Protestant Bibles before 1880

[Contarini]

Thanks. I will look into the movement. Just thinking out loud here but it’s curious that there needed to be a movement to reject these books if they were already not accepted by the Protestant community. That’s the first thought with very very limited knowledge on the matter that comes to mind.

Pietism was a Lutheran movement, originally. Lutherans had been ambivalent about the books rather than rejecting them outright.

Since Esdra keeps referring to the 19th century, I think he may be talking about the evangelical revivals of the 19th century, which were certainly linked to Pietism but fueled by influences from British evangelicalism.

Original Pietism (in the late 17th century) was influenced by late medieval traditions of piety (particularly the “Rhineland mystics”), so in some ways it was a movement away from strict Lutheran “sola fide” and toward a more transformational, affective approach to the Christian faith. So I wouldn’t assume that it necessarily made Protestants less Catholic–but in some ways and in some times and places some versions of it no doubt did.

I read an article in grad school that argued that it was the 18th-century Prussian Pietists, and not the original Reformers, who fostered private Bible reading by all laypeople, distributing large numbers of Bibles. I think the article may have set up too much of a contrast, but 18th and 19th-century Pietist and evangelical movements certainly emphasized personal reading and interpretation of Scripture in a way that more traditional Protestant churches hadn’t. And I think the need to take a clearcut position about the deuteros went along with this. If you were primarily using the Bible in the context of the Church’s liturgy and preaching (as traditional Protestants had done), then you could include in the Bible books that were useful but not quite on the same level as the other books–you could leave the learned clergy to explain to the laity just how to use these books. But if, as 18th and 19th-century evangelicals increasingly came to do, you really expected the Bible to act “on its own” through private reading, you had to make sure that the books in the Bible really were divinely inspired.

It’s probably no accident that this was the same period in which Biblical criticism was rising. Just at the point at which the most was being claimed for the Bible, the foundations of the whole structure were being undermined.

Just so folks don’t think I’m losing my edge as a critic of both sides, I’ll point out that there’s a similar irony about the declaration of papal infallibility just as the Popes were losing their temporal authority and Europe as a whole was turning away from “throne and altar” Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[jblake]

Roman_Catholic;:

I have never seen or heard a Protestant argue for their inclusion

A long time ago I read a Church of Christ (instrumental) defence for their inclusion.

The essay did not address:

• The lack of Hebrew manuscripts;
• Why Jews do not use them;
  Those are the two major issues against their inclusion.

The essay totally ignored:

• Publication history of the Bible;
• Lectionaries, and the usage of deuterocanonical material in them;

Instead, it went through each book, and declared whether or not they should be included, on the basis of:

• Theological congruence with the rest of the Bible;
• Historical accuracy;
• Geographical accuracy;
• Usage by the early church;

Two or three books were thrown out, purely on the basis of historical inaccuracy.
Two or three books were thrown out, purely on the basis of bad geography.
One or two books were thrown out, purely because the book stated that it could not be canonical.

I don’t remember which books survived the cut.
The percentage looked better for the 76 Book Anglican Canon, than it did for the 73 Book Catholic Canon.
I’ll let somebody else decide if Church of Christ (Instrumental) is Protestant, or not.

I will point out that congregations within that fold, typically accept the 66 Book Protestant Canon, but only use the 27 Book New Testament.

jonathon

 

[Publisher]

Brethren in Christ and Church of the Brethren have their roots in the Pietist tradition…they share much with Mennonites.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I read an article in grad school that argued that it was the 18th-century Prussian Pietists, and not the original Reformers, who fostered private Bible reading by all laypeople, distributing large numbers of Bibles. I think the article may have set up too much of a contrast, but 18th and 19th-century Pietist and evangelical movements certainly emphasized personal reading and interpretation of Scripture in a way that more traditional Protestant churches hadn’t. And I think the need to take a clearcut position about the deuteros went along with this. If you were primarily using the Bible in the context of the Church’s liturgy and preaching (as traditional Protestants had done), then you could include in the Bible books that were useful but not quite on the same level as the other books–you could leave the learned clergy to explain to the laity just how to use these books. But if, as 18th and 19th-century evangelicals increasingly came to do, you really expected the Bible to act “on its own” through private reading, you had to make sure that the books in the Bible really were divinely inspired.

