Ce>I'I or~\tt \\~*C),.lt,1 J~ ~\c.t\~ $b (fi..\\ 1C\83), '\6-lOe.

Robert Koib

.:.&. :1(";'1'1 ~9.t). ~J/(f

e '1M3.c~ HrrqNo( fttrldofl

~':;I

Luthfran&, that "Luther is Lthe onlytheologian of whom the Scriptureprophecies (Rev. 14:6). , .. Lutherhaa nO equal after the apostles andprophets,"

Pastors should approac~ Lutherthematically ~ Walther believed~ notchronologicaJ1y, since i,t is! obviousthat the earlier of Luther's writings.still contained much of the darknessof the papacy. The beginning stu­dent of Luther should read whatLuther wrote:. not those works whichare based on .student notes~ ~written

down in a huny.. !1 Nor shnuld onebegin with rhose works which ap­peared in Latin and have been trans­lated into German, for nD transla·tion can ever capture rully theoriginal. (The Saint Louis editionhad, in fact~ begun with Luther'sGenesis lectures, based on studentnotes and in that edition translatedfrom Latin into German.) WaltheraJso discouraged the beginner fromsampling Luther's thought by read­ing first the exegetical or hcmileticalwritings. In~tead, he suggcested Lu..thers polemics: That These Words ofChrist, 71tis is My Body) ett." StillStlJnd (1527), the gre~t CanJession 011

the L()1d's Supper (1528), On t~ Pap~

at Rome (1520), and Against HansWorst (1541). "The polemical writ ..ings of Luther are, to be 2Iure.. heldin great contempt. but they are thegreatest thing that was evc£r writtendown by human hand.. . . thereyou see Lutber's heroic fai\th and hisspirilualjoy .... You cannot heaJ allillnesses with buttermilk and honey,but you also have to U5e bitter medi­cine. lI Next Walther ~dvised "the 80­

called Reformation.. historical writ­ings . I • where Luther laid thegroundwork for his work Df reforma·tion": On the Bahylonian Captivity of theClwrcn. (1520), To the Christian No-

A (,Iw: LlJ.U~r:r Jvr trlfT1"a,.n ~71U'nc:an..r

theology influenced the way he ledthe Evangelical Synod of Mis,souri t

Ohio, and Other States as its presi­dent and leading theologian. 4

Walthees initial reading of Lutherbegan a lifetime of diligent study ofthe Reformer'a writing~1 and thebooks and articles of the Saint Louisprofessor cited Luther frequently. ~In 1875 he wrote in the periodicalwhich he editedJ LeItr~ unJ Wenre~

against those who accused him ofwishing to repristinate the theologyof Lutheran Orthodoxy:

They do not know us who labelour theology that of the ..seven­teenth century, As highly as wetreasure the immeo!e accomplish..ment.s of tbe great Lutheran dog·marician& of this periodJ it i.snevertheles,s noC really to themthat ~e return, but rather aboveaJl to our precious Book of Con­c.ord and:to Luther, in whom werecogniz-e the man whom Godchose as the Moses of his church ofthe New Covenant, to lead hisCbUfCh, which had fallen inroslavery to the Antichrist, out ofthat sJavery. He is the column ofsmoke and fire of the Word ofGod, dear and pure as gold as itis. 6

Franz Pieper, Walther's succes.soras president of Concordia Seminary.wrote of lW mentor, "In Luther hesaw not just one more theologianalongside others, but the Reformerof the church whom God Himselfhad selectedJ the one who revealedthe Antichrist.'"

Walther himself had stated asmuch in a presentation to a pastoralconference shortly before his d~ath

in 1887, subsequently published inLeh,e unO. Wehre under the title, ftTheFruitful Reading of Luthers Writ..ings." There Walther claimed J inline with the assertion of earlier

•.j~

)~.)

I1

1·-1i-I

J~,I

, tj'j

~;.~

~j(,

Walch's edition became the com..panion of theological students dur­ing the next century, and one whofound in its pages solace andstrength during a long bout witbsickness in the midst of his universitycareer was a Saxon named Carl Fer­dinand Wilhelm Walther. He spentsix months recovering from a seriou.sillness in 1831- t B32, two year~ afterhe began bis theological studies atLeipzig. It was this reading ofLuther, combined with the influenceof his pietistic friends and PastorMartin Steph.an~ that led Waltherinto an ever deepening commitmentto the theoJogy of Luther, theLutheran Confessions, and theOrChodox fathers of the 17th cen­(ury. This commitment to Luthers

others. the Leipzig and the Alten~

burgJ had appeared during thecourse of the 11th century. By the17305 a new edition was needed; the

. old were no longer available. 'andmany pastors found it more conve­nient to read Luther's Lacin writingsin German translation and Luther's16th.. century German in a moremodem version. puring the next 13year.$ Walch com~eted his 24·vol­ume edition, adding it to his otherliterary accomplishments in ethics

J

history of dogma and polemics, andtheological bibliography. 3

FlJrwrly txu-atJ'1It di,u:tlJr oj fil, end" 1m R':!QT·'RUJtim Rtu.aI'~ S'- £mJu. MOJ Dr. Kotb is 41~I~t t~irmtl.n of UtI Rtlif2'rnr Dt.ptJ,~mrn~ ill

COJl,CfJfdrfJ Cdl~J St PlJal~ MN,

Luther for German AmericansThe Saint Louis Edition of

Luther's Works1880-1910

Among the magnificent gifts ofHis grace which GQd has pre­sented in the precious man, thebtes.sed Dr'. Mart'n Luther, aJ Hischosen inst.rument fOT the blessedreformation of the church, theforemost i.s not only that he Jovedthe divine W-ocd from his heartand in fai:t regarded ic more highJythan ,many thousand pieces of goldand silver, but also that he pos­sessed a deep insight into .t andwas exrreme!y capable in [i nte r­pretingl the Scriptures of the Oldand New Testaments. L

With these words Johann' GeorgWalch. 'professor of theology at the.University of JenaJ introduced hisnew edition of Luthe r's works in17~9. Walch, 'a theologian of en..cyclopedic interests and prodigiousJiterary output, recognized the needof German pastors for an updatedv:ersion of Luther's writings so thatthey might learn from the deep in­sight of the Reformer into the Bibli­cal message. Walch's was the fLfthmajor edition of the Luther corpusproduced by his followers. The firsttwo, the Wittenberg and Jena edi·tions.. bad appean:d in the period be­tween 1539 and 15591

