G
- Status
I never said I did accept Luther’s opinion of the canon, and since the Lutheran confessions do not list a canon, I am free to question his view. You have made the claim that Luther disputed the DCs based on doctrine. There are seven books concerned here. If he in fact disputed them on doctrinal grounds, there must be doctrinal issues within each one that he disputed.
Luther did not throw out the DC’s. He saw to it that they were included in his translation, and in fact included the Book of Manasseh.
In the bolded, why the “…”? Parsing the text in this way hides the meaning of his words.
He was stating a personal opinion, not unknown in his time or since, stating a comparative. For him, James, which he at another point praises and accepts as canon for its promulgation of the law, does not compare to the Epistles of St. Paul.
Of the charge that “he threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament”, it is so patently false as to not need nor merit a response . Luther’s first NT was published in about 1522, and the NT had all 27 books.
Perhaps you should take a brief tour of Church history. Eusebius, for example, questioned long before Luther the Antilegomena. The fact is that all 27 books are in Luther’s NT, all the books of a typical western OT are in his translation, as is the Prayer of Manasseh.
Of that ignorance is the belief that Luther excluded them. One need only seek out Luther’s Die Bibel. They are there, all of them. The books were eliminated by English publishers, not Luther.
Curiously, the Orthodox Church using the Same Sacred Tradition has variously more books. The fact is there has never been a universally accepted canon.
You say this without proof. Again, what theologies from **each book **did he dispute?
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jon-
This is interesting. So, on whose authority do you accept the books contained in your Bible?
And I don’t mean the Holy Spirit since I doubt He met with you personally to go through the list…you know what I mean.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Let’s narrow this down.
We have a quote from Luther which strongly suggests that he had no regard for the Book of James.
Why do you think he felt so negatively about it?
What do you suppose Luther would have done with James had he not been influenced by his friends?
As Lutherans, we look to the Church, of course. Expanding that, we look at the history of how the Church has view the books - understanding that some are universally attested, some disputed.Jon-
This is interesting. So, on whose authority do you accept the books contained in your Bible?
And I don’t mean the Holy Spirit since I doubt He met with you personally to go through the list…you know what I mean.
Jon
First, my comment was in regards the posters unsubstantiated claim that Luther thought the DC’s not canonical because of theological reasons.
The notion that his friends convinced him is also unsubstantiated, from what I know. I’ve never seen a source for this. No need to speculate, however, he maintained James in the canon, though recognized the historic dispute regarding authorship. He preached from James throughout his life.
Jon
R
rcwitness
Guest
Just messin’ 
:knight2:
P
pablope
Guest
Okay…looking at your quote from Luther on James:
Following what you usually say about the nature of the dispute of the DCs…do you then view the book of James the same as the DCs?
P
pablope
Guest
But Jon…if Augustine and Carthage had spoken, approved by the Pope…why do you still consider the DC disputed? Why do you still have qualms about the DCs?
(If as you say…you look to the Church, and since the Church has accepted this books…should you not do the same…stop or cease all concerns and doubts about the DCs? )
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yeah, I get the latter part. I was just wondering what Luther MIGHT have done with James had cooler heads not prevailed.
However, if that story is just propaganda…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But which Church? Isn’t that the issue?
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Exactly. The way I’ve organized it over the years is this:
In 2 Tim 3:14 Paul tells Timothy to remain faithful to what he learned likely from his own mother and grandmother (1:5) and no doubt from Paul’s preaching, which a chapter later (2:2) he told Timothy to share orally with others who should in turn share it orally with yet others (also 1 Thess 1:8). After this in (3:15) he says “AND from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures” which could only refer to books of the OT. He follows (3:16) by telling Timothy that scripture is inspired and is suitable for teaching, etc. so that having both Paul’s teaching AND scripture (OT) he will be fully equipped (3:17). A few verses later (4:1-2) Paul charges Timothy to “proclaim the word . . . through teaching.”
It is difficult to see how Paul could be mandating or portraying sola scripture to Timothy here in these verses because:
(a) the context is the transmission of the whole of Christianity both by the oral word, which Paul called a “norm” and which he ordered Timothy to guard with the help of the Spirit (2 Tim 1:12-13; see also 1 Tim 6:20), AND by the OT;
(b) there is no mention by Paul ever that he had at this point or would in the future consign to writing all of his teaching that God wanted humanity to have or that Christianity would so be reduced for normative and authoritative transmission; and
(c) there is no mention that scripture alone as the sole rule of faith will supersede the process of oral apostolic word and scripture in the church as the means to hand on God’s word evidenced in NT teaching and practice. To claim that Paul teaches that sola scriptura will take over in a newer arrangement when the NT is all written and collected into a canon is to go beyond what Paul or any NT author actually writes.
(d) When Paul speaks to Timothy about the scriptures that he knew from his infancy Paul can only mean the OT . . . really, less than that. There was no Jewish OT canon then. There was a closed collection of Law, a closed collection of Prophets, and a large number of disparate Jewish religious writings only some of which would later be in the Jewish canon.
If Paul is forming Timothy to combat the opponents of the truth he discusses earlier, how on earth could that set of writings possibly be sufficient for him, a Christian? The formation of Timothy that Paul is outlining has to include his oral preaching and teaching AND the Jewish writings otherwise Timothy, a Christian, is not at all fully equipped.
Not exactly, that I know of from the standpoint of Lutheranism. Personally, however, I think we in America would do well to raise the usage of the DCs both in bible study and liturgically.
Jon
Well, it didn’t stop the concerns for theologians other than Luther. The dispute within the Church, even ignoring Luther, continued up until, and as I understand it, during Trent.
The qualms Lutherans have have to do with a respect for the history of the Church.
