f?IFT 
 OCT 20 1924 
 
 / New York University 
 Ottendorfer Memorial Series 
 of Germanic Monographs 
 
 LUTHER'S TRANSLATION 
 
 of the 
 
 PSALMS IN 1523-24 
 
 By 
 EDWARD HENRY LAUER 
 
 1015 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE JOURNAI 
 
 OP ENGLISH AND GBKMANK 
 
 PHILOLOGY 
 
LUTHER'S TRANSLATION OF THE PSALMS IN 1523-24. 
 
 The first edition of Luther's translation of the New Testament 
 appeared in Wittenberg, in September, 1522. It was received with 
 great enthusiasm, and although the price, one and one-half gulden, 
 was high, it was not long before the edition was exhausted. The 
 translation had been completed during the author's seclusion at 
 the Wartburg, and needed but the critical hand of Melanchthon, 
 and the ready advice of Spalatin to prepare it for the press. Its 
 enthusiastic reception acted as an incentive to Luther, and led him 
 to proceed to the translation of the Old Testament. For this task, 
 while at the Wartburg, he had felt the need of advice from distant 
 friends and of books not available in his Patmos. In Wittenberg 
 all these were at hand, and so in the midst of strife and controversy, 
 with the edict of Worms endangering his very existence, in the 
 midst of preaching and teaching, Luther set his hand to the comple- 
 tion of his great undertaking: the translation of the whole Bible. 
 The translation of the Old Testament appeared piece-meal, for the 
 convenience of both the translator and the purchaser. The first 
 part, containing the Pentateuch, appeared about the middle of the 
 year 1523; the second part, containing the historical books, ap>- 
 peared without date, probably in the next year. The third part, 
 as planned, was to contain the remaining Old Testament books 
 with the exception of the Apochrypha. The stress of other duties, 
 however, left the difl&cult Prophets to be added later, so that the 
 third part, upon its appearance in September or October of 1524, 
 contained Job, the Psalms, and the writings of Solomon (Proverbs, 
 Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon). This, then, was the first 
 appearance of the entire Psalter as translated by Luther.^ 
 
 This translation of the whole Psalter marks a most significant 
 stage in the activity of Luther. The work of 1523-24, to be sure, 
 is far removed from the Psalter as it appeared in the complete 
 Bible of 1545, because every subsequent edition after 1524 con- 
 tained a number of changes and corrections. In the development 
 
 * Until recently it was thought that a separate edition of the Psalter had 
 appeared before the first edition of the third part. Pietsch in his introduc- 
 tion to the manuscript shows that this Psalter was printed from the third part 
 edition and not from the manuscript. 
 
 1 
 
^ 
 
 [ ; ••• • •"•. • / Lauer 
 
 of the German Psalter as we have it today these later editions have 
 their jDcculiar value and significance. In the work of Luther, 
 however, the interest must center in the first complete edition. 
 We need only remember that it remained the basis for future edi- 
 tions to show the logic of this procedure. What is more, the work 
 of 1523-24 is much more Luther's own than the subsequent cor- 
 rected editions on which he had the active assistance of a goodly 
 circle of Unguists and scholars. What he did in 1523-24 and how 
 he did it remain after all the questions of most vital importance in 
 the determining of the value of Luther's contribution. 
 
 It has been the rare good fortune of Luther students, that a 
 large part of the original manuscript of the Bible translation has 
 been preserved. Manuscripts in the archives at Zerbst, in Anhalt, 
 and in the Royal Library at Berlin contain the greater part of the 
 translation, written in the hand of Luther. The latter manuscript 
 is of particular interest to us in this study of his Psalm translation. 
 It contains, in addition to the original of the translation of Deu- 
 teronomy, the original in Luther's own hand of practically all of 
 the third part of the Old Testament.^ It has remained for the 
 careful, scholarly work of Paul Pietsch in the Weimar edition of 
 Luther's works to make this manuscript available to the most 
 distant student. The first volume of the section devoted to the 
 German Bible brings a faithful transcription of this manuscript 
 with all its corrections and annotations.' 
 
 The manuscript is evidently the one which went to the press. 
 The marks of the printer are everywhere in evidence, and it is a 
 convincing bit of testimony to the stress of Luther's activity that a 
 manuscript so full of annotations and corrections atnd not a clean 
 copy, should have been placed in the hands of the printer. Of 
 especial interest and of exceptional imp>ortance is the fact that 
 absolutely everything in the manuscript with the exception of page 
 numbering and the marks of the type-setter, is in the hand-writing 
 of Luther himself. The original draft, as well as all marginal and 
 foot-notes, headings, annotations, and corrections, is clearly the 
 work of the great translator. 
 
 The corrections in the part of the manuscript containing the 
 Psalms, as in all parts of the manuscript of the Bible translation, 
 
 • There are two gaps in the Psalms: 48.2-80.9 and 95.4-109.2. 
 » Luther's Werke. Deutsche Bibel I. Weimar 1906, pp. 453-563. 
 
 2 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 152i3-2^'', \ :•.**.*' 
 
 are extremely numerous. These numerous corrections may, how- 
 ever, be grouped into two general classes. In the first class are 
 immediate corrections made as the first draft was being written 
 down. In the other class are corrections made when a general 
 revision was undertaken. The corrections of the latter class are in 
 red ink, and are naturally more numerous and more important than 
 those made immediately at the time of the first draft. That we 
 have to do here with a first draft as well as a printer's copy is evi- 
 dent upon closer examination. The number of immediate correc- 
 tions proves this, and the nature of some of them proves it even 
 more conclusively. Many are nothing more than corrections of 
 slips in spelling, case, capitalization, word-order, or verse arrange- 
 ment. The fact that an adjective is often added above the line, at 
 a point preceding the noun it modifies, points to a first draft, for 
 such an omission would be easily made and yet immediately caught, 
 since the adjective followed the noun in both the Latin and Hebrew 
 originals.^ The corrections in black ink, then, were not raiade at 
 the time of a general revision, but at the time of the first draft. A 
 general revision would have been far more comprehensive, and 
 would have touched many passages which afterwards were revised. 
 
 When we discard, and discard correctly, the idea of a revision 
 before the final red ink revision, we come up>on peculiar and highly 
 significant characteristics of the first draft. It contained (1) many 
 blanks to be filled later with words or phrases; (2) many Hebrew 
 and Latin words, phrases, and sentences in the text; (3) many 
 verses left unfinished; (4) innumerable words and passages left 
 with two or more parallel translations. All these peculiarities 
 point to the fact that a revision was planned and then immediately 
 undertaken. Whether undertaken at various stages of the transla- 
 tion, or at the end, we are unable to say from the manuscript. That 
 it was a labor extending over many different days is evident, not 
 only from the painstaking care exhibited, but also from the fact 
 that more care was expended on some parts than on others. The 
 call of other duties often took the writer from his work. 
 
 The red ink revision, of course, brought new renditions and 
 translations, in some cases to render more nearly the language of 
 the original, in others to improve upon the German. But the 
 peculiar character of the first draft made other demands on the 
 
 * Such insertions are found 5.8, 119.114, and 119.148. 
 
revision. It had to fill blanks, cut Hebrew or Latin words and 
 phrases, very often supply German equivalents, complete unfin- 
 ished portions, and in the numerous cases of parallel translation, 
 retain either one or the other, or supply a new word or phrase. 
 
 The nature of the corrections seems to prove that there was but 
 one general revision. There are a few instances where the red ink 
 translation is again changed, but these cases are so few in number 
 that they may reasonably be looked upon as immediate corrections 
 made at the time of the general revision. The resulting changes 
 are consequently numerous, and vary in nature and scope. Never- 
 theless it is a significant fact which casts a strong light not only on 
 the translating ability and language sense of the scribe, but also on 
 his knowledge of the material in hand that forty-five per cent of the 
 text needed no correction in the final revision and went to press 
 in the form of the first draft. About twenty per cent of all the 
 verses have no corrections whatsoever. 
 
 This manuscript of the Psalm translation has more than a mere 
 antiquarian interest for the student of Luther. Indeed, it has an 
 interest which is shared by no other part of the Bible translation. 
 The reason for this lies in the fact that no other book of either 
 Testament had been made, by Luther, the subject of so much labor 
 as the Psalms. Naturally, there is no other book in which he felt so 
 much at home, or of which his judgment was so sure. As a result, 
 we are free to look upon the Psalm translation as the culmination 
 and final member of a long series of labors. An examination of the 
 manuscript is then of immense profit and advantage, since the 
 previous history of the translation lies before us, and we need seldom 
 puzzle over the reasons for a certain translation or rendition. 
 
 With the manuscript of the Psalm translation, we are given the 
 key which unlocks the work-shop of the reformer. A careful com- 
 parison of the manuscript with his earlier exegetical labors explains 
 to us the nature of the final rendition. A study of the corrections 
 and annotations in the light of the material with which he worked, 
 gives us many a clue to guide us in a determination of his sources 
 and his attitude towards them. We are enabled to trace the 
 development of the work as it grew, word by word, under the pen of 
 the author, and arrive thereby at a clear estimate of his method of 
 procedure. Finally with the genesis of the work clear to us, the 
 sources determined, the method evolved, we can better appreciate 
 the merit and value of the work as a literary monument, and dis- 
 
 4 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-2i4^],\ ', : i . { 
 
 cern more easily in how far it bears the personal stamp of the genius 
 which called it into being. 
 
 As a source, this manuscript takes precedence over every other. 
 Without the manuscript our study would be limited to a comparison 
 of the printed edition of 1524 with the bits of translation appearing 
 before that time, and with the subsequent editions. In a deter- 
 mination of Luther's basis of translation and method of procedure, 
 this would be but little fruitful. We could arrive at conclusions 
 only by inference because the nature of the printed edition of 1524 
 would remain an unknown factor. With the manuscript, however, 
 the peculiar nature of the edition of 1524 is explicable. The 
 manuscript gives us a wealth of material of primary value in the 
 solution of those problems which must needs be left without solu- 
 tion if only the testimony of later editions be taken into account. 
 The printed edition of 1523-24 is the fundamental basis, and until 
 the nature of that basis is explained, the nature and cause and 
 explanation of later changes must remain in doubt. The material 
 for such an explanation is given in the manuscript as set down by 
 Luther himself. 
 
