Peer-reviewed explanation of Luther’s canon?

[AugustTherese]

I hope those who are reading this conversation are enjoying the very obvious false accusations and “re-imaginings” of history here

I doubt anyone is reading this outside of the two that are writing to you, exposing the fact that Martin Luther removed seven entire books, along with portions of two books, from the Holy Bible.

 

[pablope]

Except…you forgot to mention, these remained Catholic…and deferred to Church authorities…

This is an absurd thing to say.
Cajetan died before Trent.
Erasmus died before Trent.
Luther died before Trent.

I was not talking about Trent…I was talking about Church authorities during their time…they remained Catholic, and kept their cool.

As I mentioned…Cajetan deferred to the judgement of Augustine and Hippo/Carthage, and so did Jerome with regards to Daniel.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church

I’m doing precisely the opposite. I’m asking the historical questions exactly about how certain books were accepted, and your response is simply “Roma locuta est!” You can’t just anathematize those pesky minds who won’t just shut up and quit asking those troublesome historical questions!

Right…you are focusing on the technical definitions…not how they came to be accepted…widely.

That is a lie

It is most certainly not a lie. Luther did not hold certain books to be inspired. That is no lie. The Council of Florence was viewed by Luther, and others, as a local council and therefore did not carry the weight of an ecumenical council of the Church. Modern-day Catholics dispute him, but the fact is not changed. That is not a lie.

So what if Florence was a local council? You mean to say then that Florence was a total waste of time?

And so with Hippo and Carthage, Augustine wasted his time at those so called local councils?

 

[steido01]

He surely understood what Florence promulgated and he certainly was docile to its defined canon during his tenure as a Catholic priest! Of course he ‘viewed’ Florence as non-binding, but only after he got excommunicated! How convenient!

Hahahahaha! Then what is your defense of Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan? Surely, a cardinal would be familiar with that local council, yes? Obviously, Luther was not alone in his view that those councils did not carry the weight of an ecumenical council.

 

[steido01]

I was not talking about Trent…I was talking about Church authorities during their time…they remained Catholic, and kept their cool.

So you are no longer talking about the canon, you’re talking about Luther’s demeanor in other things. Fine. But that would seem to have no relevance to the OP, which is talking about Luther‘s view on the canon, specifically. On this topic, specifically, Luther was not the only Catholic to hold his views. Catholics who disagreed with him on many, even most, other issues would often agree with him on the issue of the canon.

As I mentioned…Cajetan deferred to the judgement of Augustine and Hippo/Carthage, and so did Jerome with regards to Daniel.

Cajetan obviously did not, since he shared Luther’s view on the canon. This is a silly line of thought. For a Catholic to be logically consistent, they must concede that Cardinal Cajetan and others were gravely mistaken. Or, they could simply admit the historical fact that Luther was totally within the norm (though certainly a minority) to consider certain antilegomena as uninspired as a pre-Tridentine Catholic.

 

[steido01]

To say ‘he did not understand’ is not the same has he ‘viewed’.

I’ve never met someone to quibble so incessantly over inconsequential words. This seems to be your rhetorical safety recourse when you understand your position to be untenable, or beyond your depth.

“Understand” has multiple meanings. I understand that those with sufficient intelligence will be able to Google this fact and understand it.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

At this point I have no earthly idea what you two are on about, but I haven’t seen any academic articles or books referenced for several posts.

So y’all are waaaaaay off topic. I asked for sources not a rerun of the Protestant Reformation. Good grief!

 

[AugustTherese]

Then what is your defense of Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan?

I don’t remember reading anything about them translating the Bible and removing books and placing them into an appendix.

I think it’s quite revealing how you keep eluding my simple question as to why Luther ‘moved’ books of the Bible into an appendix.

 

[pablope]

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church

I’m doing precisely the opposite. I’m asking the historical questions exactly about how certain books were accepted, and your response is simply “Roma locuta est!”

Is there anything bad or wrong when Rome has spoken? Or you just have disdain for Rome?

You can’t just anathematize those pesky minds who won’t just shut up and quit asking those troublesome historical questions!

