Luther's Bible. How did the Bible come into being? Martin Luther translates the Bible

Martin Luther und seine Bibelübersetzung

Es ist üblich zu denken, dass die erste Bibelübersetzung in die deutsche Sprache von Martin Luther geschaffen wurde. In Wirklichkeit gab es lange vorher Versuche, einige alttestamentarische Bücher ins Deutsche zu übersetzen. Aber nur der Begründer der Reformation schaffte die ganze Übersetzung, die eine große Rolle für die Entwicklung der deutschen Sprache hatte.

Nach der Abwendung von der katholischen Kirche wollte Martin Luther die Heilige Schrift übersetzen, um die Bibel für alle Leute verständlich zu machen. Früher benutze man in der Kirche nur Texte auf Latein, die nur gebildete Leute verstehen konnten. Deshalb war es notwendig, eine gute Übersetzung zu schaffen. Das größte Problem bestand darin, dass es im Mittelalter keine einheitliche deutsche Sprache gab. Auf dem Territorium des heutigen Deutschlands gab es zahlreiche Kurfürstentümer, in denen verschiedene Dialekte gesprochen wurden. In seiner Bibelübersetzung benutzte Luther mitteldeutsche Dialekte, vor allem Sächsisch. Es war für ihn auch wichtig, die biblischen Texte der Alltagssprache näherzubringen. Später erzählte der Theologe, dass er die Sprache verwendete, die er bei einfachen Menschen hörte. Er behauptete: “Man muss dem Volk aufs Maul schauen.”

Während der Arbeit hatte Luther noch ein großes Problem: In der Sprache gab es häufig keine Analogien für einige biblische Wörter, deshalb musste er neue Begriffe schaffen, was die deutsche Sprache bereicherte.

Die katholische Kirche verfolgte Martin Luther, deshalb verbrachte er heimlich einige Monate auf der Wartburg, wo er das Neue Testament übersetze. Diese kolossale Arbeit wurde ziemlich schnell erledigt: von Dezember 1521 bis März 1522. Die erste Ausgabe wurde sofort verkauft, weil alle Leute die Heilige Schrift in ihrer Muttersprache lesen wollten. So wurde die Basis für die einheitliche deutsche Sprache gelegt.

Martin Luther and his Bible translation

It is commonly believed that the first translation of the Bible into German was made by Martin Luther. In fact, long before him, attempts had been made to translate some of the Old Testament books into German. But the founder of the Reformation created a complete translation, which played a big role for the development of the German language.

After his break with the Catholic Church, Martin Luther wanted to translate the Scriptures to make the Bible understandable to all people. Previously, the church used only Latin texts, which were understood only by educated people. Therefore, it was necessary to create a good translation. The biggest problem was that in the Middle Ages there was no single German language. On the territory of today's Germany there were many electors in which they spoke different dialects. In his translation of the Bible, Luther used Central German dialects, primarily Saxon. It was important for him to bring biblical texts closer to everyday language. The theologian later said that he used language that he overheard from ordinary people. He argued: “We need to listen to the common people.”

During his work, Luther had another problem: the language often did not have analogies for some biblical words, so he had to create new concepts that also enriched the German language.

The Catholic Church persecuted Martin Luther, and so he spent several months secretly in Wartburg Castle, where he translated the New Testament. This colossal work was carried out quite quickly: from December 1521 to March 1522. The first edition was immediately sold out, because all people wanted to read the Holy Scriptures in their native language. Thus the basis for a unified German language was laid.

All that I am and can give is by His mercy and grace...

M. Luther “Epistle on Translation”

The famous ninety-five theses, nailed in 1517 by Luther, then still an Augustinian monk, to the doors of the cathedral in Wittenberg, sowing discord between theologians, raised the most important question for that time about the mediation of the church in the relationship between man and God. A direct consequence of Luther’s interpretation of it was the need for religious education of the people and the accessibility of the Holy Scriptures to both the clergy and the laity. It cannot be said, however, that the idea of creating a German Bible belonged to Luther alone. The Bible had been translated into German before. From the creation of the first complete German Bible by Johannes Mentel in 1461 in Strasbourg until 1520, 14 High German and 4 Low German translations of the Bible were printed. Along with this, there were many translations into German of individual biblical texts and a huge number of mostly untitled gospel harmonies (Perikopenbücher), as well as works of a didactic nature. However, it was thanks to Luther that the German language “replenished the number of “sacred” languages (Hebrew, Greek, Latin), in the form of which the Holy Scriptures were clothed”, because only after Luther it was possible to talk about the beginning of the formation of not only a new Christian denomination, but also a unified German language. By Luther's time, Mentel's first German Bible had more disadvantages than advantages. Luther's contemporary Johannes Mathesius wrote that he had read this Bible in his youth, but found it merely Germanized Vulgate Latin and dark and gloomy.

The features of the medieval translation, which, obviously, to one degree or another were present in other translations that preceded Luther's Bible, are worth special mention. With the development of Christianity, the text began to be perceived as a shrine and, consequently, the attitude towards translation changed (compared to antiquity). The word was perceived as an image of a thing, the word was iconic, and the translator’s task was to find this image, this icon in the target language, the only indissoluble connection between the word and the thing, and then everything would be translatable. There is one sign, but different peoples see it from different angles. Therefore, literal translation or, as the medievalist Bulanin called it, the “word-by-word principle of translation” was logical for the Middle Ages. Thus, the following main features of medieval translation were formed:

The iconicity of the perception of the word explains the translator’s desire to preserve everything possible in the original and the linearity of the translation. However, since the “icon” was not always found in the native language, tracings and translation transcriptions arose (i.e., juxtaposition of phonemes of two languages).
The literal translators were not naive blind people. They created a special type of text, the main criterion for evaluation of which was completeness of compliance with doctrine. The presence of the inexpressible in the text was important. The incomprehensibility of the text corresponded to the transcendental nature of the worldview. A completely understandable text would not have been recognized; there was no national specificity of the original.
Paradoxically, along with the iconicity of the word, there was the possibility of replacing the realities of the original with local realities (for example, in the poetic translation of the Bible into the ancient Saxon language in the ninth century “Heliand” (“Savior”), the desert where Christ retired was replaced by a forest).
The translated text could be revised; this is due to the fundamental anonymity of the translator.
The share of translated texts in the Middle Ages was up to 99 percent (one percent was created by the representatives of a given people themselves), which implied a common textual culture.

