This post is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Rome Examined: Examination of the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In this concise distillation of Chemnitz’s magisterial critique, we present his scriptural case against Rome’s decrees on tradition, justification, the sacraments, and papal authority—one section at a time. (Find all the excerpts here: https://wolfmueller.co/category/rome-examined/)
1:7: On the Translation or Transmission of Holy Scripture into Other Languages
(See the Second Decree of the Fourth Session of the Council)
Examination
Introduction
[1] Two observations are to be made concerning this second decree: First, it only address the Latin translation. Allusively, the transmission into other languages is condemned. Second, only the old Latin Vulgate receives such a status that any contradiction against it is forbidden. We must examine this.
The Translation of Scripture into Vernacular Languages
[2] Whoever considers how the translations came about will see the matter clearly. God first revealed heavenly doctrine in the Hebrew language. Because of the relationship of the languages, at that time others could read and understand what God allowed to be written in Hebrew. For God did not give Scripture for it to be inaccessible and incomprehensible as with the opaque pages of the Sibylline literature. In order for Scripture to be able to be read by people of another tongue, it subsequently came to be translated. For in the course of time, languages came to be more and more diverse from one another. Thus, Hebrew became increasingly incomprehensible to the rest of the peoples. Daniel and Ezra began to write some things in the Aramaic language. Soon the now completed Syriac translation of the Old Testament served among many peoples so that they could understand Scripture. Once the Greek language had spread, the Greek translation was produced. The apostles made frequent use of this. The Son of God quoted Scripture on the cross in Aramaic. Thus, the translation of Scripture into other languages was recognized by the Son of God and by the apostles. God did not bind Scripture to a single language. Rather, He wills that Scripture be understood by all. For He wills that all men be helped, and that they—like the treasurer of Candace with his Greek copy of Isaiah (Acts 8:26–40)—come to knowledge of the truth.
[3] Also, the language wonder at Pentecost, the counterpart of the language confusion at Babel, appears as the work of the Holy Spirit, who assembled in faith people from all the tongues of the world. The New Testament was written in Greek, the universal language of that time.
[4] In the East, Greek continued to be the native language for a long time, and thus also the pulpit language. We know from the sermons of Chrysostom, who did not demand too much when he exhorted the laity to read the Bible, the people still read and understood the Bible in the Greek text.
[5] In the West, Latin was spoken, preached, and sung. Augustine (On Christian Doctrine bk. 2, ch. 11) speaks of countless attempts to translate the Bible into Latin.[1]
[9] The papists, however, think that Scripture is desecrated by being translated into barbaric languages. But this is to speak in a ludicrous manner. Heavenly doctrine was certainly not desecrated through the language wonder at Pentecost! So, it will also not be desecrated if it is transmitted again into yet another barbarous language. The translation only must be faithful and correct.
On the Latin Vulgate
[11] The second part of this decree concerns the old Latin Vulgate. We wish neither to reject nor discard it. It is indeed a completely commendable achievement. This ancient translation is not bad in many places. Also, it is practical to quote passages according to a sure translation. However, in so doing it will be necessary to judge from the sources themselves what these words say and how they are phrased.
But here lies a tyranny that is downright unbearable in the church. We have, to be sure, the Hebrew and Greek sources of Scripture from the Holy Spirit. Now the errors of the translators and the mistakes of the scribes are imposed upon us, as though we had in them the originals. Moreover, we are not even allowed to look at the originals in order to reject the mistakes in what has been made.
[12] We no longer possess the Vulgate in its oldest version. Jerome collaborated when translating the Old Testament. The Psalms sound much different with him than in the Vulgate. In his explanation of Matthew, Jerome criticizes many of the Vulgate’s errors,[2] just as he does for Paul’s epistles. But it was no better after the time of Jerome. Many things have befallen the poor Vulgate, as the scribes dreamed, as the languages were buried, and as their craft was cloistered.
[13] Of the many errors of the Vulgate, we mention only a few. In Matthew 9:13 this magnificent statement of Jesus: “I have not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners,” was mutilated through the omission of “to repentance.” In Romans 11:6, the notion “If it is from works, then it is no longer grace,” is completely omitted or eliminated.
