Luther's Rewritting of Theology

[papaspicy]

I have heard a number of times on Catholic radio the claim that when Luther was translating his version of the OT, he removed books, specifically 2 Macc., because he disagreed with some of the theology that they supported. Is there any support for this claim from the writings of Luther? I know that the pro-Luther argument always brings up that there were no Hebrew versions of these books (at that time), so Luther removed them for this reason.

 

[Liberian]

Papa Spicy,

I have heard from a Lutheran that Luther actually included the Deuterocanonicals when he translated the Bible, and that they were removed later.

• Liberian

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have read he didnt consider them Scripture but included them in the appendix of the Bible, in an encyclopedia I have it says it was in the mid 1800s when the books were no longer published at all in Protestant Bibles.

 

[e-catholic]

Didn’t Luther also remove parts of the NT, which were later returned?

 

[janman55]

Yes, Revelation, James among others that escape me right now.

 

[here_i_stand]

Yes, Revelation, James among others that escape me right now.

I don’t think this is true. While he had doubts about their canonicity, I don’t think he ever excluded them from his translations. If someone has a source to correct me, please let me know.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I don’t think this is true. While he had doubts about their canonicity, I don’t think he ever excluded them from his translations. If someone has a source to correct me, please let me know.

He openly demonized books like James and said stuff like “there is nothing of the nature of the Gospel about James”.

 

[here_i_stand]

He openly demonized books like James and said stuff like “there is nothing of the nature of the Gospel about James”.

Do you know in which of his writings does he state this? I’m not doubting you…I’m just curious.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Do you know in which of his writings does he state this? I’m not doubting you…I’m just curious.

These are two quotes from Luther from a Protestant webpage:
Luther: 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. But more of this in the other prefaces.

Luther: 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 [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. 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, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly 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’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles” [LW 54:424].

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther and the canon 2.htm#a6

Paragraph 3 [of Luther’s introduction to the Epistle]:

“In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27], “You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.”[54]

Comment by writer of page:

Here Luther expresses his Christocentric hermeneutic. Paul Althaus explained that Luther held “An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior…an apostle is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and this gives him his authority and infallibility. Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of the Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ.”[55] Luther did not find this in the book of James.

Althaus continues, “For Luther, ‘preaching’ Christ means proclaiming that the crucified and risen Christ is the Savior and that the salvation he brings is received through faith alone. Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which Scripture itself offers in its on-going central proclamation…Luther obtained this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To this extent it is the Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.”[56]

…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

To quote Paragraph 1:

“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 my reasons follow.”[47]

The first thing Luther wants to tell us is his awareness that the book of James has an uncertainty in regards to its canonicity, and that he does not consider James an apostle. The editors of Luther’s Works include an interesting footnote after the word “ancients,” noting that both Eusebius and Jerome raised or confirmed similar doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James.

“In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author… writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.”… Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3)…Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status.”[48]

The second thing Luther tells us is that he praises James and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Luther clearly values the law of God. Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform its readers that Luther praises James, or point out Luther’s respect for God’s law. On the other hand, I have seen many papers insisting Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian.[49] Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth God’s law. Luther then says he is going to state his own opinion, “without prejudice to anyone.” These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or “super-pope.”

In view of all this, ISTM that a lot of the fuss about Luther & the canon is a fuss about nothing. The link is most informative:​

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

 

[here_i_stand]

To quote Paragraph 1:

“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 my reasons follow.”[47]

The first thing Luther wants to tell us is his awareness that the book of James has an uncertainty in regards to its canonicity, and that he does not consider James an apostle. The editors of Luther’s Works include an interesting footnote after the word “ancients,” noting that both Eusebius and Jerome raised or confirmed similar doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James.

“In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author… writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.”… Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3)…Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status.”[48]

The second thing Luther tells us is that he praises James and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Luther clearly values the law of God. Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform its readers that Luther praises James, or point out Luther’s respect for God’s law. On the other hand, I have seen many papers insisting Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian.[49] Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth God’s law. Luther then says he is going to state his own opinion, “without prejudice to anyone.” These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or “super-pope.”

In view of all this, ISTM that a lot of the fuss about Luther & the canon is a fuss about nothing. The link is most informative:​

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

That was very informative … thank you!

 

[onmywayagain]

Regarding the NT, Luther wanted to remove James and Revelations but never did. It has also been said that he may have added words to his translation of Romans.

 

[jim1130]

I have heard a number of times on Catholic radio the claim that when Luther was translating his version of the OT, he removed books, specifically 2 Macc., because he disagreed with some of the theology that they supported. Is there any support for this claim from the writings of Luther? I know that the pro-Luther argument always brings up that there were no Hebrew versions of these books (at that time), so Luther removed them for this reason.

Peace.

Visit this site with the Catholic Controversy by St. Frances de Sales

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/fds/fds_index.html

Specifically go to the material on “St. Francis de Sales on the Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture.”

 

[Integritus]

Martin Luther most especially despised Hebrews, Revelation, and James. He even had a tendency to “rank” the Gospels and Epistles in which he demoted some canonical books to his preferred favorite books (still implicitly practiced within Protestantism).

Of James:

Luther states that it is “flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture.” In other words, God’s Word is contradicting itself in the Holy Bible according to Luther.

Of Revelation:

In his Preface to Revelation, from 1522:

"I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow [nowhere] detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep.

. . . Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. [Notice the cleverly slick teaching on Sola Scriptura there?] My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, – Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, ‘Ye shall be my witnesses.’ Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

more classics from Luther:

"From all this you can now judge all the books and decide among them which are the best. "

" . . John’s Gospel is the one, tender, true chief Gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke."

"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 good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it. "

(Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, C.M. Jacobs),

The subjective and arbitrary world that was of Martin Luther.