StL12c: Latin translation, scholarship; popular edition, not a critical edition

      This continues from Part 12b (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series on the St. Louis Edition (StL) of Luther's complete writings in English. — The scholarship of this edition in comparison with the vaunted Weimar Edition is probably the main reason that modern scholars avoid the St. Louis Edition.  But Stoeckhardt sets the record straight. 

(From Der Lutheraner, vol. 66 p. 197-199 (No. 13, Jun. 28, 1910) [EN]:

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

Luther's Works.

 [essay by Prof. George Stoeckhardt; continued from Part 12b]

And so, with God's help, the work decided upon and begun in the fall of 1879 has been happily completed. This new edition of Luther's works is called the St. Louis Edition. From the old Walch edition, essentially nothing else has remained than the arrangement and order of Luther's writings. The Latin writings of Luther are available in this edition of ours in a new, verbatim, almost literal translation and are thus made accessible even to non-theologians. The German writings have a text cleansed as far as possible of extraneous ingredients, punctuation that disturbs meaning, and other defects and inaccuracies. Editorial errors are unavoidable in such a large work of 24 or 23 volumes. 

However, the undersigned, who has also looked a little into the old and the new editions of Luther's works, confidently dares to claim that there are fewer errors in our edition than, for example, in the Erlangen edition, and that in this respect it does not lag behind the Weimar edition. The extensive historical introductions, which our edition offers, are a new, independent work of Prof. Hoppe, which not only promotes the understanding of Luther's writings, but also provides new, interesting insights into the history of the Reformation. German Luther researchers have already taken note of this edition of ours from St. Louis and have mostly acknowledged it praiseworthily, remarking, for example, that it completely corresponds to its purpose as a popular edition. Certainly, our edition is a popular edition, intended not only for theologians, but also for the German Christian people, and not a so-called critical edition. We did not have all the old and oldest prints at our disposal, which, for example, the Weimar edition used. But what does “critical” mean in this field? 

The proper criticism here does not consist primarily in perpetuating the oldest prints archaeologically with all their errors [Weimar??], but above all in eliminating as far as possible everything that Luther did not write and mean in reality. And for this purpose, in most cases, it is sufficient to pay close attention to the meaning of the surviving text and, above all, to the context. As for this critical side of our edition, we read in the well-known “Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte für Studierende von Joh. Heinr. Kurtz, der Theologie Doktor und emeritiertem Professor". Eleventh edition. Second volume. First Part, Leipzig 1890, p. 39 (§ 131, 2: Luther’s Table Talk) — the following verdict:  

“The until then best complete edition by Förstemann and Bindseil, Lpz. 44 ff. is far surpassed in critical examination and careful utilization of all sources opened up until then by the editing of Prof. Hoppe for the 22nd vol. of Walch's Luther edition (St. Louis 87. 4°), renewed on behalf of the Missouri Synod.” 

The other volumes of our Luther edition also have their share in this “critical review”. The fact that it is also well furnished externally, above all offers a clear, exact, easily legible print, has already been emphasized from various sides, as anyone who has already taken a look at it can see.

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 12d  - - - - - - - - - - - 

      Stoeckhardt does not specify what editions he had in mind when he spoke of "critical editions" that were "perpetuating the oldest prints archaeologically with all their errors."  Did he mean the Weimar Edition that he referred to earlier?  If so, then he has identified a weakness of the Weimar Edition, the edition which virtually all of today's scholars use, at the risk of losing their reputation, instead of the St. Louis Edition. — In the next Part 12d, more of the benefits for pastors and lay people.

StL12b: First 2 volumes easy, then need full time editor — Hoppe in 1884

      This continues from Part 12a (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series on the St. Louis Edition (StL) of Luther's complete writings in English. —  The Synod addresses the problem of the enormity of their project.

(From Der Lutheraner, vol. 66 p. 197-199 (No. 13, Jun. 28, 1910) [EN]:

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

Luther's Works.

 [essay by Prof. George Stoeckhardt; continued from Part 12a]

The publication of the first two volumes, 1880 and 1881, which contain the so-called “great Genesis of Luther”, that is, Luther's detailed explanation of the first book of Moses, did not take too much work and effort. It was essentially a matter of comparing the old good German translation, which appeared soon after Luther's death, with the original Latin text and cleaning it of many errors and inaccuracies. The revision of the three following volumes, the House Postils and the two Church Postils, in which above all the various readings of the oldest prints had to be weighed against each other, was also easier to manage. Mr. Ehr. Körner, who was employed in our print shop at the time, did the preliminary work, which the undersigned then reviewed. 

