Full Text for Luther's Text-Critical Study of 2 Samuel 23:8 (Text)

(!Tuurnroitt UJqrulugirnl :Snut~ly Continuing LEHRE UNO VVEHRE MAGAZIN F UER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-T HEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. xvrn September, 1947 No.9 CONTENTS Page / Luther's Text-Critical Study of 2 Samuel 23:8. Paul Pet"rs _________ 641 / The Blessed Results of Justification. H. J. BOllman ___________ ._. _________ . 652 Outlines of the Nitzsch Gospel Selections _______ . __ . __ . ________ . _____ . ___________ . 660 Miscellanea ... __ ....... _. __ ._ ... _._ ............. _ ...... _ ...... __ ._._._ ... _._ ... _. ____ ....... _ ...... _ ....... 672 Theological Observer . __ ..... _ .... __ ...... _._ ..... ____ .. _. __ ... ___ ... ___ .... _ .... _ ... _ ... _._._ .......... _. 697 Book Review _ .. _ ..... _._ .... ____ . __ ._ .. _._. _____ .. ___ .. ____ .. _ .. _____________ ... ___ .... _ .._ .. __ . ____ .... __ ._ 712 E1n Pred1ger muss nicht alleln tDet- den. also dass er die Schafe unter- weise, wie sle rechte Christen sollen seln,sondem auch daneben den Woel- fen weh-ren, dass sle die Schafe rucht angrelfen und mit falscher Lehre ver- fuehren und Irrtum einfuehren. LutheT Es 1st kein Ding, das die Leute mehr bei der Klrche behaelt denn die gute Predlgt. - Apologie, Art. 24 If the trumpet give an uncertain sound. who shall prepare h imselt to the batUe? - 1 COT. 14:8 Published by the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCORDIA PUBLlSm NG HOUSE, St. Louis 18, Mo. PRm'l"ED m 11. s. A. Concordia Theological Monthly Vol. XVIII SEPTEMBER, 1947 Luther's Text -Critical Study of 2 Samuel 23: 8 By PAUL PETERS No.9 On the 8th of April, 1546, the Council of Trent, in its Fourth Session, passed the Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books and declared that the "old and vulgate edition ... be ... held as authentic" and that "it be printed in the most correct manner possible." 1 With this decree the Council of Trent rejected both Lu- ther's translation of the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek original and his revision of the Vulgate. While Luther had finished translating the greater part of the Bible two decades prior to the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, and while he had published a revision of the Vulgate in 1529,2 it took the Romanists more than four decades after the Fourth Session of their Council to publish a revised Vulgate edition. Even this revision was far from being correct, as later editions, including that of our Ov\T11 day, amply prove. Luther's revision of the Vulgate was of great value to the Lutheran pastors and professors of the Reformation period, not only because it provided them with a better translation of the text but also with corrections of corrupt Masoretic readings of the original text. Luther's text-critical study of 2 Samuel 23: 8 and his translation of this passage, both in his revision of the Vulgate and in his German Bible, is a good case in point. 1 J. Waterworth, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecu- menical Council of Trent, pp.19-20. Chicago, 1848. 2 Die Deutsche Bibel, 5. Ed. Weimar, 1914. [641] 642 LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 Today Protestants and Romanists are vying with one an- other in their critical study of the Biblical text, with far more adequate means at their disposal than Luther had. The re- visions of the King James Version by English and American scholars, of Luther's Bible by German scholars, and of the Vulgate by the Papal committees of the Biblical Institute in Rome have not only been made possible but necessary by the discovery of new manuscripts of both the Old and the New Testament and by a marked development in Biblical studies. As to the Old Testament, we have today Paul Kahle's studies of the Babylonian text of the Hebrew Scriptures and the recovery of the ancient Canaanite tongue and literature, due to the decipherment and interpretation of the Ras Sham- rah Tablets. Certainly, Luther would have made ample use of these means and finds, had they been at his disposal. De- spite the comparative lack of means and of time in the crowded workday of the Reformer, he undertook the work of gaining access to the original text, which ultimately demands both a knowledge of the Biblical and cognate languages and a com- petence in textual criticism. A review of Luther's text-critical study of 2 Samuel 23: 8, compared with 1 Chronicles 11: 11, will give us an insight into the work of this pioneer of modern textual criticism. We find Luther's textual criticism of 2 Samuel 23: 8 in a letter to Roerer, which has been preserved for us by Flacius Illyricus in his Regulae et tractatus quidam de sermone sa- crarum