning and acquaintance with the old dogmaticians which made his lec­tures, as it were, a connecting link between the present age and that of the fathers and founders of Lutheranism. But he was equally versed in the principal writings of the Reformed theologians. He would quote from memory pages of Hodge and Shedd. His English, let it be said, was fluent, grammatically correct, and idiomatic.

All in all, his lectures even to the last remained a treat, as his most recent graduates will testify. He was able to accommodate his speech to the gradual decline in the knowl­edge of German among his students.

Sometimes hearty bursts of laughter would rise from his classroom. Dr. Pieper’s humor played about the most solemn subjects, though ever reverently. The knowing smile and the humorous twinkle of his eye would accompany such remarks made in lighter vein, and the effect, so artlessly achieved, was never wanting.

If one learned nothing else from the lectures of Dr. Pie­per, it was at least the dogmatic method, in which he was supreme. His every assertion was buttressed with Scripture truth, and no stone was left unturned to present such evidence in a way that would overcome doubt and skepticism. After submitting the proof from Holy Writ, he was accustomed to enter into the logical argument, first setting forth the contra­diction of those who deny the truth under discussion and then demonstrating that even from the standpoint of reasoning the opponent’s position was an untenable one. Who can tell to how great an extent the doctrinal firmness of our preaching, the unyielding insistence on Scriptural practise, that charac­terizes our work, is due to the example given to so large a number of our ministers in the classroom of Dr. Pieper?

He created nothing new. He introduced no methods or principles that had not the approval of Lutheran custom. But he carried on marvelously the tradition of our Church under the changing sky of modern belief. The principles he enunciated, while derived from his predecessors, have become, largely through his emphasis, part of our synodical life and are giving tone to our work and to that of the churches affili­ated with us in other lands.

He was a great teacher, a sound theologian, a true Lu­theran, a sincere Christian. G.[Theodore Graebner]

= = = = = = = = =  End of essay  = = = = = = = = =

A statement that stood out for me was that "He created nothing new".  In my last series, Walther's essay on "Missourian!", Part 4, a quote from Luther included this: "We invent nothing new".  Hmmm... my term for Pieper fits:

“Franz Pieper, the 20th Century Luther.”

Nothing new.

Missourian! 6: Avid German response to America… and a mediator; Germany today?

      This continues from Part 5 and concludes the series "Missourian!" (Table of Contents in Part 1) — Walther's stirring 1872 series on the label "Missourian" sparked an enthusiastic response from Germany.  It was written by a contributor to one of the church newspapers that was less inclined to go along with the rationalism and unionism in that country.  He was "Licentiate" K. Stroebel, carrying a title that followed the ecclesiastical system in Germany at that time.  Stroebel has been quoted before on this blog regarding science and religion, but his short essay here calls out to his German countrymen to open their eyes to the pure Lutheranism growing in the New World.  But an editor of the journal, H.F.A. Guericke, could not leave Stroebel's fervent remarks for the "Missourians" without a mediating note.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Stroebel’s original review in Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche vol. 34 (1873), p. 688-690 here (DigiZeitschriften.de) and here (Google Books). Translation by BTL.

Miscellaneous.

[by Licentiate K. Stroebel]