2 and two

.. - - . -. - -~ ~- _.."", .. ~ -.- -.::;..-...... -~ ..... Koib: LJJ.l1ler for Gmnan Amtrica1U

hility fJj the German Nation (1520), andothers. Following certain ('doctrinalwritings," such.as On the Office oj eJuKeY$ (153o), the student s.hould moveon to exegetical writings, such asLuthe(s interpretation of the Ser­mon on the Mount~ of the LastWords. of David, and of Psalms 2,37, 45 t 82, 110,111) 117, and 118.Among the homi)eti~l writings thepastor should at least read over theappropriate sermons in Luther's pos­tiJs rsermon books] as he prepareseach sermon, and he should also befamiliar with the Slwrt Smnons GirM1Jto a Friend as Models, a ~hort bit of ad ..vice to readers of his sermons foundin the Walch edition& (Walch I: Xli,2132-2735; Walch 2: XII, 1858­1860). Among Luther's letrers thosewritten immediately before, during..and just after the Diet of Augs.burgof 1530 are the best: "More beautifulletters have .never been written.Such courage of faith, such joy andconfidence of victory, is never ,to befound.l'J

. Walther discouraged pastors fromwriting out (heir own collections ofgems from Lutner's writings: "Ex-.cerpting Luther in detail is not par­ticularly fruitful, for Luther does notoperate in such a manner that heproceeds .straight ahead in a strictorder of thoughts; he rather stormsfull brigade ahead.') Better than ex­cerpting is the compilation of an in­dex of suitable readings for us.e inpreaching on specific themes ortexts, WaJrher suggested. In usingLuther one should also rememberthat Luthers speech is simple, for hewas caHed to reform not the learnerlworld but rather the people of Chris­tendom. Nor should the reader thinkthat h~ has come upon a contradic-

. tion as he reads Luther: ~'che much

criticiz.ed contradictions are onlycontradictory in appearance) or theymay be explained by recognizingthat Luther did not receive the fulltruth all at once as jf through astroke of magic." FinaJ]y, Waltheradvised in conclusion: liIiYou shouldmake it a rule to read something inLuther's writings every day, and findrefuge in them particularly whenyou feel dry, (ired, discouraged, sad,withoul any way out, miserable.Then select. particularly his lettersfor something to pick you up,strengthen you, give you a new leaseon life. Make yourself so familiarwith your edition of Luther (hac youcan find each writing without havingto page around, for that steals pre­cious ti me. ).18

[t is not surprising tha~ a manwith such a high opjnion of Lutherand his writings shollld be concernedthat the many German-born stu­dents at his seminary were not ableany longer to' find copies of theWalch edition for their personal li­braries, Walther had welcomed theErlangen edition and reprinted anappeal for it! completion in Lehre andWeohre in 1861.9 But Walther was de­'ermined to make Luther availablefor German-reading pastors inNorth America, and in 1879 hemoved to implement that desire.Though we do not know the details1

at" the 1879 pastoral conference ofthe Western District of the Mi.ssouriSynod the suggestion was made thatthe Synod sponsor a new edition ofLuther's works based on that ofWalch, according to the preface ofthe fuost volume of the new edition~

because "copies of tbe old edition arebecoming ever harder 10 find and... the Erlangen edition, which

has neither the valuable longer pref..aces nor the translations of the Latin

(

i1.~,11:11j

'1.l.{

.1.,

.~

i~f~.1~

writings, does not replace the Walcheditlon."lO Waltherscolleague in theSaint Louis ministeriurn, PastorJohann Friedrich Buenger) particu-larly promoted this new project .. Theconference recommended Iha tGeorg Stockhardt ~sume the editor..ship and named E. W. Kahler hisassis€ant. Stockhardt, who had re­ceived his theological education arErlangen and Leipzig, had arrivedin the United States little more thana year earlier after having sufferedirnprlsonment in Saxony for leavingthe state church and protesting itsposition by joining the Sa~on Lu­theran Free Church. StOckhardt hadbriefly ·served a parish and had justcome to Saine Louis as an extra pro..fessor at the seminary when the con­ference took place. Kahler) a gradu­ate of the Fart Wayne seminary ofthe Missouri Synod t who had servedsome two tfecades in the parish min­i..9 try , had come to Saint Louis in1876 to serve as Walthe~-s privatesecretary a.nd worked as literary edi..for for the entire seminary faculty. L•

StOckhardt and Kahler set ~o workand produced one volume in 1880,another in 1881, which containedLuther's lectures on Genesis. St6ck­hardt later defended the deci.sion toreproduce the Walch edition. Ger..man scholars had challenged thatchoice, and Stockhardt concededthat the Walch edition was not with ..out its problems. But the decisionhad been reached because the Walchedition bad ~on a kind of claim aspart of the furnishings in the Lu­theranChurchJ so that in most theo-­logical and edificatory writingswhich are read in our circles, thepassages from Luther are cited at..cording to Walch.).Il'2 Walther him ...self greeted the appearance of thefirst volurne of theQew edition with

. 101

an exultant, ~The Lord has done agreat thing for us; because e>f it let usbe joyful/J in a notice pub·li~hed inDer Lu.tnntmer. l¥ln a time such asours , in which the once-mightystructure of the EvangelicaL. Luther­anChurcn looks like a devastated ci­ty (Is. 1: 8), a new edition of Lutheesworks in such a splendid form as theWalch appeaI"ed to be a really fool­ish -- because impossible - undertak­ing. But look! The Lord has givenhis aid, so that already SO many sub..scriptions have been made to beginsuch a coslly project in the Lorcfsname without fear. 1O

Walther took pride jn the mannerin which the edition was b-eing pro­duced: the appearance of the vol­umes Giis quite splendid and gives ourSynod joy as a new proof that thosewho work in ourConcordiaj Pubiish­ing House not only knoYli how 10

make their valuable products worthyof the House but also compete witheach other in doing it with love~I' Heexplained that the volume 'was heingsold at a cost of only $3.50 because"the concern of this undertaking isnot money but simpJy the spreadingof saving teaching, so tr..at manymay now be able to take thj~ oppor­tunity 10 obtain for so lO\-N a pricesuch an inestimable treasure."13 Bythe time the edition was completedin 1910, the cost of the final volumehad risen only to .$4.25 for the "Law ..Buckram" edition and 35.00 for thesheep.skin volumes. 14

In 1882-1884 the Stoc.kh.lardt teamissued the Ki1chen ..Poseill,~), with ahelpful, introductory essay on theorigin of the work, and "the HflUS·

/Josliile (Vols. 1t-13). ChristianKorner, an employee of th,e publish­ing house t rendered valuable assis­tance to StOckhardr in the prepara~

