{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_272/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_272","id":"gutenberg_272","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/272","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Translating","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Reformation -- Germany"],"text":"An Open Letter on Translating\n\nBy Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546\n\n\n  Translated from:\n  \"Sendbrief von Dolmetschen\"\n  in _Dr. Martin Luthers Werke_,\n  (Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909),\n  Band 30, Teil II, pp. 632-646\n\n  by Gary Mann, Ph.D.\n\n  Assistant Professor of Religion/Theology\n  Augustana College\n  Rock Island, Illinois\n\n\n\n\nPreface\n\nWenceslas Link to all believers in Christ:\n\nThe wise Solomon says in Proverbs 11: \"The people who withhold\ngrain curse him. But there is a blessing on those who sell it.\"\nThis verse speaks truly concerning all that can serve the common\ngood or the well-being of Christendom. This is the reason the\nmaster in the gospel reprimands the unfaithful servant like a lazy\nscoundrel for having hidden and buried his money in the ground.\nSo that this curse of the Lord and the entire Church might be\navoided, I must publish this letter which came into my possession\nthrough a good friend. I could not withhold it, as there has been\nmuch discussion about the translating of the Old and New\nTestaments. It has been charged by the despisers of truth that\nthe text has been modified and even falsified in many places,\nwhich has shocked and startled many simple Christians, even among\nthe educated who do not know any Hebrew or Greek. It is devoutly\nhoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will\nbe stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in\npart. It may even give rise to more writing on such matters and\nquestions such as these. So I ask all friends of the Truth to\nseriously take this work to heart and faithfully pray to God for a\nproper understanding of the divine Scriptures towards the\nimprovement and increase of our common Christendom. Amen.\n\n\n\n\nNuremberg Sept. 15, 1530.\n\nTo the Honorable and Worthy N., my favorite lord and friend.\n\nGrace and peace in Christ, honorable, worthy and dear Lord and\nfriend. I received your writing with the two questions or queries\nrequesting my response. In the first place, you ask why I, in the\n3rd chapter of Romans, translated the words of St. Paul:\n\"Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus\" as \"We\nhold that the human will be justified without the works of the law\nbut only by faith.\" You also tell me that the Papists are causing\na great fuss because St. Paul's text does not contain the word\nsola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to\nbe tolerated. Secondly, you ask if the departed saints intercede\nfor us. Regarding the first question, you can give the papists\nthis answer from me--if you so desire.\n\nOn the first hand, if I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the\nPapists together were capable of translating even one passage of\nScripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough\nhumility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the\nNew Testament into German. However, I spared them and myself the\ntrouble, as I knew and still see with my own eyes that not one of\nthem knows how to speak or translate German. It is obvious,\nhowever, that they are learning to speak and write German from my\ntranslations. Thus, they are stealing my language from me--a\nlanguage they had little knowledge of before this. However, they\ndo not thank me for this but instead use it against me. Yet I\nreadily grant them this as it tickles me to know that I have\ntaught my ungrateful students, even my enemies, to speak.\n\nSecondly, you might say that I have conscientiously translated the\nNew Testament into German to the best of my ability, and that I\nhave not forced anyone to read it. Rather I have left it open,\nonly doing the translation as a service to those who could not do\nit as well. No one is forbidden to do it better. If someone does\nnot wish to read it, he can let it lie, for I do not ask anyone to\nread it or praise anyone who does! It is my Testament and my\ntranslation--and it shall remain mine. If I have made errors\nwithin it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainly\nbe unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter) I will\nnot allow the papists to judge for their ears continue to be too\nlong and their hee-haws too weak for them to be critical of my\ntranslating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work,\nunderstanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation.\nThey know it less than even the miller's donkey for they have\nnever tried it.\n\nIt is said, \"The one who builds along the pathway has many\nmasters.\" It is like this with me. Those who have not ever been\nable to speak correctly (to say nothing of translating) have all\nat once become my masters and I their pupil. If I were to have\nasked them how to translate the first two words of Matthew \"Liber\nGenerationis\" into German, not one of them would have been able to\nsay \"Quack!\" And they judge all my works! Fine fellows! It was\nalso like this for St. Jerome when he translated the Bible.