Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:04:57.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Martin Luther’s Use of Blended Hebrew and German Idioms in His Translation of the Hebrew Bible

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2020

Andrew J. Niggemann
Andrew J. Niggemann*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates an uncharted facet of Martin Luther’s Hebrew translation method. It is one of the more fascinating aspects of his translation, which demonstrates both the complexity of how he translated Hebrew and the lasting impact of the Hebrew on his German, neither of which has been fully appreciated by scholars. This article demonstrates how he sometimes blended Hebrew and German idioms in his translation of the Hebrew Bible, specifically in the Minor Prophets. It further shows how he used this translation method to convey various linguistic features of the Hebrew language to his German audience. Finally, it shows how this has a number of important implications for Luther studies, Hebrew and German linguistics, and medieval and early modern history.

Keywords

Martin LutherHebrewGermanBibletranslation
Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 113 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 483 - 497
Check for updates
Copyright
© President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Birgit Stolt’s work on this specific subject, though, is excellent. See Stolt, “Luther’s Translation of the Bible,” LQ 28 (2014) 373–400. Cf. Birgit Stolt, Die Sprachmischung in Luthers Tischreden. Studien zum Problem der Zweisprachigkeit (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis; Stockholmer germanistische Forschungen 4; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964). The characterization “literal” is employed specifically to indicate a translation according to the Hebrew lexical definition. This should be differentiated from the similarly termed “literal sense,” which is often used in a much different meaning. Furthermore, while the characterization “literal” is avoided by linguists today because it is seen as too problematic and imprecise, it is used here in order not to confuse the nontechnical, nonlinguist reader.

2 For example, scholars often cite Luther’s translation of שָׁבִיתָ שֶּׁבִי (šāḇîṯā šeḇî, “You have taken captivity captive”) in Ps 68:19 with Du hast das Gefängnis gefangen (“You have imprisoned prison”). See Stolt, “Luther’s Translation of the Bible,” 385; and M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation, Together with a Collection of Sources (Concordia Heritage Series; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1984 [repr. of Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book of Concern, 1934]) 274–75. Another commonly cited example, specifically concerning Luther’s Greek translation, is his translation of the Ave Maria in Lk 1:28. See Heinz Bluhm, Martin Luther: Creative Translator (St. Louis: Concordia, 1965) 151–66; and Stolt, “Luther’s Translation of the Bible,” 382–84.

3 For a summary of the most important scholarship to date on Luther’s Hebrew, see Andrew J. Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career: The Minor Prophets Translation (Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019) 31–39; also in Andrew J. Niggemann, “Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career: The Minor Prophets Translation” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2018) 32–40. The most influential work to date on this subject comes from Raeder’s trilogy of monographs: Siegfried Raeder, Das Hebräische bei Luther. Untersucht bis zum Ende der ersten Psalmenvorlesung (BHT 31; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961); idem, Die Benutzung des masoretischen Textes bei Luther in der Zeit zwischen der ersten und zweiten Psalmenvorlesung (1515–1518) (BHT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967); and idem, Grammatica Theologica. Studien zu Luthers Operationes in Psalmos (BHT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977).

4 See Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career.

5 This paper focuses explicitly on existing 16th-century German idioms and idiomatic language, which Luther integrated into his translations. Idioms in the Hebrew Bible, which the German language simply took on as a literal rendering, are out of scope for this study.

6 Furthermore, Luther lectured on all twelve of the Minor Prophets and wrote commentaries for Jonah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah, thus providing great insight into his translations.

7 Luther was never translating any given Hebrew term, phrase, or verse in isolation. In addition to working with a team of translators in Wittenberg, his consultation of church fathers, rabbinical sources, Hebrew lexicons, commentaries, and other translations is well known and documented. For more on this, see Raeder, Das Hebräische, esp. 311–67; Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career, esp. 10–39; and Volker Leppin, “Luther’s Roots in Monastic-Mystical Piety,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomír Batka; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 49–61.

8 “Figura hebraica est, q. d. sicut gemit plaustrum plenum stipula, ita etiam curabo ut gematis vos sub plaustris Assyriacis hoc est pressi onere et labore nimio gemetis, opprimemini rursum qui iam elati et fastuosi estis. Et hoc est, quod ait subter, quod nos latine commode reddere non possumus.” WA 13:170.25–29. LW 18:143. Unless otherwise noted, all English translations in this study are my own. Where I provide the LW references, I generally only make critical adjustments as necessary in order to align with the WA. Citations of Luther’s works throughout this study are abbreviated as follows: 1) LW: Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Helmut T. Lehmann, and Christopher Boyd Brown; 75 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–); 2) WA: Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (73 vols.; Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009); and 3) WA DB: Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Die Deutsche Bibel (12 vols.; Weimar: Böhlau, 1906–61).

