LutherandtheInerrancyoftheScriptures

HermannSasse

InthedoctrinaldiscussionsonInspirationandtheinerrancyoftheHolyScriptureswhicharebeingconducted in several parts of the Lutheran Church throughout theworld, the discovery has beenmadethatthemostdifficultproblemistodeterminetheprecisemeaningofwhat isknownintheEnglishspeakingworldas the“inerrancy”of theScripturesand inmodernRomantheologyas the“inerrantia Sacrae Scripturae” (c.f. Denzinger's Enchiridion to the encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus,"1920,No.2,186).TheConfessionsofthe16thCentury,includingtheReformedConfessionsandthedecisions of the Council of Trent, do not contain any express statement on the inerrancy of theScriptures.ThesameappliestotheOrthodoxdogmaticians.Eventhough itwasofvitalconcerntothemthattheScripturesshouldbewithouterror,theydidnotdealwiththis inerrancyinaspecialsection on the affectiones sacrae scripturae; rather, they considered it in connection with theInspirationandAuthorityoftheScriptures.Inotherwords,theinerrancyoftheBiblewasnotyetaprobleminthe16thCentury. Itwas lookeduponasa logicalconsequenceof inspirationandasanindisputable presupposition for the authority of the Scriptures. Actually it was only in the 17thCenturythat itbecameafundamentalproblemintheology,andindeedaburningquestionfortheWeltanschauungofthewholeOccident.Thiswasduetotherevolutionarydiscoveriesinthefieldofthenaturalsciencesandtothegreatadvancesmadeintheresearchofworldhistory;theChurcheswerenotabletoby-passallthisandasaresulttheywereconfrontedwiththeproblemwhether,ortowhatextent,theBibleisinerrant.Asissooftenthecaseinsuchdiscussions,thezealwithwhichthedebateonthisquestionwasconductedbytheenemiesasalsobythedefendersoftheChurch,andevenbydifferingpartieswithintheChurch,wasnotalwaysinthebestinterestsofaclarificationoftheissue.Ofcourse,therewasgoodreasonforthiszeal,fortheissueatstakewasnothinglessthantheveryfoundationoftheChristianfaith.ForChristiansitwasacaseof“tobe,ornottobe.”But where there is a firm faith in Jesus Christ in accordance with the teaching of the LutheranConfessions,andwhereHolyScriptureisacknowledgedinthefullestmeaningofourConfessionsasthe only source and norm of all knowledge of faith, andwhere consequently the inspiration andinerrancyoftheHolyScripturesassuchisnotquestioned,andwherethereforetheproblemmerelyhingesonthehowofinspirationandonthecorrectmeaningofinerrancy,thereadiscussionmustbepossiblewhichisruledbynootherzealorfeelingthanthepassionatedesiretoknowandtosubmittowhatGodHimselfsaysinHisWord.

I

IfwetakeupadiscussiononthecorrectdoctrineoftheinerrancyoftheScriptures,thenitwillbewellforustobeconsciousofthebigresponsibilitywhichwehaveastheologiansforthesalvationofthe soulsof thosemembersof theChristianChurchwhichhavebeenentrusted tous.WecannotwithholdfromasinglehumansoultheskandalonofthatrevelationtowhichtheScripturestestify;norcanwesparethemtheskandalonwhichthemiraclesintheBibleoffertoreason.Butwoetousifbyawellmeantbutthoughtlesstheologywecreatestumblingblockswhichareinnowayrelatedtotheskandalonofbiblicalrevelation.Weshallhavetogiveanaccountforeveryhumansoulwhichis lostbecauseofsuchstumblingblocks.Thefollowingexamplewillmakethisclear.LuthersharedtheopinionofthemedievalChurchthattheworldwascreatedabout4,000yearsB.C.LikemanyofhiscontemporarieshewasconvincedthattheblessedLastDaywasathandthattheworldwouldatmost exist another century (c.f. his “Supputatio annorummundi” of 1541 and 1545,WA 53, 1ff;GermanversioninSt.LouisEditionXIV,483ff;c.f.alsohisremarksontheuselessnessofacalendarreformin"VondenconciliisundKirchen"of1539,EA25,270ff).SimilarlythenewWeltbildprovedhis conceptions of the world in space to be wrong and his ideas on the duration of the world,

particularly in regard to the timeof itsend,were likewise refuted,aseveryonewill readilyadmit.Elert has convincingly shown that it was Luther with his thesis that the right hand of God iseverywhere, who overcame the old Weltbild, even before Copernicus came on to the scene(MorphologiedesLuthertumsI,p.363ff).ClearlyLutherwouldhavebeentheverylastonetoretainhis hypothetical date on the beginning of the world. What point is there, then, in setting up asChurchdogmasuchtheologumena,whicharenothingbutproductsoftheWeltbildofacertainage?WhatmustbetheeffectoftheKerygmaofaChurchonahearer,whenheistoldthatthefactsofthehistoryoftheworldandofmanmustbecompressedintothespaceof6,000years,whensuchahearer inhisofficeasnaturalscientist,asphysicist,chemist,geologist,astronomer,biologist,orasanthropologist and historian, is not accustomed to set up empty hypotheses but simply recordsirrefutablefactswhichcaninnowaybemadetoagreewiththatchronology?WearenotthinkinghereofsuperficialAufklärerorofproudrationalists,butofbaptizedChristianswhobelieveinJesusChristastheirSaviourandwho,asamodernscientistonceexpressedit,cannotthinkoftheChurchwithoutfaithinmiraclesandintherealpresenceofChrist,butwhoareimbuedwiththeLutheranconceptionofvocationandaccordingly lookupontheirwork inthe laboratoryasaservicetoGodandtheneighbour.Itistrue,wehavenoothertruth,nootherBible,noothergospelforthemthanwehave for the simplestChristian inour congregations.Butwe theologiansarenotorious forourignorance on matters which lie beyond the sphere of our own activities; and if we confound oridentify those facts with assertions which we regard as biblical, but which in reality are simplyremnantsofanobsoleteWeltbild, in factreallyelementsofanoutdatednaturalscience, thentheresponsibility is ours if such people lose the gospel in rejecting our philosophy. We are notconcernedherewithdeterminingwhatseriousand irreparablemistakesweremade in thepast inthis connection.Wemerelywant to point here to the tremendous responsibilitywhich is ours inmakingtheologicaldecisions.InviewoftheresponsibilitywhichwehavetowardstheWordofGod,it seemseasier and safer to say rathermore than too little about thisWord. Ifweerr,wewouldrathererrinthedirectionofatoomuch,thaninthedirectionofatoolittle.Wewould,wefondlythink,trusttheWordofGodmorethananyhumanword,butweforgetthatjustthisisthecruxofthematter,whetherwehaverightlyunderstoodthatWordofGod.Whetherwhatweimposeuponmen as an obligatory dogma, is really the teaching of Scripture, orwhether it is only our privateinterpretation of Scripture, a theologumenon by means of which we attempt to clarify theScriptures.Everydogmahas itsnegativecounterpart, the rejectionof thosewho teachotherwise.Justwetheologians,whoaremoreorlessinthedangerofbecomingvirtuosioffaith,shouldputtoourselvestheveryseriousquestioninthecaseofeverydogmawhichwehold:whomdoweexcludefromtheChurchofGodwhenweteachthisasanobligatoryinterpretationoftheHolyScriptures?Only when we are quite clear on this point, only when we are conscious of themeaning of ourdecision for the life, yes for the eternal salvation of other people, only then will our dogmaticdecisions be ruled by that great charitywithoutwhich even the best dogmatics is not a Christiandogmatics.Onlywhensuchcharitycanbesensedinourdecisionwilltheybetrustworthyandtrulyconvincing, even in caseswhere theymust speak an irrevocableNo to every abridgement of thedivineWord.

II

There is another responsibilityofwhichwemustbe conscious.As thingsareatpresent, the rightunderstandingoftheinerrancyoftheHolyScriptureswilldeterminetheproblemoftheunityoftheLutheran Church. Of course, we do not mean that every body which calls itself "Lutheran" andaccepts the Augsburg Confession on paper or in word, is actually Lutheran Church. Naturally wewould like to be onewith these Lutherans, but that can only bewhen they decide to take theirConfessionseriouslyanddepriveheresywithintheirownranksoftherighttodestroytheChurch.

WeareheredealingonlywiththoseLutheranChurcheswhicharedeterminedandableearnestlytocombatall heresy,notbecause they like a struggle, butbecause theChurch can fulfill her taskofsaving souls only by preaching the pure gospel and rightly administering the sacraments. Now inthese Churches there is no doubt that the Holy Scriptures are inerrant. The only problemwhichexists is the extent of this inerrancy. Twenty-five years ago Michael Reu described the positionamongAmericanLutheransinthefollowingway.Hedistinguishedbetweenthreeparties:“Therearethosewho appear to emphasize that the inerrancy of the Scripturesmerely applies to everythingwhichisanarticleofsalvationandconsequentlytheypresupposefromtheverystartasapossibilityor probability that the Scriptures are erroneous in other matters. The second group assume thecomplete inerrancyof theScriptures inallmattersand therefore theyarenot in favourof churchfellowship with those who presuppose that there are errors here or there in the Scriptures insecondarymatters,or in factassert that thereareerrors incertaincases.The thirdgroup,on theotherhand,agreewiththesecondandregarditaswronganddangeroustosetupatheorywhichpresupposeserrors in subordinatematters. Theyare convincedofanabsolute inerrancy,whetherthis applies to thepresent-day formof the Scriptures, or at least to theoriginalmanuscripts; butthey are not prepared to refuse aman church fellowship simply because he presupposes that insinglethingsobviouslynotdealingwithmattersofsalvation,thereareerrorsintheScriptures,whenwithoutadoubtthatmanacknowledgesGod'sWordtobeinerrantineverysinglethingwhichtheScriptures teachdirectlyor indirectlyon faithand lifeandwhenhesubmits to theScripturesasaself-understoodthing.”(KirchlicheZeitschrift,JubileeNumber,vo.50,1926,p.705.)Prof.Joh.Meyerof Thiensville critically examined the article by Reu in a comprehensive paper entitled “TheScriptures cannotbebroken” in theTheologischeQuartalschrift, vol. 28,No.3 (July1931).MeyerattemptedtoprovewhythepositionofthethirdgrouptowhichReureferred,isuntenable.BecausetheworthyPresidentoftheTheologicalSeminaryoftheWisconsinSynodstillholdsthesameviewtodayashedidthenincriticizingReu(hewaskindenoughtodrawtheattentionofthewritertothisdebateandsenthimacopyofhispaper),andbecausewemustregardhisviewasthatofhisChurch,itwillbeworthwhilemakingadetailedstudyofhisargument.ItwillbesufficientforourpurposeifwenoteherethatheacceptstheOrthodoxteachingoninspirationandemphasizesthatthehumanindividualityofthebiblicalauthorswastakenbyGodintoHisservice.However,heregardstheself-testimonyof theHolyScriptures,particularly John10:35,as thecompellingproof for theabsoluteinerrancy of the original text of theBible and consequently he looks upon the acceptance of thisteachingasanecessaryprerequisiteforchurchfellowship.Inotherwords,hebelongstothatgroupwhichReuhascharacterizedasthe“second.”Fromthispointofviewheattacksnotonlythe"first"butalsothe"third"groups.Heregardstheattitudeofthelatterasan“untenableonewhichmustlogicallyleadtotheattitudeofthegroupcharacterizedaboveasthe"first"(ibid.p.194).Hequotesthesentence inwhichReupresentsthetheologicalarugmentforthemediatingattitude:"Becausethey(thethirdgroup)mustadmitthattheprooffromJohn10:35and2.Tim.3:16fortheabsoluteinerrancy of the Scriptures is, as a matter of fact, in no way compelling, therefore they are notpreparedtorefusechurchfellowshiptoamanwhospeaksofthepossibilityorrealityofanerrorinsuchandsimilarcases”(Reup.707f,quotedbyMeyerp.195).AgainstthisMeyercriticallyobserves:"This attitude suffers from an inner contradiction. The third group confess the inerrancy of theScriptures. It is one of their articles of faith. But they also confess that they do not possess asufficientScripturalprooffor it. Inotherwords,theyconfessanarticleoffaithwhichgoesbeyondtheveryScriptureswhichtheyneverthelessdeclaretobethe‘onlytruenorminallmattersoffaithandlife.'...Thatisaself-contradiction.AnditisdisobediencetowardsGodtoaddsomethingtotheScriptures.ToconfessanarticlewhichGoddoesnotteachinHisWord,issuperstition”(ibid.p.196).Quitecorrectlytheinnerweaknessofthemediatingattitude,socharacteristicofeverycompromise,hasbeenpointedout;but, forall that,Reu'sargumenthasnotbeen refuted. For just that is the

