Luther Altered the Bible?

[Little_Mary]

ladylinguist:

Does anybody know of any objectively written books on the subject? Obviously, if I read a book by a Catholic, it’s going to speak badly of Luther. If I read a book by a Protestant, it’s going to give all the support it can for his actions. Is there any book out there which approaches the subject without bias? I just feel like I can’t make an informed decision about this subject unless I get an objective overview of the facts. If I decide to convert, I want my decision to be entirely based on the fact that Catholics are more in line with the original Church.

You’ve gotten some good book references here, so I’ll just add my $.02…study the history of the church and the history of the bible. That should help you see that Catholic church is not only in line with the original Church, it IS the original church!!

 

[Contarini]

Genesis315:

Hey, I linked to the entire document. His well sought out reasoning is pretty much just as he explains it.

I don’t know what you mean by that. The passage you cited gave the impression that he did not give or have a reason for his translation.

Look in that letter also at his suggested translation of Luke 1:28, it’s not even close to the Greek or Latin.

Do you know Greek and German well enough to say how “kecharitomene” should be translated into sixteenth-century German? (I don’t, and I read both Greek and German regularly.) For that matter, have you even read Luther’s proposed translation in German? If not, you simply have no basis for making this claim, except insofar as you’re relying on the work of scholars who do know the languages in question.

It’s like when he looks at these things he’s not even translating but simply writing his own ideas and claiming it’s just common German usage, when in fact it’s changing the meaning.

Konnen Sie doch Deutsch so gut dass Sie eine solche Frage urteilen konnen? Ich kann nicht (wie Sie von meinem sehr sclechtem geschriebenem Deutsch sehen konnen). Vielleicht Ihren Deutsch ist viel besser (dass ist nicht schwer). Wenn Sie mir auf Deutsch antworten konnen, dann konnen wir diese Frage weiter diskutieren. Anders haben Sie kein Grund worauf zu standen.

He rejects the literalists because he can better fit his doctrines into a dynamic translation.

Yes, and the case could be made that Catholic translators of the sixteenth century do the same sort of thing. Translating “presbuteros” as “priest” is just as questionable as translating “dia tes pistis” (or whatever the correct Greek is) as “allein durch die Glaube.” Protestants would say that such a translation is a blatant example of inserting an idea not found in the original (and the fact that “priest” comes etymologically from “presbyter” does not invalidate that argument).

And then you have the transliteration method used to some extent by Douay-Rheims and advocated to an even greater extent by Catholics like Stephen Gardiner. Instead of using real English words, just use words based on the Latin which no one can understand until you tell them what they mean. (That’s actually the route I’d tend to go with “presbyter.”) Is that any better?

Translation is a tough and tricky business. The accusation that Luther “added a word” completely oversimplifies the whole issue.

Edwin

 

[TertiumQuid]

ladylinguist:

Does anybody know of any objectively written books on the subject? Obviously, if I read a book by a Catholic, it’s going to speak badly of Luther. If I read a book by a Protestant, it’s going to give all the support it can for his actions. Is there any book out there which approaches the subject without bias? I just feel like I can’t make an informed decision about this subject unless I get an objective overview of the facts. If I decide to convert, I want my decision to be entirely based on the fact that Catholics are more in line with the original Church.

Hello,

I am neither Roman Catholic or Lutheran. I have though, given much time to understanding Luther’s view of the canon of sacred Scripture. See my paper, here:

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Mystophilus]

ladylinguist:

I’m currently considering a conversion to Catholicism(currently non-denominational), and as such I have been reading many books on the faith. In one of the books I’ve read it says that Luther altered the Bible to suit his ideas about the church/theology. Is this true? If so, are there any unaltered Bible translations that survived to the present?

If you, personally, were going to decide what should be in the canon of “genuine” texts, how would you choose them?

The Bible was not written as one book: several dozen texts were written over a period of many hundreds of years. These were gradually collected together, again over a period of many hundreds of years. What makes this even more complicated is that it did not only happen once. In fact, there are several compilations, all of which include different sets. Various people set about creating canons at various times, and all of them did so upon the basis of lots of prayer, lots of thought, and their own ideas about church and theology.

