Language and Format

The proper understanding of the language and format of Tetzel’s pamphlet are crucial for assessing its significance. In robust and formulaic language the Rebuttal offers a preview of the intellectual and linguistic sparring that would become the norm in the polemical fireworks to follow. While both Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses and Tetzel’s response to them (106 Theses) were composed in Latin, following the established practice for theological and academic exchange, Luther wrote his response to Tetzel’s 106 Theses (Eyn Sermon vom Ablass und Gnade) in vernacular German.

When Tetzel responded to Luther (Vorlegung wider einen vermessenen Sermon), he also resorted to the vernacular, answering Luther’s twenty “articles” or theses by first quoting each of them verbatim. Thus, within this one volume, the two antagonists are locked in a fateful struggle, inextricably linked by their common German tongue. The exchange of ideas articulated here would have momentous results, not the least of which was the unleashing of the German language as an effective weapon for Luther and many of the antagonists of the Reformation era. After 1518 the vernacular reigns, and for the German language, the foremost molder of that language is Martin Luther.^{Citation: 3This has been demonstrated particularly in the analysis of pamphlets from the early Reformation era. Mark U. Edwards, Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), p. 21.}

Translation of the title of Tetzel’s pamphlet proved problematic. Vorlegung (the noun of the verb vorlegen) in contemporary New High German (NHG) denotes “presentation,” as of a document or of a proposed topic for discussion. However, in Early NHG it could denote “contradiction” (widerlegen = to contradict). Tetzel’s usage of this word contains elements of both meanings. He quite judiciously sets forth the standard Roman Catholic teaching of his day on penance and indulgences (although he goes too far on some points, claiming as doctrinal truth matters open to theological and academic debate).^{Citation: 4Nikolaus Paulus, Johann Tetzel, der Ablassprediger (Mainz: Kirchheim, 1899), p. 52. Paulus’ biography covers the whole of Tetzel’s life and provides detailed explanation of his teaching on indulgences. Paulus’ work offered the first reevaluation of the man based on solid scholarship, and it has provided the foundation for all subsequent serious studies. His discussion of Tetzel’s interaction with Luther is found on pp. 45–67 and 80–83.} In this sense, his work is a “presentation.”

Nevertheless, Tetzel is presenting his case “against” an opponent’s “presumptuous” ideas, and so he and Luther might be heard here as debate opponents, both of whom maintain a somewhat moderate rhetorical level during much of their exchange. Near the end, however, the rhetoric intensifies and concludes with barbed ad hominem accusations from both sides.

Thus, even though both connotations of Vorlegung are present, this translation uses “rebuttal” as a more appropriate expression of the tenor of the piece and of the attitudes of the author (indeed of both its authors). The reader should bear in mind, however, that the debate is very much Tetzel’s presentation of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the time.