main characteristicof theattitudeof themediating thirdgroup that theabsolute inerrancy isnotraisedtothestatusofbeinganobligatoryarticleoffaithandthusitisnotdeclaredtobeanessentialpartoftheConfessionoftheChurch;rather,itisassertedtobeatheologicalpossibility,oneoftwopossible explanations of John 10:35. To the representatives of this group the former explanationappearstobethemoreprobableofthetwo,andconsequentlytheydecideinitsfavour,buttheydosowiththereservationthattheydonotdaretoassertthattheotherexplanationisanimpossibility.

Theproblem,then,withwhichtheLutheranChurchisconfrontedtodayasitwastwenty-fiveyearsago,isthis:IstheinerrancyoftheHolyScriptures,whichistaughtbyallwhoconfesstheLutheranfaith, an absolute inerrancy which excludes every discrepancy and every inaccuracy also in suchmatters which do not pertain to salvation? Or can it be recon-ciled with the inerrancy of theScriptureswhicharethesourceandnormoffaith,ifonefindsirreconcilablediscrepanciesinsomeofthehistoricaldataorsmallerinaccuracieswhichinnowayimpairthereliabilityofthecontentofrevelationandwhichwewouldthenhavetoregardasbelongingtothehumansideoftheBible?Isthisabsoluteinerrancythetheologumenonofatheologicalschool,orisitadogmaoftheChurch?Itis adogmaof theChurch if it canbeproved tobea teachingof Scripture itself. There canbenodoubt among us about that. But there should also be no doubt among us that if we reject thisversionoftheteachingoftheinerrantScriptures,wedonotdosobecauseofalackingreadinesstosubmittotheWordofGod.Onthecontrary,wereject itsimplybecauseaccordingtoourdeepestconvictionitisnotinharmonywiththeself-testimonyoftheBible.WeareconvincedthatsuchaninerrancyistaughtneitherinJohn10:35norin2.Tim.3:16andthatitisapiousopinionwhichhasbeenreadintothesetexts,particularlyintothewordofJesusabouttheScriptureswhichcannotbebroken. Both approaches to the Scriptureswill strivewith each other as heretofore, andone canonlyhopethatthedebatebetweentherepresentativesofthetwoschoolsofthoughtwillbemorefruitful inviewoftheexperiencesofthepastandalso inviewofamorethoroughstudyofLutherandtheReformation.The issueatstake isthis—andit isavery importantone:Will itbeadebatebetween two schools of theological thought in one and the same Church andwill this debate beconducted on the common basis of an absolute submission to the Holy Scriptures and with thecommon consciousness of being bound to thewhole of the Lutheran Confessions so that the fullbiblical truth on the point at issuemay be fathomed; orwill church fellowship be broken by thispointofdifferencesothatdiscussionshavetobeconductedbetweenChurchandChurch?Thereisnoneedtoshowindetailwhatadeepmisfortune,humanlyspeaking,itwouldbefortheLutheranChurchiftherepresentativesoftheinerrantiaabsolutawouldimmediatelyregardtheotherpointofview as heresy, divisive of church fellowship. At the conclusion of his article Prof.Meyer says (p.197):"Therecanbenochurchfellowshipbetweenthosewho,likeLuther,acceptthedictumofJesus(John10:35ismeantinthesenseofaninerrantiaabsoluta),andthosewholimititwithallkindsofclauses,i.e.thosewhodonotwanttoacceptit.”Meyercontinues:"Themannerinwhichweshoulddeal in each case with a person who because of weakness believes that there are errors in theScripturesinsubsidiarymatters,andhowlongsuchanerringoneistobetoleratedinthehopethathe can be convinced of his error-these matters are decided by the following declaration of theChicagoTheses:ThisisacaseofChristian,brotherlylove.InsuchacaseweshouldactasJesusdid;HedidnotrudelybrushasideHisopponents…,butwiththeglowingloveofaSaviour.Hesoughttofind a piece of common ground where He could assume some understanding, where He couldconfidently appeal to their hearts and awaken their confidence: for the Scriptures cannot bebroken.” Indeed, if itwas amatter of not accepting such aword, thenwe should have to regardourselvesasthemostmiserableofmen,notworthyofanyconsiderationorlove.ThenwewouldbeenemiesofGodanddestroyersofHisChurch.But if theotherswould justassume thepossibility,quitehypotheticallyatfirst,thattheirexegesisofJohn10:35doesnotdojusticetothemeaningof

the verse, because they attach something to it which is not contained in it, and that their beliefaboutLuther'sunderstandingoftheScripturesisnotcorrect,thentheywouldrealisethattopersistwith theirpointofview inanuncriticalway,musthaveseriousconsequences for theunityof theChurch.ThereisnothingsodangerousfortheChurchasmistakingatheologumenontobeadogma.Itmaybe thatweare convinceda thousand times that a particular teaching is scriptural and thescripturalproofwhichwebelievetobevalidmaysomuchhavebecomepartandparcelofourselvesbecauseithasbeenrepeatedsooftenandsocontinuously,thatweconsiderare-examinationofthewholepositionquitesuperfluous.Nevertheless,astheologiansweareneverabsolvedfromthedutyofacontinuousre-examination.Tertullian'swarningwordtotheologians,thatChristcalledHimselfthe Truth, not the Tradition, reminds us of the fact that an error, after it has been repeated athousand times, is no longer felt tobe anerror; for all that, however, it doesnot cease tobe anerror.Thefearthatwemightbeguiltyofanerrorshouldneverdepartfromusifwewouldremainfaithful to the truth. How strangewe should feel, if on Judgment Daywewere to hear that justwhere we thought to uphold nothing but theWord of God, we divided the Church by a humantheologumenon!

III

Itisnotourintentionheretoenterinuponasystematicdiscussionontheproblemoftheinerrancyof the Holy Scriptures. We shall merely try to show several essential aspects in answer to theproblem by considering Luther's attitude towards the Bible and towards the origin of the biblicalbooks.Luther's ideason inspirationandthe inerrancyof theScripturesare,as isgenerallyknown,notjusttheideasofthe17thCenturyOrthodoxyanditisdoingneitherhimnorthegreatscholarsofOrthodoxyaservice,ifthisfactissuppressed.LuthershouldnotbeinterpretedthroughthemediumofQuenstedt (indeed,suchaprocedure isquite impossible foranyonewhocanthinkhistorically),and it is pointless to look for theOrthodox teachingde sacra scriptura in theBookofConcord. Itseemsthatadevelopmenttookplacehere,asitalsodidintheReformedChurchwhereinthe17thCentury a teaching which in the 16th Century existed only in embryo received its full and finalratification. The chief difference between Luther's teaching on inspiration and that of the laterOrthodoxfathersisthis:thelatterbelievethattheactualmiracleofinspirationoccursintheactofwriting;Luther,ontheotherhand,looksupontheactofwritingsimplyasthefixationoftheinspiredWordwhich,however, existedas suchevenbefore.Naturally the later theologians knew that thewriters,Moses,theprophets,thewritersofthePsalms,theapostlesandevangelists,wereinspiredmen.AndLutherknowsthatMoseswrotethePentateuchastheinstrumentoftheHolySpiritafterreceivingtheimpulsefromHimandthat itwasthiswritingwhichmademanytextstobeWordofGod.But theemphasis in thecaseof the later theologians liesontheScripture, thewrittenword,whereas Luther emphasizes theWord, theWordwhich certainly became Scripture andwhichwewould not possess if it were not written, which, however, existed before it was written. Thisdifference of emphasis may have been partly the result of the different ages. The 16th CenturywitnessedthemightypoweroftheWordofGod,especiallyinthepreachingofthegospel.Thisageregardedtheprophetsandapostlesinthefirstplaceasmightypreachers.The17thCenturywasaneminentlyliteraryone,producingthegiganticworksofdogmaticsinGermanyandthemonumentalhistorical literature inFrance; so themenof theBiblewere in the firstplace seenasauthorsandwriters.But it isnot justamatterofeachageproducingadifferentemphasis. It is a fundamentalconceptionof the gospelwhich findsexpression in Luther's emphasisonoral proclamationof theWordbytheprophets,theapostles,andparticularlybytheLordHimself.TheWordtowhichLutherappealedinthemostseriousofhisdogmaticalstruggles,theWordwhichhefoundinhisBibleandwhichhewrotewithchalkonthetableinMarburgsothathemightsustainhimselfwiththewrittenword in case he should be in danger of succumbing to amomentaryweakness, thatWord is the

WordwhichtheLordJesusChristhasspoken:“UnserText'DasistmeinLeib'istnichtvonMenschen,sondern von Gott selbst aus seinem eigenen Munde mit solchen Buchstaben und Wortengesprochen und gesetzt,”we read in hisGrosses Bekenntnis vomAbendmahl, 1528 (WA26, 446,1ff). Verbal inspiration, which includes even the letters of each word, is here identical with theinspirationofthepersonwhospeaks(neitherLuthernortheChurchknowofanyotherinspirationbut verbal inspiration, i.e. an inspirationwhich takeseach singlewordof the Scriptures tobe theWordofGod).Ofcourse,Lutherwouldneverhavedeniedthat thewrittenrecordof theWordofGodthusspoken,alsocameintobeingundertheguidanceoftheHolySpirit;onthecontrary,thatishisconceptionoftheoriginofthegospels.ButtheactualmiracleofinspirationistobefoundintheWord which, as the living and powerfulWord of God, is one and the same, whether spoken, orwrittenorproclaimed.That iswhy inspirationcanneverbeunderstoodasapsychologicalprocessandwhyevenadefinitionlikethewellknowndescriptionofinspirationasimpulsusadscribendum,suggestio rerumand suggestio verborum, is totally inadequate (the term suggerere canbe tracedback toAugustine,but isnot found in theScriptures themselves– “divina inspiratione suggestumest,”Deconsensuevang., III,13.c.f. II,21).Foratbestthatwouldapplyonlytothelastact inthegenesisofthewrittenWordofGod;butthisactcannotatallbeseparatedfromthatwhichprecedesitandisthemoreimportant.

