Protestant Bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter starrs0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
brianberean:
Yes. They were excluded from the canon in some RCC bibles all the way up until Trent.

Bibles throughout the middle ages …
There are also extent writings from noted ECFs and later theologians that show they held to the smaller, Hebrew OT canon.

Brian
Follow up question. What did the majority hold to? There’s always going to be dissenters. Thomas Jefferson thought the Constitution was terrible and should not have been ratified. What I want to know is, not what a few individually thought, but what was the majority opinion. I’ve heard the statement that many of the ECF’s didn’t accept these books, but what constitueses many? Is that 10 out of a 100 or 60 out of a 100 or what? The term many is very vague, and I’m trying to put into prespective the magnitued of the dissent.
 
I was raised Methodist, converted about 30 years ago, and still have 2 or 3 Bibles from my protestant days. I consider them just as real, though not as complete, as my Catholic versions.
 
Corpus Cristi:
Allow me to direct you to my post “The HUUGE difference between CATHOLIC and ROMAN CATHOLIC?” You’re really starting to annoy me.
I apologize if I offended anyone, I was referring to Brian, since he’s sprinkling RCC and RC around his posts like fairy dust.
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”(LW 35:231).%between%
Actually, Luther objected more to James then the Deutrocanonical books.
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”(LW 35:231).

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
Yes, it should be noted that even today Lutherans still view these books as extremely important and should be read. We simply do not hold them as equivalent to that of Scripture.
 
Steve M:
Follow up question. What did the majority hold to? There’s always going to be dissenters. Thomas Jefferson thought the Constitution was terrible and should not have been ratified. What I want to know is, not what a few individually thought, but what was the majority opinion. I’ve heard the statement that many of the ECF’s didn’t accept these books, but what constitueses many? Is that 10 out of a 100 or 60 out of a 100 or what? The term many is very vague, and I’m trying to put into prespective the magnitued of the dissent.
To properly respond to your follow-up question would take a lot of space. If you are truly interested in finding out the truth I’d advise you to take the time to research the issue. If you want a good resource to begin check out the first two articles on this page:
christiantruth.com/articles.html

Brian
 
Corpus Cristi:
I apologize if I offended anyone, I was referring to Brian, since he’s sprinkling RCC and RC around his posts like fairy dust.
I’ve been posting on message boards for a long time. Over 500 posts on CARM and over 800 posts on the Defenders of the Catholic Faith board. I’ve only seen two or three times when someone has complained about the term “Roman Catholic”. Then most of the time Catholics would tell them to chill. Pointing out that there are instances of official documents by the Catholic Church itself, and writings of popes where the Catholic Church is referred to as the Roman Catholic Church. But, it seems the new societal movement of enforcing political correctness even when it is nonsensical and blatantly ignores historically accepted speech has invaded this board so in order for it not to become an obstacle I will henceforth try to break myself of the habit.

Brian
 
40.png
RBushlow:
Actually, Luther objected more to James then the Deutrocanonical books.
IMO, his objections to Revelations were pretty strong as well.

In Luther’s Preface to Revelation, from 1522:
*I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . *

*It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. *

. . . Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, – Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, ‘Ye shall be my witnesses.’ Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

Sure, he retracted these statements later on, but if he was wrong on these NT books, couldn’t he be wrong about the OT? Yet it is on Luther’s opinion that Protestantism removed the deuteros.
 
40.png
brianberean:
To properly respond to your follow-up question would take a lot of space. If you are truly interested in finding out the truth I’d advise you to take the time to research the issue. If you want a good resource to begin check out the first two articles on this page:
christiantruth.com/articles.html

Brian
I’ll do some more research, but I seriously doubt that I’ll find anything besides the words many and just a few names. Of all the research that I did prior to becoming Catholic, that’s all I could ever find. This, “many early church fathers” appears to be in reality, a few early church fathers. But thanks for the info.
 
40.png
Pedro:
IMO, his objections to Revelations were pretty strong as well.

In Luther’s Preface to Revelation, from 1522:
I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . .

It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep.

. . . Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, – Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, ‘Ye shall be my witnesses.’ Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

Sure, he retracted these statements later on, but if he was wrong on these NT books, couldn’t he be wrong about the OT? Yet it is on Luther’s opinion that Protestantism removed the deuteros.
Luther was a man, no more no less. Lutherans do not consider all of his ideas correct. He got some things wrong and we believe he got some things correct. He is neither a Pope nor a daemon. He was fallible.

We are also fallible so we do beleive that we could be wrong on other books. We just think that it is not likely.
 
40.png
brianberean:
Yes. They were excluded from the canon in some RCC bibles all the way up until Trent.