 An understanding of the Psalm translation, and consequently of 
 the manuscript of that translation, is attainable only when one has 
 clearly in mind the position which the Psalms occupied in Luther's 
 everyday life and thought, and when one sees in survey the scope 
 and character of his work on the Psalms prior to the translation of 
 1523-4. 
 
 The translation of the Bible was an undertaking which his own 
 teachings and labors had rendered imperative. He had set up the 
 Scriptures as the source of all truth, and had refused to submit to 
 any judgment not based on the Bible. His work he freely sub- 
 mitted to the test of Scriptural argument, and held his writings 
 higher than other works not grounded in this manner. He urged his 
 contemporaries to a constant reading and study of the Scriptures, 
 and translated the Bible in order to give them the means and ma- 
 terial for such study and reading. In his own life, reading and study 
 of the Bible were not a mere diversion or literary exercise. They 
 were an absolute necessity. The result was a keen and thorough 
 knowledge of the Bible. He had not begun to study the Bible 
 until he was twenty years old, but he made up in eagerness and zeal 
 for this late beginning. When the life of the cloister gave him the 
 opportunity for study, it was to the Bible that he turned his atten- 
 
 5 
 
tion, and he read so diligently that in a short time he knew the bool 
 thoroughly. He afterwards says that he could quote the pages on 
 which the various verses were to be found.* With this in mind, we 
 can appreciate the significance of his remark that in no part of the 
 Bible was he so exercised as in the Psalms.® This is to be explained 
 by the high opinion in which he held them. For Luther the mea- 
 sure by which the value of a book of the Bible was to be ascertained 
 was the directness of its reference to Christ and His teachings. 
 With this in mind he called the Psalms a Bible in miniature, and 
 says that the Psalter and the Pauline epistles are the noblest and at 
 the same time the most difficult parts of the Bible. It was then but 
 natural that in his earlier studies he should be led to emphasize the 
 prophetic nature of the Psalms, and refer everything in them to the 
 coming of the Messiah. Later, as he came to study them more 
 closely, he became more and more impressed with the fact that they 
 lent themselves to practical everyday application. They came to 
 have a value in themselves apart from their prophetic qualities. 
 
 He pointed out an essential difference between the Psalms and 
 the other books of the Old Testament. The vast body of the Old 
 Testament meant for him a definition of the Law of God as revealed 
 to man. In the Psalms, however, he saw, not the stem, law-giving, 
 judging God, but the indulgent Father, who generously took into 
 consideration the weaknesses and deficiencies of His children. So 
 Luther came to see in the Psalms the portrayal of the soul of man 
 seeking salvation. God, the Father, had foreseen the trials and 
 tribulations of the erring man, and had given him this book of 
 prayers and songs for use in moments of darkness and despair. 
 
 From our modern standpoint, this led to the one fundamental 
 weakness in all Luther's exegetical commentary on the Psalms. 
 Nowhere is any attempt made at historical criticism. For Luther 
 the Psalms contained things eternal, whose meaning was entirely 
 independent of time and place and circumstance of composition. 
 The author was not David, but the spirit of God speaking through 
 David. The "of David" in the titles of many of the poems, he 
 
 construes more as a dative and says " spiritus 
 
 sancti qui fecit psalmum et revelabit Davidi seu ad David. "^ The 
 
 • Koestlin — Martin Luther, sein Leben und seine Schriften. Fttnfte Auflage 
 BerUn, 1903. I. 56. 
 
 • Werke, Weimar. V. 22-23. 
 'Werke, Weimar. III-41. 
 
 6 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 Psalms were for him part of the active working-machinery of the 
 salvation-seeking Christian and his church. They were to be 
 placed with the Lord's Prayer, the Decalogue, and the Apostles' 
 Creed, and to be used daily in private prayer and public worship. 
 He protested that in the Roman church not even a single "Psaelm- 
 lein" was to be heard, and when he came to work out his form 
 of church service the Psalms received special prominence in the 
 form of responsive readings and songs. 
 
 For the common man, in his private life, the Psalms were to be a 
 source of comfort and inspiration. Everywhere we find him direct- 
 ing to the Psalms the attention of his friends in their hours of 
 distress as well as in moments when fortune smiled. In his own 
 life, the Psalter was his constant companion. On the way to 
 Wittenberg the Swiss students found him in the inn at Jena, poring 
 over a Hebrew Psalter; at the Wartburg he said his companion was 
 the Psalter; at Koburg it was always at hand; and even while hunt- 
 ing, he carried it in his pocket. In his deepest moments we find 
 him turning to the Psalter for comfort and consolation. In times 
 of serious illness as in 1527 at Wittenberg, and in 1537 at Schmal- 
 kalden, he read Psalms or parts of Psalms. On hearing of the death 
 of his father, he took his Psalter and retired to his chamber to pray. 
 When the news of the death of his implacable enemy, Duke George 
 of Saxony, was brought to him, he read the fifty-eighth Psalm. 
 When his own hour had come and death was at hand, he repeated 
 several times the twenty-first verse of the sixty-eighth Psalm. This 
 constant reading and reciting of the Psalms led to a thorough know- 
 ledge of the book. During the illness of 1527 he often recited the 
 whole sixth Psalm, and there can be no doubt that he knew by 
 heart a large amount of the Psalter. It was his custom to recite 
 sections of Psalms together with his morning and evening prayers, — 
 a practice which he urged parents to encourage in their children. 
 
 With this high opinion of the Psalter and its practical value, it 
 must have been exceedingly painful for Luther to see how the 
 Psalms had disappeared from the public worship as well as from the 
 every-day religious life of the common man. If the Psalter was to 
 serve the high purposes and fill the dignified place which Luther 
 desired, it must first be rescued from the oblivion into which it had 
 undeservedly fallen. This was what Luther set out to accomplish, 
 and the result was a number of critical and exegetical labors on the 
 Psalms, designed to give a sound and serviceable explanation of 
 
 7 
 
Lauer 
 
 them. But these labors were not an end in themselves. The 
 Psalter, once drawn out from "under the bench," must be made 
 available for the common man. The early labors led inevitably to 
 the translation of the whole Psalter, by which the Psalms would be 
 made an integral part of the every-day religious observance of the 
 people. 
 
 Luther's earliest labors on the Psalms were undertaken in con- 
 nection with his activity as a teacher in the University of Witten- 
 berg. In the year 1512 the degree of Doctor of Theology was con- 
 ferred on Luther. The teachers of theology of the time did but 
 little with the Bible, centering their attention on the "Sentences" 
 of Peter Lombard. Fortunately, Wittenberg had a chair entitled 
 "lectura in biblia," and this was given to Luther. Henceforward 
 he lectured only on Biblical books of both Testaments, and called 
 himself not Doctor of Theology but "Doktor der heiligen Schrift. " 
 It is of significance that his first course of lectures dealt wnth the 
 Psalms, and no better proof can be found of the fact that the 
 Psalms for him contained the kernel of faith. From them and 
 from the Epistle to the Romans his own faith had been drawn, and 
 these two books were the subject-matter of his. earliest lectures. 
 
 These early lectures have come down to us as the first written 
 work of Luther on the Psalms.^ Again we are fortunate in possess- 
 ing two manuscript remains of this course of lectures. The one is 
 in the library at Wolfenbuettel, the other in Dresden. The former 
 is a Latin Psalter printed especially for Luther, with wide margins 
 and double spacing, and contains numerous interlinear and mar- 
 ginal notes. The latter contains a series of longer commentaries on 
 a large number of the Psalms. These "Scholae" were probably 
 the lectures themselves, based on the "Glossae" or notes in the 
 Psalter. 
 
 Of vast moment for his later translation is this work of 1513-1516. 
 The work on a Psalm began with a careful study of the words them- 
 selves. Although Luther was as yet lacking in the knowledge of 
 the Hebrew, we find him here turning back at times to the Hebrew 
 original. More often he does not go back directly to the Hebrew 
 but to Latin works based on the Hebrew. He is aided much by the 
 works of Reuchlin, particularly the "Septene psalmos poeniten- 
 tiales hebraeos" (1512), and the "Rudimenta hebraica" (1506). 
 
 ' Dictata super Psalterium. Werke, Weimar III. IV. 
 
 8 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 But his great aid on the Unguis tic side is the third Psalter version of 
 Jerome, the "Psalterium juxta Hebraeos. " This was the only 
 part of Jerome's last Bible translation which had not been taken up 
 as the Vulgate. It was made from the Hebrew texts of Jerome's 
 time, and was accepted by Luther as the best rendition of the 
 Hebrew. When he refers to the Hebrew it is generally to Jerome's 
 last version, to which the reference points, and these references to 
 Jerome are countless in number. In fact it may be said that he 
 noted almost every instance where the work of Jerome differed from 
 the Galilean Psalter of the Vulgate. In almost every case the 
 testimony of Jerome is accepted over that of the Vulgate. We 
 have here the first evidence of Luther's intimacy with and depend- 
 ence on the work of Jerome, — facts which have not been sufficiently 
 emphasized in the study of the Bible translation. 
 
 In his exegetical labor he shows here a wide knowledge of authori- 
 ties, and uses with a discriminating judgment the whole critical 
 machinery of his age. He said later that in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews he had used Chrysostom, that Jerome had been his aid in 
 the Epistles to Titus and Galatians, but that in working with the 
 Psalter, he had used all the writers. True to his hostihty towards 
 the philosophy of Scholasticism, he rejects flatly the opinions and 
 commentary of the schoolmen and their master Aristotle. Every- 
 where he goes back to the church fathers, Augustine, Cassiodorus, 
 Jerome, Lyra, Burgensis, and a host of minor writers. Not only 
 churchmen are brought in. Destined as these lectures were for the 
 university students, they were enriched with numerous references 
 to the classic authors, to Pliny, Horace, Ovid, Vergil, and even 
 Plato. Everywhere we have evidence of a wide reading and an 
 earnest seeking after the truth of the work in hand. 
 
