Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther's Operationes in Psalmos

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3

Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521)

EOM Jin-Seop, Th.D. Associate Professor, Church History Luther University, South Korea

I. Introduction II. The Only Sense of the Scripture III. Allegory IV. Grammatica Theologica V. Subordination of Philology to Theology Centered on the Gospel VI. Conclusion

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3 (2013. 9), 113-135 114 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3

Abstract

It is well known that Luther rediscovered the Gospel thorough in- tensive study of the Scriptures. As doctor sacra scripturae, the first thing he undertook was to comment on the Psalms followed by Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. This paper aims to analyze Luther’s hermeneutical principles in his second commentary on the Psalms (Operationes in Psalmos, 1519-1521) which he set to undertake after the so-called “Tower Experience”: how he breaks with medieval exegetical tradition and how his hermeneutics is related to his new evangelical theology. In Operationes Luther completes the process of overcoming the fourfold sense and stresses on the only sense of the Scripture texts. Clarifying his position to allegory, he claimed that allegory should be avoided to put an end to contention and strengthen faith. Occasionally he used allegory, especially when the New Testament uses the Old in an allegorical sense. The most peculiar form of allegory one finds in Operationes is the one that is related to sub contrario. This means that hermeneutics should be guided by theology. This is demonstrated in the concept ‘Grammatica Theologica’ which appears early in Operationes. Luther sometimes takes the Septuagint or the Vulgate for interpretation instead of the Masora. He does this especially to Psalm 22:16(21:17) by applying a Christological analogy. Luther em- phasized, thus, that the scripture interpretation should be firmly based on the grammatical-literal meaning of the texts, and at the same time should be interpreted in the light of the Gospel, which is the essence of the Scripture. Luther’s hermeneutics goes with his understanding of the Gospel.

Keywords

Martin Luther, Operationes in Psalmos, Hermeneutics, Gospel, Reformation Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 115

I. Introduction

It is well known that Luther rediscovered the Gospel through inten- sive study of the Scriptures as is attested by his reminiscence about the discovery of the meaning of iustitia dei (Rom. 1:16-17) in the “Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Works” (1545).1 Referring to Luther’s engagements, especially, with the Old Testament, Heinrich Bornkamm has pointed out that if Luther were a member of a modern theological faculty, he would be called a professor of Old Testament. Especially the Psalms, which Luther learned by heart from the time when he was in the monastery, was his favorite. Thus, the first thing he did as doctor sacrae scripturae was to lecture on the Psalms in 1513- 1515, which commentary is called Dictata super Psalterium. Luther continued to work with other scriptures, that is, Romans (1515-1516), Galatians (1516-1517), and Hebrews (1517-1518) before he again set to comment on the Psalms in 1519.2 Luther, in his Second Commentary on the Psalms (Operatio- nes in Psalmos, 1519-1521) undertaken during his mid-career, shows his ability and maturity as a biblical scholar, fully equipped with the knowledge of the biblical languages and experiences of writing com- mentaries. The contours of his break with the medieval tradition, which could be seen in his previous period, now became more characteristic and distinctive. Scott Hendrix also concludes, referring to Luther’s exposition of Psalm 1:1 in Operationes, that Luther “is in a category by himself” in the history of biblical interpretation. He summarizes Luther’s hermeneutics: “To the medieval tradition he (Luther) owned his concern for both an edifying literal meaning and for the unity of Scripture manifested in the promises found in the Old Testament. The way in which Luther allowed that edification to occur was neverthe-

1 Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 72 vols., eds. J. F. K. Knaake et al. (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883-1993), 54, 185, 21-186, 13 [hereafter WA]; Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (American Edition), 55 vols., eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986), 34:336f [hereafter LW]. 2 Luther had to stop after Psalm 22(21), for he was summoned to the Diet of Worms. WA 54, 186, 22-24; LW 34:337f. 116 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3 less his own.”3 He bases his judgment of Luther’s independence on the latter’s words in Operationes: “I will follow my own spirit and indulge in my own opinion without prejudice to anyone.”4 It is the aim of this paper, therefore, to show some of Luther’s hermeneutical points as expressed in this commentary on the psalms, which was written during this critical period of his career: what his hermeneutical principles are; how his break with the medieval exegesis tradition took shape; and how his new hermeneutics are closely connected with his Reformation theology, etc.