Brian
Well that is very misleading of you. Bibles were often missing many parts before Trent as there was no printing press if was very expensive to make a bible a years pay for many. So many people bought books at a time. Some had only the gospels.
Many intorductory new beleivers bibles are New Testament only does that mean the intent was to drop the old testament canon all together. No these Bibles are meant as an introductory for a larger canon. Every legitamate historian has the normative Bible placed in cathedrals had the dueterocanonicals. However individual Bibles usually purchased by the rich anyway had a variety of contents. Some the gospels only, some the new testament. some the new testament and pslams ( I still see this option in compact Bibles - did they drop the rest of the Bible - I think not?) some have all the books, some had some of the dueterocanonicals but not all.
THe fact that individuls purchased indiviual books or groups of books and not the entire bible is irrelevant. What canon did the churches go by? From the African councils till trent? THe same larger canon that we have today.
THe canon is not what you can buy but what the church says.
Another individualistic interpretation of protestants. ME and Jesus syhndrome. Its about what you know and expereience and not what the body of Christ has declared though her tradition.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Luther was a man, no more no less. Lutherans do not consider all of his ideas correct. He got some things wrong and we believe he got some things correct. He is neither a Pope nor a daemon. He was fallible.

We are also fallible so we do beleive that we could be wrong on other books. We just think that it is not likely.
Oh my God do you know what you are saying? Since all of Protestant dogma’s final authority is the Bible alone and you are using Book that might not be really canonical that you have false doctrein based on false scripture. Your theology is based on a house of cards. Meanwhile we have a theology based on the rock that will build Christ church. Big difference.

And yes it is true that in Luther’s Bible in the table of contents he did not list the books of Hebrews, Jude and Revelation under the heading of New Testament. He did include it in his Bible just as he did the dueterocanonicals but neither was given his canonical decree. As if he had the authority anyway. Even you say he was falliable.

Explain to me how Revelation was a book to throw away in 1522 then a book to be read in 1530?

He also said you could throw away James and Hebrews. What person does to Holy Scripture by his own authority?

The other Reformers wouldn’t even agree to this. You can count them and not Luther for reataining the fuller Catholic Canon or else you would be missing at leat 3 books from the New Testament today.

So here is the Protestant logic.
The Catholic church got the New Testament right for 1100 years but got Old Testament wrong from at least Hippo thourgh Trent over 1100 years. But Luther got the New Testmaent wrong but got the Old Testament wright when going on his opinion.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Oh my God do you know what you are saying? Since all of Protestant dogma’s final authority is the Bible alone and you are using Book that might not be really canonical that you have false doctrein based on false scripture. Your theology is based on a house of cards. Meanwhile we have a theology based on the rock that will build Christ church. Big difference.
He is my God also…

You are not quite right in this assertion. I don’t have time to go into detail so I will leave this small statement for now and if you are interrested in the rest I will try and type as much as physically possible in the time I have on this board.
For example, for most “fundamentalists,” acceptance of Scripture’s authority comes first, and faith in Christ is based on faith in the Bible’s inerrancy. For Lutherans, the reverse is true: faith in Christ comes first as a miraculous work of God’s Spirit through the means of grace. Our view of the Bible then results from our faith in the Gospel.
It follows from this that for Lutherans, acceptance of Scripture’s authority is a matter of faith, not of “proof” at the level of sheer intellect. Accordingly, Lutherans (unlike many fundamentalist groups) do not attempt to “demonstrate” the inerrancy of Scripture on the basis of historical or rational evidence or arguments. Instead, Lutherans focus on proclaiming the Gospel and trust that faith in the Bible will follow from faith in Christ. For Lutherans the Gospel is always of primary concern and is viewed as the central message of the Scriptures, while fundamentalists tend to view the Gospel simply as one of several “fundamental” truths (of equal value) contained in the Bible.
 
Shibboleth

For example, for most “fundamentalists,” acceptance of Scripture’s authority comes first, and faith in Christ is based on faith in the Bible’s inerrancy. For Lutherans, the reverse is true: faith in Christ comes first as a miraculous work of God’s Spirit through the means of grace. Our view of the Bible then results from our faith in the Gospel.

It follows from this that for Lutherans, acceptance of Scripture’s authority is a matter of faith, not of “proof” at the level of sheer intellect. Accordingly, Lutherans (unlike many fundamentalist groups) do not attempt to “demonstrate” the inerrancy of Scripture on the basis of historical or rational evidence or arguments. Instead, Lutherans focus on proclaiming the Gospel and trust that faith in the Bible will follow from faith in Christ. For Lutherans the Gospel is always of primary concern and is viewed as the central message of the Scriptures, while fundamentalists tend to view the Gospel simply as one of several “fundamental” truths (of equal value) contained in the Bible.
Well I can see the root of this view in Luther’s commentaries he viewed books as canonical which preached justification of faith alone. Thus according to his interpretation James, Jude, Hebrews and Revleation where excluded from his New Testament (canon) I know they were there but not listed under the new testament. And originally put down as something worthless and burnable. Luther’s criterias was the gospel preached (justification) according to his criteria. When books preached faith and works he does not see the Holy spirit preaching justification by faith alone in his scripture. This is extremely problematic and indivdualistic interpretation.

While it sounds good to trust the Bible by just sheer faith how do you know your faith is true? The Morman has faith in the book of Mormon and ignores the evidence and tradion of the Catholic tradtion never including such a thing. But he does it on faith doesn’t he?