Making the Bible understandable and accessible to Christians meant for Luther, first of all, making it understandable to the Germans: language for him was “the sheath in which is the blade of the spirit.” The task he set himself was not an easy one - despite the development of printing, the German people to whom Luther addressed were largely illiterate. Another circumstance - the abundance of dialects and the conditional division of the country into vast linguistic areas - at one time became the reason for the appearance of several versions of the Bible translation and, as a consequence, an obstacle to the formation of a single language. For Luther, it was obvious the need to create a fundamentally new translation of the Bible, which would make it possible, in a simple, clear and inspired, and most importantly, unified German language, to convey to the people the Truth, which, if previously revealed, was only to the Catholic clergy - in the Vulgate.

In the matter of Bible translation, Luther acted as a reformer, refusing to take the Vulgate as a basis. His excellent education and his own talent allowed him to dare to translate from Hebrew and Greek. Taking as a basis the spelling and grammar of the Saxon imperial office, Luther began with the New Testament (the inviolability of the law of the Old Testament was, in his understanding, too closely connected with the immutability of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, so the renewal of the church had to begin with the study of the New Testament). During his forced stay in the Wartburg, hiding from persecution, he began translating in mid-December 1521 and completed his work in just eleven weeks. In May 1522, he took the finished manuscript to Wittenberg and worked on the text with his friends knowledgeable in languages and theology. In September 1522, the translation was already published and went down in history as the “September Testament” (Septembertestament). The popularity of the New Testament in Luther's translation was so great that he immediately began translating the Old Testament. Already in 1523 -24. The first translated parts were published: the Book of Job, the Psalter and the Book of Proverbs of Solomon. The books of the Prophets were translated from 1526 over several years. By 1534 the Bible was fully translated and published in Wittenberg. The translation was such a success that even five years before Luther completed it, printers from other cities independently supplemented his Bible with parts translated by others. At least five of these combined versions of the translation were already being sold in Germany before Luther finished translating the Books of the Prophets. Protecting his creation from the distortions of printers (the only thing in which Luther, who fought for almost every word, was ready to concede to them was spelling, since at that time there was no single spelling standard), he began to put his sign on the cover of the Bible - "Lutherrose"

In addition to printers and publishers who encouraged Luther to be even more careful about the language and accuracy of translation, competition from Catholics played an important role. While Luther was developing his own tradition of translation, Catholic “literalists” (“Buchstabilisten”) either continued to “Germanize” the Vulgate, or, as Johann Dietenberger tried to do in 1534, to Latinize Luther’s translation, i.e. to bring its original vocabulary and syntax closer to the centuries-old memorized syntactic structure of the Vulgate. Luther experienced criticism of his translation from Catholics more than painfully and poured out all his rage against idle critics, and there were many of them, in his “Epistle on Translation” (“Sendbrief von Dolmetschen”) in 1530: “I learned what an art it is and labor - translation - from personal experience... They didn’t try to do this. If someone does not like my translation, he can ignore it, and may the devil repay those who do not like my translation and who criticize it without my knowledge and permission. If it [the translation] needs criticism, I will do it myself. If I don't do this, let them leave my translation alone. Each of them can make a translation that suits him - why should I care? Scribblers and papists may insult me, but faithful Christians, together with Christ their Lord, bless me."

Attempts by critics failed, Luther's supporters became more and more numerous, including because, working on syntax and phrase construction, he first of all sought to ensure that entire passages could be easily learned by heart, which became possible only if the text sounded quite German. One of the most striking examples is the change in the order of words in the Lord's Prayer: Pater noster qui es in caelis in Luther's translation became Unser Vater im Himmel (Our Father in Heaven), which gave this address simplicity and even some vernacularism. During the Reformation, largely thanks to Luther, even peasants and artisans began to learn to read and write. This was the essence of Luther's translation method - to express the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek text in German, since, according to Luther, “words existed for meaning, not meaning for words.”

Translating the Old Testament presented considerable difficulty. Around the end of the 15th century, the humanists rediscovered the importance of knowledge of Hebrew for interpreting the text of the Bible, and here Luther followed them. He valued Hebrew above all other languages: in 1524, in the preface to the Psalter it was written: “The Hebrew language is so rich that no other could adequately replace it.” The Book of Job, for example, due to the special sublimity of the style, was very difficult to translate, since “its language is so powerful and magnificent, like no other book in all Scripture.” In his “Epistle on Translation” (“Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen”) of 1530, Luther testifies that when working on the Book of Job, he, his closest associate Philip Melanchthon and Matthew Aurogallus could struggle for four days over three lines. In terms of complexity, the Book of Job could be compared to the Psalter. Working on the Psalter required all the more effort because Luther recommended that everyone use the Psalter as a home prayer book and read it daily.

The Psalter, like the Book of Job, is replete with stylistic figures that could not be translated literally for fear of losing meaning for the sake of preserving imagery. The translation of the Psalter lasted several years, and amendments were constantly made to it; work on the 23rd Psalm (the 22nd in the Russian synodal translation) shows how Luther gradually came closer to the visual imagery of the Hebrew original and at the same time made the text sound better in German. Thus, in the first edition of 1524, the opening verses of the psalm literally sounded like “The Lord is my shepherd, I will not need anything. He sends me to graze where there is plenty of grass, and leads me to water, which refreshes me" (“Der HERR ist meyn hirt, myr wird nichts mangeln. Er lesst mich weyden da viel grass steht, und furet mich zum wasser das mich erkulet "). After two more amendments in the last edition (1545), a version arose, the majestic simplicity of which gives the text such a naturalness that these verses have been preserved in the modern German Bible without changes (“Der HERR ist mein Hirte. Mir wird nichts mangeln. Er weidet mich auff einer grunen Awen Vnd furet mich zum frisschen Wasser" - "Der Herr ist mein Hirte, mir wird nichts mangeln. Er weidet mich auf einer grunen Aue, und fuhret mich zum frischen Wasser"). It is interesting that the versions of the German and Russian synodal translations of the second verse of this psalm are not entirely equivalent: in Russian it sounds like “He makes me lie down in green pastures and leads me to still waters,” in German - “He feeds me in green pastures and leads to fresh waters.”