IV

OnthisbackgroundLuther'sideasontheoriginofthebiblicalbookscanbeappreciated.Thebiblicalbooksare thewritten recordof thedivineWord.Thepropheticalbooksof theOldTestamentareanthologiesofthesayingsoftheprophets.“KeinesProphetenPredigtensindganzundvollkömmlichbescrieben, sondern ihre Jüngerund Zuhörerhaben zu Zeiteneinen Spruch gefasst, darnach abereinenundalsozusammengetragen.AlsoistdieBibelerhaltenworden”(TischredeEA62,132).Herethesamethinghappenedascanbeobservedinthegospels:the“order”waslost.ThuswereadofIsaiah:"AberdieOrdnunghälternicht,dassereinJeglichsanseinemOrtundmiteigenenKapitelnund Blättern fassete, sondern ist fast gemenget unter nander, dass er viel des ersten Stücks (i.e.proclamationof judgmentandof thegospel toJudah)unddasander (threatsagainst theheathennations, particularly Assyria) und dritte (prophecies on the Babylonian exile)mit eingeführet, undwohldasdritteStücketwaehehandelt,denndasander.Obaberdasgeschehenseidurchden,sosolche seineWeissagung zusammengelesenundgeschriebenhat (alsman imPsalter auchachtetgeschehen sein), oder ob ers selbst so gestellet hat, darnach sich Zeit, Ursachen und Personzugetragenhaben,voneinemjeglichenStückezureden,welcheZeitundUrsachennichtgleichseinnochOrdnunghabenmögen,dasweiss ichnicht.SovielOrdnunghälter,dasserdaserstealsdasvornehmste Stücks zeucht and treibt von Anfang bis ans Ende, beide, durchs ander und dritteStücke.GleichwieauchunsgebührtinunserenPredigtenzutun,dassunservornehmestStücke,dieLeute zu strafenund vonChristo zu predigen, immermit unterlaufe, obwir gleich etwas andereszuweilenzufälligvorhabenzupredigen,als,vomTürkenodervomKaiseretc.”(EA63,57,VorredeaufdenProphetenJesajam).This isanexampleofLuther's"Biblicalcriticism"and it is repeated inthecaseoftheotherprophets.ThetrueandactualWordofGodisthatpreachedbytheprophet.ThewrittenWordcomeslater. It isnolessGod'sWordbecauseit isthewrittenrecordoftheoralWordinspiredbyGod.AswrittenrecordoftheinspiredWord,itisitselfinspired,evenifthewrittenrecordwasmadeconsiderablylater.Lutherdoesnotponderoverthemannerinwhichthiswrittenrecordwasmade,whetherperhapswiththehelpofsomespecialdivineassistanceorbymeansofaspecial enlightenment. It should be particularly noted that he tries to get a clearer picture of theessenceofpropheticproclamationbycomparing itwiththeessenceofpreaching intheChurch. Ifthe prophets can be regarded as writers at all, then only in a secondary way. Primarily they arepreachersofthegospel.Theyproceedtotheirtasklikeanypreachertoday.TheirKerygmarestson

that of their predecessors of previous ages, and is available to them in thewritten record. “UndhabenohnZweifelaufdieseWeisdiePropheteninMose,unddieletztenProphetenindenerstenstudiert, und ihre guten Gedanken, vom Heiligen Geist eingegeben, in ein Buch aufgeschrieben.DennesseindnitsolcheLeutgewesenwiedieGeisterundRotten,dieMosenhabenunterdieBankgesteckt, und eigen Gesicht gedichtet und Träume gepredigt, sondern sich in Mose täglich undfleissiggeübt:wieerdennauchgaroftundhartbefiehlt,seinBuchzulesen''(EA63,379).Inhisveryvividway,socharacteristicoftheReformer,LuthertriestogetclearontheessenceofthepropheticKerygmabycomparing itwith theway inwhich faithfulevangelicalpreachersof the16thCenturyobserved the rules of correct preaching which are valid for all times. Consequently he assumes,among other things, that the preachers in ancient Israel had an experience similar to that ofpreachersofa laterage,namely that theydidnotalwaysquite stick to thepoint.The taskof thepreacheristheproclamationofthegospel,theexplanationoftheScriptureswhosecontentisJesusChrist,theLambofGod.AlreadyLutherhadtofindoutinWittenbergthatthepeoplewenttosleepwhenhepreachedonjustificationandonlythenwokeupwhenhebegantotellaninterestingstory.Aparticulardangeramongtheprophetswasthattheyconcentratedtoomuchontheproclamationofthefuture."DieSchriftauszulegen,dasistdieedelste,höchsteundgrössteGabederWeissagung;denn auch alle Propheten des Alten Testaments damit den Namen haben allermeist, dass sieProphetenheissen,dasssievonChristogeweissagthaben....DazudasssiedasVolkdurchAuslegungundVerstandgöttlichenWortesimGlaubenrechtführten;vielmehrdenndarumbdasssiezuweilenvondenKönigenundweltlichenLäuftenetwasverkündigten,welchssieauchselbstübtenundoftauchfeileten.Aberjenesübtensietaglichundfeiletennichts,dennderGlaubefeiletnicht,demihrWeissagenähnlichwar”(EA8,23).ThismuchquotedpassagefromtheKirchenpostille(SermonontheEpistle forThirdSundayafterEpiphany)doesnotassert that thereare falseprophecies in theOldTestament.NowhereinhisExpositionsontheProphetsdidhepointtoonesuchpassage,indeedit would be out of harmonywith his conception of Holy Scripture. Luther is here thinking of thepreaching of the prophets; he is picturing it on the analogy of 16th Century preaching. The OldTestamentprophetsweretheevangelicalpreachersinIsraelandtheirsermonswerenotalwaysofthehighstandardwhichwefindinIsaiah'spreachingasitisknowntousinthepreservedrecordofhis Kerygma. The Kerygma of the gospel is always essentially the same. If it is correct, it is anexpositionofHolyScripture,thepointingtoitsmessage,thatis,thegladtidingsofJesusChrist,theSaviourofsinnersWhoisthethemeofthewholeoftheScriptures,for“theyaretheywhichtestifyof me.” For that reason there is no essential difference between the Kerygma of Moses, of theprophets, and of the Church. In a single text like the Protevangel in Gen. 3:15 we have the fullgospel.LutherpointsthisoutinhissermononthegospelforEasterMondayintheKirchenpostille(EA11,272ff)whereinconnectionwiththeexpositionoftheScripturesbytheRisenLord,hepointsout:“HierausfolgtnueinganzNeuTestament,allePredigtenSt.PauliundderApostel,welchenichtvielvonderHistorieundWunderwerkenChristierzählen,sondernwosieetwakönnen,auseinemsolchenSprucheineganzeWiesenmachen, ja,wenndieOffenbarungdazukommtundderHeiligeGeist,welcherweiss, dieWorte recht zu käuen und zu keltern, dass sie Saft und Kraft haben undgeben...”LutherthinksthatonHiswaytoEmmaus,Jesuswillhavegiven“ausseinemreichenGeist”anexpositionof the textGen.3:15. "AlsohabendiePropheten indieSprücheMosegesehenundihreherrlicheWeissagungvonChristodarausgesogen;alsoEsaias (7:14)ausdiesemSpruch (Gen.3:15isagainmeant)dieProphezeivonChristiGeburtmitklarenWortensetzet.Itemdasganze53.KapitelvonseinemLeidenundAuferstehen...,welchesohnZweifelChristusindieserseinerPredigt(Luc.24:25ff!)auchangezogen.AlsohabenauchdieApostel,diealberenFischer,dieSchriftnichtindenSchulender grossenSchriftgelehrten, sonderndurchdieOffenbarung,dadurchChristus sie indieSchrift leitet, lernenverstehenundetwaauseinemSpruchkönneneinBuchodereinePredigtmachen, so dieWelt nicht begreifen kann. Undwenn ich auch den Geist hätte, den Esaias oder

Paulusgehabt,sokönnteichausdiesemSprucheinNeuTestamentmachen,woesnichtgemacht"(ibid. 273). Luther then asks how Peter got to know what in 1. Peter 1:10f he expresses as hisknowledgeofChristandoftheSpiritofChrist.“SinddaseinesFischersodereinesklugenundweisenSchriftgelehrtenWorte? Nein, sondern eben des Heiligen Geistes Offenbarung, der es zuvor denProphetenauchgeoffenbarthat."ThesameappliestotheknowledgeexpressedintheEpistletotheHebrews (1:3f) thatChrist is Lordover all andhigher than theangels: “Freilichhater es ausdemAlten Testamnt genommen, aber nicht durch Vernunft, sondern durch die Offenbarung darinersehen"(274).LutherthenrepeatsthethoughtthatonprincipleeveryChristiancoulddothat,ifhehadthesamemeasureofHolySpirit:“AlsowolltichMosen,denPsalter,EsaiamundauchdenselbenGeistnehmenundjasogutNeuTestamentmachen,alsdieApostelgeschrieben;aberweilwirdenGeist so reich und gewaltig nicht haben, müssen wir von ihnen lernen und aus ihrem Brünnleintrinken.” Luther repeatedly gave expression to the thought that if the believing Christian had thesamemeasureoftheSpirithecouldasexpositoroftheHolyScripturesdothesameastheauthorsofthebiblicalbooks.Thesamethoughtalsooccursinwellconsideredacademicdisputationtheses,e.g. in Disputatio de fide, 1535 (EA op. lat. v.a. IV, 378ff); this is one of the most importantdocumentsforanunderstandingofLuther'sattitudetotheScriptures,particularlyinitsemphasisoftheChristologicalinterpretationoftheScriptures.Herewefindsuchfamousthesesasthefollowing:“41.EtScripturaestnoncontra, sedproChristo intelligenda, ideoveladunumreferanda,velprovera Scriptura non habenda. And: 49. Quod si adversarii Scripturam urserint contra Christum,urgemus Christum contra Scripturam.” In this connectionwe read the daring theses: “52. HabitoenimChristofacilecondemusleges,etomniarecteiudicabimus.53.Imonovosdecalogosfaciemus,sicut Paulus facit per omnes epistolas, et Petrus, maxime Christus in evangelio.” And suchdecalogueswouldbeassuperiortothatofMosesastheclarityofChristwastotheclarityofMoses(54).For,tocontinuewithThesis55, iftheheathenscouldbea lawuntothemselves:“56.Quantomagis Paulus ant perfectus Christianus plenus Spiritu potest decalogum quendam ordinare et deomnibusrectissimeiudicare.57.SicutomnesprophetaeetPatreseodemspirituChristiomniasuntlocuti,quaehabenturinScripturis.58.Tamenquiainterimsumusinaequalispirituetcaroadversaturspiritui,necesseestetiamproptervagosspirituscertismandatisetscriptisapostolorumadhaerere,ne laceretur ecclesia. 59. Non enim sumus omnes apostoli, qui certo Dei decreto nobis suntinfallibilesdoctoresmissi.60.Ideononilli,sednos,cumsinedecretotalisimus,errarepossumusetlabiinfide.61.Quarenunestarrogandumullipostapostoloshocnomen:quodnonpossiterrareinfide,nisisoliecclesiaeuniversali."ItshouldbequiteclearthatLuther'sconceptionofaChristianwhocould himself write Holy Scripture is worlds removed from the conception of laterNeo-ProtestantismwhichwasgivenexpressiontobySchleiermacherinthewell-knownwords:“JedeheiligeSchriftistnureinMausoleumderReligion....NichtderhatReligion,deraneineheiligeSchriftglaubt, sondernder,welcher keinerbedarf, undwohl selbst einemachen könnte (Rede "überdasWesen der Religion"). According to Luther the Christian would do so only in the form of anexpositionoftheScripturesgiventohim,justastheProphets,Apostles,andJesusHimselfhadtheHolyScriptures beforethem.AndtheChristiancoulddosoonlyifhewasendowedwiththeSpiritinthesamemeasureasthemenofGodintheBible.AndhewouldbeinpossessionofthisfulnessoftheSpiritonlyifhewerecalledbyGodthroughaspecialdecree,acertumdecretumwhichcannotbedoubted,totheofficeofaninfallibilisdoctorwiththeabilityofapossenonerrareinfide.Such,then,according to Luther, are the prophets and apostles, themost eminent among the authors of thebiblicalwritings,of theprophetic andapostolic recordof theOldandNewTestament. TheywerecalledbyaspecialdecreeofGod'sWillandwereendowedwiththeHolySpiritinagreatermeasurethanotherbelievers;andbyvirtueofthisendowmentwiththeSpirittheywereinfallibleteachersoffaithandproclaimedthegospel.ThisproclamationbecameWordofGodwhenandinsofarasitwaslaterfaithfullyrecordedbythemorothers;inexactlythesamewaytheoralproclamationwasGod's