[

Actually…for those who appreciate what was done at Rome in 382, Hippo and Carthage…there is not more need to ask troublesome questions…do you?

 

[pablope]

I was not talking about Trent…I was talking about Church authorities during their time…they remained Catholic, and kept their cool.

So you are no longer talking about the canon, you’re talking about Luther’s demeanor in other things. Fine. But that would seem to have no relevance to the OP, which is talking about Luther‘s view on the canon, specifically. On this topic, specifically, Luther was not the only Catholic to hold his views. Catholics who disagreed with him on many, even most, other issues would often agree with him on the issue of the canon.

Where did youi get that I am not taking about the canon? I am talking about the canon…but just made the distinction that the people you cited deferred to Church authorities on the canon when it came time to…and did not lose their cool…do you see anything wrong with this?

And why would one’s demeanor not count? Luther’s demeanor may have affected his view…I will repost from Machuta…n 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

As I mentioned…Cajetan deferred to the judgement of Augustine and Hippo/Carthage, and so did Jerome with regards to Daniel.

Cajetan obviously did not, since he shared Luther’s view on the canon. This is a silly line of thought. For a Catholic to be logically consistent, they must concede that Cardinal Cajetan and others were gravely mistaken. Or, they could simply admit the historical fact that Luther was totally within the norm (though certainly a minority) to consider certain antilegomena as uninspired as a pre-Tridentine Catholic.

Why would it it be a silly line of thought? And where have I stated Cajetan was not mistaken?
All I did was compare Cajetan with Luther…since you always cite Cajetan in an attemp to rationalize Luther…that there was a difference that you omit…Cajetan did not go as far as Luther did.

 

[pablope]

At this point I have no earthly idea what you two are on about, but I haven’t seen any academic articles or books referenced for several posts.

So y’all are waaaaaay off topic. I asked for sources not a rerun of the Protestant Reformation. Good grief!

Machuta’s book has several references…I will look for them and post them later.

 

[steido01]

but just made the distinction that the people you cited deferred to Church authorities on the canon when it came time to…and did not lose their cool…do you see anything wrong with this?

Pray tell, how did Cajetan and Erasmus “defer to Church authorities” when they were dead?

They held almost identical views to Luther. So if you blame one of the three for their pre-Trent views, you need to blame all. Be consistent.

I don’t remember reading anything about them translating the Bible and removing books and placing them into an appendix.

Oh, poor memory. Let me help you remember. Cajetan wrote a commentary on the Scriptures, which he titled “Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament.” He dedicates it to Pope Clement VII. He, unlike Luther, didn’t consider any of the Apocrypha worth including in the canon. In his own words:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Sounds like the Internet is full of “raw scholars.” Poor saps.

 

[AugustTherese]

Oh, poor memory. Let me help you remember. Cajetan wrote a commentary on the Scriptures

You might be right. I might actually have Alzheimers, because I do not remember on what planet where writing a commentary was the same as removing books of the bible from the canon of inspired Scripture and placing them into an appendix of non-inspired, ‘useful’ reading material.

 

[jcrichton]

This is kind of difficult. His supporters would argue that he simply followed the Hebrew canon (there was no Hebrew canon to follow as Judaism has held several versions according to their schools); while Catholics will point to the fact that when the Jews were exiled (uprooted and taken to Babylon, and I guess other places) the then common language (as English US used to be in the business circles) was Greek and the Hebrew texts were translated (Alexandrian) to Greek; these became known as the Septuagint (claimed that LXX theologians/rabbis translated them) which included the books referred to Deuterocanonicals, that were included in the Catholic Canon (compiled by the 5th century) and removed from the Bible by Protestants around the 19th century.

I have some info which I can dig up for you, if you want it.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steido01]

You might be right.

I am, with regard to the historical facts of Scripture and the canon.

where writing a commentary was the same as removing books of the bible from the canon of inspired Scripture and placing them into an appendix of non-inspired, ‘useful’ reading material.

