Lutherans and the Apocrypha

[Dave_Noonan]

It is not a false statement at all. The fact that his translation contained those books does NOT mean he regarded them as legitimate portions of the New Testament.

One has to go beyond his own translation and into his own writings and commentary to see what he thought of the Letter of James and the Book of Revelation. I would recommend you do so, sir, if you haven’t already.

I’ve also seen a copy of a Lutheran NT that did not have those books included - I was led to see this by a Lutheran pastor doing a doctorate on Reformed theology.

Alex

Again, take a look at Luther’s translation of the entire Bible (1534). You will see that the books you are referring to are clearly included under the heading “New Testament.” You don’t have to take my word for it–feel free to take a look for yourself.

Thus, it would be helpful to know which “Lutheran NT” you were looking at–and certainly Luther’s thought would have been at odds with many of the views of Reformed theology–so I’m not sure why that’s relevant to the post.

Also, there were various compilations of the Luther Bible (some of them published at intermediate stages of translation as well) and many, many others that came along long after Luther’s time but which were still published under his name because they were based on his translation. But the 1534 edition is Luther’s vision of the “entirety of Scripture.” Simply because “a Lutheran NT” didn’t include them doesn’t mean that this edition reflects Luther’s views on the matter–that’s a very common misconception.

As for Luther’s comments about the books, it’s helpful to understand them in context with Luther’s theology of the Bible. In short, Luther believed that not all parts of the Bible were of equal importance; they don’t all convey Christ equally. The notes (much like we would see in a modern study Bible) indicate Luther’s belief that these books were of lesser importance–true–and he critiqued them accordingly–but that’s not the same as excluding them from Scripture. He also clearly states that these were his own opinions and not binding on others; Luther didn’t think of himself as a sort of “counter-pope” making definitive rulings about the canon. You don’t have to agree with his theology, but it’s very important in gaining an understanding of his view of Scripture and the canon.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

American Lutherans, I believe, need to return to their inclusion in scripture and their use, including in the lectionary.

Jon

Ironically, Lutherans who follow the Revised Common Lectionary would have more Sunday readings from the Deuterocanon–as least potentially–than do Roman Catholics.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

My dear Christian friends,

I don’t have any axe to grind against Martin Luther and if I’ve given that impression, I am truly sorry! (And although I’m in communion with Rome, I’m not a Roman Catholic . . .).

My point in raising the issue of Luther’s assessment of scripture is not to accuse him of anything. My focus is actually on the way in which scripture is canonized over time.

It is the Church which is composed of human beings which canonizes scripture. Scripture did not fall down from heaven. And different local Churches had and continue to have their own canons of both the OT and the NT.

I don’t think it should be surprising to see Luther’s criticism of the “epistle of straw” as he called the Letter of James. How could the man who promoted “Sola Fides” have done otherwise with that book of the NT?

And at no time did I suggest that Luther was somehow unique in his time. In fact, Luther was more of a Catholic of his time than not. To Eastern Christianity especially, there is no fundamental difference between the approach of Roman Catholicism and that of Protestantism to such issues as salvation - “Faith alone” or “Faith and Works” - take your pick, to Eastern Christianity, they reflect the same approach to salvation that the Christian East categorically rejects. But that is another topic.

Also, the fact that (and I accept this as fact) Luther’s bible had all the 27 books of the NT does not mean he ranked them in the same way. The fact that there were Roman Catholics in his day that did similarly likewise reflects a similar approach - another topic as well.

Did Luther categorically reject the inspired nature of the Letter of James? I believe he did or at least I don’t see how he could not have, given his views on “faith alone” where the only time “faith alone” is even mentioned in the NT it is in the Letter of James where it is categorically … denied.

So this is a debate where we can either point to books and facsimiles thereof and to the conclusions of others. None of these close the book, so to speak, on this aspect of Luther’s perspective.

And certainly looking at his bible to make sure it has the 27 NT books is no convincing proof of any kind about his attitude toward the ones he singled out as being of questionable background.