 The Psalter is for him the book referring directly to Christ and 
 His teachings. Everything is to be and can be brought into close 
 relation to the life of Christ. This tropological standpoint is 
 carried out to its limits, and hence prevents the author from 
 assuming any true attitude of historical criticism. It leads him 
 away from a literal interpretation of the words of the Psalter, and 
 lays the way open to numerous allegorical interpretations, many of 
 which are almost ludicrous. His great master in this was Lefevre 
 D'fitaples, whose "Quintuplex Psalterium" (Paris 1509. Second 
 Edition 15 L3) with its numerous notes not only confirmed Luther 
 in his critical method, but also furnished him with the text of Je- 
 
 9 
 
Lauer 
 
 rome's last Psalter version from the original Hebrew. Everywhere, 
 however, in critical comment as well as in linguistic discipline, we 
 find Luther adopting that method of procedure which afterwards 
 became the principle of his activity as a translator. The versions 
 and the opinions of the authorities were carefully compared. With 
 a respect for authority which savors of monastic days, Luther first 
 sought to justify each from the text in hand. Only seldom was a 
 version or opinion entirely discarded. Each had its bit of truth for 
 Luther, and he strove to find that bit. After such comparison, 
 however, the belief that he also was a seeker after truth, permitted 
 him to sit in judgment. This or that opinion was accepted; some- 
 times an entirely new one came to his mind; or more often, the 
 various bits of truth were gathered and combined. This last 
 method led to interesting results when he came to work out his 
 Psalm translation. 
 
 The first Psalm commentary of Luther was not published during 
 his lifetime, although he promised to prepare it for the press. His 
 failure to do this together with the urgent requests from his friends 
 and listeners, led him to his second series of lectures and expositions 
 on the Psalms, which appeared piece-meal from 1519 to 1521.^ 
 The work takes up only the first twenty-two psalms, the last of 
 which was finished at the Wartburg. On his return to Wittenberg 
 the number of other duties prevented the completion of the work. 
 The commentaries are so voluminous and wordy that Luther him- 
 self calls the w^ork " geschwetzig. " On the fifth psalm, for instance, 
 the commentary consists of about thirty thousand words. The 
 general method and attitude are similar to those of the earlier work, 
 but the tone is different. The tone of the earlier work was more 
 truly academic, that of the later more nearly polemic. The vast 
 disturbances following the publication of the theses in 1517, had 
 brought new aims and purposes into Luther's activity, and his 
 critical labors after that time were bent to serve these ends. The 
 great doctrine of justification by faith and the great combat with 
 the Papacy are, in Luther's own words, the two "loci," which are 
 agitated in his second Psalter commentary. Linguistically, the 
 work is an advance, because of Luther's better knowledge of 
 Hebrew, although he still complains that Hebrew grammar "does 
 not entirely enter into the work." The work again shows the great 
 influence of Jerome, whose final Psalter rendition is quoted time 
 
 » Operationes in Psalmos. Werke, Weimar V. 
 
 10 
 
Ltither's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 and again. Critically, we find a slight regression from the absolute 
 tropological attitude of the earlier work. The Psalms are coming 
 to have a value apart from their prophetic nature. 
 
 In addition to these works of an academic nature, which were in 
 the language of the educated classes of the day, there were many 
 others, popular in nature and in the language of the people. Lu- 
 ther, early in his career, turned his attention to giving the lower 
 classes the Psalms in the vernacular. A survey of these early 
 translations of parts of the Psalter forms an introductory chapter 
 to the "Third Part" as translated in 1523-4. The Psalms which ap- 
 peared prior to 1524 are the following: 
 
 1517 Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143. 
 
 1518 Psalm 110. 
 
 1521 Psalms 68, 119, 37, 10, 142. 
 
 1522 Psalms 12, 67, 51, 103, 20, 79, 25, lO.^" 
 
 The earliest work which Luther himself gave to the press bears 
 the date 1517, and is a translation with commentary of the seven 
 Penitential Psalms.*^ In this, his earliest work of Psalm transla- 
 tion, it is of interest to note that he worked not only with the 
 Vulgate text, but also with the text of Jerome's " Psalterium juxta 
 Hebraeos" and of Reuchlin's above mentioned " Septene. " In his 
 introduction he acknowledges this dependence, and says that he 
 drew on these authorities for the sake of clearing up many difficult 
 and vague passages in the Vulgate. The basis, then, remains the 
 Vulgate, with Jerome and Reuchlin used as checks. 
 
 With the appearance of the " Auslegung des 109. (110.) Psalms"" 
 in 1518, we come upon a favorite and characteristic practice of 
 Luther in his commentary and translation. The work is dedicated 
 to Hieronymus Ebner of Nuremberg, at the request of Luther's 
 friend Scheurl. This remained a favorite habit of Luther's through- 
 out his activity. Numerous Psalms were translated, explained, 
 and annotated for the comfort of friends and congregations in dis- 
 tress. Other Psalms were worked over to aid in emphasizing some 
 point in the controversial difficulties in which he was fast becoming 
 
 " Koestlin (I. 573) in his list of these Psalms omits Psalms 10 and 142 of the 
 year 1521. He also still accepts the view that a special edition of the Psalter 
 appeared before the first edition of the Third Part of the Old Testament in 
 1524. 
 
 " Werke, Weimar I. 154-220. 
 " Werke, Weimar I. 687-710. 
 
 11 
 
Lauer 
 
 involved. As a result we find such commentary very often appended 
 to works of a polemical nature, or at the end of a discussion 
 touching on the subject-matter of the particular Psalm. In regard 
 to the translation of Psalm 110, we find the general method of the 
 Busspsalmen carried farther. He prefixed his comment on the 
 Psalm with parallel Latin and German texts. This Latin text 
 agrees exactly with Luther's Vulgate, with the exception of the 
 difficult third verse. Here Luther, because of decided diflaculty 
 with the Vulgate, casts loose from the common rendition, and by a 
 comparison of Jerome, Lyra, and probably the Hebrew, recon- 
 structs his text so as to make sense. His collation was still under- 
 taken almost wholly in the interests of clearness. 
 
 The next Psalm translations were made during the stay at the 
 Wartburg. Psalms 68'^ and 37^^ were edited for his poor leaderless 
 congregation at Wittenberg. The long Psalm 119 came as an 
 appendage to his work "Von der Beicht; ob die der Papst Macht 
 habe zu gepieten. "^^ In this work he drew largely from this 
 Psalm, and decided to add the entire Psalm in translation. Psalm 
 142 was translated as a part of the work entitled "Troestung fuer 
 eine Person in hohen Anfechtungen, "^® the whole more in sermon 
 form than usual in his commentary. Finally, from the Wartburg 
 dates Psalm 10 which appeared as a part of the work bearing the 
 title "Die Bulla vom Abendfressen des Papstes. "" The Psalm 
 was added in translation because in Luther's mind it depicted the 
 Pope as the enemy of the church of Christ. The tone of the transla- 
 tion is very naturally rather more than a bit polemical, and when 
 we find in the first draft of the translation of 1524 such expressions 
 as"auffgeblasen", "maul", "tzufellet", "tzukrummet", "wueten," 
 we can attribute their appearance to this earlier employment of the 
 Psalm. 
 
 In all these Wartburg labors, we find the sources still varying. 
 In Psalms 68, 37, and 119, we have a rendition drawing nearer to 
 the Hebrew and yet showing a strong Vulgate influence. We 
 know that Luther was busy with the Hebrew bible while at the 
 Wartburg, and its use is apparent in his Psalm translation. The 
 
 " Werke, Weimar VIII. 1-35. 
 " Werke, Weimar VIII. 205-240. 
 » Werke, Weimar VIII. 129-204. 
 » Werke, Weimar VII. 779-791. 
 " Werke, Weimar VIII. 688-720. 
 
 12 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 translation of the long Psalm 119 is especially interesting. When 
 we read it in the light of the earlier "Dictata super Psalterium, " 
 we can distinguish passages which show the influence of the Hebrew 
 and of Jerome's last Psalter. The method was undoubtedly similar 
 to that of the "Sieben Busspsalmen," of 1517 except that the He- 
 brew had come more into its own. An interesting peculiarity is to 
 be noted. Whereas the use of the Hebrew is unmistakable in the 
 translation itself, the quotations from other Psalms in the commen- 
 tary are almost directly from the Vulgate. This same dependence 
 on the Vulgate is shown best in Psalm 142, which is very nearly a 
 literal rendition of the Vulgate. 
 
 The remaining Psalms which appeared before the edition of 1524 
 composed parts of the " Betbuechlein " of 1522. By their introduc- 
 tion here, Luther wanted to bring home to his people the principle 
 that the Psalms should form in their lives, as they did in his, a very 
 integral part of all religious experience and observance. 
 
 There remains to mention only the great use made of Psalms in 
 quotation. All Luther's works of religious or polemical nature in 
 both German or Latin are full of Biblical quotations. Of these 
 numerous quotations, the quotations from the Psalms outnumber 
 those from any other book of the Bible. In his quoting, several 
 peculiarities are apparent. One is that many quotations appear as 
 deliberate paraphrases in which nothing more than the general tone 
 of the Biblical rendering is retained. Another is that many quota- 
 tions appear in free adaptation, leading us to believe that Luther 
 quoted very largely from memory. An added support for this 
 contention is ofifered in the numerous slips which occur when Luther 
 attempts to cite the passage exactly. This variance of quotation 
 did not seem to worry the author in the least. In his work " Grund 
 und Ursach aller Artikel,"^^ Psa m 19.13 appears four times in 
 various forms. This same verse appears five times in other works 
 of Luther of the same period in as many different forms. A third 
 peculiarity is the dehberate combination and adaptation of Bible 
 quotations to fit the passage or occasion. Luther's words as he 
 laid the bull of excommunication on the flames are a good example 
 of this: "Because thou hast troubled the anointed of the Lord, the 
 everlasting fire shall destroy thee, " — a combination of Joshua 7. 25 
 with Mark 1. 24 and Acts 2. 27, made to fit the occasion. This 
 manner of quoting throws a bright light on Luther's attitude 
 
 " Werke, Weimar VII. 299-458. 
 
