Had Luther ever intended to drop some books from New Testament?

[water]

I read this from chnetwork. Is it true that Luther wanted to drop some books?

Luther was actually ready to drop some books from the New Testament canon. It is well known that he despised the Epistle of James because it directly contradicted his theory of Faith Alone. He also had his eye on removing several others, such as 2 Peter and Hebrews. It was only through the intervention of Luther’s friend Malancthon that his New Testament remained intact.

Thanks!

 

[down_under]

I dont know I was always under the impression that martin luther removed 4 books of the new testemant 8 books of the old. also chapters 13 14 daniel and the song in daneil also parts of ester.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I read this from chnetwork. Is it true that Luther wanted to drop some books?

Thanks!

Water:

Several Protestant sources I’ve read have said that Martin Luther wanted to “decanonize” James, and I’m sure you’er right about 2 Peter & Hebrews, & down under is probably right about Martin wanting to remove another book of the N.T.

We’ve all heard the justifications Prostestants use to support Luther’s (& the Protestants’) lists for the Canons for the O.T., even after we demonstrate that the Council they’re relying on cursed Christ and those who follow Him.

Just imagine the justifications and excuses the Protestants would be coming up with if Luther had cut just one of the books out of the N.T., let alone all 4!

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[RayK83153]

Traditional Ang:

I’m a recent revert to the RCC and I’m trying to learn more about the history of Luther’s removal of the 7 books from the OT. Can you point me to some sources? A protestant minister told me that the Hebrews removed those 7 books and not Luther and the RCC put them back in! But when I questioned him about it, he could never explain it. Anybody have some insight about that from the Catholic perspective?

 

[water]

Traditional Ang:

I’m a recent revert to the RCC and I’m trying to learn more about the history of Luther’s removal of the 7 books from the OT. Can you point me to some sources? A protestant minister told me that the Hebrews removed those 7 books and not Luther and the RCC put them back in! But when I questioned him about it, he could never explain it. Anybody have some insight about that from the Catholic perspective?

Yeah, I was also wondering on whose authority Luther removed the books?

and why would people want to believe Luther instead of the authors of the books who had lived closer to the time of Jesus? - Is this because “Sacred Tradition” seems meaningless?

Thanks!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I read this from chnetwork. Is it true that Luther wanted to drop some books?

Thanks!

The book of Revelation was on his cut list also. He did not understand the book and said something like, “A book called ‘Revelation’ ought to actually reveal something.”

 

[DallasCatholic]

Luther chose to drop the deuterocanonical books from “his” Bible because he did not agree with the theology represented in them. Same with James, but he was prevented from dropping that one.

The pretext Luther used for dropping the deuterocanonical books was that the Jews did not include those books in their reformulation of the Torah. Luther could find no such pretext for removing James or other NT works.

In Christ’s time the Septuagint (which contains all of the Catholic Old Testament) was in broad use. Jesus specifically quotes from the Septuagint so we know that he and his disciples were using it. In a reaction against the Christians, who were using their own scriptures against them, the Jews decided to reformulate the Torah. Since the Septuagint was in Greek the Jews decided that only books that were written in Hebrew would be used in the Torah. At the time it was determined that the deuterocanonical books were not extant in Hebrew so they were not included in the Torah. I believe that Hebrew versions of all of the deuterocanon have since been discovered so Luther’s pretext is gone.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Traditional Ang:

I’m a recent revert to the RCC and I’m trying to learn more about the history of Luther’s removal of the 7 books from the OT. Can you point me to some sources? A protestant minister told me that the Hebrews removed those 7 books and not Luther and the RCC put them back in! But when I questioned him about it, he could never explain it. Anybody have some insight about that from the Catholic perspective?

The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray
http://www.catholic.com/images/1x1trans.gif

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Essentially, it’s a protestant and jewish myth that the DT"s were rejected by the (non-authoritative) council at Jabneh circa 90 AD

 

[wisdom_3_5]

You can read Where we got the Bible by Henry Graham. It pretty long but very informative.

I think chapter 5 (V) will address your question on Luther and the Deuterocanon.

 

[NotWorthy]

The pretext Luther used for dropping the deuterocanonical books was that the Jews did not include those books in their reformulation of the Torah. Luther could find no such pretext for removing James or other NT works.

In Christ’s time the Septuagint (which contains all of the Catholic Old Testament) was in broad use. Jesus specifically quotes from the Septuagint so we know that he and his disciples were using it. In a reaction against the Christians, who were using their own scriptures against them, the Jews decided to reformulate the Torah. Since the Septuagint was in Greek the Jews decided that only books that were written in Hebrew would be used in the Torah. At the time it was determined that the deuterocanonical books were not extant in Hebrew so they were not included in the Torah. I believe that Hebrew versions of all of the deuterocanon have since been discovered so Luther’s pretext is gone.

As Lion of Narnia pointed out, this is not accurate. The Jews at Jamnia did not drop any books out of the Canon. They made NO decisions on the Canon of the OT. These books were not dropped by the Jews until the Middle Ages.

All the Council of Jamnia did was to decide to create a new Greek translation, rather than using the Septuagint, which was written in Greek.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I was not referring to Jamnia at all, I was referring to the Jewish Aquila version of the Old Testament which is what Luther used as a pretext for discarding the Deuterocanon. The Aquila version was used by the Jews to supplant the Septuagint.