It is also interesting to compare some verses of the 50th (51st in the German Bible) psalm. For example, the beginning of the psalm: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to Your great mercy, and according to the abundance of Your compassions blot out my iniquities,” in the modern Lutheran Bible sounds like: “Gott, sei mir gnädig nach deiner Güte und tilge meine Sünden nach deiner großen Barmherzigkeit,” which literally translates to: “God, be merciful to me in your kindness and blot out my sins in your great mercy.” It is likely that the imperative “sei mir gnädig” is used here to avoid the appearance of its synonym “erbarme dich meiner” (“have mercy on me”), i.e. words with the same root as (die) Barmherzigkeit (mercy), but further inconsistencies (great mercy (kindness), iniquity (sins), many bounties (great mercy)) obviously should be explained based on the Hebrew text. Probably for the same reason there is a discrepancy at the beginning of the next verse: “Wash me from my iniquity many times, and cleanse me from my sin” - “Wasche mich rein von meiner Missetat, und reinige mich von meiner Sünde” (“Wash me from my crime (wickedness) and cleanse me from my sin." The following verses provide even more food for thought; so, the seventh verse: “Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother bore me” (“Siehe, ich bin als Sünder geboren,und meine Mutter hat mich in Sünden empfangen”) is translated as: “Behold, I was born as I am a sinner, and my mother conceived me in sins.” The twelfth verse is of particular interest: “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me” (“Schaffe in mir, Gott, ein reines Herz, und gib mir einen neuen, beständigen Geist”) - “Create in me “O God, pure heart, and give me a new, steadfast [persistent, unshakable] spirit.”

The desire to get closer to the Hebrew original and at the same time the lack of equivalents in the German language that could fully reflect the differentiated semantics of Hebrew vocabulary prompted Luther to develop a unique tradition of word formation in German (it was previously actively used by German mystics to denote abstractions) - to create complex words, most of which were included unchanged in the modern version of Luther's Bible. Thus, in the Book of Proverbs of Solomon (4:24) the word (das) Lastermaul is preserved (“Tu von dir die Falschheit des Mundes und sei kein Lastermaul” - “Cast away from you deceitful lips and remove the deceit of the tongue from you”); here again, the cunning of the language cannot be called an equivalent to the Russian phrase from the point of view of both structure and meaning: “sei kein Lastermaul” means “don’t be a slanderer,” although if you decompose (das) Lastermaul into components and translate them literally, you get approximately the same “cunning (viceness) of the tongue (mouth).”

Luther used the same method of word formation when translating the New Testament; for example, it was thanks to Luther that the expression “Wolf im Schafskleid” (“a wolf in sheep’s clothing (clothing)”), Matthew 7:15, became the property of the German language. This example illustrates the development of word formation trends before Luther and in his own work: even in the East Central German translation of Beheim in 1343 there was an expression schefinin cleidern, in the version of 1522 Luther retained the preposition of the definition in the genitive case! “…die zu euch komen s chaffskleydern" (literally - "who come to you in the clothing of sheep"), which allowed him in the 1546 version to move on to the complex word: "Sehet euch für, für den falschen P ropheten, die in Schafskleidern zu euch kommen, inwendig aber sind sie reißende Wölffe" (“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves”).

One of the most interesting Examples of such word formation from Luther's pen include das Hohelied (Song of Songs). In this case, Luther rejected the literal translation from the Vulgate (“canticum canticorum”), which in turn was a literal translation of the Hebrew “sir hassirim.” To convey sublimity, expressed according to the Hebrew tradition by repetition of the original word (as, for example, “Praise Him, O heavens of heavens...”, Ps. 149:4) and, obviously, in Luther’s opinion, which was not entirely understandable to the common people, he used the original German roots and created a word that can be translated as “high song” or “song of heights (s)” (from “hoch” - “high” and “(das) Lied” - “song, song”). The fact that this word in modern German can be used as a common noun in the sense of “a hymn to something”, “the best work of an artist, creator” testifies to the integrity of the perception of its meaning to this day.

In modern German, complex words with biblical themes are widespread, such as (der) Sundenbock ("scapegoat", (das) Kainszeichen ("Cain's seal"), (die) Feuertaufe ("baptism of fire"), (der) Adamsapfel ( “Adam’s apple”), (das) Feigeblatt (“fig leaf”), (der) Judaskuss (“kiss of Judas”), (der) Eckstein (“cornerstone”), which are translated into Russian by phraseological turns and are equivalent to the latter in The meaning and scope of use is interesting in the word (der) Uriahsbrief (literally, “the message of Uriah”), which does not have an equivalent phraseological expression in Russian and is used to denote bad news that brings misfortune or even death to the one who conveys it.

Many complex words of this kind were coined by Luther or shortly after him, but it is not always possible to establish their authorship; it is possible that neologisms attributed to him existed in the oral folk tradition of that time (it is known that Luther urged his assistants to listen carefully to popular speech in search of understandable, simple and succinct words and expressions). Not all of Luther's neologisms have survived to the present day - for linguistic reasons, however, the images and concepts expressed by them, as the main biblical symbols, common to all peoples, have remained unchanged. So, for example, in the modern German Bible, Psalm 119(118):19, the compound word (der) Erdengast (literally “earthly wanderer”) turned out to be decomposed into its original components: “Ich bin ein Gast auf Erden;) verbirg deine Gebote nicht von mir" (“I am a stranger on earth; do not hide Your commandments from me”). The image of a person living on earth as a wanderer in a vale of tears was widespread in medieval texts, and then in Protestant church hymns.

The creation of neologisms is only one side of Luther's contribution to the enrichment of the vocabulary of the German Bible. Thanks to him, many old words received new meaning, if not in the Bible itself, then through its interpretation by Luther and his ideas as a theologian. For example, the word (der) Pfaffe, which meant a (Catholic) priest in the world, acquired a disparaging connotation (pop) in contrast to the word (der) Pfarrer - pastor, (Protestant) priest. The word fromm, so common among Protestants, meant honest, truthful, diligent before Luther, and then acquired the meaning God-fearing, pious. Such words with a rethought meaning can presumably include (der) Beruf (profession), which in Middle High German meant “call, calling” and received the usual modern German meaning “service, rank, activity.” According to Luther's teaching, everyone is called to his work (activity) by God, therefore, it is pleasing to God and should be perceived by those working as service. In this regard, the word (die) Arbeit (work), which in medieval German generally meant “torment, need,” received a new meaning. What was “torment” for the medieval Catholic became a blessing for the Protestant.

It is known that Luther accompanied his translation in the margins with comments of this kind, which were supposed to explain the essence of his doctrine, which at the same time made it easier for him to work on the catechism (1529), which was intended for the education of children, a new generation of Protestants, and therefore needed special clarity and accessibility of presentation.

He also used comments when translating biblical proverbs and sayings - it was these comments that in a number of cases made it possible to establish Luther’s authorship, or more precisely, to prove the existence of equivalent versions in the folk tradition. Thus, he marked the verse “Wo aber ein Aas ist, da sammeln sich die Adler” (Matt. 24:28) - “For where the corpse is, there the eagles will gather” as a pre-existing proverb; in a slightly modified form it has survived to this day: “Wo ein Aas ist, da sammeln sich die Geier” (“Where there is carrion, there are vultures”). The proverb “Wes das Herz voll ist, des geht der Mund über” (in Luther “Wes das Herz vol ist, des geht der Mund über”) - “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34) was recorded as early as in the 15th century, so Luther preferred this option to the possibility of translating word for word from the Vulgate, which he wrote about in detail in his Epistle on Translation.