(S;)

en,f-..,)(S;),f-..,)cs=J(S;)

U1

(S;)

CD

A~

w~

"f::.U1cs=JU1........,

cs=JAen

t\.J:t L,;ONCORD1A t1IS,ORlCAL J.~S'TJTUTB UUARlE1U"Y Kl1lh: Luthet for Gmnan AmtrUQns .103

tion of these volumes~ The next year denl questioned. the paucity of ser'Volume IOJ Luther's catechetica1 mon books on the poor pastorswritings I appeared, in par( the work shelves, and Hoppe stammered thator a recent seminary graduate, H. he had only those sermons containedBayer .1,) The following year a new in' his Erlangen edition of Luther'seditor arrived in Saint Louis J and he works_ Wyneken commended himsaw the edition to its completion for that, and that stimulated Happe:tsdurtng the next 24 years. facile mind to pursue a scholarly

His name was Albert Friedrich study of Luther. L1 By 1862 HoppeHoppet the son of a surgeon in Ro.. had c.omposed an-extensive crittquestock, the grandson of a professor of of a number of volumes of theEnglish at the university in that city, Erlangen edition and sent it towhere he studied under, among Walther for publication in Uhre undothers~ the Old Testamen( scholar Wehre. Walcher replied, encouragingFranz DeJitsch. a personal friend of Hoppe to continue his scholarly pur-,Walther and other leaders of the suits and adding some friendly ~­

Missouri Synod: The influence of vice and direction. Hoppe bad pro·Professor F. A. Phi·lippi and Ober- posed formulating an index to aU ofkirchenrat Dr_ Theodor Kliefoth Luther's letters; Walther believedguided him even further into a con- that it could not be published be­fessional Lutheranism t and the latter cause American financial resourcesrecommended Hoppe to Walther. In were not availabk and Germans1855 Hoppe came co Saint Louis would not be interested since contem­and .aught briefly in the Gymnasium porary theologians regarded Luthtr'sattached [0 the seminary there thought as «antiquated, archaeologi­before accepting a caJl to Zion con- ~t or at best as a apecialized area ingregation in New Orlean.s. in 1855_ the history of dogma." Instead, Wal­There he endured attacks of yellow ther invited Hoppe to write on Lu­fever and the deprivations of the cher's hermeneutics even though hetime of the sieg~ and occupation of conceded that the project would notthe city by Federal troops during the be possible at the time since HappeCivil War. Hoppe moved into edu- had only tbe Erlangen edition, incation as a vocationJ organizing a which much of Luther's exegeticalschool of his own. providing private work had not yet appeared, and notin'struction throughout the city, and the Walch. But Walther did believefinally founding a Progym:nasium. Hia that Hoppe was just the man for theintellectual statur.e was recognized in ~ project since he had the necessarythe New Orleans community at . discipline, patience, precision} gift oflarge, and he served as correspond- . analysis, understanding of Luther'sing secretary of the New Orleans language, and command of the Re­Academy of Science of a number of former1s theology. If Hoppe was un­years. 16 willing to attempt a study of Luther~~

Hoppe's incerest in Luther had hermeneutics) Walther proposed hebeen stimulafed, according to his write a homiletics text made up ofown account, by the president of (he quotations from Luther, an exten­Missouri Synod at the time] F. C. stye and complete text for preachingD. Wyneken. On an official visit to similar to the pastoral theology writ·the congregation in 1851 the presi- ten by Conrad Porta in the 1580s.

which consisted largely of citationsfrom Luther's writings. 18 We have asimilar letter from Walther to Hoppein 1880, in which Walther again en·couraged Hoppe to submit a manu­script for publication, one on thehermeneutics of Luther. particularlyin regard (0 his interpretation of theOld Testament prophets. 19 This ar·ticle appeared in 1882.

Hoppe's "Contribution (0 the Im­provement of che Editions ofLuthers Works, Particularly the Er·langen/' published in 1862, con­sisted largely of obselVations of du­plicated materials in the Erlangenedi(ion, sections of Luther's writingswhich were printed by its editors inmore than one volume, for a varietyof reasons. In some cases thiA deter­mination is significant, for it es­tablished that items which earlieredicion! had regarded as indepen­dent pieces! were actually excerptsfrom Jarger works. Hoppe'~ appar­ently photographic memory musthave enabled him to sort out items ofthis kind as he read through the Er­langen edition. He also offered someconjectures .on altemative and im­proved readings of certain passagesand identified individuals not identi­fied in the notes of the edition. Thearticle reveals no special theologicalanalytical ability but rather an ency­clopedic knowledge of Luther's wri r­ings] his times, and his language .. ~oThe same can be said of his work onLuther's hermeneutics, which ap­peared in the page! of Lehre undWenre two decade~ Jater. This articleconsists largely of c;:itations from theErlangen edition, arranged to sup­port Hoppe's two theses, uThe entireHoly Scripture teaches only of theLord Jesus Christ, from beginningto end J in a single sense and mean­ing) "2 L and I¥Mosea' books are the

chief books of the Scripture, out ofwhich all other books flow .J~2 Hoppesupported these theses with exten­sive quotations from Luther whichrevealed the Reformers Old Testa·ment ChristoJogy.

Hoppe turned his attention nextto the Table Talk. In 1885 Stock·hardt asked him to prepare the sixthvolume (Volume 22) to be issued inlhc hew Walch edition for the SaintLoui~ editorial ream, and Hoppe'swork was so far advanced that hewas able to send the completedmanuscript to Saint Louis in Oc­tober 1886. Walther anticipated re­ception of the volume in a letterwhich glowed with pride that one ofhis pastors had .he ·'skiU, fai(hful­ne~sJ conscientiousness, and unim­aginably remarkable diligence" toproduce suc.h a volume.'23 At almostthe same time the management ofConcorc;iia Publishing House calledHoppe to assume editorial responsi­bilities for the Luther edition andpressed him to come to Sain t Lou isimmediately. On November 3 hetook his fa mily and some of the stu­denf:.S in his Progymnasium and headedup the Mississippi River to ScLouis, where his old friend, LouisLange, the publisher, had found hima home~ in which he worked for theremaining quarter century of his lifeon editing Luther. Seminary stu­dent~ aMisted him, for instance, inchecking his text against that of theoriginal Walch edition~ In 1896Hoppe earned an annual salary of$840 (compared with .$tt4{}() peryear for the foreman of the publish­ing house's compo&ition room). 74

During his years as editor Hoppepublished an occasional report on hisown penonal .research in Lehre u-ndWenTe. In 1885 he had reported to itsreaders on ('The Two Oldest Edi·

(S)en aSL"'-f'.J the(S)

"'- ichr-v~ i ~C5JU1 i faC5J unQ) leerA Its.......