I. “Galileans!” “Nazarene!” “Athanasians!” “Lutherans!” “Missourians!” What a content-rich, fruitful topic is tied to these names of abuse and honour! Recently Prof. Walther of St. Louis treated it in detail in a foreword to Der Lutheraner (No. 1. and 2., 1. and 15. October 1 and 15, 1872), and we may draw attention to the statements in question, because in any case they are respectable. If the “Missourians” have recently been turned into an odious keyword and cover, the last reason for this is by no means to be found in any particular peculiarity, but rather in something worthy of praise. … [[Stroebel quotes Walther’s entire final footnote on p. 10, column 3, see Part 5]] … The Missourians at least know with reliable precision what the fight against atheism, papism and unionism are about and what they are not about. This is already attested by the other contents of those two Foreword numbers: we mean especially the report about "the free, i.e. unbelieving, and God-denying congregation in Milwaukee”, — then the “Submission on Father Brockhagen's Schutt und Gerölle”, etc. — But above all this is attested by the careful and essentially ironic presentation about “the United-Evangelical Synod of the West” [see United Church of Christ article here] and the pastor belonging to it. Riedel, a gifted, serious and sincere man, who in his recent synodical sermon (characteristically titled: “Silent Voices of Ezekiel's Bone Field, A Sermon on Ezek. 37:1-14” Louisville, Ky. 1872), rolls out an unflattering picture of the real, American as well as European, state of the Union: in both parts of the world, the union does not appear as a Christian community ruled by the Holy Spirit and living faith, but as a vast field full of dead bones over which no breath of God blows. The accusers of the Missouri Synod could well learn a few things from this synodical sermon.  Most painfully Pastor Riedel misses in the doctrine and life of the entire Union that which the Missourian church possesses and on which it conclusively places the decisive accent. — But would she, out of blind devotion to her galvanized hobbyhorses, be disintegrated?… yet with true confessing fellow believers? — Well, think about it and say what you will; but — where there has been so far a breach between the Missourians and other Lutherans, it has acted in a far higher degree than the “Missourian” quirks.1)    Stroebel.

———————

footnote by
editor Guericke

1) Although the undersigned, as far as he is aware, essentially agrees with the writer of the above in full recognition of the Lutheran Missourians, he cannot identify the Missouri Synod and pure Lutheranism (as little as on the other side for instance also the latter and the Leipzig Allgemeine ev.-lutherische Kirchenzeitung) [ref. C.E. Luthardt]. Anyone who, with regard to the actual driving forces in the church struggles of the present time and their travail, has been struck with blindness in order to reconcile with the Missourians (in Der Lutheraner of 15 Dec. 15, 1872, page 45 [Archive here, German text; Walther against Germans mediating with Pope & Jesuits]) that the "Berliner Neue Evangel. Kirchenzeitung" judgment of “quite right”, i.e. absolute  condemnation, of the actual core of v. Gerlach's writing Kaiser und Papst (Emperor and Pope), which in this point (as little as for instance the Leipziger Kirchenzeitung, when it 1873 No. 2 pp. 19 by citing Gury's moral (as countless other authors would then not have to be banished from the German borders with 100fold rights!] justified the expulsion of the Jesuits, etc.) hardly addresses the fame of the simple clear Lutheran eye. Whether a fighter “dulled by the questions of time” can be found on this or that side should not be as easy to decide as one might think.. G. [Guericke, H. E. F. (editor)]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Although editor Prof. Guericke was considered a conservative Lutheran in Germany, yet a tone of apathy shows through his footnote to Stroebel's forthright judgment of true Lutheranism.  Guericke did not like Walther's strong stand against a spirit in Germany that would mediate with the Pope and the Jesuits, sworn enemies of the Gospel.

Germany today; America?
      So how are things today in Germany?  I asked a private correspondent in Germany (a layman) a question about that some time ago.  I had read a writing of Prof. Martin Scharlemann (~1970s?) in which he stated that he thought that German book publishers were pushing their writers of theology to not write things "distinctively Lutheran".  My German correspondent replied to this (giving me permission to quote him):

“In your e-mail you ask whether it was true of most German book publishers today to restrict the author to not say anything ‘distinctively Lutheran’. I don't know, ...

I would rather think that 

we don't have any distinct Lutheran authors anymore”.

I would add to his point about Germany another point about America, in the form of a question:

Are there any distinctly Missourian authors in America anymore?

As Stroebel would say "Well, think about it and say what you will…", it is amazing to me that Stroebel was even allowed to say what he did about Walther and the "Missourians", from… Germany.

Missourian! 5: Lutheran Church has ever and always…; "What, are you also Lutheran?"

      This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents here), a series presenting Walther's Foreword to the 1872 Der Lutheraner on the term “Missourian”. —  Walther now reveals how many ways the "Missourians" were reviled.  It is a long list.  But what strikes one now is how the field of attackers has grown.  More on that later.  But let us first hear how a true Lutheran can take comfort in knowing that, although he will be assailed by the world, his faith is firmly "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets". (Eph. 2:20)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Taken from Der Lutherner v. 29 (1872), p. 1-2, 9-10. Translation by BackToLuther using DeepL, Google Translate, Microsoft, Yandex. Underlining follows Walther’s emphasis. All highlighting, text in square brackets [ ] are mine.