It is natural to assume that it was with the advent of Luther's translation that many biblical proverbs and sayings, which did not need to be replaced by German folk equivalents, became no less widespread (often having undergone minor structural changes). These include such famous phrases as: Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall - Pride goes before a fall (Proverbs 16:18), (Und) es geschieht nichts neues unter der Sonne - (And) there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9) , Suchet, so werdet ihr finden - Seek and you will find (Matthew 7:7), Der Prophet gilt nichts in seinem Land - There is no prophet in his own country (Matthew 13:57), etc.

The phraseological units of the German Bible or phraseological units created on biblical grounds and having no equivalents in the Russian tradition deserve special attention. These include, for example, the expression “Benjamin der Familie” (translated as “darling, family favorite”), while in English there is the expression “Benjamin’s mess” (“a fair share”); the semantics of these expressions is explained by the meaning of the Hebrew name Binjamin - lit. son of the right hand, i.e. beloved son.

The expression langer Laban (literally long Laban), having no equivalents in either Russian or English, can, however, be attributed to specific German phraseological units with biblical themes only with some stretch in view of its controversial etymology. Firstly, there is no evidence of Laban's height in the Bible (Gen. 29), and secondly, it is likely that this expression, used primarily in northern Germany to mean a clumsy, clumsy, slow person, contains a relic of the Celtic llabi or lleban , which corresponds in English to the verb to lob (hard, clumsy to walk, run) and the noun lubber (big clumsy person, lump).

Specific German phraseological units with biblical themes also include expressions based on wordplay, for example, nach Beth lehem gehen (go to Bethlehem) = zu Bett gehen = go to bed, go to bed, i.e. the consonance of Beth- and Bett leads to a rethinking of the meaning of the first expression, which can be used in a completely prosaic context.

As can be seen from the example above, the very situation of using the expression can be rethought. For example, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:29), Abraham says: “Sie haben Mose und die Propheten; die sollen sie hören" (“They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them”). The expression Mose(s) und Propheten haben (to have Moses and the prophets) is now used as Geld haben (to have money); the rethinking is apparently based on the consonance of Mose(s) (Moses) and Moos (money) from the synonymous construction Moos haben, because The German word Moos supposedly goes back to the Hebrew maoth (cf. Yiddish maos), which means Pfennige, Kleingeld (pfennigs, trifle).

The phrase “O Herr, er will mich fressen!” (lit. "Lord, he wants to devour me!"), Tobit 6:3 of the German Bible, now used humorously if someone yawns with their mouth wide open, or simply says "Tobias sechs, Vers drei" ("Tobit six , verse three").

A large crowd of guests may be greeted with the words “Dass mein Haus voll werde!” (“...so that my house may be filled” or “That my house may be full!”), Luke 14:23.

As you can see, the examples given are not without interest and, due to their uniqueness, testify to the special attitude of the Germans to the Bible - here one can feel Protestant simplicity and excellent knowledge of the text, which, of course, was facilitated by the conscientious study of the Bible, which Luther called for and which became possible precisely thanks to him.

Luther's Bible had an incomparable influence on the establishment of a national standard for the German language, the development of printing, and, as a consequence, the spread of education in Germany. In the short period between September 1522 and Luther's death in February 1546, more than 400 editions of the Bible were published. Of these, 101 are in Wittenberg alone. Book printers in Augsburg printed 61 editions, Strasbourg - 46, Nuremberg - 39, Erfurt - 32, Basel - 27, Leipzig - 25, which were huge for those times during Luther's lifetime. On the 1984 edition of the Luther Bible (it’s called die Lutherbibel), revised and published by the Evangelical Church in Germany, conscientiously equipped with all kinds of glosses, explanations, color maps and even the supposed chronology of the writing of each individual book, Luther’s rose flaunts.

T.V.Yartseva, M.P.Klochkovsky

Magazine "Nachalo" No. 6, 1998

There are also interesting inconsistencies in the New Testament, for example in Luke 1:28-29: “An angel came to her and said: Rejoice, full of grace! The Lord is with You; Blessed are You among women" (“Und der Engel kam zu ihr hinein und sprach: Sei gegrut, du Begnadete! Der Herr ist mit dir!” - “And the angel came in and said: Greetings, O Great One! The Lord is with you!”; “ When she saw him, she was embarrassed by his words and wondered what kind of greeting it was” (“Sie aber erschrak uber die Rede und dachte: welch ein Gru ist das?”) - “She was afraid of [this] speech and thought: What kind of greeting is this?

Bach, Arnold. Right there. P. 126

There are examples of even earlier use of this expression, incl. in the edifying poem “Renner” (1296-1309) by Hugo von Trimberg and in “The Prodigal Son” by Burkhard Waldis: “Wan der wulf wil roven gan / so tuet he shaps kleder an” (“When the wolf gets ready to hunt, he puts on the clothes of sheep "), see Bottcher, Kurt, Berger K.H., Krolop, Zimmermann. Geflugelte Worte: Zitate, Sentenzen u. Begriffe, in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhang. Bibliographisches Institut Leipzig 1981.

This phrase, with the exception of minor spelling corrections, has been preserved unchanged in the modern German Bible and is quite equivalent to the Russian translation.

Or das Hohe Lied

Luther's dictionary was the least understood by his readers in western and southern Germany, so the first editions of Luther's Bible in Strasbourg, Augsburg and Basel were accompanied by dictionaries that translated Luther into High German (South German). The Bible dictionary published by Adam Petri in Basel (1523) enjoyed particular success. Dictionaries of this kind allow us to trace the beginning of the process of lexical unification of the language. So, for example, in contrast to the South German dialectal words bidmen, gesprackelt/gescheckt, (der) Buhel, (die) Leftze, Luther’s beben (tremble), bunt (motley), (der) Hugel (hill), ( die) Lippe (lip). See Zhirmunsky V.M. History of the German language. M. 1965 P.82

Arndt, Erwin. Brandt, Gisela. Ebenda. S 210

Arndt, Erwin. Brandt, Gisela. Ebenda. S 216

In the German (at least Protestant) Bible, the Book of Tobit is considered apocryphal; not all of her poems coincide with the Russian translation. The phrase given in the example is not in the Russian text.