literarum, Magdeburgi 1551.3 This conservative Lu- theran scholar with his learning and indefatigable capacity for work valued Luther's textual observations on 2 Samuel 23: 8 to such an extent that he added a commentary to them, which begins with the significant words: Coniectura mihi probatt~r. In other words it was his aim to examine and to evaluate Luther's conjectures. Luther's letter written in Weimar on the 2d of July, 1540,4 is addressed to the venerable Magister George Roerer, a well- known friend of Luther, who, in Wittenberg since 1522, be- 3 P.161if. Cf. J. A. Goez, LutheTs VOTschule, Meisterschaft unci vollendete Reife in deT Dolmetschung deT Heiligen SchTift. Nuemberg, 1824, Ste. 107 if. 4 Cf. Luthers Saemmtliche SchTiften, Bd. XXI b, No. 2685. St. Louis. LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 643 came the corrector of the many editions of Luther's German Bible. In his letter Luther calls Roerer's attention to 2 Sam- uel 23: 8 and adds: "We want to know how this passage was changed into its present form." Then he also advises him to confer with Dr. Aurogallus (Goldschmid) and show this Wit- tenberg Hebraist his "divinationes" on 2 Samuel 23: 8. Lu- ther takes for granted that the Bible manuscript itself must have been marred and defaced, either through the inexperience of the copyist or - and this seems to be more probable to him - through the deformity of the letters ("deformitate lit- terarum"). To illustrate this, Luther presents a Latin trans- lation of both passages, 2 Samuel 23: 8 and 1 Chronicles 11: 11, in a manner which shows us wherein these two passages agree and wherein they disagree. This presentation is as follows: 3 2 Reg. 23 Haec sunt nomina } 1 Par. 11 Hic est numerus fortium David { Yoseb Basebeth Thachmoni } caput inter Yasabeam filius Hazmoni { tres } I { Adino Haezniv } triginta pse leuauit hastam suam super { octingentos } . t caesos VIce una. trecen os To this presentation Luther adds the following commen- tary: The meaning of the sentence is clear in Chronicles but not at all in 2 Samuel. In Samuel we have Adina Haezniv instead of levavit hastam suam in Chronicles, even as we have Joseb Basebeth Thachmoni in Samuel instead of Yasabeam filius Hazmoni in Chronicles. In view of these differences Luther wants Roerer to encourage Aurogallus to write the Hebrew wording for levavit hastam suam, as we find it in 1 Chronicles 11, and to do this without using the vowel signs. Since the letters and the whole sentence in 2 Samuel have been distorted, Luther goes on to say, also transposed and mutilated, as also hastily written, Aurogallus should endeavor, if it is at all possible, to bring about a certain likeness of the passage in 2 Samuel 23, which reads in the Hebrew: Hu adino haezniv, with that of 1 Chronicles 11, with its Hu orer eth- 5 Luther's and Flacius' method of transliterating the Hebrew words has been retained wherever they are being quoted. 644 LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 hanitho. Luther then adds that it is not doubtful that the passage Yasabeam filius Hazmoni has been corrupted into Yoseb Basebeth Thachmoni by the same rudimentariness and deformity of the letters. This comment is followed by the following illustration: hastam suam ')~lIn ,n')n n~ B leuauit ')''111 "'1I A By means of this illustration Luther wants to show how the correct reading in Chronicles took on the corrupt form in 2 Samuel. Under A and B he has this to say: A. If you transpose the vau (of "'1I) after the resh, you first of all have the likeness of Adi (in ')1'111). Then the second resh, in consequence of an error, will have taken on the form of nun, the more so, since the letters have been deformed and mutilated so that the defective resh is finally the same as nun. B. Here aleph (of n~) can be the vau of the preceding Adino, if the incompetent scribe joined the words together, as it can happen to the inexperienced. Then the tav (of n~) has been changed into he (of ")~1Ii1) and the ha (of ,n')n) into the 'ayin (of ")~1Ii1). After that the whole of nitho was altered into zeniv, the letters having been transposed, joined together, confused, and mutilated after the manner of a hasty and inefficient copyist. Luther now turns to the old codices and affirms that it is not contradictory that the old codices are in harmony with the unknown words of 2 Samuel 23. For it is nothing new, Luther asserts, to copy disfigured and badly written letters. He then refers to the Septuagint and says: "We see that the age of the Seventy was a very illiterate one and rude in writ- ing and understanding. Therefore they often transcribe a letter for a letter, a word for a word, even a phrase for a phrase." In concluding, Luther advises: "Even if Auroga1lus agrees with everything, we