:leI

wJp

~ IppA(]l <IsC5J ,c.klU1-...JC5J noA eclen

dlItin,~OJ']

d I)de

~8e

Ie :() ce~ K:Jd8 refl~=LD ~S,

1O ~rn

~lnr rec~ In)

rre,ve:ed.hi

nee

DPIver.n ~

~ err~ nttrr1 OVl

C5J!W

U1 -lal,h'igi:He

,-,UJ'((,,;URVJA nI51·0N-leAL lNSTITUTE. \cLUAR"fE'.RLV & "" ....., ..,) w."'"• ...-•..". •••••., ...nn

tions of Luther's Works," as the arti­cle was entitled, and on other earlyattempts to gather materiat from Lu­ther's pen together. Here Hoppe wasagaioconcerned with the itemsprinted more than once in the Wit­tenberg and Jena edition.s, but healso·~ criticized «he authenticity ofmany items in the Table Talk~ par·ticularly Aurifaber's collection, andhe defended the Jena edition againstit! critics. '2.5 Hoppe ventured a retn­cerpretation of Luther'.s re.sponse toan imperial .. papa] document on· ageneral council, drafted in 1533 t in abrief arficle published in 1890~ 26 thesame year in which he sketched Lu..ther's later relationship to Carlstadt,focusing on the Reformer's kindnessto his onetime c.olleague, by then hisbitter foe, in 1525~21 Five years la(erLuther's economic situarion at­tracted Hoppe's atrenfion in a briefarticle in which he surveyed indica..tions from the sources regarding Lu­ther's income.. '28 In each of thesestudies. Hoppe revealed his com­mand of the various collections ofLuther's writings av.ailable, includ­ing the Walch and Erlangen editionsand DeWette'g collection of Luther'sfetters. as well as the latest scholarlywork on Luther's theology and ca­reer, by Hermann Friedrich Theo­dor von Kolde andJulius KostHn.~

In 1897 Hoppe acquainted the read­ers of Lehre "",d .Wtnrewith some I'Lu ..ther discoveries of the most recentperiod," the' lecture3 on the· minorprophec.s which Georg Buchwaldand J. Linke had published inVolumes t 5 and 26 of the Erfangenexegetical series and related materi­als from the new Weimar edition. 3D

The final product of Hoppe's re..search to appear in the 'pages of L,hreund .Wehre was a posthumously pub·lished beginning of a biography of

LuthcrJ composed largely of cita­tions from Luther's works, .supple­mented by the 16th-century biog­raphy of Lurher~s student JohannMathesius. 3 L

Such articles were by-products ofHoppe's primary (ask during theperiod from 1886 to 1910, the edit­ing or the Saint Louis edirion. Tilefirst of his volumes was his TableTalk, which Hoppe clairqed was thebest and most compJete edition ofthe Table Talk available. For he hadadded the rttentJy published mareri..a] of Anton Lauterbach and ConradCordatus to the earlier publi.shedcollections of the Table Talk, and hehad taken out items'from those col­lections which did not belong inthem7 duplicates, excerpts fromothers of Luther's works:, or ex­traneous materiaL Hoppe provideda fresh translation'of the Table Talk,for he believed that the tradition ofpublishing those texts according (0

the model ofJohann Aurifaber's edi..tion of 1566 was faulty. Walch hadfc;?Uowed) and .so this volume ofIWaJch 2" is a deliberate and signifi­cant departure from its modeL 31

Hoppe analyzed the sources of theTable Talk under the names of thecompilers, providing the reader withsome biographical information, bib..Hographical descriptions of theoriginaJ editions t and conjectures ofemendations and corrections of thereceived text.. Included in Hoppe'Banalysis are both the 16th..centurymanuscripts and printed versionsand the 18th- and 19th-century edi­tions, as well as the English transla...don of Captain Henry Bell. Happeconcluded his 62-page introductionwith discussions of some of rhe prob­lems encountered in editing theTabJe Talk: the trustworthiness ofstudent report.s, which Hoppe

measured in part against report.s inLuther~.s letters or olher sourceswhich discussed the same incident)and errors in translarion, dating,and fact- Hoppe's organization of thevolume did not simpJy reproduce thecollections of the 16th",cen'tury stu­dent.s but rather synthesized themunder eighty topics.:I$

Upon his arrival in Satnt Louis)Hoppe proceeded to work on thenext set of volumes. As noted above~

Stoc:k.hardt had overseen the produc­tion of Luther's Genesis lectures, hiscatechetical writjngs, and the GhUTCh­and House..Postils. In line wirhWalthers wishes and Walch's pat­cern, the Saint Louis edition was notchronological, as the Jena editionbad been, but rather followed themodel of the Wittenberg edition andpresented Luthers works by topic.The new edition was not to repro­duce Walch's text simply as it hadstood. Hoppe explained that he wascarefully checking translations fromthe Latin; "in the case of some writ..ings which were edited by Luther inGerman as well as Latin. the Ger­man and the Latin text:) were com­pared) ana through this processmany readings could be establishedcorrectly. Also the German writingshave been carefully improved andfreed of many hundreds of mistakesin the old editions.u In line with hisconcern for duplicates in (he edition,Hoppe noted his "'eliminacion ofseveral duplicates," and the correc­tion of many incorrect datings. Fur..thermore t Hoppe used the best ofcontemporary scholarship to im..prove the Walch edition by~ addingnew materials and by using theErlangen and Weimar texts to estab­lish preferable readings of theoriginal Walch material ..!.