The German humanist, one of the “fathers” of the Reformation - Martin Luther (1483-1546) - can rightfully be considered the father of the modern German language. Historians of the German language believe that the role of Luther for the formation and development of the German language is as great as the role of Cicero for Latin. The main brainchild of Luther the philologist was the translation of the Bible into German.

In 1522, the New Testament was published in Wittenberg - a translation into German made by Luther (Das Neue Testament Teutsch). The translation took only three months. But the subsequent translation of the Old Testament dragged on for many years. The complete translation of the Bible was published only in 1534. Naturally, Luther did not work on the translation alone. In Wittenberg, something like a “translation workshop” was formed, the main master of which was Luther. He was assisted by his friend and follower Melanchthon and other scholars, specialists in Greek, Hebrew and Latin and in the interpretation of biblical texts.

Luther's merit is not that he made the first complete translation of the Bible into German. By the time he began this work, there were already many High German and Low German translations of the Bible, made after the first complete German Bible of Johann Mentel 1 was published in Strasbourg. Therefore, the main thing in assessing Luther’s translation work is not that he was able to make a new translation of the Bible, but the language in which he translated it.

The purpose of this new translation was to give contemporaries the text of the Bible in a language they understood, in which they communicated with each other every day. This goal may well be elevated to the basic principle of translation activity, beautifully formulated by M. Lederer: to translate does not mean to understand the meaning of a foreign language text oneself, it means to make it accessible to others.

Luther, to a certain extent, continues the tradition of Jerome in translating the texts of the Holy Scriptures - translating not words, but meanings. In his work on translating the Bible, he sees many similarities to what Jerome experienced. First of all, there is the constant need to explain to ignorant clergy the meaning of their translation decisions. In his famous “Epistle on Translation,” Luther compares himself with Jerome: “So it was with St. Jerome: when he translated the Bible, the whole world was his master, only he alone did nothing.

Cm.: Bach A. History of the German language. M., 1956. P. 169.

understood in his work, and the work of a good husband (des guten Mannes) was judged by those who were unworthy even to clean his shoes (ihm nicht genug gewesen wären, daß sie ihm die Schuhe hätten sollen wischen)” 1 . What Luther and Jerome have in common is that both Bible translators expressed their views on translation in the form of epistles, trying to explain their translation strategy to their contemporaries. Both Jerome's Letter to Pammachius, subtitled "On the Best Method of Translation," and Luther's Epistle on Translation are among the golden treasures of theoretical treatises on translation and allow today's translators to judge the problems that their colleagues in the past had to solve.

At the same time, Luther was critical of the text of the Vulgate, finding inaccuracies and distortions in it. D.Z. Gotsiridze and G.T. Hu-Huni cite the statement of I.N. Golenishchev-Kutuzov that Luther hated Jerome, although he used the translation of the author of the Vulgate. The researchers see the basis for such a harsh assessment in the fact that the Latin version allegedly did not satisfy Luther, since it could not be read easily, without interference 2. In my opinion, the reason for the criticism of the Vulgate and its author was different.

Firstly, Luther was forced to constantly contrast his translation with the official Latin version accepted by the entire Catholic Church, i.e. his philological activity proceeded in the struggle with the Vulgate. This forced struggle with the “donkeys” could not but affect Luther’s attitude towards the author of the work, which was considered by these “donkeys” to be as true as the text of the original Bible itself. Secondly, it is appropriate to recall the already quoted figurative statement of E. Kari that the Reformation was primarily a discussion between translators. The main opponent of Luther the translator was Jerome, the author of the translation officially recognized by the church, just as the main opponent of Luther the reformer was the Catholic Church, which officially recognized the Latin Vulgate as the only authority. But it can hardly be assumed that the heaviness of Jerome’s style was at the center of Luther’s hypothetical discussion with the medieval master. After all, Luther, a subtle and attentive philologist, could not help but appreciate what is so highly appreciated by virtually all scholars of Jerome’s translation: the Vulgate is the best Latin translation of the Bible, a masterpiece of biblical translation. The object of Luther's criticism was the inaccuracies and distortions he identified in the text

1 Quote By: Gotsiridze D.Z., Khukhuni G.T. Decree. Op. P. 89.

Vulgates. Let us remember what was the reason for Luther’s break with the Roman Church. Pope Leo X, having decided to finance the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica, significantly expanded the sale of indulgences. Luther considered these actions outrageous, equating them to ordinary trade. On October 31, 1517, he announced 95 theses at the University of Wittenberg, which condemned indulgences.

Now let us remember the inaccuracy that Jerome made in his translation, literally introducing into the biblical text the concept of “atonement for sin by works,” because it was this concept that led to the introduction of the institution of indulgences.

Thus, Luther's dissatisfaction with the Latin version of the Bible lay more in its lack of accuracy than in its ponderous style.

The translation of the Bible reflects the concept of Luther the Reformer. One of the main provisions of his spiritual concept was that the only source of faith is the Holy Scripture, and also that every believer should be able to freely interpret it. Luther follows in this the Hebrew truth recorded in the Talmud: “In the Torah (Old Testament. - N.G.) 600,000 persons", i.e. as many as she has readers.

The translation strategy is built on this concept: firstly, to make the translation text meaningfully correct and accurate, as closely as possible to the original text, and secondly, to make it understandable and accessible to every person.

In search of forms of expression, Luther turns to the everyday language of ordinary people. A phrase from his “Message” has already become a textbook example, illustrating this search method: “You should not ask the letters of the Latin language, how to speak German, you should ask the mother of the family, children on the street, a simple person in the market and look into their mouths.” , as they speak, and translate accordingly, then they will understand and notice that they are being spoken to in German" 1 .

Kopanev gives an interesting example of one of the ways in which Luther sought the forms of expression of the German language he needed. In order to choose the most appropriate forms of expression in German when translating the fragment about the Levites sacrificing a ram, Luther asked the butcher to slaughter the ram, skin it, while commenting in German on the entire process 2 . This technique, consisting of direct contact

1 Luther. M. Sendbrief von Dolmetschen // Das Problem des Übersetzens, hrsg.
V Hans Joachim Störig. Stuttgart, 1963. S. 21. Cited. By: Kopanev P.I. Decree. Op. P. 150.
See also: Gotsiridze D.Z., Khukhuni T.G. Decree. Op. P. 92; Van Hoof H. Op. cit. P. 214.

2 Kopanev P.I. Decree. Op. P. 150.

translator to reality, modern translation theory can be correlated with the so-called “denotative model”.

The translation of the Bible, made under the leadership of Luther, became one of the world's masterpieces of biblical translation, influencing the development of translation practice not only in Germany, but throughout Europe. All subsequent translations of the Bible into German are based on Luther's version, correcting and supplementing his text in accordance with the modern state of the German language, with modern scientific knowledge.

