More precision on Martin Luther, 7 books "tossed out"

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewEvanglztn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NewEvanglztn

Guest
Hi, I recently listened to an audio presentation by Matthew Arnold called “Fire and Sword” where this came up, and here it is again in an apologist post by Peggy Frye. catholic.com/quickquestions/was-martin-luthers-revision-of-the-bible-a-return-to-the-true-bible-of-the-early-chur
Both Matthew Arnold and Peggy Frye said something to the effect that 7 books of the Old Testament were taken out. I think this would be accurate enough if Martin Luther didn’t put them in his German translation, but as far as I know they were there, but in a different order. According to Wikipedia, he put the 7 OT books (he later labeled “apocrypha”) between the Old and New Testaments, and since he didn’t like Hebrews and James, he put them at the end near Revelation. Wikipedia says the “apocrypha” were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament.
My point is that saying “threw them out” is basically inaccurate. There were 73 books in his bible, but in truth he did “downgrade” them by segregating them. If my information is correct, all Catholics should be saying “Martin Luther downgraded 9 books in his German translation of the Bible” instead of “he threw them out”. I think we should be more precise. What do you think?
 
NewEvanglztn said:
Hi, I recently listened to an audio presentation by Matthew Arnold called “Fire and Sword” where this came up, and here it is again in an apologist post by Peggy Frye. catholic.com/quickquestions/was-martin-luthers-revision-of-the-bible-a-return-to-the-true-bible-of-the-early-chur
Both Matthew Arnold and Peggy Frye said something to the effect that 7 books of the Old Testament were taken out. I think this would be accurate enough if Martin Luther didn’t put them in his German translation, but as far as I know they were there, but in a different order. According to Wikipedia, he put the 7 OT books (he later labeled “apocrypha”) between the Old and New Testaments, and since he didn’t like Hebrews and James, he put them at the end near Revelation. Wikipedia says the “apocrypha” were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament.
My point is that saying “threw them out” is basically inaccurate. There were 73 books in his bible, but in truth he did “downgrade” them by segregating them. If my information is correct, all Catholics should be saying “Martin Luther downgraded 9 books in his German translation of the Bible” instead of “he threw them out”. I think we should be more precise. What do you think?
Click to expand...
In classifying the books as “apocrypha” he declared them to be uninspired (not Scripture). In this act, he separated them from the canon of Holy Scripture. So, yes, thought the books were included, he did not consider them part of the Sacred Canon, or the Word of God.
 
guanophore said:
In classifying the books as “apocrypha” he declared them to be uninspired (not Scripture). In this act, he separated them from the canon of Holy Scripture. So, yes, thought the books were included, he did not consider them part of the Sacred Canon, or the Word of God.
Click to expand...
This is a good way to look at it. The issue becomes one of games. Luther expressed doubts about many books including some in the New Testament. In the end all the New Testament books and the Dueterocanonical were included, if by that we mean printed, in Luther’s Bible. But he relegated some books from the Canon of Scripture and cast doubt on others. What is inspired is a very important question. This is so especially for adherents of Sola Scriptura. It is even more important when folks condemn Catholic teaching based a Canon that they really can’t well justify or that is in doubt.
 
NewEvanglztn said:
Hi, I recently listened to an audio presentation by Matthew Arnold called “Fire and Sword” where this came up, and here it is again in an apologist post by Peggy Frye. catholic.com/quickquestions/was-martin-luthers-revision-of-the-bible-a-return-to-the-true-bible-of-the-early-chur
Both Matthew Arnold and Peggy Frye said something to the effect that 7 books of the Old Testament were taken out. I think this would be accurate enough if Martin Luther didn’t put them in his German translation, but as far as I know they were there, but in a different order. According to Wikipedia, he put the 7 OT books (he later labeled “apocrypha”) between the Old and New Testaments, and since he didn’t like Hebrews and James, he put them at the end near Revelation. Wikipedia says the “apocrypha” were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament.
My point is that saying “threw them out” is basically inaccurate. There were 73 books in his bible, but in truth he did “downgrade” them by segregating them. If my information is correct, all Catholics should be saying “Martin Luther downgraded 9 books in his German translation of the Bible” instead of “he threw them out”. I think we should be more precise. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Some past responses on this subject

#182, apocrypha is not scripture

#198 , #208 **, **# , # ,

Bottom line, removing canonical books from the canon, calling them apocrypha, is removing books from scripture.
 