II. The Only Sense of the Scripture

In Operationes, Luther is fighting against the fourfold sense (quadriga) in detail. In his exposition of Psalm 22:18(21:19),5 he surprisingly connects his exposition, which culminates in a confession that the Bible has only one sense, with these words: “They parted my garments among them (Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea) .” 6 He interprets the dividing of Christ’s clothe as a dividing of the Scriptures into several senses. He makes Origen, in the first place, and Jerome, in the second, responsible for the fatal wrongdoings to make several senses out of the Scriptures. But even in his own time, according to 2 Corinthians 3:6, one interpreted the letter with the literal sense, and the Spirit with the mystical. When the papacy was established after the time of the fathers, and the bond between Christ and faith was extinguished, “first of all St. Thomas and Lyra and the like made fourfold sense out of the very word of the Scriptures: the literal, tropological, allegorical and anagogi- cal to spread Christ’s clothe into every direction of the world…. They, through this effort, thought that they still had the word of the Scripture, but divided it and tore it apart so that they did not give us at all constant

3 scott H. Hendrix, “Luther against the Background of the History of Biblical In- terpretation,” Interpretation 37 (1983), 238. 4 WA 5, 99, 6f. 5 Numbers in the parenthesis match those in the Vulgate. 6 WA 5, 637ff. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 117 understanding, with which we can clothe our souls.” Luther cites then the famous formula, “The literal sense teaches what happened; allegory what you are to believe; the moral sense what you are to do; anagogy where you are going (Litera gesta docet, quid credas allegotia, Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia) .” 7 He objects that according to this scheme the one single sense of the Scripture is subjected to an artificial limitation, as if each Bible-word did not give instruction in a comprehensive way. The literal sense has nothing to do with a dead past, but aims at faith, hope and love.

Is it not exceedingly blasphemous to tear Scripture apart, so that man ascribes to the letter neither faith nor love nor hope, but only the useless history? And ascribe faith to allegory, but neither love nor hope, [only] love to tropology, [only] hope to anagogy? As if Paul did not say in 2 Tim. 3[:16ff.]: All Scripture is inspired by God profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. What, I ask, do they show by this tearing other than that they do not understand at all faith, hope and love in the scripture. This means that they do not deal with the history of the fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac, and of the sanctification of the whole Israel people, in order to learn faith (as the Apostle does in Heb. 11[:4ff.]), but as it were as a dead history, and I don’t know what kind of senses they dream about faith, love and hope. Through this blasphemy they took away the clothe from us and tore it apart and gave us instead ‘spider’s web’ (as Is. 59[:6] names it), namely, decrees, statutes …8

Luther emphasizes then that in view of the shocking decline in the philosophical understanding, not even the figurative expression of the Scripture itself can be recognized as such; it becomes indentified with some mystical sense. Undoubtedly, if God had not hindered this, the number of the Scriptural sense would have immeasurably increased. For man does not keep together allegory, tropology, and anagogy as one and the same.

7 WA 5, 644, 37f. 8 WA 5, 644, 39-645, 13. 118 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3

Already in his dedication to the Elector Frederick Luther advocates the only true sense. He differentiates between the only true meaning, which the Holy Spirit understands, and the legitimate understanding of the psalms which he equals with the literal sense. He says: “I must openly admit that I do not know whether or not mine is, to a cer- tainty, the true meaning of the psalms, though I do not doubt that what I have delivered is truth. For what Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, Hilary, Cassiodorus, and others, have said upon the psalms, is truth, though it is sometimes very far from the literal meaning.” Then, Luther immediately says: “and thus, this second (psalms) exposition which I have undertaken is vastly different from my first.”9 Luther stresses that it is desirable, though impossible, to “understand and teach the psalms in all respects according to their real sense and meaning.”10 The literal sense is, however, not to be identified with the “frozen words” heard according to the literal sound.11 The literal or legitimate sense does not mean it is less spiritual; it is, therefore, to be understood spiritually. The prophet is speaking in the spirit; therefore, he “must be heard in the spirit.”12 To hear in the spirit is, for Luther, the same as to hear in faith: the prophet “speaks in the spirit and demands faith.”13 Therefore, one must hear all the words of God “in the spirit and in faith.”14

III. Allegory15

E. T. Pedersen, in his comprehensive work on Luther’s Bible in-

9 WA 5, 22, 33-38. 10 WA 5, 22, 27f. 11 WA 5, 34, 14f. 12 WA 5, 44, 31. 13 WA 5, 320, 33f. 14 WA 5, 132, 28. 15 i dealt with Luther’s attitude to allegory from Dictata leading up to Operatio- nes in Psalmos in the latter part of my paper on the hermeneutical development from church fathers via middle ages to Luther in “Lutherui allegory bipan” [Luther’s Critique of Allegory], Theology and Faith 14 (2003), 167-208 (in Korean). Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 119 terpretation, maintains that when Luther was taking his position in relation to the hermeneutical traditions from the Old Church and Medieval times, he was forced to primarily clarify his position to allegory. Moreover, essential problems concerning Bible exposition would come to the light in this process.16

1. Dismissal of Allegory

Luther’s appraisal of the one literal sense makes him oppose allegories: “I am no friend at all to allegories, especially when I am searching after that legitimate, proper, and genuine sense, which may put an end to contention and strengthen the instruction of faith.”17 Allegory which Luther dismisses is that of the modernists (follow- ers of via moderna) who interpret the text, “as if another historical sense were to be sought underneath, other than that which expressed.”18 In the exposition of Psalm 18:7(17:8), Luther speaks against those “who have recourse to allegory, not thinking anything of the consequence of always flying to an allegory; for what is more easy than to tack an allegory to every difficulty that they meet with, and so get it in that way?”19 Allegory is, therefore, “always to be avoided by an interpreter of the Scriptures as much as possible.”20

