Pardieck gives an extensive quote from Luther's exposition of Genesis, especially on verse 4:1. And this was translated in the CPH American Edition of Luther's Works (vol. 1, pgs 242-243). But there were no comments in the American Edition on this notable portion of Luther's exposition – no notes, no footnotes by editor Jaroslav Pelikan or translator George Schick. Why? Could it be that they too are part of the reason for today's corruption of Luther? Could it be that they too did not believe Luther's translation of Genesis 4:1, that Eve actually believed her first born son was the promised Messiah? Could it be that even Concordia Publishing House is also part of the reason for today's corruption of Luther? It surely is for CPH also sells volume 52 of the "American Edition" where the editor Hillerbrand and translator Kunstmann corrupt Luther's sermon words with this translation: "I have gotten a man of God", even where Luther forcefully preaches on the actual meaning of Eve's confession in Genesis 4:1... but CPH has no comment on this corruption of Luther, and continues offering these corruptions of Luther and publishing even more in their "New Series"!
(Actually I am surprised that Pelikan did not outright condemn Luther's work on this passage, as often as he tramples on my faith...) And so for an antidote to the corruption of Luther today, I continue presenting this marvelous work of Prof. Eduard Pardieck.
===>>> In your face, today's CPH, the translation of Eve's confession is this:Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
"I have the Man, the Lord"!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Part 3: Page 337-339 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck]
So Luther speaks in his Genesis, where he surely laid the foundation by the translation: "I have the Man the Lord": "She does not call him simply a man, but a "man the Lord", as the Lord meant as He promised her: "your seed [Page 338] shall bruise the serpent's head." [Genesis 3:15] ... And because she believes, she is so very joyful over her son and speaks so magnificently of him: ‘I have the Man the Lord overcome’, which will hold up better, because I and my husband Adam have kept us in Paradise; therefore I will not call him my son, but he is the Man God, promised and given by God. . . . Now that Eve so depends and adheres to the divine promise and on faith of redemption that through her seed should be done, therefore she does right. For through this faith in the future seed have all saints become justified and saved. But in person she erred and believes Cain will be the one to make an end of the misery wherein the Devil through the Fall into sin toppled them. . . . As if she would say: I know well myself to remember, what we have lost through sin; but now I hope and speak nothing else but that I have again come over to all honor and glory that we had lost with the help of the Man God. Because Eve’s acceptance is all too certain, so she hurries and thinks that this first son will be the fulfillment of the promise of the Lord. But the poor woman is mistaken, and sees that her misery is still not right, namely, that of the flesh nothing other than flesh can be born, that also sin and death cannot be conquered by flesh and blood. Also she did not know the time and hour at which this blessed Seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, would be born of a Virgin into the world; as also the Patriarchs did not know this time and hour, though the promise had become clearer with time by revelation of the Holy Spirit". (St L ed., vol. 1, cols. 296-297, paragrs. 17-21; cf. Am. Ed. vol. 1, pgs 242-243). In his Church Postils, Luther says in a sermon: "Therefore, when Eve gave birth to her first son Cain, Genesis 4:1, she rejoiced and thought that he would be the Seed, that God had spoken of, and she said happily: ‘I have overcome the Man God’; as if she should say: This will certainly be the man, the Seed which is to fight against the Serpent. She would welcome Christ, but it was not yet time. She well saw that he [Cain] was not it, and had to look forward in her faith on to another woman". (St L Ed. XI, col. 261-262, paragr. 71; Am. Ed. vol 52, pg 127; Lenker ed., vol 1, pg 285, paragr. 71; Sermon on “The Gospel for the Sunday after Christmas, Luke 2:33-40”).
Luther's translation in his Bible and his explanation is then received among Lutherans. Calov can say in his commentary on the book of Genesis: it was the opinion of nostratium plerorumque omnium. So translates and explains Brenz, Chytraeus, Weller, Osiander [?], Aegidius Hunnius, Gerhard, Calov, Dannhauer; and for the most extensive treatment on the question is that of Sebastian Schmidt in his Disputatio de fide Matris Evae, which drew much attention from contemporary and subsequent exegetes. The oldest Lutheran theologians go completely with Luther, even in the application of the words, that Eve related the words to Cain, whom was held for herself as the promised Redeemer. So says [Johannes] Brenz: "She called him Cain, meaning a good possession, a [Page 339] good purchase or wealth or treasure, as it says: Kanithi, which means that I own, have acquired the man, the Lord. The poor woman namely held that she had born the man, the Virgin's son, who was promised from above, and from which she had recognized through the Holy Spirit that he is not only man, but also the true Lord, our God". So even Selnecker. Likewise Weller noticed on this point: "Therein is to remember in the first place our first parents’ exceedingly great joy and jubilation, as they had Cain born to them as their first son. For Eve, the mother thought not otherwise, than that she would have born and overcome by the same Seed, so should the serpent’s head be bruised. So that is why she says: "I have the Man, the Lord." There is therefore no doubt that our first parents will have held comfort for themselves from her firstborn son Cain, and they have provided all the best to him. Therefore they much preferred him [Cain] than his brother Abel who was born after him".
To the grammatical understanding of the words, and that they were speaking of the Messiah and expressed the divinity and humanity, they all hold firmly on it. But then the exegetes have let the objection of the Calvinists impress them: Eve then would have committed idolatry with Cain, if she had thought of him as God. They said then that Eve did not relate the words to Cain, but with the birth of her first child she remembers that great seed of the woman; the birth of a child was her guarantee that God will not give the human race over to death and destruction, and so the promised One will also then be born; to that they hold themselves in their pain, in debt of sin and in the misery of the vale of tears. So also, Sebastian Schmidt in his Disputatio. He takes this sense from the words: she says: I have the man Jehovah. If she says Jehovah, that is clear. No trope can be in the name. God gives no other name, that designates only the one true God. She holds therefore the Messiah, that comforts her, for true God. She calls him Man; and what that is, she knows. And that she testifies both in one sentence by the same person. She thus expresses the unity of the God-man person. "She says: I have the man, the Lord, not a man and the Lord, as if she were talking about two different things; also not: with Jehovah or through Jehovah or like him, that can could refer it to two persons, but only: the Man Jehovah, the Man that is Jehovah. There it is impossible to think more than one person. What regards the natures is so clear, that through "Man" and "Jehovah" two natures are named.... Nor also can these two natures be other than the divine and the human. What more do we believe in the New Testament or can we believe of [page 340] the person and the natures of the Messiah?
In researching further the available English translations, I found that the 1976 edition of Beck's Bible, The Holy Bible: An American Translation (or AAT), did offer a translation much closer to Luther's:
"I have gotten a man, the LORD"and for this reason, I have consulted Beck's translation on several occasions. William F. Beck was a professor at Concordia Seminary and his translation was published by Herman Otten of Christian News. There was some question about Beck's teaching of Justification, but I have not pursued this very far. I seem to recall that he did not highlight the teaching of Walther and Pieper. His translation is still available here.
In the next Part 4...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.