Word,andthepureexpositionofthewrittenWordisGod'sWord.Thefactofinspirationassuchisnotbound to theprocessofwritingalone. Inspirationbeganbefore thewritten recordwasmadeanditoutlaststheprocessofrecordinginasmuchasthewrittenWordremains“quickandpowerful.”Thesecretofthis life intheWordis itscontent,notthewayormannerinwhichitbegantoexist.Whether it be a great apostle like Peter or Paul or aminor prophetwhose person remains littleknowntous,whetheritbeagrippingpenitentialpsalmliketheMiserereandtheDeProfundis,orasobercommonsensewordofWisdom;thedecisivethingisnottheauthor,northeform,butsimplythecontent,andthiscontentisHe.“InPetroetPaulononvultnosadmirarietadorareapostolatum,sedChristum ineis loquentemet ipsumverbumDeiquodnobisafferuntetpraedicant,"asLuthersaysintheCommentarytotheGalatians(EAGalI,143).

V

Now the sameapplies to theotherbooksof theOldandNewTestament. It is the contentwhichmakesthemHolyScripture,nomatterbywhomtheywerewritten.ItiswellknownthatLutherwasverytolerantinregardtotheproblemofthegenuinenessofthetraditionalnamesoftheauthors.OfKoheleth he says in his introduction of 1524: “Es ist aber das Buch freilich nicht durch den KönigSalamo selbst init eigener Hand geschrieben, oder gestellet, sondern aus seinem Munde durchanderegehöretundvondenGelehrtenalsozusammengefasst”(EA63,40).InhisTableTalkheonceobserves:“DiesBuchsolltvölligersein,ihmistzuvielabgebrochen,eshatwederStiefelnochSporen,esreitetnurinSocken,gleichwieich,daichnochimKlosterwar”(EA62,128),i.e.thebooklackstheknowledge of the gospel which, nevertheless, existed even in Old Testament times. On theauthorshipofSolomonhesays:"SohaterselbstdasBuchnichtgeschrieben,sondernistzurZeitderMaccabäer vor Sirach gemacht. Es ist aber ein sehr gut Buch und angenehm, darum dass es vielfeiner Lehre hat,wieman sich imHausregiment halten soll. Dazu ist'swie ein Talmud aus vielenBüchern zusammengezogen, vielleicht aus der Liberei des Königs Ptolemai Euergetis in ägypten"(ibid). Another important problem is the origin of the Pentateuch, the foundation for the wholestructureoftheHolyScriptures.LuthernaturallyfollowstheJewishtraditionwhichassignsthe"fivebooks" toMoses.Buthedoes sowithout anypedantry, particularly since theOld Testament textneverregardsMosesastheauthorofthewholework.WhenJohannForster(1532or1533)relatedtohimthatsomedidnotregardthePentateuchasMosaic,heanswered,whatdoesitmatter?“Quidhoc ad rem? Esto Moses non scripserit, attamen est Mosis liber; hic enim solus mundiconstitutionem optime describit” (WA Tischreden 3, p.23, 14, No. 2,844). In another part of theTableTalkhesaysof theBookofGenesis (1540): "Es istabermeinsBedünkensnichtMosis,dennmanhat vor (her) auchBücher gehabt und zitiert Bücher, and in this connectionhe refers to the"bookofthewarsoftheLord"(Num.21:14)andtothe"bookofJasher"(Joshua10:13).Andhegoeson to say that he thinks even Adam, Noah and others made written records on “wie es ihnenergangen.”TheJews,hebelieves,weretheoldestscriptures.“Graecihabenspätangefangen,unddieDeutschenhaben kaum1,000 Jahr geschrieben” (WATischreden4,Nr. 4,964). Thushe tracesMoses' knowledge of primeval history back to written sources; but, of course, this in no wayunderminesthefactthatthePentateuchistheinspiredWordofGod,aslittleasthecorrespondingfactunderminestheauthorityofthegospels.MosesalsofoundpartofthelawsofthePentateuchinolder traditions and in accordance with divine mandate he incorporated them in his Law. (“ExmandatoDeiretulitinsuasleges,”“exmandatodivinoeasretinuit”EAop.ex.4,269orWA43,54,onGen.19.)Inthecaseofthelaterhistoricalbooksthesourcesalsoplayanimportantpart;indeed,partlytheyareoriginallynationalchronicles.“DieBücherderKönigesindnurderJüdenKalender,inwelchen ordentlich beschrieben sind die Könige, wie sie regiert haben” (Table Talk EA 62, 132).Sourcescanhavevaryingvalue;"DieBücherderKönigegehenhundertTausendSchrittvordem,derdieChronikabeschriebenhat,dennerhatnurdieSummaundvornehmstenStückeundGeschichten

angezeigt,wasschlechtundgeringhaterübergangen;darumbistdenBüchernderKönigemehrzuglaüben denn der Chroniken” (ibid.). That does notmean that Luther thinks the Chroniclesmakefalse statements and therefore deserve no credence. The problem of possible discrepanciesbetweenthetwohistoricalworks isnotevenraised.All that issaid is, that thebooksof theKingscontainmorematerial, tell their story in a betterway, and therefore aremore perfect and yieldmoreinformationforaknowledgeofthehappenings.Thehistorianprefersthebettersourcetotheinferior one, without thereby declaring the inferior one to unreliable. But there is no answer inLuthertothequestioninwhatmannerthesebooksbecameWordofGod,orhowtheyhavecometopartakeoftheinspirationofthewholetheHolyScriptures,sincetheiroriginisdifferentfromthatofthebooksoftheprophetsandthePsalms.Butthereisonethingofwhichheisfirmlyconvincedandabout which there is not the slightest doubt in his mind, namely that these books are God'sundeceivingWordandthatthisdistinguishesthemfromallotherworksofhistory.InhisSupputatioannorum mundi of 1541 and 1545, an attempt at a chronicle of world history, Luther uses thebiblicalhistorianstowriteaworldhistory.Inthecourseofhisbookhealsomakesuseoccasionallyofthesecularhistoriesathisdisposal,justasitsuitsthetaskwhichhehasbeforehim.Hecommentsonthisinhisintroduction:“DassichdieGeschichtsschreiberzwarnichtganzundgarverachtethabe,aberdieHeiligeSchriftihnenvorzog.Ichgebrauchederselbenso,dassichnichtgezwungenbin,derSchriftzuwidersprechen.Dennichglaube,dassinderSchriftderwahrhaftigeGottrede,aberindenHistorien gute Leute nach ihrem Vermögen ihren Fleiss und ihre Treue, aber als Menschen,erweisen,oderwenigstensdassdieAbschreiberhabenirrenkönnen"(Walch14,1,117;St.Louis14,491).TheessenceofinspirationisdefinedveryclearlybyLutherinthecaseoftheinspirationoftheprophetsorapostles;butquitehazy ishisconceptionof themeaningof inspiration in thosepartswhere the biblical text relates history. One ought therefore not to deny that Luther extendedinspirationtoincludealsothesetexts,asinfactheincludedthewholeoftheHolyScriptures;norisitpermissibletoplaceallpartsoftheScripturesonthesamelevelinthemanneroflatergenerationswiththeirformulaof“impulsusadscribendum,suggestiorerum,suggestioverborum."Todothatistooverlookthefact that largevariationsarepossiblewithinthecompassof the incomprehensibleHowofinspiration,aslargeasinGod'sWorditself.

VI

ArethereerrorsintheHolyScriptures?WhatanswerdoesLuthergivetothisquestion?InthefirstplacehepointsoutthatourpresenttextcontainserrorsandheinformseveryreaderofthisfactinthemarginalglossesofhisGermanBible.ThuswefindintheglossonActs13:20(actuallythisisnotyetcontainedintheeditionsof1522and1524)aremarkonthenumberinregardtothechronologyof the Judges: “EtlicheTexthabenvierhundert; aberdieHistorienundRechnung leidensnicht. IstdesSchreibersIrrtum,dervierfürdreigeschriebenhat,welchsleichtistgeschehenimGriechischen”(EA64,215c.f.theGermanNestletextforthepassage).Inanothermarginalglosson1.Chron.23(now24):3hesaysofthenumber30:“EsscheinetdieebräischeBibelhierverfälschtzusein,dennsonst allenthalben zwanzig geschrieben wird” (EA 64, 61). Whenever Luther comes across suchpassageswhich seem to him to be irreconcilablewith other passages or for other reasons to beincredible,thenheassumesanerrororevenadeliberatefalsificationbythecopyists.Lackofspaceprevents us from citing more such passages. But Luther never seeks a way out through textualcriticism, simply because of his great awe for the greatmysterywhich he accepts. "Wenn LutheraucherstaunlicheBeobachtungenüberunvorstellbareZahlenangabenundUnstimmigkeiten inalt-undneutestamentlichenErzählungen gemachthat, so erhöhtdas seineAchtung vor derAutoritätder Bibel nur" (H. Bornkamm, Luther und das Alte Testament, 1948, p.161). But there areimprobablefigureswhichareinnowayconnectedwithmiracles,e.g.1.Kings5:19:"Ichwolltegernesehen,wo80oder70TausendZimmerleutemit ihrenäxtenher kommen…” (WADeutscheBibel,

