moreover, is one that so far as the writer is informed, has not been treated otherwise than briefly and incidentally, whether in works on hermeneutics or on systematic theology. The careful examination of a large number of volumes on these two topics has failed to furnish any formal definition. Perhaps none could be framed. But certainly the relation is such that for thorough work and safe results both must be deeply imbued with reverence sincere and intelligent for the Word of God as a book unlike all other books, because written by men who were moved to write and directed in what they wrote by the Holy Spirit. They must both be influenced by the same motives, and, with identity of aim, co-operate in securing the true exposition and the most exact statement of the contents of the Bible, neither being satisfied to cease from his labors until its fullness shall be the heritage of the Church. In both fields much has been accomplished. In both much remains to be done. Never before was the conception of the sphere of each so large as it is to-day. Never in either was there such activity. The ablest scholarship and the broadest culture are consecrating their resources and devoting their powers to exegesis and theology. If this is largely an age of enthusiastic devotion to physical science, and if some of the ablest intellects of the century are going deeply into the study of the philosophy of history, or are seeking to master the fundamental principles of a sound social economy, there is not less enthusiasm and devotion of the best minds and the most perfect training to exegesis and theology. The necessity of this in our age scarcely needs statement; the reasons are so obvious as not to require recital. When the human intellect is expending its powers, with a perfection of training it has never hitherto attained, upon every conceivable subject of study and investigation, it is a mistake to suppose the Word of God and the vast topics on which it claims to speak with infallible utterance is either neglected or in danger of being studied superficially. On the contrary, never were the reasons for its profound study what

they are now, because the great themes now prominent in every branch of scientific study inevitably compel the minds of those who investigate them to deal with phases they present on which the Bible claims to speak infallibly. This is a fact to which the current literature, whether of science or of exegesis or of theology, bears witness. It is a fact full of practical suggestiveness, not the least of which is, that it admonishes the exegete and the theologian they must not part company, but that more than ever they must be fellowhelpers of the truth, whatever mistakes in exegesis are to be confessed, or whatever statements must be expunged from creeds. The duty of the hour for both is to cause the Word of God to speak of itself. They must make it "the supreme critical standard respecting every thing laid down in dogmatic truth. It is the last touchstone which furnishes a corrective against all traditiones permane which have been mixed up with the development of dogma. Nothing, therefore, can be propounded as Christian doctrine which can not be traced back to apostolic testimony and to the apostolic course of thought," for "the Scriptures form the supreme canon, not only in relation to criticism, but also in relation to the Church as an organism. Dogmatic thought is not only to be tested by the Bible, but it must be organically fructified and continually reinvigorated by the fullness of Scripture doctrine. As the archetypal work of the spirit of inspiration, the Scriptures include within themselves a world of germs for continuous development. While every dogmatic system grows old the Bible remains eternally young. That which is said of the kingdom of heaven, that it is like leaven which is to leaven the whole lump, is true, in like manner, of the relation of Scripture to human thinking. Theology must always' sustain to the Scriptures the relation of a humble receiver, of a constant disciple, and may, in this respect, be compared to Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his words."*

* Martensen's "Christian Dogmatics," Urwick's Trans., Ed. 1871, pp. 51, 52.

ARTICLE VI.

LUTHER AS A BIBLE TRANSLATOR.

BY DR. EDWARD RHIEM.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY JAMES F. MORTON, A. M.

THE German Bible may be called the greatest and noblest of the precious gifts which God gave to the German people through Dr. Martin Luther. With good reason it has been asked, If among the blessings of the Reformation this one had been lacking, in what condition would the others have been left?

It is especially fitting, after all that has been said of Luther's other labors, that the people should be reminded of the great, imperishable treasure which they possess in the Bible which he bequeathed them. Before proceeding with my theme I would call attention to a writing which every evangelical theologian should read in studying Luther's life, but which is neither so well known nor so highly esteemed as it should be-I refer to the work of Dr. Georg Wilhelm Hopf, entitled, "An Estimate of Luther's Translation of the Bible into German, with reference both to earlier and more recent translations."