9 Rashi’s text reads: את חנייתכם (“your encampment, camping place”); MG, The Twelve Minor Prophets [עמוס פרק ב,[ספר תרי עשר (Mikra’ot Gedolot Haketer [מקראות גדולות הכתר]. A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of “Mikra’ot Gedolot” Based on the Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval MSS [ed. Menachem Cohen; 13 vols.; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1992], abbreviated MG). On תַּחְתֵּיכֶם (taḥtêḵem), see Johannes Reuchlin, De rudimentis Hebraicis (Pforzheim: Thomas Anselm, 1506) 538. In his Postilla, Lyra emphasized the meaning of the Hebrew text as a punitive measure; see Biblia latina: cum glossa ordinaria Walafridi Strabonis aliorumque, et interlineari Anselmi Laudunensis, et cum postillis ac moralitatibus Nicolai de Lyra. et … (Basel: Johannes Froben and Johannes Petri, 1498), at Amos 2:13.

Throughout this study, Vulgate references are from: Biblia Sacra, iuxta Vulgatam versionem (ed. Roger Gryson; 5th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007); and Hebrew Bible references come from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. K. Elliger, W. Rudolph, and A. Schenker; 5th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). This study does not address the Septuagint because Luther does not explicitly address in it his remarks concerning the translations in this study. Unless otherwise noted, Luther’s Deutsche Bibel references in this study for the Minor Prophets are the 1534 (dated 1532 in the Weimarer Ausgabe) edition. In general, Latin definitions provided in this study come from: A Latin Dictionary Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary: Revised, Enlarged, and in Great Part Rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis (ed. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short; Oxford: Clarendon, 1987); and P. G. W. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary (2 vols; 2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Hebrew definitions come from: A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius as Translated by Edward Robinson (ed. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs; rev. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, [1959]); and Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (ed. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner; Leiden: Brill, 1953). German definitions come from: Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm (16 vols.; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1854–1961), abbreviated DWB; Dudenredaktion, Duden Deutsches Universalwörterbuch (5th ed.; Mannheim: Dudenverlag, 2003); and Oxford Duden German Dictionary (ed. Dudenredaktion and the German Section of the Oxford University Press Dictionary Department; 3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Definitions are only noted in the footnotes for outstanding instances.

10 WA DB 11.2:234.13. “Look,” or “behold.” I find “behold” archaic. The Vulgate, by contrast, translated it as: ecce ego stridebo super vos (“Behold, I will make a high-pitched noise [a hiss] over you”).

11 See DWB 11:839–43. Grimm says it is a word that has lost much of its literary meaning; he also provides the definition: “all sorts of sharp trembling tones [Es bezeichnet allerhand scharfe zitternde tone]”; and furthermore, “to scream from Angst [schreien vor angst].” See SPAL 31:1469 (Keith Spalding, An Historical Dictionary of German Figurative Usage [60 fascicles; fascicles 1–40 with the assistance of Kenneth Brooke; fascicles 51–60 with the assistance of Gerhard Müller-Schwefe; Oxford: Blackwell, 1959–2000], abbreviated SPAL).

12 See Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career, 64–75. Concerning Luther’s use of multiple languages, see Stolt, Die Sprachmischung. Cf. Birgit Stolt, “Laßt uns fröhlich springen!” Gefühlswelt und Gefühlsnavigierung in Luthers Reformationsarbeit. Eine kognitive Emotionalitätsanalyse auf philologischer Basis (Berlin: Weidler, 2012) 58–60, 230–36, where she discusses his diglossia (use of two languages by a community according to specific circumstances).

