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

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

엄진섭

루터대학교 부교수

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

EOM Jin-Seop

Luther University, Associate Professor, Korea

 

Abstract

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

  

  루터는 무엇보다 성경을 깊이 연구하는 가운데 복음을 재발견하였다. 그가 성경박사가 되어 처음으로 행한 것은 시편강해였으며, 이후 로마서강해, 갈라디아서강해, 히브리서강해를 통해 종교개혁의 신학을 정립해나갔다. 이 논문은 루터가 소위 “탑의 경험”을 한 후 착수한 두 번째 시편강해(Operationes in Psalmos, 1519-1521)에 나타난 해석학적 원칙들을 분석하면서, 어떻게 그가 중세 성경해석학 전통과 결별하며 그의 해석학이 새로운 복음적 신학과 관계를 갖는지를 논구한다. 루터는 Operationes에서 오리겐, 제롬 등으로부터 내려오고 토마스와 리라에게서정립된 사중해석(quadriga)을 극복하고 성경의 유일한 의미를 강조해 온 과정을 완결한다. 루터는 이 과정에서 특히 알레고리에 대한 입장을 분명히 해야 했는데, 논쟁에종지부를 찍고 믿음을 강화시키기 위해 알레고리를 가능한 한 피해야 한다고 주장했다. 한편, 루터는 간혹 제한적으로, 특히 신약이 구약 본문을 알레고리적 의미로 사용할 때, 이를 사용했다. 그러나 Operationes에 나오는 가장 특이한 형태의 알레고리는십자가 신학의 sub contrario 개념에 관계된 것이다. 이는 해석학이 신학의 인도를 받아야 함을 의미하는데, 이 원칙은 Operationes에일찌감치 등장하는 Grammatica Theologica 개념에 잘 드러나 있다. 루터가 히브리 본문을 해석학의 기초로 삼는 원칙을 갖고 있으면서도 때로 Septuagint나 Vulgate의 본문을 취하는 이유가 여기에 있다. 특히 루터는 시편 22:16(21:17) 해석에 있어서 기독론적 유비를 적용하여 Masora 본문대신 70인역에 기초한다. 결론적으로 우리는 루터가 성경해석은 본문의 문법적-문자적 의미에 확고히 기초해야 하면서도, 성경의 핵심내용인 “복음”의 빛에서 해석되어야 한다는 것을 강조했음을 발견한다. 루터의 해석학은 그의 복음 이해와 같이 간다

  

주제어: 마틴 루터, 두 번째 시편 강해, 해석학, 복음, 종교개혁
Keywords: Martin Luther, Operationes in Psalmos, Hermeneutics, Gospel, Reformation

