Could Luther Be Convinced the Lord's Supper Was Just Bread and Wine?

Here's an interesting comparison of two English translations of a section from an open letter Luther wrote to the Christians at Strassburg (Dec. 1524). The letter was primarily about Luther ex-colleague Karlstadt and his radical theology. Note the difference in the second translation. Luther's words are far more revealing- in which Luther was tempted to think of the Sacrament as "but mere bread and wine."

Luther's Works vol. 40 states:

I confess that if Dr. Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service. At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them. I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy. There were two who then wrote me, with much more skill than Dr. Karlstadt has, and who did not torture the Word with their own preconceived notions. But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage. Even if someone in these days might try more persuasively to prove that only bread and wine are present, it would not be necessary that he attack me in bitter spirit—which I, unfortunately, am altogether inclined to do, if I assess the nature of the old Adam in me correctly. But the way Dr. Karlstadt carries on in this question affects me so little that my position is only fortified the more by him. [LW 40:68]

Now compare this translation to that to this done by Preserved Smith in Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary letters vol. 2:

I freely confess that if Carlstadt or any other could have convinced me five years ago that there was nothing in the sacrament but mere bread and wine, he would have done me a great service. I was sorely tempted on this point, and wrestled with myself and strove to believe that it was so, for I saw that I could thereby give the hardest rap to the papacy. I read treatises by two men who wrote more ably in defence of the theory than Dr. Carlstadt and who did not so torture the Word to their own imagination. But I am bound, I cannot believe as they do; the text is too powerful and will not let itself be wrenched from the plain sense by argument. But even if it could happen that today anyone should prove on reasonable grounds that the sacrament was mere bread and wine, he would not much anger me. (Alas, I am too much inclined that way myself when I feel the old Adam!) But Dr. Carlstadt's ranting only confirms me in the opposite belief.

Luther's Works 40 relies on WA 15, 391-397 for their translation. The translation was done by Conrad Bergendoff. The quote can be found on page 394.  Smith cites Enders v, 83; DeWette, ii, 574, German. As far as I can tell,  WA 15 and DeWette ii are the same German text.

The LW 40 version doesn't flow in a coherent way.  One odd thing I found was that if one compares the two translations up to the point in question, they compliment each other nicely.  They both say basically the same thing. Then, at the point in question comes two different sets of train tracks:


LW: I confess that if Dr. Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service.

Smith: I freely confess that if Carlstadt or any other could have convinced me five years ago that there was nothing in the sacrament but mere bread and wine, he would have done me a great service

LW: At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them.

Smith: I was sorely tempted on this point, and wrestled with myself and strove to believe that it was so

LW: I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy.

Smith: for I saw that I could thereby give the hardest rap to the papacy.

LW: There were two who then wrote me, with much more skill than Dr. Karlstadt has, and who did not torture the Word with their own preconceived notions.

Smith: I read treatises by two men who wrote more ably in defense of the theory than Dr. Carlstadt and who did not so torture the Word to their own imagination.

LW: But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage.

Smith: But I am bound, I cannot believe as they do; the text is too powerful and will not let Itself be wrenched from the plain sense by argument

LW: Even if someone in these days might try more persuasively to prove that only bread and wine are present, it would not be necessary that he attack me in bitter spirit—which I, unfortunately, am altogether inclined to do, if I assess the nature of the old Adam in me correctly.

Smith: But even if it could happen that today anyone should prove on reasonable grounds that the sacrament was mere bread and wine, he would not much anger me. (Alas, I am too much inclined that way myself when I feel the old Adam!)

LW: But the way Dr. Karlstadt carries on in this question affects me so little that my position is only fortified the more by him. 

Smith: But Carlstadt's ranting only confirms me in the opposite belief 

LW: If I had not previously been of this opinion, such loose, lame, empty talk, set forth on the basis of his own reason and idiosyncrasy without scriptural foundation, would lead me to believe first of all that his opinions amount to nothing. 

Smith: if I had no opinion on the subject to start with, his light, unstable buffoonery, without any appeal to Scripture, would give my reason a prejudice against whatever he urged.


I'm not into conspiracies, but, Smith's translation makes a lot more sense. Obviously, Luther consistently held that the sacrament was the body and blood of Christ, so no, Luther could not be convinced otherwise. I do find it interesting that if Smith's translation is more accurate, this would be one of the first significant examples I've found that a translator of LW took liberties with a text to downplay what it was actually saying.


Addendum
For an interesting look  at the significance of the life and work of Conrad  Bergendoff, see this long pdf file that reminisces over his long career. A short bio page mentions he "was above all an ecumenicist." Now, I don't know his opinion on Rome, but I did find this other omission interesting- that he left out "Antichrist" which is clearly in the German text, and it's not too far of a stretch that Luther meant the papacy:

Smith: Dearest brethren, I greatly rejoice and thank God the Father of all mercy for His rich grace in calling you to His wonderful light and to the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ For now through His wholesome Word you know Him and joyously call Him Father Who has freed us from the horrible darkness of the Antichrist and from the iron furnace of Egyptian sin and death and has led us into a large, safe, free, good and promised land.

LW 40(Bergendoff):Dear sirs and brethren. I greatly rejoice and thank God the Father of mercy for the riches of his grace bestowed upon you, in that he has called you into his wonderful light and let you come into the participation of all the treasures of his Son, Jesus Christ. Now through his salutary Word you can recognize and acknowledge with joyful hearts the true Father, who has redeemed us from the iron furnace of Egyptian sin and death and brought us into the broad, secure, free and veritable Promised Land.