Hoppe began with the second half

of the six-volume Reformation Writ·ings> the fLnaI three vofumes ofwhich contain polemical writingsagainst the Roman Catholics and"the Sacramentarians and otherRavers as w.ell. as against the Jewsand the Turks" (Vola. 18-20, of theyears 1888, 1889 J 1890). Hoppe thenturned to Luther's New Testamentwritings (Vols~ 7-9, of the yearsL89!. 1892, 1893), and to the re'"

mainder of the Old Testament works(Vols. 3-6, published in 1894J 1895,t896J 1897). The next volumes com..pleted the Reformation Writings(Vols. 14-17, in the years 1898,1899 t 1900, 1901), and Hoppe con­cluded the edition with the Corre­spondence (Vol. 21) .0 two half­volumes" published in 1903, 1904)~

co which he added an exhaustive top­ical index c0IlJ.pJeted in 1910 (Vol.23)~

Volume 18 contains Luther's po­lemical writings against RomanCatholics from 1516 to 1525

1and

Stoc.khardt, in the Foreword to thevolume7 noted that the translationsof these works from Latin had costHoppe much time and effort.Hoppe:'3 own introduction extendsover 69 pages and offers the readeran in~roduction to personalities andsituations which shaped Luthefsanti.. Roman Catholic polemic at thebeginning of his career. The notes tothese comments reveaJ Hoppe's com­mand of Luther's own texts and con­temporary scholar.ship. Most ofHoppe's scholarship is .set forth inthe introduction of thi:s volutne andthe introductions of the subsequenttwo volumes of polemical writings,which each numbered 65 pages. TheLuther texts themselves are not ex­tensively annotated apart from thebrief introductory notes which givebibliographical detail$ on the com..

crJO"'l.........f'..JcrJ.........f'..J(S)(S)Ul

crJcoA~

w.....,.A(]IlSIUl-.....JlSIA01

ooz()o:::u'='I-t

Do

U1rr1~

rHttl

'1JDoG')rr1

lSIA

__....... - ... -- - •• - ..... -- ... <II ...., ........ x....."......., 4 ..... 4.IIlo. ... ~AtJUJ: J..,rtJ,~/,er jl.lJ u~/'1"tJ1J J1 m1f14r..UI'U

position and printing of the workand its place in later editions. Thenates do provide significant variantreadings.

The second section of (he editionon which Hoppe worked containedLuther's New Testament writings,and he concinued with five volumesthat completed the edition's coverageof Luther's OJd Testament writings,chiefly on the ps3.;lmsand the proph­ets (the last of which, Volume 14,contained the Luther prefaces' ofWalch's Volume l4 plus materialsupplementary to Volume 6~ newlydiscovered material on the mmorprophets). Forlhese volumes Hoppedid not provide iptroduction.s~ inbrief forewords he pointed to someprobJems in reading the text, but forthe most part did no more than editit and note the new discoverieswhich he was utilizing out of theErlangen and Weimar editions.

After completing three volumeswhich traced the course of the Refor·macion in Luther's RefonnationWritingS, in 1902, Hoppe turned toLuther's correspondence. In two half·volumes he reproduced every letter ofLuther's which lie couJd find in all thenew editions of Luther's letters, and agood deal of the correspondence ad­dressed to Luther which Walch andat.hers had made available earlier.But Hoppe revised the format ofWalch's volume of the corr'espon·dence. He abandoned Walch's three­foJd' categorization and presentedLuther's correspondence in strictJycbronological order. Each let ter is in­troduced with a summary sentenceand a bibliographical note. For Lu­ther's correspondenee Hoppe pro­vided 150me annotation, which ex­plained cit:cumstances and identifiedpeople and events (0 aid the reader'su"nders tanding. Of these notes the

editors of the Weimar edition ob­served that U even if the commentaryon the letters, completely lacking inWalch, is taken basically out of previ..aus publications and therefore doesnot demonstrate any greater personalscholarly aC'complishment of Hoppehimself, nonetheless this edition ofthe correspondence deserves respectand recognition for its trustworthyand faithful translation of the Latinletters into good German)" and '1heserenderings .of Hoppe contribute to abetter understanding of Luther's let­ters quite often. °3~

Hoppe spent six 'years refashion-. ing the index to the Walch edition,and in early 1910J a little more thana year before his death, he concludedhis work. His final foreword con..eludes with thanksgiving to God "forhis many-faceted and immense rner­cy, ' .. And at lHe same time wewant to ask the dear Lord) to give hisblessing to the use" of this accom­plishment~ that it will not only bepurchased but also used diligently ~

so that the pure Lutheran teacbingmay be preserved and securedJ andalso spread widely for che salvation~fmany, for the .sake ofJesus Christ,our Savior, Amen."36

It is tilde wonder that the leadersof the Missouri Synod heralded cheappearance of Hoppe's and Stock...hardt's work. In the pages of DeT. Lu­lheTaner Walther greeted the newprinted volumes on occasion~ andthe work wa..~ of sufficient interest towarrant Hoppe's reporting on hisprogress mlhe pages of Lekre UMWenTe on two occasions,:n But theedition won acclaim or at least noticein German circles as well. In 1883 abrief note in the Th60iogisclzes Lt·te1"a.­luro/att advertised the appearance ofVolume 11 p the secrion on the Gos­pel readings of the Churchpostil.- urhe

editors pre.sent a longer preface thistime (73 pages), which in a verythorough way offers a presentationof the history of (he origin of theChurchptJstil and in .ts wen-ex.ecutedoverview makes the Walch presenta·tion of the situation dispensable., .. We take deltght in the energy ofour American brothers in the faith inthis area and wLsh this great under­taking continuing happy results inthis anniversary year of Dr. Luther'sbirth.»JS German scholars did not ac­claim this new foreignedilion. withuniversal praise. Guslav Kawerau,professor at the University of Berlin,observed in a report on "'Ywenty.. (iveYears of Luther Research, 1883­1908" that the Saint Louis edition is"aJmo!t unknown among us.JI' He ac­knowledged that the editQrs "havetried to kncorporate the newest dis­coveries and results of German Lu­ther re.sean:h with an admirable andquickly accomplisbed effort," but atthe same time he believed that thescholarlystandard:s of the edition didnot come up to the level of the Wei­mar edit.on. 3'9 Of course. they couldnot, given Hoppe's distance from thenecessary ".scholarly resources andaids, stuck as he was on the Ameri­can frontier. On the other hand,Professor Johannes Hauisleiter ofthe Univer.sity of Greifswald~ in anattack on the Roman Catholic Lu­ther biographer, Hartmann Grisar,mentioned the Saint Louis edition inpassing, and he stated that this"American revision of the Walch edi­tion dare not be passed over."40 ThemOlt recen~ survey of current Lutherresearch. an essay by Mark U. Ed­wards~Jr. of Purdue University. in...eludes this judgment of the Walchedition~ ~The St. Louis editors addednew material) new lransJations, andnew commentary to the material

IV)

compiled by Walch. The other docu­ments are useful; the Germiafl trans­lations of Lutherls Latin can helpwith difficult passages (and are oftenused for this purpose by the editorsof the Weimar Ausgabe); and thebrief glossary in Volume 17 of un ..usual and archaic words (W2, 17.2240-2261) can supplement theother guides to Luthe~s Early HighGerman. Finally, the main subjectindex (W2. 23, 2-2131) to this edi­tion is of use until the subject indiceseo the Weimar Au-sgabe are com­p]eted~))+l