The experience of translating the Bible into the vernacular inspired the English reformer Tyndale, who undertook a new translation of the Holy Scriptures into vernacular English and checked his text with Luther's translation. Luther's translation concept formed the basis of the so-called Králicka Bible, a translation into Czech made under the direction of Bishop Jan Blahoslav. This translation greatly influenced the further development of the Czech literary language.

Luther's translation of the Bible laid the foundations for a common German national literary language and became a literary monument of paramount importance. In an effort to create a common German language for the entire nation, Luther did a tremendous amount of linguistic work, developing rules for spelling, phonetic transcription, and organizing grammatical forms. After the publication of Luther's Bible, the German language began to more and more confidently win back its position from Latin as the language of scientific communication and literature.

English Bible translations

a) Translation by John Wycliffe

It is advisable to begin considering translations of the Bible into English from the 14th century, namely from the translations made by theologian John Wyclif (1324-1384). Almost until the end of his life, Wycliffe wrote in Latin. But in 1380 he began to translate the Bible into English, or rather, he began to translate the New Testament and, possibly, part of the Old. Much of the Old Testament would be translated by Wycliffe's associates, Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey. There are two versions of the Wycliffe Bible, both based on the Vulgate. The first is strict and follows the Latin text in almost everything, the second is freer, more English. One of the manuscripts says that the first version of the translation was made by Hereford, and the second, revised and in many ways superior to the first, by Purway.

Despite the obvious collective creativity, John Wycliffe is considered the ideological inspirer of this translation.

The translation of the Bible into English, carried out under the direction of Wycliffe, despite all its imperfections, marks a certain milestone in the history of translation: it was the first complete translation of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular. This translation not only laid the foundations of the English biblical language, but also served the development of English prose as a whole.

b) Versions by William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale

In the 16th century The ideas of the Reformation spread in England. Welsh reformer William Tyndale 1494- 1536) conceives of translating the Bible into English again and is accepted in London in 1523 for the translation of the New Testament. He justifies his project with the usual argument in such cases - the search for truth. But, in addition, its goal is to destroy the misconception that the vernacular language is supposedly incapable of properly conveying the original. Tyndale begins his work at a time when England was still closely associated with the Pope. Therefore, in order to avoid possible complications caused by his reformist spirit, Tyndale moves to Germany, to Hamburg, meets with Luther in Wittenberg and begins to partially print his translation in Cologne. In 1525 he published the Gospels of Matthew and Mark as separate books. However, to escape repression, he was forced to flee to Worms, where in the same year he published a complete translation of the New Testament. Then he goes to Marburg, where he publishes the Pentateuch in 1530, and in 1531 the Book of the Prophet Jonah.

His translations, which characterize the author as a subtle polymath who is not indifferent to the harmony of words, were completely independent. The translator's extensive knowledge allowed him to rely not only on the Vulgate, from which the translation was made. Tyndale also consulted the German version of Luther and the Greco-Latin commentary edition of Erasmus. His introductory articles and notes are partly literally translated from Luther's version. By the time of his death, Tyndale had already made significant progress in translating the Old Testament.

Modern researchers believe that it was Tyndale who established the principle of biblical translation into English.

However, Tyndale's contemporaries found many inaccuracies and errors in his translations. Thomas More wrote seven volumes of incriminating articles against Tyndale. They noted the controversial nature of his marginal comments and criticized some of his lexical substitutions. It was said, in particular, that

that Tyndale unjustifiably replaced some established ecclesiastical terms, e.g. church (church) on congregation (religious brotherhood), priest (priest) on senior (senior), charyty (mercy) on love (love for one's neighbor).

In 1533, when Henry VIII's hostility towards heretics seemed to have subsided, Tyndale decided to return to Anver, where he continued to work on the edition of the translation. However, due to betrayal, he falls into the hands of the police. In 1536 he was hanged and burned. Most copies of his translations were destroyed.

Tyndale's translation still attracts the interest of readers. In 2000, the British Museum Library produced its first book since the 16th century. reprint of Tyndale's translation of the Bible from one of the few copies.

Ironically, Tyndale's work on translating the Bible, completed in 1535 by the Augustinian monk Miles Coverdale (1488-1568), was actually officially adopted in England after Henry VIII broke ties with the papacy and introduced the Reformation. England.

Coverdale, perhaps less learned than Tyndale, was an inspired translator. His translation of the Bible, according to some accounts, relied more on the Swedish-German version, rather than on the Latin-German one, like Tyndale's. The first edition of the Coverdale Bible was published in Zurich.

Against the background of Protestant Bibles, it was later, in 1582, that the first Catholic Bible appeared in English.

In 1611, the so-called “Authorized Version”, otherwise called the “King James Bible,” was published. Its creation, according to some researchers, is accidental. Van Oof, in particular, writes that in 1603 King James (1566-1625) assembled a council to study the claims of the most fanatical Puritans. A study of the Puritan demands showed the urgent need to create a single translation of the Bible, approved and approved by the monarch. The king creates a commission to prepare a new, completely revised translation. Over the course of seven years, from 1604 to 1611, forty-seven scholars, led by Lancelot Andrew, Bishop of Winchester, worked to create a new version of the translation. The bishop himself makes a new translation of the Pentateuch. Starting from the biblical English language, formed by the translations of Wycliffe and Tyndale, the translators eliminated archaisms from the previous texts, but left in them everything that was understandable and clear. As a result, an artistic creation was created

a text that, however, had no meter, no rhyme, no prosody, but had simplicity and vitality. “The greatest of all translations of the Bible, this version,” notes Van Of, “is also the greatest of all books in the English language, the first work of the English classics and the most powerful influence on the English language.” 1

Chapter 4

BEGINNINGS OF THE THEORY OF TRANSLATION. TRANSLATION AND SPEECH ART

§ 1. Cicero: the first opposition of the categories “free” and “literal”

Less than ten centuries after Carthage, the great writer and orator of Rome, Marcus Tulius Cicero (106-43 BC), describing his translation experience in the now widely known preface to his own translations of the speeches of Aeschines and Demosthenes, contrasted himself, the great orator and a writer, a simple translator. With this contrast, he clearly demonstrated the attitude of Roman society towards the profession of translator.

From a historical point of view, Cicero was perhaps luckier than other ancient authors, since a significant part of his works has been preserved (almost half of his speeches, treatises on rhetoric and philosophy, a huge number of letters). Apparently, this preserved heritage was one of the reasons that Cicero is one of the figures of the ancient world, whose statements are still cited in a variety of sciences and whose art of speech is a role model.