However, when the Reformation writings, the polemical and catechetical writings, and the other exegetical writings of Luther were approached, the necessity became apparent to find a suitable man for the editing who could devote all his time and energy to it. It seemed desirable, even necessary, to retranslate Luther's many Latin writings. The men who delivered the old translations on behalf of Walch moved very freely, often translated quite inaccurately, even incorrectly, and in many cases incorporated their own thoughts into Luther's thoughts. Also the text of the writings originally written in German needed careful examination, from line to line. The old typesetters of Luther's time were not accustomed to always stick strictly to the manuscript, and perusal of the typesetters' work by rarely the authors was not fashionable at that time either. 

Furthermore, Walch's historical introductions to the individual writings of Luther proved to be quite inadequate. Since Walch's day, Luther literature has been so enriched, the newer Luther editions, such as the Erlangen and Weimar editions, and in general the works of the newer Luther researchers have added so much new historical material that it would have been a great shortcoming of our new Luther edition if this material had not been utilized.  And so, in 1884, the board of directors of the Synodical Printing Office decided to hire a theologian whose exclusive task would be the revision of the Luther edition. After Candidate H. Bayer [Parts 3a, 3b] had edited the tenth volume, the catechetical writings, a man was appointed to this position whose life study had been Luther, namely Prof. A. F. Hoppe from New Orleans, and he has now taken care of the publication of all the volumes not yet mentioned, has sat behind his Luther day after day from morning till evening for just a quarter of a century with insignificant interruptions, and has undauntedly done the painstaking work of revision, in which one had to keep a close eye on every single word of the text.

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 12c  - - - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part 12c, we learn more of the scholarship that went into this edition.

StL12a: Stoeckhardt’s overview of completed StL; reviews v. 23 Index (Der Lutheraner 1910)

       This continues from Part 11b (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series on the St. Louis Edition (StL) of Luther's complete writings in English. — This begins a 6-part sub-series presenting Prof. George Stoeckhardt's final essay in 1910 which gave an overview of the entire project of the St. Louis Edition from beginning to end.  It filled in some details that I was not aware of until I read it after all other essays.

(From Der Lutheraner, vol. 66 p. 197-199 (No. 13, Jun. 28, 1910) [EN]:

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

Luther's Works.

 

The edition of Luther's works, for which our Synod is responsible, is now complete with the appearance of the index volume. [Vol. 23] It is therefore natural for the undersigned [Prof. George Stoeckhardt], who has been involved in the editing from the beginning, to remind our Lutheraner and Luther readers briefly of the course and nature of the now completed work. It was in the autumn of 1879 when blessed Pastor [Johann Friedrich] Bünger of the Immanuel congregation in St. Louis raised the question in the Pastoral Conference of the Western District of our Synod, which followed the Synodal Assembly, whether a new edition of the works of Luther after Dr. J. G. Walch would be in the interest of our synod, since the copies of the old Walch edition are becoming increasingly rare and the Erlangen edition, which lacks the German translations of Luther's Latin writings, does not replace it. After a short discussion, the conference decided, as it says in the Foreword of the first volume, “on behalf of the Ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States, subject to the approval of the same, to order a new, and indeed revised, edition of Luther's works according to Dr. Joh. G. Walch, and determined that Pastor G. Stöckhardt, with the assistance of Mr. E. W. Kähler, should undertake the editing.” The Ministry of the Synod and the Board of Directors of the Synodical Printing Office then agreed to these plans: The ministry of the Synod and the board of directors of the synodical printing office then agreed to these plans, as did the entire Synod later.

None of the members of that pastoral conference was quite aware of the huge amount of work and the considerable costs involved in the aforementioned decision. The whole thing was done in about half an hour. And even when the two persons just mentioned began to carry out the order of the ministry, and began to “revise” several times a week at 10 o'clock in the evening after the day's work was done, they themselves did not yet suspect that a new edition of all of Luther's writings could not be done so casually in the long run, but required a full manpower. 

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 12b  - - - - - - - - - - -

In the next Part 12b, we learn how the Synod took on their commitment to carry forward with their enormous project. 

StL11b: 2 sides of Talks: sifting done, "Our edition is the best"

      This concludes from Part 11b (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series on the St. Louis Edition (StL) of Luther's complete writings in English. — Both sides of the usefulness of the "Table Talks" are given — their lesser value in certain ways, and their great benefit. 

(From Der Lutheraner, vol. 43 p. 125-126 (No. 16, Aug. 15, 1887) [EN]: [underlining follows original emphasis]

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

[Book review; concluded from Part 11a]

Colloquia or Table Talks.

The “Table Talks” are therefore often cited by the papists to denigrate Luther's person and life, of course without reason. Walch writes: 

“It is considered reasonable that nothing can be proven from the 'Table Talks' that could be detrimental to Luther. For although they may have come from him, as I have noted before, they are and remain table talks: talks that he spoke without prior consideration, that were written out without his knowledge and will, and after his death a special book was published, which he could neither see nor read through. Our godly scholars have long since remembered this, not without reason. I refer to Johann Gerhard, Leonhard Hutter, Johann Adam Schertzer, Johann Adam Osiander, Georg Zeämann, not to think of others [See comment below on Old Missouri]."