13 Semantic intensity is a technical designation that linguists use to identify emotion and extremity of language that deviates from a neutral position. John Bowers defines language intensity as “the quality of language which indicates the degree to which the speaker’s attitude toward a concept deviates from neutrality…. High intensity, thus, is characterized by emotionalism and extremity” (John Waite Bowers, “Language Intensity, Social Introversion, and Attitude Change,” Speech Monographs 30 [1963] 345–52, at 345). Bradac, Bowers, and Courtright advise that most linguistic researchers accept Bowers’s definition (James J. Bradac, John Waite Bowers, and John A. Courtright, “Three Language Variables in Communication Research: Intensity, Immediacy, and Diversity,” Human Communication Research 5 [1979] 257–69, at 258). On the specific use of “semantic intensity” in the field of linguistics, see Karl Sorning, “Some Remarks on Linguistic Strategies of Persuasion,” in Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse (ed. Ruth Wodak; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1989) 95–113, at 97–98; Chaitanya Shivade et al., “Corpus-Based Discovery of Semantic Intensity Scales,” in Proceedings of the North American Association of Computational Linguistics Annual Meeting (NAACL) (Denver: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015) 483–93; and Joo-Kyung Kim, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, and Eric Fosler-Lussier, “Adjusting Word Embeddings with Semantic Intensity Orders,” in Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (Berlin: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2016) 62–69. On similar concepts such as enargia and hypotyposis, see Richard A. Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968) 40, 58.

14 “Und der Prophet bildet hie das Babylonische heer den Juden fur die augen, als sehe ers daher zihen. Denn so lest sichs ansehen, wenn ein heer von ferne kompt, das der reuter am ersten ein hauffen gesehen wird, Aber yhe lenger sie zihen, yhe mehr yhr wird und erfurkomen, als mehreten sie sich ym zuge. Das wil er damit, wenn er sagt: ‘Seine reutter breyten sich aus’, das ist, ym zihen wird yhr yhe lenger yhe mehr, wenn man zusihet, wie sie komen. ‘Und komen von ferne’, das macht auch den hauffen groesser anzusehen, wenn sie von ferne daher zihen und einen dunckt, es wolle kein ende nemen und sey noch ymer mehr dahinden ynn der ferne … Also braucht Habacuc hie maler kunst, das er den einzug der feinde fur die augen malet und daneben anzeygt, wie denen zu synn ist, den es gilt … Da sehen wyr, wie fein und eben die Propheten reden konnen, und wie sie kurtz und doch reichlich ein ding ausstreichen. Denn das ein ander hette gesagt mit eym wort: also ‘die Babylonier werden komen und Jerusalem zurstoeren’, das redet Habacuc mit vielen worten und streicht es alles eygentlich aus und schmucks mit gleichnissen, wie man denn auch thun mus, wenn man dem groben, harten poefel prediget; dem mus man es fur malen, blawen und kawen und alle weyse versuchen, ob man sie konne erweichen.” WA 19:369.17–26, WA 19:370.1–3, 6–12. LW 19:171. Cf. WA 13:427.36–38; LW 19:113; WA 13:399.14–25. The context of the verse suggests the pronoun “their” and not “his” or “its.”

15 WA DB 11.2:302.8. The Vulgate rendered this as et diffundentur equites eius equites namque eius de longe venient (“And their horsemen will be spread out, for their horsemen will come from afar”); the context of the verse suggests the pronoun “their” and not “his” or “its.” By comparison, Luther translated וְכֹבֶד (wəḵōḇeḏ, “and a mass of, a great number of”) in Nah 3:3 as vnd grosse hauffen. WA DB 11.2:294.3. For further comparison, Rashi’s remarks concerning this text were simply: ירבו פרשיו (“his horsemen will increase, multiply”); MG, The Twelve Minor Prophets,

חבקוק פרק א,[ספר תרי עשר]. On וּפָשׁוּ (ûp̱āšû), see Reuchlin, De rudimentis Hebraicis, 421. In his Postilla, Lyra identified this as hyperbole; see Biblia latina, at Hab 1:8.

16 His method for handling the Hebrew trope of repetition was, on the whole, variable and inconsistent. For more on this, see Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career, 76–81; and on the broader issue of general inconsistency in Luther’s Hebrew translation method, see 47–97.

17 See WAN 2:390–91 and SPAL 27:1252–54, both with direct mention of Luther (Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon. Ein Hausschatz für das deutsche Volk [ed. Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wander; 5 vols.; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1867–80], abbreviated WAN). Cf. DWB 10:582–85.

