Luther admitted he removed 7 books?

[MarcoPolo]

I have heard that there is a writing by Luther himself in which he admits that he removed 7 books from the Bible, perhaps declaring his “own authority.”

I haven’t been able to find this with some searching…

Anyone know about this? Links?

 

[lak611]

"All churches, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, used the Apocrypha through the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church uses it on a par with the rest of Scripture. Martin Luther, who had a doctorate in biblical studies and knew German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, felt they could be used as a worship resource, for faith and morals, and so far as doctrine is concerned, to corroborate it but not to formulate it. In practice, that is how non-Catholic Christians use the Apocrypha.

Martin Luther translated the entire Bible into German, and in doing so, started the convention of placing the Apocrypha in a separate section, apart from the Old Testament and New Testament.

All of the original Protestants used the Apocrypha, though, like everyone else, not very much.

American printers discovered that they could leave out the Apocrypha and sell the Bible for the same price, and no one would care because it wasn’t used much. So they left out the Apocrypha to increase their profits. Some of the homegrown religious groups naïvely assumed that whatever was not in their Bible was not in the canon. Later, when Catholics became a significant segment of the population, a non-Catholic would say, ‘That’s not in my Bible’ to a Catholic, completely unaware that it was the printer who left it out. A Lutheran pastor told me that one of his parishioners was insistent that the Lutheran Church did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. The parishioner was astonished when he saw the church by-law that says it is. The parishioner had assumed that his copy of the Bible was complete when it wasn’t."

Above quote is from this website: kencollins.com/Bible-p1.htm

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks Lak…but I think what I am looking for is a direct quote from Luther. I want to say I heard this mentioned on the radio that he openly stated that he removed 7 books from the Bible the Church had been using.

 

[lak611]

Thanks Lak…but I think what I am looking for is a direct quote from Luther. I want to say I heard this mentioned on the radio that he openly stated that he removed 7 books from the Bible the Church had been using.

Well, the problem with finding a quote from Luther is that he didn’t remove the books from the Bible. He placed them in a section called “Apocrypha” and said they were not considered inspired for doctrine, but he did translate them and leave them in the Bible. Complete removal of the books from the Bible was done by publishers many years later, not by Luther.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, the problem with finding a quote from Luther is that he didn’t remove the books from the Bible. He placed them in a section called “Apocrypha” and said they were not considered inspired for doctrine, but he did translate them and leave them in the Bible. Complete removal of the books from the Bible was done by publishers many years later, not by Luther.

Thanks Lak, I learned much from your posts…perhaps there is a writing from Luther you know of in which he admits moving the 7 books to the so-called “Apocrypha”? I am sure I heard such on Relevant Radio.

 

[BGorski43]

I’ve read and used several different books both Protestant and Catholic sources in preparing to teach Bible Introduction and History classes, and I don’t recall ever encountering this information that you quote from Ken Collins website. Is there a second source that corroborates what Pastor Ken says? At this point, standing alone as it is, would equate it with opinion, rather than fact. Sound plausible, but…

Thanks for response in advance.

Bob G.

 

[lak611]

I’ve read and used several different books both Protestant and Catholic sources in preparing to teach Bible Introduction and History classes, and I don’t recall ever encountering this information that you quote from Ken Collins website. Is there a second source that corroborates what Pastor Ken says? At this point, standing alone as it is, would equate it with opinion, rather than fact. Sound plausible, but…

Thanks for response in advance.

Bob G.

“14) Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) “useful and good to read.” Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop’s Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the “Apocrypha” as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.” from this site ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM

 

[Maccabee]

I would appreciate it if someone could clear up a point for me. While I find great value in the Apocrypha (see my website at davidccarson.com as evidence of this), I have questions about what specific doctrinal truths can be drawn from it. As a historical source, it is invaluable. But for theological reliability, I’m not so sure. Perhaps someone could quote me a doctrinal position that finds its basis uniquely (or mostly) in the Apocrypha and give me the text reference. Thanks.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I would appreciate it if someone could clear up a point for me. While I find great value in the Apocrypha (see my website at davidccarson.com as evidence of this), I have questions about what specific doctrinal truths can be drawn from it. As a historical source, it is invaluable. But for theological reliability, I’m not so sure. Perhaps someone could quote me a doctrinal position that finds its basis uniquely (or mostly) in the Apocrypha and give me the text reference. Thanks.

I have seen it used in Apologetics as justification for the doctrine of Purgatory. Since most Protestants do not view the Deuterocanonical books as inspired, I usually stick with the NT.

2 Mac. 12:43-46
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

 

[BGorski]

Thanks Dallas for your response, but I guess I didn’t clearly state what I was looking for. In the original response, it was stated that the reason the extra books are not found in protestant Bibles is that American publishers found that they could produce them without the extra books (thereby saving money presumably) and no one really missed them.