The history of translation science did not fail to remember Cicero. After all, it is in his treatises that we find references to translation, to translators, as well as some theoretical reflections that indicate an understanding of the problems of translation activity.

It is in Cicero that we first discover the opposition of the categories of translation theory, namely the opposition of free translation to literal translation.

In fact, free translation and literal translation can be considered as the primary and fundamental categories of translation theory. These categories reflect two opposing strategies of translation activity. Throughout most

1 Van Hoof H. Op. cit. P. 143.

For more than two thousand years, translators, writers, critics, linguists and philosophers, thinking about the problems of translation activity, have been arguing about which translation can be considered free and which can be considered literal, which translation is preferable, whether there are intermediate types of translation or whether any translation can be classified only to one of these types.

Before analyzing Cicero's concept of translation, let us briefly consider the historical context that largely determined his views.

The ancient Romans were not much different from the Hellenes in their confidence in the perfection of their language and their culture, and, accordingly, in their disdain for the languages and cultures of other peoples. Only Greek culture was recognized by them as a role model. Everything else that did not belong to the Hellenic or Roman civilizations was considered barbaric. Why was it necessary to translate into great languages from barbarian ones?

Greek culture, recorded in the texts, was known to the Romans from primary sources: for an educated Roman, knowledge of the Greek language was natural. The Romans apparently did not yet have any desire to enlighten the people. Accordingly, translations from Greek into Latin turned out to be unnecessary, and translations from barbarian languages even more so. Translation, thus, fell into the category of a secondary activity that did not require great intellectual abilities, in any case not comparable to literary activity and oratory.

Hence the Romans’ disdain for translation and the translator. Public recognition of a particular profession and respect for it are determined solely by the degree of its necessity - either real or imagined - for the functioning of society. In ancient Carthage, where perhaps no single language was as dominant as Latin in Rome or Greek in Greece, translators were needed not only to provide "intercultural communication" to a multilingual and multinational people, but also to govern those people. In modern Canada, where the official state languages are not one, but two (English and French), where the management of a bilingual people is carried out through translation, the profession of translator is also respected.

In Ancient Rome, the Latin language dominated. At the same time, Greek literature, Greek literary creativity in general, was an object of admiration for the Romans and a model for emulation.

zhaniya. To write like the great Greek masters, and perhaps even surpass them in the art of eloquence - many Roman orators and writers saw this as evidence of their own mastery.

Without delving into the field of oratory or any other area of Cicero’s work, but considering only his contribution to the development of the theory of translation, we can say with confidence that Cicero was one of the first to understand the complexity, inconsistency and diversity of this type of creative activity , laid the foundations of the theory of translation, contrasting its primary categories.

It was the pagan writer Cicero who turned out to be the creative “mentor” of a deeply devout Christian who undertook the translation of the Holy Scriptures - St. Jerome. The essence of the spiritual conflict of the great translator of the Bible, the heavenly patron of modern translators, was that he, a Christian, was a Ciceronian at heart and worshiped the power of the beautiful Word.

Much later, already in the 16th century, in one of the first treatises on translation, its author, E. Dole, also refers to Cicero. The question arises, why did Cicero turn out to be the Teacher of translators in both the early Middle Ages and the Renaissance? Why do we still mention Cicero when discussing many controversial issues of translation? Why do we honor Cicero as one of the thinkers who left a bright mark on the history of translation, despite the fact that Cicero himself never considered himself a translator, but, on the contrary, opposed himself to them?

The answer to these questions may lie in the fact that Cicero, in his characteristic laconic and elegant form, posed (of course, did not solve, but only posed) questions, many of which are still hotly discussed by translation theorists.

For Cicero, as for many of his contemporaries - poets and orators, translation was a type of secondary literary activity. Translation is, first of all, an exercise that helps develop eloquence. In one of his treatises on oratory, Cicero writes that in his youth he often practiced eloquence, trying to paraphrase in more precise and beautiful expressions what was said in sublime speeches or written in beautiful poetry. However, he quickly realized that this exercise in imitation was useless and even harmful, since he either repeated those expressions that he found in the texts of the copied originals, or used those forms that were inferior to the expressions of the original: “Expressions

the most accurate and at the same time the most beautiful and the most successful,” he writes, “were already anticipated either by Ennius, if I practiced poetry, or by Gracchus, if it was his speech that I took as a model” 1 . And then he came up with another exercise, a translation exercise. Cicero decided to translate the speeches of the best speakers from Greek. “From reading them, I gained this benefit that, transmitting in Latin what I had read in Greek, I had to not only take the best words in use, but also, following the model of the original, coin some new words for us, as long as they were to the place" 2.

A hundred years later, another Roman orator and teacher of eloquence, Marcus Fabius Quintilian (c. 35 - c. 96), in his main work, fortunately, has completely reached us, in which he developed a complete course in the theory of rhetoric, also mentions translation as one of the very productive oratorical exercises. At the same time, he refers to the experience of Cicero: “What we will now discuss is the most reliable means for achieving abundance and ease of speech. Our old orators knew nothing better than to translate from Greek to Latin. Krass in his books about the speaker writes that he did a lot of this. Cicero also advises the same. It is known that he published his translations of Plato and Xenophon... The benefit of such an exercise is obvious: since Greek speakers are, as a rule, full and substantial, and also because they made speech infinitely skillful, those who translate them are completely free to to use the best words, these words belong to them. As for figures, the main decoration of speech, due to the fact that the genius of languages is not the same, it is often necessary to replace one with another, which also poses a certain difficulty” 3 .

Today it is quite difficult to say whether these exercises were really translation in the modern sense or some other type of bilingual activity. In modern translation theory, the opinion often arises that translation and interpretation should be distinguished. The history of translation is also known for other distinctions. Zhukovsky did not call his poems translations. His Russian version of Gottfried August Burger's ballad "Lenora", which received the name "Lyudmila", was called by him a free arrangement, and not a translation. Marshak, creating his own

1 Cicero M.T. About the speaker // Cicero M.T. Three Treatises on Oratory
art M., 1972. P. 104.

3 Quote By: Horguelin P. A. Anthologie de la manière de traduire. Domaine français.
Montréal, 1981. P. 21 (translation from my French - N.G.).

natural versions of poems by English poets, also did not call them translations, but used the evasive and elegant formulation “From...”.

Cicero’s main work on translation, which has already become a textbook, is the preface to his own translations of the famous speeches “On the Crown” of Demosthenes and Aeschines, also known as the treatise “De optimo genere oratorum” (“On the best kind of orators”), where Cicero comments on his translation of speeches of Greek speakers. The main significance of this short text by the great orator of antiquity is that for the first time, as far as can be judged from the documents that have come down to us, a free translation is substantiated. As M. Ballar rightly notes, “with this statement Cicero appears, if not as a theorist, then at least as the first defender of “free,” as some define it, or “dynamic,” as others define it, translation” 1 .