Thanks Edwin. So would it be illogical to conclude then that perhaps the reason (or a reason rather) they were dropped from the Protestant Bibles had to do with the changing attitudes and beliefs on sola scriptura (and also private reading) since Lutheranism and the reformation idea of sola scriptura holds that the Bible, while being the final infallible norm of faith, is to be interepreted in and by the Church? Without a Church to explain to it’s readers that these books are not considered canon by Protestants (like you explained) then it would be better to not include them at all. Am I reaching?

I guess what I am asking is; could an evovling understanding of SS (moving from sola scriptura to a more solo scriptura idea) by the more evangelical arms of Protestanstism been a motivating factor for dropping the books?

Thanks and God bless

 

[Contarini]

Thanks Edwin. So would it be illogical to conclude then that perhaps the reason (or a reason rather) they were dropped from the Protestant Bibles had to do with the changing attitudes and beliefs on sola scriptura (and also private reading) since Lutheranism and the reformation idea of sola scriptura holds that the Bible, while being the final infallible norm of faith, is to be interepreted in and by the Church? Without a Church to explain to it’s readers that these books are not considered canon by Protestants (like you explained) then it would be better to not include them at all. Am I reaching?

I guess what I am asking is; could an evovling understanding of SS (moving from sola scriptura to a more solo scriptura idea) by the more evangelical arms of Protestanstism been a motivating factor for dropping the books?

Thanks and God bless

Yes, I think there’s something to that. However, I think it’s important to understand that at the time people didn’t think of it as a shift. At least I can’t see that they did. They thought of it as a more consistent application of principles that Protestants had always held. (Of course, many Catholics would agree). That’s one reason why I don’t like the sola/solo distinction, which is a construct of Protestant apologetics–invented, I believe, by Keith Mathison. It implies that there’s a sharper distinction between the two than is in fact the case.

I grew up in a more or less “solo scriptura” family, and I remember being flabberghasted when I read Nathan Hatch’s Democratization of American Christianity, which taught me that what I thought Protestants had always believed really had more to do with the [American] Revolution than with the Reformation. That’s the thing that primarily led me to study the Reformation in grad school–I wanted to figure out just how much of what I was coming to question about my heritage was an intrinsic part of Protestantism.

Edwin

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Yes, I think there’s something to that. However, I think it’s important to understand that at the time people didn’t think of it as a shift. At least I can’t see that they did. They thought of it as a more consistent application of principles that Protestants had always held. (Of course, many Catholics would agree). That’s one reason why I don’t like the sola/solo distinction, which is a construct of Protestant apologetics–invented, I believe, by Keith Mathison. It implies that there’s a sharper distinction between the two than is in fact the case.

I grew up in a more or less “solo scriptura” family, and I remember being flabberghasted when I read Nathan Hatch’s Democratization of American Christianity, which taught me that what I thought Protestants had always believed really had more to do with the [American] Revolution than with the Reformation. That’s the thing that primarily led me to study the Reformation in grad school–I wanted to figure out just how much of what I was coming to question about my heritage was an intrinsic part of Protestantism.

Thanks Edwin. Mathison is exactly who I had in mind when I was writing about the distinction between sola and solo. There may be something to the thought you mentioned about Protestants thinking they were getting back to the application of what they felt SS had always been. or originally been. There is a quote floating around here from Alister McGrath’s Reformation Thought where he is discussing one of the bigger ironies of the Lutheran movement being a movement, which originally looked to get the Bible into the hands of everyone, ended up restricting who could read the Bible and in what language. This is his thought not mine and I can’t say how correct McGrath is here but he used, as his source for this conclusion, the school regulation of the duchy of Württemberg. I guess it’s a point of perspective? Which view of SS came first and which evovled from which?

God bless

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have a 1869 edition of Rev Roswell Hitchcocks. The Bible is complete. I also have a 1905edition which is complete.

So these Bibles that are “different” what is it which indentifies them? You have to look?

 

[jblake]

Roman_Catholic;:

King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail.

That is either a reference to Archbishop George Abbot, who in 1615 decreed that no one was to print the Bible without the deuterocanonical books, or to the Long Parliament, which banned the publication of the Bible with the deuterocanonical books in 1644, with an act that was only enforced under Cromwell’s dictatorship (1653-1658).