shall also consult the Hebraists Cigler 6 6 Cigler or Ziegler, Bernhard, whom Luther encouraged to purge the Masoretic text of the Peres of the Jews, was professor of Hebrew in Leipzig. LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 645 and Fuerster 7 and record such things at the close of our Bibles in the interest of the reader that he may be warned by them in whatever manner these or similar expressions may occur." Having studied Luther's "divinations" on 2 Samuel 23: 8, we want to know how they compare with those of the Maso- retes, the Ancient Versions, and those of modern textual crit- ics. Luther proceeds from the premise that 2 Samuel 23:8 is a corrupt text. Does this premise find the support of the text critics prior to and after Luther's time? Many of the oldest text critics have sought to retain the letters and words and phrases of 2 Samuel 23: 8. The Masoretes head the list in this endeavor by pointing the corrupt reading, n:l~:l :l~" as if it were no name, and the next corrupt reading, ~~~Yi1 ~~',y, as if it were a name. The ~ere does change the Y of ~~~Yi1 into an N and the ~ into an " thus making it read as an ethnic designation, namely, the Eznite. The Septuagint has transliterated the two words ~~~Yi1 ~~"Y into 'Ai'iElvWV 0 'Aacovalo~. This induced Luther to say of the Seventy: "They often transcribe a letter for a letter, a word for a word, even a phrase for a phrase." Still Luther would have been repaid by a closer study of the Greek render- ing of n:l~:l :l~', by 'lE~oa{}-E. The Vulgate endeavored to give a literal translation of all the corrupt forms of the Masoretic text as follows: Sedens in cathedra sapientissimus ... tenerri- mus ligni vermiculus. Our King James Version has taken over the first phrase of this translation and renders it: "that sat in the seat." Happily it did not follow the Vulgate any farther, as has been done by the Douay Version with the following translation: "Jesbaham sitting in the chair was the wisest chief among the three, he was like the most tender little worm Qf the wood, who killed eight hundred men at one onset." Turning to the endeavors of more modern scholars, we see that Gesenius and Dietrich endeavor to retain ~'~~Yi1 ~~"11 and to find some meaning in the words by assuming the existence of a verb rw and of a noun i~P.) meaning a spear. Modern textual critics have come much nearer to U~YM ~~"Y by follow- ing Lucian's o-o·to~ i'iLExoa[tEl L~V i'iW(JXEuljv aVLwv, which, accord- ing to Klostermann, must be the Hebrew C?'::'P,9 i':!l1 t(~M, and 7 Fuerster or Foerster or Foster, John, was a pupil of Reuchlin and professor of Hebrew in Tuebingen and Wi~tenberg. 646 LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 which actually occurs in 1 Chronicles 12: 38. A mere change of , into " and we have the ""Y of Chronicles, which Marquardt joins up with l'~Y~. The combination i'~p,~ "':llJ has the same meaning as jn'~D, -n~ "'!.lJ in 1 Chronicles 11: 11. This example of textual criticism is noteworthy, because it succeeds in retaining most of the consonants of a corrupt text. Attempts to retain the consonants of any and every Masoretic text is always laudable and should find the support of every scholar. Still, in this case we have a parallel text which cannot be ignored, and which, above all, should guide the text critic in correcting a corrupt text. Luther's attempt, therefore, to correct 2 Samuel 23: 8 and with the help of 1 Chronicles 11: 11 finds the approval of the majority of the textual critics. It is the second premise from which he proceeds in his approach to 2 Samuel 23: 8. This premise presupposes that 1 Chronicles 11: 11 contains the original text without a corrupt reading. If this presup- position is correct, we can more readily correct 2 Samuel 23: 8. There are textual critics who question the reading of a few words in 1 Chronicles 11: 11. Even Delitzsch says in regard to both lists in 2 Samuel 23: 8-39 and 1 Chronicles 11: 10-47: "The two lists agree with each other, except that there are a considerable number of errors of the text, more especially in the names, which are frequently corrupt in both texts, so that the true reading cannot be determined with certainty." But after all has been said, we can safely follow Marti's judgment in his commentary on 1 Chronicles 11: 11, that apart from one word, t:l'~'~W'rr, for which the Masoretic text has three versions, Chronicles represents the original text. Comparing this text with that in 2 Samuel, we find that even apart from the corrupt passages in the latter, Chronicles still contains words which are not found in the parallel passage of Samuel. In place of ,,~~~ in Chronicles, we have ni~~ in Samuel; in- stead of ni~p 't!i't!i in Chronicles, we meet ~ith nj~p jJ~bt!i in Samuel; and the~ we have the t:l'~l~~O in Chronicles a~d' the '~~Wt1 in Samuel, while the qere has t:l'\?'