Catholic Bible vs King James and others

[Teflon93]

I have a problem with this. I did not think it would be so difficult to find out why Luther removed books and changed words. If it was so clear, at least clear enough to convince people that the Catholic Bible is no good, then one would think that Luther’s intentions were strong and clear- and his motives- if honest- would be clear as well. If you are going to believe Luther was correct, then I would think, with your eternal salvation at risk, that a person could give a clear analysis to prove that Luther was correct.How can someone be so determined that a Bible should not have the deuterocanicals if they do not know the full reason Luther rejected them?

Luther was well known for constant inconstancy. He changed his mind a lot, on a lot of things, and given his voluminous writings, it takes quite a bit of work to untangle Luther’s views on a number of things.

So “I don’t know” is likely the ONLY right answer to the question of why Luther rejected these books.

 

[Teflon93]

EPISTLE OF STRAW

I don’t know where I found this but it pertains to the “Epistle of Straw” issue.

---

4: Martin Luther Called The Book Of James “An Epistle Of Straw”

The most frequent charge against Luther’s view on the canon is his opinion on the book of James.[39] Luther wrote this statement in his original Preface To The New Testament in 1522:

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”[40]

Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” compared to “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.

An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick Montgomery points out: “Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.”[41] Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.”[42] For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.[43]

1. I prefer the “right strawy Epistle” translation; doesn’t that just SOUND like Martin Luther? Your mileage may vary.
2. It’s not doing Luther an injustice to quote him. While he may have retracted the comment, that’s a bit different than repudiating it, right? Given how much Luther wrote, one could assume with justification that the redaction was simply a sign of rare prudence on Luther’s part rather than a change of heart.
3. We’re not criticizing Luther for calling James “a right strawy Epistle” but calling attention to the fact that when Scripture conflicts with Luther’s opinion, he goes with his opinion, not Scripture. I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial opinion among Luther scholars (as opposed to Luther fans), but I may be wrong.

 

[Teflon93]

For all of you who think the earlier councils established the canon once and for all, I have a question.

When the Tridentine fathers met at Trent, they voted on what to accept and what to reject from the canon.

If the issue of the canon was already settled some 1,000 years previously, why did they have a vote?

We find at the council some of the Tridentine fathers rejecting the detuero’s. What gives?

Once again, with feeling:

Catholic doctrine is only DEFINED when VIOLATED.

The canon was discussed at Trent because various people were butchering the Bible. Thus they sought to make it very, very clear what the Bible was.

 

[Calvinator]

Once again, with feeling:

Catholic doctrine is only DEFINED when VIOLATED.

The canon was discussed at Trent because various people were butchering the Bible. Thus they sought to make it very, very clear what the Bible was.

Teflon,

The only reason I bring this up is that the canon was not settled before Trent, at least not dogmatically. From your above post I’m not sure if you agree or disagree w/ that.

If Trent’s only purpose was to make the canon clear, why did they need to vote on which books were inspired with some of the Tridentine fathers voting in the negative? Also, from say 400 ad to Trent we find faithful Catholics, from Pope Gregory to Cardinals Bellarmine and Ximines at the time of the reformation rejecting at least some of the deutero’s.

Again, my only point is that the canon was not settled before Trent for the Catholic Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

Maybe you are aware, or maybe you are not, but quite a few Catholics on this board seem to think the earlier councils were binding for the whole church and that the issue was settled at that time, which it wasn’t.

Not so. The earlier councils were not challenged which is how the Church actually functions. Until guys like Luther et al came along there was no need to affirm it, which is in fact what Trent did. If you knew how the Church historically functions you would never fall for the position you have taken.

From the earliest days in the church to Pope Gregory the Great to Cardinal Bellarmine at the reformation we find Catholics who reject the deutero’s either in part or in whole. Certainly “some” did in fact accept the the deutero’s that later became part of the canon of Trent but certainly not all.

Documentation please, with context?

Trent had a vote to establish the canon. If Trent only wished to re-affirm or re-establish what was already universally accepted, it would make no sense to have a vote and certainly it would make no sense for some of the Tridentine fathers to reject the books that were already universally accepted.