16 e. Thestrup Pedersen, En studie i Luthers skriftsyn, hemeneutik og eksegese, vol. 1 of Luther som Skfriftfortolker (Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busch, 1959), 290. 17 WA 5, 75, 2-4. It is interesting to know that Martin Bucer (1491-1551) also ada- mantly rejected the use of allegory. He criticizes the exegesis of church fathers such as Origen and Jerome, but not John Chrysostom, for allowing allegory and thus distort- ing the meaning of the Biblical stories. Choi Yoon-Bae, “Martin Bucer(Martin Bucer, 1491-1551)ui haeseokhag sogo: seonggyeonghaeseogeul jungsimeuro” [A Study on the Hermeneutics of Martin Bucer (1491-1551) ‒ with Emphasis on His Bible Interpreta- tion], Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 22 (2004. 12), 173-90 (in Korean). For our discussion, see especially Choi’s discussion of Bucer’s dismissal of allegory as “something like a monster” (180-86). In this article Choi deals with Bucer’s writings after the 1520s. Thus, it will be interesting to investigate a possible relation between Luther and Bucer in their attitude about allegory. 18 WA 5, 51, 36-39. 19 WA 5, 498, 30-32. 20 WA 5, 541, 13f. 120 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3

2. Legitimate Use of Allegory

Luther does not dismiss, however, the allegorical sense altogether. First of all, there are instances where the Hebrew texts do not render any meaningful sense. In the exposition of Psalm 17(16):10, Luther finds neither the translation of Jerome and Vulgate nor the literal meaning of the Hebrew words helpful. Therefore, he resorts to the allegory, though, with the support of other biblical passages: “We cannot understand it literally, and must therefore recourse to allegory.”21 In his exposition of Psalm 3:7(8), Luther reveals his modest use of the allegory: “anyone may pursue the applications of these allegories taken from ‘teeth’ still farther.”22 In the exposition of Psalm 2:3, Luther explains the differences between the legitimate and illegitimate use of the allegory: “But when I say allegorical, I do not mean, as our moderns use that term, that another and an historical sense is so sought in the passage, contrary to what it really means, but that its true and proper significance is expressed in a figurative way.”23 He therefore interprets “bands” and “yoke” in the same verse “metaphorically or allegorically” as the divine commandments, with the support of Jeremiah 5:4-5. Thus, Luther understands here “allegorical” synonymously with the term “metaphori- cal” or “figurative.” The most legitimate instance of using allegory is, however, where the New Testament passages use Old Testament texts in the allegorical sense. Romans 10[:18] “teaches and compels us to understand” Psalm 19(18) of the Gospel ministry, and so we must interpret “the heavens, firmament, sun, days, nights, and the like as having an allegorical signification.”24 Luther is, however, as a whole, restrictive in using allegory: the allegory, “in other cases, is always to be avoided by an interpreter of the Scriptures as much as possible, lest he should lose the simple sense and

21 WA 5, 480, 34f. 22 WA 5, 93, 31. 23 WA 5, 51, 36-38. 24 WA 5, 541, 9ff. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 121 meaning away after his own dreams.”25

3. Allegories Corresponding to “Sub Contrario”

The one special form of allegory Luther frequently uses in Opera- tiones is that which is related to the concept of sub contrario (under the opposite sign) of the theology of the cross. After having declared the whole verse of Psalm 2:3 as allegorical and contrasted the law of Christ and the law of man, Luther says that “there is need of the eyes of faith” in order to distinguish between them. Faith is here necessitated to discern the reality from the appearance: “For when David says these things, he does not intend to say that these ungodly men really meant the Lord and his Anointed when they said, ‘Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us,’ because they believed that they were acting for the glory of God and of his law, in rejecting Christ.”26 But the prophet who says here, “the Lord and his Appointed,” is describing that Lord and his Anointed as rejected by them while they were ignorant of what they were doing. Following this understanding of appearance and reality, Luther describes the above in this way: “Take notice, therefore, whether he does not use an allegory throughout the whole verse, in order to show that they pretended one thing and did another, and, under their blindness, exhibited a certain allegory in their conduct, in rejecting the Lord and his Anointed at the very time that they pretended the most to act for their glory.”27 Thus, the concept “allegory” is here used in a sense which matches the concept of sub contrario. If literal sense signifies the outward happenings in history, the allegorical sense signifies something which is hidden. In the exposition of the title of Psalm 3, Luther first explains that David’s going out bare-footed with his head covered signifies Christ’s being led out to Golgotha, who also “literally” went out bare-footed and having his head covered with a crown of thorns and with blood. But “allegorically,” he

25 WA 5, 541, 14-16. 26 WA 5, 52, 9-12. 27 WA 5, 52, 13-16. 122 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3 says, “the head signified the divinity hidden under infirmity, and the bare feet the humanity left alone to itself.”28 The hidden character of the allegory is closely connected with the concept sub contrario of the theology of the cross. This is also the case with Verse 9. Luther maintains that “the whole verse is allegorical” and says: “For it signifies a certain allegory which really takes place in fact and life.” Luther explains this in terms of the death and life dialectic:

As it (the word of Christ) works these things, not in the flesh, but in the spirit, it of necessity follows that it subdues and drives out of the safety, peace, life, and ease of the flesh. . . . For whatever the carnal man is savingly touched by the Word of God, one thing is felt, and another is wrought, namely that of 1 Sam. 2[:6f.], “The Lord killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up. He bringeth low and lifteth up.”29

Luther characterizes this as the “allegorical work of God,” “beau- tifully described in Isaiah 28[:21], ‘That he may do his work. His is a strange work; that he may bring to pass his act; his is a strange act.’”30 Concerning the phrase, “like a potter’s vessel,” in the same verse, Luther says that David blends a similitude with the allegory to clarify the meaning. Luther then, not surprisingly, mentions Paul’s use of “clay vessels” in 2 Corinthians 4:7, which is used “in an allegorical way to signify the body or rather the man in the body.” He also mentions those earthen vessels of Gideon in Judges 7:20-21. Luther interprets these in terms of death of the flesh by the Word of the cross. Therefore, he adopts the tropological sense to apply it to all the Christians: “Accord- ing to the figure, while the flesh or the carnal man is broken in pieces by the Word of the cross and the rod of iron … (Et tropologice, dum caro seu carnalis homo verbo crucis et virga ferrea confringitur… ).”31

28 WA 5, 77, 17-24. 29 WA 5, 63, 30-35. 30 WA 5, 63, 28-38. 31 WA 5, 66, 29-31. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 123

Later in his exposition of Psalm 19:1(18:2), “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handy work,” Luther points to this rod of iron in Psalm 2 and explains that David speaks with the grandest expression of those things which are vile in the eyes of men, and calls throughout the whole psalm “heavens” those things which are the refuse and dregs of the earth. He says then that “the whole is as it were a living allegory (allegoria viva), which seems to be one thing but means another.”32 In the following, Luther understands the psalm in terms of the preaching of the Gospel, which is the preaching of the Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:24f.). Here the allegorical mode of expression is again closely connected with the concept of sub contrario. The reason why the prophet, i.e. David, allegorizes is that he, “under the allegory, might set forth the true state of things.” Reading Psalm 7:15(16) from Absalom’s intrigue described in 2 Samuel 18, Luther explains the sub contrario character of the parts involved, i.e. David and Absalom, exemplified in the cross of Christ: I“ n the same manner as the cross of Christ is an allegorical life appearing to kill while it makes alive, for in the same way, Absalom here opens a lake and digs it, that he might drive David into it, not knowing that by this stratagem, he should deliver David and destroy himself … This is the pit of which David here speaks, and which he uses for the allegory.”33 The Holy Spirit is ultimately the true author of the Scriptures, who “is sometimes wont to use allegorical words when he is speaking of allegorical things (so to speak).”34

IV. Grammatica Theologica

Luther in the beginning of Operationes makes it clear that interpretation of the Scriptures should be based on solid grammatical or linguistic analyses. At the beginning of his exposition of Psalm 1:1, Luther

32 WA 5, 541, 25. 33 WA 5, 245, 5-15. 34 WA 5, 541, 18f. 124 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3 declares after introductory words about the common human inquiry concerning blessedness: “But, first of all, let us consider matters that are grammatical and yet theological (Sed primo grammatica videamus, verum ea Theologica) .” 35 This sentence leads a long section of exposition of each word in the text, which ends with these words: “So much for the grammar (Haec de grammatica).36 Grammatica at the first place is, thus, the same as grammatica at the second place. By the concept “grammatica” Luther means the linguistic analysis. After the grammatical exposition, Luther repeats the verse: “Therefore he (David) says (Dicit ergo): ‘Blessed is the man who has not walked astray,’ …”37 and fully ex- plicates the theological implications of the text. In this section, Luther “absolutely” applies the content “to all ages of mankind” and thereby also to his own contemporary. Here it is obvious for him that one must first observe the linguistic meaning of the text before deciding its theological significations. Parallel to the exposition of Verse 1, Luther begins the exposition of Verse 2 with the words, “A Grammatical and theological exposition (Grammatica Theologica),”38 which leads to the analysis of each word in the text. After that come these words similar to the Verse 1: “Therefore he (David) says (Dicit ergo) .” 39 This procedure of “theological philology” is a departure from the traditional, Christological interpretation of the Psalms, which Scott Hendrix also observes: “Luther departed from the traditional emphasis on the Christological meaning and made independent exegetical decisions of each Hebrew word” in the text.40 Now, what does Luther mean, when he speaks of the Grammatica Theologica or Grammatica as Theologica? His intention is that the philology used in the Bible texts is to be guided by theology. The linguistic analysis cannot ignore what is theologically expressed in the text. One example is the Hebrew plural form wrEv>a; in Psalm 1:1. Right after the