I. Introduction

  It is well known that Luther rediscovered the Gospel through intensivestudy of the Scriptures as is attested by his reminiscence about thediscovery of the meaning of iustitia dei (Rom. 1:16-17) in the “Prefaceto the Complete Edition of Luther’s Latin Works” (1545).¹ Referringto Luther’s engagements, especially, with the Old Testament, HeinrichBornkamm has pointed out that if Luther were a member of a moderntheological faculty, he would be called a professor of Old Testament.Especially the Psalms, which Luther learned by heart from the timewhen he was in the monastery, was his favorite. Thus, the first thinghe did as doctor sacrae scripturae was to lecture on the Psalms in 1513-1515, which commentary is called Dictata super Psalterium. Luthercontinued to work with other scriptures, that is, Romans (1515-1516),Galatians (1516-1517), and Hebrews (1517-1518) before he again set tocomment on the Psalms in 1519.² Luther, in his Second Commentary on the Psalms (Operationesin Psalmos, 1519-1521) undertaken during his mid-career, showshis ability and maturity as a biblical scholar, fully equipped with theknowledge of the biblical languages and experiences of writing commentaries.The contours of his break with the medieval tradition, whichcould be seen in his previous period, now became more characteristicand distinctive. Scott Hendrix also concludes, referring to Luther’sexposition of Psalm 1:1 in Operationes, that Luther “is in a categoryby himself ” in the history of biblical interpretation. He summarizesLuther’s hermeneutics: “To the medieval tradition he (Luther) ownedhis concern for both an edifying literal meaning and for the unity ofScripture manifested in the promises found in the Old Testament. Theway in which Luther allowed that edification to occur was neverthe-less his own.”³ He bases his judgment of Luther’s independence on thelatter’s words in Operationes: “I will follow my own spirit and indulgein my own opinion without prejudice to anyone.”⁴ It is the aim of this paper, therefore, to show some of Luther’shermeneutical points as expressed in this commentary on the psalms,which was written during this critical period of his career: what hishermeneutical principles are; how his break with the medieval exegesistradition took shape; and how his new hermeneutics are closely connectedwith 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 surprisinglyconnects his exposition, which culminates in a confession that theBible has only one sense, with these words: “They parted my garmentsamong them (Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea).”⁶ He interprets the dividingof Christ’s clothe as a dividing of the Scriptures into several senses. Hemakes Origen, in the first place, and Jerome, in the second, responsiblefor the fatal wrongdoings to make several senses out of the Scriptures.But even in his own time, according to 2 Corinthians 3:6, one interpretedthe 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 allSt. Thomas and Lyra and the like made fourfold sense out of the veryword of the Scriptures: the literal, tropological, allegorical and anagogicalto 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 constantunderstanding, with which we can clothe our souls.” Luther cites thenthe famous formula, “The literal sense teaches what happened; allegorywhat you are to believe; the moral sense what you are to do; anagogywhere you are going (Litera gesta docet, quid credas allegotia, Moralisquid agas, quo tendas anagogia).”⁷ He objects that according to thisscheme the one single sense of the Scripture is subjected to an artificiallimitation, as if each Bible-word did not give instruction in a comprehensiveway. The literal sense has nothing to do with a dead past, butaims at faith, hope and love.

Is it not exceedingly blasphemous to tear Scripture apart, so that manascribes to the letter neither faith nor love nor hope, but only the uselesshistory? 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 2Tim. 3[:16ff.]: All Scripture is inspired by God profitable for teaching, forreproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the manof God may be complete, equipped for every good work. What, I ask, dothey show by this tearing other than that they do not understand at allfaith, hope and love in the scripture. This means that they do not deal withthe history of the fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac, and of the sanctificationof the whole Israel people, in order to learn faith (as the Apostle does inHeb. 11[:4ff.]), but as it were as a dead history, and I don’t know what kindof senses they dream about faith, love and hope. Through this blasphemythey 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 thephilosophical understanding, not even the figurative expression of theScripture itself can be recognized as such; it becomes indentified withsome mystical sense. Undoubtedly, if God had not hindered this, thenumber of the Scriptural sense would have immeasurably increased.For man does not keep together allegory, tropology, and anagogy asone and the same. Already in his dedication to the Elector Frederick Luther advocatesthe only true sense. He differentiates between the only true meaning,which the Holy Spirit understands, and the legitimate understandingof the psalms which he equals with the literal sense. He says: “I mustopenly admit that I do not know whether or not mine is, to a certainty,the true meaning of the psalms, though I do not doubt thatwhat 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, Lutherimmediately says: “and thus, this second (psalms) exposition which Ihave undertaken is vastly different from my first.”⁹ Luther stresses that it is desirable, though impossible, to “understandand teach the psalms in all respects according to their real senseand meaning.”¹⁰ The literal sense is, however, not to be identified withthe “frozen words” heard according to the literal sound.¹¹ The literal orlegitimate sense does not mean it is less spiritual; it is, therefore, to beunderstood 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, thesame as to hear in faith: the prophet “speaks in the spirit and demandsfaith.”¹³ Therefore, one must hear all the words of God “in the spiritand in faith.”¹⁴

 