From Gary Michuta’s website (Catholic apologist for those who don’t know him)
From these we see that the bishops at Trent were not silent about their silence on this question. They had a discussion about it. At the end of that discussion, they took a vote. This is a matter of record, not of interpretation. On March 29, 1546 the Council Fathers took up the fourth of fourteen questions (Capita Dubitationum) on Scripture and Tradition. At issue was whether those books that were not included in the official list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection

. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Michuta is correct of course…and again I point out that this exact “passing over in silence” is precisely what I meant. Since they could not indict the historical and traditional consular positions, they simply accepted it, which is exactly what they should have done.

The context of the above quote is the discussion Gary and James White had on Trent passing over in silence one of the books that was included in the two earlier councils canons. Now, it’s a fact that three fathers rejected these books explicitly and 42 voted to pass over the book in question in silence.

Yet the overarching relevance is that in dealing with this as they did, they proved the 3 dissenters wrong and affirmed that the earlier councils were correct. In making the decree, Trent dogmatically affirmed what the majority of Catholic biblical scholars have held concerning the canon all along.

I only bring up the fact that Trent voted on the books to accept or reject them in order to demonstrate that:

The issue of the deutero’s wasn’t closed for the RCC until Trent. The earlier councils were apparently

not binding upon the whole church.Only apparent to someone with an agenda to try to hold a modern oppositional position. Not apparent at all to me.

If someone wants to argue that the earlier councils settled the matter they need to explain:
a.) Why did Trent need to vote at all on the books to accept or reject if the matter was already settled?

b.) Even if you explain away the vote, how do you explain the rejection of the books by some of the fathers at Trent?

Already dealt with…

Now, I have no doubt that someone will take what I have said out of context so let me say again, I have only mentioned this to show that the issue of canonocity for the deutero’s wasn’t settled until Trent.

And again…it can be pointed out that that is not true though some n-Cs may well wish it was.

BTW, I quoted the above section from Gary’s website so that no one would worry about me bringing in a biased text.

Appreciated.

 

[Church_Militant]

You know, I have no idea why you brought Luther up.

Luther wasn’t the first to use “alone” when discussing Romans 3:28, in fact I believe Cardinal Bellarmine listed 8 fathers that do so as well and yes I’ll try to provide that reference later.

Secondly, if I typed anything at all similar to ***“He may a “pillar of the reformation” to n-Cs, but to me, he was just another agenda driven rebel with an attitude who led a lot of people astray.” ***

but changed enough of the words so that the above was about a pope, what would you think, or maybe more importantly, how would you react?

It seems you and I had a similar issue before and resolved it, so why post something inflamatory like the above?

Your posts are more than good enough so you definitely don’t have to resort to this.It’s not meant to be inflammatory but to point out the poor scholarship and agenda of Luther in his German translation, especially since he seems to be held in such high esteem by so many. I am not one of them, nor do I find the KJV all that interesting. Luckily, Luther had nothing to do with the KJV.

IMO any translation which botches the text of the Our Father by errantly adding a doxology not found in the earliest and best manuscripts, and actually taken from an early non-canonical cetechetical document (i.e. The Didache) is flawed.

 

[EphelDuath]

I don’t believe that Jamnia settled the canon for the Jews. Why do you think Jamnia settled the canon for the Jews?

Because the Septuagint started to disappear in Jewish communities after Jamnia?

I don’t remember these quotes. Could you post them for me?

From Scripture Catholic:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

The septuagint contained books that neither one of us accept as canonical, books such as 3 and 4 Maccabees as well as others.

Different territories had different versions of the Septuagint. The apostles were using an edition that did not contain those books, but clearly contained the deuterocanon.

 

[EphelDuath]

From the earliest days in the church to Pope Gregory the Great to Cardinal Bellarmine at the reformation we find Catholics who reject the deutero’s either in part or in whole. Certainly “some” did in fact accept the the deutero’s that later became part of the canon of Trent but certainly not all.

This is misleading. Many Fathers questioned the authenticity of the contested books, but none outright rejected them. An example is St. Jerome who did not want the deuterocanon. In the end, he sided with the Church and put the books into the Vulgate.

Trent had a vote to establish the canon. If Trent only wished to re-affirm or re-establish what was already universally accepted, it would make no sense to have a vote and certainly it would make no sense for some of the Tridentine fathers to reject the books that were already universally accepted.

You’ve clearly never read any documents about Trent. They were discussing every issue the Protestant reformers had brought up: indulgences, the deuterocanon, justification, baptism, etc. They voted on ALL of these things, and each time, decided to follow the Church’s past rulings. They voted to affirm their condemnation of heretical beliefs.

b.) Even if you explain away the vote, how do you explain the rejection of the books by some of the fathers at Trent?