35 WA 5, 27, 8. 36 WA 5, 29, 18. 37 WA 5, 30, 5. 38 WA 5, 32, 19. 39 WA 5, 34, 31. 40 scott H. Hendrix, “Luther against the Background of the History of Biblical In- terpretation,” Interpretation 37 (1983), 232. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 125 sentence, “But first of all, let us consider matters that are grammatical and yet theological (Sed promo grmmatica videamus, verum ea Theo- logica),” he says:

In the Hebrew the word ‘blessed’ is a plural noun wrEv>a; (blessedness), that is, all blessednesses are the portion of man who has not gone away etc. As though it were said, ‘All things are well with that man who etc. Why do you hold any dispute? Why draw vain conclusions? If a man has found that pearl of great price, to love the law of God and to be separate from the ungodly, all blessednesses belong to that man, but if he does not find this jewel, he will seek for all blessednesses, but will never find one.’ For as all things are pure unto the pure, so all things are lovely unto the loving, all things good unto the good, and universally, such as thou art thyself, such is God himself unto thee, though he is not a creature.41

This is a theologically rich sense that Luther gets from the simple grammatical fact that in the original text stands a plural form, which calls everything and every relation blessed for the pious. It is, thus, clear for him that one needs to be equipped not only with grammatical expertise but also theological insights for a more fruitful exegesis. So, later in the appendix to Psalm 21(20), he mentions the necessity of schooling not only in language learning, but also in the prophetic spirit.42 This becomes more clearly demonstrated when we now deal with his attitudes to Hebrew texts, Vulgate, and Septuagint.

1. Luther’s Attitude to Hebrew Texts

The above shows that Luther understands grammatica in terms of philology based on the Hebrew texts.43 Luther regards this as a

41 WA 5, 27, 9-15. 42 WA 5, 597, 24-31. 43 it is apparent from this that Luther’s translation of the Bible from the original language was preceded by a long process of working with the texts. Hwang Heon-Yong writes that Luther’s direct translation of the Bible has significant meaning not only for the history of the language and religion but also for that of the German language. 126 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3 fundament for interpretation, which is shown by the characteristics used about the Hebrew language: “in fonte hebreo (to the Hebrew fountain).”44 The Hebrew text has a compelling character for interpretation. Certain words in the Hebrew Bible are “much more expressive,”45 “more fitting,”46 “having more propriety,”47 “clearer,”48 “having more elegance”49 than the Vulgate translation. Luther admits his ignorance about the peculiarity of the biblical mode of expression: “A great part of the knowledge of what is written lies in the figures of the speech, and especially so in the Holy Scriptures, which have their peculiar idioms, an ignorance of which sometimes raises great clouds where there is the clearest day.”50 Hebrew plural form can sound in the Latin ears barbaric and absurd but it expresses the great excellence of faith.51 Many words in Latin translation sound poor, while they in Hebrew translation “sound well and great.”52 The Hebrew original text speaks with much more fullness and energy than the Vulgate translation.53 One can also observe a beautiful Hebrew word- play, in Psalm 18:7(17:8): “#r,a'h' v[;r>TIw: v[;g>TIw.” 54 Thus, “the prophet is not only sweet in his thoughts and sentiments, but also in his expressions and in the selection of his words, if any duly observe them.”55 Luther is also enthusiastic over the typical structure of the Hebrew thinking. In the exposition of the clause, “thou hast destroyed their cities,” in Psalm 9:6(7), he advises the exegetes of the Holy Scriptures

Hwang Heon-Yong, “M. Lutherui seongseodogeoe gwanhan yeongu – sinjoeohwireul jungsimeuro” [A Study on M. Luther’s German Translation of the Bible – with Emphasis on New Coined Vocabularies], Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 3 (1987. 12), 393 (in Korean). 44 WA 5, 156, 25. 45 WA 5, 359, 18. 46 WA 5, 504, 42. 47 WA 5, 455, 6. 48 WA 5, 490, 5. 49 WA 5, 436, 15. 50 WA 5, 84, 29-31. 51 WA 5, 576, 27f. 52 WA 5, 480, 22f. 53 WA 5, 476, 5-7. 54 WA 5, 501, 23. 55 WA 5, 501, 27f. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 127 to “regard more verba than nomina in order to understand the spirit.”56 Luther’s preference for the absolute mode of speech is also attested in his exposition of Psalm 21:11(20:12), where he makes a point that the pronoun “which (quam)” is not in the Hebrew Scripture, but added by the translator to avoid the idiom of the Hebrew. And the verb, “establish (stabilire)” is also added to make out the sense more clearly. For the verb, “they could not (Non potuerunt)” stands alone in the Hebrew text, which “is the most powerful and forcible expression.”57 This preference for the verbs and emphasis on the absolute mode of speech testify the active character in Luther’s theology. Led by the high esteem for the Hebrew language, Luther deeply engages himself in the examination of Hebrew words. He takes pains to understand the words: “But perhaps it is folly in me to torment myself upon words.”58 The words cause him a lot of trouble.59 But this laborious task is unavoidable for the exegetes. Even the strict literal translation would not be a substitute for the detailed study of the concepts in the original texts: “the Hebrew words must be considered, because no Latin expressions can convey their full meaning.”60 As Luther carefully observes the biblical Hebrew terminology, he criticizes the Vulgate translator as “inconstant translator.”61 There were also some interpreters who were fond of variety and did harm to the “simplicity of words.”62 Luther does not, however, slavishly follow the Hebrew words. He sometimes follows Septuagint or Vulgate. For Gram- matica is ultimately subordinate to Theologica.

