Esther, Star of the OT: Part 4: Martin Luther (cont.)

James Swan, in his defense of Martin Luther, makes the following point:

"Yet, Luther still translated it [Esther] and allowed it in his Bible."

Again however, the attitude of Luther is being minimized.
Although this is denied by apologists like James Swan,
Martin Luther did deliberately translate the Book of Esther in a biased fashion,
(into German), as well as add inappropriate commentary:

"In his translation of the book, he introduced anti-Semitic undertones, depicting Esther as the typical despicable Jew, eager to shed gentile blood. Luther advises the Christian not to enter into discussions with Jews, but to tell them: 

"Do you know, Jew, that Jerusalem and your kingdom, together with the Temple and the priesthood, were destroyed over a thousand years ago?... The exile shows that G-d is not their G-d and they are not His people ... By the destruction of Jerusalem G-d, already showed that the merits of the Patriarchs did not save them." (Yehezkel Kaufman, "Goleh Venechar", Vol. 1, p. 299).

The main argument used by the Christian anti-Semites was that the exile is eternal.

It should be noted that Luther did not understand the exact contents of the Book of Esther. Indeed, not all synagogue-goers understand that the decree of annihilation was not annulled, as Esther had requested. King Achashverosh did no more than write an edict, which he sealed with his ring, granting the Jews permission to defend themselves.

In reality, a battle was fought between the Jews and their enemies. (The Scroll of Esther and Anti-Semitism
by Prof. H. Gavriyahu)

This shows that Luther had an agenda in his use of Esther.  He did not treat the book in a neutral fashion, with reverence as Holy Scripture, for he acted in an opportunist fashion in the translation and notes he provided.

It should be noted that Luther was not the only one who raised questions about the Canonicity and holiness of the Book of Esther.  The ancient Talmud itself, the oral tradition of the Rabbis, discusses the question of the status of Esther, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.
But in this case, the discussion was somewhat moot, since the Jewish Canon had been settled long before the Rabbinical debates, probably before 200 B.C.

But it still must be asked, regarding Martin Luther, "Why Esther?"
The answer is probably in his intellectual approach to all Holy Scripture:  He was quite willing to challenge canonical NT books, such as James and Jude, although there is some suspicion that part of his motive here is his inability to reconcile the teaching of James with his own extremely exaggerated Pauline soteriology.  In the case of both James (Jacob to the 12 Tribes), and Jude, (Judah), his anti-Semitic bias may also be coloring his dislike for these books.  With a lower, more permissive treatment of the traditional Canon of both the Christians and the Jews, it is not surprising that Luther found himself free to criticize other O.T. books not in serious dispute by either Jews or Christians.

The book of Esther was a natural target to Luther in his later years, when he had become embittered against the Jews of Europe for not enthusiastically flocking to his plan of converting them to Lutheranism.

                                                                                                                 

Even Roman Catholic Scholars are dumping the UBS text

Ron Conte Jr. this summer completed an evaluation of the UBS text and its negative impact on the NV (New Vulgate) Latin edition.   He lists several key points online here:

 "I was dismayed and appalled by the decisions of the editors of the Nova Vulgata, especially to abandon the Latin scriptural tradition approved by the Council of Trent, and adopt in its place the critical Greek text of Matthew by the (Protestant) United Bible Societies. The UBS text, and the NV as well, omits over one hundred words from the Gospel, found in the Latin Vulgate, includes at least a couple of whole verses.

See the article for more critical comments about the NV.

Problems with the Nova Vulgata (NV):

1. the NV abandons the Latin scriptural tradition

2. the New Testament is simply a representation of the Protestant UBS (United Bible Societies) Greek text

3. the New Testament ignores all Latin and all Greek sources, other than the UBS text, which is mainly the work of Protestant scholars

4. the NV changes the wording in some verses out of political correctness, without any support in any manuscripts for those changes

5. the Latin scriptural tradition is supposed to be used by Bible scholars to settle any uncertain or disputed readings of the text in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. But since the NV does not represent the Latin scriptural tradition, but instead represents the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, it is not useful for that purpose

6. The Council of Trent declared that the Canon of Scripture includes all the parts of each book as found in the old Latin vulgate Bible (the Latin scriptural tradition). But the NV rejects the Latin scriptural tradition, and removes from the Canon very many words and phrases, as well as more than a few entire verses.

7. The NV relies on the Protestant Stuttgart Vulgate for its base text, ignoring the Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII Vulgate which was used by the Church for several hundred years as the official Latin Bible.

8. The only version of the NV contains hundreds of typographical errors.

9. The New Testament of the NV shows an appalling lack of editorial discretion. The Latin text is forced to conform to the Greek UBS text even when this makes the Latin text awkward or grammatically incorrect. Editorial decisions other than merely changing the Latin to conform lock step with the Greek are rare."

Its clear that some honest Roman Catholic scholars at least have noted in detail exactly what is wrong with the UBS text, and the devastating impact on Bible texts and translations it has had for the last 50 years.

Conte uses the following abbreviations:

CV - Clementine Vulgate
NV - Nova Vulgata from vatican.va
FS - Fischers Stuttgart edition (1975)
TR - Textus Receptus
MT - Majority Text (Hodges/Farstad, 1982)
UBS - 4th ed. 1993



Among the many flaws of the UBS text, Conte lists the following homoeoteleuton errors in UBS erroneously followed by the editors of the NV (new Vulgate version):


Matthew:

5:44 - NV omits 'do good to those who hate you', also omits 'and slander you', in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

 12:47 - NV changes 'seeking you' to 'seeking to speak with you', in accord with the Greek.