>Wtl. In calling 1 Chron- icles 11: 11 a parallel passage to 2 Samuel 23: 8 we must keep in mind that this is permissible only in a limited sense of the word. Still, as we shall yet see, it suffices to correct at least three of the corrupt phrases in 2 Samuel. LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 647 The third premise from which Luther proceeded pertains to the Greek Versions. According to Luther they offer no help in correcting the corrupt text of 2 Samuel. This premise cannot be upheld. Even Flacius did not agree with Luther in this instance, but took recourse to the Greek Versions in order to reconstruct the text in 2 Samuel. His comments on Luther's letter to Roerer read: "Luther's conjecture has been examined by me. In the oldest manuscripts by means of glosses on 1 Chronicles 11 we have J oshbaam instead of Joshbasam. Now, it is more probable," he continues, "that Joseb Basebet, as we have it in 2 Samuel 23, originated from Josbasam . . Mention is also made," he reminds us, "of Hach- moni, the father of J osabeam, and of his son J echiel in 1 Chronicles 27: 32. In addition to this it must also be ob- served that he who is called J osab is named Job in another passage, as, for instance, the son of Isaschar, who is called Job in Genesis 46: 13; in Chronicles 7: 1, however, Jasub. Refer- ring to the Septuagint, he says: "The LXX has 'IECi~6(j{}(lL Xavavalo; in 2 Samuel 23, which comes nearer to the reading in Chronicles than to the J oseb Basebet in 2 Samuel. Besides the fact that the two are similar as to their pronunciation, the form is also more acceptable as a proper name. Finally, Flacius even considers the translation of the Vulgate 2 Sam- uel 23: David sedet in cathedra sapientissimus and concludes from it that Jerome preferred to read Ben Hachmoni, as we have it in 1 Chronicles 11: 11, to Tachmoni, which is to be regarded as a corrupt reading of the Book of Kings or Samuel. In short, Flacius made much greater use of the Versions in .his approach to 2 Samuel 23: 8 than Luther had done. Modern textual critics have, of course, extended their search of the Greek Versions and with their help have at last come much nearer to the correct reading of the corrupt forms l1.:lei.:l :lei" ')C:lnn, 'ei'ein, ")~lIM '~"1I. Therefore the modern textual critics do not have to resort to more or less guesswork in trying to show how a copyist could have blundered in -copying the original. Luther endeavored to show it on the basis of the similarity of Hebrew letters to one another. Kennicott conjectures that the spurious reading of n::1ei.:l :lei' arose from the circumstance that the last two letters of ClI:lei' were written in one of the Hebrew manuscripts under n:le'::1, 648 LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 which is found in verse 7 in the line directly above. A copyist then took 11::J~::J {Tom that line by mistake for the original wording tHI of tll)::Jt::h and consequently read 11::J~::J ::J~'. But whatever the reason for the mistake of the copyist may have been, the n::Jtti::J ::J~\, for instance, is not any longer a crux criticorum when holding it up in the light of the Greek Versions and finally discovering in it the ~1I::J~\ or ~lI::Jtti~ of Lucian's IE(J~aal'. Today we can truly say that the field on which the text critic can do his work has been widened over against that of Luther's day. Yet Luther is to be regarded as the pioneer of modern textual criticism. The Romanists cannot claim this honor for themselves, Trent or no Trent. Therefore it is not surprising that Delitzsch in his commen- tary on the Books of Samuel (p.493) and Caspari in his, commentary on Die Samuelbuecher (Leipzig 1926, p. 656) refer to Luther as one who had already sought to correct the' n::J~::J ::J~\ in 2 Samuel 23: 8, using his remarks as preserved by Roerer on the margin in the German Bible. But this is not the only instance of Luther's text-critical efforts in the field of textual criticism. More could be added. This one ex- ample, however, puts us into a position to draw the necessary conclusions for our own work in the field of textual criticism. Luther himself draws one far-reaching conclusion from his textual criticism of 2 Samuel 23: 8 in advising Roerer to add to the correction which he has made and similar ones as an addendum of his German Bible. His advice was never carried out. Roerer did enter Luther's criticism of 2 Samuel 23 as a marginal gloss to Jasabeam in the German Bible of 1545 as follows: "An diesem ort stehets im Ebreischen also, Dis sind die Namen der HeIden David, Joseb Basebeth, Thach- moni, der furnemest unter dreien. Ipse adina, Ha Eznib, und schlug achthundert auff ein mal, Da achten wir, del' Text sey durch einen Schreiber verderbet, etwa aus einem Buch unkendlicher schrift und von boesen buchstaben. Und sey also Adino fur Orer, und Ha Eznib fur ethhanitho gemacht. Denn die Ebrei wol wissen, wie man in boeser Handschrifft kann Daleth fur Res, Vau fur Nun, He fur Thau und wieder- umb lesen. Darum haben wirs nach dem Text 1. Parali- pomenorum 11. corrigiert, Denn der Text an dies em ort nichts gibt. Des gleichen kan auch geschehen sein in dem woertlin LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 649 drey, Item acht hundert, So in der Chronika dreyssig. Item drey hundert stehen, Doch kan das ein ander meinung haben, ut infra 1. Paralipomenorum 11.» 