Luther admitted he removed 7 books?

[Sacramentalist]

In all fairness to Luther, I understand that there were a number of pious and otherwise orthodox theologians who, prior to the definitions of the Council of Trent, doubted the inspiration of some or all of the deuterocanon.

 

[GMichuta]

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.

Thanks, I think you’re not alone. When I had the book up to be proofed, I received about 50 responses (50% Catholic) saying that they’d love to proof the work because they were interested in the subject. Trust me, my book won’t disappoint you.

Gary

www.HandsOnApologetics.com

 

[Maccabee]

In all fairness to Luther, I understand that there were a number of pious and otherwise orthodox theologians who, prior to the definitions of the Council of Trent, doubted the inspiration of some or all of the deuterocanon.

Perhaps someone can confirm (or clarify) something for me. Catholics use the term *deuterocanonical *whereas Protestants use the term *apocryphal *for the books here in question. Does this mean Catholics put these books in a separate category from the rest of Scripture? It is my understanding that these books were not officially determined as part of the canon until the Council of Trent in AD 1546, which would indicate there had been some question about their authority up to that time. If these books belong with the rest of Scripture, why not simply call them canonical?

 

[DallasCatholic]

Perhaps someone can confirm (or clarify) something for me. Catholics use the term *deuterocanonical *whereas Protestants use the term *apocryphal *for the books here in question. Does this mean Catholics put these books in a separate category from the rest of Scripture? It is my understanding that these books were not officially determined as part of the canon until the Council of Trent in AD 1546, which would indicate there had been some question about their authority up to that time. If these books belong with the rest of Scripture, why not simply call them canonical?

Deuterocanon means “second canon”. This term came about because Catholics do not consider the books “hidden” which is what Luther termed them (Apocrypha). So, if Luther had never called the books Apocrypha then Catholics would never have referred to them as the Deuterocanon. The books in question were accepted as inspired canon for hundreds of years before the Council of Trent. Several of the ECF (Early Church Fathers) compiled lists of the books that were accepted for teaching by the Church. I believe that Athanasius was among the first in 347 A.D. (not sure about the date). These lists, which all include the current canon, existed and were used long before the Council of Trent. The big difference is that at the Council of Trent this list of books was declared infallibly to be the canon. Prior to Trent the list was not infallible and many people could and did argue about what was inspired…including some of the ECF but in the end everyone in the Church accepted those books until Martin Luther.

 

[RobNY]

Perhaps someone can confirm (or clarify) something for me. Catholics use the term *deuterocanonical *whereas Protestants use the term *apocryphal *for the books here in question. Does this mean Catholics put these books in a separate category from the rest of Scripture?

They are categorized differently, inasmuch as we also categorize, for instance, the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, for instance. But, they are interspersed throughout the OT in such a way so as to suggest that they are really a part of it-- not just grouped at the back as Protestants group the Apocrypha in their bibles. See the next paragraph of my response…

It is my understanding that these books were not officially determined as part of the canon until the Council of Trent in AD 1546, which would indicate there had been some question about their authority up to that time. If these books belong with the rest of Scripture, why not simply call them canonical?

Well, the term of “deuterocanon” is used in relation to the Old Testament, not to the Bible at large. It is not the case that the deuterocanonicals are a ‘second canon,’ in relation to the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, but a ‘second canon’ in relation to the Old Testament.

As for Trent-- Trent was the first time they were solemly and authoritatively done so, but, it would seem that the Council of Carthage already ok’d the same canon right around 400AD. I recommend a reading of that. Dave puts it foward rather cogently. As for their authority-- it would seem most Fathers accepted them fully as Scripture. Others apparently rejected them, but upon closer examination, seem to have actually accepted them. It’s fascinating and complex-- but some of the quotes that Matt compiled on that page seem to show that the position of the Fathers who seemingly denied the deuterocanonicals actually had a far more subtle position. Either way, both links will be good reading.

-Rob

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus read and used the deuterocannonical books–shouldn’t we just do as Jesus did?

 

[Qwikness]

Y’all may already be aware of this but…from what I’ve read, the Jewish leaders did not include those books that were not written in Hebrew. Those not included were written in Greek and were the Deuterocannonical. That was Luther’s reason for the difference.
That being said if the Jewish leaders didn’t recognize those books as their official scriptures, then how do they celebrate Hannukah?
Also doesn’t the Orthodox have even more book included in their Canon.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Who cares what some Jews decied at a council in 90AD? Those same Jewish rabbis rejected Jesus and Christianinty.