Some Fathers have backwards opinions. You’ll find bishops supporting Arius in Nicaea, though the Church as a whole already knew that Arianism was false. The council’s vote was just a final proclamation that anybody holding this opinion would then be committing heresy.

Now answer me this. The Vulgate was the official Bible of the Church, proclaimed infallibly as errorless in terms of morals. It clearly contained the deuterocanon as many Fathers quoted the contested books from Jerome’s translation. How can you possibly argue that the deuterocanon was not officially accepted?

Fathers speaking of throwing out the books were conjecture.

 

[Calvinator]

This is misleading. Many Fathers questioned the authenticity of the contested books, but none outright rejected them. An example is St. Jerome who did not want the deuterocanon. In the end, he sided with the Church and put the books into the Vulgate.

You said “none” outright rejected the apocrypha.
"Bede:

134 Each of them has six wings. They raise the Church to the heights by the perfection of their teaching. For the number six is called perfect for this reason, that it is the first number completed by its own parts. Indeed one, which is a sixth part of six, and two which is a third, and three, which is half, make up six itself. In another way, six wings of four animals, **which makes twenty-four, suggest the books of the entire Old Testament, by which the authority of the evangelists is supported and their truth is proven **(The Venerable Bede, Commentary on Revelation. PL 93:144).

What say you? Your OT has more than 24 books doesn’t it? Bede must disagree with you.

Remember you said “none” and even “one” is sufficient to rebut your claim.

You’ve clearly never read any documents about Trent. They were discussing every issue the Protestant reformers had brought up: indulgences, the deuterocanon, justification, baptism, etc. They voted on ALL of these things, and each time, decided to follow the Church’s past rulings. They voted to affirm their condemnation of heretical beliefs.

If the books of the OT were settled before or right after 400 AD, why would they vote on the books and not just list them again?

If the issue of canon was already dogmaticly settled, why the dissent?

Obviously, the issue of canon wasn’t settled until Trent. Metzger lists the final vote tally at Trent to include the apocrypha as (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain). (B. M. Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, 1997, op cit., p. 246.)

Why so many dissenters if this issue was already settled and why even vote if it were already settled for the whole church?

BTW, I have read the Tridentine canons.

Some Fathers have backwards opinions. You’ll find bishops supporting Arius in Nicaea, though the Church as a whole already knew that Arianism was false. The council’s vote was just a final proclamation that anybody holding this opinion would then be committing heresy.

Yes, a lot of fathers have backwards opinions. The councils vote dogmatically established the canon for the RCC and mistakenly included the apocrypha. If you will look at the history you will find fathers and theologians who rejected the apocrypha.

Now answer me this. The Vulgate was the official Bible of the Church, proclaimed infallibly as errorless in terms of morals. It clearly contained the deuterocanon as many Fathers quoted the contested books from Jerome’s translation. How can you possibly argue that the deuterocanon was not officially accepted?

When was the vulgate proclaimed infallibly as being errorless?

I maintain the council of Trent was the first dogmatic delcaration of the canon. Even newadvent.org understand this and they are certainly a very catholic site.

 

[clmowry]

The apostles were using an edition that did not contain those books, but clearly contained the deuterocanon.

How could we possibly know this for sure one way or the other?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
*134 Each of them has six wings. They raise the Church to the heights by the perfection of their teaching. For the number six is called perfect for this reason, that it is the first number completed by its own parts. Indeed one, which is a sixth part of six, and two which is a third, and three, which is half, make up six itself. In another way, six wings of four animals, **which makes twenty-four, suggest the books of the entire Old Testament, by which the authority of the evangelists is supported and their truth is proven ***(The Venerable Bede, Commentary on Revelation. PL 93:144).

What say you? Your OT has more than 24 books doesn’t it? Bede must disagree with you.

I’m glad you know what this means cause I don’t have a clue what he’s saying here.

Does he perhaps actually list the “24” books elsewhere?

i.e. Was the Pentateuch one book or 5?

Chuck

PS This gets my vote for the most cryptic church father quote hall of fame.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m glad you know what this means cause I don’t have a clue what he’s saying here.

Does he perhaps actually list the “24” books elsewhere?

i.e. Was the Pentateuch one book or 5?