Lets remember that following the papal bull, Luther had no obligation to Rome regarding his translation. Even so, and even with his reservations, he saw to it that they were translated and included. It seems to me that indicates a deference and respect not only for the canon, but also fit the western Church’s view of it.
Jon
Every communion has taken on its own understanding of the canon.
And this is true pre-Reformation. That may not be the right thing, but it is a fact.
Even in the early Church, there was not a universal canon of scripture.
Jon
E
ezeekl
Guest
Quote:
=ezeekl;11141540]First of all I do not need to do any such thing. Luther took the easy way out. He merely rejected the Septuagint version that the early church had adopted in favor of the shorter canon accepted by Jews. What I have to ask you is why you accept Luther’s opinion on the Old Testament canon but reject his opinion on the New Testament? If we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn’t (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils and popes), we get much more than we bargained for.
“Luther took the easy way out. He merely rejected the Septuagint version that the early church had adopted in favor of the shorter canon accepted by Jews.”
So all seven of the books were discarded by Luther whether they contained any doctrinal problems or not. That is why I said he took the easy way out. He followed the same Jews who rejected the messiah for his authority.
"Lutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of ‘disputed books’ are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John. These books are considered to be canonical in modern Lutheran churches, with the caveat that they are not quite on the same level as the other books as complete expressions of evangelical truth, and should be used with care.
Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”
Luther’s criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther’s German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the ‘disputed books’ became necessary.
If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, we would have expected him to include 2 Peter among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times. But it is evident from the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books that his low view of them had more to do with his theological reservations against them than with any historical investigation of the canon."
=ezeekl;11141540]First of all I do not need to do any such thing. Luther took the easy way out. He merely rejected the Septuagint version that the early church had adopted in favor of the shorter canon accepted by Jews. What I have to ask you is why you accept Luther’s opinion on the Old Testament canon but reject his opinion on the New Testament? If we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn’t (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils and popes), we get much more than we bargained for.
I answered your question when Iwrote:
“Luther took the easy way out. He merely rejected the Septuagint version that the early church had adopted in favor of the shorter canon accepted by Jews.”
So all seven of the books were discarded by Luther whether they contained any doctrinal problems or not. That is why I said he took the easy way out. He followed the same Jews who rejected the messiah for his authority.
But unlike Luther, Eusebius questioned those New Testament scriptures in 325 AD not in the 1522. In 325 AD the canon was not decided upon and each bishop had his on canon. It wasn’t until 348 AD that Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria came up with the 73 book canon of scripture that we have today. That same canon was verified at local councils at Rome, Hippo, Carthage as well as in a letter from Pope Innocent I and the councils of Florence and Trent. With the publishing of the first Bible, the Vulgate of Jerome, the canon of scripture comprised 73 books so that 1100 years later when Luther came on the scene there was no need for revision. And yes while all 27 books are in Luther’s New Testament they are not all given the same weight. the following quote comes from the website; bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
"Lutheran theologians like to make a distinction between the books of the New Testament which were unanimously received as canonical in the early church (the so-called Homologoumena or undisputed books) and the books which were disputed by some (the Antilegomena). In this class of ‘disputed books’ are the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John. These books are considered to be canonical in modern Lutheran churches, with the caveat that they are not quite on the same level as the other books as complete expressions of evangelical truth, and should be used with care.
Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”
Luther’s criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther’s German Bible, pp. 175-176). The sad fact is, the Roman Catholic Church had never precisely drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. It was not necessary to do so under the Roman system, in which the authority of the Scriptures was not much higher than that of tradition, popes, and councils. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone that a decision on the ‘disputed books’ became necessary.
If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, we would have expected him to include 2 Peter among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times. But it is evident from the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books that his low view of them had more to do with his theological reservations against them than with any historical investigation of the canon."
But what weight did Luther give them? See above
E
ezeekl
Guest
I think we have to understand the purpose of the canon. It was to protect against Gnosticism and the false writings that claimed to have been penned by the apostles. These are the so called “Lost Books of the Bible” according to the History Channel. The Eastern churches have none of these in their canon. The idea of the canon was to gather those books that were suitable for use in the liturgy of the church. They were to be read in church at Mass and they were never intended to be a self study guide to christianity as protestsntism has perverted them to be.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Catholic Church has defined the canon, but the canon is not closed.
This leaves open the possibility that the Orthodox will be allowed to keep some of their scriptures when they return to full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
This leaves open the possibility that the Orthodox will be allowed to keep some of their scriptures when they return to full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
E
ezeekl
Guest
Some people would not agree with that. Surely Trent did not use specific enough language that would clearly state that the canon was closed. Trent stated thusly on the scriptures:
“…But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.” [The Fourth Session 1546]
Here the point was about removing books from the canon as Luther did. There was no specific language about additional works although I think that the Council of Florence did, in one of its Bulls, deal with the canon of at least one of the Orthodox churches whether they added to it or took away I am not sure.
Be that as it may, the basic reason as to why the Church would allow a larger canon to be used is because the Catholic Church does not view the scriptures in the same vein as the protestants. We have a church that has the binding and loosening authority and while that authority does not make the scriptures a “second rate authority” we do view the scriptures differently. Our view is liturgical in nature and personal interpretation of the scriptures is not a fundamental doctrine of the church as it is in protestantism. The scriptures are to be read during Mass. Trent had this to say about personal interpretation of scripture:
“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.” [The Fourth Session 1546]
This is why I say that the Bible is not a self study guide to christianity as it is commonly regarded in protestantism. They are, as the scripture say, ‘profitable’ for teaching which is what Jesus told the Apostles to do at the Great Commission.
- Status