 13 
 
Lauer 
 
 toward the Scriptural text. In it he saw the everlasting truth, and 
 to it he turned for support and guidance in his work. But he was 
 not actuated by a reverence and worship of the abstract word. 
 With the words themselves he felt perfectly free to operate as he 
 chose, or as the exigencies of the situation demanded, as long as the 
 sense, as he conceived it, remained intact. This attitude, in itself, 
 is of vast importance when we find Luther at work as a translator. 
 Filled with a feeling that he is dealing with the truth and that he 
 \ has discovered that truth for himself, he is not hampered by an awe 
 or a reverence for the words in their literal significance. 
 
 As a result of these continued labors Luther began the Psalm 
 translation in a spirit somewhat different from that in which he 
 went at the other parts of the Bible. He knew the Psalms thor- 
 oughly; they had become part of his daily life. His knowledge of 
 the languages gave him the means of entering into a linguistic study 
 of the various texts and versions. Much of the Psalter had been 
 translated by him before, and much of it he knew by heart in Latin 
 and in German. The result of all this was a confidence which Job, 
 for instance, did not instill. Coupled with this confidence was the 
 determination to give his people a better version of the Psalter than 
 the eariier ones had been. 
 
 The spirit in which he began his translation is shown in his 
 preface to his second Psalm commentary, the " Opera tiones in 
 Psalmos," dedicated to his friend and protector, the Elector 
 Frederick the Wise of Saxony. The words written there might be 
 placed as an introduction to the Psalm translation. With all his 
 knowledge and after all his study, he still felt it highly presumptuous 
 of him to attempt the elucidation of the Holy Writ, for "who will 
 presume to say that he understands fully and in all its parts any one 
 book of the Scriptures," or "who will presume to maintain that he 
 understands fully and perfectly any single Psalm. " Nevertheless 
 he feels sure of himself and makes this reckoning with his authori- 
 ties that what he says may not be the only true meaning, but it is 
 truth. ^' He may see many things which Augustine or Jerome did 
 not see.^^ The principle then is that all must mutually assist each 
 other." He is ready to assign to each his element of truth, and to 
 use each in proportion to the truth which he believes it to contain. 
 It is in this spirit that he begins his translation, and it remains for 
 us to follow him in his labors and see the work grow into being. 
 
 " Weike, Weimar V. 23. 
 
 14 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 The first question that is naturally raised in connection with the 
 Bible translation, either as a whole or in any of its parts, is the 
 question as to the use of the original text, and of the various ver- 
 sions as bases for translation. It has become almost a tradition in 
 this connection to say that the basis for Luther's New Testament 
 translation was the edition of the Greek text made by Erasmus, and 
 that Luther's Old Testament translation was from the original 
 Hebrew text of an edition which appeared in Brescia in the year 
 1494.2" Generally speaking, or for the information of the casual 
 reader, this statement is correct. With regard to the Psahns how- 
 ever, a careful study of the manuscript leads us to a conclusion 
 which is not diametrically opposed to the above statement, but 
 which adds a few necessary qualifications and reservations. In 
 preparing his press manuscript of the translation of the Psalter, 
 Luther made use of the Hebrew Psalter, the Galilean Psalter of the 
 Vulgate version, and the third version of Jerome, the "Psalterium 
 juxta Hebraeos." It is exceedingly difficult to assign to any of 
 these three the position of basis, subordinating thereby the others 
 to the rank of auxiliary. Nor is it possible to say that any one of 
 the three was consistently used as a check, or that the revision was 
 undertaken at the hand of one or the other. The original draft and 
 the revised manuscript as it went to press were moreover the result 
 of a collating of the three versions before the translator. After a 
 comparison of the three, the author accepted those readings which 
 appeared to him the true ones regardless of the Psalter in which 
 they happened to be found. Luther's resulting Psalter is not a 
 translation of the Hebrew Psalter, nor is it a translation of the 
 Hebrew Psalter corrected from the Vulgate, nor vice versa. It is a 
 translation of what appeared to him to be the correct version as it 
 resulted from a comparison of the text of the Hebrew with the 
 versions of the Vulgate and the third translation of Jerome.'^^ 
 
 It becomes apparent immediately that Luther's treatment of the 
 Hebrew is not in accord with the principles which modem research 
 
 " Briggs — The Book of Psalms. International Critical Commentary, 1908. 
 I. Introd. 24. 
 
 *' The question as to the probable influence of earlier German versions is 
 left for a future discussion. Such influence has been traced with success in 
 other parts of the Bible (Florer — Luther's Use of the Pre -Lutheran Versions of 
 the Bible. Ann Arbor, 1912.). In the Psalms no apparent dependence ap- 
 pears, which would warrant treating these versions among the primary sources. 
 
 15 
 
Lauer 
 
 would demand. We today make a distinction between text and 
 version. For us the Hebrew is the original text, and such works as 
 the Gallican Psalter and the Third Psalter of Jerome we consider 
 versions. Luther certainly had this idea, but in his method this 
 distinction is not consistently observed. The examples which we 
 shall introduce later will serve to illustrate the point that Luther 
 made no distinction in his treatment of text and version. The 
 inevitable result is that the text came to have but little more 
 authority than the versions. Hence, differences and deviations 
 from this " text- version " were not necessarily errors, but retained 
 their validity. It is as if an English translator of Homer would 
 use the German translation of Voss and the Greek text as of almost 
 equal value. Such was the fundamental error in Luther's proce- 
 dure, but it was this which gave to his translation of the Psalms its 
 peculiar character. It is a collation of the three Psalters in which 
 the Hebrew original text is treated as if it were but another version, 
 to be submitted to the same collation and comparison as the Vulgate 
 and Jerome. 
 
 This treatment of the Hebrew no doubt had its source in Luther's 
 fear that he was not well-grounded in this subject, although his 
 translation bears ample evidence that his fears were largely imagi- 
 nary. He had always insisted that a knowledge of Hebrew was 
 necessary to a complete understanding of the Old Testament. He 
 urged the study of Hebrew in the universities, and bent all his 
 energies to secure for his own university a competent teacher of the 
 subject. He himself strove to acquire a knowledge of the language. 
 We find him at various times reading in the Hebrew Psalter. Such 
 a Psalter, with Latin marginal notes in his own hand, has been 
 preserved in Frankfort-am-Main. At the hand of Reuchlin he had 
 gone back to the Hebrew in earlier translations, and Reuchlin's 
 "Rudimenta" had been his text-book. His lectures and commen- 
 taries are full of notes on the Hebrew and conclusions drawn from a 
 study of the Hebrew word. We do Luther an injustice when we 
 belittle his knowledge of Hebrew, although his own remarks would 
 lead us to do so. Most of the variations from the Hebrew in his 
 translation are not due to ignorance; they appear as errors or 
 liberties because we insist on making him a translator of the 
 Hebrew. He was not this and never intended to be. In his pro- 
 gram the Hebrew was only one of the several "versions." 
 
 16 
 
Luther^ s Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 As a version, it was considered by the translator to be an impor- 
 tant one, in fact the most important one. This is attested by the 
 part it plays in the evolution of the Psalm manuscript. Many 
 Psalms are almost direct from the Hebrew with but Uttle compari- 
 son with other versions (Psahns 13, 14, 19, 83, 85, 86). Other ^ 
 Psalms show that he followed the Hebrew only when apparent and 
 almost irreconcilable divergences existed (Psalm 24). Isolated 
 passages where the Hebrew differed from the other versions and 
 where Luther followed the Hebrew are numerous (23.4, 27.9, 
 28.1, 28.9, 32.4, etc.). At times when extreme difficulty beset him, 
 he cast loose and followed the Hebrew with no regard for compari- 
 son (45.15). Where real differences of great moment exist, such as 
 the interpolation in Psalm 14 at verse three of the passage in Ro- 
 mans 3.12-18, he followed the Hebrew as supported by Jerome, 
 This dependence on the Hebrew has misled students into believing 
 that we have to deal here with a free translation from the Hebrew, or 
 a translation mediated by the Vulgate. The first position is 
 untenable because the seeming freedom can be explained by refer- 
 ence to the Vulgate or Jerome's third Psalter. The second position 
 would not explain passages literally from the Vulgate or Jerome, 
 where the Hebrew divergence is ignored. The logical position is 
 one in which the three Psalters are treated as versions of varying 
 value, but all to be submitted to the same method of procedure. 
 
 If Hebrew was not entirely and actively in the earlier works, 
 Latin was there, and there on a firm basis of critical knowledge and 
 ample practice. In his work on the Psalms, any attempt on his 
 part to get away from the Latin Psalter would have been folly 
 indeed. He knew the Psalms by heart in Latin, and that language 
 was more fluent on his tongue than his native German. We must 
 remember that the medium through which all these men had 
 learned their Hebrew and Greek, was Latin, the language of the 
 cloister and the university. The Hebrew Psalter in Frankfort with 
 its marginal notes is of interest here. The notes are but a few 
 Latin words in the margin. In Psalm 119 they are the beginning 
 words, found in the Vulgate, of various sections of that long alpha- 
 betical Psalm.^ It would seem that he read his Hebrew Psalter in 
 Latin. 
 
 Before pointing out the influence of the Latin Vulgate on the 
 Psalm translation, it is necessary to protest against a serious mis- 
 
 » Werke, Weimar IX. 45. 
 