NewEvanglztn said:
Hi, I recently listened to an audio presentation by Matthew Arnold called “Fire and Sword” where this came up, and here it is again in an apologist post by Peggy Frye. catholic.com/quickquestions/was-martin-luthers-revision-of-the-bible-a-return-to-the-true-bible-of-the-early-chur
Both Matthew Arnold and Peggy Frye said something to the effect that 7 books of the Old Testament were taken out. I think this would be accurate enough if Martin Luther didn’t put them in his German translation, but as far as I know they were there, but in a different order. According to Wikipedia, he put the 7 OT books (he later labeled “apocrypha”) between the Old and New Testaments, and since he didn’t like Hebrews and James, he put them at the end near Revelation. Wikipedia says the “apocrypha” were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament.
My point is that saying “threw them out” is basically inaccurate. There were 73 books in his bible, but in truth he did “downgrade” them by segregating them. If my information is correct, all Catholics should be saying “Martin Luther downgraded 9 books in his German translation of the Bible” instead of “he threw them out”. I think we should be more precise. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I appreciate your sentiments. Saying that Luther threw them out is as inaccurate as saying the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church added books.
A couple of thoughts:
  1. he actually included 74 books in his 1534 translation.
  2. he stated his opinion regarding the DC books, an opinion shared by others, including Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary, but no friend of Luther.
  3. He also stated his opinion some NT books, again, not novel to Luther.
    Those opinions were not binding on anyone, as he makes clear.
  4. All Catholics, prior to Trent, had the liberty to question the historically disputed books.
Jon
 
JonNC said:
I appreciate your sentiments. Saying that Luther threw them out is as inaccurate as saying the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church added books.
A couple of thoughts:
  1. he actually included 74 books in his 1534 translation.
  2. he stated his opinion regarding the DC books, an opinion shared by others, including Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary, but no friend of Luther.
  3. He also stated his opinion some NT books, again, not novel to Luther.
    Those opinions were not binding on anyone, as he makes clear.
  4. **All Catholics, prior to Trent, had the liberty to question the historically disputed books.
    **
    Jon
Click to expand...
Yeah?

So…what was Marty translating into German then?

Just some random collection of books?

How long had that version of …[whatever]…been around?

1000+ years…commissioned by a Pope…drawn up by a Saint and doctor of the Church…

Used by THE universal Church, the world over…

Nah, nothing there. Just a collection someone’s opinion as to what should be a part thereof.

btw: worth noting–>1000 prior, with regards to that very same collection of books…there was a difference of opinion–between St. Jerome…and Pope Damasus I.

The Pope’s opinion won out. 😉

Funny how that worked.
 
JonNC said:
I appreciate your sentiments. Saying that Luther threw them out is as inaccurate as saying the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church added books.
A couple of thoughts:
  1. he actually included 74 books in his 1534 translation.
  2. he stated his opinion regarding the DC books, an opinion shared by others, including Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary, but no friend of Luther.
  3. He also stated his opinion some NT books, again, not novel to Luther.
    Those opinions were not binding on anyone, as he makes clear.
  4. All Catholics, prior to Trent, had the liberty to question the historically disputed books.
Jon
Click to expand...
BTW, I also don’t think it’s inaccurate to say he “threw them out” because he did. He 'threw them out" of the company of the acknowledged inspired, and placed them in a lesser category of ‘dubious’. (i.e.–their inspiration by the H/S=dubious).

For anyone how revers the Word of God–to have God’s Word cheapened, and questioned, is insulting.

That IS exactly, what Martin Luther did wrt to the “DC’s” as you call them–and would have done to other books of the NT, had he been permitted to.

Just because there was precedent for it, doesn’t make it justified.

e.g.–even St. Jerome was wrong on that count; dead wrong–but thank God for the Papacy (which your Church dubs “the Antichrist”), for by it, the Word of God was spared St. Jerome’s would be hatchet job…and later, Luther’s chopping block/guillotine.

God bless the Pope! 😃
 
Goya said:
Yeah?

So…what was Marty translating into German then?

Just some random collection of books?

How long had that version of …[whatever]…been around?

1000+ years…commissioned by a Pope…drawn up by a Saint and doctor of the Church…

Used by THE universal Church, the world over…

Nah, nothing there. Just a collection someone’s opinion as to what should be a part thereof.

btw: worth noting–>1000 prior, with regards to that very same collection of books…there was a difference of opinion–between St. Jerome…and Pope Damasus I.

