Dialogue with a Lutheran Pastor on the Use of German Primary Sources in English Treatments of Martin Luther

This dialogue occurred at Cranach: The Blog of Veith : a Lutheran site, in the combox for "The Pope on Luther" -- starting at #174. It was sort of a side-issue discussion to the previous one on a disputed / ambiguous Luther text that had occurred in the same combox (documented on my site). Rev. Daniel Kempin's words will be in blue. His church is part of the Missouri Synod (LCMS). Use of capitals is his own.
* * * * *
Okay, this hair that I am about to split is not intended to re-ignite the discussion, but technically, TECHNICALLY, a quote of Luther in English should be from an English edition of Luther's works. If an edition of Luther's works in the original language is used, then the text should be cited IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. A translation can then be rendered by the author, but the reader will (if capable) have the ability to translate for himself.

I say this to both Dave and James. I'm glad that you both found the source that you used, but technically it is improper to use the citation "WA" unless you are actually, you know, quoting from the Weimar edition of Luther's works. What you have given us is–again, you know, technically–what someone else SAID they got from Luther's works.

I only say this to benefit your future scholarly citation. In this discussion you quoted Cole, not Luther. (You know, technically.)


Who does this — systematically providing German texts in an English work (except perhaps for some technical ultra-scholarly volumes)? I don't recall ever seeing such a thing. This would invalidate, e.g., Here I Stand by Roland Bainton, where WA ( Weimar Ausgabe : Luther's works in German, 1883) and many other German sources are regularly cited in English translation (because LW [ Luther's Works : 55-volume English set] was not yet available). Heiko Oberman's biography (translated into English [see his bio] ) does the same; ditto for Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther and Luther's Theology of the Cross, by Alister E. McGrath, and the English-language work, What Luther Says by Ewald M. Plass, that never cites LW at all and has scarcely a word of German in it.

I think if you start contending that a translation of a primary source by a scholar is invalid, then you'll take out (just a rough estimate) 50-60% or more of the books written about Luther in English (ones that regularly cite WA rather than LW).

Are you seriously contending that in all these cases, when one cites a Luther quotation, it ain't really Luther, but only Oberman, Althaus, McGrath, Bainton, and Plass (and/or the translators of the first two)?

I don't think this is necessary at all, anymore than English translations of the Bible must constantly provide the Greek or Hebrew (as if all Bibles must be interlinears to be legitimate and trustworthy). At some point the scholar has to be trusted to know what he is doing, and for accurate translation of primary texts.

I think all that is required in scholarly work (and I'm not claiming to be a scholar; I'm just a lay apologist) is to provide the primary source documentation. Readers like yourself, then, who are concerned with the minutest textual accuracy may then check the original language if they so wish. Cole (and all these others) have done that. If you know German, I'd love to learn more about the sources he cited, and see your renderings of them, if you think his are suspect in any way.


It has been fun, though. Dave, I hope we see you around here again.
If it's agreeable to the folks here, I have enjoyed it, for the most part (as I have my discussions with most Lutherans through the years). I've been seeking serious, amiable discussion with thinking Protestants who aren't anti-Catholic. . . . I believe Plato or Socrates said that a true dialogue can only occur, or best occurs, between friends who respect each other.

* * *
As a further reductio ad absurdum, could we not then also say that, in citing LW, we are still not citing Luther, but rather, Pelikan, Gritsch, and the other translators (and the same with Bibles)?

It all comes down to relative ability to translate, and necessarily trusting the integrity and substantial objectivity of scholars (just as with Bibles). Are we gonna say that Bainton or McGrath are incapable of accurately rendering a Luther saying into English? You never quote those guys citing Luther yourself, but only do your own translations, etc.?

I don't think such a line of reasoning can be sustained, either logically, or practically speaking, as we English-speakers set out to do research on Luther.