3,419,8ff).Suchpassagesmayresultfromamisunderstandingofthecopyistorfromafalsification.Indeed, Luther assumes intended falsifications on a large scale, even in passages which aretheologically important. Tobe able tounderstand theOld Testamentonemust learn theHebrewlanguagefromtheJews,saysLutherattheconclusionofhiswriting:"VomSchemHaphorasundvomGeschlecht Christi" of 1543. But onemust avoid "their faith and reason." "Darum sollten unsereEbraisten (darum ich sie auch hiemit umGotteswillen gebeten haben) lassen ihnen diese Arbeitbefohlenundangelegensein,dieheiligealteBibelvonderJüdenPeresandJudaspissezureinigen,wosiediePunct,Distinction,Conjugation,Construction,Signification,undwasmehrdieGrammaticahat, könntenändernund vonder JüdenVerstandwenden,dass sichs zumundmit demNeuenenTestament reimet, dass sie solches getrost undmit Freuden täten, wie S. Paulus Röm. am 12, 7lehret,dassdieprophetiasollenanaloga,ähnlichseindemGlauben.Dennsohabensieuns,dasist,derBibliagetandiese1500Jahr.WosiedieBibliamitPuncten,Distinction,Conjugationetc.habenkönnenvonunseremMessiaundGlaubenwendenunddemNeuenTestamentunähnlichmachen,dashabensiemitgrossemundrasendemFleissgetan…”Lutherthenreferstoseveralpassages,alsoto Isa. 9:5 where the Jews read the text so that it makes the following sense: “es wird derWunderbar, Rat, Gott, Held, ewiger Vater denMessia nennen Friedfürst,” so that theMessiah isdeprived of the divine attributes. The original meaning in this and other passages must bereconstructed on the basis of theNewTestament principle: “dass die alte heilige Schrift (theOldTestament ismeant) aufMessia undunserenGlauben gehe und zeuge” (EA 32, 356). “Mit dieserWeisekönntmander JüdenVerstand inderBiblia fein schwächen,und istdasVorteil,dassMoseund die Propheten nicht habenmit Puncten geschrieben;welchs ein neuMenschenfündlein, nachihrer Zeit aufbracht: darumnicht not ist, dieselben so steif zu halten, als die Jüden gernwollten,sonderlich,wosiedemNeuenTestamentzuwidergebrauchtwerden"(EA32,357).InregardtothelatterquotationweshouldnotethatLutherdoesnotsharetheopinionoflaterOrthodoxythatalsothevowelsignsoftheHebrewtextareinspired.0fcourse,heknowsthatcertainvowelscorrespondtotheoriginaltext.Buttheyhavenotnecessarilyalwaystobethepresentonesandincertaincases,e.g.Tetragram,heisquiteright.OnemightbeinclinedtoattributeLuther'sseriousaccusationthatthe Old Testament text was falsified, to the bitter mood of hostility to the Jews, which socharacterizes this writing of his old age. But the same accusation is already to be found in hiscommentaryon Isaiah,e.g. in theexpositionof Isa.9 inEAop.ex.23,109,whereLutheroffersaclassicalformulationofhisaccusationwhenhesays:"SicutenimChristumcrucifixerunt,sicetverbaprophetaeipsiuscrucifigunt.”Itis extraordinarily significant for Luther's understanding of theScriptures that the text of the Hebrew Old Testament may have undergone a comprehensivefalsificationandthatitisthedutyofChristiantheologyintheveryfirstplacetodetermineareliabletextwhichwillbeinharmonywiththeNewTestament. No doubt the sweeping accusation againstthe Jews is phantastic; the Septuagint and the Vulgate offer us the possibility of checking up onalleged later alterations.Nevertheless, themost recent discoveries ofOld Testamentmanuscriptsand the research work on the Septuagint have confronted us with the fundamental problemwhetherineverycasewereallyhavetheoldest,theabsolutelyreliabletextoftheOldTestamentinourHebrewBible(apartfromminorvariationsandtextcorruptions).Whatifthisisnoteverywherethe case?What ifwemerelyhada suspicion thatour text isnotquite reliable in smallerorevenlargerportionsoftheOldTestament?FormanyChristiansthatwouldresultinaseriousshakingofthefoundationsoftheirfaith.Theywouldaskonwhatonecouldstillrelyinthisworld,ifnotonthetextoftheBible.Lutherand theLutheranChurchwouldnotbesorelyafflictedbysuchaprospect.And if all the vowelsof theOld Testamentwereproblematical, theOldTestament as suchwouldcontinue to exist. Its contentwould not be problematical. Forwe know and are acquaintedwithwhat in theOldTestament is LawandGospeland theNewTestamentconfirms it forus.Yes, theChurchcould, if itwerenecessary,restoretheOldTestament in itspurityonthebasisoftheNew

Testament. What a daring thought that is. And yet this thought of Luther is no more than anexpressionofhisverydeepknowledgeofwhatGod'sWordandtheBible,astheWordofGod,is.

VII

ThatthetextofHolyScriptureaswehaveit,containsmistakesanderrorshasneverbeendenied.But what about the original text, i.e. the text which in the case of each single passage is to beregardedas theuncorruptedtext?Errors in theoriginalare foundbyLuther in theApocrypha(onwhich todwellhere isunnecessary), and inwritingswhosecanonicity isnot sureandwhichwerecalled “antilegomena” in the Ancient Church or deutero-canonical books by Lutheran theology.Luther'softenquotedcriticismsofbiblicaltextsrefertothem,especiallytotheEpistleofJames.IntheOldTestamentthebookofEstherissuspectedofnotbelongingtothecanon.Theancientrabbisalreadyexpressedthatsuspicion.ItisofutmostimportancefortheunderstandingoftheBibleasawhole,thatnotonlythetextofHolyScripture,butalsoitsextentisopentodoubt.Aswenolongerhavetheoriginalmanuscriptof thebooksof theBible—orwhatevermaycorrespondto it in theindividualcase—nobody isabletosaywithabsolutecertaintywhethereachofthebooksreceivedintothecanonreallybelongsthere.TheextentofthecanonasusedintheChurchisdeterminedbythe Church through synodical decrees or through silent agreement or mere custom. Since theChurch,however,isnotaboveScriptureandnodecreeofasynodcanclaiminfallibility,aremnantofuncertaintymustbethere.ItistothecreditoftheLutheranChurchwhichalwaysdesirestosubmitunconditionallytotheWord,thatshehasrefrainedfromdisposingofHolyWritbyquickdecisions,determining what is canonical and what not, and that she has preferred a certain amount ofuncertainty to a false certainty. Undoubtedly thatwhich is truly God'sWord belongs to the HolyScripturesandisbeyondourcriticism.Ontheotherhand,wearenotentitledtodeclaresomethingtobeGod'sWordwhichreallyisnot.Luther'sBiblicalcriticismisanendeavourtohearandtoexplainthewholeWordofGodandatthesametimetodistinguishitfromeverythingwhichisnottheWordofGod.

Whatthis“criticism,”i.e.thisdistinctionandseparationbetweentheWordofGodandthatwhichisnotWordofGod,islike,weshallseebystudyingnothismuchdiscussedutterancesonJames,butwhathesaysontheEpistle to theHebrewswhich forLutherwasnotanepistleof"straw”butan"exceedinglyfineepistle." InthePrefacetoHebrews(inalleditionssince1522):"Bisherhabenwirdie rechten gewissen Hauptbücher des Neuen Testaments gehabt. Diese vier nachfolgende (hemeansthoseplacedattheendoftheNewTestament:Hebrews,James,JudeandRevelation)aberhabenvorZeiteneinanderAnsehengehabt.Undaufserst,dassdieseEpistelandieEbräernichtSt.PaulnocheinigesApostelssei,beweisetsichdabei,dassim2.Kap.(v.3)stehetalso:DieseLehreistdurchdie,soesselbstvomHerrngehörthaben,aufunskommenundblieben.Damitwirdesklar,dasservondenApostelnredetalseinJünger,aufdensolcheLehrevondenApostelnkommensei,vielleichtlangehernach."LutherpointsoutthattheremarkinGal.1:1wouldalsocauseadifficulty.überdashatsieeinenhartenKnoten,dasssieam6.und10.KapitelstracksverneinetundversagetdieBussedenSündern,nachderTaufe,undam12.(v.17)spricht:EsauhabeBussegesuchtunddochnichtfunden.Welchs,wieeslautet,scheinetwideralleEvangeliaundEpistelnSt.Paulizusein.UndlautendochdieWortsoklar,dassichnichtweiss,obsgenugsei.Michdünket,esseieineEpistelvonvielen Stücken zusammen gesetzt, und nicht einerlei ordentlich handele.” Yet he says, it is “eineausbündigefeineEpistel,dievomPriestertumChristimeisterlichundgründlichausderSchriftredet,dazudasAlteTestamentfeinundreichlichausleget.”TheauthoraccordingtoLutherisasplendid,learnedman,adiscipleoftheapostles.“UndoberwohlnichtdenGrundlegtdesGlaubens…,welchsderApostelAmtist:sobaueterdochfeindraufGold,Silber,Edelsteine,wieS.Paulus1.Kor.3(v.12)sagt.Derhalbenunsnichthindernsoll,obvielleichtetwaHolz, StrohoderHeumituntergemenget

werde,sondernsolchefeineLehremitallenEhrenaufnehmen;ohndassmansiedenapostolischenEpistelnnichtallerdingegleichenmag”(EA63,154f).TheverdictoftheReformeronthiswritingisperfectlyclear;itisnottobeputonthesamelevelasthewritingsoftheapostles.Foritcontainsinadditiontothepuregoldandsilverofthepuredoctrineafewthingswhichcontradictthatdoctrineandcannotbereconciledtoitbya“gloss,”anexplanation.Thereforeitsplaceisattheedgeofthecanon.IsitGod'sWord?TothisquestionLutherwouldanswer:Yes,itistheWordofGodinsofarasit teachesthegospel. (c.f. thequotationonHeb.1:3f inthesermonEA11,273.) It is theWordofGodinthesamewayaseverycorrectexpositionoftheHolyScripturesbyanytrue,faithfulteacherisWordofGod.Ofeverything taught correctly inHebrews (and that appliesby far to thegreaterpart)wemightsaythatwhichmustbesaidofallpuredoctrineofthegospel;Lutherformulates itthus: “Also bin ich gewiss, wenn ich auf den Predigtstuhl gehe oder auf die Kathedra trete undpredigenoder lesen,dassesnichtmeinWort ist, sondernmeineZunge ist einGriffel einesgutenSchreibers, wie der 45. Psalm (v.2) sagt; denn Gott redet in den heiligen Propheten oder GottesMännern, wie es St. Petrus in seiner Epistel (2. Pet. 1:21) auch saget: Die Heiligen Gottes habengeredet,getriebendurchdenHeiligenGeist.DasollGottundMenschnichtvoneinandergesondertnochgeschiedenwerdennachdemVerstandeundUrteilmenschlicherVernunft;sondernmansollstracks sagen:dieserMensch,Prophet,Apostel, oder rechtschaffenerPredigerund Lehrer,waserausGottesBefehlredetodertut,dasredetundtutGottselber,denneristGottesMundstückoderWerkzeug. Da sollen die Zuhörer schliessen und sagen: Jetzt höre ich nicht Paulum, Petrum odereinen Menschen, sondern Gott selber reden, täufen, absolvieren, strafen, bannen und dasAbendmahlreichen"(EA57,39).ThisisathoughtwhichLutherrepeatsagainandagain;itisoftheutmostimportanceforhisunderstandingoftheWordofGod."EinPrediger,wennergepredigthasmussmitJeremiassagenundrühmen:Herrduweisst,dass,wasausmeinemMundegangenist,dasistrechtanddirgefällig. Ja,mitSt.Paulo,allenApostelnundProphetentrötzlichsagen:HaecdixitDominus.DashatGottselbergesagt.Etiterum,IchbineinApostelundProphetJesuChristigewestindieserPredigt”(WA52,517;EA26,58f).Itshouldbenotedhowinthisandsimilarwordsoralandwrittenteaching,theproclaimedandthewrittenWordalwaysbelongtogether.ButitalsoistobeobservedthatinprinciplehedoesnotdistinguishbetweentheteachingofthebiblicalmenofGod,whetheroralorwritten,andtheteachingoftheministeriumecclesiasticum.Whatdistinguishestheapostles fromthe later teachers,amongwhomLutherwouldalsoplace theauthorofHebrews, isthe special call and the possession of the fulness of the Spirit. The author of the Epistle to theHebrewswouldlackthatcallandthe"possenonerrareinfide"which,aswehaveseen,accordingtoLuther the Holy Spirit has given to the authors of the “real, certain main books of the NewTestament.”Butthereisonethingwhichtheyallhaveincommon,theProphets,theApostles,theauthors of the deutero-canonical books of the Bible and the later preachers and teachers of theChurchofalltimes:theWordofGod,thegospel;itsministerstheyallare,itisabovethemall,theycannotdisposeoverit,butratheritdisposesoverthemandjudgesallofthem.EventheapostlesareundertheWordandmustsubmittoitsjudgment.Thusthereisapossibilityofexaminingthemenwhoclaimtobebearersofdivinerevelation,andalsoofexaminingthewritingswhichclaimorareclaimed to be divine revelation. "Das ist der rechte Prüfstein, alle Bücher zu tadeln, wenn mansiehet,obsieChristumtreibenodernicht,sintemalalleSchriftChristumzeiget….WasChristumnichtlehret, das ist nochnicht apostolisch,wenns gleich S. Petrusoder Paulus lehrte.Wiederumb,wasChristumprediget,daswäreapostolisch,wennsgleichJudas,Hannas,PilatusundHerodestät"(EA63,157).Thusthere isanormaabovethenormanormansoftheScripturesandonlyhe isabletounderstandtheScripturesas"theonlyruleandnormaccordingtowhichalldoctrinesandteachersshall be judged and examined,” who understands the Judge above the Judge, the DominusScripturae,who,aswehaveseen inanotherconnection, isatoncealsocontentofHolyScripture.The practical application of this norm, according to Luther,must be undertaken according to the