Chuck

PS This gets my vote for the most cryptic church father quote hall of fame.Looks a lot like a straw grasped in desperation to me…

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon,

The only reason I bring this up is that the canon was not settled before Trent, at least not dogmatically. From your above post I’m not sure if you agree or disagree w/ that.

If Trent’s only purpose was to make the canon clear, why did they need to vote on which books were inspired with some of the Tridentine fathers voting in the negative? Also, from say 400 ad to Trent we find faithful Catholics, from Pope Gregory to Cardinals Bellarmine and Ximines at the time of the reformation rejecting at least some of the deutero’s.

Again, my only point is that the canon was not settled before Trent for the Catholic Church.

Yes, I disagree in that the canon pre-Trent and post-Trent was the same 73 books.

And yes, various people at various times rejected various books all on their own.

Just as various people at various times rejected various doctrines all on their own.

Since they had no authority, and since what they rejected was not dogma, they could believe as they liked.

This is what infuriates so many Catholics about the Church; she moves very slowly to dogmatically define anything, and usually then only when there is significant risk of schism otherwise.

However, this is the only way to achieve true unity.

This is why so many of us repeat the fact that Catholic doctrine is not defined until violated—it’s simply how the Church works. One can see this already in Paul’s letters, say when he needed to correct his brothers regarding imposing circumcision. It wasn’t until this became a significant barrier to the Gentile community coming to the faith that the Church felt she needed to correct the situation by emphasizing circumcision was NOT a requirement. Despite this, Paul had Timothy circumcised out of concern for the feelings of Jewish Christians.

We are ever trying to point out that the simple fact that Trent occurred after the Reformation required a response to the unique heresies of the Reformation; this is not to imply that the Church invented a bunch of new doctrines at Trent.

 

[Teflon93]

Here’s a good reference on the ECFs quoting the deuterocanonicals.

 

[SyCarl]

Here are a series of articles showing the disagreement about the Apocrypha.

christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

 

[EphelDuath]

What say you? Your OT has more than 24 books doesn’t it? Bede must disagree with you.

The Protestant Bible and Hebrew Bible has more than 24 books, too. I believe you’re misunderstanding Bede in this instance. Would you show me the context of this paragraph?

Just by a raw guess, I would say that he’s referring to the Jewish view of the Hebrew Bible, post-Jamnia, and not the Old Testament canon.

If the books of the OT were settled before or right after 400 AD, why would they vote on the books and not just list them again?

They voted on every issue the Protestants raised. Possibly, it was not decided whether or not that while the canon was already decided, it was not infallibly affirmed by the Church.

Obviously, the issue of canon wasn’t settled until Trent.

OK, you can keep believing that, even though the Didache, epistles of Barnabas, Irenaeus and Polycarp all quote the deuterocanon before the canon was settled, and people continued to quote the deuterocanon after the Council of Carthage, such as Jerome, John Chrysostom, Pope Leo I, John Damascene and the Second Council of Niceae in 787 AD.

When was the vulgate proclaimed infallibly as being errorless?

Pope Gregory affirmed it, though I can’t think of the date off the top of my head.

I maintain the council of Trent was the first dogmatic delcaration of the canon.

Perhaps the first infallible declaration, though that doesn’t mean the canon wasn’t decided until then, or that every Christian wasn’t using the deuterocanon until then.

 

[Ruffian1964]

I don’t really care if you have a problem with my response, it is my honest, non-ambiguous reply to your request. If it’s not good enough for you, well…too bad…
Luther may have rejected the apocrypha/deutero’s for reasons that I may or may not share. I do not believe Luther, JPII, Pope BXVI (I think he is the 16th) or anyone else is infallible so although it may be interesting to know the details of what Luther thought, I don’t find it very important. Quite a bit of ink has been spilled on the subject so being intimately familiar with Luther’s reasons isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things.

First- You say you don’t care. Funny, I would think someone on a message board would care about getting a point across. I though you might be able to give a better explanation on why Luther removed the books he did. Then again, I thought anyone here could answer that- apparently the sarcastic answers of why he did it must have more truth to them that I first thought since no one else can give me an answer that makes Luther look good. Fret not Calvinator,you have company, I have asked other nonCatholics why Luther removed books and changed words, and they haven’t been able to answer either. So this isn’t a personal thing on you- I’m just frustrated that I can not get an answer.