8 Thus Roerer added a textual gloss on the strength of Luther's letter and advice. Would that he had added many more of the same nature. However, what has been left un- done by Luther's co-workers can still be made up by us. A comparison of Luther's translation with the Masoretic text and the translation of the King James Version will demonstrate wherein this work consists. To begin with the latter, the translation of 2 Samuel 23: 8 in the Authorized Version reads as follows: "These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adina the Eznite, he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time." The reader of the English Bible will at once see the expression he lift up his spear, because it is in italics, is not in the original text of Samuel. He will also want to inquire into the meaning of the words: "The Tach- monite ... was Adina the Eznite." Kennicott says of this translation that it is "nearly as absurd to say that Jeshobeam the Hachmonite was the same as Adino the Eznite as that David the Bethlehemite 'was the same as Elijah the Tishbite." The Old Testament scholar who reads and studies the ancient Versions knows that the King James Version has followed the Septuagint and the Vulgate in translating n~t:i~ ~t:i, with "that sat in the seat." He is also in a position to know why it translates: "chief among the captains" and not: chief among the three. Both of Luther's translations of 2 Samuel 23: 8 in his revision of the Vulgate and in his German Bible are identical. The former reads "Haec sunt nomina fortium David, Iasabeam filius Hachmoni princeps inter tres, qui levavit hastam suam, et octingentos interfecit senwl. D By distinguishing certain words by italics Luther shows the reader that he has not trans- lated 2 Samuel 23: 8 word for word, but has inserted certain words and expressions in his translation. His German trans- lation reads: "Diss sind die namen der heIden Dauid, Jasa- beam der son Hachmoni. del' ful'nempst vnder dl'eyen. del' 8 Die Deutsche Bibel, 3. Bd., p. 414, Anmk. 1. Weimar, 1911. \) Ibid. 5. Bd., 393, 8. 650 LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 seynen spies auf!hub vnd erschlueg achthundert auf! eyn mal." 10 In these two translations we find 1 Chronicles 11: 11 with the exception of the three words which are characteristic of Chronicles, of which we already have made mention. 1 Chronicles 11: 11 reads in Luther's German Bible: "Vnd dis ist die zal der gewaltigen Dauid. Jasabeam der son Hachmoni der furnemest unter dreyysigen. Er hub seynen spies auf! vnd schlug dreyhundert auf! eyn ma1.11 Comparing the two translations, we observe that Luther took over the words Jasabeam, der Son Hachrnonis and er hob seinen spiess auf and thus replaced the corrupt reading in 2 Samuel. He did not do this without writing the corrupt form Joseb Basebeth on the margin and adding: "qui sedet in populo idem nomen hic et paralypo sed diverse sonat." 12 Luther made a third change in translating "der furnempst vnder dreyen," while our English Version has "chief among the captains." In other words, he did not follow the qere, which in Chronicles wants us to read the form C'~'~~iJ, "the captains," and which our King James Version has p~eferred to the ,~~tfiJ in 2 Samuel. Luther translated this as Lucian had done before him ('tON 'tllLWV) with dreyen. At first he also wanted to alter the text in accordance with Chronicles and translated der furnempst unter dreyysigen. This translation, however, he deleted and wrote above the line: dreyen.13 Thus we see how Luther's translation of a text was preceded by no small amount of text-critical work. Luther in his letter to Roerer speaks of similar correc- tions in his German Bible, which should also be listed and indexed. An Old Testament scholar reading the Prophets, for instance, and comparing Luther's translation with the original and with the King James Version, will find that his translation is based at times on textual corrections. The dif- ference between the German and the English Version does not only consist in the latter being more literal than the former, but also in being less text-critical. Luther the trans- lator was also and necessarily a textual critic. In presenting his "divinationes" to Roerer, Aurogallus, 10 Ibid. 1. Bd., 137, 8. 