The Pope’s opinion won out. 😉

Funny how that worked.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but St Jerome was permitted to have that opinion. So was Cardinal Cajetan, and many others . The only one who seems to be held to a different standard by some Catholic apologists is Luther.
Now, I’m not complaining about that bias, as we all have biases on these issues. But St. Jerome, Cajetan, Luther , and all the varying views of the canon, East and West, do not mean anyone added to, or subtracted from the canon. The DRB still has 73 books. For Catholics, no books were “removed”, for Lutherans no books are added or removed, for Orthodoxy, no books are added or removed by the opinions of Dr. Luther.
Jon
 
NewEvanglztn said:
Hi, I recently listened to an audio presentation by Matthew Arnold called “Fire and Sword” where this came up, and here it is again in an apologist post by Peggy Frye. catholic.com/quickquestions/was-martin-luthers-revision-of-the-bible-a-return-to-the-true-bible-of-the-early-chur
Both Matthew Arnold and Peggy Frye said something to the effect that 7 books of the Old Testament were taken out. I think this would be accurate enough if Martin Luther didn’t put them in his German translation, but as far as I know they were there, but in a different order. According to Wikipedia, he put the 7 OT books (he later labeled “apocrypha”) between the Old and New Testaments, and since he didn’t like Hebrews and James, he put them at the end near Revelation. Wikipedia says the “apocrypha” were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament.
My point is that saying “threw them out” is basically inaccurate. There were 73 books in his bible, but in truth he did “downgrade” them by segregating them. If my information is correct, all Catholics should be saying “Martin Luther downgraded 9 books in his German translation of the Bible” instead of “he threw them out”. I think we should be more precise. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think you can see that there are some entrenched opinions on the subject.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
  1. All Catholics, prior to Trent, had the liberty to question the historically disputed books.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point. But then we run into the issue of authority. I’m not sure but I suspect Luther died before to the settlement of the canon by Trent. It is a counterfactual, but would Luther have submitted to the council’s decision? I suspect not. So while it is true that there was some liberty in this matter prior to Trent, if the Church and its councils are no authority for Luther then citing them would be like citing the laws of England to apply to an American. The problem for Luther was not so much that he expressed doubt regarding the canon but that he had divorced himself from the authority of the Church and simultaneously set himself up as an authority.
 
exnihilo said:
That is a fair point. But then we run into the issue of authority. I’m not sure but I suspect Luther died before to the settlement of the canon by Trent. It is a counterfactual, but would Luther have submitted to the council’s decision? I suspect not. So while it is true that there was some liberty in this matter prior to Trent, if the Church and its councils are no authority for Luther then citing them would be like citing the laws of England to apply to an American. The problem for Luther was not so much that he expressed doubt regarding the canon but that he had divorced himself from the authority of the Church and simultaneously set himself up as an authority.
Click to expand...
I agree it is speculative whether Luther would have accepted Trent. I suspect it would have depended on if participants would had included (safely) members of the Evangelical Catholic churches .
As for authority, let’s remember that this divorce, like any other, was mutual. I will add that having read his prefaces to the DC books, I don’t recall a claim of authority, either explicitly or implicitly.
Jon
 
JonNC said:
Code: 
Indeed, but St Jerome was permitted to have that opinion.  So was Cardinal Cajetan, and many others .   The only one who seems to be held to a different standard by some Catholic apologists is Luther.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is attitude. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it could not be verified that the Deuterocanonical books had been written in Hebrew, which was one of the major elements of inclusion in the canon.

Jerome and Cajetan yielded their opinions to the authority of the Church, while Luther, especially toward the end, had become increasingly hostile and adversarial against the Church authority.

I still don’t think it was fair to ask him to renounce all that he had written, because those who demanded this knew as well as Luther that it did not all contradict the teachings of the CC. In fact, most of it did not. It was an exercise in obedience with which Luther could not comply. Others who were faced with the same demand were able to yield.
JonNC said:
Code: 
Now, I'm not complaining about that bias, as we all have biases on these issues.  But St. Jerome, Cajetan, Luther , and all the varying views of the canon, East and West, do not mean anyone added to, or subtracted from the canon.   The DRB still has 73 books.  For Catholics, no books were "removed", for Lutherans no books are added or removed,  for Orthodoxy, no books are added or removed by the opinions of Dr. Luther.
Click to expand...
While I can confirm the technical reality of what you are saying, clearly Luther’s opinion was highly influential, and was a major factor that did eventually result in their removal.
 
JonNC #6
All Catholics, prior to Trent, had the liberty to question the historically disputed books.
Click to expand...
There was never any “liberty to question” which books belong to the Bible for Catholics after the definition of Pope Damasus I.