The Samaritan canon is the smallest set (only 6 books!), while the Ethiopian canon is the largest (80-odd). Thus, if they so wished, the Ethiopians could accuse all of the rest of us of having “deleted” books from the Bible, whereas the Samaritans could, likewise, accuse all of the rest of us of having “inserted” books. Such claims depend more upon politics than upon anything else.

Luther and the other early Protestants exchanged the Septuagint Old Testament collection, which was completed in the C1st BC and which the Roman Catholic church still uses, for the Tanakh Old Testament collection, which was completed at the end of the C1st AD and which the Jews still use.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Another thing that I would like to add is that Luther wasn’t the first one to translate the Bible into his vernacular German. A lot of protestants throw this one at us, claiming that the Church tried to keep the word of God from the people. At Luther’s time, there were already a few approved German Bibles which the Church in Germany used. A total of 14. Wycliff also was not the first one to translate the Bible into English, in fact vernacular translations date back several hundred centuries before his time. Also the KJV wasn’t the first mass produced English translation either! The Douay-Rheims translation was finished a year before the KJV even began, and a lot of the KJV uses texts directly copied from the Douay-Rheims. It is true that the Catholic Church locked away Bibles, but not to keep them from the people, but to preserve them. Back before Gutenberg (a Catholic) invented the printing press, a Bible was the equiv. of 3 years’ plus of wages because they were all hand copied in monasteries by monks - also, what good would a Bible do a peasant who couldn’t read? The Church instead used art such as statues and stained glass to teach the people. The Church also used Latin (a “dead” language) because all scholars at the time knew Latin, and all priests and Church officials were trained in Latin. They did not use Latin to keep the word of God from people but rather to preserve His words. You see, English itself is an evolving language. By using Latin, the Church could be sure that the doctrine would not change over time and would essentially remain the same. Luther wanted to remove the Deuterocanonical books because they disagreed with his theology. He also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, 1 & 2 Peter & Revelation (ironic, because it seems the book of Revelation is the only book a lot of protestants study now! ) The OT that we use in the CC, was the same canon that was in use at the time of Christ called the septuagint and the canon He would have used and often quoted from.

Hope this helps.

God bless,

 

[TertiumQuid]

Semper Fi:

Luther wanted to remove the Deuterocanonical books because they disagreed with his theology.

prove it.
Semper Fi:

He also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, 1 & 2 Peter & Revelation

When Luther published his Bible, a layman found the entirety of the canon. Luther expressed his thoughts on the canon in “prefaces” placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books.

Also prove your assertion about Luther wanting to remove 1 & 2 Peter. Luther considered 1 Peter as an example of “the true kernel and marrow of all the books.”
Semper Fi:

(ironic, because it seems the book of Revelation is the only book a lot of protestants study now!

Luther’s Preface To The Revelation of St. John is frequently cited by Luther detractors, that is, in its original form written in 1522. Luther eventually rewrote it entirely in 1530, which is very favorable to Revelation.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

TertiumQuid:

prove it.

It is well documented. Maccabees contains instances of prayers for the dead implying purgatory, and Jews of today still pray for their dead.

TertiumQuid:

When Luther published his Bible, a layman found the entirety of the canon. Luther expressed his thoughts on the canon in “prefaces” placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books.

Yes, this doesn’t change his opinion of them, or the fact that he placed books he considered “apocryphal” at the back of the index.

TertiumQuid:

Also prove your assertion about Luther wanting to remove 1 & 2 Peter. Luther considered 1 Peter as an example of “the true kernel and marrow of all the books.

You’re corret about 1 Peter, but he didn’t consider 2 Peter or 2 John and 3 John Scriptural.

TertiumQuid:

Luther’s Preface To The Revelation of St. John is frequently cited by Luther detractors, that is, in its original form written in 1522. Luther eventually rewrote it entirely in 1530, which is very favorable to Revelation.

prove it.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Semper Fi,

Your post is a great example for ladylinguist. It documents how poorly Roman Catholics are at correctly presenting historical information about Martin Luther.

For instance, I asked Semper Fi to substantiate his assertion “Luther wanted to remove the Deuterocanonical books because they disagreed with his theology.” He offered:
Semper Fi:

It is well documented. Maccabees contains instances of prayers for the dead implying purgatory, and Jews of today still pray for their dead.