11 Ibid. 253, 1. 12 Ibid. 3. Bd., 414, Anmk. 1. 13 Ibid. 1. Bd., 137, 8. LUTHER'S TEXT-CRITICAL STUDY OF 2 SAM. 23:8 651 Cigler, and Fuerster for a critical review, Luther made it quite clear that he wanted his co-workers and students and all future Hebraists to continue his work on the Masoretic text. Above all he paved the way for us by stating clearly and definitely that certain passages in the Old Testament have been "dis- torted, also transposed, and mutilated, as also hastily written," that a manuscript itself must in certain instances "have been marred and defaced, either through the inexperience of the copyist or through the deformity of the letters"; in short, that there are corrupt passages in the Old Testament manu- scripts. Luther spoke thus from a long and strenuous study of the Hebrew text and from a resultant knowledge of the text. We cannot think of carrying on textual criticism today, even though we have better means and helps at our disposal than Luther had, without having studied the text even as Luther had done. We shall then experience that there are passages in the Old Testament which cry out - not primarily for some interpretation at all costs - but for some correction. We therefore agree with the conservative scholar Wm. Green that "there are indeed some manifest errors which may in part be corrected by parallel passages; the rest must be left to critical conjectures." 14 While we also agree with Green that critical conjectures "should be only sparingly used, and should be restricted to cases of actual necessity," 15 still we must not fail to see and find these "cases of actual necessity," as Luther, for instance, did, and not close our eyes to them when we do run up against them. While the reader of a Bible translation does not grow conscious of these errors unless his attention is called to them by the translator in footnotes, while the pastor who is study- ing a sermon text in the original does not always find time to follow up a textual error, especially if it does not involve great difficulties for the interpretation of his text, the trans- lator and the commentator of the Bible must practice textual criticism wherever and whenever a scribal error demands it. In the matter of a scholarly Old Testament commentary and of an interlinear translation of the Old Testament full justice should be done by us to the art of textual criticism. Since this 14 William Henry Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament, "The Text," p. 180. 15 Ibid., p.177. 652 THE BLESSED RESULTS OF JUSTIFICATION year marks the fourth centenary of Luther's death, we have an added incentive to do this very thing. In the Leichen- programm of 1546 our attention is called to the fact that Lu- ther, when he edited his translation of the Old and the New Testatment, was even summoned by his co-workers to pass judgment on certain Hebrew phrases. The words pertaining to this interesting bit of news read: "Cum Rev. vir D. Martinus Lutherus edidit Germanicam interpretationem scripturae Propheticae et Apostolicae, adhibitus est et ipse, ut de phrasi hebraea iudicaret." The Luther who entered the coUegium biblicum, as it was called either by Luth~r himself or more likely by Mathesius, was armed not only with his Latin and his new German Bibles, but invariably with His Hebrew Bible and with a new store of Hebrew vocables. Thus armed, he was called in and consulted by the Hebraists of this col- legium biblicum in order to gain his advice both in regard to the reading and the meaning of Hebrew phrases. Let us also not fail to seek Luther's advice in applying the art of textual criticism to the Masoretic text. As Lutheran theologians and scholars we emphasize with Luther not only the "buch- staebische Sinn" of a passage, but as a very necessary premise the "Buchstabe," the original letter, word, and phrase of every text. (EDITORIAL NOTE: This essay is an elaboration of a paper on the same subject, read at the Lutheran Academy Convention in Chicago on Au- gust 13, 1946, and published in The Lutheran Scholar, January, 1947.) The Blessed Results of Justification ROM. 5:1-5 By H. J. BOUMAN In human affairs the results often are not in proportion to the preparations. There the old saying "The mountain labors and brings forth a ridiculous mouse" is frequently true. It is never thus in divine affairs. There the results always are commensurate with preparations, even though our limited vision and understanding fails to see it. Let us remember this as we study the blessed results of justification according to Rom. 5: 1-5.