\nEveryone was his master. He alone was entirely incompetent as\npeople, who were not good enough to clean his boots, judged his\nworks. This is why it takes a great deal of patience to do good\nthings in public for the world believes itself to be the Master of\nKnowledge, always putting the bit under the horse's tail, and not\njudging itself for that is the world's nature. It can do nothing\nelse.\n\nI would gladly see a papist come forward and translate into German\nan epistle of St. Paul's or one of the prophets and, in doing so,\nnot make use of Luther's German or translation. Then one might\nsee a fine, beautiful and noteworthy translation into German.\n\nWe have seen that bungler from Dresden play master to my New\nTestament. (I will not mention his name in my books as he has his\njudge and is already well-known). He does admit that my German\nis good and sweet and that he could not improve it. Yet, anxious\nto dishonor it, he took my New Testament word for word as it was\nwritten, and removed my prefaces and glosses, replacing them with\nhis own. Then he published my New Testament under his name! Dear\nChildren, how it pained me when his prince in a detestable preface\ncondemned my work and forbid all from reading Luther's New\nTestament, while at the same time commending the Bungler's New\nTestament to be read--even though it was the very same one Luther\nhad written!\n\nSo no one thinks I am lying, put Luther's and the Bungler's New\nTestaments side by side and compare them. You will see who did\nthe translation for both. He has patched it in places and\nreordered it (and although it does not all please me) I can still\nleave it be for it does me no particular harm as far as the\ndocument is concerned. That is why I never intended to write in\nopposition to it. But I did have a laugh at the great wisdom that\nso terribly slandered, condemned and forbade my New Testament,\nwhen it was published under my name, but required its reading when\npublished under an other's name! What type of virtue is this that\nslanders and heaps shame on someone else's work, and then steals\nit, and publishes it under one's own name, thereby seeking glory\nand esteem through the slandered work of someone else! I leave\nthat for his judge to say. I am glad and satisfied that my work\n(as St. Paul also boasts ) is furthered by my enemies, and that\nLuther's work, without Luther's name but that of his enemy, is to\nbe read. What better vengeance?!\n\nReturning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a\ngreat fuss about the word \"alone\" (sola), say this to him: \"Dr.\nMartin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass\nare the same thing.\" Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione\nvoluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For\nwe are not going to become students and followers of the papists.\nRather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going\nto be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul\nbrags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these\nasses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I\nam as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are\ndialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They\nwrite books? So do I.\n\nI will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms\nand the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they\ncannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray,\nthey cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their\ndialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together.\nPlus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, in\nfact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter\nof Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for I\nhave been educated in and have practiced their science since my\nchildhood. I recognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, know\nthat everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like a\nstranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had\njust arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they\nknow and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around with\ntheir science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago!\nTo all their shouting and screaming I join the harlot in singing:\n\"I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.\"\n\nSo this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not\ngive these asses any other answer to their useless braying about\nthat word \"sola\" than simply \"Luther will have it so, and he says\nthat he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.\" Let it remain\nat that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have\nalready held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of\npeople that they are--asses, I should say. And there are brazen\nidiots among them who have never learned their own art of\nsophistry--like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them.\nThey set themselves against me in this matter, which not only\ntranscends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and\nunderstanding in the world as well. An ass truly does not have to\nsing much as he is already known for his ears.\n\nFor you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word\n\"sola\"--even though in Romans 3 it wasn't \"sola\" I used but\n\"solum\" or \"tantum\". That is how closely those asses have looked\nat my text! However, I have used \"sola fides\" in other places,\nand I want to use both \"solum\" and \"sola\". I have continually\ntried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened\nthat I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single word\nfor three or four weeks. Sometimes I have not found it even then.