Either way, King James was not the responsible party.

jonathon

 

[Esdra]

Pietism was a Lutheran movement, originally. Lutherans had been ambivalent about the books rather than rejecting them outright.

Since Esdra keeps referring to the 19th century, I think he may be talking about the evangelical revivals of the 19th century, which were certainly linked to Pietism but fueled by influences from British evangelicalism.

Hi

yes, thank you, I meant the Evangelical revivals. Mixed it up with Pietism.

Original Pietism (in the late 17th century) was influenced by late medieval traditions of piety (particularly the “Rhineland mystics”), so in some ways it was a movement away from strict Lutheran “sola fide” and toward a more transformational, affective approach to the Christian faith. So I wouldn’t assume that it necessarily made Protestants less Catholic–but in some ways and in some times and places some versions of it no doubt did.

I read an article in grad school that argued that it was the 18th-century Prussian Pietists, and not the original Reformers, who fostered private Bible reading by all laypeople, distributing large numbers of Bibles. I think the article may have set up too much of a contrast, but 18th and 19th-century Pietist and evangelical movements certainly emphasized personal reading and interpretation of Scripture in a way that more traditional Protestant churches hadn’t. And I think the need to take a clearcut position about the deuteros went along with this. If you were primarily using the Bible in the context of the Church’s liturgy and preaching (as traditional Protestants had done), then you could include in the Bible books that were useful but not quite on the same level as the other books–you could leave the learned clergy to explain to the laity just how to use these books. But if, as 18th and 19th-century evangelicals increasingly came to do, you really expected the Bible to act “on its own” through private reading, you had to make sure that the books in the Bible really were divinely inspired.

It’s probably no accident that this was the same period in which Biblical criticism was rising. Just at the point at which the most was being claimed for the Bible, the foundations of the whole structure were being undermined.

Just so folks don’t think I’m losing my edge as a critic of both sides, I’ll point out that there’s a similar irony about the declaration of papal infallibility just as the Popes were losing their temporal authority and Europe as a whole was turning away from “throne and altar” Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

That is either a reference to Archbishop George Abbot, who in 1615 decreed that no one was to print the Bible without the deuterocanonical books, or to the Long Parliament, which banned the publication of the Bible with the deuterocanonical books in 1644, with an act that was only enforced under Cromwell’s dictatorship (1653-1658).

Either way, King James was not the responsible party.

jonathon

Interesting Jonathon thank you. Do you know off the top of your head what the punishment was for breaking the Long Parliament’s ban on publishing the DCs?

God bless

 

[Contarini]

Thanks Edwin. Mathison is exactly who I had in mind when I was writing about the distinction between sola and solo. There may be something to the thought you mentioned about Protestants thinking they were getting back to the application of what they felt SS had always been. or originally been. There is a quote floating around here from Alister McGrath’s Reformation Thought where he is discussing one of the bigger ironies of the Lutheran movement being a movement, which originally looked to get the Bible into the hands of everyone, ended up restricting who could read the Bible and in what language. This is his thought not mine and I can’t say how correct McGrath is here but he used, as his source for this conclusion, the school regulation of the duchy of Württemberg. I guess it’s a point of perspective? Which view of SS came first and which evovled from which?

God bless

Here’s how I’d put it:

There was a lot of rhetoric early on about the Bible being clear and everyone being able to understand it. A lot of that rhetoric continued, but after the “wild growth” period of the 1520s a lot of the Protestant leaders started qualifying it and emphasizing the importance of being “called” (which, to put it cynically, in practice meant that you needed to find a local government who would give you a job).

Yet those heady years from roughly 1518-1525 have continued to inspire Protestants. The potential of the rhetoric is there. So I wouldn’t say that those who take a more radical view of sola scriptura are truer or more faithful Protestants (those who’ve followed my argument about “real Muslims” know that I don’t think that language is meaningful unless you think that the religious tradition you’re talking about is true in an absolute sense) than those who don’t. But I think that radical Protestants and Catholic critics are right in saying that if you read some of the things the Reformers said, you can easily see how people have thought these statements were teaching “solo scriptura.”