Although these “Table Talks", which only came out after Luther's death, are not equal in value and validity to those writings of Luther that flowed from his own pen or were rewritten by his friends and published with his approval — in part after a careful review — they are and remain — with a careful review — a thankful gift. They contain splendid explanations of the main points of the Christian faith (of the Holy Scriptures, of God's works, of Christ, of sin, of the Law and the Gospel, of faith, of good works, of the Pope, of enthusiasts, of marriage, of kings, princes and lords, of schools, etc.), beautiful meaningful, pithy sayings, far-sighted prophecies, instructive stories and especially a treasure of individual traits from his life.

We said that the “Table Talks” would be a thankful gift if carefully sifted. Such a sifting has been done in the present edition. Prof. Hoppe, an expert on Luther, has devoted many years of diligence to this new edition. The Introduction rightly states:

“Our edition is the best and most complete of all the editions that have appeared to date. It is the most complete, because we have included in an unabridged German translation the main sources of the 'Table Talks' that have only recently come to light, the diaries of Lauterbach about the year 1538 and those of Cordatus from 1537, Luther's trusted friends and table companions; the best, because we have eliminated from the “Table Talks” much that does not belong to them, partly duplicates, partly borrowed from other writings of Luther, partly not originating from Luther, but have renewed a large part of the “Table Talks” from these two main sources. Both men have copied from Luther's own mouth, at his table and otherwise, what he spoke.” (page 1) 

In this extremely interesting introduction, the author gives further information about the various previous editions, in which many foreign things have been added and the originals have been treated arbitrarily, wrong translations occur, and about what distinguishes the new edition from the earlier ones.

Probably many a Lutheran Christian has the wish: 

“If only I could have spent one evening with our dear father Dr. Martin Luther, the greatest man and hero of faith after the time of the Apostles! This wish, my dear reader, can and will be fulfilled for days and weeks by what is offered in this volume. It brings you, for the first time, Luther's Table Talks translated from the originals.” (Introduction. p. 1)

No one who acquires this magnificent edition of Luther's Table Talks will regret it. He will not stop reading until he has come to the end of it. The fruit will be: Growth in salutary knowledge and edification in the most holy faith. 

- - - - - - - - - - - -   End of Essay   - - - - - - - - - - -

      Mathesius refers to several orthodox Lutheran theologians who avoided the Table Talks as definitive proofs of Luther's teachings.  This was also the case with Old Missouri theologians.  An example of this is that, in defending against Copernicanism, Old Missouri (Walther and Pieper) in general referred to Luther's own writings, not the Table Talks.

      The Der Lutheraner reviewer gives us confidence in the St. Louis Edition that one may not have with other more modern editions, despite their scholarship. — In addition to the scholarly or "critical" editions, there was a 2009 book published, Off the Record with Martin Luther, with somewhat extensive translations of the Table Talks.  The remarks on Melanchthon by the editor Daudert make no mention of his weakness before and after Luther's death.  Some of the book's weak points are nicely identified by a reviewer on Amazon. The reviewer comments: "but the point is made that Luther's Tischreden still awaits a more thorough, more accurate rendering in English translation."  That "thorough, accurate" edition, with English translation, is now available in Volume 22 of the St. Louis Edition. — In the next Part 12a, we present Stoeckhardt’s overview of the completed St. Louis Edition, and review of the last volume 23 – the master Index.

StL11a: Table Talks, Vol. 22 reviewed; superiority of StL Edition

      This continues from Part 10c (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series on the St. Louis Edition (StL) of Luther's complete writings in English. — This is the first of a 2-part sub-series presenting the book review of Volume 22, "Table Talks". Although no author is identified, it is likely Prof. Martin Guenther, who was an active contributor and associate of editor Walther who recently had "gone-home".  It could have also been the StL editor George Stoeckhardt, judging by the quality of the essay. — Modern scholars in the LCMS and elsewhere have totally ignored the work of the St. Louis Edition. But in this book review we will be informed of good reasons to possibly prefer it. 

(From Der Lutheraner, vol. 43 p. 125-126 (No. 16, Aug. 15, 1887) [EN]: [underlining follows original emphasis]

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

Dr. Martin Luther's

Colloquia or Table Talks.

For the first time 

corrected and renewed 

by translating the two main sources of the Table Talks from the Latin originals, namely the diary of Dr. Conrad Cordatus about Dr. M. Luther in 1537 and the diary of M. Anton Lauterbach on the year 1538.