Here is Luther’s reasoning for rejecting 2 Maccabees:

“This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well.It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.”

When I corrected Semper Fi about Luther’s opinion on 1 Peter, he went on to offer this alleged historical information:
Semper Fi:

You’re corret about 1 Peter, but he didn’t consider 2 Peter or 2 John and 3 John Scriptural.

This is completely bogus. There is nothing in Luther’s preface to 2 Peter that even remotely suggest Luther didn’t consider it Scriptural. Luther says,

“This epistle is written against those who think that Christian faith can be without works. Therefore he exhorts them to test themselves by good works and become sure of their faith, just as one knows trees by their fruits.”

You are also completely mistaken about Luther’s opinion of 2 and 3 John. Luther calls them “examples of love and faith.”

In regard to Luther’s Preface to Revelation, for which you require “proof”- Luther’s Preface To The Revelation is frequently cited by Luther detractors, that is, in its original form written in 1522. Luther eventually rewrote it entirely in 1530. The rewrite is hardly ever referred to within anti-Luther polemics. John Warwick Montgomery points out,

“Luther’s short and extremely negative Preface to the Revelation of St. John was completely dropped after 1522, and the Reformer replaced it with a long and entirely commendatory Preface (1530). Because “some of the ancient fathers held the opinion that it was not the work of St. John the apostle,” Luther leaves the authorship question open, but asserts that he can no longer “let the book alone,” for “we see, in this book, that through and above all plagues and beasts and evil angels Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory at last.” In his original, 1532 Preface to Ezekiel, Luther made a cross-reference to the Revelation of St. John with no hint of criticism; in his later, much fuller Preface to Ezekiel, he concludes on the note that if one wishes to go into prophetic study, more deeply, “the Revelation of John can also help."

My suggestion Semper Fi is to check your facts before hitting the key on your keyboard that posts your comments.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

gardenswithkids:

Also, as I understand, Luther also considered getting rid of the book of Revelation and the letter of James, but others around him prevented that.

Which “others”?

This is a charge i’ve been trying to get to the bottom of. For instance Catholic apologist Steve Ray has claimed: “It was only later that Philipp Melanchthon convinced {Luther} to defer to long tradition and place the books back in the New Testament, back in the recognized order.”

Ray would do well to provide further information to substantiate this claim that Melanchthon was the primary reason Luther put books “back in the New Testament” (which were never taken out to begin with!) To my knowledge, no such information exists. The most in depth treatment of Luther’s Bible was done by M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with A Collection of Sources (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934). Within 600 pages, Reu makes no mention of such an important discussion between Luther and Melanchthon. Reu does mention though that in 1521 Melanchthon did urge Luther to follow through with his plan of translating the Bible (Reu, 148). Reu notes an intriguing comment from Luther that Melanchthon forced him to do so: “Hence Luther’s remark in Tischreden that Melanchthon had forced him to translate the New Testament (I, 487, 11 f)” (Reu, 351).

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Genesis315:

That’s why Protestant Bibles are missing seven books in the OT. Luther also wanted to get rid of Hebrews, James, and Revelation, but it ended up not catching on. Likewise, in his personal translation, he added the word alone to a verse to make it say we are saved by “faith alone” (I forget which one).When in reality the only place “faith alone” is found is in James when it says we are not saved by faith alone–that’s why Luther called James an epistle of straw.

I always get a chuckle out of the “epistle of straw” quote.

An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick Montgomery points out:

“Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.” Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.” For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

TertiumQuid:

Hi Semper Fi,

Your post is a great example for ladylinguist. It documents how poorly Roman Catholics are at correctly presenting historical information about Martin Luther.

For instance, I asked Semper Fi to substantiate his assertion “Luther wanted to remove the Deuterocanonical books because they disagreed with his theology.” He offered:

Here is Luther’s reasoning for rejecting 2 Maccabees:

“This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second. But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well.It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books. It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.”

When I corrected Semper Fi about Luther’s opinion on 1 Peter, he went on to offer this alleged historical information:

This is completely bogus. There is nothing in Luther’s preface to 2 Peter that even remotely suggest Luther didn’t consider it Scriptural. Luther says,

“This epistle is written against those who think that Christian faith can be without works. Therefore he exhorts them to test themselves by good works and become sure of their faith, just as one knows trees by their fruits.”