 

[NotWorthy]

I was not referring to Jamnia at all, I was referring to the Jewish Aquila version of the Old Testament which is what Luther used as a pretext for discarding the Deuterocanon. The Aquila version was used by the Jews to supplant the Septuagint.

The Aquila version was a product of Jamnia.

In response to the conversion of many Jews to Christianity through the Septuagint translation, in about 100AD the scholars of Jamnia authorized a new Greek translation specifically to hinder such “proofs” of fulfillment of Old Covenant prophecy, thereby hoping to hinder the spread of Christianity. For example, the Jewish scholar Aquila, with the approval of the council, changed the Greek word "parthenos" = “virgin” in the Isaiah 7:14 passage to the Greek word for “young woman” = “neanis” in the newer Greek translation. These scholars also began to debate the Old Covenant canon and began recording the Oral Law [c. 200AD], which had been passed down through the ministerial priesthood from the time of Moses. This recording of the Oral Law would become the Mishnah.

 

[DallasCatholic]

When was the Aquila written/compiled?

I believe it was in the 2nd century AD.

 

[NotWorthy]

I believe it was in the 2nd century AD.

I found it and edited post #12. My point to the question was that Aquila’s translation came about because of the council of Jamnia.

They did NOT change the Canon or drop any books til the Middle Ages. So Luther is using 15th Century Jews to determine a Canon that was written over 1700 years earlier. It seems the good people at Hippo and Carthage were much closer to the fire than the Jews that Luther used to justify his revoking of the Deuterocanons.

What’s sad is that this is not well known among our King James proclaimants.

Thanks!

 

[DallasCatholic]

I found it and edited post #12. My point to the question was that Aquila’s translation came about because of the council of Jamnia.

They did NOT change the Canon or drop any books til the Middle Ages. So Luther is using 15th Century Jews to determine a Canon that was written over 1700 years earlier. It seems the good people at Hippo and Carthage were much closer to the fire than the Jews that Luther used to justify his revoking of the Deuterocanons.

What’s sad is that this is not well known among our King James proclaimants.

Thanks!

Actually Aquila’s “translation” of the Septuagint did not contain the deuterocanonical books. Aquila’s version was accepted for teaching/reading in the Jewish synagogues and was trusted implicitly by the non-Hebrew speaking Jews…primarily because Aquila created his “translation” to refute the tenets of Christianity. Origen was the first Catholic scholar (I think) who noticed that Aquila’s “translation” differed from the original Greek of the Septuagint. Origen created translations that showed where the errors were in Aquila’s book. As far as I can tell Aquila’s version was created in 128AD…almost 40 years after Jamnia. This was the pretext that Luther used to throw out the deuterocanon.

 

[Lazerlike42]

One has to understand the forumlation of the canon itself to understand what Luther did.

To make it simple:

When the canon was coming together, there were some books - from both Testaments - that were accepted by just about everyone, and some that were doubted. The books that were accepted all across the board were considered the protocanon - the ‘first canon.’ When the Church finally declared which books belonged, they also included some of those books that were doubted. This became known as the deuterocanon - the ‘second canon.’ There was an Old Testament deuterocanon, with which most people are familiar, as well as a New Testament deuterocanon, which most people have never heard of. The New Testament deuterocanon included James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Revelation, and Jude. Luther rejected both deuterocanons, because he did not like the theology of either.

 

[Daneam]

Well I want to get an answer on this one too, I didn’t take detail note but in one of the EWTN shows Fr. Pacwa said that for three years the protestant Bible did leave a couple of books in the NT out before he put them back in, I dont remember the exact year and what books of NT were taken out, anyone knows the answer?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I read this from chnetwork. Is it true that Luther wanted to drop some books? Thanks!

This assertion has been debated in numerous threads here, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to come up with an historical source for the story about Melanchthon.

All the books are in Luther’s 1534 complete translation of the Bible.

 

[thistle]

I read this from chnetwork. Is it true that Luther wanted to drop some books?

Thanks!

Whether Luther wanted them physically removed from the Bible, or stuck at the back like notes he certainly denounced any book (OT and NT) that did not agree with his personal doctrine. He (alone) wanted to be the sole Bible translator, interpreter, and to decide on what books were inspired or not. He was an egotist to the extreme!!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Copying this from another thread regarding the book of James, for example:

There may be some conjecture out there about what Luther said about this or that book, but it does seem according to my research, at least with regard to the book of James, that he would like to have nixed it from teaching use if not throw it out of the canon:***We should throw the epistle of James out of this school **Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much.*It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning.*I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.*Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment!*I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’*This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, althought this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. No he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constatntly shifting from one to the other.*He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.’ O Mary, mother of God!! What a terrible comparison that is!!!!LW, 54, 424-425
*Elsewhere he explicitly said James had errors in his theology:*James argues in his letter (Jas. 2:21) that Abraham was justified on the basis of his works. Because the text says:Now I see that you are righteous', he wants to conclude from this that previously Abraham was not righteous. . . . .Abraham was righteous by faith before God acknowledged him as such. Therefore **James*concluded falsely that now at last he was justified after that obedience**,*for faith and righteousness are known by works as by the fruit. But it does not follow, as James raves: Hence the fruits justify’ just as it does not follow: 'I know a tree by its fruit; therefore the tree becomes good as a result of its fruit.Therefore let our opponents be done with their James, whom they throw up to us so often(Luther 4:134).**I believe that last quote is from Luther’s Works.Saw these quotes here a while back. I’ve also seen part of the latter quote cited as LW 4.26)