Protestant Bibles

[TertiumQuid]

Maccabees:

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.

Actually, The editors of Luther’s Works explain,

“In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha.”

Sometimes it is said that in the actual printings of Luther’s New Testament these four books were printed last without page numbers. The citation above says it was a “list” without page numbers.

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

Because Luther cared, and grew as as a theologian, as we all should. Even in the earlier 1522 preface, Luther 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…”

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

Find me the quote in which Luther says to throw away Hebrews. Luther said he cannot include James among his “chief books though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” Luther was not dogmatic: he allowed people the freedom to disagree with him. John Warwick Montgomery has rightly concluded

“Even in his strongest remarks on the four antilegomena (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation), Luther intersperses positive comments and makes quite plain that the question of how to treat these books must be answered by his readers for themselves. If he can speak of James as an “Epistle of straw,” lacking the gospel, he can also say of it—simultaneously: “I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates God’s law.” Since Luther is not exactly the model of the mediating personality— since he is well known for consistently taking a stand where others (perhaps even angels) would equivocate—we can legitimately conclude that the Reformer only left matters as open questions when he really was not certain as to where the truth lay. Luther’s ambivalent approach to the antilegomena is not at all the confident critical posture of today’s rationalistic student of the Bible.”
“Lessons From Luther On The Inerrancy Of Holy Writ’s” Westminster Theological Journal Volume 36:294

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

 

[TertiumQuid]

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.

Alot of mistakes here, or perhaps partial truth.

1.Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives: a) Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian b) Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology. Roman Catholics tend to completely disregard (a), and it cannot be ignored for a full understanding of his view.

2.Luther questioned the canonicity of those four books. all four books were translated and in his Bible.Luther cannot be criticized for explicitly removing books from the canon of sacred Scripture. One can though disapprove of Luther’s critical questioning of particular New Testament books. Paul Althaus explains, “Luther did not intend to require anyone to accept his judgment, he only wanted to express his own feeling about these particular books.” Althaus finds this to be apparent in Luther’s original prefaces of 1522, but even more so in his revisions of 1530. Lutheran writer Mark Bartling concurs: “Luther’s whole approach was one of only questioning, never rejecting. James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation are only questioned, they are never rejected.”

3.The books in question were listed in the ordering of books in Luther’s Bible. Luther ordered the books according to importance

1. These 4 books were not said to be “worthless and burnable.” Provide a quote if you have it. I’d love to see it.

5.Only part of Luther’s criteria was Justification. (see #1 above).

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.

Luther did not “play with the canon to fit his end”. I think I could successfully argue that Luther understood the common way Protestants harmonize James and Paul, yet he still questioned James because of historical factors his entire life. John Warwick Montgomery has helpfully pointed out:

“In his Preface to Jude we heard Luther say: “Although I value this book, it is an Epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are to lay the foundations of faith”; why? “The ancient fathers excluded this Epistle from the main body of the Scriptures.” Again and again in his Prefaces we find Luther arguing in this vein: “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.” “This Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients.” “Many of the fathers also rejected this book [Revelation: Luther’s Preface of 1522] a long time ago.” Here Luther appeals not to subjective considerations but objectively to the judgments of the early church, specifically to what Jerome says in his De viris illustribus, chap. 2, and to what Eusebius reports in his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. II, chap. 23 and Bk. III, chap. 25. The negative evaluations of antilegomena by certain church fathers were certainly unjustified, as history proved, but Luther had every right to raise the question in terms of the fathers… As a theologian, Luther had the right, even the responsibility, to raise this issue, and did not become a subjectivist by doing so.”

Regards,
James Swan

 

[mtr01]

TertiumQuid:

I am quite fond of this quote from Luther:

…]

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

Personally, I find this quote by Luther rather interesting:

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone is not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text” (Stoddard, J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102).

 

[TertiumQuid]

mtr01:

Personally, I find this quote by Luther rather interesting:

You would do well to read it in context before quoting it. I am quite familiar with the entirety of this treatise. As you have presented it, it is entirely out of context.

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

 

[brianberean]

Maccabees:

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.

You misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say they were excluded from bibles. I said they were excluded from the canon. To my knowledge they were included in most bibles, but many of those bibles contained the Gloss Ordinaria or prefaces that echoed Jerome’s admonition that the deuteros were sub-canonical and that their inspiration was undetermined.

Brian

 

[Pedro]

TertiumQuid:

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.

Theologians write about their opinions all the time, some even have their opinion added into bibles as commentaries. None of these men, however, not even Jerome, saw it fit they could create their own bible and sort out the books they disputed and stick them somewhere else. I think you can understand why Luther gets special treatment.

 

[Pedro]

brianberean:

They were excluded from the canon in some RCC bibles all the way up until Trent.

brianberean:

You misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say they were excluded from bibles. I said they were excluded from the canon.

Which canon are you referring to Brian? The only canons before Trent recognized by the Catholic Church are those of the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century, and Rome in the early 5th century (which was simply a reaffirmation of the canons of the earlier councils). All of them included the deuterocanonicals.

You mentioned the Hebrew OT - the Jewish Palestinian canon that was decided on by a Jewish council around the end of the 1st century. The Catholic Church never recognized this canon. Neither did the Eastern Orthodox Church, so no church recognized it before the Reformation. My guess is it was rejected because this canon did not exist during Jesus’ or the apostle’s time, or because this Jewish council also declared the Gospels as “not inspired”.

Is this the canon that you base your OT on?

 

[Maccabees]

Oh boy their is more spinning going on with the Lutherans than at the DNC and John Kerry.

Anyway here’s the point Luther did not List Hebrews, James, Jude, or Revelation in the New Testament Canon.
I never said he did away with them so I don’t why your spinning that accuasation. He did treat them at the so called apocrapha also not listed under the old testament as he put both into and sepearate part of the Bible with unlisted canoncity.

And yes Luther did say James was an epsitle of straw and you could toss and burn it into the fire. Hebrews he disparaged without the burning comment.

So as Lutherans you are totally unsure of what the canon of the Bible is even though you adhere to sola scriptura. I see a big inconsistency there. But I find Luther inconsistent to begin with.

As far as Luther’s justification for leaving certain books of the Bible out due to some doubt for some fathers is also inconsistnet.
The only books of the Bible that were always accepted from the apostlic age were the books from Paul (except Philemon) and the synoptic gospels.

The following books had some fathers and communites reject them at some time in church history. Most of the books of the NT endured some sort of canonical controversy.
Gospel of John, Acts, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1Peter, 2 Peter, 1John, 2 John, 3 John Jude and Revelation all had some rejection.

If the criteria of luther is to be consistent we are missing an even huger chunk of the Bible here. Let’s put the scissors to the catholic tradtion once more why don’t we?

The new testmanet was not set to any magical criteria it was a group decsion by the catholic church through the ages it is her tradition that supports her doctrines and her rule of faith (not the gnostics, the Lutherans or whomever) to do the hatchett job Luther did is plain dishonest and ahistorical.

The canon really is based on what the church as a whole believes (the rule of faith) is true not any one person.

The rule of faith developed along with the canon many opinions abounded though history but the church rather than endure pure chaos she held councils thoughout history to maintain that the rule of faith was the same and unified for her members.

THis brings me to my other point since the canon is not a set issue even Luther is telling you this is his opinion make up your own mind. Then all books are up for grabs how about the Dead Sea Scrolls? the gnostic gospels? etc The liberal spectrum of mainline denonimnations have introduced this thought into their discussions of the canon that all books should be reconsidered they are really pushing for the gnostic gospels in particular.
In addition to that heresey they want to reduce the autheticity of the synoptic gospels to authtehic sayings from the Q source and made up sayings from the catholic church. The authentic sayings are less than 20 percent. So we are essentially reducing the NT to the Pauline books and even there some are beginning to doubt the sincerity of Paul and making him as the inventor of Christiantiy not just another apostilic witness. Oh brother!

WHen you use this logic to its consistency its conclusionis an open canon and a reconsideration of the accepted books and all books rejected beforehand.

This is building your theology of a house of cards you don’t even know the books of the bible you are using to support your theology is even valid as the word of God.