2. Luther’s Attitude to Vulgate and Septuagint

Interpreting the word hl's, in Psalm 3:2(3), Luther follows the Sep- tuagint translators after having listed various solutions: I“ , in the mean

56 WA 5, 298, 11-13. 57 WA 5, 591, 29ff. 58 WA 5, 181, 10. 59 WA 5, 329, 29. 60 WA 5, 448, 21. 61 WA 5, 573, 38f. 62 WA 5, 45, 19-21. 128 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3 time, will stand by the Septuagint translators, who, in many instances, seem to have had a certain divine discernment, though they frequently departed from the literal propriety of the original words. As, for instances, how clearly and appropriately did they render that passage, Psalm 2[:10], ‘Lay hold on discipline,’ which is in the Hebrew [text] somewhat obscurely expressed, ‘Kiss the Son.’”63 As regards the title of Psalm 22(21), which is rendered in the Septuagint as “for the morning undertaking,” while in the Hebrew text as “to the morning hind,” Luther holds it possible that “the Spirit in the Septuagint wished to give us plainly that which the prophet secretly intended by the expression.”64 Moreover, he even welcomes what we might call “constructive error.” Thus, concerning the Vulgate interpretation of Psalm 10:8, Luther says that “the Holy Spirit has permitted our translator not very unfortu- nately to make mistake on the word.”65 This goes with the recognition of the possibility that sometimes it is very difficult to understand the basic meaning of the original text. For example, Luther writes about Psalm 17(16):13: “In my opinion there is scarcely one passage in the whole Psalms more obscure, even in the Hebrew itself, than this.”66 In this sense, too, philology is subordinate to theology, which is, in its turn, decided by the Gospel.

V. Subordination of Philology to Theology Centered on the Gospel

In view of those obscurities of the Bible texts, it is no wonder that Luther cannot hold that only knowledge of the original language is enough for the interpretation of the Holy Scripture. One must also know the matter (die Sache) of the Bible, i.e. the Gospel. A very important example whereby Luther illumines a linguisti- cally obscure place in the light of the Gospel is his exposition of Psalm

63 WA 5, 81, 1-4. 64 WA 5, 598, 19-27. 65 WA 5, 339, 35-37. 66 WA 5, 483, 27f. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 129

22:16(21:17). The Masoretic text reads yl'g>r:w> ydy" yra]K (like a lion my hand and feet). According to the Septuagint translation, w;ruxan should be, instead of yra]K' (like a lion), understood as WraK' or Wra]K' (they pierced) both of whom are variants of wrk. And in accordance with the Septuagint translation Vulgate renders: “Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos (They pierced my hands and my feet).”67 Luther mentions the controversy with the Jews on the interpretation who here pertinaciously contend that this passage should not be read “they pierced,” but “like a lion.” Their excuse is, Luther says, that the verb, “pierced,” should be in the Hebrew written with a k, an r, and an h without an a. And the original text is written with an a between the r and the h, and is read yra]K signifying “like a lion,” not WraK' signifying “they pierced.”68 Here Luther admits the disadvantage of the grammar to him: “I do not indeed see how they can be forced by the rules of grammar to understand yrak in this passage to signify ‘they pierced.’ Most certainly outward appearance stands strongly in favor of them, and not at all for us, as far as outward appearance and grammar are concerned.” But his conviction is that “all the copies and books that they have are corrupted in this passage.”69 Not with the help of the mere linguistics but on the ground of the history of the crucified Jesus Christ, the Christian can be convinced that the passage should here be read “pierced,” not “like a lion”: “For we do not illustrate and prove the things wrought from the mysteries of the Scriptures, but on the contrary, the mysteries of the Scriptures from the things wrought, that is, we illustrate the Old Testament by the Gospel, and not, the meaning of the latter from the sense of the former.”70 On the ground of this principle, Luther declares: “As therefore, we are fully