If they’re the supreme authority then Jesus and his disciples and their successors are not the supreme authority and Jesus died for nothing.

That is not true!

 

[GMichuta]

In all fairness to Luther, I understand that there were a number of pious and otherwise orthodox theologians who, prior to the definitions of the Council of Trent, doubted the inspiration of some or all of the deuterocanon.

I probably shouldn’t do this because it is one of several bombshells in my book, but I’ll give you a little preview.

Luther, apparently, shouldn’t be counted as just one of several confused theologians of his era. If the Protestant scholar H. H. Howarth is correct (and I’ve read a lot of his works and he is always very accurate), Luther originally held the Deuterocanon to be canonical. In 1517, in a debate with the head censor of Rome, Luther claimed that he would only be persuaded in argument by the “canonical Scripture.” In this same debate, Luther quotes both Sirach and Tobit against his opponent. One year later, in the Second Disputation at Leipzig, the Catholic Eck cornered Luther with a citation from Second Maccabees. Luther rejected Maccabees from the canon, but added the interesting concession that Maccabees “has weight with the faithful, but it won’t avail against the obstinate.” A phrase BTW that I have on my Deuterocanon page that has raised the ire of a certain anti-Catholic. I give the blow-by-blow of the Disputation in my book.

Gary

www.HandsOnApologetics.com

 

[Qwikness]

Who cares what some Jews decied at a council in 90AD? Those same Jewish rabbis rejected Jesus and Christianinty.

If they’re the supreme authority then Jesus and his disciples and their successors are not the supreme authority and Jesus died for nothing.

That is not true!

I’m not saying that the Jews are the supreme authority! I was trying to explain why the Protestants justify not putting those books in their Canon! The Protestants view is that if it isn’t in the Jewish scriptures blah blah blah…

 

[Maccabee]

I suppose my biggest question in accepting the deuterocanonical books as part of the canon is how they got there timewise. All the other books appear to have been recognized as canonical within the generation of their writing. As to the deuterocanon, debates went on for centuries. (As it continues today, this thread being evidence.) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14, writing in AD 325 quotes Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about AD 170, giving the earliest Christian list of Old Testament books. The deuterocanonical books are not found in that list. Eusebius also quotes Origen (EH 6.15.2), who died about AD 254, who failed to mention any of the deuterocanonical books in his list. When Athanasius wrote his Paschal Letter (#39) in AD 367, he mentioned the books, but qualified them as “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read . . .”

Now the question to a certain point is not whether or not these books are canonical, but rather: Why so long in officially accepting them? Before someone responds that they were accepted as canonical until Luther rejected them and that measures had to be taken at that time, I remind you that what I have just shown above demonstrates that they were clearly not accepted in the sense that the other books were. Why did the church wait 15 centuries to declare these books canonical?

 

[Zooey]

MP, I have read in several places that Martin Luther, when questioned about something (anyhting?) had a way of saying, if someone asked him, why he was doing something, or how he had the authority…He had a way of saying, " It is so because Dr Luther says it is so"…It was a kind of catch phrase with him.
I don’t know if this is what you meant, but it might help in searching for a quotation…

 

[GMichuta]

I suppose my biggest question in accepting the deuterocanonical books as part of the canon is how they got there timewise. All the other books appear to have been recognized as canonical within the generation of their writing. As to the deuterocanon, debates went on for centuries. (As it continues today, this thread being evidence.) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14, writing in AD 325 quotes Melito, bishop of Sardis, writing about AD 170, giving the earliest Christian list of Old Testament books. The deuterocanonical books are not found in that list. Eusebius also quotes Origen (EH 6.15.2), who died about AD 254, who failed to mention any of the deuterocanonical books in his list. When Athanasius wrote his Paschal Letter (#39) in AD 367, he mentioned the books, but qualified them as “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read . . .”

Now the question to a certain point is not whether or not these books are canonical, but rather: Why so long in officially accepting them? Before someone responds that they were accepted as canonical until Luther rejected them and that measures had to be taken at that time, I remind you that what I have just shown above demonstrates that they were clearly not accepted in the sense that the other books were. Why did the church wait 15 centuries to declare these books canonical?

