During The Refomation

[Bill_Pick]

During the Reformation, did the Protestants “re-evaluate” all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity?

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

During the Reformation, did the Protestants “re-evaluate” all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity?

As far as “reforming” the Bible, I do know that the Protestants took out around seven books from the Catholic edition.

That’s about all I know on that, unfortunately.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[NDfan]

During the Reformation, did the Protestants “re-evaluate” all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity?

No there was no need to. They agreed that the NT canon was set properly per se. They disagreed with the OT canon and held to the same list as the Jews. Josephus stated that all Jews agreed the canon was closed around 400BC.

 

[emarc]

During the Reformation, did the Protestants “re-evaluate” all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity?

martin luther was a catholic monk and was faithful to the church’s teachings and accepted the Catholic Bible as canonical, until he became disillutioned about his own salvation and found “peace” w/ his sola fide and sola scriptura doctrines. the Church excommunicated him after he refused to recant, then founded the protestantism. they replaced the Church’s OT w/ what the jews used where the deutero-canonical books called by them apocrypha (hidden) were excluded from the jews version for reason they were too Christian. this is why protestants’ bible don’t have the 7 deutero-can books, though the earlier versions of KJ included them at the back of the book. the epistle of James and the book of revelation were almost thrown out by ML if not for cooler heads who prevailed.
God bless.

 

[GKC]

martin luther was a catholic monk and was faithful to the church’s teachings and accepted the Catholic Bible as canonical, until he became disillutioned about his own salvation and found “peace” w/ his sola fide and sola scriptura doctrines. the Church excommunicated him after he refused to recant, then founded the protestantism. they replaced the Church’s OT w/ what the jews used where the deutero-canonical books called by them apocrypha (hidden) were excluded from the jews version for reason they were too Christian. this is why protestants’ bible don’t have the 7 deutero-can books, though the earlier versions of KJ included them at the back of the book. the epistle of James and the book of revelation were almost thrown out by ML if not for cooler heads who prevailed.
God bless.

In the KJV (the Authorized Version), the deuterocanonicals originally were put between the Testaments.

GKC

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

In the KJV (the Authorized Version), the deuterocanonicals originally were put between the Testaments.

GKC

What is the current Anglican position on the deuterocanonicals?

thanks

 

[Steadfast]

Luther’s translation of the Bible also contained the Old Testament Deutero-Canonicals as well as the complete New Testament.

As for the NT apocrypha, the canonicity of these books was never in question for the Reformers.

The canonicity of the Deuteros, however was. It was also in question for a number of good Catholic scholars at the time, including the foremost Catholic biblical scholar of the day, Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros who notes his opinion that the Deuteros are given only for edification and do not have the same authoritative weight as the rest of the Canon in a prologue to the Complutensian Polyglot (III.b).

At Trent, the Catholic Church resolved this issue finally and irrevocably.

 

[GKC]

What is the current Anglican position on the deuterocanonicals?

thanks

Depends on which ones you ask. Generally they are included in the annual lectionary. I get them regularly.

GKC

 

[NDfan]

Luther’s translation of the Bible also contained the Old Testament Deutero-Canonicals as well as the complete New Testament.

As for the NT apocrypha, the canonicity of these books was never in question for the Reformers.

The canonicity of the Deuteros, however was. It was also in question for a number of good Catholic scholars at the time, including the foremost Catholic biblical scholar of the day, Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros who notes his opinion that the Deuteros are given only for edification and do not have the same authoritative weight as the rest of the Canon in a prologue to the Complutensian Polyglot (III.b).

At Trent, the Catholic Church resolved this issue finally and irrevocably.

Good point on Cisneros. Also Jerome held to the same view as did some early popes.

 

[LutheranDK]

Luther’s translation of the Bible also contained the Old Testament Deutero-Canonicals as well as the complete New Testament.

As for the NT apocrypha, the canonicity of these books was never in question for the Reformers.

The canonicity of the Deuteros, however was. It was also in question for a number of good Catholic scholars at the time, including the foremost Catholic biblical scholar of the day, Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros who notes his opinion that the Deuteros are given only for edification and do not have the same authoritative weight as the rest of the Canon in a prologue to the Complutensian Polyglot (III.b).

At Trent, the Catholic Church resolved this issue finally and irrevocably.

It’s not often that I see such a balanced reply from an RC.
Thank you - you just increased my faith that there ARE charitable people on this forum

 

[GKC]

It’s not often that I see such a balanced reply from an RC.
Thank you - you just increased my faith that there ARE charitable people on this forum

I know several.

GKC

 

[manualman]

It’s an interesting question that strikes at the heart of the protestant ethos.

I’ve never seen ANY evidence (disclaimer: I’m not a scholar) that they reopened the case into previously discounted books to see if they were inspired. The only revisions they seemed interested in were to exclude certain texts.

One wonders why the authority of the Church would be adequate for the exclusion of certain books, but not for the INclusion of others.

From what I’ve read, it seems pretty clear that Luther suffered rather severe scrupulosity and instead of getting spiritual direction to alleviate it, he instead invented Sola Fide as a device to make his scrupulosity irrelevant. Sola Scriptura came later once he began to run into resistance to SF from the Church.

 

[NDfan]

It’s an interesting question that strikes at the heart of the protestant ethos.

I’ve never seen ANY evidence (disclaimer: I’m not a scholar) that they reopened the case into previously discounted books to see if they were inspired. The only revisions they seemed interested in were to exclude certain texts.

One wonders why the authority of the Church would be adequate for the exclusion of certain books, but not for the INclusion of others.

