The Zurich Bible of 1531, also known as the Froschauer Bible of 1531, is a translation of the Bible from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek language into German, which was printed in 1531 in the Dispensary of Christoph Froschauer in Zurich. The entire New Testament and large parts of the Old Testament are an adaptation of Martin Luther's translation. The biblical prophetic books were translated by the circle around Huldrych Zwingli independently of the Luther Bible, but using the Worms Prophets. The new translation of the poetic books, including the Psalms, is an independent work by the Zurich scholars.
The two-volume splendid edition in Folio bears the title: Die gantze Bibel der vrsprünglichē Ebraischen und Griechischen waarheyt nach/ auffs aller treüwlichest verteütschet. It is richly illustrated, partly with woodcuts after drawings by Hans Holbein the Younger. A preface, probably written by Leo Jud, shows strong influence from Erasmus of Rotterdam. Elaborate additions such as a keyword index, summaries (chapter summaries), glosses and parallel passages make the text accessible.
Composition The Bible was divided in to two sections and the books listed in a contents section.https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0002/bsb00024266/images/index.html?id=00024266&groesser=&fip=qrssdasyztsfsdrqrsyzts&no=23&seite=18 The first section (bücher des ersten teyls) comprises:
The second section (bücher des andrern teyls) comprises:
Language of the Zurich Bible The language of the Zurich Bible cannot be equated with the language of Zwingli. Unlike Luther, the Zurich reformer was more effective through his sermons than through his printed writings. He always preached freely and was very popular. According to Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli spoke in the simple tone of the people: "er redt gar Landtlich".Heinrich Bullinger: Reformationsgeschichte. Edited by J. J. Hottinger and H. H. Vögeli. Volume 1, Frauenfeld 1838, p. 306.Schweizerisches Idiotikon, Volume III, column 1306, article landlich, meaning 4: "according to the country (also in contrast to the city), customary, popular, simple"; landlich mit einem reden, "in the simple vernacular» (Digitalisat). Walter Schenker concludes from this that it was more important to Zwingli "to reach as many social classes as possible in his region with his language than to be understood in as many German regions as possible".Walter Schenker: Die Sprache Huldrych Zwinglis im Kontrast zur Sprache Luthers. Berlin/New York 1977, p. 11.
The first New Testaments printed by Froschauer in Zurich were adaptations of Basel reprints of Luther's translation and featured the Old Swiss Middle High German vocalism; they retained the old long vowels ī/ȳ, ū and ǖ, which corresponded to the Office language common in the Confederation at the time.Walter Haas: Kurze Geschichte der deutschen Schriftsprache in der Schweiz. In: Hans Bickel, Robert Schläpfer (Ed.): Die viersprachige Schweiz (= Reihe Sprachlandschaft. Band 25). Sauerländer, Aarau/Frankfurt am Main/Salzburg 2000, pp. 109-138, here 115. They thus differed significantly from the Luther Bible with its New High German Diphthongization (ei/ey, au, äu/eu). However, Froschauer adopted this New High German diphthongization for the Zurich Bibles from 1527 onwards. It is possible that he wanted to reach beyond the Alemannic area to appeal to a larger clientele in central Germany.Hans Rudolf Lavater-Briner: Die Froschauer-Bibel von 1531. Zürich 2011, p. 75–77; Walter Haas: Etliche wörtly geenderet: Luthers Bibel und die Zürcher Bearbeitung. Heidelberg 2017, p. 174 and note 13. The New High German Monophthongization, however, was not adopted in the Zurich Bible. The Zurich Bible therefore reads ie, ů, ue, where the Luther Bible has ī, ū, ü/u. An example (Acts 2:37 ZB): Luther 1522: yhr menner lieben bruder/ was sollen wyr thun? Zürich 1531: Ir menner lieben brueder/ was soellend wir thůn?
Wherever the translators of the Zurich Bible used the Luther Bible as a model, they also largely adopted its syntax. Werner Besch characterizes the Luther Bible as a read-aloud book: "Smaller statement units in a step-by-step sequence, ensuring understanding in an additive way, because a listener cannot turn back the pages like a reader."Werner Besch: Deutscher Bibelwortschatz in der frühen Neuzeit: Auswahl – Abwahl – Veralten. Lang, Frankfurt am Main u. a. 2008, p. 19. In the biblical books, where the Zurichers were independent of the Luther Bible, they preferred the hypotactic style with the finite verb in the final position.Wilfried Kettler: Die Zürcher Bibel von 1531. Philologische Studien zu ihrer Übersetzungstechnik und den Beziehungen zu ihren Vorlagen. Bern u. a. 2001, p. 474.
In its system of forms and vocabulary, the Zurich Bible shows its "Alemannic independence" compared to the Luther Bible.Hans Rudolf Lavater-Briner: Die Froschauer-Bibel 1531. Zürich 2011, p. 82.
In the inflection of the verb, Froschauer's Bibles, as in the Swiss chancery languageWalter Haas: Kurze Geschichte der deutschen Schriftsprache in der Schweiz. In: Hans Bickel, Robert Schläpfer (Hrsg.): Die viersprachige Schweiz (= Reihe Sprachlandschaft. Volume 25). Sauerländer, Aarau/Frankfurt am Main/Salzburg 2000, pp. 109-138, here 117. Indicative plural and subjunctive plural are distinguished:Walter Haas: Etliche wörtly geenderet: Luthers Bibel und die Zürcher Bearbeitung. Heidelberg 2017, p. 174. Indicative: wir / yr / sy machend. Subjunctive: wir / yr / sy machind. An example of this subjunctive (Mk 15,32 ZB): Luther 1522: Er steyge nu von dem creutze/ das wyr sehen vnd glewben. Zürich 1531: Er steyge nun von dem creütz/ das wir sehind vnd glaubind. The Zurich translators often exchanged lexical expressions from the Luther Bible that seemed foreign; one example (Rom 9:21 ZB):Hans Rudolf Lavater-Briner: Die Froschauer-Bibel 1531. Zürich 2011, p. 80. Luther 1522: Hat nicht eyn topffer macht/ auß eynem klumpen zumachen eyn faß? Zürich 1531: Hat nicht ein hafner macht/ auß einem leimklotzen zemachen ein geschirr?