\nI have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in translating\nJob, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Now\nthat it has been translated into German and completed, all can\nread and criticize it. One can now read three or four pages\nwithout stumbling one time--without realizing just what rocks and\nhindrances had once been where now one travels as as if over a\nsmoothly-cut plank. We had to sweat and toil there before we\nremoved those rocks and hindrances, so one could go along nicely.\nThe plowing goes nicely in a clear field. But nobody wants the\ntask of digging out the rocks and hindrances. There is no such\nthing as earning the world's thanks. Even God cannot earn thanks,\nnot with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, or even the death of\nhis Son. It just is and remains as it is, in the devil's name, as\nit will not be anything else.\n\nI also know that in Rom. 3, the word \"solum\" is not present in\neither Greek or Latin text--the papists did not have to teach me\nthat--it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these\nknotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same\ntime they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text--if\nthe translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.\nI wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in\ntranslation--not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our\nlanguage that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,\nthe other denied, we use the word \"solum\" only along with the word\n\"not\" (nicht) or \"no\" (kein). For example, we say \"the farmer\nbrings only (allein) grain and no money\"; or \"No, I really have no\nmoney, but only (allein) grain\"; \"I have only eaten and not yet\ndrunk\"; \"Did you write it only and not read it over?\" There are a\nvast number of such everyday cases.\n\nIn all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is\nnot the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German\ntongue to add \"allein\" in order that \"nicht\" or \"kein\" may be\nclearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say \"The farmer\nbrings grain and no (kein) money\", but the words \"kein money\" do\nnot sound as full and clear as if I were to say, \"the farmer\nbrings allein grain and kein money.\" Here the word \"allein\" helps\nthe word \"kein\" so much that it becomes a clear and complete\nGerman expression.\n\nWe do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to\nspeak German--as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother\nin the home, the children on the street, the common person in the\nmarket about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner\nof their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they\nwill understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to\nthem.\n\nFor instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I\nam to follow these asses, they will lay the original before me\nliterally and translate it as: \"Out of the abundance of the heart\nthe mouth speaks.\" Is that speaking with a German tongue? What\nGerman could understand something like that? What is this\n\"abundance of the heart?\" No German can say that; unless, of\ncourse, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too\nmagnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be\ncorrect, as \"abundance of the heart\" is not German, not any more\nthan \"abundance of the house\", \"abundance of the stove\" or\n\"abundance of the bench\" is German. But the mother in the home\nand the common man say this: \"What fills the heart overflows the\nmouth.\" That is speaking with the proper German tongue of the\nkind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always\nsuccessfully. The literal Latin is a great barrier to speaking\nproper German.\n\nSo, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: \"Ut quid perditio\nhaec?\" and in Mark 14: \"Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?\"\nSubsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate\nit: \"Why has this loss of salve occurred?\" But what kind of\nGerman is this? What German says \"loss of salve occurred\"? And\nif he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is\nlost and must be looked for and found again; even though that is\nstill obscure and uncertain. Now if that is good German why do\nthey not come out and make us a fine, new German testament and let\nLuther's testament be? I think that would really bring out their\ntalents. But a German would say \"Ut quid, etc..\" as \"Why this\nwaste?\" or \"Why this extravagance?\" Even \"it is a shame about the\nointment\"--these are good German, in which one can understand\nthat Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done\nwrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used\nit better.\n\nNow when the angel greets Mary, he says: \"Greetings to you, Mary,\nfull of grace, the Lord is with you.