18 “Depopulata est regio. Ex hebraeo sic lege: depopulatus est ager, luxit terra, quoniam vastatum est triticum, confusum est mustum, elanguit oleum. Reddit rationem, quare sit periturum sacrificium et libamen, quia, inquit, depopulatus est ager, perierunt fruges omnes, periit vinum etc. Videmus autem in hoc textu manifeste poeticas figuras. Dicunt enim poetae ridere prata et segetes, hoc est felicia esse. Hic in contrarium dicit lugere terram, confusum esse vinum etc. Confusum est mustum. Nova vox in isto propheta, frequenter enim sic loquitur. Germanice recte hunc modum loquendi imitamur dicentes der weyn stehet schentlich, qua voce etiam Salomon in proverbiis saepe usus est de filio confuso et muliere confusa loquens ein schentlich weyp.” WA 13:92.3–13. LW 18:84.Schändlich is the modern German spelling of schentlich. This appears as schentlich stehet der wein in the Zwickau text; WA 13:70.11. The LW translates dicentes in this tract as “in the expression.” I believe that this may mislead the reader into believing that there was an equivalent Germanism of der weyn stehet schentlich (“The wine is shameful, disgraceful”) during Luther’s time. I can find no evidence of such a German expression in Luther’s time, or before, or after. Thus, I have adjusted the English translation to “saying,” in order to more accurately reflect the Latin.

19 Luther translated the full verse as: “Das feld ist verwuestet, vnd der acker stehet jemerlich, Das getreide ist verdorben, Der wein stehet jemerlich, vnd das oele kleglich.” WA DB 11.2:216.10. The modern German spelling of jemerlich is jämmerlich. The Vulgate, by contrast, rendered הוֹבִישׁ תִּירוֹשׁ (hôḇîš tîrôš, “wine dries up”) in Joel 1:10 as confusum est vinum (“wine is confounded”). Luther, of course, consulted the Vulgate along with the Hebrew for all of his translations, which his lecture and commentary remarks make very clear. As a point of comparison, Rashi did not make any remarks concerning this; see MG, The Twelve Minor Prophets [יואל פרק א,[ספר תרי עשר. In his Postilla, Lyra emphasized the metaphorical meaning of the text; and in his Additiones, Burgos emphasized the figurative meaning of the broader chapter. See Biblia latina, at Joel 1:10.

20 The modern German spelling of schentlich is schändlich. Even though Luther identified an “equivalent” Hebraism in Prov, the Hebrew terms in Prov are different than what appear in Joel. This is something that Luther did quite often in his interpretation of the Hebrew Bible; on this subject, see Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career, 147–49, 164, 220.

Prov 19:13 in the Hebrew Bible reads: הַוֹּת לְאָבִיו בֵּן כְּסִיל וְדֶלֶף טֹרֵד מִדְיְנֵי אִשָּׁה (hawwôṯ ləʾāḇîw bēn kəsîl wəḏelep̱ ṭōrēḏ miḏyənê ʾiššâ, “A foolish son is the ruin of his father and the contentions of a wife are a continual dripping”). Luther translated this as: Eyn nerrischer son ist seynes vaters hertzen leyd, Vnd eyn zenckisch weyb eyn stettiges trieffen (“A foolish son is his father’s heartbreak, and a quarrelsome woman [is] a continuous drip”). WA DB 10.2:62.13. The Vulgate, by contrast, rendered it: dolor patris filius stultus et tecta iugiter perstillantia litigiosa mulier (“A foolish son is the vexation of [his] father and a quarrelsome wife [is like] a persistently leaking roof”). Cf. Luther’s confuso and confusa in his lectures, with the Vulgate’s filius and litigiosa.

21 The Vulgate translated this as luxit humus (“the ground mourned”).

22 WA DB 11.2:216.10.

23 WA 13:70.11–12.

24 That translation decision was not unfounded. Hebrew scholars argue for parallelism between יבש (yḇš) and אבל (ʾḇl). See TDOT 1:47, 5:378. (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament [ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren; trans. John T. Willis; 15 vols. (vols. 1 and 2: rev. ed., 1977; vols. 4–7: trans. David E. Green; vol. 8: trans. Douglas W. Stott; vols. 7, 8, and 14: ed. Heinz-Josef Fabry); Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006]; originally published in German as Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament [ed. G. Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry; 8 vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–2000], abbreviated TDOT).

25 See DWB 10:2255–56. Also see WDS 1:834–35 (Daniel Sanders, Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [2 vols.; Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1860–65], abbreviated WDS).

26 See Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career, 87–88 n. 132, 113, 117, 122–26, 122 n. 61, 123 nn. 62–63, 125–26 n. 75, 234–35, 238–39, 248–49, 249 n. 27, 320–21. For more on Luther’s Anfechtung, see Erich Vogelsang, Der angefochtene Christus bei Luther (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932); Paul Bühler, Die Anfechtung bei Martin Luther (Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1942); Clarence Warren Hovland, “An Examination of Luther’s Treatment of Anfechtung in his Biblical Exegesis from the Time of the Evangelical Experience to 1545” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1950); and Horst Beintker, Die Überwindung der Anfechtung bei Luther. Eine Studie zu seiner Theologie nach den Operationes in Psalmos 1519–21 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1954).