67 WA 5, 632, 37ff. 68 WA 5, 632, 39-633, 2. 69 WA 5, 633, 7-14. 70 WA 5, 633, 18f. One can find similar principle in Martin Bucer. Yoon-Bae Choi says that Bucer’s emphasis on historical, literal, and grammatical interpretation of the Psalm texts was guided by fidei in Iesusum Christum analogia. For Bucer, Hebrew truth agrees with philosophia Christi. Choi Yoon-Bae, “Martin Bucerui 『Sipyeonjuseok』e natanan ‘yeoksajeok’ haeseokhak” [The Historical Hermeneutics in Martin Bucer’s Com- mentary on the Book of Psalms], Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 35 (2009. 10), 125, 133 (in Korean). 130 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3 assured that the hands and the feet of Christ were pierced upon the cross, so we are not less certain that this psalm wholly agrees with Christ, and that the rest of the sense wonderfully applies to him, and requires us to read it, ‘they pierced,’ and especially so as no grammatical rigor resists such a reading, and therefore, without controversy and without hesitation, we read it ‘they pierced.’”71 The interpretation of the Jews does not make sense when it is judged by common use of language:

And first of all, the absurdity itself of the sense which they would give this passage will press the adversaries sufficiently hard. For what is the sense or meaning of ‘like a lion my hands and my feet’? … For whatever verb they use to represent the lion as acting upon the hands and the feet, they must, in common sense, make to apply also to the whole body. Whereas, to our interpretation, no absurdity is attached whatever, but all things most appropriately agree. So that if neither WraK' nor Wra]K' were written in the text, the very sense would compel us to understand just these verbs.72

The words, “my hands and my feet,” can be best understood in relation to the verb, “they pierced,” when the Bible speaks of Christ who in a special way suffered on the hands and feet: I“ n a word, they can adduce nothing applicable to a lion, and to hands and feet, which anyone of the saints ever suffered. But we have Christ, who is memo- rably known to have suffered a signal affliction in his hands and his feet.”73 With this Christological interpretation, Luther holds fast that the grammatical difficulty “ought to give way to the theological evidence, because facts (res) are not to submit and give way to words (verbis), but words to facts; the words (vox) must yield to the evident sense (sensum), and the letter (litera) be subservient to the spirit (spiritum) .” 74 Here the res is the Gospel, while the verbis is the Old Testament

71 WA 5, 633, 22-26. 72 WA 5, 633, 26-39. 73 WA 5, 634, 11-13. 74 WA 5, 634, 14-16. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 131 text. Therefore, Luther’s hermeneutical principle reads: “We do not illustrate and prove the things wrought from the mysteries of the Scrip- tures, but on the contrary, the mysteries of the Scriptures from the things wrought, that is, we illustrate the Old Testament by the Gospel.”75 Another example whereby Luther uses this principle very often and fully in Operationes is the different character between the suf- ferings of the Old Testament and of the New Testament. One classic instance is found in his exposition of Psalm 22:6(21:7). He interprets it Christologically, citing various psalm verses and characterizing the whole, to be sure, with the words of Paul (the “offense of the cross”) in 1 Corinthians 1:18. And then he says: “But this did not happen unto our fathers, for they were preserved from death and especially from an ignominious death, and always held in reverence, honor, and glory, before men.”76 Interpreting here the psalm Christologically and thus making claim of the copyright on them with the Gospel, Luther elevates the meaning of the Old Testament texts.

VI. Conclusion

We have tried to get at some of Luther’s hermeneutical principles in his second commentary on the Psalms, which was undertaken during critical years of his life. The fact that he has developed his own hermeneutical principles had undoubtedly contributed to free his theology of its remaining vestiges of medieval theology. One of the most significant features is that the text of the Scriptures has only one sense, which dismisses the fourfold sense of the medieval tradition. That has led to the laborious work with the Hebrew texts. But the only, literal sense is not to be identified with the frozen letter. Luther’s whole concern is that the Scripture speaks to the hearer. Therefore, it is unthinkable for him to pass by some passages without making any sense of them. The limited use of the allegories is to be understood from this perspective. On the

75 WA 5, 633, 17-19. 76 WA 5, 615, 20-22. 132 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3 other hand, Luther’s characteristic use of the allegories based on the sub contrario dimension of things, which is characteristic of his theology of the cross, points to more important theological truths. Allegories are indispensable because of its connection with the mode of God’s work: God hides himself in his revelation; and, God works under the opposite sign. The same theological concern is also manifested in the concept of Grammatica Theologica, which says that the grammatical exposition is to be guided by theology: the linguistic analysis cannot ignore what is theologically expressed in the text. Luther’s occasional favor of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, instead of the Masoretic text, is another example that Luther’s ultimate concern was theological or evangelical. This concern helped him to establish the principle of interpreting the Old Testament by the New, which is centered on the Gospel. In this way, Luther claims a copyright on the Old Testament texts with the Gospel. Luther’s Christological exposition elevates the meaning of the Old Testament, especially as regards suffering. Now being illumined by the light of the Gospel, the Old Testament delivers a more profound meaning. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 133

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther’s Complete Commentary on the First Twenty-two Psalms. 2 Vols. Translated by Henry Cole. London: W. Simpkin & R. Marshall, 1826. . D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 72 Vols. Edited by J. F. K. Knaake et al. Weimar: Böhlau, 1883-1993. . Luther’s Works (American Edition). 55 Vols. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986.

