Deuterocanonicals

[JonNC]

I know it wasn’t Luther that removed them…just repositioned them… I know if you look around you can still find KJV’s with the “apocrypha” included…does the Lutheran church use a version including them?

In Germany they do - they still use Luther’s, as I understand it. American Lutherans have, sadly, used typical protestant Bibles. Some Lutheran lectionaries have verses as an option from the D-C’s, and my understanding is the LCMS is putting out a DC addition to their ESV study Bible.

Jon

 

[u202594]

Thx for the info Jon…much appreciated

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Luther removed the so-called deuterocanonical books from their rightful place among the Scriptures but left them in his German translation of the Bible in an appendix at the end of the OT with the pages unnumbered, marked Apocrypha. The title page of this appendix is prefaced, “Apocrypha – that is, books that are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” (Source: Michuta, see below)

IOW, Luther removed the deuteros from the canon, but left them in his Bible with a disclaimer lest anyone mistake them for “Scripture.” [He treated Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in the NT the same way, placing them at the end of the NT with prefaces explaining why they were not Scripture. But that’s a subject for another thread.]

The KJV followed Luther’s strategy and included the deuteros in an appendix.

–quote–
In 1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society adopted a resolution that no aid – financial or otherwise – would be given to any Bible society that produced Bibles containing the “Apocrypha.” F.F. Bruce wrote: *“When the British and Foreign Bible Society began to distribute exclusively editions lacking the Apocrypha, the Bible-buying public seemed quite content with such editions. That being so, other Bible publishers saw no reason why they should continue producing Bibles with the Apocrypha.”*Bruce, Bible

. . .]

The Lutheran authorities decided they they could have no part in such a movement [BFBS’s policy], and refused to countenance the issuing of mutilated bibles or to depart from Luther’s example in such a critical matter,and they have since remained staunch to that decision. Horworth, *The /Bible Canon Among the Late Reformers *

The American Bible Society was more than willing to adopt the British and Foreign Bible Society’s decision on the deuterocanon.

–end quote-- From Why Catholic Bible Are Bigger, the Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible, Gary G. Michuta, Grotto Press, Port Huron, Michigan, p. 254, 300, 301

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, not only the deuterocanonicals, but all of Scriptural canon is established by the community of believers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit i.e. the Church.

It was so with the Old Testament, and it is so with the New Testament.

There is no indication anywhere in the NT about which books are canonical scripture.

This means that to accept the 27 books of the NT as scripture means that we accept the judgement of the Church that canonized those books.

We further accept the judgement of the Church against Martin Luther when we accept the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation as Scripture, both of which were expunged from the NT canon by Luther (the former for its emphasis on works and the latter because he didn’t understand it . . .).

I don’t mind being a fundamentalist.

I do mind being a fundamentalist on fundamentals that just aren’t there.

Alex

 

[JonNC]

Well, not only the deuterocanonicals, but all of Scriptural canon is established by the community of believers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit i.e. the Church.

It was so with the Old Testament, and it is so with the New Testament.

There is no indication anywhere in the NT about which books are canonical scripture.

This means that to accept the 27 books of the NT as scripture means that we accept the judgement of the Church that canonized those books.

We further accept the judgement of the Church against Martin Luther when we accept the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation as Scripture, both of which were expunged from the NT canon by Luther (the former for its emphasis on works and the latter because he didn’t understand it . . .).

I don’t mind being a fundamentalist.

I do mind being a fundamentalist on fundamentals that just aren’t there.

Alex

Alex,
You are welcome to your contention that Luther “expunged” James and Revelation, but it is not a fact. Like many before him, Luther questioned the authorship of James, not as you claim because of its emphasis on works. Luther preached from both into his later years.
**“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God." **

Both quotes are by Luther. The second doesn’t sound like someone upset with an emphasis on good works.

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

LUTHER ON JAMES

I will not have him [James] in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases. (“Preface to James,” 1522 edition, Works of Martin Luther, Volume VI, p. 477-9) .

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.
(Weimar, “Tischreden “(5) p. 5854)

Edit to remove link, which no longer works.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

LUTHER ON JAMES

Here’s a link that works:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/09/luthers-outrageous-assertions-about.html

Jim Dandy

 

[JonNC]

LUTHER ON JAMES

I will not have him [James] in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases. (“Preface to James,” 1522 edition, Works of Martin Luther, Volume VI, p. 477-9) .

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.
(Weimar, “Tischreden “(5) p. 5854)

Edit to remove link, which no longer works.

Jim Dandy

Hi Jim,
Count Eusebius as a forerunner of Luther on James:

"**Among the disputed writings, των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.των αντιλεγομένων]"

And in the same way, Lutherans have always maintained the book as canon. Luther practiced that which scholars through the centuries did, with the approval of the Church prior to Trent, in disputing the authorship of James. Does Luther’s first preface of James stand as the standard for determining the canonicity of James? No. No more than Eusebius opinion of these books being antilegomena, or Jerome’s similar questioning.
The determination of the Church Catholic, including Lutherans, is that James is part of the canon, disputed or not.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.
(Weimar, “Tischreden “(5) p. 5854)

To put the above quote in perspective:

*“That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for **the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. *Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.”

Luther’s point is that he believes that Rome interprets James 2 outside of the balance of scripture, and he implies that they have “made rubble” of it first. And afterall, he says he almost feels like tossing it in the fire. His biggest problem is what he believes is the misinterpretation of James (turning it into works righteousness), not what it actually says in light of what Paul says. And I would add further that in modern days, we see a growing convergence (not complete) between Lutherans and Rome on the issue.

Jon