In the past, Evangelical Christians have been nervous about this aspect of Luther’s thinking about Scripture since it does present a problem of sorts with respect to how Scripture is canonized from the Evangelical perspective.

Also, another topic . . .

I’ve said my peace and here I stand . . . Good night!

Alex

 

[JonNC]

No offense taken here, Alex. Just a couple of comments on your post.

=Alexander Roman;9208374]My dear Christian friends,

It is the Church which is composed of human beings which canonizes scripture. Scripture did not fall down from heaven. And different local Churches had and continue to have their own canons of both the OT and the NT.

Exactly.

I don’t think it should be surprising to see Luther’s criticism of the “epistle of straw” as he called the Letter of James. How could the man who promoted “Sola Fides” have done otherwise with that book of the NT?

Let’s look at the context of “epistle of straw”.

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.

Luther’s theology was one of the cross - Christ and the Gospel. He was comparing James to the mentioned books. Most importantly, he, like others before him, had questions about the authorship of the book, and this was his greatest concern. That said, the book is not contradictory of sola fide, or the other way around. James speaks of the law, and the kind of life the regenerate should live.

Did Luther categorically reject the inspired nature of the Letter of James? I believe he did or at least I don’t see how he could not have, given his views on “faith alone” where the only time “faith alone” is even mentioned in the NT it is in the Letter of James where it is categorically … denied.

Not according to his own words.

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle

And certainly looking at his bible to make sure it has the 27 NT books is no convincing proof of any kind about his attitude toward the ones he singled out as being of questionable background.

I think it is evidence. By the time he started his translating, he had already been excommunicated. I would contend that, if he really felt they did not belong, he would not have wasted his time translating them. One must also remember that his questioning reflects the disputed nature of these books.
Eusebius in 325:

Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

Jon

 

[JPeter]

As an Eastern Catholic with a fairly good grounding in Eastern Orthodoxy I would like to say that the Orthodox canon of the Bible contains even more “deuterocanonical” books of the OT than the Roman Catholic Church has. They are all inspired scripture, save for the fourth book of the Maccabees which is included in Greek Bibles.

Martin Luther also rejected four or five books of the NT and placed them separately after what he considered to be the true canon of the NT.

However the Lutheran tradition believes about the OT Apocrypha, it is a fact that its founder regarded the Letter of James as an “epistle of straw” and took it upon himself to distance it and some other NT books from the traditional NT canon.

Alex

Then you should look again. These books are not considered canon for the Orthodox but deutercanon. This places them on a secondary level below the 66 books of the canon.

The Old Testament comprises the following 39 canonical books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Kings (1 Samuel), 2 Kings (2 Samuel), 3 Kings (1 Kings), 4 Kings (2 Kings), 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, 2 Ezra (Ezra), Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; and the ten anagignoskomena (also called “deuterocanonical”) which correspond to the Lutheran “apocrypha”. In the Orthodox tradition they are: Judith, 1 Ezra, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus (Jesus Sirach), Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah. [footnote: The confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church do not contain a list of biblical books because the canon of the holy scripture was received by the Reformation as a given entity. Accordingly, there is also no delimitation of the canon of the Old Testament which is binding for all Lutheran churches. In Martin Luther’s translation which became normative for German-speaking lands, the following books and texts which “are profitable and good to read” are reckoned as the Apocrypha (this name does not here mean writings rejected by the church): Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Jesus Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Additions to Esther, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, Prayer of Manasseh.]

1. The New Testament comprises 27 writings: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.
2. We have one common holy scripture. We read it in our worship services; we use it catechetically. In the liturgy the reading of the gospel is always the conclusion and the high-point in a series of biblical texts. Jesus Christ is the centre of the holy scripture, the key to its understanding, the fulfilment of all of God’s promises.

Lutheran/Orthodox dialogue http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#cano

 

[Peter_J]

Martin Luther also rejected four or five books of the NT and placed them separately after what he considered to be the true canon of the NT.

Didn’t we already go over this on the Eastern Catholicism forum? Luther did *not *reject them.