Granted, you said all this was "technical" — but my impression is that you are seriously contending for this practice, as if it should actually be done as a matter of course. I'd love to see all this wealth of Luther material that is sitting out there in German, untranslated, because (in part) certain folks were scared all these years of what people would think. See my paper:

"Untranslated German Works of Martin Luther (Including Two-Thirds of the Weimar Werke: "WA"): 20 New Volumes in English Forthcoming"

As a further reductio, your scenario would mean that every reader of a book on Luther becomes in effect the expert who can sit in judgment on the scholar who translates Luther in a certain fashion. Rather than trusting the Luther scholar (the one who has devoted his life to his task, and who has devoured and mastered many hundreds of related books and as many scholarly articles), who is quite capable of translation, we all rely on ourselves.

So now Cole or Bainton or McGrath or Plass or all the rest aren't good enough to be trusted for their Luther renderings and Dan Kempin or anyone else who knows German must step in to constantly verify. But how is that an improvement in anything? All that means is that it is now Kempin's judgment vs. Bainton, or Kempin vs. Oberman and his translator, etc. Thus, we still have an issue of trust: who is the better, more accurate translator? What is the more sensible course for the non-German reader to take? If I have to trust someone, I'm gonna trust the Luther scholar, even over a (no doubt) fine Lutheran pastor such as yourself.

It's the absurdity of the endless regress of private judgment and second-guessing, which is precisely the problem in the Protestant rule of faith, that has never been anywhere near resolved. I just finished a book about the falsity and radically circular nature of sola Scriptura.

At some point, all of us have to rely on scholarship in areas that we ourselves are not informed enough to understand on our own. Ecclesiology works the same way, but with grace and faith also the key. The Church was set up (by God) with bishops and apostolic succession, and councils, and (ducking tomatoes) popes, so that there could be a finality of judgment, rather than the chaos of denominationalism that we see. There is authority. It can't just be a book. Someone always has to interpret it; then it is a matter of competing interpretations.

If it is a choice between Joe Everyman Protestant and What he is Subjectively Convinced the Bible Teaches (fiducial faith), or even Self-Proclaimed Pseudo-Prophet Luther vs. e.g., the unbroken teaching of the Catholic Church, as seen in the Bible, apostles, fathers, doctors, scholastics, and on to our present day; sorry, I will go with the latter, since Holy Spirit-guided biblical, ecclesiastical tradition and the consensus of history and universality trump private subjectivism every time.

At some point the scholar has to be trusted to know what he is doing, and for accurate translation of primary texts.

Look, when there is no English translation, then of course it is appropriate to cite the German or Latin. If a book is being edited for an English reader, then the footnotes to the original text may be retained without inserting foreign text into an English book. I assure you, though, that in a scholarly paper, it is appropriate to include the text cited. 
I noted that this might apply to "ultra-scholarly" work. But this proves too much, because by this criterion, Oberman, Bainton, Althaus, and McGrath, all must be non-scholars or acting in ways contrary to their field and responsibilities, since they don't do that in widely used books having to do with Luther.
I guess I thought you wanted to have a scholarly conversation. 
I'm not a scholar. I'm merely noting how scholars have acted, and asking you to explain it, given your expressed opinion. Counter-examples . . . 
Since you posted no less than four lengthy replies to a rather incidental point, I wonder if this does not touch some type of nerve.
Over and out.
I'm animated. I love good discussion. I'm passionate about ideas; period. You need not resort to psychological speculation. I have no "nerve" on this. I was simply challenging your root assumptions; found it an interesting discussion to ponder. You challenged me to "put up or shut up" yesterday on the quote, and I produced it. You said that was what good scholarly-type discussion was about.

So I am doing the same back to you, but you don't wanna talk about it, and now appeal to my supposed "nerves" when it is simply a principled disagreement about a fairly minor point (as you grant, calling it "technical " over and over). C'mon. You can do far better than that. Can you defend your expressed view or not?

As an epilogue, I will make an observation.
What I said: "You know, when quoting Luther in English you should really cite an English edition."
What you apparently heard: "YOU ARE A DROOLING CATHOLIC IDOLATER WHO IS NO SCHOLAR AND I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU!
Okay, overstatement . . . but to make a point. You seem rather quick to the defense. There is no animus here.
And I am not bowing out of the conversation because I haven't enjoyed it, but because I have already overspent my time budget for blog comments by quite a bit. So to quote my own earlier final comment:
"It has been fun, Dave. I hope we see you around here again."

***