That aspect is what i have never seen in other documentation. Any thoughts on that??

Thanks and Stay Blest!!

Bob G

 

[lak611]

Thanks Dallas for your response, but I guess I didn’t clearly state what I was looking for. In the original response, it was stated that the reason the extra books are not found in protestant Bibles is that American publishers found that they could produce them without the extra books (thereby saving money presumably) and no one really missed them.

That aspect is what i have never seen in other documentation. Any thoughts on that??

Thanks and Stay Blest!!

Bob G

“Luther, Zwingli and Coverdale grouped the Apocrypha at the end of the Old Testament rather than leaving them interspersed in the body of the canon. After 1599 some Geneva Bibles omitted them entirely, and after 1629 some editions of the King James Version did the same. It may be that most of us have never seen a KJV which includes the Apocrypha. The charters of the English and American Bible societies forbid the inclusion of the Apocrypha in any editions which they publish or distribute.” from this site [(name removed by moderator)lainsite.org/html/bible_through_the_ages.html](http://www.(name removed by moderator)lainsite.org/html/bible_through_the_ages.html)

 

[lak611]

Thanks Dallas for your response, but I guess I didn’t clearly state what I was looking for. In the original response, it was stated that the reason the extra books are not found in protestant Bibles is that American publishers found that they could produce them without the extra books (thereby saving money presumably) and no one really missed them.

That aspect is what i have never seen in other documentation. Any thoughts on that??

Thanks and Stay Blest!!

Bob G

Here’s more information from another site. "It was not until 1880 that the American Bible Society voted remove the “Apocrypha” Books from the King James Version. The “Apocrypha” was officially removed by the Anglican Church from there English printings of the KJV by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885.

Even after all of this “Apocrypha” books still appeared and disappeared in printings of the KJV in a apparent whirlwind of apparent confession, all depending on the whims of the individual printers. I have a copy of the Authorized Version complete with the “Apocrypha” siting on a bookshelf in my library that was printed in 1961 by the Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston." catholicapologetics.net/jil.htm

 

[DallasCatholic]

Thanks Dallas for your response, but I guess I didn’t clearly state what I was looking for. In the original response, it was stated that the reason the extra books are not found in protestant Bibles is that American publishers found that they could produce them without the extra books (thereby saving money presumably) and no one really missed them.

That aspect is what i have never seen in other documentation. Any thoughts on that??

Thanks and Stay Blest!!

Bob G

No offence, but I wasn’t responding to you. I was responding to Maccabee’s question. I was waiting for someone to respond to your post as I had never heard the “printers left the DeuteroCanon out to increase profits” idea either.

 

[Maccabee]

I have seen it used in Apologetics as justification for the doctrine of Purgatory. Since most Protestants do not view the Deuterocanonical books as inspired, I usually stick with the NT.

2 Mac. 12:43-46
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Dallas. Sorry to not be responding sooner. Sometimes I have to mull things over. I guess there are a couple of issues here (maybe more). First, so as not to mislead anyone, I will let you know that my background is Protestant evangelical. Even so, I have read the passage you quoted multiple times (something not many Protestants do) and it never struck me as speaking of Purgatory.

This is where I think it gets interesting. (And this might be why Luther took the position he did.) It seems to me that there is a basic difference here between Catholic and Protestant hermeneutics. Correct me if I am misunderstanding the Catholic approach to interpretation of Scripture. The Protestant position of *sola scriptura *allows no room for conjecture beyond what is specifically spelled out in Scripture. (Though on a practical basis it has been done in every generation.) Now when I read the passage in 2 Maccabees, I see solid evidence of future resurrection, but I also see a mystery which is not actually explained - that being what happens to the individual in the meantime. The confirmation of resurrection is found multiple times in the NT, for example Matthew 22:23-33, 1 Corinthians 15, Acts 23:6-8. But the matter of Purgatory, to my knowledge, is not specifically dealt with in plain fashion in Scripture, despite many opportunities by both Jesus and Paul to do so when speaking of the resurrection. My assumption (again, correct if I’m wrong here) is that the doctrine finds its basis in another source (church tradition or elsewhere) and is therefore the lens one peers through when looking at certain texts. Rather than leaving mystery for what it is, the church has developed a doctrine and found scripture to support it in a fashion similar to circumstantial evidence.

This might be why Luther did not accept the Apocryphal books though he did see them as historically important. I don’t have a direct quote from Luther, but I did read a quote from John Calvin just a couple of weeks ago stating the same position. I think they questioned their theological value but not the historical. By the way, I haven’t ever read anywhere that American Bible publishers reduced the size of the Bible to save money either. I feel certain that, at least in that day, Protestants so revered the Scriptures that they would never have permitted it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But the matter of Purgatory, to my knowledge, is not specifically dealt with in plain fashion in Scripture, despite many opportunities by both Jesus and Paul to do so when speaking of the resurrection. My assumption (again, correct if I’m wrong here) is that the doctrine finds its basis in another source (church tradition or elsewhere) and is therefore the lens one peers through when looking at certain texts.