III. Allegory¹⁵

  E. T. Pedersen, in his comprehensive work on Luther’s Bible in-terpretation, maintains that when Luther was taking his position inrelation to the hermeneutical traditions from the Old Church andMedieval times, he was forced to primarily clarify his position toallegory. Moreover, essential problems concerning Bible expositionwould 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 searchingafter that legitimate, proper, and genuine sense, which may put an endto contention and strengthen the instruction of faith.”¹⁷ Allegory which Luther dismisses is that of the modernists (followersof via moderna) who interpret the text, “as if another historical sensewere to be sought underneath, other than that which expressed.”¹⁸ Inthe exposition of Psalm 18:7(17:8), Luther speaks against those “whohave recourse to allegory, not thinking anything of the consequenceof always flying to an allegory; for what is more easy than to tack anallegory to every difficulty that they meet with, and so get it in thatway?”¹⁹Allegory is, therefore, “always to be avoided by an interpreterof the Scriptures as much as possible.”²⁰

2. Legitimate Use of Allegory

  First of all, there are instances where the Hebrew texts do not render anymeaningful sense. In the exposition of Psalm 17(16):10, Luther findsneither the translation of Jerome and Vulgate nor the literal meaning ofthe Hebrew words helpful. Therefore, he resorts to the allegory, though,with the support of other biblical passages: “We cannot understand itliterally, and must therefore recourse to allegory.”²¹ In his expositionof Psalm 3:7(8), Luther reveals his modest use of the allegory: “anyonemay pursue the applications of these allegories taken from ‘teeth’ stillfarther.”²² In the exposition of Psalm 2:3, Luther explains the differencesbetween the legitimate and illegitimate use of the allegory: “But whenI say allegorical, I do not mean, as our moderns use that term, thatanother and an historical sense is so sought in the passage, contraryto what it really means, but that its true and proper significance isexpressed in a figurative way.”²³ He therefore interprets “bands” and“yoke” in the same verse “metaphorically or allegorically” as the divinecommandments, with the support of Jeremiah 5:4-5. Thus, Luther understandshere “allegorical” synonymously with the term “metaphorical”or “figurative.” The most legitimate instance of using allegory is, however, wherethe New Testament passages use Old Testament texts in the allegoricalsense. Romans 10[:18] “teaches and compels us to understand” Psalm19(18) of the Gospel ministry, and so we must interpret “the heavens,firmament, sun, days, nights, and the like as having an allegoricalsignification.”²⁴ Luther is, however, as a whole, restrictive in using allegory: theallegory, “in other cases, is always to be avoided by an interpreter of theScriptures as much as possible, lest he should lose the simple sense andmeaning away after his own dreams.”²⁵