Second- You don’t find it important that no one is infallible (which you are mistaken on- based on what CHRIST Himself told us). Well then why even bother to waste your time reading the Book?
Without the infallible keeper of the word, then all the Bible is, is a book- just any other, and to waste one’s time discussing it at such great length seems to be an incredible waste of time and energy. I’m sure I do not sound as smart and knowledge as most here on this list. I am just a mom with children, working part time as a cashier. But I do have a desire to learn, and I have enough Faith to know that Christ had to have established an infallible keeper of the Truth.

 

[Calvinator]

First- You say you don’t care. Funny, I would think someone on a message board would care about getting a point across. I though you might be able to give a better explanation on why Luther removed the books he did. Then again, I thought anyone here could answer that- apparently the sarcastic answers of why he did it must have more truth to them that I first thought since no one else can give me an answer that makes Luther look good. Fret not Calvinator,you have company, I have asked other nonCatholics why Luther removed books and changed words, and they haven’t been able to answer either. So this isn’t a personal thing on you- I’m just frustrated that I can not get an answer.

Second- You don’t find it important that no one is infallible (which you are mistaken on- based on what CHRIST Himself told us). Well then why even bother to waste your time reading the Book?
Without the infallible keeper of the word, then all the Bible is, is a book- just any other, and to waste one’s time discussing it at such great length seems to be an incredible waste of time and energy. I’m sure I do not sound as smart and knowledge as most here on this list. I am just a mom with children, working part time as a cashier. But I do have a desire to learn, and I have enough Faith to know that Christ had to have established an infallible keeper of the Truth.

You asked a question. I responded I didn’t know. You then said you had a problem with that.

If I don’t know, I don’t know.

If you would like to read about the non-Catholic side of this issue you can go to:
www.beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com

• has articles on this exact issue

 

[Calvinator]

Looks a lot like a straw grasped in desperation to me…

Maybe you should try reading church history that isn’t sanitized by catholic bias.

Now, do you really believe that everyone before Luther accepted the apocrypha? If you don’t believe that, you should have no problem accepting the quote from Bede or even if you rejected the evidence offered you would clearly know others rejected the apocrypha as well. If you really believe everyone accepted the apocrypha, than I suggest you do a litle digging.

BTW, if you had either read Michuta’s book or listened to his debate with James White you would understand that references to either 22 or 24 books exclude the apocrypha.

So, here it is again.

a.) Trent was the first time the canon was dogmatically declared.

b.) Before this, one could accept or reject the apocrypha as the canon had not been declared.

c.) There was no consensus on the canonocity of the apocrypha in the western church and I believe the majority of theologians rejected the apocrypha. Even as late as the reformation we find Cardinals Bellarmine and Ximenes rejecting the apocrypha or at least part of it. I doubt folks such as Pope Gregory the Great or the two cardinals mentioned above would reject a dogmatic declaration of the church. But, the fact is, there was no such declaration. The Catholic Encyclopedia even admits this much.

d.) At Trent there was a vote to determine which books were and which books were not canonical. If the issue of the canon had truly been settled earlier, and we all know it hadn’t, there would be no reason for a vote and certainly no reason for any of the Tridentine fathers to vote in the negative. If the issue had been truly settled in the 4th or 5th century, Trent would have just re-iterated the list but that is not what they did. They voted with some of the fathers voting in the negative.

I do not believe anything I have stated in a, b, c, or d to be false or even very hard to verify other than perhaps the statement about the majority of theologians rejecting the apocrypha.

It appears that Teflon agrees that Trent was the first dogmatic declaration of the canon and that Catholics were free to reject the apocrypha up until the Tridentine decrees on canon. So, Teflon and I agree. Anyone else?

 

[Calvinator]

22 BOOKS OR 24 BOOKS…either way, the number supports the Protestant OT canon.

From …catholicfaithandreason.org/OTcanon.htm

The Massoretic Text (MT) of the Old Testament or Hebrew version were maintained assiduously by the so-called Massoretes, who transmitted them faithfully and with great consistency. But the anti-Christian Jews at Jamnia were said to have collected only 22 to 24 books in Hebrew. The so called Palestinian canon or the MT, which contained 39 books, was not fixed until about 300 A.D. (“The Council That Wasn’t,” by Steven Ray, This Rock, Sept’04) This is the canon Luther adopted and Protestants generally accept today…

I can give other references but wanted to go to a Catholic site for this.