 17 
 
Lauer 
 
 take, which, if accepted, would lead to the exclusion of the Vulgate 
 from serious consideration in the Bible translation. Many authors 
 have been led into a supposition that there was a feeling of hostiUty 
 towards the Vulgate in Luther's mind. The reasoning is easily 
 followed. The Vulgate was the book of the Roman Church, and as 
 an enemy of the Pope and of the Church, he might also be an enemy 
 of the book. This is not the case. The Vulgate was for Luther 
 one of the versions of the word of God, and hence worthy of serious 
 consideration and study. His criticism of the Roman Church 
 was not that it made use of the Vulgate, but that it made no use of 
 it. To be sure he had often pointed out places where the Vulgate 
 might be improved upon, but there were other Vulgate transla- 
 tions which he had defended: When another version or inter- 
 pretation seemed more logical, he turned to it; but when the Vul- 
 gate spoke truth to him, it was worthy of being accepted. Even 
 after his own Bible had made its triumphant way through Germany, 
 there was no open hostihty towards the Vulgate, which it had in 
 numerous cases superseded. As late as 1529 we find the Lord's 
 Prayer in his Catechism still appearing in accord with the Vulgate, 
 even after his Bible translation had made the necessary additions 
 from the Hebrew. He wanted to give his people a better Psalter 
 than the Vulgate, but it would have been entirely contradictory to 
 the principles and program of Luther to work without the Vulgate 
 as an aid in his Bible translation. 
 
 The Vulgate influence on the first draft is rather difficult to mea- 
 sure and determine exactly. Where Hebrew and Latin are in 
 agreement and Luther's translation is in accord with them, the 
 question of influence has to be laid aside. Where apparent differ- 
 ences occur, we can proceed with more assurance. Many of these 
 differences have remained for more modern investigation to deter- 
 mine. Of many, however, Luther was aware. Since he treated 
 the Hebrew as a version, he proceeded in such cases to determine 
 which was the most logical, and many times his decision favored the 
 Vulgate. In such cases we are able to point to an influence of the 
 Vulgate. Of equal importance is the large number of passages in 
 which his knowledge of Latin and the fact that it was the medium 
 through which the Hebrew had been learned led to readings of the 
 Hebrew which were influenced by the Latin. That this is an 
 influence of the Vulgate is not to be denied. The familiarity of 
 
 18 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 Luther with the Latin very naturally led him to read the Latin 
 version into the Hebrew.'^ 
 
 Many verses seem directly from the Vulgate, as, for instance, the 
 opening verses of Psalm 20. The whole of Psalm 123 is very Ukely 
 a direct rendition of the Vulgate text with but Uttle regard for 
 comparison, whereas Psalm 23 seems to have been subjected to a 
 double translation from the Hebrew and the Vulgate. Almost 
 countless are the occurrences, minor in nature, of similarity of 
 voice, tense, or mood, where we are at liberty to trace an influence 
 of the Vulgate. Of the two hundred and twenty odd passages that 
 exhibit the influence of the Vulgate, the following will serve as 
 examples. The relation is best shown by a quotation^ of the key 
 word in Luther's translation, the corresponding word in the Vulgate, 
 and in a literal translation from the Hebrew.^ 
 
 The Vulgate and Jerome's third version are of influence, particu- 
 larly in the translation of those words and phrases which refer to the 
 theological doctrines and beUefs of the time. This situation is to 
 be explained by the fact that critical machinery was still lacking, by 
 means of which Luther could have determined the differences in 
 
 -^ This same influence of the Vulgate was shown to exist for Job, in a paper 
 by Florer and Lauer, read before the Modem Language Association at 
 Chicago in 1908. 
 
 " For the sake of convenience and brevity the following abbreviations will 
 be used in quoting: H. = Hebrew, V. = Vulgate, J. = " Psalterium juxta Hebraeos" 
 of Jerome and L. = Luther's translation of 1524 in manuscript. 
 
 ^ A word should be said with respect to the renditions of the Hebrew which 
 appear in the paper. Exception may be taken to some on the ground that 
 these are not the only possible translations and in many cases not the ones 
 which modem research accepts as correct. Everywhere the attempt was made 
 to incorporate those renditions which would have been for Luther, literal trans- 
 lations. It is obvious that Luther's Hebrew must not be measured in the 
 light of modem research. To discover these Luther renditions was of course 
 impossible at times, but in most cases, hints in the "Dictata" and the "Opera- 
 tiones" coupled with the historically critical work of Briggs (see below) and 
 the testimony of modem translators (De Wette, Kautsch, Bindseil and Nie- 
 meyer) made possible at least an approach to accuracy. 
 Ps. 
 
 6.8 L. zom V. furore 
 
 H. grief 
 
 9.21 " lerer " legislatorem 
 
 " fear 
 
 15. 5 " gellt " pecuniam 
 
 " silver 
 
 17. 8 " augapfifel im auge " pupUlam oculi 
 
 " daughter of the eye 
 
 30.10 " ynndasverwesen " in cormptionem 
 
 " in the ditch 
 
 31.22 " festenstad " civitate munita 
 
 " dty of siege 
 
 Ik 1 " wilden " barbaro 
 
 " strangely speaking 
 
 19 
 
 
Lauer 
 
 belief between the writer of the Psalms and the people of the early 
 sixteenth century. The Hebrew "goyim" is almost universally 
 rendered "heyden," because of the Vulgate "gentes. " In fact 
 the Hebrew came to have that meaning for him. The great schism 
 led to the translation "ketzer" in 119.113 for the Latin "iniquos" 
 and the Hebrew "those of doubtful thoughts." That this transla- 
 tion is also contained in the word "heyden" is shown by a note in 
 an earUer work, in which the Latin "gentes" is explained as "contra 
 Ecclesiam."* In the same way the Hebrew "Sheol" becomes 
 "helle" because of the Latin "inferno." Strange as it may seem, 
 the name Messiah appears but once (84.10) in the Psalm transla- 
 tion; and here, combining the Vulgate "Christi" with the Hebrew 
 " the anointed", Luther renders "gesalbeten Messia. " Luther had 
 departed from the extreme position of the first Psalm commentary, 
 in which everything in the Psalms was referred to Christ. Here he 
 gave them a more independent position, and studiously avoided 
 reading into them any interpretation which might be turned so as 
 to appear unduly prophetic. His faithfulness in this respect is 
 best illustrated by a Uttle correction in the title of Psalm 9. The 
 first draft "von dem Son" is changed to "von der iugent des sons" 
 — the change from capital to small letter being of particular signifi- 
 cance. 
 
 The third version which served as a basis for the Psalm transla- 
 tion was the "Psalterium juxta Hebraeos" of Jerome. Whether 
 or not Luther had a separate edition of this Psalter we do not know. 
 We do know that he used the text appearing in the "Quintuplex 
 Psalterium" of Lefevre D 'Staples, because his copy of this work, 
 with numerous notes in Luther's own hand, has come down to us. 
 Just when Luther first became acquainted with this additional 
 Psalter of Jerome is uncertain. We find numerous references to it 
 in the " Dictata super Psalterium. " Here in almost every instance 
 in which variations occur, the Glossae bring the Jerome reading in 
 a note, while the Scholae contain references not only to the text of 
 Jerome, but also numerous citations from his commentaries. The 
 translation of the Penitential Psalms was influenced by this Psalter 
 as the introduction says, and in the second Psalm commentary, it is 
 the "juxta Hebraeos" which is again used on every page. In the 
 face of this constant use of Jerome's last version, extending over 
 many years preceding the Psalm translation, it is surprising that 
 
 " Werke, Weimar III. 179. 
 
 20 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 21 
 
 the influence of Jerome's work on the translation of 1524 should 
 have been overlooked and disregarded. 
 
 It goes without saying that Luther respected the labors of Jerome, 
 for the activity of Jerome is very closely paralleled by the later work 
 of Luther. Jerome began with a translation of the Greek Septua- 
 gint, which occupied much the same place for him that the Vulgate 
 did for Luther. Jerome's next attempt drew in the Hextupla of 
 Origen, very much as Luther later called on Reuchlin and Jerome. 
 Finally Jerome went back to the original Hebrew, which he trans- 
 lated with all the aids he could muster. So with Luther in his final 
 ; rendering. This last version of Jerome was of inestimable value to 
 i Luther. In his earlier labors it had been the mediator between the 
 {Hebrew and the Latin. In fact the references to Jerome in the 
 I "Dictata" are made simply as "Hebreo," and Luther often quotes 
 ; this version as if it were the Hebrew original.^ In case of disagree- 
 I ment between Vulgate and Hebrew, it was natural to turn to 
 Jerome, and in case of difficulty with the Hebrew, the last version of 
 Jerome came as a much-needed reference. 
 
 To determine the places where Jerome's "juxta Hebraeos" 
 influenced the translation is difficult, since the close agreement of 
 Jerome with the Hebrew lays the interpretation always open to the 
 objection that it is the Hebrew and not Jerome which is being 
 translated. There are however a number of passages in which the 
 influence of Jerome can be readily discerned, both in the first draft 
 and in the revised version. The following, quoted by the key word, 
 will serve to illustrate: 
 
 Ps. 10.7 L. geytz J. avaritia 
 
 16.4 
 
 " gotzen 
 
 " idola 
 
 2.2 
 
 " radschlahen 
 
 " tractabunt 
 
 19.2 
 
 " erzelen 
 
 " enarrant 
 
 29.4 
 
 " aierden 
 
 " decore 
 
 26.7 
 
 " predigt 
 
 " predicem 
 
 91.6 
 
 " seuche 
 
 " morsu 
 
 35.2 
 
 spies 
 
 " hastam 
 
 In all these instances, the corresponding words of the Vulgate and 
 of the Hebrew differ from the rendering in the last Psalter of Jerome. 
 The influence of Jerome is most noticeable in the translation of 
 those passages which gave Luther difficulty, or in which striking 
 differences between the Vulgate and the Hebrew met the translator. 
 
 " Werke, Weimar III. 469. 
 
 21 
 
Lauer 
 
 In such cases Jerome was called in. This is true in Psalm 35, in 
 which the "juxta Hebraeos" appears as a mediator between the 
 Vulgate and the Hebrew. Psalm 10 clearly shows the influence of 
 Jerome, for Luther here, in the first five verses, follows the version 
 of Jerome almost directly. This contention is borne out by the 
 fact that in the "Operationes in Psalmos," the complete rendition 
 of Jerome is quoted in the commentary on the Psalm.'^ In one 
 other respect is the influence of Jerome to be noted. This is in the 
 translation of the titles. Perhaps nothing in the whole Psalter has 
 given the commentator and translator more serious difficulty than 
 these titles. Our modern criticism has, to all appearances, cleared 
 up the matter by regarding most of them as marks designating 
 earlier Psalter collections, and the remainder as musical directions, 
 or assignments to liturgical use. We no longer see fit to attempt a 
 reading in accordance with the content of the Psalm to which the 
 title is prefijced. But it has taken centuries to decipher these 
 mysterious words, and for Luther they were a matter of difiiculty. 
 In his earlier works, he spent much time and labor on the explana- 
 tion of the titles, mainly because he attempted to bring the title 
 into accord with the content of the Psalm — an attempt which often 
 bordered on the impossible. An examination of the various titles 
 points to extreme labor on the part of Luther and a leaning toward 
 the authority of Jerome. 
 