I would contend that they were accepted from the beginning and that the examples given are simply misunderstood. In regards to Melito, one must ask what was his list meant to represent. Protestants assume that he is producing a Jewish canon that Christians accepted. I would argue to the contrary, as I did on my debate on the canon. Melito’s list was an attempt to reproduce the list of OT accepted by the Jews in his day since Judaism had changed the canon some forty years earlier and Christians were uncertain as to which books were then accepted. It was not meant to reflect the Christian OT, which accepted the Deuteros.
Even in Melito’s day, rabbinical Judaism was still confused in regards to the authorized canon since Melito records that the Jews accepted Wisdom and he omits Esther.

If you look more closely at Athanasius you’ll notice that he says that in addition to the “canonical” books it would be more “accurate” and “necessary” to include the Dueteros (and Esther). Most importantly, Athanasius excludes the Deuteros from the Apocrypha, which is contrary to the Protestant position. I wish I could give you all the evidence to support these claims, I do so in my book, but this will give you enough to look at the sources again. We know from usage that Christians from the Apostolic Fathers to Jerome (with the possible exception of Julius Africanus) accepted the Deuteros as inspired Scripture. Again, all of this is documented in my book. I recommend that you take a look at it when it comes out next month.

Gary

www.HandsOnApologetics.com

 

[MarcoPolo]

In this same debate, Luther quotes both Sirach and Tobit against his opponent. One year later, in the Second Disputation at Leipzig, the Catholic Eck cornered Luther with a citation from Second Maccabees. Luther rejected Maccabees from the canon, but added the interesting concession that Maccabees “has weight with the faithful, but it won’t avail against the obstinate.” A phrase BTW that I have on my Deuterocanon page that has raised the ire of a certain anti-Catholic. I give the blow-by-blow of the Disputation in my book.

Gary, thanks for chiming into my thread. Sounds like your book might hold the answers I was looking for!

And thanks to everyone else who’s helped out here.

 

[DLC]

The extra books in the Roman Catholic Bible are from the Apocrypha. The apocryphal books were not considered to be inspired and thus were not recognized by the church as part of the Bible. At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) the Roman Catholic Church included them in their Bible.

 

[andzy]

The extra books in the Roman Catholic Bible are from the Apocrypha. The apocryphal books were not considered to be inspired and thus were not recognized by the church as part of the Bible. At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) the Roman Catholic Church included them in their Bible.

With all due respect, but have you read the history of the Canon or at least previous posts in this thread? The Catholic Church didn’t add any books to the Bible. On the contrary, it was the Protestants who removed them.
Andris

 

[Zooey]

The extra books in the Roman Catholic Bible are from the Apocrypha. The apocryphal books were not considered to be inspired and thus were not recognized by the church as part of the Bible. At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) the Roman Catholic Church included them in their Bible.

This is simply not true.
The entire 73 book canon of Scripture has existed since before the invention of the printing press.
And, could we but go back in time to the 19th century, all the Bibles, Catholic, Protestant, whatever…They all had the complete canon of said 73 books…(In fact, the Protestant Bibles often had more than that, since several books that are not in the canon were included as “salutory for moral teaching” in an age where your choice of reading was often limited to the Bible, the newspaper, & the latest “penny-dreadful” fictionalized account of the life of a famous gunslinger or other such…).

The notion that Catholics “added books” is just that: a notion.

 

[GMichuta]

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.

Hi Marco,

Perhaps I can help clear this up since it was me you heard on Relevant Radio. I was discussing my new book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (www.GrottoPress.org)). Unfortunately, I think you miss heard me. I found evidence that Martin Luther may have accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical in 1518. One year later, in 1519, Luther was cornered by Johann Eck in a debate on Purgatory when he was forced to qualified denial the canonicity of Maccabees. So, there appears to have been a change in Luther’s view of the OT canon. Luther appealed to Jerome and Eck countered him with Augustine. In the end, Luther’s justification for down grading the Deuterocanon to the Apocrypha was his claim that a book is canonical (or “apostolic”) to the extent that Christ is preached. Luther didn’t believe that Second Maccabees had enough weight to overturn his convictions. I give a blow by blow account of this exchange between Eck and Luther in my book along with a detailed history of what happened to the “apocrypha” in Protestant Bibles. Hope this helps. If you have any futher questions, you may find more material on my site www.HandsOnApologetics.com

Gary

 

[Mannyfit75]

The extra books in the Roman Catholic Bible are from the Apocrypha. The apocryphal books were not considered to be inspired and thus were not recognized by the church as part of the Bible. At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) the Roman Catholic Church included them in their Bible.