Foreword (“Vorwort”)

Twenty-ninth year of Der Lutheraner.
[by C.F.W. Walther, part 5 of 5]

Page 10, Column 2

The apostolic and Lutheran Church has ever and always stated that the writings of the prophets and apostles were inspired word for word by the Holy Spirit; — if we now take them seriously and attack the newer theologians, who deny the literal divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, then we are reproached as arrogant and ignorant despisers of science.

The apostolic and Lutheran Church has ever and always rejected every ecclesial and fraternal fellowship with false believers; — let us now take this seriously and deny church, altar and pulpit fellowship with the false believers, and we shall be scolded as condemnable addicted half Papists.

Ever and always the apostolic and Lutheran Church has taught that Christ's true Church, namely the Church of Promise, without which there is no salvation, is the invisible totality of all truly believing in Christ, spread throughout the world; — if we take it seriously, we are accused of being united enthusiasts. [Prof. Th. Graebner expressly attacked this very doctrine of Walther.]

Ever and always the apostolic and Lutheran Church has given up not one iota of its Confession; — let us now take this seriously and recognize no one for a true Lutheran and Lutheran preacher who rejects this or that of the doctrinal content of the Lutheran symbols, then we are scolded as symbolists, yes, symbol worshipers.

Ever and always the apostolic and Lutheran Church has rejected the hope that the Church will ever attain dominion over the world and cease to be a kingdom of the cross and of persecution, i.e. Chilialism; yes, the Lutheran Church, when Chilialism wanted to invade the Church, was appalled at all chiliastic preachers as dangerous enthusiasts and seducers of its ministry; — if we now take it seriously, they call us carnal zealots who want to exclude the whole old orthodox Church from the Church, condemn it and cast it under spell.

Ever and always the apostolic and Lutheran Church has rejected all sacerdotalism [Pfaffentum; clericalism] and the teaching that the Christian preaching ministry is a privileged priesthood propagating itself alongside Christians through ordination or priestly ordination, which alone can administer the means of grace validly and powerfully; rather it taught that all truly believing Christians are the priests of the New Testament and that preachers are only their attendants, housekeepers, servants, deputies, who in their place administer the rights of the spiritual priesthood according to God's own order and establishment in the public office; — if we now take this seriously, we are reproached as despisers of the preaching ministry.

Ever and always the apostolic and Lutheran Church has taught that a preacher has no right to impose a law on his congregation or to order or command anything; that the congregation and every Christian rather be free from all human commandments and that nothing can be required of him but faith and love; — let us now take this seriously and reject all priestly rule, then we are scolded as ecclesiastical democrats who wanted to establish a mob rule in the Church. [This is precisely the CTS-FW charge against Walther, including Dr. Lawrence Rast]

The apostolic and Lutheran Church has ever and always taught that the free will of man is nothing in spiritual matters, that therefore man is to blame for his unconversion and damnation through his deliberate reluctance, but that conversion and his election to salvation is a pure gift of grace from God, for which man cannot contribute the slightest thing, that salvation, therefore, is completely taken out of man's hands and lies only in God's hand and free mercy; — let us be [Page 10, Column 3] be serious with this, so we are scolded as Calvinist predestinarians, who taught an unconditional predestination to damnation and salvation, like the Calvinists.