From what I’ve read, it seems pretty clear that Luther suffered rather severe scrupulosity and instead of getting spiritual direction to alleviate it, he instead invented Sola Fide as a device to make his scrupulosity irrelevant. Sola Scriptura came later once he began to run into resistance to SF from the Church.

It’s amazing how a simple question about the reformers always leads to someone taking cheap shots at Martin Luther. As if Martin Luther was single-handedly responsible for the reformation. You need a little history lesson here.

 

[manualman]

A spark cannot propell a 2,000# 16" shell 20 miles and create a massive explosion at the far end. A spark, IS, however what ignites the cordite that pushes the shell out of the gun at such enormous speed.

Of course Luther didn’t create the Reformation by himself. The situation in the late 15th century was a massive loaded gun. But he WAS the spark. And that IS significant. Luther’s theories had a gigantic effect on the theology of those who split off from Rome that continues to this day. Of course there were others: Calvin, Zwinglee (sp??), etc. And it all may have been squashed like so many before if not for the Islamic invasion on the other side of Christendom.

And I still don’t believe it is a cheap shot to say that Luther suffered scrupulosity. If you are familiar with the problem, his writings and behavior practically SCREAM it.

Try “How the Reformation Happened” by Hillaire Belloc. Excellent reading.

 

[NDfan]

A spark cannot propell a 2,000# 16" shell 20 miles and create a massive explosion at the far end. A spark, IS, however what ignites the cordite that pushes the shell out of the gun at such enormous speed.

Of course Luther didn’t create the Reformation by himself. The situation in the late 15th century was a massive loaded gun. But he WAS the spark. And that IS significant. Luther’s theories had a gigantic effect on the theology of those who split off from Rome that continues to this day. Of course there were others: Calvin, Zwinglee (sp??), etc. And it all may have been squashed like so many before if not for the Islamic invasion on the other side of Christendom.

And I still don’t believe it is a cheap shot to say that Luther suffered scrupulosity. If you are familiar with the problem, his writings and behavior practically SCREAM it.

Try “How the Reformation Happened” by Hillaire Belloc. Excellent reading.

I’ve read plenty of works on ML. The point I was making is the answer you gave had nothing to do with the OP. If Luther wasn’t the spark then there would have been another. I also hardly believe it would have been squashed had it not been for the Islamic invasion. That had nothing to do with it. If you really want to go down that path then let’s look at why the spread of Islam was so great. That comes directly back to the inability of the church to reach out to folks living in the more rural areas which is where the Islamic regime focused their efforts.

But not to derail the thread the OP asked a simple question about the reformers position on the NT canon and the possible inclusion of other works. The answer is no they did not. Luther had a personal problem with James but as we see the canon did not change. Only the OT canon was brought into question which by the way was consistent with many early church leaders including several popes and Jerome. But again this had nothing to do with Luther’s scrupulosity.

 

[GKC]

A spark cannot propell a 2,000# 16" shell 20 miles and create a massive explosion at the far end. A spark, IS, however what ignites the cordite that pushes the shell out of the gun at such enormous speed.

Of course Luther didn’t create the Reformation by himself. The situation in the late 15th century was a massive loaded gun. But he WAS the spark. And that IS significant. Luther’s theories had a gigantic effect on the theology of those who split off from Rome that continues to this day. Of course there were others: Calvin, Zwinglee (sp??), etc. And it all may have been squashed like so many before if not for the Islamic invasion on the other side of Christendom.

And I still don’t believe it is a cheap shot to say that Luther suffered scrupulosity. If you are familiar with the problem, his writings and behavior practically SCREAM it.

Try “How the Reformation Happened” by Hillaire Belloc. Excellent reading.

Zwingli.

And Belloc is a fun writer. I’ve collected him, seriously, and works on him, for over 45 years, and love him dearly.

But you need to read more than Belloc to get a balanced view.

P.S. Also try his CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION.

But don’t stop with him.

GKC

 

[manualman]

It has everything to do with the OP’s question.

Sure I’ve oversimplified. What do you want on a thread post?

Here is my belief for why Luther never re-examined the apocryphal christian era texts:

1. Luther had a problem with scrupulosity.
2. Luther found a way to silence his hyperactive conscience by the new idea of Sola Fide which made the accusations of his conscience moot.
3. Luther got opposed by the Church in his ideas, so he had to construct a ‘new’ foundational authority upon which to base his theology.
4. Luther chose Sola Scriptura to be that authority, but needed to expell a few books that contained elements hostile to his convictions. That Jerome had previously opposed their inclusion made it an easier decision for him.

This progression I propose above shows that he never had a compelling NEED to re-examine early christian era texts that made claims to apostolic authorship or inspiration, so he didn’t.

Again, this IS a gross oversimplification - it’s the internet. For more, read the reference I gave above.

Oh, perhaps if it hadn’t been Luther, somebody else would have provided the spark. But it would have been a DIFFERENT spark and might have sent things in a very different direction. Luther is irretrievably important to any explanation of protestantism.

 

[manualman]

GKC,

I’d love for you to recommend some other sources for protestant reformation history. I like the way you think.

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I’d love for you to recommend some other sources for protestant reformation history. I like the way you think.

I thank you sir. I think like a Catholic, in the Anglican tradition. But I digress.

Let me run over my shelves at home, and I’ll make some recommendations. But I don’t aim at the protestant reformation history per se. I know little of the Continent, so I don’t do that. I do England.

Two titles to start, Duffy’s STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS and Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII. More to come, after I go to the other house, look over the shelves, and return.

GKC

 

[manualman]

GKC,

Isn’t that like starting a book at Chaper Two?

Oh, maybe I see. To the Anglican mind, the early Anglican history is unrelated to early continental protestantism, right? I should warn you, I don’t like coincidences!