It’s also important to realize that Luther honestly didn’t seem to believe that sola scriptura (as he taught it) was anything new or shocking. He insisted that he had learned the principle (he didn’t actually use the phrase–in fact no one did in the early Reformation) from his Catholic theology professors. (This in contrast to sola fide, which Luther and his colleagues recognized was a doctrine not found in the Fathers or the medieval tradition, though some other Protestants have argued otherwise!)

Heiko Oberman (on whom Mathison relies heavily) distinguished between “Tradition I” (essentially Mathison’s “sola scriptura”–Scripture as the supreme authority but interpreted by a theological and exegetical tradition) and “Tradition II” (the view espoused by the Council of Trent–Scripture and Tradition as two parallel streams). Oberman argued that both were present from the fourth century on (I now think that one flaw in Oberman’s approach is his failure to deal adequately with the second century and its concept of the “Rule of Faith”), and that in the Middle Ages “Tradition I” was primarily upheld by scholastic theologians, and “Tradition II” by canon lawyers. Thus, Luther could honestly say that he’d been taught to regard Scripture as the supreme rule of faith and the source of all necessary doctrine, while his opponents in the papal curia could claim that this view was heretical.

When I first encountered Oberman’s argument in my early 20s, as an eager young student ready to go off to grad school and study with one of Oberman’s former students, I found it very exciting and thought it made sense of the issue wonderfully. I now have more reservations about it. In particular, I’m very dubious about the idea that these are two parallel theories about tradition rather than two different modes of approaching tradition appropriate to two different disciplines. In other words, I’m not sure that a theologian would have a problem with the canon lawyers’ view of the authority of the institutional Church, or that the lawyers would think the theologians ought not to regard Scripture as the primary textual authority for their discipline. (This may be less a criticism of Oberman’s original argument than of the way Mathison and other Protestant apologists use it–though Oberman was someone of a Protestant apologist, and even anti-Catholic polemicist, himself.) If there was a conflict, it was “Church as theological tradition” vs. “Church as institution.” But I’m not sure even that was really a conflict rather than just two different modes of the same organic reality.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi

yes, thank you, I meant the Evangelical revivals. Mixed it up with Pietism.

Well, they’re definitely related, of course. Hence my references to “original Pietism.” It’s certainly legitimate to speak of Pietists in the 19th century–or even today. I met a woman in Germany some years ago (appropriately named Pia) who came from a German Pietist movement still identifying itself as a distinctive stream within the state Lutheran Church.

Edwin

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Here’s how I’d put it:

There was a lot of rhetoric early on about the Bible being clear and everyone being able to understand it. A lot of that rhetoric continued, but after the “wild growth” period of the 1520s a lot of the Protestant leaders started qualifying it and emphasizing the importance of being “called” (which, to put it cynically, in practice meant that you needed to find a local government who would give you a job).

Yet those heady years from roughly 1518-1525 have continued to inspire Protestants. The potential of the rhetoric is there. So I wouldn’t say that those who take a more radical view of sola scriptura are truer or more faithful Protestants (those who’ve followed my argument about “real Muslims” know that I don’t think that language is meaningful unless you think that the religious tradition you’re talking about is true in an absolute sense) than those who don’t. But I think that radical Protestants and Catholic critics are right in saying that if you read some of the things the Reformers said, you can easily see how people have thought these statements were teaching “solo scriptura.”

It’s also important to realize that Luther honestly didn’t seem to believe that sola scriptura (as he taught it) was anything new or shocking. He insisted that he had learned the principle (he didn’t actually use the phrase–in fact no one did in the early Reformation) from his Catholic theology professors. (This in contrast to sola fide, which Luther and his colleagues recognized was a doctrine not found in the Fathers or the medieval tradition, though some other Protestants have argued otherwise!)

Heiko Oberman (on whom Mathison relies heavily) distinguished between “Tradition I” (essentially Mathison’s “sola scriptura”–Scripture as the supreme authority but interpreted by a theological and exegetical tradition) and “Tradition II” (the view espoused by the Council of Trent–Scripture and Tradition as two parallel streams). Oberman argued that both were present from the fourth century on (I now think that one flaw in Oberman’s approach is his failure to deal adequately with the second century and its concept of the “Rule of Faith”), and that in the Middle Ages “Tradition I” was primarily upheld by scholastic theologians, and “Tradition II” by canon lawyers. Thus, Luther could honestly say that he’d been taught to regard Scripture as the supreme rule of faith and the source of all necessary doctrine, while his opponents in the papal curia could claim that this view was heretical.