This latest volume of our Luther [St. Louis] edition, the 22nd, contains Luther's Table Talks, i.e., the talks he made in conversation with his housemates and friends, especially at the table. [Johann] Mathesius says in his Luther’s Life [AE Companion Vol.]:

“As his office and teaching was holy and comforting, so also in his life one saw many beautiful and great virtues, and those who were around him heard many good sayings and histories; as also at the table he explained many beautiful and precious texts, and gave many good reports when one had occasion to ask something from the Scriptures. … Although our Doctor often took heavy and deep thoughts with him to the table, and sometimes kept his old monastic silence throughout the meal, so that not a word was spoken at the table, he nevertheless let himself be heard very amusingly at the appropriate time; as we used to call his speeches condimenta mensae (table condiment), which we preferred to all condiments and delicious food. If he wanted to get us to speak, he used to make an accusation: The first admonition we let pass; when he stopped again: ‘Prelates, what's new in the country?’ The old people around the table started to talk. Doctor Wolf Severus, who had been the preceptor of the Roman Royal Majesty, sat at the head, and would bring something to the discussion if no stranger such as a wandering courtier was present. When the conversation started, but with due discipline and respect, others sometimes added their part, until the Doctor was brought in; often good questions were posed from the Scriptures, which he answered finely rounded and briefly; and if one once held their own part, he could also suffer it and refute it with a skillful answer. Often honest people from the university, even from foreign places, came to the table; there fell very beautiful discourses and histories.” (p. 208. 212. [AE Companion p. 424, 431)

His friends used to write down and collect these talks immediately or soon thereafter. They meant well, but they did not act wisely and prudently. They did not consider that not all sayings of even great men, which they made in intimate circles, at table or otherwise, are suitable for publication. They also suffered the same fate as others who write down what they have heard: one overhears something or does not understand it correctly, or when writing it down later, one no longer remembers exactly the words that were used. Thus, many misunderstood and incorrect things have found their way into the “Table Talks". In the course of the many copies, further errors were made in them, as well as in the later adaptations for printing.

Elias Frick, the translator of Seckendorf's “History of Luther”, therefore writes in his report of Luther's writings:  

“The things that the dear blessed man said around the table and other things have been recorded too precisely, and those who were around him and talked with him at tables and other things may, out of good opinion, have marked at home for their own benefit what they heard from him; But everyone knows well that it is not possible to remember all the words as they were spoken, so that they could be written down afterwards; and especially those who recorded such things were quite unequal; likewise it often happens that one does not always correctly grasp the meaning and opinion of another in their talks, and therefore cannot put it down on paper. Over this, such Collectanea were copied again by others, whereby, as is always the case with such copies, even more inaccuracies were included; however, Johann Aurifaber brought such Collectanea, which had been collected and copied by various men, under certain titles and put them into print under the name of Luther's Table Talks in 1569” etc.

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Concluded in Part 11b  - - - - - - - - - - -

      The point that some theologians/historians do "not always correctly grasp the meaning and opinion of another in their talks" is the basis for my assertion that the judgments of the Weimar Edition and the American Edition are inferior to the judgments of the Old Missouri Synod in their St. Louis Edition. Especially with Luther's Table Talks, the historian must have a firm foundation in Scriptural theology to properly translate and make decisions on inaccuracies of the things "recorded too precisely".— In the concluding Part 11b…

StL10c: Pieper reviews vol. 20 (Lehre und Wehre 1891)

      This continues from Part 10b (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series on the St. Louis Edition (StL) of Luther's complete writings in English. —  I discovered this short review on the same volume 20 by Franz Pieper that was published in Lehre und Wehre and I decided to include it for an added perspective on this volume.  — From LuW 37 (1891), p. 52: 

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

The title [Against the Sacramentarians and other Fanatics, as well as against the Jews and Turks.] indicates which of Luther's important writings the reader will find in this volume. Luther is a true reformer, the Reformer of the Church. Thus, not only against the spiritless Papacy with its human statutes, but also against the "false spirit" of the enthusiasts, he has testified and defended the divine truth in the most powerful way from the Scriptures. The evidence for the latter we find especially in this volume. It contains Luther's writings against the Sacramentarians or those who denied the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion, i.e., among others, the writings: "Against the Heavenly Prophets," "That the words "this is my body" still stand firm", "Confession of the Lord's Supper" 1528, "Short Confession of the Holy Supper" 1544 etc. Even individual papists have confessed that no teacher has written so powerfully about the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper as Luther.

This volume also bears witness to the untiring diligence of Prof. Hoppe. Not only has the text been carefully revised and improved according to the available aids, but it has also been possible to correct a number of incorrect time determinations and to place individual historical events in a brighter light. This volume also includes an index of rare and obsolete words in Luther's writings, which, although it does not claim to be complete, will nevertheless be welcome to Luther readers.

The volume comprises 70 pp. and 2407 columns. Price $5.00. F. P. [Franz Pieper]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End of essay; cont'd in Part 11a  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

In Part 11a, we begin a 2-part series on Volume 22, the Table Talks.