 The common "ynn der hohe" from "oben zu singen" or "hoch 
 zu singen" (V. "infinem," J. "ad victoriam," H. "of the Direc- 
 tor") is very much Luther's own, in accord with his idea of the tem- 
 ple ceremony. In the same way, the Songs of Degrees become for 
 him first " stuffen lieder " or "auffsteygend lieder, " to be superseded 
 by "lieder ym hoehern chor. " The labor which he expended on 
 these titles is illustrated in the case of the difficult "Miktam. " In 
 the "Dictata,"^ at the first appearance of the word in the title of 
 Psalm 16, he quotes Jerome, Paulus Burgensis, Lyra, Augustine, 
 and Cassiodorus. Finally he sums up by saying that Lyra empha- 
 sizes "aureus psalmus," Burgensis "de aurea materia", and Jerome 
 "ab aureo authore," and hence he evolves "Eyn gulden Kleynod 
 Davids. " The influence of Jerome is seen in the translation of the 
 musical directions (Ps. 5. "fur die erbe" from Jerome's "pro here- 
 ditatibus" and Ps. 46 "von der iugent" from Jerome's "pro juven- 
 
 " Werke, Weimar V. 330. 
 « Werke, Weimar III. 102. 
 
 22 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 tutibus")- An annotation in Psalm 42 bears witness to the influ- 
 ence of Jerome, The "Maskil" of the title had given trouble 
 before. Here Luther renders it "verstand klug lied" and adds the 
 Latin "Eruditus Psalmus" in accord with Jerome's "Eruditio. " 
 These several citations point to an influence of Jerome — an influ- 
 ence which is all the more comprehensible when we find that the 
 [)assages in which the Jerome influence is discernible are those 
 which were explained by a reference to Jerome in the earlier 
 exegetical labors. 
 
 The influence of these earlier works on the Psalm translation is 
 not to be underestimated. The nature of the earlier work, the 
 "Dictata super Psalterium," made it an excellent preparation for 
 the Psalm translation. The Glossae brought an interUnear com- 
 mentary; the notes brought parallel renditions from other versions, 
 and the Scholae brought a compilation of the exegetical labors of 
 earlier commentators. The Vulgate text was explained by the 
 insertion of numerous synonyms and explanatory phrases. Deriva- 
 tions of words were explained, and things geographic and scientific 
 were elucidated to the best of the writer's abihty. The second 
 commentary continued this method for the first twenty-two Psalms. 
 It is not to be wondered at that these notes and commentaries come 
 to light again in the Bible translation. One need not assume that 
 the works were actually before Luther at the time of translation. 
 The earlier work had fijced certain interpretations of familiar words 
 and phrases, and it made but little difference which version was 
 being used. A few striking examples will sufiice. 
 
 Ps. 7.16. A gloss (Werke, Weimar IIL-76) to the V. "foveam" 
 brings " perditionem " which appears in 1524 as "verderben," 
 afterwards revised to the Uteral "loch." 
 
 Ps. 23.2 V. "super aquam refectionis educavit me." A gloss 
 (Werke, Weimar III.-139) to "educavit" brings "nutrivit" and 
 hence 1524 first draft "neeret mich am wasser guter ruge." 
 
 Ps. 41.3. A gloss (Werke, Weimar III.-229) to " animam " brings 
 "voluntatem" which leads to "willen" in the first draft of 1524. 
 The same situation prevails in Psalm 27.12. 
 
 Ps. 6.8 V. " turbatus est. " In the Operationes we have " Reuch- 
 
 lin sic: verminavit" and hence the participle "vermottet" in 1524. 
 
 Ps. 22.30. The change from "Es beugen sich" to "Las Knye 
 
 beugen " is foreshadowed by the gloss to " cadent " : " genu flectent " 
 
 in the Operationes (Werke, Weimar V.-667). 
 
 23 
 
Lauer 
 
 Ps. 17,14. The "leutten deyner hand" becomes clear when we 
 find "todten" over the Une and read in the Operationes (Werke, 
 Weimar V.-485) that "leutten deyner hand" meant to Luther those 
 dying touched by the hand of God, hence Jerome "qui mortui sunt 
 in profundo. " The " todten " then does not become a free transla- 
 tion, but one prepared by earlier labors. 
 
 Ps. 25. 14. A gloss (Werke, Weimar III.-144) to " hereditabit " is 
 "possidebit" and hence "besitzen" in 1524. 
 
 From this discussion of the sources we can arrive at some conclu- 
 sion as to the method employed. That the work was a collation of 
 the versions is seen by the nature of the first draft. But one other 
 point needs emphasis. A mere difference of authority did not 
 necessarily constitute one correct, and the others wrong. Not even 
 was the Hebrew favored in this regard. In his earlier work, Luther 
 had been eager in all cases of disagreement to allow perfect justice to 
 come to each authority Witness the discussion in the Dictata on 
 the word Miktam, in which seven authorities are quoted and each 
 translation justified. So now in the Bible translation he strives to 
 accept as much of each version as possible, and attempts to combine 
 the various renderings. At times it seems as if he put the three 
 texts together and then made his translation from the resultant of 
 the three. In a larger number of cases it is the Hebrew and Vulgate 
 which are combined.^" The first draft, as a result of this method, 
 presents a number of peculiarities worthy of note. The first is a 
 number of unfinished passages. Very often a word gave the trans- 
 lator difficulty causing a blank to be left, or the insertion of a 
 Hebrew or Latin word (44.10, 44.24, 43.2, 38.9, 118.12, 31.14, 
 among others). In almost every case, the cause of the difficulty 
 was a divergence of the Hebrew and the Vulgate. This also caused 
 whole passages to be left blank (32.7 and 87.7 among others). 
 
 The second peculiarity is the fact that a large number of passages 
 were left with parallel translations. As excellent examples, the 
 following may be quoted: 
 
 Ps. 44.6 "woUen," "mugen," "kuenden," and " werden " lef t as 
 auxiliary to go with verb "stossen, " 
 
 Ps. 89.29 "sicher," "trew", and "fest" as adverb with verb 
 "bleyben." 
 
 » 29.1, 47.10, 2.12, 89.3, 6.7, 87.6, 88.19, 109.19, 112.6, 140.11, and numerous 
 other instances are examples of such combination. 
 
 24 
 
Luther^ s Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 Ps. 119.1. Two idioms remaining : " die on wandel sind auff dem 
 wege" and "die eyn wesen furen on taddel." 
 
 Ps. 39.8 "meyn barren ist auff dich. " The word "ich" above 
 tbe line points to a second possibility. 
 
 Ps. 42.10. Two parallel renditions: "weyl meyn feynd mich 
 drenget" and "vmb des dranges willen engstet. " 
 
 The large number of these constructions remaining double and 
 their various nature may be traced to three causes: 
 
 1. The natural difficulties of translation and the keen desire of 
 Luther to find the right word, together with his admitted ignorance 
 of colloquial German, led him to postpone the final settlement of the 
 correct translation until the time of the general revision. 
 
 2. Coupled with this was the fact that Luther, together with all 
 his contemporary authors, loved to pile up synonyms. We find 
 this in all his earlier work, and excellent examples can be found in 
 both Latin and German writings. One of the early Latin sermons 
 has the following German insert: 
 
 "Sunt enim: vergifftete Schlangen, Verraether, 
 
 Verloffer, Moerder, Diebe, Stroeter, Tyrannen, Teuffel und alles 
 Unglueck, verzweiffelt, unglaubig Neidhardt und Hasser. "'^ 
 
 In the " Dictata super Psalterium " we have in a note to the word 
 "sigillatim" the following piling up: 
 
 "singulatim, singiilatim, singulanter, seorsum, 
 
 solitari, propie, distributavi. "'^ 
 
 This practice led to any number of insertions of synonyms left to 
 
 be decided upon revision. 
 
 3. In addition to these two causes, however, there was a third, 
 entirely in keeping with his method of translating. He found upon 
 comparison of the versions that different shades of meaning were 
 expressed. In the first flow of translation it would have interfered 
 too much to have decided one way or the other at the time. Hence 
 many passages were left double because of differences, more or less 
 great, in the Hebrew and Vulgate. To illustrate : 
 
 Ps. 
 
 18.20 L, 
 
 , wollen: wolgef alien 
 
 V. voluit 
 
 H. delight. 
 
 18.46 •' 
 
 veralltet: faulet 
 
 inveterati 
 
 fade. 
 
 21. 3 " 
 
 wollten: fodderten 
 
 voluntate 
 
 request 
 
 37.35 " 
 
 mechtig: grewlich 
 
 " superexaltium 
 
 ruthless. 
 
 40. 9 " 
 
 willen: lust 
 
 volue 
 
 delight 
 
 '' Werke, Weimar I. Sermone aus den Jahren 1514-1517. Sermon 4. 
 ^- Werke, Weimar III. 180. 
 
 25 
 
V. resusata 
 
 H. raise 
 
 posuisti 
 
 make. 
 
 tribulationis 
 
 oppression. 
 
 refugiam 
 
 habitation. 
 
 refugiam 
 
 fortress. 
 
 parata 
 
 " established. 
 
 pavimento 
 
 'u ^"^^ 
 
 firmavit 
 
 spread out. 
 
 cervices 
 
 cord 
 
 Lauer 
 
 Ps. 41.11 L. wecke: richte 
 
 " 44.14 " setzest: machst 
 
 " 44.25 " trubsal: drang 
 
 " 90. 1 " zuflucht: wonung 
 
 " 91. 2 " zuflucht: burg 
 
 " 93. 2 " fertig: bereyt 
 
 " 119.25 " boden: staub 
 
 " 136. 6 " gefestiget: ausbreyttet 
 
 " 129. 4 " ioch: seyle 
 
 These peculiarities of the first draft are the results of his method 
 of procedure. A revision was in the mind of the author, while the 
 first draft was in the process of completion. When this revision was 
 undertaken, the same principles and method of translation still 
 prevailed. 
 