\" Well up to this point, this\nhas simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is\nthat good German? Since when does a German speak like that--being\n\"full of grace\"? One would have to think about a keg \"full of\"\nbeer or a purse \"full of\" money. So I translated it: \"You\ngracious one\". This way a German can at last think about what the\nangel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me\ncorrupting the angelic greeting--and I still have not used the\nmost satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most\nsatisfactory German and translated the salutation: \"God says\nhello, Mary dear\" (for that is what the angel was intending to say\nand what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had,\nI believe that they would have hanged themselves out of their\ngreat devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the\ngreeting.\n\nYet why should I be concerned about their ranting and raving? I\nwill not stop them from translating as they want. But I too shall\ntranslate as I want and not to please them, and whoever does not\nlike it can just ignore it and keep his criticism to himself, for\nI will neither look at nor listen to it. They do not have to\nanswer for or bear responsibility for my translation. Listen up,\nI shall say \"gracious Mary\" and \"dear Mary\", and they can say\n\"Mary full of grace\". Anyone who knows German also knows what an\nexpressive word \"dear\"(liebe) is: dear Mary, dear God, the dear\nemperor, the dear prince, the dear man, the dear child. I do not\nknow if one can say this word \"liebe\" in Latin or in other\nlanguages with so much depth of emotion that it pierces the heart\nand echoes throughout as it does in our tongue.\n\nI think that St. Luke, as a master of the Hebrew and Greek\ntongues, wanted to clarify and articulate the Greek word\n\"kecharitomene\" that the angel used. And I think that the angel\nGabriel spoke with Mary just as he spoke with Daniel, when he\ncalled him \"Chamudoth\" and \"Ish chamudoth, vir desiriorum\", that\nis \"Dear Daniel.\" That is the way Gabriel speaks, as we can see\nin Daniel. Now if I were to literally translate the words of the\nangel, and use the skills of these asses, I would have to\ntranslate it as \"Daniel, you man of desires\" or \"Daniel, you man\nof lust\". Oh, that would be beautiful German! A German would, of\ncourse, recognize \"Man\", \"Lueste\" and \"begirunge\" as being German\nwords, although not altogether pure as \"lust\" and \"begir\" would be\nbetter. But when those words are put together you get \"you man of\ndesires\" and no German is going to understand that. He might even\nthink that Daniel is full of lustful desires. Now wouldn't that\nbe a fine translation! So I have to let the literal words go and\ntry to discover how the German says what the Hebrew \"ish\nchamudoth\" expresses. I discover that the German says this, \"You\ndear Daniel\", \"you dear Mary\", or \"you gracious maiden\", \"you\nlovely maiden\", \"you gentle girl\" and so on. A translator must\nhave a large vocabulary so he can have more words for when a\nparticular one just does not fit in the context.\n\nWhy should I talk about translating so much? I would need an\nentire year were I to point out the reasons and concerns behind my\nwords. I have learned what an art and job translating is by\nexperience, so I will not tolerate some papal ass or mule as my\ncritic, or judge. They have not tried the task. If anyone does\nnot like my translations, they can ignore it; and may the devil\nrepay the one who dislikes or criticizes my translations without\nmy knowledge or permission. Should it be criticized, I will do it\nmyself. If I do not do it, then they can leave my translations in\npeace. They can each do a translation that suits them--what do I\ncare?\n\nTo this I can, with good conscience, give witness--that I gave my\nutmost effort and care and I had no ulterior motives. I have not\ntaken or wanted even a small coin in return. Neither have I made\nany by it. God knows that I have not even sought honor by it, but\nI have done it as a service to the blessed Christians and to the\nhonor of the One who sits above who blesses me every hour of my\nlife that had I translated a thousand times more diligently, I\nshould not have deserved to live or have a sound eye for even a\nsingle hour. All I am and have to offer is from his mercy and\ngrace--indeed of his precious blood and bitter sweat. Therefore,\nGod willing, all of it will also serve to his honor, joyfully and\nsincerely. I may be insulted by the scribblers and papists but\ntrue Christians, along with Christ, their Lord, bless me.\nFurther, I am more than amply rewarded if just one Christian\nacknowledge me as a workman with integrity. I do not care about\nthe papists, as they are not good enough to acknowledge my work\nand, if they were to bless me, it would break my heart. I may be\ninsulted by their highest praise and honor, but I will still be a\ndoctor, even a distinguished one. I am certain that they shall\nnever take from me until the final day.\n\nYet I have not just gone ahead, ignoring the exact wording in the\noriginal. Instead, with great care, I have, along with my\nhelpers, gone ahead and have kept literally to the original,\nwithout the slightest deviation, wherever it appeared that a\npassage was crucial. For instance, in John 6 Christ says: \"Him\nhas God the Father set his seal upon (versiegelt).\" It would be\nmore clear in German to say \"Him has God the Father signified\n(gezeiehent)\" or even \"God the Father means him.