The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God were defined by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament – clearly showing the authority of Christ’s Church, and culminating in the defined Canon of Sacred Scriptures at the Council of Trent.
 
exnihilo said:
That is a fair point.
Click to expand...
Actually that’s incorrect.

From the record at Florence (an ecumenical council)

“Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy Spirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing, and it asserts that there is no nature of evil because every nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good. It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.*
Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.”*
Session 11 (1442) or ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5"

Count the books. It’s 73. Just like pope Damasus I, decreed at the council of Rome in 382.

if one keeps reading in that document, it also says

“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; …”

That last part “outside the Church…” has not changed. The CCC makes clarifications but no changes.
846 , 837

One could ask, and they certainly DO ask, with such strongly worded language in that statement from Florence, was that ever taught in scripture that outside the Church there is no salvation? It was and here it is

This Greek word διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / factions /sedition and is used in both Romans 16:17 and Gal 5:19 Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21, NOTE: the consequence for that sin?

" I warn you as I’ve warned you before, those who live like this will not inherit heaven" Gal 5:21 **In Context ** ]

And because Luther was also a heretic, the following condemned him also

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
e:
But then we run into the issue of authority. I’m not sure but I suspect Luther died before to the settlement of the canon by Trent.
Click to expand...
Florence was an ecumenical council. It ended 40 years before Luther was born. He knew exactly what Florence taught.
e:
It is a counterfactual, but would Luther have submitted to the council’s decision? I suspect not. So while it is true that there was some liberty in this matter prior to Trent,
Click to expand...
as one can see from Florence, those who did that, went against what the Church taught from as far back as Pope Damasus.
 
JonNC said:
Indeed, but St Jerome was permitted to have that opinion. So was Cardinal Cajetan, and many others . The only one who seems to be held to a different standard by some Catholic apologists is Luther.
Now, I’m not complaining about that bias, as we all have biases on these issues. But St. Jerome, Cajetan, Luther , and all the varying views of the canon, East and West, do not mean anyone added to, or subtracted from the canon. The DRB still has 73 books. For Catholics, no books were “removed”, for Lutherans no books are added or removed, for Orthodoxy, no books are added or removed by the opinions of Dr. Luther.
Jon
Click to expand...
Jon

how many times and how many ways does that position have to be rejected?

Your comments about Jerome and Cajetan are answered in these 4 examples. Florence an ecumenical council btw is also covered.

#[76 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13523261&postcount=76) , #[28 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13512542&postcount=28) , #[24 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13509477&postcount=24) , #[726 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12380697&postcount=726)

Jerome and Cajetan
  • used the same canon of scripture that pope Damasus decreed.
  • it’s the same canon that Florence confirmed
  • neither Jerome nor Cajetan changed anything regarding the canon
Your comment about “books” in the Lutheran bible is a red herring.

For Lutherans, 66 of those books in your bible are scripture, NOT 73. Luther demoted 7 OT books to apocrypha status. Making 7 canonical books non scripture. Luther removed 7 books from scripture

Luther’s statement about “Apocrypha status” says it all

“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” taken from What is the apocrypha?
 
steve_b said:
Jon

how many times and how many ways does that position have to be rejected?

Your comments about Jerome and Cajetan are answered in these 4 examples. Florence an ecumenical council btw is also covered.

#[76 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13523261&postcount=76) , #[28 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13512542&postcount=28) , #[24 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13509477&postcount=24) , #[726 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12380697&postcount=726)

Jerome and Cajetan
  • used the same canon of scripture that pope Damasus decreed.
  • it’s the same canon that Florence confirmed
  • neither Jerome nor Cajetan changed anything regarding the canon
Your comment about “books” in the Lutheran bible is a red herring.

For Lutherans, 66 of those books in your bible are scripture, NOT 73. Luther demoted 7 OT books to apocrypha status. Making 7 canonical books non scripture. Luther removed 7 books from scripture

Luther’s statement about “Apocrypha status” says it all

“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” taken from What is the apocrypha?
Click to expand...
The Lutheran confession s do not specify a 66 book canon. In fact, through history, Lutherans have used the DCs liturgically, in hymnody, and in teacher. Use of the books in this way makes them canon. Canon means rule. Steve, you don’t get to decide what Lutherans teach and practice. You especially don’t get to misrepresent who our founder is as you did in that previous post. We preach Christ crucified. Christ is our founder, as we are members of His one True Church. Luther’s opinion was his own. It isn’t one I share entirely, and I am not required to.
Further, Cajetan clearly expresses his view of the DCs. He was permitted to do do. That was his Catholic liberty.
Finally, there are no ecumenical councils after the schism. It is an impossibility.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top