 15:6 - NV omits 'or his mother' and changes 'commandment of God' to 'word of God' in accord with UBS Greek, contrary (on both points) to CV, FS, TR, MT.

15:8 -   Again, it is clear that the NV rephrases the Vulgate to agree with the UBS Greek, even when the TR and MT agree with the Latin. There is a basis in both the Latin and Greek scriptural traditions to retain the Vulgate wording, and yet it is cast aside, making the NV a Latin version of the UBS Greek. The result is not very useful, since if a scholar wants to consult the UBS text, he would certainly prefer to look at the Greek text itself, rather than a Latin rendering of it. 

"Also, ...   the NV departs from the Latin scriptural tradition, substituting the Greek wording of the UBS text, so that the decision of Trent on the place that the Latin text has in the Church cannot be applied to the NV."

"The reader may also have noticed by now that the Stuttgart text in Latin does not usually edit the CV to conform to the Greek. Rather, the Stuttgart text (FS) is a moderate edit of the Vulgate. The editors of FS Matthew clearly had in mind to keep to the Latin scriptural tradition, or at least to recapture the essence of Saint Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Their editorial decisions in Matthew have kept the Latin text distinct from the Greek text, like two different co-equal witnesses to the truth of the Gospel. By comparison, the Nova Vulgata has subjugated the Latin scriptural tradition entirely to the Greek, like a slave to a master. The Stuttgart edit is what the Nova Vulgata should have been."

18:11 -  NV omits verse 11, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

20:16 -  NV omits 'For many are called, but few are chosen' in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.

 23:14 - NV and FS omit verse 14, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT. ( MT has verses 13 and 14 transposed.)

 26:3 - NV changes the Latin word 'atrium' to the word 'aulam' (a Latin word derived from Greek), in accord with the Greek text.

27:35 - NV and FS omit the portion of the verse stating that this event of dividing his garments fulfills the prophecy of the Old Testament, in accord with UBS and MT, but contrary to CV and TR.

 The NV would be no worse in its text if the project had been done by the Protestant scholars at the UBS. In fact, the FS is the work of a group of mostly Protestant scholars at the German Bible Society, and even they have seen fit to retain the CV test of Matthew in the vast majority of cases. So a group of Protestant scholars has created a Latin Bible, the Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate, which retains the Latin scriptural tradition and which generally follows the CV reading. But a group of Catholic monks, at a Benedictine monastery -- a monastery associated in past times with Saint Jerome---, who were given the task of updating the CV, have completely abandoned the Latin scriptural tradition, and have caused the NV to conform slavishly and unthinkingly solely to the Protestant UBS Greek text. If I did not know better, I would conclude that the monks of that monastery were Protestants, and that the editors of the FS were Catholics."

 Final Comments

" ...The Greek critical text of the United Bible Societies has the indisputable advantage of making the entire Bible thinner, lighter, and less expensive to publish. But the Latin and the other Greek texts have the advantage of not deleting words from inspired and inerrant Divine Revelation. The reader will have to decide for himself which advantage is to be preferred.

While it is certainly true that we must never add words to Sacred Scripture, we are also morally obligated not to delete words from Sacred Scripture."

 - exerpted from Problems with the NV in Matthew,  

Ronald L. Conte Jr. (June 18, 2010)

Does Inerrancy imply Fixed Word-order?

‘One set of words in one set order is the Bible.’

What doesn’t appear to have been openly addressed in the discussion so far, is the source for this idea, and its implications for any theory regarding the original autographs.
If we believe in the inerrancy and precision of the original autographs, then the idea of a specific and unique word-order is inevitable, both historically – (a) Evangelist X and Apostle Y wrote or dictated specific words in a specific order at a specific time and place, and objectively – (b) The revealed word of God is stable and fixed for any reasonable time and place and language, and does not and should not require any re-ordering, word-substitution, or reorganization (i.e., it is ‘complete’ and ‘perfect’ in itself, and sufficient as given).
When these two necessary premises are seen as statements about the nature and objective reality of an original and initial revelation in a spoken and written (NT) Holy scripture, and their implications followed to their logical conclusion, we get a few more basic observations and perhaps even axioms:

(1) Although similar ideas can be expressed in different words, expressions, and idioms, God has chosen a specific expression for His revelation in 1st century Greek, and this was and remains adequate and complete for its purpose and task.
(2) In the first century, although God did give and empower translation into other languages (i.e., Pentecost), He gave no further instructions to modify or alter the expressions given through His apostles and evangelists, or suggestions, beyond oral preaching of the message as each was able.
(3) The early Church also was strongly aware of the dangers of paraphrase, and editing to the core Gospel message, and ultimately rejected “harmonies” of the Gospels like Tatian’s as replacements for the original written gospels. The impulse of the Holy Spirit was always conservative, preserving what went on before, and not replacing either OT or NT documents with innovations.
(4) Translations likewise should always then be based on the originals, and once made in a competent and sufficient manner, they ought to be left in their chosen form, so as not to unnecessarily multiply confusion or doubt as to statements in Holy Scripture meant to be taken at face-value.

From this perspective, the idea of a ‘fixed’ word-order and means of expression for an authoritative NT in any language is a normal and reasonable development of what has taken place historically and in light of early church practice.
This doesn’t require ‘demonization’ of other translations or arrangements or idiomatic expression, but only that these be left in their own place, in the hands of oral preachers and teachers, meeting the needs of those without the educational background to fully absorb the traditional text.

peace
Nazaroo