I may presuppose as well known in its outline and many of its details the history of the origin of Luther's Bible from the fruit of his involuntary leisure in the Wartburg, the New Testament of 1522, to the first complete Bible of 1534, and further to the last edition of 1545; and it is not my purpose on this occasion to enter into the particulars of that history. But it would not be according to Luther's wish if we were to speak of his services as a translator of the Bible without making mention of his faithful helpers. As early as January 13, 1522, he wrote from the

Wartburg to Amsdorf of his purpose: "It is a great work, and one in which we should all labor, for it pertains to the highest welfare of all;" and again, "I shall not be able to touch the Old Testament if you do not lay hold and help me." In his table talk he says of Jerome: "It would have been an advantage if, in his work of translating, he had associated with himself one or two learned men; the Holy Spirit would have given him clearer insight according to the promise of Christ: 'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' And an interpreter or translator should not be alone, for good and suitable words do not always occur to one person." In the preface to the Old Testament of 1523 he says: "In short, if we should all work together we would all have enough to do to bring the Bible to the light, some working upon the thought, others upon the language. For in this I have not worked alone, but have used every one whom I could obtain."

Melancthon especially was his faithful helper from the beginning. He reviewed Luther's work at the Wartburg before it went to press, and in respect to the antiquities, such as the coins and measures mentioned in the New Testament, he consulted with friendly scholars, particularly Joachim Camerarius, and the physician of Erfurt, Georg Sturz, and he helped Luther give the finishing touches to the whole New Testament. The impatience with which Luther hastened the publication appears not to have left. him sufficient time for this work. At all events, there remained a large number of minor inaccuracies, little affecting the sense, in the restoration of the Greek text wherever the Latin corresponded closely with this, and these were not corrected till the fundamental revision of the New Testament, the results of which were contained in the greatly improved edition of 1530. This revision was also the common work of Luther and Melancthon, and the corrections were, in all probability, for the most part the work of the latter.

Luther likewise published none of the canonical or

apocryphal writings of the Old Testament before Philip had reviewed his translation; and his help seemed to him so necessary that he suspended work on the prophets while Melancthon, on account of his attendance at the second Reichstag in Speier (1529), was prevented from assisting.

That the translation of the two Maccabees is not, as a whole, the work of Luther, but proceeded from Melancthon, is a mistake for which Chytræus is responsible. Luther requested by letter the counsel and assistance of Spalatin in respect to special German expressions, among which were the names of precious stones and of beasts. His chief helpers in ascertaining the original text of the Old Testament were, with Melancthon, Aurogallus, who, at his proposal, was called to Wittenberg as teacher of Hebrew, and in the translation of the prophets as well as in natural science, the accomplished Hebraist, Casper Cruciger, who had received an appointment to Wittenberg in 1528. These Hebraists aided him especially by a comparison of the so-called Chaldee paraphrases and rabbinical commentaries; for Luther's knowledge of these-as his "enarrationes in Genesin" show-was only second hand, almost wholly derived from Nicholaus Lira, though occasionally from Jerome and St. Pagninus. Finally, it is known from Mathesius, that the fundamental revision of the translation of the whole Bible, which Luther began in 1539, and the results of which appeared in 1541, was carried forward in weekly conferences of an assembly which Luther called "a sanhedrin of the best men then living;" regular members of this sanhedrin, besides Melancthon, were Cruciger, and Aurogallus, who were especially intrusted with the Latin Bible. Dr. Johann Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, and the corrector of the Lufft printing-house, Georg Röhrer, and now and then scholars from a distance took part in the deliberations, in particular Dr. Bernhardt Ziegler, of Leipsic, who often gave a wrong impulse to Luther's tendency to a christologizing exegesis, and Dr. Johann Forster, who about this time was appointed to Tübingen, whose opinion