Ever and always the apostolic and Lutheran Church has declared the article of justification by faith in Christ by grace for Christ's sake alone to be the chief article of the whole Christian religion, and has carried it on and on as such before all other articles; — if we now take it seriously, and carry this article on before all, we are accused of despisers of good works and zeal in sanctification. *) [Prof. David P. Scaer stated that “All Theology is Christology” which essentially overturns the Lutheran Confessions statement that the Doctrine of Justification is “the chief topic of Christian doctrine”]

—————————

*) It is certainly undeniable that our Missouri Synod has found such a great foothold among our dear German Lutheran people and is still finding more, because it is noteworthy that in the Missouri Synod it is not a new-fashioned doctrine, but the doctrine which is found in the good old writings that edify people.  And it is because the people in the Missouri Synod are so abundantly preached the Gospel of justification by grace alone through faith in Christ, whereby people really get bread for their spiritual hunger and certainty of salvation. So may our opponents, after all, carry themselves with the sweet hope that the Lutheranism of the Missouri Synod has no future in America, the Missourians have come up with something inexplicable, they will not do it much longer, the Lutheranism of the liberal General Synod will finally take over everything in America: it is a foolish hope; if the Missouri Synod remains with the old, good, pure doctrine, and if the sweet doctrine of justification remains in it above all, and continues to promote it, the Lord will continue to keep it and grow it further; for there are always hungry souls who do not want to be fed with the straw and sawdust of human doctrines, but with the bread which has come from heaven.

—————————

Ever and always the apostolic and Lutheran Church has taught that the true justifying and sanctifying faith works only in the terrors of true repentance in the heart of the sinner, and that through it man is born again in the Holy Spirit; — let us now take it seriously and preach with zeal repentance, conversion, and rebirth, and we shall be reproached as Pietists, yes, Methodists. [By no less than LC-MS historian Prof. C.S. Meyer, Walther Speaks to the Church, pgs 11,]

If we bring quotations from old, recognized Lutheran teachers to prove that our teaching is the old Lutheran one, we are accused as wretched manservants who worshiped Luther and made the old dogmas their Bible; — but if we do not agree with them in one point, we are accused of this as an indelible shame and disgrace for us. [“Luther worship” was essentially the charge of CTS-FW Prof. Cameron MacKenzie who said (CTQ 2011, “C. F. W. Walther's Use of Luther”,  p. 264: “Walther did not conceive that Luther ever actually did get it (Christian doctrine) wrong”.]

But if we [as Missourians] wanted to quit, would we all want to name the things in which we agree with the apostolic and Lutheran churches and in which we are now serious again, but for which we are scolded as a Missourian new sect? For the sake of brevity, what has been said is enough for this time.

What are we supposed to do now? — We want to continue in God's name on the path we have walked; where we are found guilty of believing, teaching or living as “un-Missourian”, we want to humbly admit it and improve ourselves; 

but the cry: “That's Missourian!” should make us so little frightened and moved to depart from our good old Christian-Lutheran doctrine and practice, as once the Lutherans were frightened and moved to abandon their doctrine when once an Augsburg bishop, after reading Rom. 3:28, attacked the New Testament indignantly and exclaimed: “What? are you also Lutheran?” W. [C.F.W. Walther] 

= = = = = = = = = = = =  end of essay  = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Let's summarize the points of attack that Walther's Missourians faced. The format is (a) their teaching: (b) the false charges against them:

1. On Inspiration of Scripture: "as arrogant and ignorant despisers of science".
2. On doctrine of church fellowship, especially with so-called "Evangelicals": "as condemnable addicted half Papists".
3. On the doctrine of the Church: as "enthusiasts". 
4. On Confessionalism: as "symbolists, yes, symbol worshipers."
5. On Chilialism or millenialism: as "carnal zealots".
6. On sacerdotalism and that the ministry is a privileged priesthood: "as despisers of the preaching ministry".
7. On rejection of priestly rule of congregation: "as ecclesiastical democrats who wanted to establish a mob rule in the Church".
8. On doctrine against the free will of man in spiritual matters: "as Calvinist predestinarians".
9. On the article of justification as the chief article:  as "despisers of good works and zeal in sanctification".
10. On the preaching of repentance, conversion, and rebirth: as "Pietists".
11. On quoting old, recognized Lutheran teachers to prove that our teaching is the old Lutheran one: as "wretched manservants who worshiped Luther".

I have inserted in the essay above examples of those in today's LC-MS who have joined with the scoffers of Walther's time.  Anyone who today stands with the Old Missourians will face the same hot breath of not only the world, but also the LC-MS teachers on many of the points above. — In the next Part 6, we hear rare praise of Walther's "Missourians" from a German.