Is it true that Luther intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28?

Question

I recently listened to Dr. Scott Hahn's conversion testimony. One thing that really jumped out at me was that Dr. Hahn stated that Luther purposely inserted the German word "allein" (alone) into Romans 3:28 despite the fact that it is not in the Greek texts.

So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

Or in English literally:

Thus, we conclude that a man is justified without the deeds of the law through faith alone.

Was it possibly a mistake, or where there other motivated factors at play?

Are there any writings from Luther that allude to his own translation of this crucial verse?

_{Note: I asked this question on C.SE (later closed as a duplicate of this question), but thought it might be more appropriate here.}

Answer 1

We must remember that two people with the same education and knowledge of original Biblical languages, will, and commonly do, conclude opposite conclusions while maintaining proclaimed objectivity in their exegesis. This is exactly what Protestant and Catholic scholars do concerning this verse. The reality is that everyone makes their exegetical conclusion conform to their hermeneutic, whether they admit it, or not. So maybe, in the end this question is best answered ultimately at C.SE but at the same time some interesting aspects will be brought up here that you would probably not find there.

Anyway to try and help outline a bit of the exegetical aspect of the verse, without claiming any magical objectivity let me just state the obvious. A literal word for word translation of the Greek would not include the word ‘alone’. The Greek simply says:

λογιζομεθα (We reckon) ουν (therefore) πιστει (by faith) δικαιουσθαι (to be justified) ανθρωπον (a man) χωρις (apart from) εργων (works of) νομου (law) (Newberry, T., & Berry, G. R. (2004). The interlinear literal translation of the Greek New Testament, Ro 3:28)

I looked up the Peshitta and it has the same simple format as the Greek without a word for 'alone' added.

However most translations are not literal word-for-word renderings as much of the ideas are lost that way. Rather most translations express original ideas into different words of another language. From a linguistic perspective, where the idea is being translated, rather than each literal word, Luther's rendering is certainly a valid possibility. The idea contained in the phrase 'achievement by means of X and not by means of Y' is arguably the equivalent of 'achievement by means of X alone and not Y'. They are communicating the same concept, one just highlights the exclusivity of X which should be already understood from a rule of logic in the former rendering.

For example, Charles Hodge a former professor of Biblical Languages at Princeton says Luther’s translation is obviously very accurate from the standpoint of a simple 'idea translation' in fact other's before Luther made the translation in the same way:

From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther’s version, therefore, allein durch den glauben, is fully justified by the context. The Romanists, indeed, made a great outcry against that version as a gross perversion of Scripture, although Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translation. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, “Nur durch den glauben.’ And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538 per sola fede. The Fathers also often use the expression, “man is justified by faith alone;” so that Erasmus, De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III., says, “Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapi data hoc sæculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur.” See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse. (Hodge, C. (1882). A commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 156)

So what was Luther up to? Luther was probably choosing his words carefully to translate what he thought the true meaning of the verse was, knowing full well that opposing theories would be more offended and more manifest by the crucial distinction of the word 'alone'. If he was right, or wrong in doing so would take much more analysis then this one verse, or any one single verse. This really leads us back then to the subject of the reformation and back to a site like C.SE for more debate over the real doctrinal issues at stake.

As you can probably tell, I am approaching the question from a Protestant hermeneutical tendency.

Answer 2

If one is asking about Luther's translation of Romans 3:28, why not let Luther directly answer the question in his own words? In his "open letter on translating" he writes:

I also know that in Romans 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that — it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text — if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation — not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; “I have only eaten and not yet drunk”; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a vast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add “allein” in order that “nicht” or “kein” may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say “The farmer brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word “allein” helps the word “kein” so much that it becomes a clear and complete German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German — as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

^{Martin Luther, Select Works of Martin Luther, paragraph 1010.}

Notice the point that Luther is making: He is translating into German. To take the thought in the greek (“λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου” (Ῥωμαίους 3·28 THGNT-T)) and make it sound like good, clear, appropriate German, it was fitting to add "allein."

This happens all the time in translation. Take Proverbs 14:29 as an example:

• ”אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם רַב־תְּבוּנָה“ (Proverbs 14:29 HMT-W4)
• Translation: "Long of noses; much understanding"

In order to keep the thought in the target language, one has to change the literal words and even add words. Changing or adding words to bring the thought from the source language into the target language is fine. Changing the thought and meaning of the source text is not ok. Luther, (again, according to his own words) added the word, "allein", not to change the meaning, but to bring out the meaning more fully in the target language, German.

You'll notice I keep flailing this dead horse of the issue of translation. The reason I do this is that, so very often, those who speak against Luther's translation here do so in the context of exegesis, text criticism, church tradition, etc. But the context in which Luther adds the word, "allein" is in the context of translation.. How do you get Paul to speak good, Saxonisch, 16th century German? That's the issue.

Answer 3

That verse is made well known when read in the chapter.

Rom 3: (NASB)

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Rom 4: (NASB)

1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”

If you read this in context then the point of this is that it isn't our works that make us Righteous, it is by believing God.

This is supported directly by the bolded text above.

• 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
• 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
• 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
• 4: ...“ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Answer 4

It is true that the Greek word for ‘alone’ does not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts of the book of Romans regarding that particular verse.

Yet the Greek for ‘apart from’ or ‘without’ [law-keeping] is there, so there are translations in English that read, “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” or, “a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law” or, “a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law”.

This link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#Theology - says under ‘Theology’:

“Apologist James Swan lists numerous Catholic sources that also translated Romans 3:28 with the word ‘alone,’ or testified to others doing so before Luther. A Bible commentary published in 1864 reports that ‘Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translations. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, ‘Nur durch den glauben.’ And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538, ‘per sola fede’. The Fathers also often use the expression, ‘man is justified by faith alone’.”

It is significant that, although many non-Protestants criticize this idea of "justification by faith alone", Luther had done nothing new, nothing novel, in his German translation. He knew that verse 28 had the Greek for "apart from/without law". To add "alone" at the end of the verse simply emphasized that existing biblical statement.

A literal translation of that verse reads:

"...therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law." Young's Literal Translation

Those who basically agree with Luther see in all translations of the Bible, in whatever language, that believers are justified in God’s sight by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone! Genuine, saving faith produces good deeds, but only faith in Christ saves. This means that Luther certainly never wrongly added the idea of salvation “by faith alone” to his Bible translation even though it is true that there is no Greek word for 'alone' in verse 28. The verse itself teaches that, and adding 'alone' at the end adds emphasis, not mistranslation.

Answer 5

In Romans 3:28 and many of Paul's verses in Romans, Corinthians and Galatians the Greek word for the definite article "the" (ton) is not present. Paul is not referring to The Law of Moses in many of these passages but the law of man (man-made commandments, teachings and doctrines). The Greek makes the distinction between the two by use of the definite article for "the" which is absent in the Greek text of Romans 3:28.

The only time the text uses the phrase "faith alone is in James and he emphatically rules it out! The Hebrew context of the words faith and belief are the same "faithfulness", steadfastness, etc. in other words "obedience in action" according to the Torah (His law, not man's).

If you love Me, obey (keep, guard, put a hedge of protection around - Hebrew "Shemar") My commandments" When Messiah said those words where were His commandments? The Torah (Genesis- Deuteronomy). There was no so-called New Testament at that time and His commandments (Word) were not nor do not change, nor does He?