According to Walter Schenker's analysis, almost half of these lexemes used by the Zurich translators in the Luther text are only regionally comprehensible. By opening up the East Central German to Bavarian, the Luther Bible strives for supra-regional comprehensibility, whereas the Zurich Bible does not.Walter Schenker: Die Sprache Huldrych Zwinglis im Kontrast zur Sprache Luthers. Berlin/New York 1977, p. 83 f. According to Walter Haas, however, it was less a question of making an incomprehensible Luther text comprehensible at all than of "taking away some of its foreignness and thus increasing its acceptance".Walter Haas: Etliche wörtly geenderet: Luthers Bibel und die Zürcher Bearbeitung. Heidelberg 2017, p. 176.
Collective work or "Zwingli Bible"? The Wittenberg translation of the Bible is known as the "Luther Bible". It was completed in 1534, three years after the Zurich Bible. The term "Luther Bible" ignores how much Philipp Melanchthon contributed to it with his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. However, Melanchthon and the other members of the Wittenberg translation team worked with Luther, who was, however, entitled to decide on all disputed points. In this respect, the Biblia Deudsch is indeed Luther's Bible.Traudel Himmighöfer: Die Zürcher Bibel bis zum Tode Zwinglis (1531). Mainz 1995, p. 428 f.
Zwingli did not claim to dominate the translation work in the same way as Luther. The focus was on collegiality. The Bible produced in Zurich was therefore not known as the "Zwingli Bible", but as the Zurich Bible or (after the printer) the Froschauer Bible. Researchers dispute the extent of Zwingli's contribution to this collaborative work.
Zurich "Prophecy" Following the example of the Collegium trilingue, which Erasmus had founded in Leuven, Zwingli had been planning an institution for the study of biblical languages since 1523. The canons' monastery at Grossmünster was not to be dissolved like the Fraumünster Abbey, but transformed into an educational institution. This took up its teaching activities on June 19, 1525. As Zwingli described the interpretation of the Bible as "prophecy" with reference to 1 Cor 14:29 ZB, the institution was given the name Prophezey.Jan-Andrea Bernhard: Die Prophezei (1525–1532) – Ort der Übersetzung und Bildung. Zürich 2019, p. 95–99. Initially in the Chor of the Grossmünster, later in St. Michael's Chapel and in winter in the Chorherrenstube, public Bible lessons were held daily (except Fridays and Sundays).
Wilfried Kettler emphasizes that the Zurich Bible of 1531 was a "joint work of the Prophezei", a "fruit" of the ongoing editing of the biblical books in this institution. He recognizes the work processes of the Prophezei in Zwingli's exegetical writings: first the translation of a Hebrew formulation into Latin, then a look at the Septuagint, and finally the theological discussion about it.Wilfried Kettler: Die Zürcher Bibel von 1531. Philologische Studien zu ihrer Übersetzungstechnik und den Beziehungen zu ihren Vorlagen. Bern u. a. 2001, p. 99, 112. Accordingly, all eight teachers who belonged to this circle for a long or short time were involved in the Zurich Bible of 1531 - apart from Zwingli and Jud, the early deceased Hebraist Jakob Ceporin, Konrad Pellikan, Kaspar Megander, Johann Jakob Ammann, Rudolf Collin and Oswald Myconius. It is only possible to attribute certain biblical writings to one of these persons in the case of the Apocrypha, which Leo Jud translated alone.Wilfried Kettler: Die Zürcher Bibel von 1531. Philologische Studien zu ihrer Übersetzungstechnik und den Beziehungen zu ihren Vorlagen. Bern u. a. 2001, p. 467. Vgl. Walter Schenker: Die Sprache Huldrych Zwinglis im Kontrast zur Sprache Luthers. Berlin/New York 1977, p. 27: «Redaktionskollektiv der Prophezei». Walter Schenker assumes that Zwingli gave "the general instructions" for the production of the Zurich Bible and that the exegetical implementation was a joint effort by the prophets and the printer for the regional lexeme alternatives to the Luther Bible.Walter Schenker: Die Sprache Huldrych Zwinglis im Kontrast zur Sprache Luthers. Berlin/New York 1977, p. 95.
Zwingli as a translator Traudel Himmighöfer estimates Zwingli's personal contribution to the Zurich Bible of 1531 to be very high. Zwingli owed much to the joint exegetical work in the Prophezei. However, he was "himself the translator and glossator of the first Zurich partial editions"; his translation decisions, based partly on philology and partly on theology, "remained decisive until the last Bible edition produced during his lifetime".Traudel Himmighöfer: Die Zürcher Bibel bis zum Tode Zwinglis (1531). Mainz 1995, p. 427. As he was ultimately responsible for the design of the work, the name "Zwingli Bible" was also justifiable.Traudel Himmighöfer: Die Zürcher Bibel bis zum Tode Zwinglis (1531). Mainz 1995, p. 428.
Himmighöfer points out that translation decisions and glosses correspond to Zwingli's exegetical writings. The books that Zwingli is known to have owned and used are also the working tools that were used for the Zurich Bibles up to 1531: above all the Novum Testamentum omne by Erasmus with its Latin translation and annotations (Annotationes), the Septuagint and Johannes Reuchlin's introduction to Hebrew (De rudimentis hebraicis).