If I may chime in…the doctrine of Purgatory is probably from Tradition, but it is also described fairly well in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, especially verse 15.

This passage describes a man’s judgement, and if any of his works “burn” when tested, he will suffer, but will still ultimately receive his heavenly reward.

And of course the other passages like (Mt 12:32, 1 Pt 3:19, Heb 12:23 and parables in Mt 18:32-35, Mt 5:21-26, Lk 12:57-59), which I assume are the passages you mean are loose references to Purgatory.

 

[Maccabee]

If I may chime in…the doctrine of Purgatory is probably from Tradition, but it is also described fairly well in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, especially verse 15.

This passage describes a man’s judgement, and if any of his works “burn” when tested, he will suffer, but will still ultimately receive his heavenly reward.

And of course the other passages like (Mt 12:32, 1 Pt 3:19, Heb 12:23 and parables in Mt 18:32-35, Mt 5:21-26, Lk 12:57-59), which I assume are the passages you mean are loose references to Purgatory.

I fear I may have caused a diversion from the topic at hand, but I will just make a couple of quick comments here. Being from a Protestant tradition, I have never seen the concept of Purgatory in these passages. Rather, they simply speak of final judgment. A couple of verses on which I base this are Hebrews 9:27 (“And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”) and 2 Corinthians 5:8 (“We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”). I see no concept in Scripture of the Christian having to spend a period time somewhere to be purged of his sins after death. The death of Christ was more than sufficient to deal with all our sins. This doesn’t negate, however, the fact that there will be rewards in addition to salvation (which is what I believe 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 speaks of) for those who have faithfully served the Lord. Some, as the passage says, will have no rewards, only their salvation, for their works will not stand the test.

As to the 1 Peter 3:19 passage, this passage has proved so controversial throughout all of church history that it is probably better to refrain from using it as the basis for a doctrine. I will just inject here that the context speaks of those who disobeyed in the days while the ark was being built. The first seven verses of Genesis would suggest the ones spoken of here are the “sons of God” who took wives from the “daughters of men.” The book of Jude, which is parallel to 2 Peter in content, possibly speaks of these very “sons of God.” (“And the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”) What Jesus did in 1 Peter 3:19 was give a proclamation of victory over the scheme of these wicked spirits to corrupt the human race beyond redemption. It’s very much as is stated in Colossians 2:15, “And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it” .)

 

[MarcoPolo]

I fear I may have caused a diversion from the topic at hand, but I will just make a couple of quick comments here. Being from a Protestant tradition, I have never seen the concept of Purgatory in these passages.

What else can be said. If you insist the verses are interpreted a certain way, then I guess I recommend read more on the subject. Without doing that, I guess you have to determine who interprets Scripture correctly, which is a whole new discussion…and also whether Maccabees is inspired (also a whole other discussion) because I did not quote it due to your Protestantism. (2 Mac 12:46 is clear of a purgative state after death and can be cross-referenced with the Corinthians-saved-as-through-fire passage for clarity, along with the other parables and verses I cited.) Maybe you would be well-served to start a thread explaining your understanding of 1 Cor 3:11-15 to hear what others would say.

But true, we are off topic.
If you have any other feedback on the writings of Luther though, feel free to keep those going on this thread!

 

[GMichuta]

You are correct in that Luther didn’t “remove” the Deuterocanon from Scripture instead he placed them in a special appendix called the “Apocrypha.” His German translation also re-ordered the books of the Old Testament, which also further seperated them from the story of salvation history. Luther did, before his debate with Eck, cite both Sirach and Tobit in argument (apparently as canonical Scripture) against a Catholic. One year later, he denied 2 Maccabees canonical status although he admitted that it still has “weight” with the Faithful.

It is also true that Protestant Bibles retain the Deuterocanon (Apocrypha) in a majority of their early Bibles. It is fascinating to compare the rationale that the various prefaces give for putting these books in the “apocrypha.” My new book, which just went to the printer this week, chronicles the all these details and not a few little known skeletons in various people’s closets.

 

[lak611]

My new book, which just went to the printer this week, chronicles the all these details and not a few little known skeletons in various people’s closets.

Please let us know when your book is available and how one can purchase a copy. It sounds fascinating.

 

[Sabda]

Please let us know when your book is available and how one can purchase a copy. It sounds fascinating.

I would also love to know. I have already put it on my list of books to buy. This is something I have been really interested in.