3. Allegories Corresponding to “Sub Contrario”

  The one special form of allegory Luther frequently uses in Operationesis that which is related to the concept of sub contrario (under theopposite sign) of the theology of the cross. After having declared thewhole verse of Psalm 2:3 as allegorical and contrasted the law of Christand the law of man, Luther says that “there is need of the eyes of faith” inorder to distinguish between them. Faith is here necessitated to discernthe reality from the appearance: “For when David says these things, hedoes not intend to say that these ungodly men really meant the Lordand his Anointed when they said, ‘Let us break their bands asunderand cast away their cords from us,’ because they believed that they wereacting for the glory of God and of his law, in rejecting Christ.”²⁶ But the prophet who says here, “the Lord and his Appointed,” isdescribing that Lord and his Anointed as rejected by them while theywere ignorant of what they were doing. Following this understandingof appearance and reality, Luther describes the above in this way: “Takenotice, therefore, whether he does not use an allegory throughout thewhole verse, in order to show that they pretended one thing and didanother, and, under their blindness, exhibited a certain allegory intheir conduct, in rejecting the Lord and his Anointed at the very timethat 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 subcontrario. If literal sense signifies the outward happenings in history, theallegorical sense signifies something which is hidden. In the expositionof the title of Psalm 3, Luther first explains that David’s going outbare-footed with his head covered signifies Christ’s being led out toGolgotha, who also “literally” went out bare-footed and having his headcovered with a crown of thorns and with blood. But “allegorically,” hesays, “the head signified the divinity hidden under infirmity, and thebare feet the humanity left alone to itself.”²⁸ The hidden character ofthe allegory is closely connected with the concept sub contrario of thetheology of the cross. This is also the case with Verse 9. Luther maintains that “the wholeverse is allegorical” and says: “For it signifies a certain allegory whichreally takes place in fact and life.” Luther explains this in terms of thedeath 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,” “beautifullydescribed in Isaiah 28[:21], ‘That he may do his work. His is astrange 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 clarifythe meaning. Luther then, not surprisingly, mentions Paul’s use of “clayvessels” in 2 Corinthians 4:7, which is used “in an allegorical way tosignify the body or rather the man in the body.” He also mentions thoseearthen vessels of Gideon in Judges 7:20-21. Luther interprets thesein terms of death of the flesh by the Word of the cross. Therefore, headopts the tropological sense to apply it to all the Christians: “Accordingto the figure, while the flesh or the carnal man is broken in piecesby the Word of the cross and the rod of iron … (Et tropologice, dumcaro seu carnalis homo verbo crucis et virga ferrea confringitur… ).”³¹ Later in his exposition of Psalm 19:1(18:2), “The heavens declarethe glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handy work,” Lutherpoints to this rod of iron in Psalm 2 and explains that David speakswith the grandest expression of those things which are vile in the eyesof men, and calls throughout the whole psalm “heavens” those thingswhich are the refuse and dregs of the earth. He says then that “thewhole is as it were a living allegory (allegoria viva), which seems to beone thing but means another.”³² In the following, Luther understandsthe psalm in terms of the preaching of the Gospel, which is the preachingof the Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:24f.). Here the allegorical mode ofexpression 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.” ReadingPsalm 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: “In the samemanner as the cross of Christ is an allegorical life appearing to kill whileit makes alive, for in the same way, Absalom here opens a lake and digsit, 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 whichDavid here speaks, and which he uses for the allegory.”³³ The Holy Spiritis ultimately the true author of the Scriptures, who “is sometimes wontto use allegorical words when he is speaking of allegorical things (soto speak).”³⁴

 

IV. Grammatica Theologica

  Luther in the beginning of Operationes makes it clear that interpretationof the Scriptures should be based on solid grammatical or linguisticanalyses. At the beginning of his exposition of Psalm 1:1, Lutherdeclares after introductory words about the common human inquiryconcerning blessedness: “But, first of all, let us consider matters thatare grammatical and yet theological (Sed primo grammatica videamus,verum ea Theologica).”³⁵ This sentence leads a long section of expositionof each word in the text, which ends with these words: “So much for thegrammar (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 grammaticalexposition, Luther repeats the verse: “Therefore he (David) says (Dicitergo): ‘Blessed is the man who has not walked astray,’ …”³⁷ and fully explicatesthe theological implications of the text. In this section, Luther“absolutely” applies the content “to all ages of mankind” and therebyalso to his own contemporary. Here it is obvious for him that one mustfirst observe the linguistic meaning of the text before deciding its theologicalsignifications. Parallel to the exposition of Verse 1, Luther begins the expositionof Verse 2 with the words, “A Grammatical and theological exposition(Grammatica Theologica),”³⁸ which leads to the analysis of each word inthe text. After that come these words similar to the Verse 1: “Thereforehe (David) says (Dicit ergo).”³⁹ This procedure of “theological philology”is a departure from the traditional, Christological interpretationof the Psalms, which Scott Hendrix also observes: “Luther departedfrom the traditional emphasis on the Christological meaning and madeindependent exegetical decisions of each Hebrew word” in the text.⁴⁰ Now, what does Luther mean, when he speaks of the GrammaticaTheologica or Grammatica as Theologica? His intention is that the philologyused in the Bible texts is to be guided by theology. The linguisticanalysis cannot ignore what is theologically expressed in the text. Oneexample is the Hebrew plural form wrEv>a; in Psalm 1:1. Right after thesentence, “But first of all, let us consider matters that are grammaticaland yet theological (Sed promo grmmatica videamus, verum ea Theologica),”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 simplegrammatical fact that in the original text stands a plural form, whichcalls everything and every relation blessed for the pious. It is, thus,clear for him that one needs to be equipped not only with grammaticalexpertise but also theological insights for a more fruitful exegesis.So, later in the appendix to Psalm 21(20), he mentions the necessityof schooling not only in language learning, but also in the propheticspirit.⁴² This becomes more clearly demonstrated when we now dealwith his attitudes to Hebrew texts, Vulgate, and Septuagint.