Luther said his entire movement stood or failed on one premise the justification of faith alone. Thus his playing with the OT and NT canon was a means to fit his end. Not a quest for anything true of false. Many of Luther’s motives were just but many served to fit his own need of assured salvation as he was an extremely insecure about his own salvation. Of course that’s a whole new padora’s box I don’t want to get into. But I am sure others will want to play with you.
 
40.png
Pedro:
Okay, he sorted them out of the original order they had for thousands of years, then stuck them in the back with the label “NOT SCRIPTURE”. I don’t know about you, but doesn’t this action amount to declaring these books as defintely non-canonical?
-snip-
Again I ask, on what authority was the removal of these books based on?
Luther was a doctor of theology, and well trained as was his contemporary, the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan.In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. This was the same man apointed by the Pope to interview Luther for heresy.

Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the council of Trent. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has honestly pointed out,
“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”
If the New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. They only expressed “some doubt.” Theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction.
If this same action was copied by other Reformers and then later became the basis for the outright removal of these books from Protestant bibles around the 1800’s, wouldn’t it be accurate to attribute their removal to Luther?
No. It’s far more complicated than playing pin-the-tail-on-Luther. I suggest you get Roger Beckwith’s book, “The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church.”

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
RBushlow:
Actually, Luther objected more to James then the Deutrocanonical books.
Absolutely not.Even Luther critic Hartmann Grisar has explained, “…[Luther] simply excluded the so-called deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament from the list of sacred writings. In his edition they are grouped together at the end of the Old Testament under the title: ‘Apocrypha, i.e., books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read.’ …Luther’s New Testament is somewhat more conservative.” Grisar dubs Luther “conservative” because Luther did not include such a heading before the New Testament books he questioned. Luther’s opinion on the apocrypha was solidified, whereas with the New Testament Luther uses caution.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Yes, it should be noted that even today Lutherans still view these books as extremely important and should be read. We simply do not hold them as equivalent to that of Scripture.
I am not a Lutheran, but my research led me to believe the Lutheran churches did not follow Luther on this. Thus, his prefaces were eventually left out of the Luther Bibles.

Regards, James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
I am not a Lutheran, but my research led me to believe the Lutheran churches did not follow Luther on this. Thus, his prefaces were eventually left out of the Luther Bibles.

Regards, James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

As the thread is not limited to Lutheran Bibles, here is a link to the Anglican position on “the books called Apocrypha” - which are used in the Anglican liturgy much as the apocryphal Ezra is quoted in the pre-1962 Missal for All Souls Day.​

The Westminster Confession of 1646 takes a somewhat different view of these books. ##
 
40.png
Pedro:
IMO, his objections to Revelations were pretty strong as well.

-snip-

Sure, he retracted these statements later on, but if he was wrong on these NT books, couldn’t he be wrong about the OT? Yet it is on Luther’s opinion that Protestantism removed the deuteros.
Even in the earlier 1522 version, Luther again explains that his opinion is not to be binding: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and also, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.” Similar to the other antilegomena Luther says, “Many of the fathers also rejected this book [Revelation] a long time ago…” The editors of Luther’s Works add: “The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Synod of Laodicea in a.d. 360, though it was accepted by others as Eusebius reports…. Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal.”

Chastising Luther’s earlier opinion on Revelation (even though he revised it), is a very strong indication that fairness towards Luther and an interest in understanding his view is not a high priority for those committed to presenting a caricature.

Luther’s view on the apocrypha was quite similar to Cardinal Cajetan and Desiderius Erasmus. Neither of those men is attacked for their theological opinions.

Regards,

James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Luther was a man, no more no less. Lutherans do not consider all of his ideas correct. He got some things wrong and we believe he got some things correct. He is neither a Pope nor a daemon. He was fallible.

We are also fallible so we do beleive that we could be wrong on other books. We just think that it is not likely.
I am quite fond of this quote from Luther:
“I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board. Among other reasons, I shudder to think of the example I am giving, for I am well aware how little the church has been profited since they have begun to collect many books and large libraries, in addition to and besides the Holy Scriptures, and especially since they have stored up, without discrimination, all sorts of writings by the church fathers, the councils, and teachers. Through this practice not only is precious time lost, which could be used for studying the Scriptures, but in the end the pure knowledge of the divine Word is also lost, so that the Bible lies forgotten in the dust under the bench (as happened to the book of Deuteronomy, in the time of the kings of Judah)…I cannot, however, prevent them from wanting to collect and publish my works through the press (small honor to me), although it is not my will. I have no choice but to let them risk the labor and the expense of this project. My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by God’s grace) have written anything good. Non ere melior Patribus meis. He who comes second should indeed be the first one forgotten. Inasmuch as they have been capable of leaving the Bible itself lying under the bench, and have also forgotten the fathers and the councils—the better ones all the faster—accordingly there is a good hope, once the overzealousness of this time has abeted, that my books also will not last long. There is especially good hope of this, since it has begun to rain and snow books and teachers, many of which already lie there forgotten and moldering. Even their names are not remembered any more, despite their confident hope that they would eternally be on sale in the market and rule churches.” (LW 34:283-284).
Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top