\" But rather than\ndoing violence to the original, I have done violence to the German\ntongue. Ah, translating is not every one's skill as some mad\nsaints think. A right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing\nChristian, trained, educated, and experienced heart is required.\nSo I hold that no false Christian or divisive spirit can be a good\ntranslator. That is obvious given the translation of the Prophets\nat Worms which although carefully done and approximating my own\nGerman quite closely, does not show much reverence for Christ due\nto the Jews who shared in the translation. Aside from that it\nshows plenty of skill and craftsmanship there.\n\nSo much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was\nnot depending upon or following the nature of language when I\ninserted the word \"solum\" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself,\nand St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He\nis dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this\npassage--namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without\nany works of the Law. In fact, he rejects all works so completely\nas to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and\nword, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an\nexample, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works\nthat even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over\nand above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in\njustification. Instead, Abraham was justified without\ncircumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in\nChapter 4: \"If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but\nnot before God.\" However, when all works are so completely\nrejected--which must mean faith alone justifies--whoever would\nspeak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would have\nto say \"Faith alone justifies and not works.\" The matter itself\nand the nature of language necessitates it.\n\n\"Yet\", they say, \"it has such an offensive tone that people infer\nfrom it that they need not do any good works.\" Dear, what are we to\nsay? IS it not more offensive for St. Paul himself to not use the\nterm \"faith alone\" but spell it even more clearly, putting the\nfinishing touches on it by saying \"Without the works of the Law?\"\nGal. 1 [2.16] says that \"not by works of the law\" (as well as in\nmany other places) for the phrase \"without the works of the law\"\nis so ever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revision\ncan help it. How much more might people learn from \"that they\nneed not do any good works\", when all they hear is preaching\nabout the works themselves, stated in such a clear strong way:\n\"No works\", \"without works\", \"not by works\"! If it is not\noffensive to preach \"without works\", \"not by works\", \"no works\",\nwhy is it offensive to preach \"by faith alone\"?\n\nStill more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject just\nordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one could\ntake offense at that all the more and say that the law is\ncondemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what is\ncontrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: \"Why not do evil so\nthat there might be more good?\" which is what that one divisive\nspirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul's word\nbecause of such 'offense' or refrain from speaking freely about\nfaith? Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for we\npreach so strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for no\nother reason than to offend people that they might stumble and\nfall and learn that they are not saved by good works but only by\nChrist's death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be\nsaved by their good works of the law, how much more will they\nrealize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the\nlaw! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do not\nhelp, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because the\nsun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness must\nhelp him see.\n\nIt astounds me that one can be offended by something as obvious as\nthis! Just tell me, is Christ's death and resurrection our work,\nwhat we do, or not? It is obviously not our work, nor is it the\nwork of the law. Now it is Christ's death and resurrection alone\nwhich saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Rom. 4: \"He\ndied for our sin and arose for our righteousness.\" Tell me more!\nWhat is the work by which we take hold of Christ's death and\nresurrection? It must not be an external work but only the\neternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone, which\ntakes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached\nthrough the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, this\nmaking of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at its\nvery core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ's death\nand resurrection, without any works, and that his death and\nresurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is so\nobvious, that faith alone gives, brings, and takes a hold of this\nlife and righteousness--why should we not say so? It is not\nheretical that faith alone holds on to Christ and gives life; and\nyet it seems to be heresy if someone mentions it. Are they not\ninsane, foolish and ridiculous? They will say that one thing is\nright but brand the telling of this right thing as wrong--even\nthough something cannot be simultaneously right and wrong.