You are also completely mistaken about Luther’s opinion of 2 and 3 John. Luther calls them “examples of love and faith.”

In regard to Luther’s Preface to Revelation, for which you require “proof”- Luther’s Preface To The Revelation is frequently cited by Luther detractors, that is, in its original form written in 1522. Luther eventually rewrote it entirely in 1530. The rewrite is hardly ever referred to within anti-Luther polemics. John Warwick Montgomery points out,

“Luther’s short and extremely negative Preface to the Revelation of St. John was completely dropped after 1522, and the Reformer replaced it with a long and entirely commendatory Preface (1530). Because “some of the ancient fathers held the opinion that it was not the work of St. John the apostle,” Luther leaves the authorship question open, but asserts that he can no longer “let the book alone,” for “we see, in this book, that through and above all plagues and beasts and evil angels Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory at last.” In his original, 1532 Preface to Ezekiel, Luther made a cross-reference to the Revelation of St. John with no hint of criticism; in his later, much fuller Preface to Ezekiel, he concludes on the note that if one wishes to go into prophetic study, more deeply, “the Revelation of John can also help."

My suggestion Semper Fi is to check your facts before hitting the key on your keyboard that posts your comments.

James Swan

My suggestion to you is is that you need to reread your so-called “facts” regarding Luther. Just because Luther may have considered them “examples of love and faith” does NOT mean that he considered them CANONical (i.e. INSPIRED or, in another word, SCRIPTURAL).

In other words, Luther had been catching some flak for his “reasoning” about Revelation and decided to change it.

God bless,

 

[TertiumQuid]

Semper Fi:

My suggestion to you is is that you need to reread your so-called “facts” regarding Luther. Just because Luther may have considered them “examples of love and faith” does NOT mean that he considered them CANONical (i.e. INSPIRED or, in another word, SCRIPTURAL).

Again, prove it. I would be really interested in any documentation you could provide that Luther held 2 Peter and 2-3 John to be non-canonical. This should be interesting.
Semper Fi:

In other words, Luther had been catching some flak for his “reasoning” about Revelation and decided to change it.

Is this more of your historical research, or are you making it up as you go along?

James Swan

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

TertiumQuid:

Again, prove it. I would be really interested in any documentation you could provide that Luther held 2 Peter and 2-3 John to be non-canonical. This should be interesting.

Is this more of your historical research, or are you making it up as you go along?

James Swan

Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians.

Why would he rework the index if he considered them inspired ? Just because Martin Luther may have kept them in the Bible does not mean that he considered them authentic Scripture (i.e. inspired and written by who they claimed to be). I think it’s up to you to prove that he did accept them as inspired and written by who they claimed to be.

P.S. When did I ever claim to be a historian? And I was going off of memory which books he rejected, it’s so many, so sorry if I got one wrong!

 

[TertiumQuid]

Semper Fi:

P.S. When did I ever claim to be a historian? And I was going off of memory which books he rejected, it’s so many, so sorry if I got one wrong!

Luther never questioned 1 or 2 Peter, or 2 or 3 John. In fact, it was Cardinal Cajetan, probably the greatest Catholic theologian of the 16th Century who questioned the authenticity of these books.

When one looks at the totality of Luther’s New Testament canon criticism, it is quite minute: four books. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. His overall opinion softened later in life by the exclusion of many negative comments in his revised prefaces. Of the four books, it is possible that Luther’s opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Even while criticizing James and Jude, he positively quoted from them throughout his career. In the case of Jude he did a complete series of lectures. In the case of James, he preached from the book.

If you would like my answer to your other questions, you can read my answers here:

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

In the case of Revelation, I would argue that if Luther rejected its claimed authorship, that he also rejected it as scriptural. How can you reject the author and still claim it is Apostolic or (inspired, i.e. scriptural)?

 

[TertiumQuid]

Semper Fi:

In the case of Revelation, I would argue that if Luther rejected its claimed authorship, that he also rejected it as scriptural. How can you reject the author and still claim it is Apostolic or (inspired, i.e. scriptural)?