Secondary Sources

Beintker, Horst. Die Überwindungen der Anfechtung bei Luther: Eine Studie zu seiner The- ologie nach den Operationes in Psalmos 1519-21. Theologische Arbeiten Series. No. 1. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1954. . “Christologische Gedanken Luthers zum Sterben Jesu: Bei Auslegung von Psalm 8 und Psalm 22 im Kommentar von1519 bis 1521 und verwandten Texterk- lärungen.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 77 (1986), 5-30. Choi, Yoon-Bae. “Martin Bucer(Martin Bucer, 1491-1551)ui haeseokhak sogo: seong- gyeonghaeseokeul jungsimeuro” [A Study on the Hermeneutics of Martin Bucer (1491-1551) ‒ with Emphasis on His Bible Interpretation]. Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 22 (2004. 12), 173-90 (in Korean). . “Martin Bucerui 『Sipyeonjuseok』e natanan ‘yeoksajeok’ haeseokhak” [The Historical Hermeneutics in Martin Bucer’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms]. Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 35 (2009. 10), 109-37 (in Korean). Eom, Jin-Seop. “Truth and Reality in Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation (1518) and Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521).” Unpublished Th. D. diss., Luther Seminary, 1996. . “Lutherui allegory bipan” [Luther’s Critique of Allegory]. Theology and Faith 14 (2003), 167-208. Hammer, Gerhard. D. Martin Luther: Operationes in Psalmos 1519-1521. Historisch-theologische Einleitung. Mit der Neuedition des Vatikanischen Fragments Psalm 4 und 5, 1516(/17?) bearbeitet von Horst J. Eduard Beintker. Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe der Werke Martin Luthers Series. No. 1. Köln/Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 1991. Hendrix, Scott H. “Luther against the Background of the History of Biblical Interpretation,” Interpretation 37 (1983), 229-39. Hwang, Heon-Yong. “M. Lutherui seongseodogeoe gwanhan yeongu – sinjoeohwireul jungsimeuro” [A Study on M. Luther’s German Translation of the Bible–with Emphasis on 134 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 45 No. 3

New Coined Vocabularies]. Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 3 (1987. 12), 392-421 (in Korean). Pedersen, E. Thestrup.En studie i Luthers skriftsyn, hemeneutik og eksegese. Vol.1 of Luther som Skfriftfortolker. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busch, 1959. Some Hermeneutical Points in Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521) 135

한글 초록

마틴 루터의 두 번째 시편 강해 (Operationes in Psalmos, 1519-1521)에 나타난 몇 가지 해석학적 특징들

엄진섭 루터대학교 부교수, 역사신학

루터는 무엇보다 성경을 깊이 연구하는 가운데 복음을 재발견하였다. 그가 성경박 사가 되어 처음으로 행한 것은 시편강해였으며, 이후 로마서강해, 갈라디아서강해, 히 브리서강해를 통해 종교개혁의 신학을 정립해나갔다. 이 논문은 루터가 소위 “탑의 경 험”을 한 후 착수한 두 번째 시편강해(Operationes in Psalmos, 1519-1521)에 나타난 해 석학적 원칙들을 분석하면서, 어떻게 그가 중세 성경해석학 전통과 결별하며 그의 해 석학이 새로운 복음적 신학과 관계를 갖는지를 논구한다. 루터는 Operationes에서 오리겐, 제롬 등으로부터 내려오고 토마스와 리라에게서 정립된 사중해석(quadriga)을 극복하고 성경의 유일한 의미를 강조해 온 과정을 완결 한다. 루터는 이 과정에서 특히 알레고리에 대한 입장을 분명히 해야 했는데, 논쟁에 종지부를 찍고 믿음을 강화시키기 위해 알레고리를 가능한 한 피해야 한다고 주장했 다. 한편, 루터는 간혹 제한적으로, 특히 신약이 구약 본문을 알레고리적 의미로 사용 할 때, 이를 사용했다. 그러나 Operationes에 나오는 가장 특이한 형태의 알레고리는 십자가 신학의 sub contrario 개념에 관계된 것이다. 이는 해석학이 신학의 인도를 받아야 함을 의미하는데, 이 원칙은 Operationes에 일찌감치 등장하는 Grammatica Theologica 개념에 잘 드러나 있다. 루터가 히브리 본 문을 해석학의 기초로 삼는 원칙을 갖고 있으면서도 때로 Septuagint나 Vulgate의 본 문을 취하는 이유가 여기에 있다. 특히 루터는 시편 22:16(21:17) 해석에 있어서 기독 론적 유비를 적용하여 Masora 본문대신 70인역에 기초한다. 결론적으로 우리는 루터 가 성경해석은 본문의 문법적-문자적 의미에 확고히 기초해야 하면서도, 성경의 핵심 내용인 “복음”의 빛에서 해석되어야 한다는 것을 강조했음을 발견한다. 루터의 해석학 은 그의 복음 이해와 같이 간다.

주제어

마틴 루터, 두 번째 시편 강해, 해석학, 복음, 종교개혁

Date submitted: June 29, 2013; date evaluated: July 31, 2013; date confirmed: August 2, 2013.