 

1. Luther’s Attitude to Hebrew Texts

  The above shows that Luther understands grammatica in termsof philology based on the Hebrew texts.43 Luther regards this as a fundament for interpretation, which is shown by the characteristicsused about the Hebrew language: “in fonte hebreo (to the Hebrewfountain).”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 moreelegance”49 than the Vulgate translation.

  Luther admits his ignorance about the peculiarity of the biblicalmode of expression: “A great part of the knowledge of what is writtenlies in the figures of the speech, and especially so in the Holy Scriptures,which have their peculiar idioms, an ignorance of which sometimesraises great clouds where there is the clearest day.”50 Hebrew plural formcan sound in the Latin ears barbaric and absurd but it expresses thegreat excellence of faith.51 Many words in Latin translation sound poor,while they in Hebrew translation “sound well and great.”52 The Hebreworiginal text speaks with much more fullness and energy than theVulgate translation.53 One can also observe a beautiful Hebrew wordplay,in Psalm 18:7(17:8): “<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>”54 Thus, “the prophet isnot only sweet in his thoughts and sentiments, but also in his expressionsand in the selection of his words, if any duly observe them.”55Luther is also enthusiastic over the typical structure of the Hebrewthinking. In the exposition of the clause, “thou hast destroyed theircities,” in Psalm 9:6(7), he advises the exegetes of the Holy Scriptures to “regard more verba than nomina in order to understand the spirit.”56Luther’s preference for the absolute mode of speech is also attested inhis exposition of Psalm 21:11(20:12), where he makes a point that thepronoun “which (quam)” is not in the Hebrew Scripture, but added bythe translator to avoid the idiom of the Hebrew. And the verb, “establish(stabilire)” is also added to make out the sense more clearly. For theverb, “they could not (Non potuerunt)” stands alone in the Hebrew text,which “is the most powerful and forcible expression.”57 This preferencefor the verbs and emphasis on the absolute mode of speech testify theactive character in Luther’s theology.

  Led by the high esteem for the Hebrew language, Luther deeplyengages himself in the examination of Hebrew words. He takes pains tounderstand the words: “But perhaps it is folly in me to torment myselfupon words.”58 The words cause him a lot of trouble.59 But this laborioustask is unavoidable for the exegetes. Even the strict literal translationwould not be a substitute for the detailed study of the concepts inthe original texts: “the Hebrew words must be considered, because noLatin expressions can convey their full meaning.”60

  As Luther carefully observes the biblical Hebrew terminology, hecriticizes the Vulgate translator as “inconstant translator.”61 There werealso some interpreters who were fond of variety and did harm to the“simplicity of words.”62 Luther does not, however, slavishly follow theHebrew words. He sometimes follows Septuagint or Vulgate. For Grammaticais ultimately subordinate to Theologica.

2. Luther’s Attitude to Vulgate and Septuagint

  Interpreting the word <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>, in Psalm 3:2(3), Luther follows the Septuaginttranslators after having listed various solutions: “I, in the mean time, will stand by the Septuagint translators, who, in many instances,seem to have had a certain divine discernment, though they frequentlydeparted 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 ofPsalm 22(21), which is rendered in the Septuagint as “for the morningundertaking,” while in the Hebrew text as “to the morning hind,” Lutherholds it possible that “the Spirit in the Septuagint wished to give usplainly that which the prophet secretly intended by the expression.”64Moreover, he even welcomes what we might call “constructive error.”Thus, concerning the Vulgate interpretation of Psalm 10:8, Luther saysthat “the Holy Spirit has permitted our translator not very unfortunatelyto make mistake on the word.”65

  This goes with the recognition of the possibility that sometimes itis very difficult to understand the basic meaning of the original text. Forexample, Luther writes about Psalm 17(16):13: “In my opinion there isscarcely one passage in the whole Psalms more obscure, even in theHebrew itself, than this.”66 In this sense, too, philology is subordinateto theology, which is, in its turn, decided by the Gospel.

