# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_September 1862_S266
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

266 Lic. Ströbel on the Revision of Luther's Bible.

is now taking place, with respect to the theological-critical side of the task, through the publication of the following Corrigenda of the Rev. Preacher Mönckeberg," and the present first number of the "Proposals" therefore describes itself on the title page as "Corrigenda of the Canstein Text; theological-critical part." "A presentation of the principles followed with respect to the linguistic side of the task" is to be expected shortly from Dr. Frommann in a second number. "The chapter headings and parallel passages have been subjected by the Rev. Pastor Mönckeberg to a careful revision, and this important part of the work lies complete." So much for the status causae. The Canstein Bible Institute further adds the request to "all to whom this matter is dear at heart: to subject the present proposals to an earnest examination" — for "it is a matter of bringing about, if possible, a work valid for and recognized by the whole evangelical Church."

May I indeed regard this request as addressed to me as well? Who knows! The matter is certainly dear to my heart, and I too belong to the whole evangelical Church; but, but — — Herr Dr. Stier, as the presently reigning ecclesiastical-literary pope and emperor, has after all placed me under ban and interdict, and has just recently, for the second time, called upon the editorship of this journal to carry out swiftly, by my excommunication from the number of its contributors, the interdict pronounced upon me. An icy, Stygian shudder overcame me when this second anathema came before my eyes. Utterly crushed by Stier's fulminating printer's ink, I was on the very point of taking my leave of our journal in writing; when, behold, my whole situation was suddenly transformed by a deus ex machina, who in the form of the letter-carrier brought me the writings named above and the commission to review them from the editorship. Now, whether that latest papal-imperial-Stier-ish declaration of ban had not yet reached the editorship at that time, or whether the latter perhaps thought that not everyone who closes his expectorations with "Ceterum censeo" is therefore also a censor or even a Cato — no matter! I now once again have full right and title to express my opinion, in spite of all bulls, briefs, and edicts of self-appointed church guardians and quenchers of the Spirit. My opinion in this matter, however, is simply a Principiis obsta! and it affords me great satisfaction to be in agreement here with men such as Nägelsbach (who for that must also feel Stier's lash) and with the author of the above-named essay in the Ev. Kirchen-Zeitung.

In my judgment it is essential in this matter of revision, right from the outset, to fix firmly and make clear the one and only point of view for a correct judgment, as the Ev. Kirchen-Zeitung has likewise done. "That Dr. M. Luther's translation of Holy Scripture shares in the imperfection of all human works and is not free from greater and lesser errors and misunderstandings, has always been acknowledged in the evangelical Church. Nevertheless, at the time when the faith of the evangelical Church stood unshakably firm, these defects were never found so