27 See n. 26.

28 Or, “wine has mourned.”

29 See WA 31.2:132.27–29; LW 16:188; WA DB 11.1:78.7. Cf. numerous other places where Luther translated הוֹבִישׁ (hôḇîš) (various conjugations) as schanden (various conjugations). See, for example: Isa 30:5 [WA DB 11.1:94.5]; Jer 2:25 [WA DB 11.1:200.26]; and Zech 10:5 [WA DB 11.2:350.5]. These are only a few of many more examples. This further supports the view here that the preceding idiom in Joel 1:10 played a special role in Luther’s rendering of הוֹבִישׁ (hôḇîš) in that verse.

30 See WA 30.2:637.17–22.

31 The German idiomatic terms and phrases that appear in this paper almost certainly do not have origins in Yiddish, based on an examination of scholarly works, including Groyser verterbukh fun der Yidisher shprakh = Great Dictionary of the Yiddish Language (ed. Yudel Mark and Judah Achilles Joffe; 4 vols. of a planned future 6 total; New York: Yiddish Dictionary Committee, 1961–); and Hans Peter Althaus, Kleines Lexicon deutscher Wörter jiddischer Herkunft (4th ed.; Munich: Beck, 2019). Moreover, the scholarly resources on historical German idioms, already noted in this paper, do not find such origins.

32 For more on the German Bibles that preceded Luther’s, see Reu, Luther’s German Bible, 19–54.

33 Joel 2:12: WA DB 11.2:218.12; Jonah 1:9: WA DB 11.2:262.9; Hos 8:7: WA DB 11.2:198.7; Amos 8:10: WA DB 11.2:246.10; Jonah 3:5–6: WA DB 11.2:266.5–6. For these and more examples, see Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career, 234–303. Obviously, many of these terms and phrases appear in other Hebrew Bible verses as well.

34 Bluhm and others, nevertheless, have shown this aspect of Luther’s translation very well. See Bluhm, Creative Translator; and Stolt, “Luther’s Translation of the Bible.”

35 See Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career.

36 On Luther’s use of the Rudimenta, see Raeder, Das Hebräische; idem, Die Benutzung; idem, Grammatica Theologica; Reu, Luther’s German Bible, 114–15; and Gerhard Krause, Studien zu Luthers Auslegung der Kleinen Propheten (BHT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962) 64–65. On the role of emotion and linguistics in Luther’s German translation, see Stolt, ‘Laßt uns fröhlich springen!’, 189–90. On the role of rhetorical tools in late medieval and early modern humanism, see Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen, “Die Affektenlehre im Spätmittelalter und in der Reformationszeit,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 35 (1992) 93–114; Junghans, Martin Luther und die Rhetorik, esp. 5–7 concerning humanism; and Lewis Spitz, Luther and German Humanism (Aldershot: Variorum, 1996), esp. VIII.69–94.

37 Helmar Junghans, Martin Luther und die Rhetorik (Stuttgart/Leipzig: Verlag der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: In Kommission bei S. Hirzel, 1998); Birgit Stolt, Martin Luthers Rhetorik des Herzens (Uni-Taschenbücher 2141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Anna Vind, “Martin Luther and Rhetoric,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. John Barton; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.290; zur Mühlen, “Die Affektenlehre.”

38 Brian Cummings, The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and Grace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) 20–21.

39 See Stephen G. Burnett, Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era (1500–1660): Authors, Books, and the Transmission of Jewish Learning (Leiden: Brill, 2012); idem, “Jüdische Vermittler des Hebräischen und ihre christlichen Schüler im Spätmittelalter,” in Wechselseitige Wahrnehmung der Religionen im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Konzeptionelle Grundfragen und Fallstudien (Heiden, Barbaren, Juden) (ed. Ludger Grenzmann et al.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009) 173–88; idem, “Reassessing the ‘Basel-Wittenberg Conflict’: Dimensions of the Reformation-Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship,” in Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe (ed. Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) 181–201; and Niggemann, Martin Luther’s Hebrew in Mid-Career, 10–31.

40 See n. 39; and Sachiko Kusukawa, A Wittenberg University Library Catalogue of 1536 (Cambridge: LP Publications, 1995).