I find there to be significant evidence that Luther did determine the value of canonical texts, hence, why the Lutheran Bible (I hope I’m right
) is smaller than the Catholic bible.
Luther did not determine anything in this regard. Lutherans embrace the 39 OT books that are non-controversal. We don’t reject the unique CC set of DEUTERO books - we just don’t officially embrace them - we leave them were they were before Trent. Luther included them in his German translation. He lectured on them. He quotes considerably from them - he just never “determined” them to be inerrant, inscripturated words of God. He also never “determined” they were not. Today, you’ll find Lutheran denominations officially embracing the same 39 books and saying nothing aboaut those DEUTERO books, at least not officially.
Yes, the commonly embraced list of books in the OO Bible is “larger” than that of the EO. And the EO’s list of books is larger than the CC’s list. As far as I know, only one of those actually pinned this all down and that was the CC and that was after Luther’s death (and we’ll see how “pinned down” that is if the EO and CC talks ever get around to that topic).
As I’ve stated a couple of times now, when Lutherans were publishing Lutheran tomes, we included the same DEUTERO books that the CC embraces (but not the ones of the OO or the ones of the EO). Our tome was the same “size” as the post Trent Catholic ones. Lutherans did not include readings from such in our lectionaries (we still don’t) but like Luther, we occasionally did studies of them and use them in sermons. But frankly, we found them of lesser value. By the time Lutherans in America began to use the KJV rather than Luther’s German, the unique Catholic set of Trent embraced books had largely been dropped from KJV tomes - and no one cared much since they were simply rarely used.
In my Catholic years, I read them. I can’t say I recall any sermons that used anything from them as the text (maybe there was some cases of that, I just don’t recall). And in my 5 years of studying Catholicism, none of my Catholic teachers ever referenced anything there except in regards to the unique Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but I rather agree with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox that both accept that Deutero book but not that doctrine. Other than that, they just seemed to “be there” and that’s it. Frankly, having read them, I don’t think a single Protestant would care if they were included or not.
But I think it incorrect to say Luther “determined” anything in this regard. He included the unique Trent set of the Deutero books in his translation - as Lutherans continued to do as long as we used his translation (or translations of it). Lutherans have never officially said anything about them. We embrace the 39 that were above the fray, and left it there. We realize that for the CC, Trent changed that situation but that is, obviously, of no concern beyond The Catholic Church. It was a meeting of only it for only it - and after Luther was excommunicated.
I have also heard that Protestants hate the Letter of Saint James. I have also heard that Luther would have deleted this Book of the New Testament if conservative reformists did not reject.
- What Luther thought is actually of no concern to Lutherans; he was and is not an authority in Lutheranism.
- In 1522, very early in his life and a year after his excommunication, Luther made a strange statement in that regard, calling James “an epistle of straw.” For some reason, Catholics have loved it and have circulated it constantly ever since even to this day. In context, it takes on an entirely different perspective but of course, snippets is what we all seem to enjoy - whether positively (as in some snippet from an ECF or negatively as in some snippet from some “heretic”). Luther’s “straw” comment had nothing to do with it being untrue or uncanonical but rather that he saw it as largely undoctrinal and focused on “ordinary, obvious” things. Of course, I disagree. Early on, Luther did personally wonder how James 2 “fits” with the rest of the NT. He soon reconciled this and fully embraced the book.
But whatever thought he may have had on this topic at some point in his life, James was NEVER remotely regarded by Lutheranism as anything less than fully canonical and the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of God. Luther lectured on it - holding it in very high esteem. He quoted from it often, particularly in reference to faith (it plays a dominate role in his understanding of sola fide). The Book of James is one of the few books that is actually specifically noted in The Lutheran Confessions as “the authoritative teaching from God.”
I should add, just as a PS, that Luther also early on noted that James was one of the most controversal of the books eventually to make it into our NT canon (the Revelation of St. John being the other). Another part of Luther’s “Problem” is that in his day, it was believed that Scriptures are such because they were written by Apostles or someone very close to them. Luther’s own personal (entirely nonauthoritative opinion) was that the author of James as neither of the Apostles by that name, and thus wondered about that. Later in his life, he determined such was of no consequence. Again, Luther includes it in his translation, lectured on it several times, and eventually says esteeming things of it.
Ah, but that little snippet will likely be quoted - and then MUCH made of it - until Jesus returns. It’s just the way things go.
**
Continues in next post…
**
.