analogiafideiintheexpositionoftheScriptures.Whereitisaquestionof"wasfürheiligeSchriftundArtikeldesGlaubenszuhaltensei,”thereLuthersays,weshall''beidieserRegelbleiben,dieunsSt.Paulus lehret Röm. 12:7: Alle Weissagung soll dem Glauben ähnlich sein. Welche Lehrer nun solehren,dasdemGlaubenanChristogemässist,diewollenwirlehrenundhalten.WelcherabernichtdemGlaubengemässlehret,denwollenwirwederhörennochsehen"(GlosseaufdasvermeintlichekaiserlicheEdiktetc.1531,EA25,80)c.f. thesermonalreadyreferredto in theKirchenpostilleonRom.12:6-16, EA8, 14ff , particularly p. 22ff.Weneednot showherewithwhat confidence andefficiency and, comparedwith later Biblicists, withwhat boldness Luther has applied that rule inordertounderstandtheWordofGod.Neitherdowewanttoshowherehowonthebasisof thisprincipletheGospeloftheSaviourofsinnersbecamethekeytothewholeBibleandhowonlyfromthe sola fide the sola scriptura received its meaning. So Luther exercised what we could call hisCriticismoftheBible,thecarefulstudyofthequestionwhetherthecollectionofwritings,offeredbytheCatholicChurchofhisdayastheBible,isreallyGod'sWord.ByapplyingthestandarddiscoveredbyhimhecametorejecttheOldTestamentApocryphaasnotbeingthepureWordofGod,todoubtabooklikeEsther,todistinguishthe"real,certainandmainbooks”oftheNewTestamentfromthelater antilegomenawherehe found somecontradictions to theGospel, i.e. somedoctrinal errors.Fortherest,however,thisexaminationledhimtotherecognitionthattheclaimoftheBibletobetheWordofGodissplendidlyjustified.

VIII

Did Luther also find errors in those books of the Holy Scriptures which are without a doubtcanonical?Sinceheascribesapossenonerrare infide,effectedbytheHolySpirit, totheapostlesandsoimplicitlytoallauthorsofcanonicalbooks,hecannotfinderrorsinfaithinthesebooks.Ifheshould find suchanerror,hewouldassumea corruptionof the text. For Luthera canonicalbookwith a false doctrine would be an unthinkable contradictio in adiecto. But what of mistakes,inaccuracies,contradictions,discrepanciesorwhateverotherdeficiencesmaybe found inabook?WehaveseenthatLutheradmitsthepossibilityofmanyseriouscorruptionsorfalsificationsofthetextof theOldTestament.Wehave seenhowseriouslyheendeavours to findoutwhichwritingsconstitute Holy Scripture. If corruptions have crept into the text, ifmoreoverwhole bookswhichactuallydonotbelongtotheBiblesincetheyarenotatallGod'sWord,havebeenincorporatedintotheBible,and if theeliminationofthemissodifficultthatLutherneverreachedfullclarityontheextent of the canon, then the Book of books simply cannot be regarded as the most perfect ofliteraryproducts.ItmighthavebeenbetterifthetheologicaldiscussionswithintheLutheranChurchhadfollowedtheleadershipofLutherinsteadofyieldingtothetemptationcomingfromReformedandCatholictheologyandmakingthedoctrinedesacrascripturaachapterofatheologiagloriae.InreadingtheparagraphsintheworksofdogmaticsbytheOrthodoxdogmaticiansontheperfectionofHolyScripture,onecomesacrossnothingbutpraiseforall theperfectionsascribedtotheBibleandthequestion immediatelysuggests itself:whatwouldLutherhavesaidaboutall that?HewasacquaintedwiththeBiblelikenootherman,hewasthegreatestofallexpositorsandtranslatorsoftheBible;butheknewwellenoughthatthegloryofthewrittenWordwas“hiddenunderthecross,”in the samewayas is thegloryof theproclaimedWordandof theWord incarnate.But then thequestionarises,how,accordingtoLuther,doesthis''formofaservant,”thisexistenceofthewrittenWordofGodunderthecross,finditsexpression?Andthisfurtherraisesthequestion,whetherthenonposseerrareinfidealsoincludesanabsoluteinerrancyandinfallibilityinmatterswhicharenotdefide.

TheformaserviofthewrittenWordfindsitsexpressionaccordingtoLutherinthefactthattheHolySpirit in using human instruments also made use of the weakness of these instruments. Isaiah

remainsapoorsinner thoughhe receivedon theoccasionofhis call the forgivenessofhis sins inquite aparticularway, a fact later remembered in theChristian servicebefore the readingof theGospel (c.f. theprayer,“Mundacormeum” in theRomanMass).Paul,God'schosenvessel,wasachronicallysickmanandhadtoexperiencethatstrengthismadeperfectinweakness.Whatadeepinsight isexpressed inthefineapologywithwhichLutherdefendstheHolySpiritWhoinspeakingthrough the apostle is suspected of grammatical shortcomings: ''Condonandum est autem SpirtuiSancto inPaulo loquenti,sipeccetaliquando ingrammaticasetpraeceptarhetorica…” (EAGal.1.141onGal.2:2).ThespeakingoftheHolySpiritisdonewiththefullco-operationofman;andthatmeans,notonlymanwiththepeculiartraitsofhisowncharacter,butalsowithhiscertainframeofmind. Luther would perhaps not have been able to answer the question whether in this case asuggestioverborummustbeassumedaswasassumedinthecaseofthepoetsofthepsalms;inhisexposition of Psalm 127:3 he says: "Non solum vocabula set et phrasis…est divina, qua spiritussanctusetscripturautitur.”Theco-operationofmen is regarded in thecaseofGal.2:2ascausingthe Holy Spirit to sin against grammar. The Holy Spirit makes the weakness of man who in hisexcitementdisregardstherulesofgrammar,hisownweakness.We shall have to be more lenientthanthemenofthe16thCenturywereinpassingjudgmentonsuch“mistakes.” Certainly we mustnoteherethatLutherinthiscaseassumesagrammaticalmistake,eventhoughitisonewhichhastobe “forgiven to the Holy Spirit.” If such grammatical shortcomings belong to the “form of theservant”ofthewrittenWordofGod,thenshortcomingsinhistoricalstatementswillalsohavetoberegarded in thisway. ThusLuther inhisCommentary to theGalatians (EAGal. I,97onGal.1:11)states thatnotonlydates in the lifeofPaulbutalso thehistorical statementsof theBiblecauseddifficulties: ''Sunt autem historiae in scripturis saepe concisae et confusae, ut conciliari facile nonpossint,utsuntnegationesPetriethistoriapassionisChristietc. SichicPaulus integramhistoriamnon recitat. Ego non laboro neque multum sollicitus sum de ea concordanda, sed tantum hicconsidero, quod Pauli sit consilium, et quo spectet.” While Jerome tortures and troubles himselftryingtoreconcilethenarratives(essetorquet laborat),Lutherrefrainsfromdoingso ifhecannotsucceed,andaddresseshimselftotheactualcontentofthetext. InhisEastersermonof1525hediscusses the differences in the Easter narratives: “Die Evangelisten all vier haben nicht grossAchtunggehabt,dass siedieGeschicht ineinOrdnungbringenundnacheinandererzählen.Einerschreibtmehr,deranderminder,derschreibtdas,einanderjenesStück;habennitvielAchtaufdieWörter,sehenalleindarauf,dasssiedieGeschichtanihmselbsbeschreiben.DannandenWörternliegt nit viel Macht, wie auch unter den Menschen in all Sprachen geschieht; wann sich etwasGrosses und Neues begibt, davor sich jedermann entsetzt, so sagt mans darnach aus, der mitsolchen,einermitdiesenWorten....AlsohieauchsagensienitmiteinerleiWorten.DasmachtdieGrössedesWunders,dasseinMenschsollvonTotenauferstehen”(EA17,141).Asplausibleasthisexplanationofthedifferencesbetweenthenarrativesmaysound(actuallythedifferentstoriesarefullof theexcitementcausedbythemarvellousevents) , thequestioncannotbeavoidedwhytheHolySpirit,Whohas inspiredall thenarratives, seemstohaveshared in thisembarrassinghumanaspectofthemandwhy,indeed,Hedidnotchangedisorderintoorder.ThequestionisallthemorepressingsincethefaithoftheChristianwantstogetanexactpictureofwhathappenedanditisnotsatisfiedwith theplainstatement thatChrist is risen.For that reasonLuther, too, in the followingsentencesattemptstogiveapictureoftheEastereventtohishearers:“Wirwollenesaber ineinOrdnung fassen, wie es ergangen ist.” Once again he repeats: "Paulus, Petrus und die anderenApostelhabensichnitvielbekümmertmitderOrdnungundHistoriederAuferstehung,sondernvielmehrgetriebendieKraftundNutzderselben.”Luthersays that this iswhatmattersmostandnotthe astonishing details of the event. "Darum haben die Evangelisten die Historie schlechtbeschrieben, nit viel Acht gehabt auf dieWörter, damit sie uns von der Geschicht rissen auf denNutz”(p.145f).ThesameembarrassmentiscausedbyotherpassagesoftheGospel,especiallyinthe