When I first encountered Oberman’s argument in my early 20s, as an eager young student ready to go off to grad school and study with one of Oberman’s former students, I found it very exciting and thought it made sense of the issue wonderfully. I now have more reservations about it. In particular, I’m very dubious about the idea that these are two parallel theories about tradition rather than two different modes of approaching tradition appropriate to two different disciplines. In other words, I’m not sure that a theologian would have a problem with the canon lawyers’ view of the authority of the institutional Church, or that the lawyers would think the theologians ought not to regard Scripture as the primary textual authority for their discipline. (This may be less a criticism of Oberman’s original argument than of the way Mathison and other Protestant apologists use it–though Oberman was someone of a Protestant apologist, and even anti-Catholic polemicist, himself.) If there was a conflict, it was “Church as theological tradition” vs. “Church as institution.” But I’m not sure even that was really a conflict rather than just two different modes of the same organic reality.

Edwin

There is a lot to digest there Edwin. Thanks for taking the time to post. I found a new name to look into, Heiko Oberman.

God bless

 

[Contarini]

There is a lot to digest there Edwin. Thanks for taking the time to post. I found a new name to look into, Heiko Oberman.

God bless

The most succinct statement of the position that influenced Mathison is Oberman’s essay “Quo Vadis, Petre” (a lecture given at Harvard in 1962, which you can find in the collection The Dawn of the Reformation). I first encountered the Tradition I/Tradition II business in The Harvest of Medieval Theology, which is less polemical. I note that Oberman does deal with the second-century Fathers in “Quo Vadis” (maybe he did so in Harvest too and I just forgot). I’m not satisfied with his treatment of the subject–he takes on Humphrey Tavard but I don’t think he does so successfully.

Edwin

 

[rev_kevin]

During the three centuries following the establishment of Christianity in the 1st century, Church Fathers compiled Gospel accounts and letters of apostles into a Christian Bible which became known as the New Testament. The Old and New Testaments together are commonly referred to as “The Holy Bible” (τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια). The canonical composition of the Old Testament is under dispute between Christian groups: Protestants hold only the books of the Hebrew Bible to be canonical; Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox additionally consider the deuterocanonical books, a group of Jewish books, to be canonical. The New Testament is composed of the Gospels (“good news”), the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles (letters), and the Book of Revelation.

 

[jblake]

Roman_Catholic;:

Interesting Jonathon thank you. Do you know off the top of your head what the punishment was for breaking the Long Parliament’s ban on publishing the DCs?

I don’t remember what the punishment was.
A couple of Bible publishers lost their heads, during that period of time. I don’t remember what their crime was, though. (Probably publishing a Bible with a major typo.)

jonathon

 

[Ignatius]

This is an excerpt from an article that a fundamentalist family member sent my wife. I want to reiterate that this is not a Catholic source. I don’t want to post the link but would be happy to give it to anyone interested through pm if the wished (it’s very anti-Catholic). Or one could google it

Could any Protestants tell me anything about this? Is this true? I know for some time that the Deuterocanonical books remained in the Protestant Bibles but has there been any reason given as to why they were removed all of the sudden in 1880s? If this excerpt is true, why were they kept in the Protestant Bibles in the first place? Was there unanimous Protestant agreement that they were not Scriptural? Has it really only been the last 120 years that Protestants have rejected these books?

Thanks and God bless

They’re wrong on the number there are 73 books in the Bible. 27 New Testament and 46 OT Books.

 

[RoderickA]

I know the Thread is on Protestant Bibles before 1880, but I have a question with regard their Bibles after that date -and this is the closest Thread to the topic I have found.

I have heard that for some time after having removed the other books from Protestant Bibles, they continued to include the numerical chapter and verse reference, when applicable, in the New Testament. And that it was only after some years, proving a bit of an embarrassment (I mean no insult), that they then did away with the references to the removed books.

If I remember all this correctly there was a Bible Society responsible for the movement to have the Deuterocanonical books’ numerical chapter and verse references removed. I just can’t remember the name of the Society, the name given to the movement, or its approximate date. Does any of this sound familiar to any of you? Am I even remotely close to the truth?