V. Subordination of Philology to Theology Centered on the Gosp el

VI. Conclusi on

  We have tried to get at some of Luther’s hermeneutical principles inhis second commentary on the Psalms, which was undertaken duringcritical years of his life. The fact that he has developed his own hermeneuticalprinciples had undoubtedly contributed to free his theology ofits remaining vestiges of medieval theology. One of the most significantfeatures is that the text of the Scriptures has only one sense, which dismissesthe fourfold sense of the medieval tradition. That has led to thelaborious work with the Hebrew texts. But the only, literal sense is notto be identified with the frozen letter. Luther’s whole concern is that theScripture speaks to the hearer. Therefore, it is unthinkable for him topass by some passages without making any sense of them. The limiteduse of the allegories is to be understood from this perspective. On the other hand, Luther’s characteristic use of the allegories based on the subcontrario dimension of things, which is characteristic of his theology ofthe cross, points to more important theological truths. Allegories areindispensable because of its connection with the mode of God’s work:God hides himself in his revelation; and, God works under the oppositesign. The same theological concern is also manifested in the conceptof Grammatica Theologica, which says that the grammatical expositionis to be guided by theology: the linguistic analysis cannot ignore whatis theologically expressed in the text. Luther’s occasional favor of theSeptuagint and the Vulgate, instead of the Masoretic text, is anotherexample that Luther’s ultimate concern was theological or evangelical.This concern helped him to establish the principle of interpreting theOld Testament by the New, which is centered on the Gospel. In thisway, Luther claims a copyright on the Old Testament texts with theGospel. Luther’s Christological exposition elevates the meaning of theOld Testament, especially as regards suffering. Now being illuminedby the light of the Gospel, the Old Testament delivers a more profoundmeaning.