 The revision had first of all to deal with the unfinished parts. 
 Since these had been caused by a divergence of the sources or by 
 excessive diflBculty, they remained diflScult spots. The result is 
 that in most cases he departed from his method of comparison, and 
 followed the Hebrew. At other places he made a last attempt at 
 reconciling the versions. The passages remaining double then drew 
 his attention. The various possibilities were examined in the light 
 of the versions, and a decision reached in favor of one or the other. 
 In some cases the form corresponding more nearly to the Latin was 
 favored; in others, the form closer to the Hebrew; in some cases, 
 both were discarded. There can be no more direct proof that the 
 manuscript was not corrected to conform to any one of the three 
 versions. In cases where it was merely a choice of synonym, the 
 choice was naturally controlled by questions of accuracy, variety, 
 shade of meaning, etc. 
 
 In addition to these changes in revision which the condition of 
 the first draft made imperative, the author made a large number of 
 others. This was in keeping with his whole aim in translating. 
 He wanted to render the Scriptures into the best possible German, 
 and was never satisfied with his work. He thought there was 
 always room for improvement, even in places where there was no 
 question of the accuracy of the first draft. Many of the correc- 
 tions are to be attributed to this indefatigable labor and ardent zeal; 
 others, however, are the result of continued comparison of the three 
 versions before him. As a result of this comparison of the three 
 sources, a large number of revisions were made, which brought the 
 final rendition closer to one or the other of the three. There is no 
 
 25 
 
Luther's Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 consistency in this matter. In some cases it meant a change from 
 the Hebrew to the Vulgate, again from the Vulgate to the Hebrew, 
 with an occasional influence of Jerome's last version. This is an 
 added proof that the revision was not undertaken at the hand of one 
 version alone. 
 
 The revisions which brought the final rendition nearer to the 
 Vulgate, number about sixty; and of these, the following will illus- 
 trate their nature. 
 
 Ps. 88.5 L. eyn krafftloser man>eyn man on hulffe. H. man 
 
 without strength. V. homo sine adjutorio. 
 " 40.15 L. die lust haben an meynem vngluck>die myr vbels 
 gonnen. H. those who delight in evil for me V. qui 
 volunt mihi mala. 
 " 43.2 L. vmb des dranges willen des feyndes>wenn mich 
 meyn feynd drenget. H. by the oppression of the 
 enemy. V. dum affligit me inimicus. 
 " 89.45 L. lessest aufiFhoren>zustorest. H. made to cease. 
 
 V. destruxisti. 
 " 47.5 L. er erwelet vns vnser erbteyl>er erwelet vns zum 
 erbteyl. H. he will choose for us our inheritance. 
 V. Elegit nobis hereditatem suam. 
 There are about an equal number of revisions, which bring the 
 final from the Vulgate nearer to the Hebrew. Of these the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 Ps. 2.3 L. last ioch>seyle. V. iugum. H. cords. 
 
 " 12.7 L. sibenfeltig> sibenmal.V. septuplum. H. seven times. 
 
 " 18.35 L. vnd spannet meyne arm wie eyn ehern bogen>vnd 
 leret meynen arm den ehern bogen spannen. V. et 
 posuisti, ut arcum aereum, mea brachia. H. teach- 
 ing so that my arms press down a 
 
 bow of brass. 
 
 " 36.9 L. truncken>voll werden. V. inebriabuntur. H. be 
 sated. 
 
 " 139.17 L. Aber wie kostlich sind myr deyne freunde . . . 
 . . wie mechtig sind yhre heubter>aber wie 
 kostlich sind fur myr gott deyne gedancken, wie 
 gros ist yhre summa. V. Mihi autem nimis honor- 
 ificati sunt amici tui, Deus; confortatus est princi- 
 patus eorum. H. And how precious have been to 
 21 
 
Lauer 
 
 me thy thoughts, O God: how strong have been 
 their sums. 
 The revisions, bringing the corrected manuscript closer to Jerome, 
 are less numerous. There are about a dozen in all. 
 
 Ps. 16.9 L. ynn sicherheyt>sicher. V. in spe. H. in security. 
 
 J. confidenter. 
 " 17.4 L. weg des reyssers>weg des reubers. V. vias duras. 
 
 H. of the violent. J. vias latronis. 
 " 35.3 L. las erfur>zeuch erfur. V. effundi. H. draw out. 
 
 J. evagina. 
 The same method of combining was carried on in the revision. 
 The Vulgate and the Hebrew are most often combined. 
 
 Ps. 31.11 L. matt worden>verf alien. V. infirmata est. H. stum- 
 bled. 
 " 33. 16 L. risse, gewalltiger > starcker man. V. gigas. H. mighty 
 
 man. 
 " 94. 1 L. brich erfur > erscheyne. V. libere egit. H. shine forth. 
 
 J. ostendere. 
 At times the translation of his own note in the first draft appears 
 in the revised translation. 
 
 Ps. 29.1 L. Kinder der gotter>starcken. H. sons of Gods. 
 V. fiUi Dei. 
 
 Note " filii fortium / forte. " 
 " 109.3 " "ubique">"allenthalben"intext. 
 
 And many times the final is a combination of his own suggested 
 possibilities. 
 
 Ps. 25.3 "auff dich harret" and "deyn erwartet " > " deyn erhar- 
 ret." 
 
 There are of course many corrections made in the interests of 
 unity and uniformity, as in Psalms 22, 118, and 119. Very often 
 the aim at uniformity leads to corrections not always of the best as 
 in 7.17. The corrections in many cases show a great elaborateness 
 of method, and a constant searching for a correct rendition. For 
 instance, Ps. 7.15: 
 
 vntugent vnd muhe hat er empfangen und wird falscheyt 
 geberen>mit boses und vngluck ist er schwanger und wird 
 
 nichts geberen — er wird aber eynen feyl 
 
 geberen. 
 Nevertheless, the numerous corrections in the revision are made in a 
 most e'^onomical manner. Parts of words are cut and syllables 
 
 28 
 
Luther^s Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 added, so that the final is often far from clear. For instance in 5.12 
 "frolich" is separated into its syllables by a mysterious "Dich" 
 afterwards cut. But the first syllable of the word is not repeated. 
 In a few instances, a regard for the printer led Luther to rewrite a 
 half-verse, but this is a rare exception. 
 
 It remains to view the translated Psalter as a work of literary 
 merit, and measure thereby the honor due its translator. Luther 
 set out to give his people a Psalter better than the earlier versions, 
 and he considered his method best suited to produce such a Psalter. 
 That such a method may have its shortcomings or weaknesses in the 
 light of modern research methods is not to be denied. The excel- 
 lence of the Psalter, however, as a work of literary merit, will go far 
 to make up any defects in method and will render eternal tribute to 
 Luther's genius as a translator. 
 
 The Psalms were poetry for Luther. He wanted them recited 
 and sung in the new form of church worship. He encouraged 
 others to arrange them as church songs, and his own paraphrases 
 have given us some of the grandest Lutheran hymns. In his 
 translation he sought, as best he could, to preserve the poetic 
 qualities of the original. The form he retained religiously, even 
 with the numerous corrections, and he was very careful that the 
 half verse arrangement should be consistently carried out. In all 
 his earlier work on the Psalms he had taken great pains to note any 
 differences in verse arrangement and structure. The peculiar 
 character of Hebrew poetry was of course unknown to him, and 
 hence no attempt was made to take over into the German its essen- 
 tial qualities. But much attention was given to rhythm, balance, 
 variety, and other qualities in their nature poetic. Luther was a 
 real poet at times, and the occurrence of many poetical expressions 
 (raunen, beben, brausen, etc.) attest his interest in the purely 
 poetical side of his work. 
 
 In his earher labors on the Psalms, Luther had often had occasion 
 to complain of the vagueness of some of the passages. Many a 
 time he openly confessed that a certain verse was unintelligible to 
 him. Not all of these passages were cleared up by the time he set 
 his hand to the translation of 1524, and not all were cleared up in 
 the course of the work. With all his knowledge of the Psalms, 
 there were some difficulties which of necessity remained insur- 
 mountable for him. A brief examination of these difficulties will 
 show their nature and importance. 
 
 29 
 
Lauer 
 
 In the first place it is true that notwithstanding Luther's wide 
 reading, real critical machinery for the study of the Psalms was 
 lacking to him. Our present era is just beginning to make up this 
 deficiency. For Luther, the real nature of the Psalms was a closed 
 book. He had not the desire and not the means to view them in an 
 historical Ught. For the exegete, this situation was of importance, 
 while for the translator, the lack of critical works on the Psalms was 
 especially trying. There was no question in Luther's mind that 
 everything in the Psalms was authentic. He could not know that 
 much was merely the work of scribe and copyist. To translate 
 these later addenda as integral parts of the Psalms and attempt to 
 weld all into an homogeneous whole was well-nigh impossible. The 
 vagueness of passages in Psalms 7 and 8 is to be traced to this source. 
 Another source of vagueness was the fact that the dialogue character 
 of many of the Psalms, although apparent, was not sharply 
 marked. The number of changes of person in Luther's manuscript 
 attest to this diflSculty, and Luther spent much time in his earlier 
 commentary trying to throw some light on this question. In 
 Psalms 2, 41, and 91, we find the conversational division lost, with 
 resulting vagueness in the final rendition. 
 