It is apparent that you lack any historical knowledge on how the Bible was form. What a shame.

Protestants seem to brag us not reading the Bible, but Protestants like you seem to know little of Christian history.

Here is some basic Christian History 101: Biblical Canon for you.

They have been a part of the Christian Church and used at the time of Jesus Christ himself. It was in the Council of Rome in 382 AD, Council of Hippo, in 392, and Council of Carthage that made a list of canon of Scripture.

The Council of Rome 382, Pope Damascus I decreed the 73 OT Books and the 27 NT as inspired and canonical. These books therefore have been part of the Christian liturgy for a very long time. It was not until the Reformation that Martin Luther list them as apocryphal and kept them in the appendix.

The Council of Trent Canon of Scripture is the same list founded in the Council of Rome, Council of Hippo, and Carthage.

lrc.edu/rel/blosser/canon_list.htm

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Gary,

GMichuta:

I probably shouldn’t do this because it is one of several bombshells in my book, but I’ll give you a little preview. .

I ordered your book last Monday.

GMichuta:

Luther, apparently, shouldn’t be counted as just one of several confused theologians of his era. If the Protestant scholar H. H. Howarth is correct (and I’ve read a lot of his works and he is always very accurate, Luther originally held the Deuterocanon to be canonical.

I have the article I think you are citing: H. H. Howarth, “The Origin And Authority Of The Biblical Canon According To The Continental Reformers: I. Luther And Karlstadt”, Journal Of Theological Studies, 1907, Issue VIII, Volume XXXI, pp. 321–365.

I’m guessing you’ll be arguing Luther didn’t have any problem with the apocrypha until his theology of justification by faith alone became a key hermeneutic in his determination of canon. On the other hand, I’m hopeful your book covers the other reasons Luther put forth in his Prefaces why he rejected the apocrypha, written some years later.

If my understanding of your position is accurate from your brief words, you are putting forth a maliciously-intent-Luther, rather than a theologian with both theological and historical reasons for rejecting the apocrypha. Remember, Luther is a historical figure. His theology grew and developed throughout his career. It doesn’t surprise me the more mature Luther grew in his studies of the historical and linguistic evidence against the apocrypha. I’m hopeful your book does more than cite the Eck debate and also presents Luther’s defined mature position.

GMichuta:

In 1517, in a debate with the head censor of Rome, Luther claimed that he would only be persuaded in argument by the “canonical Scripture.” In this same debate, Luther quotes both Sirach and Tobit against his opponent.

I think you mean 1518.

GMichuta:

One year later, in the Second Disputation at Leipzig, the Catholic Eck cornered Luther with a citation from Second Maccabees. Luther rejected Maccabees from the canon, but added the interesting concession that Maccabees “has weight with the faithful, but it won’t avail against the obstinate.”

You seem to be implying Luther rejected 2 Maccabees from the canon, yet conceded “the faithful,” or, those of the faith, grant it is canonical. Perhaps you could tell me which of these options you’re implying (or suggest another interpretation):

1. Luther put forth a contradiction
2. Luther simply did what he wanted to with Second Maccabees, knowing full well it was a canonical book. In other words, he knowingly rejected a canonical book because of its implied teaching on Purgatory.

Who are “the faithful” and who are “the obstinate”? Why is this a concession?

I think perhaps the phrase is probably a sarcastic jab, and not a concession to the validity of Second Maccabees. For indeed, you admit that in this debate with John Eck when this statement was made, Luther rejects this book from the canon. Read the phrase this way: the “faithful” are those devoted to Rome and its teaching on Purgatory. Of course it has weight with them. But for those who are “obstinate”, or those who hold this book is not canonical, it will not avail, nor could it ever be of use, or be used to prove a Biblical doctrine. The key term is “the faithful”. I think Luther does not mean, “Christians”. he means those devoted to Rome, or those with faith in Rome.

GMichuta:

A phrase BTW that I have on my Deuterocanon page that has raised the ire of a certain anti-Catholic. I give the blow-by-blow of the Disputation in my book.

I think the word “ire” might be a bit of poetic overkill. I am not angry you cited Luther saying, “Maccabees has weight with the faithful, but it won’t avail against the obstinate.” I simply wanted a reference. Even if you were quoting an older blog entry I did, even there I’m not angry, just looking for some more information. In fact, if you read this older entry, you’ll see why the quote caught my attention.

Regards,
James Swan