Walther, of COUfle, did not dreamof a revision of the Walch edition forthe benefat of German scholars.Stockhardt did not undertake theproject to advance Luther scholar­ship. Hoppe did not spend hi~ lifehunched over his desk eompanngthe Erlangen and Walcil editionswith his homeland in mind. As amatter of fact, Hoppe was not agreat Luther scholar in the mold ofthe German leaders of the LutherRenaissance or their immediate pre ...decessofs. He did not have the mate­dals at hand on the American fron­tier to do that kind of re:search in the:sources, and he did not demonstratethe analytical ability nor the theolog­ical sensitivity of many of those whoprepared the setting for the 20th­century discussion of Luther'sthought. But Hoppe did demon­strate a mastery of Luthe.rs works asimpre&Sive as any of his contempo­raries in the homeland. He knew thetext. And he also invested the entireenergy of his last quarter century oflife in a project which took meticu­lous editing on the basis of a broadknowledge and understanding ofLuther's theology and his times. Hewas indeed a formidable scholar inhi.s own right..

•• _ •• - - - _ •• - _ •• - • - - - • - !l<.,.. ~4~ - 4

Notes

KOlb:' LutherJQ1 fJnman Ameru:ans

(S)CO

A~

w~

A01(Sft11-....J~AO"l

(S)0"'1,I\.J(S),I\.JISJ(SJt11

lUY

J6. LudwLg Fucrbcingc-r l Ptr:rr»U df14 £MflLr (St.Louis: C on(:o'rd~a:. 19.')~ pp. ~O:5 -'2l1. su p­pkrntnts biographical and autOlbiographicalmate.riaJ found in DtJ 1.«t1Jf1(J'f2I1!1 61 (1911).J90-L91 J '205-201. See also Henry W. Nicr·mannJ Jr.• I17fhe HUIOIY or Concordia C(')~.

It:~e) Ne...... Orlean!!:," COJj'IJTJio lfiJl()n~(J,t bu~i.

lid' Qftal'"9'1 36 (1963)) 65-12.J7, Der Ltl.t4n/lfU/~ 67 (t 911).. 206.18~ Concordia H19toric:al [oslluHe... Saini Louie,

C. F. W. Wa~tht:T oorrt':Spondcnl;:e. translaredIn'"'C. P. W. WaJ~her [0 A. F. H<Jp~. A Ler­fer,~ by RCiGelt Kolb. Colt~r,iiQ HiflatiC41 In­$"l~~ QlUirln~. +'2 (1969)) 79-84"

19. Concordia Historical (tJllid~u~c, Saint Lou,s,C. F. W. W:ahher corresponderu:.c. Letter ofOctober J 2) laSt).

'20. uELn Beitrag ~ur Vc:rbcsserung der Ausgabt:nvon Luth<CT1 Werken, insonderh-ej( del Er.langisch.en.)J Lthu fJftti W,Att, 8 {Hlo2}1299 ..312, 334-l39.

21. -crundrl:Jge deC' Jutheri.3<:h:cn Hermencuti'=,zusammengestelh aU3 LlJfners SchriO~n:'

Lsh.r~ ~nd krt~,.,.. 28 (lSal). 51-12. r08-Ll J,1+8-157. esp. p. 58.

'2'2. [bid., p. l08~

23. ConcQcdia HLsforic:a1 In&tttutc, Saint 1..<JuLs,C. F. W. Walther con-espondtnc:e., Ittl.Jef of5eptembe r 27. 1886.

24. Dn- LIJtJv.raJItr~ 61 (391l]1 '2.06. On his .5fudeo£helPCfJ see Franci.!. J. UpJegger. rl'A BriefReview of Nearl)' Ninety Ytan of Life by theGrace of God.'" Con'(HI.h'rt. HiULJ,Ntri lJUJilu(1.

Quarm(y, $8 (I 965}. f41; on his &alary. seeAlbert W. GatenJ "ConcoC'dia PublisbingHo~s One Hundred Yf.a:I'S)1l Co~tdi4 Hir.wr1tfJi IftSlituft Qua'It.r9'~ +'2 (1969}. 164.

25. "'Die !wei ihes(cn Ausgaben der WerkeLuthers,'" Uhrt. and Wmn~ .] l ( J8as.).21l ...220.

26. AEin Beitrag lur RdorrnationsgescnLthte."Lbid' J pp. 24a-253.

21. lILuther. der Lebensrencr Carlst"adr..s," ibid.,pp. 286-'292.

28. I10Uebcr Luthers Vc rmoge nsveThaJ tnis.se. II

Lbid .• "I (1895L 16-79.29. D1. M«J1m Lrtflu-ts Bri4~~ &Mu~ilN.R uu B,..~~ ed. Wilhtlm Martin Leberecht deWelte (Berlin: Reimer, 13'25-t828); JuliusK6stJin, M(J1Ii~ fAllw. &i7C L~bm r.uvi JeW&1Jrijt,t." (E2berfeld: Friderid15.. l 875); Th~o­

dor von KoLdc:, Mariirt LrsJker. ea'/I,e 8ifWdphie.(Gotha: P-erth~. 188+. 1889).

30. IoIMitthc:ilungen iiber die Lutherfunde derneUf!3f<!n Ze'lt,t' Ld'7~ uruJ WtJirl!!~ 43 (lS91).44-52 1 81-89.

31. "D. Martin LutheT. Ein Lebensbild nach denc:igencn Au.Mpruchen Lutners und denAngaben seiner Zd(geftOsun~:1 ibi.d., 5'(191 1)~ 443-451; 58 (l9Z2)~ J55-164-, 305-

l. D. Marlin LliJlur.J Gro.t'RIiIidu UJltl £rlttluliduAuslt,gWlg d4s E1SI"J Baths MOJL.s) ed. JahannGeorg Walch (Halle~ Cebauer~ ~ 739), If.a2/r.

2. On the lItrife between the spon.:Jon or tb.eJf"naand Wiucnberg editions I see Ej"e WoJga:st,lICDeT Streit urn dje Werlte Lutht'11i Un 16.jahrJ'o.unduc/, A,&h,1J fit' RtJd'1'M.I3lio1Ug,srhi&htt~

59 (1968), L71-'202.3. RtlJ.lnu:]1ai0p4die fiir fJtoltlfaRtirdu TJwJ(OI~ flNi

KiRkt. 20 (uipzig: Hutrich~ J90B}. 192-191'.4-. 'bid .. 201 8+8. On Walther, particularly OD

his ~niliaJ e:ttc:n3l."er:ncounteC' with Lu:rher'swDrks, see M.a.rlin Cunther, Ds~ C. F. J1I,Waillur, LtiN.RJ"bJ"id {Sr. Louis: ConcordLa,J39O). esp. p. 12; LewIs W. Splu) Sr.• ThI.LiftqfC. F: W. JV,pJ/tAtT (5c Lou~: Concordia.1961'1 p. 23.