In the earlier 1522 preface to Revelation , Luther explains that his opinion of the book is not to be binding:

“About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment.”

and also,

“let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.”

Similar to the other antilegomena Luther says, “Many of the fathers also rejected this book [Revelation] a long time ago…”

The editors of Luther’s Works add: “The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Synod of Laodicea in a.d. 360, though it was accepted by others as Eusebius reports…. Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal.”

Luther’s tone of writing in the 1530-revised preface contains only a remnant of the doubt as to its canonicity. Luther says,

“Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25. For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses.”

James Swan

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

TertiumQuid:

“Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25. For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses.”

James Swan

EXACTLY!!! We are not discussing whether or not Martin Luther let it up to the readers, we are discussing his views. Now admit it, Martin Luther himself did not consider it Scriptural.

I would also argue that the book of Revelation’s meanings are not hidden, but are in fact a view of the Mass in Heaven.

 

[JaneFrances]

Hi LadyLinguist!

You have obviously started a very active thread! In the absence of total objectivity on any side, perhaps another approach would be a balance of perspectives. Without trying to debate TertiumQuid (as he has made numerous posts in this thread), I will provide a link to a reply to one of his papers, from a Catholic perspective:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_socrates58_archive.html#109615259350783122

From my personal perspective, if you are well-read in general and objectively thinking, simply reading the works of Martin Luther, in his own defense, is very profitable. Of course, it is biased–bias is almost impossible to avoid. However, I think reading the writings of the individual are much more reliable than reading someone else’s understanding of those writings.

The issues at hand, the canon of Scripture and Martin Luther’s personal interpretations and theology, are important points of study if you are considering converting to Catholicism! I wish you well and pray for your right discernment, in the hope that you find your home here in the Catholic Church!

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Jane,

JaneFrances:

Without trying to debate TertiumQuid (as he has made numerous posts in this thread), I will provide a link to a reply to one of his papers, from a Catholic perspective:socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_socrates58_archive.html#109615259350783122

I welcome anyone to read Mr. Armstrong’s responses to my studies. While Dave Armstrong and I have had some “heated” exchanges, I hold no animosity towards him simply because he’s Catholic or “anti-protestant”. From Dave Armstrong:

"I respect James Swan for actually making some real arguments for a change, and doing some solid research and work, rather than simply accusing. I have links to his papers on Luther on my website. I enjoyed these exchanges very much, and James and I have had very cordial private correspondence. He even apologized for remarks made at my expense behind my back, in a forum where I was banned and couldn’t even read what was being written about me. This is normal Christian behavior and discourse. "

“This is all I ask: that if a person disagrees with my Luther research, to show me why, and to engage in normal, congenial, non-insulting, substantive discussion about it, without the stupid, false charges which poison the well from the outset (in other words, rudimentary Christian ethics and normal intellectual discourse). James Swan did that, and I will remain eternally grateful to him for doing so.”

Source: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ485.HTM

If you scroll down this link to “External links”:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ387.HTM

You will note Armstrong links to two of my papers:

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther, Part I (“hostile” historians" – by Calvinist James Swan)

**The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther, Part II ** (more “favorable” or “fair” historians" – by Calvinist James Swan)

JaneFrances:

I think reading the writings of the individual are much more reliable than reading someone else’s understanding of those writings.

I think its profitable to do also- however, I find most people have little time or desire to do the research needed to understand Luther. Most good college libraries have the 55 volume edition of Luther’s Works. I recommend these volumes to those wishing to read Luther for themselves. On the other hand, I can recommend excellent books about Luther written *from both * Catholics and Protestants. It would be my pleasure to provide this information.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Semper Fi:

EXACTLY!!! We are not discussing whether or not Martin Luther let it up to the readers, we are discussing his views. Now admit it, Martin Luther himself did not consider it Scriptural.

Luther’s later view on Revelation appears to treat the book as canonical, but yet Luther retained some doubt (as did many throughout church history) as to John being the author. There are a variety of reasons why he treated Revelation with the utmost seriousness from 1530 on. without boring everybody, the most important factor would be that Luther increasingly believed his century was the last. Thus, he gave much seriousness to Revelation. I commend you to his writing on the subject before making any further inaccurate statements.

Regards,
James Swan