Passion narrative. Particularly difficult is the story of the Cleansing of the Temple. It is mostcharacteristicofLuther'sinterpretationofthegospelswhen,indealingwiththisstory,hesays:"EssindFragenundbleibenFragen,dieichnichtwillauflösen:esliegtauchnichtvieldaran,ohnedassvielLeutedasind,diesospitzigundscharfsinnigsindundallerleiFragenaufbringenunddavonFrageundAntworthabenwollen.AberwennwirdenrechtenVerstandderSchriftunddierechtenArtikelunseresGlaubenshaben, dass JesusChristus,Gottes Sohn, für uns gestorbenund gelittenhat, sohatsnichtgrossenMangel,obwirgleichaufalles,sosonstgefragtwird,nichtantwortenkönnen.DieEvangelistenhaltennichteinerleiOrdnung:waseinervornensetzet,dassetzetderanderbisweilenhinten,wieauchMarkusdieseGeschichte schreibet, sie seiamanderenTagenachdemPalmtagegeschehen. Es kann auchwohl sein, dass derHerr solchesmehr denn einmal getan hat und dassJohannesdasersteMal,MatthäusdasanderMalbeschreibt.Ihmseinun,wieihmwolle,esseizuvoroderhernach,einsoder zweirgeschehen, sobricht unsanunseremGlaubennichtsab…" (EA46.173ff). It is always the same answer that Luther gives to such problems. He is convinced thatnothingworsethana“disorder”inthesequenceofeventscanbefoundintheBible;inthecaseofseemingcontradictionssomeexplanationshouldbefound.Whenhecannotfindsuchasolution,hepassesonandleavesthemattertoGodWhowillgrantorwithholdanansweraccordingtoHisgoodpleasure.Onanyaccount,whatreallymattersisnotthesedetails,buttheGospelasawhole.Andthis is not endangered by the "confusion" and by the lack of order in the historical presentation.LutheracceptstheBibleasitiswithouthavingtheslightestdoubtthatitistheWordofGodandthatassuchitisabsolutelyreliable.HebelievestheBiblealsoinmattersnotpertainingtofaith.ThenewtheoryofCopernicuscame intoLuther'shorizon for the first time in1539 (a fewyearsbefore theappearanceofthefamousbook) intheformofarumouraboutanewastrologus“whowantedtoprovethattheearthmovesandrotates,andnottheskyorthefirmament,orthesunandmoon.”TothisLutherobserves:“…esgehetjetztalso:werdawillklugsein,dersollihmnichtslassengefallen,was andere machen, er muss ihm etwas Eigens machen, das muss das Allerbeste sein, wie ersmachet.DerNarrwilldieganzeKunstAstronomiaeumkehren.AberwiedieHeiligeSchriftanzeiget,sohiess JosuadieSonne still stehen,undnichtdasErdreich” (EA62,319,TableTalkaccording toLauterbach).WehavealreadyseenhowLutherinhisWorldChroniclepreferstheBibleasasourcebookinchronologicalproblemsofworldhistorytoprofaneworksonhistory."Ichglaube,dassinderSchriftderwahrhaftigeGottredet,aberindenHistorienguteLeute.”Inshort,theresultappearstobethis:Lutherknowsof the"formof theservant”whichHolyScripturehas,becauseheknowsoftheuncertaintyofthetextinmanypassages;becauseheknowsoftheuncertaintyoftheextentofthecanon;becauseheknowsoftheliteraryshortcomingsoftheBibleandoftheweaknessesinthepresentationofhistoricalmatter.Butthatthis"formoftheservant"couldalsofindanexpressioninthe occurrence of errors, that discrepancies and variations might become contradictions, thatshortcomings might be mistakes, all this apparently never occurred to Luther. It seems that thedoctrineof theabsolute inerrancyofHolyScripturealso inmattersnotpertaining to faith;hasanimpressiveandauthoritativechampioninLuther.Itisnotdifficulttoshowthatwhenthereliabilityof the historical statements of the Bible was at stake, Luther appealed to the unconditionalcredibilityofHolyScriptureasthetrueandinfallibleWordofGod.

IX

Indeed,thisisLuther’sopinion:theHolyScripturesarefreefromerrors.Butinstatingthis,wehavenotyetgivenananswertothecruxoftheproblem.ForLutherthedoctrineoftheinerrancyoftheBible is a deep personal conviction. But is it also a dogma in the strict sense of the word, i.e. adoctrine taught in Holy Scripture and consequently binding for the Church? Luther is deeplyconvincedthattheBibledoesnotcontainerrors.Butisitalsohisopinionthatitcouldnotcontainanerror,thatitwouldceasetobetheWordofGodifeventheslightesterror,themosttriflingfault''in

leviculis”weretobediscovered?QuenstedtandthelaterOrthodoxyheldthisview.Wasitalsoheldby Luther? Franz Pieper interpreted Luther in this way when he ascribed to him the view that"Scripture is theonlybook inwhichnohistorical errorscan occur” (Chrstl.Dogmatik I, p.384-theemphasis is Pieper's). In support of his interpretation Pieper can quote only one passage fromLuther.ItisthequotationfromtheSupputatioannorummunditowhichwehavealreadyreferred.“Imakeuseof them(viz. thesecularchroniclers)butso, that Iamnotcompelled tocontradictHolyScripture.ForIbelievethatinScripturethetrueGodspeaks,butinhistoricalbooksgoodmenshowtheirdiligenceandtheirfaithfulness,butasmen;atmost,Ibelievethatcopyistsmighterr.”ButinthispassageLutherdoesnotspeakofwhattheBiblecanorcannotdo,butofwhat,inhisopinion,the Bible does do. WilhelmWalther understands the passage correctly when he interprets it asfollows: "Wieder also stellt er (Luther) nicht den dogmatischen Lehrsatz auf, ein Irrtum inchronologischen Angaben könne in der Bibel nicht vorkommen, sondern er spricht es als seineAnsichtaus,dieBibelsei,weilsieGottesWortsei,auchinNebendingenohnedirekteIrrtümer.UndsobestimmterdieseseineMeinungausspricht,umseinVerfahrenzuerklären,soverlangterdochnichtvonanderendieselbeAnsicht” (DasErbederReformation I,DerGlaubeandasWortGottes,1903,p.52;theemphasisisWalther's).W.WalthersummarizesLuther'sattitudetothequestionofthe inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures in the following words: “Wenn Luther die Autorität undIrrtumslosigkeit der hl. Schrift in dem Sinne betont, dass er diese Stellung zu ihr als die einzignormale,dahervonjedemChristenzuerstrebendedarstellt,dannhaterstetsnurihrensachlichen,religiösenInhaltvorAugen.DagegenbegegnenwirniemalsbeiihmderBehauptung,dieBibelkönnenicht Gottes Wort sein oder ihre Autorität falle dahin, wen sie auch nur in einem geringenNebenpunktetwasUnrichtigesenthalte"(ibid.p.48f).Dr.P.E.Kretzmanninanessaywhichhewaskind enough to send to the author recently (“Misunderstanding Luther in his teaching onInspiration") suggests "that Walther's presentation offers a strange contradiction." But thecontradictionisnottobefoundinWalther'sinterpretation;ratheritispresentinLuther'steachingwhichWaltherhasquitecorrectlypresentedandinterpreted.ForactuallyLutherholdstwoviews,sidebyside:theconvictionthattheHolyScripturesdonotcontainasingleerror,eveninhistoricaldetails;andtheconvictionthattheauthorityoftheHolyScriptureswouldnotbeimpairedifsuchanerrorshouldoccasionallyoccur.AsproofforthislatterconvictionWaltherquoteswhatLutherwritesinhisGermanCommentaryonZechariahon thepassageZech.11:12fwhich isquotedas comingfromJeremiahinMatt.27:9.Theoldquestionwhetherornotanerroronthepartoftheevangelististobefoundhere, isansweredbyLuther inthefollowingwords:“SolcheunddergleichenFragenbekümmernmich nicht, weil sie wenig zur Sache dienen undMatthäus gleich genug tut, dass ergewisseSchriftführt(i.e.thathequotesagenuinetextoftheBible),obergleichnichtsoebendenNamentrifft….KannmannundasselbeleidenundgeschiehtesohneGefahrdesSinnes,dassernichteben die Worte führt; was sollte es hindern, ob er den Namen nicht so eben setzt?” To whichWaltheraddsbywayofexplanation:“DamiterklärtLutherfreilich,eswürdenichtsschaden,wennMatthäushiereinVersehenbegangenhätte.Unddochvermeideter,auszusprechen,dasswirklichein solches vorliege.Nur als eineMöglichkeit erwähnt er dies,während er die nichtbuchstäblicheZitationsweisebeiMatthäusalsFaktumhinstellt.DenndortwählterzweimaldiePartikel 'ob,'hierdagegen 'dass'”(ibid.p.52, theemphasis isWalther's; thequotation fromLuther inWalther is fromEA 42, 330f). IfWalther had compared the text of the Latin Commentary on Zechariah hewouldhave experienced a considerable surprise. For there Luther states quite frankly that the text inMatthewcontainsaslighterror:“Neccrediderimfacilelibrosprophetarumesseimmutatosvariatistitulis,deindefuerunthauddubiecumMattheosanctieteruditiviriplenispiritu,quiadmonueruntin Zacharia esse illam scripturam, quam citarat non in Hieremia, quorum admonitione admonituspotuisset levemillumerrorememendare,si libuissetautsiputavissetmagnoperereferre.Sednihilest,curhisetsimilibusscrupulisnosanxietorqueamus,cumnotsitinilliscaputetsummanostrae

fidei” (WA13,650,28ff; EAop.ex.28,164). Weappend theGerman translationof theSt. LouisEdition, 14, 2,124: “Ich möchte nicht leicht glauben, dass die Bücher der Propheten verwechseltwordenseiendurchVeränderungderTitel. SodannwarenbeiMatthäusohneZweifelheiligeundgelehrteLeute,volldesHeiligenGeistes,dieihnerinnerthaben,dassdieseSchriftstelleinSacharjasei, die er angeführt hatte, nicht in, Jeremia. Durch deren Erinnerung veranlasst, hätte erdiesengeringenIrrtum leichtverbessernkönnen,wennesihmbeliebthätte,oderwennerdafürgehaltenhätte, dass viel daran liege. Aber, es ist kein Grund warum wir uns mit diesen und ähnlichenBedenken ängstlich abquälen sollen, da in diesen Dingen nicht das Hauptstück und der InbegriffunseresGlaubensliegt.”Itistrue,theLatinCommentarywasnotwrittenbyLutherhimselfbutbyStephanRothonthebasisofLuther'sLatin lecture.However,acomparisonbetweenthemodeofspeech in the German and the Latin text, and a comparison of this Latin Commentary with theelaborate commentary which Roth himself began to write on the basis of Luther's lecture (hemanagedtowriteonly the firstchapters) showsthat the text isa faithful renderingof the lecturewhichLuthergaveinWittenberg1625/26.ThisviewwasalsosharedbytheeditorsoftheSt.LouisEdition, otherwise theywouldnothave incorporated this text in their edition. Thus it didhappenoccasionally thatLutherspokeofa slip like theone tobe found inMatt.27:9asa“leviserror,”aslighterrorwhichdoesnotconcernthematterwithwhichthebiblicaltextsdeal,andwhichdoesnotaffecttheinerrancyoftheBible.AndthisisbynomeanstheonlycasewhereLutherassumesthatScriptureusesamodeofspeechwhich,accordingtothestrictstandardsoflogicatanyrate,rendersthefacts inavery inaccurateway.Astothehighfigures insomenarrativesoftheOldTestament,whichcanhardlybeunderstoodorforwhichnoexplanationcanbefoundatall,Lutherremarksinapassageofhis TableTalk: “Wennman lieset, es seienoft grosse Summenerschlagen, also80,000etc., so glaub ich, dass ihrer oft kaum tausend erschlagen sein.Manmeint das ganze Volk.Werregemschlägt,derschlägtalleswaserhat.AlswennKönigausFrankreichmit10,000geschlagenist,sagt man, es seien 80,000 geschlagen, quia er vermag so viel etc. Sonst kann ichs nichtconciliieren”(Table Talk 1542/43 in WA TR No.5,560) Put bluntly, this would mean that the OldTestament occasionally can make use of an exaggeration of figures as a rhetorical means ofillustration similar to that whichwas customarywith all historians of the AncientWorld.We arestating this as a conjecture expressed on a special occasion by no lesser authority than Lutherhimself and we are convinced that Luther, inmaking such a conjecture, did not deprive the OldTestament narratives of their historical value.Howunprejudiced Lutherwas in assuming that thebiblicalauthorsintheirpresentationofhistoryfollowedthemethodsofallhistorians,maybeshownbyanotherquotation fromtheSupputatioannorummundiwhere thedifficulty isdiscussedwhichStephen'sdiscourseinActs7presentswithitsdivergencefromtheOldTestamentnarrative.Againwe quote theGerman text from the St. Louis Edition, 14, 714f: “Zu der Erzählung des Stephanuskann dies gesagt werden, dass es nicht seine eigne Behauptung gewesen sei, sondern eineErzählung,dieausdemMundedesVolkshergenommensei;einesolchepflegtverwirrtunddunkelzusein.SodannpflegendieEvangelistenvielmehrdieStellenderSchriftanzuzeigen,alsanzuführenund lassen sich daran genügen, dass sie dieselben kurz angezogen und anf die Quellen selbstverwiesenhaben.Denn siehedenMatthäus imerstenKapitel an,wiedasGeschlechtsregistermitden Historien nicht übereinkommt. Zugleich kann nicht in Abrede genommenwerden, dass ebendieseStelle,Apost.7aufmehralsEineWeiseverderbtwordenseidurchetlicheKlüglinge.DenndasisteinoffenbarerIrrtum,dassersagt,derHerrseiihminMesopotamienerchienen,eheerinHaranwohnte,undseihernachausChaldäagegangen.EsistMesopotamienfürChaläagesetzt,esseidenndulässestChaldäainMesopotamiengelegensein.SonstwarerschonlängstausChaldäagezogen.”One has only to compare this frank discussion of the problem with the attempts of modernapologiststominimizethedifficulties,inordertounderstandhowfarLuther(thesame,bytheway,