\n\nFurthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that\nfaith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and\nmany others who said it before me. And if one is to read and\nunderstand St. Paul, the same thing must be said and not anything\nelse. His words, as well, are blunt--\"no works\"--none at all!\nIf it is not works, it must be faith alone. Oh what a marvelous,\nconstructive and inoffensive teaching that would be, to be taught\nthat one can be saved by works as well as by faith. That would be\nlike saying that it is not Christ's death alone that takes away\nour sin but that our works have something to do with it. Now that\nwould be a fine way of honoring Christ's death, saying that it is\nhelped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can also\ndo--that we are his equal in goodness and power. This is the\ndevil itself for he cannot ever stop abusing the blood of Christ.\n\nTherefore the matter itself, at its very core, necessitates that one\nsay: \"Faith alone makes one righteous.\" The nature of the German\ntongue teaches us to say it in the same way. In addition, I have\nthe examples of the holy fathers. The dangers confronting the\npeople also compel it so they do not continue to hang onto works\nand wander away from faith, losing Christ, especially at this time\nwhen they have been so accustomed to works they have to be pulled\naway from them by force. It is for these reasons that it is not\nonly right but also necessary to say it as plainly and forcefully\nas possible: \"Faith alone saves without works!\" I am only sorry I\ndid not add \"alle\" and \"aller\", and said \"without any (alle) works\nor any (aller) laws.\" That would have stated it most effectively.\nTherefore, it will remain in the New Testament, and though all the\npapal asses rant and rave at me, they shall not take it away from\nme. Let this be enough for now. I will have to speak more about\nthis in the treatise \"On Justification\" (if God grants me grace).\n\nOn the other question as to whether the departed saints intercede\nfor us. For the present I am only going to give a brief answer as\nI am considering publishing a sermon on the beloved angels in\nwhich I will respond more fully on this matter (God willing).\n\nFirst, you know that under the papacy it is not only taught that\nthe saints in heaven intercede for us--even though we cannot know\nthis as the Scripture does not tell us such--but the saints have\nbeen made into gods, and that they are to be our patrons to whom\nwe should call. Some of them have never existed! To each of these\nsaints a particular power and might has been given--one over\nfire, another over water, another over pestilence, fever and all\nsorts of plagues. Indeed, God must have been altogether idle to\nhave let the saints work in his place. Of this atrocity the\npapists themselves are aware, as they quietly take up their pipes\nand preen and primp themselves over this doctrine of the\nintercession of the saints. I will leave this subject for now--but\nyou can count on my not forgetting it and allowing this\nprimping and preening to continue without cost.\n\nAnd again, you know that there is not a single passage from God\ndemanding us to call upon either saints or angels to intercede for\nus, and that there is no example of such in the Scriptures. One\nfinds that the beloved angels spoke with the fathers and the\nprophets, but that none of them had ever been asked to intercede\nfor them. Why even Jacob the patriarch did not ask the angel with\nwhom he wrestled for any intercession. Instead, he only took from\nhim a blessing. In fact, one finds the very opposite in revelation\nas the angel will not allow itself to be worshipped by John. [Rev.\n22] So the worship of saints shows itself as nothing but human\nnonsense, our own invention separated from the word of God and the\nScriptures.\n\nAs it is not proper in the matter of divine worship for us to do\nanything that is not commanded by God (and that whoever does is\nputting God to the test), it is therefore also not advisable or\ntolerable for one to call upon the saints for intercession or to\nteach others to do so. In fact, it is to be condemned and people\ntaught to avoid it. Therefore, I also will not advise it and\nburden my conscience with the iniquities of others. It was\ndifficult for me to stop from worshipping the saints as I was so\nsteeped in it to have nearly drowned. But the light of the gospel\nis now shining so brightly that from now on no one has an excuse\nfor remaining in the darkness. We all very well know what we are\nto do.\n\nThis is itself a very risky and blasphemous way to worship for\npeople are easily accustomed to turning away from Christ. They\nlearn quickly to trust more in the saints than in Christ himself.\nWhen our nature is already all too prone to run from God and\nChrist, and trust in humanity, it is indeed difficult to learn to\ntrust in God and Christ, even though we have vowed to do so and\nare therefore obligated to do so. Therefore, this offense is not\nto be tolerated whereby those who are weak and of the flesh\nparticipate in idolatry, against the first commandment and our\nbaptism. Even if one tries nothing other than to switch their\ntrust from the saints to Christ, through teaching and practice, it\nwill be difficult to accomplish, that one should come to him and\nrightly take hold of him. One need not paint the Devil on the\ndoor--he will already be present.