5. E.g... hi.s Die S~ifi'2.JTM oUAJ"em' 1<i,,,Ju i~ tin FrfJld~.n Kirt'4t arrd Ami (Erlangen; Bias iog. 1852).Dr~ n'hu G,rJiJll "rrt.r Qo1JJJt Skult wt:t2M4ngignJEtlrmg,(.iJdc·C.utJmill:un. OttIjt"UitJlb. {St. Louts:Wiebusr.:h~ ]a63)~ and Dil mltlt URU7Ir:JuidURg,w,n GI.1~tl t$nti ElItSJI,ft-fitlm {51. LGuis: Concor­dia, LB91}. The iic.st twa of ~he5e are availa.bl~

in 'Engl isn translat'on en &l¥etM Wliti~ 9/C. F. W, Wa:/uWJ ed. August R. Sudflow(Saint Lo~l~: Concot'dia. 19B1}. W4/lJItlon c.kCkltl?;R, t~ans, John M. Drickan~r; thc thirdin Stl,,,ul W,ilirtlJJ lAw Q1ftJ Gospel) O"ans.HerbertJ. A. Bouman. St'\': also the voLumesErirrmi,slJ fifl11l fiLM,., rIJtJi W".'tn"': Crans.Herbert J. A. Bauman, and C()~ti().n EJSd:)'!)tram. August R. SucJf]ow. for examples ofWahhet'~s use of Luthcl.

6. L,krt ~rJ ~w'J 21 (1875}, 61.1. 'lOr. C. F. W. Wahh.e:r al5 Theologe'." ibid.,

34 (1888), 261.8. Ibid., 33 (l887)~ $05-314. On Walthers ap­

preciation of Luther) .1et also E. TbeodoreBachmann~ -.,.yalther, Schaff, and Krauth onLurher,~ /rTtttptdcrr.ojLIlINr, ErsByS io11 HORbfOjWi~bn PlDI.cl:, ed. Jaro:slat Pelika.n (Ph.i~add­

phia: Fortress.. 1968).. pp. 181-'230.9. Ltlut UM WWl.,. 7 (186L).. 27-29.

JG. Dr. MtJ,tiJt LldhDr SilmmtJiw StIJ.ri/t4~J IulYJlU'

1"FfJ.tR JM)1I lJT. Jok. Gear, Walch. I: AwJ'lamgdtl tl$tm !Ju(ha Mm (Sc Louis: ConcoroLa.l8BO}. cob. LV-vi.

It. Carl S. Meyer, Log Ca1J~'tt tD Lalkp Towf'!, C~Ii'

aJlr:iitJ Smu'trmJ D.uti~ 0& H"uIfJr,d t111d Tt.Dr1Il.....

JJ'/if. raf$J TOUJll1Q a Mp7t E.xa:U~J1( M;ptut1J~

UJ39-J964 (Sl. Louis~ ConcaJULa.. 19650), onKiihlerJ p. 66 1 on Srikkhardt~ p3..$$im.

J2. Dr. M,(J'f'h.·R LrJfk#1 Simrm,'ic:1tl&hriftmJ XVIn,vi-vii.

13. Dtr l.atilr1(lrur) 3{1 (1880). 116.l1-. Lc1u:t Imd WeJI'~ 56 (1910)~ 365.15. St6ckhardt's reporl Ln D" 1..IltJttJ7J4P, 66

(L9JO). 19'~-199.

Missouri Synod and other'synods ofthe American Lutheran churchesmade th~ purchase and proudlyhanded their sets of Luther on totheir sons who entered the pastoralministry. They not only put Lutheron their shelves. They used thesevolumes as chey prepared 8ermons,as they studied the Biblical text andthe catechism, as they soughtanswers to pastoral problems ofvarious kinds. The libraries of thepas tors of the la te 19th and early20th centuries contained manyauthors: a wide range ·of Germantheologians as wdl as the works ofmen like Walther and Stockhardt)who wrote in America·. But Luthershaped the proclamation and in ..struction of paseor after pastor whoread him week after week from thepages of the Sain~ Louis edition.When the pastors 'Of the MissouriSynod len Lu;ther behind in theirmove into the English language andthen had totu'm to materials byEnglish-writing theologians of dif..ferent theologies and of differentspirits than Luthe r's) there could nothelp "but be an impact on the waythey preached and taught. In reCro..spect, the contribution of those whoproduced tbe Walch 2 edition ofLuther's works I and through ithelped ahape more than a half cen­tury of ministry, seema ever larger.

Walther's dream r StOckhardt's ef...forts~ and Hoppe's life and work be..stowed upon the American Lutheranchurches a treasureworth, inWalch's words, more than manythousand pieces of gold and sillJier.

His aim WaB not thal of his Ger..man contemporaries. The Missou­rian leaders simply wanted to pro­vide the' text of Luthe.r for everypastor's study so that the message of(he Reformer would infonn theproclamation which came from theirpulpits, WaltherJ Stockhardt, andHoppe regarded the availability ofLuther's works as. indispensable forthe proper functioning of the Ger­man church on che Amerrcan fron­!ier. Walther had made that point asthe first volume appeared in "1B80:11M ay t his new edition of Lu(her'sWorks encourage and stimulate Lu­theran Christians to listen to thevoice of Iheir teache~J the prophet ofthe Last Day, with diligence anddesire. Precisely (his interpretationof Genesis contains, as its forewordnotes, a brief, clear summary· ofLuther),s teaching, which is takendirectly from God1s Word.... TheLutheran church in North Americahas through God's grace once ~gain

brought to the fore the pure teachingof Luther which had been forgouenand buried for so long. We prove ourgratitude for this blessing of God bystudying 'andresearching Luther'steac~ing out of Luther himself- forthe securing and strengthening ofour faith .. "42

They succeeded in providing BUch

a tool for their pastors and those ofother denominations on the Ameri­can frontier. For· an investment ofabout $100 apaB10r could have.Lu­ther at hiB fmgertips. That amountrepresented several months" &alaryfor 80rne pastors, but many from the

Rev. ~ F.Hoppt

L;ONCORDIA "rSiORleAl INSTITUTE QUt\Rt'HRLY

Volume 39 of the Lu/hera1Jtr (1883),Dr~ Walther paints out that previ ..ously the Christian church 'mad onlycelebrated two birthdays; those ofChrist and of St. John the Baptiz.er.(He does admit that the ch1lJrch hadmarked what were caUed tne birth·days of the martyrs, but these birth..days were the dates of their beingborn to eternallife l rather than theirbeing born into the world.)