[18] Albert of Ingolstadt states: “In the ancient Vulgate, many sacred mysteries of the faith lie shrouded.” Indeed! The Vulgate has been shaped in support of Rome’s doctrine. The intercession and patronage of Mary is established from Genesis 3:15. According to the Vulgate, it reads: “She will crush your head.” It should read that the very seed of woman will do this, according to the exposition of all of antiquity. The invocation of the saints has been evidenced from Psalm 150:1: “Praise God in His saints.” That all council decrees should be taken as oracles of the Holy Spirit is argued from John 14:26, according to this false rendering: “The same [the paraclete] will remind you of all things which I will say to you.” Instead, it states in the Greek text, “What I have said to you.”
The reader must take note of how the Tridentine council has demonstrated that the church has the power to decree against the institution of Christ. Concerning the ministers of Christ, the ancient translation of 1 Corinthians 4:1 says they are administrators of the divine mysteries. The Tridentine council abuses the double meaning inherent in “administrator,” as though priests could control and preside over the sacrament in such a way that they set aside one part of the holy meal; for they are the ones who exercise control over it! How insolent indeed is the antichrist to engage in such child’s play with the words of Paul, now at the bright dawn of language studies, when Paul was simply speaking of stewards over God’s mysteries.
The reader now sees why the Tridentine council has decreed the Vulgate to be a fully valid translation.
[1] “The great remedy for ignorance of proper signs is knowledge of languages. And men who speak the Latin tongue, of whom are those I have undertaken to instruct, need two other languages for the knowledge of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, that they may have recourse to the original texts if the endless diversity of the Latin translators throw them into doubt. Although, indeed, we often find Hebrew words untranslated in the books, as for example, Amen, Hallelujah, Racha, Hosanna, and others of the same kind. Some of these, although they could have been translated, have been preserved in their original form on account of the more sacred authority that attaches to it, as for example, Amen and Hallelujah. Some of them, again, are said to be untranslatable into another tongue, of which the other two I have mentioned are examples. For in some languages there are words that cannot be translated into the idiom of another language. And this happens chiefly in the case of interjections, which are words that express rather an emotion of the mind than any part of a thought we have in our mind. And the two given above are said to be of this kind, Racha expressing the cry of an angry man, Hosanna that of a joyful man. But the knowledge of these languages is necessary, not for the sake of a few words like these which it is very easy to mark and to ask about, but, as has been said, on account of the diversities among translators. For the translations of the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the early days of the faith every man who happened to get his hands upon a Greek manuscript, and who thought he had any knowledge, were it ever so little, of the two languages, ventured upon the work of translation.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 11, NPNF1-02, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine/doctrine.xii_1.html
[2] “Consequently [the priests] stationed money-changers who exchanged the money at a high rate. Now it had been commanded in the Law that no one should take interest. Yet there was no advantage in loaning money that brought no profit, since sometimes it lost its capital. So they thought out another technique to make bankers (collybistas) out of the money-changers. The Latin language does not express the proper meaning of this word. Among the Jews collyba refers to what we call desserts, or common little gifts, for example, chilled chickpea and raisins and fruit of various kinds. Well, since the collybistae, who had lent money at interest, were unable to receive interest, they received various kinds of things in place of interest. Their aim was to exact by means of these things that are purchased with coins that which was not lawful to exact in coin. As if Ezekiel had not warned in advance about this very thing when he said: ‘You will not receive interest and superabundance’! The Lord, seeing this kind of business, or rather thievery, going on in the Father’s house, was stirred up by the ardor of his spirit in accordance with what was written in the sixty-eighth Psalm…” – , Book III, The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, pg. 236, link: https://tinyurl.com/354pr7br
“‘For in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be married.’ Latin usage does not correspond to the Greek idiom. For, properly speaking, women marry, and men lead wives in marriage. But we should understand the statement simply, that “to marry” is written with respect to men, and “to be married” concerns women. Thus in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be married; therefore, the bodies, which are able to marry and be married, will rise again. Now obviously, no one says of a stone and a tree and of these things that do not have genital organs that they neither marry nor are married, but of these who, though they can marry, nevertheless do not marry for another reason.” – , Book III, The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, pg. 254, link: https://tinyurl.com/yc7b9txu