This is both a double-standard and distinction without difference:

• Cajetan says certain books are not to be held to the same level as Holy Scripture, but is not offended if others consider them canonical. He has them in his bible.
• Luther says certain books are not to be held to the same level as Holy Scripture, but is not offended if others consider them canonical. He has them in his bible.

Both came to this conclusion based on teachings of early church fathers.
Both died before Trent made it anathema to hold this academic position.

---

Ok, fine… but, but, but Luther actually translated the bible (the nerve!) and physically moved around books to different places within the bible!
So what? Even Roman Catholic bibles today move around books to different places within the bible! There was, and is, no wrong or right way to order the books of the bible. Scripture doesn’t magically stop being Scripture when it’s printed in the order of the NAB or the CCB or the DR or a miniature New Testament or a Psalms-only booklet. Still Scripture.

Do you now understand that upholding the popular “internet polemic” against Luther on the canon requires either ignorance or rejection of more than a millennia of Catholic scholarship and factual history? That condemning Luther on this point (to say nothing of his other views) is also to condemn anti-Lutheran Roman Catholic Cardinals and early church fathers?

It is one thing to hold Roman Catholics to a certain standard after a council has ruled; it’s another entirely to retroactively hold Catholics accountable to anachronistic rulings they could never have understood. For another example, Pope Leo I, Pope Galatius, Pope Gregory I, Pope Innocent III and others did not consider Mary to have been immaculately conceived (or at the very least, not in the way the RCC teaches today). Neither did many other notable Roman Catholics prior to 1854. Yet I doubt anyone would condemn these good Christians for a view that had not been codified. So to remain logically consistent, Roman Catholics should probably lay off this polemic. It’s just not true.

 

[jcrichton]

…that’s where the interpretationalism comes into play… there are those who claim that his reasoning is that these book were rejected by some in the Church hence they should not be held in the same value as “Sacred Writings.”

Others, as myself, would point out that these 7 books were used by the Church in Church Liturgy and quoted by Jesus and the Apostles; hence, they are Sacred Scriptures.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AugustTherese]

and physically moved around books to different places within the bible!

Except, he didn’t. He moved certain inspired books into a non-inspired appendix; that is not changing the order of inspired books around, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[AugustTherese]

Cajetan says certain books are not to be held to the same level as Holy Scripture, but is not offended if others consider them canonical. He has them in his bible

He did not have ‘his bible’; he never translated anything. Nice try, though!

 

[jcrichton]

And, the Jews do not have one NT book in their canon, so what is your point? May I ask how Lutherans, considering there is no ‘defined canon’ for them, came to the exact same number of books to use for the NT as do Catholics?

This is part of the argument that escapes non-Catholics; they are so bent on finding reasons to reject the 7 books that they miss the whole rejection of the New Covenant, Jesus, and God’s Revelation by the Jews who they uphold as the means to their reason: 66.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[BartholomewB]

…that’s where the interpretationalism comes into play… there are those who claim that his reasoning is that these book were rejected by some in the Church hence they should not be held in the same value as “Sacred Writings.”

You addressed this comment to me, but I don’t see why. Is it a reply to something I said in an earlier post on this thread? If so, what?

Others, as myself, would point out that these 7 books were used by the Church in Church Liturgy and quoted by Jesus and the Apostles; hence, they are Sacred Scriptures.

That’s an interesting point you’re bringing to my attention. I wasn’t aware that Jesus ever made any reference to any of the deuterocanonical books. Could you quote some examples?
Thanks.

 

[jcrichton]

Since some one brought up the issue of numbers…

Those who held the 77 books canon, why did they held it as such?

Those who held the 66 or more or less, why did they held it as such?

If 24 sided with what the Church actually held and experienced then it does not matter what the number of dissenter/opinionated–unless their opinion hold past the scrutiny of Church Doctrine (Apostolic Teaching).

What most of us fail to understand is that the Church is organic; changes do develop and Doctrine and Practice is solidified but only as a response to heresy–just look at the Epistles, they are not just simple Christian Teaching; they define and solidify the Faith as well as fight heresy; thusly, they form Doctrinal Practices and Definition.

Maran atha!

Angel