 This lack of critical material was paralleled by a lack of know- 
 ledge of the "Realien," which is so necessary to the genesis of a 
 translation. Luther and Melanchthon had planned an edition of a 
 map of the Biblical lands, but had given up the undertaking. Their 
 own knowledge of the geography was very meagre. Furthermore, 
 authentic political history, except as it could be gleaned from the 
 Scriptures themselves, was unknown to them, and the history of the 
 neighboring peoples was even more a matter of ignorance. In this 
 situation, it is to be supposed that their knowledge of the fauna and 
 flora of the countries was only elemental, and led to many renditions 
 mediated by the Latin. Material on the manners and customs of 
 the Biblical peoples was of course more accessible. Much came 
 from the Scriptures themselves, and in these Luther was well versed. 
 How this knowledge comes to light is shown in a most interesting 
 manner in Psalm 81.4. The Hebrew has: 
 
 " Blow ye the cornet in the new moon, at the full moon for 
 the day of our festival. " 
 The Vulgate: 
 
 "Buccinate in Neomenia tuba, in insigni die solennitatis 
 vestrae." 
 
 30 
 
Luther^s Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 Luther has: 
 
 "Ynn vnserm feste der lauberhutten. " 
 The Dictata clears us up on this matter." Here he says that 
 "neumonden" refers to September, and then from Numbers 3.23 
 he names his festival accordingly. This is an excellent example of 
 the influence of his earlier critical labors. Many passages seemingly 
 free or unusual are to be explained by a reference to these works. 
 
 Luther, at a time later than his Bible translation, once expressed 
 his views on translation, and, as is to be expected, emphasized the 
 advantages of keeping to the sense, and slighting the word if neces- 
 sary. As a result, one should expect to find in his Psalm translation 
 numerous places where a literal rendition is avoided in favor of a free 
 translation. Students of Luther have attached too much impor- 
 tance to Luther's own words in this matter, and have been led to 
 ascribe to him a method of translation essentially free. Closer 
 study of the manuscript and of the method shows us that many 
 translations apparently free are but literal translations of the 
 developed text, constructed by comparison and collation. Some 
 free passages indeed are to be found, but in much smaller number 
 than might be supposed. A survey of those points at which Luther 
 translated freely, or, at which he introduced into the translation 
 elements foreign to the sources, will serve to bring out those contri- 
 butions in the Psalm-translation which are clearly the work of 
 Luther, regardless of source or previous version. 
 
 The first contribution which Luther made may be summed up in 
 his use of the modal auxiliaries. It will be agreed that this does not 
 necessarily mean freedom, since the original must certainly have 
 sought to express such shades of meaning as the German modals 
 make possible. Luther, however, makes the most of the modals, 
 and in the Psalms uses them to render a great variety of construc- 
 tion. They are used to translate simple future construction, to 
 give the meaning of the Hebrew Hiphil, to render the Latin sub- 
 junctive, and very often to intensify the character of the action 
 expressed. . This last is especially true of "sollen" and "muessen," 
 since the Psalms say much of obligation. A study of Luther's use 
 of the modals in all their varying possibihties would show him at his 
 best as a translator. The great flexibility of the modal construction 
 he brought to bear on his originals, and gained thereby a great 
 variety and wealth of expression. 
 
 » Werke, Weimar III. 611. 
 
 31 
 
Laiier 
 
 A second peculiarity of the Luther translation savors of freedom, 
 although it does not really point to free translation in the ordinary 
 sense of the word. Luther was preparing his translation for the 
 everyday man of his time. His great aim was, then, to bring the 
 language of his translation as close as possible to the tongue of the 
 people for whom it was intended. Not only this, but the references 
 to daily life had to be to the life of German peasant and workman of 
 the sixteenth century, and not to the life of the Jew of the Monarchy 
 or the Exile. The result of this plan and endeavor was, in the first 
 place, the appearance of a number of colloquialisms in the text. 
 A good example is the "wesscher" for "vir linguosus" or Hebrew 
 ■'man of tongue" in Psalm 140.23, or ''har zu berg" in 119.120, and 
 many others. A second result is the use of proverbs, or the transla- 
 tion in maxim form of many of the passages. The puzzling "feyl 
 geberen" of 7.15 may be one of these. The third result is the open 
 and apparent anachronism when the life and belief of the people are 
 touched. We have mentioned the source of such words as "helle, " 
 "heyden," and "ketzer. " Another interesting example is the 
 occurrence of the word "hertzogen" in Psalm 83.12. 
 
 The third peculiarity of the translation is more of the nature of 
 real freedom. This lies in Luther's use of connectives. The 
 parallelism of Hebrew poetry was unknown to him and his Latin 
 predecessors. The result was that a literal rendition would have 
 been a series of clauses, connected in thought to be sure, but isolated 
 as to grammatical structure, or at most loosely connected in com- 
 pound sentence form. That a connective was often understood 
 goes without saying, and for the translator who knew nothing of the 
 essential nature of the poetry before him, the expression of the con- 
 nective became imperative. In Psalm 37.12-13: 
 
 The wicked deviseth against the righteous and 
 
 gnasheth his teeth at him. 
 The Lord laugheth at him; for he seeth that his 
 day Cometh.^ 
 
 This antithetical parallelism must be connected by Luther to read: 
 
 "Aber der herr lachet sein" ; a reading mediated 
 
 by the Vulgate, " Dominus autem " 
 
 And Psalm 37.1-2: 
 
 " Briggs 1.323. 
 
 32 
 
Luther* s Translation of the Psalms in 1523-24 
 
 Fret not thyself because of evil-doers, and be not envious 
 against them that do wrong. 
 As grass they shall speedily wither, and like 
 the fresh grass fade.'^ 
 
 The Hebrew here is an emblematic parallelism. For Luther a 
 grammatical relation is expressed: "Denn wie das gras . . . 
 . . ," again mediated by the Vulgate "Quoniam tamquam 
 foenium " 
 
 In such cases as these, the introduction of the connective was 
 mediated by the Latin and did no violence to the context. By 
 analogy with this practice however, connectives were introduced in 
 large number, and often grammatical relations of cause or purpose 
 were thereby expressed, which have no basis in the originals. A 
 very good example occurs in Psalm 4.5. The first draft had 
 
 "Tobet und sundiget nicht. " 
 The Hebrew has 
 
 "Tremble ye and sin not." 
 The rendition of tremble as "tobet" is foreshadowed in the Opera- 
 tiones.'^ In the revision this translation is colored by the Vulgate, 
 
 "Irascimini, et nolite peccare. " 
 The result is a change from "tobet" to "zurnet. " Then the two 
 verbs are brought together in grammatical relation; the final inserts 
 a connective; and we have 
 
 "Zurnet yhr so suendiget nicht." 
 Other places where such introductions occur are "drumb," (26.1 
 and 28.5) "dass," (8 L 10 and 119.17) "so," (109.28 and 138.3). 
 Connectives are introduced in many other places, but in most of 
 these they are to be found in the Vulgate, and have but little eflfect 
 on the final rendition. 
 
 In addition to all these examples of quasi freedom, there are 
 a number of places where Luther translates freely in every sense of 
 the word. In many cases this freedom comes as the result of 
 difficulty or because of a divergence of the versions. At such times 
 he works to reconcile the versions, and, failing in this, goes ahead 
 freely (Ps. 3,3,.^, 35.15-16, 17.4, 45.9-10). The resulting free passages 
 are almost universally good translations. In fact some of the 
 most brilliant translations are in this category (Ps. 24.20, 36.2, 37.2, 
 
 » Briggs 1.323. 
 
 ^ Werke, Weimar V.113. 
 
 33 
 
Lauer 
 
 39.7, 45.2-3, 84.11, 88.2, 89.48). It remains true, however, that the 
 passages freely translated are comparatively few in number. More- 
 over it is easy to see that a free translation was not his aim and 
 purpose. In Ps. 34.13, when he finds it necessary to translate 
 freely, he recognizes the Uteral rendition in a footnote. Nor was 
 an uncompared translation of either one of the versions his aim. In 
 Ps. 118.5 and 80.16 he translates from the Vulgate, but recognizes 
 the literal Hebrew in the margin. Many of his Latin notes are 
 but paraphrases of the Vulgate, to be compared with the Hebrew at 
 the time of revision. 
 
 Such is the Psalter as it came from the pen of the reformer, and 
 made its first appearance in 1524. It came as a culmination of 
 years of study and labor, and was itself the fruit of hard, concen- 
 trated, persevering activity. The manuscript has given us the 
 material for studying this activity. A scrutiny of this manuscript 
 has shown us (1) that Luther worked with the three texts before 
 him; namely, the Massoretic Hebrew text in the edition of 1484, 
 the Galilean Psalter of the Vulgate, and the Psalter as found in the 
 "Psalterium juxta Hebraeos" of Jerome, (2) that these three 
 Psalters were used not only during the completion of the first draft, 
 but also at the time the revision was undertaken, (3) that these 
 three texts were considered of almost equal value, whereas but one 
 was text, and the others versions, (4) that the previous work on the 
 Psalms had prepared a great deal of the translation, (5) that the 
 method was a scientific one, consisting of comparison and collation. 
 The Psalter, as it appeared in 1524, is the result of an earnest 
 attempt on the part of the author to give his people the Psalms in a 
 language which they could understand, and thereby lead them to 
 make this Psalter a part of their daily religious worship, both 
 public and private. 
 
 Edward Henry Lauer. 
 
 State University of Iowa. 
 
 34 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 APR 27 I9r^ 
 
 AUG 8 1935 
 
 AR? 221937 
 
 MAY 30 1943 
 
 'J * 
 
 ■^ 
 
 19. 1S47 
 
 2tk]^'^f^'^ 
 
 l\^^.A:iY USE 
 
 NOV 24 195S 
 
 RCC D LD 
 
 NOV 24 1956 
 iet»'k» 11 JUL 
 
 RB< 
 
 W/^.. ^biyh 
 
 12;-?^v'58 
 
 I\n21\% , 
 
 \^ 
 
 A^ 
 
 f^ 
 
 jLk 
 
 \C.w. .. •-- 
 
 ■'•» 
 
 tu iO 'i^- 
 
 AUfi 1 1968 2 7 
 
 RQvaTiMoai 
 
 ktCEIVEU 
 
 JUL 15 '68-5 PW 
 
 LOAN Di rn PT 
 
 l3 7lD*UAIi3.8 
 
r: ?^o « 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA UBRARY 
 
I