Let us turn to the text of the treatise.

“I translated the authors of two of the most eloquent Attic speeches directed against each other - Aeschines and Demosthenes. But I translated them not as a simple translator, but as a writer, preserving their statements with figures of words or thoughts, using, however, words familiar to Latin custom. Thus, I did not consider it necessary to convey the word by word, but I retained the meaning and power of the words. In fact, I believed that it was important for the reader to receive not the same number, but, so to speak, the same weight... And if, as I hope, I managed to convey these speeches, preserving all their merits, i.e. statements, figures and structures of speech, and following the words, but only to the extent that they did not contradict our taste, and if we did not translate all the words of the Greek text, we tried to reproduce the meaning” 2.

From this text we see that Cicero clearly distinguishes between translation and literary creativity. He, the speaker, translates not as a simple translator, but as a writer. Translation turns out to be already placed in the “table of ranks” below literary activity itself. As a writer, Cicero allowed himself a number of liberties in translations. Preserving the structure of phrases of the original texts, the arrangement of words, figures of speech, the interconnection of thoughts, he uses words familiar in Latin usage. Cicero does not seek to convey a word in words, he conveys the concepts contained in words. Moreover, he emphasizes that

1 Ballarci M. Introduction // Bachet de Méziriac C.-G. De la traduction.
Artois, 1998. P. XXXVI.

2 Horguelin P. A. Op. cit. P. 19 (translation from my French - H.J.).

tried to keep the same number of words. For him, the meaning, the “weight” of the word is important. It must be assumed that Cicero has in mind translation periphrases, when one word of the original, not having a one-word equivalent in the target language, is replaced in the translation by a combination of several words. This can be confirmed by an excerpt from another work of this Roman orator - the treatise “De fïnibus bonoram et malorum” (“On the definition of happiness and unhappiness”), where Cicero clarifies the method of translation directly related to working with vocabulary: “It is not always necessary to follow in your speech Greek, as an unskillful translator would do, especially if ideas become more understandable when expressed in simple words. As for me, when it comes to translation, if I cannot convey as succinctly what is expressed in one word in Greek, I use several words. Sometimes I use a Greek word if there is no equivalent in my language." 1

It is interesting that Cicero again contrasts himself with an incompetent translator. In this fragment, the speaker also talks about borrowing as one of the methods of translation in the absence of an equivalent. The last part of the phrase from the preface also turns out to be very important for understanding the technique of “literary translation” of that period. Cicero admits that he did not translate all elements of the Greek text, but nevertheless retained its meaning. In other words, some fragments of the original text were deliberately omitted in the translation. Thus, in the translation method described by Cicero, one can easily distinguish actions that in modern translation theory are defined as translation transformations, namely: substitutions, additions and omissions. Only in the fourth type of transformation - permutations - is Cicero careful. He strives to preserve the main decoration of the phrase - the figures and arrangement of elements, as well as the sequence and logic of the presentation of thoughts.

MARTIN LUTHER TRANSLATS THE BIBLE

Luther's translation of the Bible and the Reformation proved to be a revolutionary moment in the victorious march of the great book. Before Luther, there were eighteen Bibles printed in German. But they were replete with so many flaws that they were not widely used. Reading the Bible was also made difficult by the fact that at the time of Luther there was no single German language; the country spoke many different dialects. The genius of Martin Luther helped overcome all obstacles. After the Reichstag in Worms, Luther had to hide in the Wartburg. The great reformer used the forced inactivity to translate the New Testament and did it in an incredibly short period of time - from December 1521 to March 1522. And in September 1522, the New Testament translated by him was printed by Melchior Lottat in Wittenberg. It is called the September Testament. 5,000 copies sold out instantly, and already in December of the same year the second, revised edition (December Testament) was published. From 1522 to 1533 Luther produced seventeen editions.

It took longer to translate the Old Testament. Luther made it together with Philip Melanchthon in five years: (1529-1534). In his “Message on Translation,” he talks about the difficulties both husbands had to face: “It happened quite often that for two, three, even four weeks we searched and asked about one single word, and sometimes we never found an answer.”

In September 1534, the first Wittenberg Bible finally appeared, published in the German literary language and printed by Hans Luft. The demand for Luther's translation was so great that thirteen editions were published before his death in 1546, each time revised and improved by Luther and his friends. The Wittenberg printer Hans Luft printed approximately 100,000 Bibles from 1534 to 1584 - the greatest achievement of his time! Luther's Bible was reprinted in four places outside of Wittenberg.

Luther based his translation on "Saxon clerical language", and this was a good choice. He strove to write in such a way that the text was easily understood by ordinary people. “You need to ask the mother in the house, the children on the street, the ordinary person at the market, look into their mouths, as they speak, and translate in the same way. Then they understand that they are being spoken to in German,” Luther explained in his “Message on Translation.”

Luther's ability to deeply penetrate the content of Scripture and a good sense of language made the Bible a people's book in Germany, which decisively contributed to the emergence of a single literary language in the country. How much influence Luther's Bible had on people's lives, culture, literature and art is shown, among others, by the fact that 705 popular catchwords today are of Biblical origin: 368 words from the Old Testament and 337 from the New Testament (according to Buchmann). Who today does not remember every time that he quotes the Bible when he says that he was “sick to the bones and marrow” (Hebrews 4:12), that he wants to “wash his hands in innocence” (Matthew 27:24) or “struck with blindness” (Genesis 19:11; 2 Kings 6:18) that “as if scales fell from the eyes” (Acts 9:18) or would like to “pour out my heart” (1 Samuel 1:15; Psalm 61:9) , or that he wrote “a letter a cubit long” (Zechariah 5:2)?!

Luther's deeply folk language and the erudition of the author of the translation ensured his work extraordinary success. But they are not alone. Martin Luther experienced the power of the Gospel firsthand. His faith and deep piety lived by the Word of God. Luther constructed phrases not only with his mind! The Word of God was passed on by the one who was inspired by it!

Luther's New Testament was also heartily accepted in Switzerland, where Zwingli and Calvin led the Reformation. In this country they also took up the translation of the Bible. And before Luther finished translating the Old Testament into German, the “Zurich Bible” was published, which is of the greatest value to this day. Subsequent translations, carried out by representatives of various nations, are based mainly on Luther's Bible.

MARTIN LUTHER TRANSLATS THE BIBLE

Read also