Walther points out that the Lu"theran Church regularly celebratesthe date of Luther's final home­going, but that be could find no ref­erences to a church festival markingLuther's birth. Luther himself madeit his custom, Walther go~ on, to in­vite people over on his birth>day. Andhere and there one finds 01:1 -acrvancesof Luther's birthday in a family cir..cle or at a Lutheran school. The onlyregular church observance of thebirthday that Walther co uld com'eup with was when St. Martin ofTours' Day would fallon a Sunday.Then he found that preach.ers wouldoften make mention of the fact thatLuther had been born on 'the 10th ofNovember and baptized on (he 11th,taking the name of St. Martin ofTours. But again, Walther couldfind DO definite mention or regularjubilee festival celebratiorus of Mar­tin Luther's birthday. [Luiheraner,39: 1 (1 Jan. 1883)]

The jubilee celebration.s in 1883were really quite something. Wefind reports on many of them in thepages of Der Lu~htr(Jner ar.id The Lv.·

KLI1t .A . .&dJi.rr..t is 1111QdrJtJte 1)1 C~'fJ1diJJ Srm­~'1.1«1)'~ St Ltu,u

Jw~ strOtl U nftmttt QM ,.,...

,mur& as.rut4rti a~ CDrr&Or4ia HutrmcaJ 111lti'rd",T~ J1'est'IIt~ IlAIU 6'1ilintiUy p.,~r«l jfJr a}oitl.t CWI'R1itf.N Muting cd 1M [lLICiJurz ill MtJ)

1963.

Let me try to take you back 100yean to the year 1883, the year ofthe 400tb annivenary of the birth ofDr. Luther. Chester Arthur was fill ...ing out James Garfield's ,term asPresident of the United States.Thomas Edison had finally come upwith the right combination and in­vented the electric light only fouryears earlier. In 1882, Congress hadmoved to restrict immigration forthe flfst time (starling with the Chi..nese). In 1883 they passed the firstCivil Service Ac.t. And Kitty Hawkwas still 20 years in the future. In theMiuouri S.Ynod, H. C. Schwan wa~

President~ The Norwegian Synodwithdrew from the Synodical Con..Ference in 1883 J effectively endingthe Predestinarian Controversy. TheLutlu:ro.n K'imess was only in its sec­ond volum~. J. F. Buenger had diedthe year before, Walther was to diein four years, Sihler in two .. Naetherand Mohn wouldn't be commis­sioned as our first foreign mission...aries for another 11 yea.r~. And thegrand old Walther League wu still adecade in the future.

And in the midst of all this, weLutherans decided (0 celebrate the400th anniversary of the birth of Dr..Martin Luther. In the Foreword 10

Kurt A. Bodling

conecting the Luther Birthdays

CIiClUtJlir Hirltttkflll IQJft'/u... Q..-ut"-1J

4) J:1 =~~~~ilwtt

(L8B5). 1{)5-]06; and HOPPC'4 report3 in LtJtJetSN1 Wtkr'l 40 (189+), 302-311; and 4-~ (1886}1l44-149. See abo tnt reports of me conclu­sion Df the edition in W,t una WMitJ 56{ J9) 0)) 365; and lhe Missouri Synod'sEngli.sh, theolDgi:cal periodical" 'nJrt1tvgi&tJlQpt.;:r4tr{y.. 17 (19t3)~ 10}-106.

38. TJklJf~giI"kls L.~l4raJlUh'(Ju.. 1 (February 16,1883}. 55.

39. TAtOidgJ'U'u Sludi~ lJ.M Krilik.t13, 8,1 {1908}..')!i().

40. AIIgt:meirt.t .ED.-tulAtliJr:1It Ki"wltz~ihi"'l. {1912}J1046 fC... u reported Ln the TltilJJfJ.I~lJl ~rlf7'

i}.. 11) JO~.

4]. "Martin Luther,0 Rt:jortlkJ'irm ElSIlJ/Jt: ..f Cu.itkto RtJlJ41tla

Jed. Steven O;z:tnent (Saint Louu:

Cen,~r for Reformation Res~arc:h .. 193'2)) p.61.

4-2, I1tr L1JtJwlJ~J 36 (1 B8<J). 116,

ltV

313. 359-363. 453-~J. %to ...50'. 5.53-551.32. Joha.nn Aurifaber, Cl)JJo,w'(l (Jan Ti'i~hmJ.m

Dt"dl1r MtUtilli lJ.,,1l4l'i (FrankfurtJM, ]566).3.3. Dr. IUIJ1~iA Llllht,S Simmll,.,1tI SdtJiftt1J.. !JtlfJUS­

&t&c!M.nw:Q Dr. JoA. GtD'l ~l&~ XXii. nr.Marlin L~tJ",s C«~~ odn 711CR,., Zum ~r-

rJt" Mtf.11 AtfitMgt fi,Jtl/ t'1!1tutft ~,dt Ut~Jetz.fI.J1g

.ur hn'tJm HtJtl.fJtfUf'~ tid TirUtted,,.. aW" .fkA ~.

umucll.tf1 Qnt;rlQk"J ni:mlich tks Tagrhll.&ks ~fJt. C~n..,tPJ C"nJ«Jw iiD.tr Dr, .M. Lul/ur 1517 /Jn4iii Ta,gtbDcJll dts M, Ali''''' laJJl#1h1JG1I fUJj dt1J

JrJ1t, i538{St Louis: Con<::orwa. 1881): J-62.34. Dr. Ml1I1in I..JJlhuj Si#t:mJtidu$cluiftm~ XXII,

Fo,eword:~ VII.... ; VI 'ii'vi i.35. IJ. M41tjll Lu~At1s Wnu (Wehl1.ar: 'B6hlau>

1883- ), BrUfutrc1uf~ 14 (1970}, 569-570.36. D" Mani" LutA.trr Sim"uli~ Sduijt,t\s XX.III.

vii.31. See Wahher's review$ of Volumes. JO and II

in On LNlJtrr4Mf, 38 (t8B2). B'-S2; and 41