istrueofCalvininspiteofhisstricterconceptionoftheinspiration)wasfromdenyingthepossibilityofslighthistoricalmistakes.

Thuswehave to state it as a historical fact thatMartin Luther, thepious and faithful reader andinterpreterofHoly Scripture,was able to combine the assertion that the Bible is free fromerror,with theassumption that in certainpassages the solutionof the“scrupuli” (that iswhathecalledthesedifficulties)whichtroubledhimsomuchashetestifiesintheappendixtotheSupputatio(St.Louis14,714ff)waspossibleonlyonthebasisofanassumptionofaleviserror.Justthosewhofortheirpersonshrinkback fromsuchanassumption,shouldask themselves thequestionhowthesetwo views could coexist in the soul of so great a Christian asMartin Luther.Why should such acoexistencebe impossible?What is there topreventour first admitting thepossibilityof a “slighterror”intheBible?WhatmakestheassumptionofanabsoluteinerrancyofHolyScripture,eveninmattersnotpertainingtofaith,necessary?Whatcompelsustobelievethiskindof inerrancy?Theactualfactthat insomecasestheBiblecontainsdifferenthistoricaltraditionswhichcanhardly,ornotatall,bereconciledwitheachother,suggeststhattheBibleisnotfreefromcontradictionsandoccasionalslighterrors.Whatforcesustobelieveinitscompleteinerrancydespitethesefacts?Weread in F. Pieper (op. cit. p. 384): “Wenn die Schriftnebenbei solche Dinge, die in das natürlicheGebietgehören,lehrt,sohatsieauchdarinstetsrechtgegenalleentgegenstehendenBehauptungendermenschlichenWissenschaft,dennpasagraphetheopneustos.”Isthatreallyalogicalconclusion?Does theopneustia logically include absolute inerrancy? Have we to infer from the idea oftheopneustiawhatthegraphetheopneustosmayormaynotteachinregardtosecularandnaturalmatters?ShouldwenotratherconcludefromtheactualfactsoftheinspiredWordofGodwhatispossiblewithinthecompassoftheinspiredWord?Whereisitstatedthataninspiredwordmustnotcontaina“leviserror”innaturalorhistoricalmatters?Isthereascripturalproofforthatcontention?IsitJohn10:35?Nounprejudicedexegesiscanreadmoreintothispassagethanitreallycontains.ItspeaksofScriptureasthedocumentofdivinerevelation.ItspeaksofwhatScripturetellsusaboutGod and divine truths. Therefore this passage has never really been cited as the source of thedoctrineoftheabsoluteinerrancyoftheBible.Whatistheoriginofthisdoctrine?ThisdoctrineisanaxiomclearlypromulgatedforthefirsttimebyAugustineinthesentencethatthereverencewhichweowetothecanonicalbooksofHolyScripturemust leadustobelievethatnoneoftheauthorshascommittedanerror inwriting(nullumeorumautoremscribendoerrassealiquid),andthat ifapassageseemstocontainanerror,wemustnotdoubtthatitiseitherthefaultofthemanuscriptorofthe interpreterorofourowndeficient intellect(“nihilaliudquamvelmendosumessecodicem,velinterpretemnonadsecutumesse,quoddictumest,velmeminimeintellexisse.Ep.82,3CSL34,354, 3ff). This axiom,promulgated as itwasby the great Father of theChurch, and accompaniedwithhispracticaladviceastohowtodealwithwhatappearstobeanerrorintheBible,hasbeenofimmense influence.Likesomanyother thoughtsofAugustine, ithas influencedWesterntheologyformorethanathousandyearsandinthe16thand17thcenturiesitdeterminedthetheologyoftheWordinallchurches.ThataninspiredScripturehastobefreefromanyerror,eventheslightestonein non-theological matters, this assertion is so evident, so plausible, that Catholics, Lutherans,AnglicansandCalvinistsaccepteditwithoutnoticingthatitwasanunprovedandunprovableaxiomlikeanyaxiominEuclid.ButitisnotadogmaoftheChurch.TothisverydaynobodyhasproveditfromScripture.ThatisthereasonwhytheConfessionalwritingsoftheLutheranChurcharesilentinregardtothisdoctrine.AndLutherisagreatmasterofScriptureandoneofthegreatestteachersofalltimes.ParticularlygreatisthesimplicityofmindwithwhichinhisthinkinghecanhavestandingsidebysidewhatinrealityactuallydoesstandsidebysideinthelivingandmightyWordofGod.Inthepersonof theGod-manwealso findwhatat first seems tobean irreconcilablecontradiction:JesusChristhasdivineomniscienceaspartofthemajestywhichhehad“accordingtothepersonal

union,andyetHeabstainedfromitinthestateofHishumiliation”(FormConc.Epit.VIII,Triglottap.821)asweknowfromMark13:32.

X

It appears that a reneweddiscussionon thenatureofHoly Scripture isbeginning in the LutheranChurchoftoday,causedbythespiritualemergencywithinourChurchandwithinallChristendom.Forwearelivinginatimewhenallnations,allinstitutions,andalsoallthechurchesofChristendomareshakenintheirveryfoundations.ItisnecessaryandrightthatweshouldbeginbystudyingagainLuther'spowerfuldoctrineontheWordofGod,notinordertohaveourpetthoughtsbackedbyhisauthority,but inorder to learn fromhim,andperhapseventounlearn. Itmaybe that thesimplefactsofhistory,andtheknowledgeofthewritingsofLutherwhichtodayisfarmoreextensivethanitcouldbe inthe19thCentury,willcompelustorevisesomeofour judgments. AsLutheransweknowthatthequestionastowhat isdoctrineoftheChurch isdecidedbyHolyScripture,theonlysourceandstandardofalldoctrine.NotwhatLuthersaidisnormative,butwhattheScripturessay.Butwemust beware of the rash conclusion: If Luther sometimes really should have surrenderedsomethingoftheabsoluteinerrancyoftheBible,thenweshallrefusetofollowhimandfollowtheScriptureagainstLuther.0fcourse, ifandwhereLuthershoulderr,therewemustrefusetofollowhim. But then we must be quite sure that we are really following the Scriptures and not anaxiomatic theory on the Scriptures. We ought to be sure that we do not turn from Luther, theevangelical theologian, to Augustine, the Catholic. Such a return would not be obedience to theWordofGod.FerdinandWalther,thereveredFatheroftheLutheranChurch-MissouriSynod,wrotethefollowingwordsin1886againstmodernisticmisrepresentationofLuther'sdoctrineontheWordof God, and Pieper quotes them (I, p. 370f): “Gesetzt, Luther hättewirklich die Bibel für einmitallerlei Irrtümern behaftetes Buch gehalten, aus welchem nur die Gelehrten den göttlichenWahrheitskern herausschälen könnten, so wäre damit den Bibelchristen eben nur Luthergenommen.”Thatisquitetrue.Butit isonlywithgreatapprehensionthatonereadsthefollowingsentencesinwhichWaltherwarnsagainsttheso-called“Gottmenschlichkeit”ofScripturewhenhesays:“Wennichdasglaube,dassdieBibelauchIrrtümerenthalte,soistsiemirkeinPrüfsteinmehr,sondern bedarf wohl selbst eines solchen.” If this sentence should mean that Luther can berecognizedonlyinsofarasinthedoctrineoninspirationandinerrancyheagreeswithQuenstedt,ifhiswordontheleviserrorshouldalreadyberegardedasapostasyfromthepuredoctrine,thentheendoftheLutheranChurchisinsight.KarlHolloncesaidthattheunconcernedwayinwhichLutherspokeoftheinconsistenciesinthenarrativesontheBaptismofJesusandonotherpassagesoftheGospels,wouldcertainlyhaveledtoLuther'sexcommunicationfromhisownchurchfiftyyearslater.(LuthersBedeutungfürdenFortschrittderAuslegungskunst,GesammelteAufsätzeI,Luther,p.574.)TheOrthodoxFatherswerenotquiteasun-LutheranasKarlHollthoughtandthereisnolikelihoodthat the timewill ever comewhen the LutheranChurchwould condemnLuther'sdoctrineon theScriptures,ofwhichthe“critical”wordswhichwehavequoted,areanintegralpart.Butifweshouldcondemnhim,inwhatcompanyshallwefindourselves?Amongwhatkindof“BibleChristians”shallwe be? We should not be far removed from those Jesuits who attacked the great John HenryNewmanwhenhe,alreadyacardinaloftheRomanChurch,admittedinanessayontheInspirationofScripture (XIX.Century,February1884,p.187) that thereare“obiterdicta,” incorrecthistoricalstatements, in theOldTestament.Certainlywe shouldalsobe in the respectable companyof themore serious Reformed Christians of America but unfortunately also in the company of themostdangeroussects.Thisveryfact,thatweshouldfindourselvesinthecompanyofthemostdangerousenemiesofthepureGospelcannotbutmakeusrealisethatthedoctrineoftheabsoluteinerrancyofeach word of the Bible as a necessary consequence of the doctrine on Inspiration is in itself noevangelical doctrine at all. Thus in all our discussions on the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures we

should not cease to keep inmind the fact that Luther's doctrine onHoly Scripture is inseparablyboundupwithhisdoctrineontheIncarnationofHimWhoistheEternalWordofGod,andwiththedoctrineof the justificationof thesinnerby faithalone,andthat, therefore,alsothisdoctrine isapartofhisgreattheologiacrucis,thetheologywhichspeaksofGodasOneWhorevealsHimselfbyhidingHismajestybehindtheweaknessofahumanlife,andHisglorybehindthecross.