Footnotes

1)	Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 72 vols.,eds. J. F. K. Knaake et al. (Weimar: Bohlau, 1883-1993), 54, 185, 21-186, 13 [hereafterWA]; Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (American Edition), 55 vols., eds. Jaroslav Pelikanand 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 ofWorms. WA 54, 186, 22-24; LW 34:337f.
3)	S cott H. Hendrix, “Luther against the Background of the History of Biblical Interpretation,” Interpretation 37 (1983), 238.
4)	WA 5, 99, 6f.
5)	Numbers in the parenthesis match those in the Vulgate.
6)	WA 5, 637ff.
7)	WA 5, 644, 37f.
8)	WA 5, 644, 39-645, 13.
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 Operationesin Psalmos in the latter part of my paper on the hermeneutical development fromchurch fathers via middle ages to Luther in “Lutherui allegory bipan” [Luther’s Critiqueof Allegory], Theology and Faith 14 (2003), 167-208 (in Korean).
16)	E . Thestrup Pedersen, En studie i Luthers skriftsyn, hemeneutik og eksegese, vol. 1of 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 adamantlyrejected the use of allegory. He criticizes the exegesis of church fathers such asOrigen and Jerome, but not John Chrysostom, for allowing allegory and thus distortingthe meaning of the Biblical stories. Choi Yoon-Bae, “Martin Bucer(Martin Bucer,1491-1551)ui haeseokhag sogo: seonggyeonghaeseogeul jungsimeuro” [A Study on theHermeneutics of Martin Bucer (1491-1551) ‒ with Emphasis on His Bible Interpretation],Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 22 (2004. 12), 173-90 (in Korean). For ourdiscussion, see especially Choi’s discussion of Bucer’s dismissal of allegory as “somethinglike 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 intheir attitude about allegory.
18)	WA 5, 51, 36-39.
19)	WA 5, 498, 30-32.
20)	WA 5, 541, 13f.
21)	WA 5, 480, 34f.
22)	WA 5, 93, 31.
23)	WA 5, 51, 36-38.
24)	WA 5, 541, 9ff.
25)	WA 5, 541, 14-16.
26)	WA 5, 52, 9-12.
27)	WA 5, 52, 13-16.
28)	WA 5, 77, 17-24.
29)	WA 5, 63, 30-35.
30)	WA 5, 63, 28-38.
31)	WA 5, 66, 29-31.
32)	WA 5, 541, 25.
33)	WA 5, 245, 5-15.
34)	WA 5, 541, 18f.
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 Interpretation,”Interpretation 37 (1983), 232.
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 originallanguage was preceded by a long process of working with the texts. Hwang Heon-Yongwrites that Luther’s direct translation of the Bible has significant meaning not onlyfor the history of the language and religion but also for that of the German language. Hwang Heon-Yong, “M. Lutherui seongseodogeoe gwanhan yeongu – sinjoeohwireuljungsimeuro” [A Study on M. Luther’s German Translation of the Bible – with Emphasison 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.
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.
63)	WA 5, 81, 1-4.
64)	WA 5, 598, 19-27.
65)	WA 5, 339, 35-37.
66)	WA 5, 483, 27f.
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 Choisays that Bucer’s emphasis on historical, literal, and grammatical interpretation of thePsalm texts was guided by fidei in Iesusum Christum analogia. For Bucer, Hebrew truthagrees with philosophia Christi. Choi Yoon-Bae, “Martin Bucerui 『Sipyeonjuseok』enatanan ‘yeoksajeok’ haeseokhak” [The Historical Hermeneutics in Martin Bucer’s Commentaryon the Book of Psalms], Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 35 (2009. 10),125, 133 (in Korean).
71)	WA 5, 633, 22-26.
72)	WA 5, 633, 26-39.
73)	WA 5, 634, 11-13.
74)	WA 5, 634, 14-16.
75)	WA 5, 633, 17-19.
76)	WA 5, 615, 20-22.

Reference

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther’s Complete Commentary on the First Twenty-two Psalms. 2Vols. 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: Bohlau, 1883-1993.

___________. Luther’s Works (American Edition). 55 Vols. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan andHelmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986.

Beintker, Horst. Die Uberwindungen der Anfechtung bei Luther: Eine Studie zu seiner Theologienach den Operationes in Psalmos 1519-21. Theologische Arbeiten Series. No. 1.Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1954.

___________. “Christologische Gedanken Luthers zum Sterben Jesu: Bei Auslegung vonPsalm 8 und Psalm 22 im Kommentar von1519 bis 1521 und verwandten Texterklarungen.”Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 77 (1986), 5-30.

Choi, Yoon-Bae. “Martin Bucer(Martin Bucer, 1491-1551)ui haeseokhak sogo: seonggyeonghaeseokeuljungsimeuro” [A Study on the Hermeneutics of Martin Bucer(1491-1551) ‒ with Emphasis on His Bible Interpretation]. Korea Presbyterian Journalof Theology 22 (2004. 12), 173-90 (in Korean).

____________. “Martin Bucerui 『Sipyeonjuseok』e natanan ‘yeoksajeok’ haeseokhak” [TheHistorical 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 Faith14 (2003), 167-208.

Hammer, Gerhard. D. Martin Luther: Operationes in Psalmos 1519-1521. Historisch-theologischeEinleitung. Mit der Neuedition des Vatikanischen Fragments Psalm 4 und 5,1516(/17?) bearbeitet von Horst J. Eduard Beintker. Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe derWerke Martin Luthers Series. No. 1. Koln/Wien: Bohlau 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 New Coined Vocabularies]. Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 3 (1987. 12), 392-421(in Korean).

Pedersen, E. Thestrup. En studiei Luthers skriftsyn, hemeneutik og eksegese. Vol.1 of Luthersom Skfriftfortolker. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busch, 1959.