\n\nWe can finally be certain that God is not angry with us, and that\neven if we do not call on the saints for intercession, we are\nsecure for God has never commanded it. God says that God is a\njealous God granting their iniquities on those who do not keep his\ncommandments [Ex.20]; but there is no commandment here and,\ntherefore, no anger to be feared. Since, then, there is on this\nside security and on the other side great risk and offense against\nthe Word of God, why should we go from security into danger where\nwe do not have the Word of God to sustain, comfort and save us in\nthe times of trial? For it is written, \"Whoever loves danger will\nperish by it\" [Ecclus. 3], and God's commandment says, \"You shall\nnot put the Lord your God to the test\" [Matt. 4].\n\n\"But,\" they say, \"this way you condemn all of Christendom which\nhas always maintained this--until now.\" I answer: I know very\nwell that the priests and monks seek this cloak for their\nblasphemies. They want to give to Christendom the damage caused\nby their own negligence. Then, when we say, \"Christendom does not\nerr,\" we shall also be saying that they do not err, since\nChristendom believes it to be so. So no pilgrimage can be wrong,\nno matter how obviously the Devil is a participant in it. No\nindulgence can be wrong, regardless of how horrible the lies\ninvolved. In other words, there is nothing there but holiness!\nTherefore to this you reply, \"It is not a question of who is and\nwho is not condemned.\" They inject this irrelevant idea in order\nto divert us from the topic at hand. We are now discussing the\nWord of God. What Christendom is or does belongs somewhere\nelse. The question here is: \"What is or is not the Word of God?\nWhat is not the Word of God does not make Christendom.\"\n\nWe read that in the days of Elijah the prophet there was\napparently no word from God and no worship of God in Israel. For\nElijah says, \"Lord, they have killed your prophets and destroyed\nyour altars, and I am left totally alone\" [I Kings 19]. Here King\nAhab and others could have said, \"Elijah, with talk like that you\nare condemning all the people of God.\" However God had at the\nsame time kept seven thousand [I Kings 19]. How? Do you not also\nthink that God could now, under the papacy, have preserved his\nown, even though the priests and monks of Christendom have been\nteachers of the devil and gone to hell? Many children and young\npeople have died in Christ. For even under the anti-Christ,\nChrist has strongly sustained baptism, the bare text of the gospel\nin the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed. By this means he\nsustained many of his Christians, and therefore also his\nChristendom, and said nothing about it to these devil's teachers.\n\nNow even though Christians have done some parts of the papal\nblasphemy, the papal asses have not yet proved that they did it\ngladly. Still less does it prove that they even did the right\nthing. All Christians can err and sin, but God has taught them to\npray in the Lord's Prayer for the forgiveness of sins. God could\nvery well forgive the sins they had to unwillingly, unknowingly,\nand under the coercion of the Antichrist commit, without saying\nanything about it to the priests and monks! It can, however, be\neasily proven that there has always been a great deal of secret\nmurmuring and complaining against the clergy throughout the world,\nand that they are not treating Christendom properly. And the\npapal asses have courageously withstood such complaining with fire\nand sword, even to the present day. This murmuring proves how\nhappy Christians have been over these blasphemies, and how right\nthey have been in doing them!\n\nSo out with it, you papal asses! Say that this is the teaching of\nChristendom: these stinking lies which you villains and traitors\nhave forced upon Christendom and for the sake of which you\nmurderers have killed many Christians. Why each letter of every\npapal law gives testimony to the fact that nothing has ever been\ntaught by the counsel and the consent of Christendom. There is\nnothing there but \"districte precipiendo mandamus\" [\"we teach and\nstrictly command\"]. That has been your Holy Spirit. Christendom\nhas had to suffer this tyranny. This tyranny has robbed it of the\nsacrament and, not by its own fault, has been held in captivity.\nAnd still the asses would pawn off on us this intolerable tyranny\nof their own wickedness as a willing act and example of\nChristendom--and thereby acquit themselves!\n\nBut this is getting too long. Let this be enough of an answer to\nyour questions for now. More another time. Excuse this long\nletter. Christ our Lord be with us all. Amen.\n\nMartin Luther,\n  Your good friend.\n    The Wilderness, September 8, 1530\n\n      *      *      *      *      *\n\nThis text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Dr. Gary Mann\nin 1995 and was placed by him in the public domain. You may\nfreely distribute, copy or print this text, providing the\ninformation in this statement remains attached. Please direct any\ncomments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther\nLibrary at Concordia Theological Seminary.\n\n  E-mail: CFWLibrary@CRF.CUIS.EDU\n  Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA\n  Phone: (219) 481-2123\n  Fax: (219) 481-2126","title":"An Open Letter on Translating","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":6707}