Distortions in Luther’s Translation

The founder of the Protestant faith and great theologian, Martin Luther, first translated the holy books into the German language. He did not include this passage in his translation. His translation was printed several times in his lifetime without this passage. In his old age, in 1546 when this translation was being reprinted, Luther, fully aware of the general practice of the Christians, felt it necessary to include in his will regarding this edition that no one should make any changes it. They were not able by their nature to act upon his will and they included this passage in his translation less than thirty year after his death.

The first people to add this passage were the people of Frankfurt when they printed this translation in 1574. Subsequently, either from the fear of God or for other reasons, they again excluded this verse from it. The trinitarians felt this exclusion very badly, and once again it was added to it by the people of Wittenberg in 1596 and by the people of Hamburg in 1599. Again the people of Wittenberg, for some unknown reason, excluded it from the second edition. From then onward, the Protestants accepted its inclusion in the text. In this way the Protestants unanimously acted against the will of their spiritual father. The famous unitarian scientist, Isaac Newton, wrote a treatise of nearly fifty pages where he proved that this and I Timothy 2:16. are both forged and distorted. The latter verse says:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Since the above verse also was helpful in establishing the concept of trinity, it was added to the text by the enthusiasts.

Addition No. 31

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,[1] and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and what thou seest, write in a book.

Griesbach and Sholtz are in agreement on the point that the word, ’the first and the last’ are not genuine and were added later. Some translators have omitted them, and in the Arabic translations printed in 1671, and 1821, the words Alpha and Omega were also[2] omitted.

Addition No. 32

And Philip[3] said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This verse is also a later addition made by some enthusiast to support the trinity. Griesbach and Sholtz are both agreed on this point.[4]

Addition No. 33

And he said, who art thou Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.[5]

Griesbach and Sholtz agreed that the sentence ”it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” is a later addition.

Addition No. 34

He lodgeth with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside. He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

Griesbach and Sho1tz are positive that the words 'he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do' are later addition[6] and not genuine.

Addition No. 35

But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it and for conscience’ sake: for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.

The last sentence, ’for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof,’ is not genuine and is an addition.[7] Horne, after proving this verse to be an addition, said on page 337 vol. 2:

Griesbach, after being sure of its being an addition, excluded it from the text. The truth is that this sentence has no support and is certainly an addition. Most probably it was taken from verse 26.

Addition No. 36

The word ’heart’ in this verse is an addition.[9] Horne, after proving this, said on page 330 of vol. 2 of his book that this word had been taken from Luke 6:45.

Addition No. 37: Addition to the Lord’s Prayer

The words ‘For thine is…’ etc.[10] up to the end of this verse are an addition. The followers of the Roman Catholic sect are certain of this fact. It does not exist in the Latin version nor in any of the translations of this sect. The Catholics are very displeased at its addition, and strongly reproach those responsible for it. Ward, the Catholic, said in his Book of Errors (printed in 1841) on page 18:

Erasmus greatly condemned this sentence. Bullinger also said that this sentence had been added later and the name of the includer is not yet known. Laurentius Valla and Lamina's claim that this passage was omitted from the word of God has no support of argument. He should have reproached the people who played with the word of God so daringly.

Other scholars have also rejected it. Adam Clarke, who has doubt about its being a later addition, still admits that Griesbach and Wettstein rejected this verse. According to the scholars of both the Catholics and the Protestants, this sentence has been added to the payer of Christ. This shows that even such a famous prayer could not escape from their practice of distortion.

Addition No. 38

The Gospel of John chapter 7 verse 53 and the first eleven verses of chapter 8 are later addition. Though Horne does not support this[11] opinion, he still said on page 310 of vol. 4 of his commentary:

The following scholars do not acknowledge the genuineness of this verse: Erasmus,[12] Calvin, Beza, Leclerc, Grotius, Wettstein, Semler, Sholtz, Maurus, Haenlien, Paulinus, Schmidt and many other authors mentioned by Wolf and Koecher.

Chrysostom and Theophylactus wrote commentaries on this gospel but they did not include these verses in their comments. Though Tertullian and Cyprian wrote essays on adultery and chastity, they did not seek any support from these verses. Had these verses existed in the versions they had, they must have cited these verses in support.

Some ancient theologians raised objections with regard’ to the beginning verses of chapter 8 of the Gospel of John.

Addition No. 39

The word “openly” in this verse is an addition. Adam Clarke under his comments on this verse proved it and said:

Since this word had no authority, Griesbach, Grotius, Bengel, and Mill excluded it from the text.

Addition No. 40

Mark 2:17 contains the words “to repentance”[13] which is also a later addition. This was shown by Adam Clarke with sufficient proofs and he observed:

Addition No. 41

Similarly Matthew 9:13 also contains the phrase ”to repentance” which is a later addition. Adam Clarke after establishing this said:

Mill and Bengel suggested its exclusion, while Griesbach has already excluded it from the text.

Addition No. 42

Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup, that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, we are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.[14]

In this verse the statement that ”to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” is a later addition, and similarly the statement, ”ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” is not genuine.

According to the rules set by the scholars for distinguishing the wrong from the correct text, these two statements do not seem to be a part of the original text.

Addition No. 43

But he turned and rebuked them and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them. And they went to another village. [15]

The verse beginning with, ”For the Son of man....”, is not genuine and was added later by an unknown writer. Adam Clarke observed with regard to this verse:

Griesbach excluded this verse from the text. Most likely this passage in old versions was only this much: “But he turned and rebuked them and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. And they went to another village.”

[1]The Lord’s day, that is, Sunday.

[2] 2. The present Urdu and English versions do not contain these phrases. We have copied the above verse from the old King James Version.

[3] The disciple of Christ referred to said this to an Ethiopian on the way to Gaza

[4]In the Urdu version this verse has a sign of doubt while the new English version has omitted it and the King James version’s list of alternative readings and renderings the suggestion includes the suggestion verse’

[5]Acts 9: 5-6.

[6] This sentence does not exist in the new English versions.

[7]Similar to the previous example this has been excluded form the text in new translations.

[8]Matt. 12:35

[9] It has been omitted in the present Urdu translation.

[10].The King James version contains this sentence while the new English translation omits it

[11]These verses describe a woman accused of adultery being brought to the presence of Christ and people demanding that she be stoned to death. Christ decided that the one without sin among them should throw the first stone at her. The people, convicted by their own consciences, left the place one by one. Christ allowed the woman to go and advised her not to sin again. The new English translation omits this passage from this place but at the end it has been included with a translator’s note that that verses have no definite place in the old scriptures. Some other translations do not have this passage at all, while some others place it in Luke after 21:38. Some other translations have even placed it after John 7:36 or 7:53 or 21:24 (New English Bible page184).

[12] Erssmus(1466-1536), the famous sixteenth century scholar, one of the great leaders of the Renaissance.

[13] The new Urdu and English translations do not contain this phrase while the old Arabic and English translations still include it. The list of alternative readings suggests the exclusion of this phrase and also of 6:4 and 6:6 of this Gospel

[14] Man. 20:2’2-23.

[15] Luke 9:55 56.

Distortion in Luther’s Translation