What we really have here is the rule of faith of catholic christian community from the first 1500 years and its consensus and the opinion of one man who is so unsure of what is the world of God he says make up your own mind. Jesus said he would not leave us orphans. Thank God he left us the catholic church. Protestantism has left us with thousans of denominations with the bottom line of making up your own orphan mind.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Pedro:

Theologians write about their opinions all the time, some even have their opinion added into bibles as commentaries. None of these men, however, not even Jerome, saw it fit they could create their own bible and sort out the books they disputed and stick them somewhere else. I think you can understand why Luther gets special treatment.

When one looks at the totality of Luther’s New Testament canon criticism, it is quite minute: four books. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. It has been shown his overall opinion softened later in life by the exclusion of many negative comments in his revised prefaces. Of the four books, it is possible that Luther’s opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Even while criticizing James and Jude, he positively quoted from them throughout his career. In the case of Jude he did a complete series of lectures. In the case of James, he occasionally preached from the book.

Luther’s “special treatment” by Roman Catholics is not the same “special treatment” given to Cajetan and Erasmus, who expressed similar sentiments.

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

 

[TertiumQuid]

Oh boy their is more spinning going on with the Lutherans than at the DNC and John Kerry.

Any moderators on these boards? Thanks for the slander. If attempting to research an issue and understand it is “spinning” is a Roman Catholic perspective, I will NEVER become a Roman Catholic.

And yes Luther did say James was an epsitle of straw and you could toss and burn it into the fire. Hebrews he disparaged without the burning comment.

That’s better. However, if you were to read Luther’s “burning” comment in context (hint: LW 34), you would find it’s probably a vary sarcastic off the cuff comment.An interesting fact not usually mentioned is that even though Luther had doubts about James, these were not enough to deter him from preaching from the book. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, “Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle.”

As one reads through it, it is apparent that Luther did find many good things in James worthy to be preached. Similarly, one can find Luther positively quoting from the book of James throughout his writings. Below are only a few examples, which span the length of his academic career:

Sermons On The First Epistle of St. Peter:“
And there is no other Mediator than the Lord Christ, who is the Son of God. Therefore the faith of the Jews and the Turks is false. They say: “I believe that God created heaven and earth.” The devil believes the same thing (cf. James 2:19), but it does not help him. For the Jews and the Turks have the audacity to come before God without Christ the Mediator.”

That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics
“You see, the circumcision of Abraham [Gen. 17:10 ff.] is now an old dead thing and no longer necessary or useful. But if I were to say that God did not command it in its time, it would do me no good even if I believed the gospel. So St. James asserts, “Whoever offends in one point is guilty in all respects.”

Lectures on Genesis:
“Thus God’s testing is a fatherly one, for James says in his letter (1:13): “God is not a tempter for evil”; that is, He does not test in order that we may fear and hate Him like a tyrant but to the end that He may exercise and stir up faith and love in us. Satan, however, tempts for evil, in order to draw you away from God and to make you distrust and blaspheme God.”

“Only let us be on our guard lest after we have once begun to pray, we immediately grow weary. But let us seek and let us cast all our care, misfortune, and affliction on God (1 Peter 5:7) and set before Him the examples of every kind of deliverance. Finally let us knock at the door with confidence and with incessant raps. Then we shall experience what James says (5:16): “The prayer of a righteous man has great power”; for it penetrates heaven and earth.”

**Commentary on Psalms **
“James 1:2 says: “Count it all joy when you fall into various trials” (that is, into the pot of Moab). Therefore, on the contrary, regard it as every kind of grief if you fall into various joys (that is, the dining room and bed of Moab), as the same James says, James 5:1: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl in your miseries.”

So as Lutherans you are totally unsure of what the canon of the Bible is even though you adhere to sola scriptura. I see a big inconsistency there. But I find Luther inconsistent to begin with.

LOL, i’m not even a Lutheran. I’m just a simple guy who likes to know the truth about someone’s view before I go on a public forum and discuss an issue.

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

 

[TertiumQuid]

As far as Luther’s justification for leaving certain books of the Bible out due to some doubt for some fathers is also inconsistnet. The only books of the Bible that were always accepted from the apostlic age were the books from Paul (except Philemon) and the synoptic gospels.

Understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives:

1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian
2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology

Luther was a Doctor of Theology, and was familiar with canon issues, including the on-going debate as to the canonicity of particular books. Throughout his career, he maintained a position that echoed other voices from church history. The editors of Luther’s Works explain:

“Up to the fourth century the Epistle of James was not included in the canon by many Christian leaders, and earlier writers did not quote from it. Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, 25.”

“In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author (died ca. 339) writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.” … Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3). …. Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status….”.

Lutheran writer Mark Bartling points out, “Luther had to face the whole issue of canonicity and reevaluate the question of what books belong to the Bible. The Latin Bible, the Vulgate, contained the Apocrypha Books of the Old Testament. In some Medieval manuscripts of the Bible we often find included a 5th Gospel, the Gospel of Nicodemus. Some printed German Bibles, before Luther’s, had the Epistle to the Laodiceans.”

As to point #2, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone” was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated. Althaus explains,

“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principle of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is “that which is apostolic.” Luther’s concept of apostolicity is based not only on a historical factor, that is, that Christ himself called and sent out a group of witnesses. Rather, it is determined by the content of a book. An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior. “Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the suffering, resurrection, and office of Christ.” This shows that an apostle is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and this gives him his authority and infallibility. Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of the Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ.”

Thus, Luther’s view was a combination of #1 & #2, so only certain books were questioned, not removed.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Shibboleth]

“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).

I have never read this quote but I am quite fond of it also. The only book that I carry with me all of the time is the Bible. I love the look I get from people at lunch when they ask me what I am reading and I say 1 Corinthians.

All Books should be secondary. The writings of Popes, Karl K., Jimmy A., and others should all collect dust before our Bibles. My NASB has collected a few soda and ketchup stains but never dust. I have never read nor do I own any works by Luther.

This is one of the things that I get frustrated about on this board. Many people ask what they should read or what Book they should give a friend. It seems always that the answer is something to the effect of “By Who’s Authority” and rarely do they answer with The Gospel of Matthew.

Like I said before we believe that Luther got some things right… it looks like this is one of those times.

 

[RBushlow]

brianberean:

I’ve been posting on message boards for a long time.
Brian

Hi Brian,

I don't think the objection is to Roman Catholic Church or Roman Catholic. It's RC and RCC that many people find offensive. I myself prefer the term "Catholic Church". After all we don't call Protestants prots, or the Lutheran Church LC. Out of courtesy and respect, we spell it out.

May the peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Shibboleth:

I have never read this quote but I am quite fond of it also. The only book that I carry with me all of the time is the Bible. I love the look I get from people at lunch when they ask me what I am reading and I say 1 Corinthians.

All Books should be secondary. The writings of Popes, Karl K., Jimmy A., and others should all collect dust before our Bibles. My NASB has collected a few soda and ketchup stains but never dust. I have never read nor do I own any works by Luther.

Agreed. A non-Christian friend of mine once said to me, “If you really believe that God has given you His word in the Bible, why would you ever not read it?” This friend was a classmate when I studied for my undergrad degree in Philosophy. I have never forgotten his point.

Reading Luther or other Reformers for me is somewhat similar to talking with a Christian friend. We discuss ideas, and Scripture, and apologetics, etc. Any book I own is completely marked up with my comments and concerns as I interact with the text. I don’t always agree with Luther (fact is, i’m a Calvinist). But I have found many things he’s said challenging. A book that changed the way I think about my faith was an exposition of Luther’s Theology of the Cross.

Take Care,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

 

[Maccabees]

TertiumQuid
My assertion that Lutehr did not deem Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation as canonical in the Lutheran Bible still stands whether he said good things about them and preached from them is besides the point. Luther had many good things to say about the apocrapha and still preached from them. Still neither group of books did he deem as inspired by the holy spirit and the word of God all of these books were profitable for reading but not holy writ. Once again you skirt the issue by attempting to change the subject.

What is is also interesting is that in his debates with Eck he quoted the dueterocanonicals as scripture. As to use them against the church. WHen he is the loosing side of the scripture debate such as 2 Maccabeees he turns the table and all of the suddent the dueterocanonicals are not scripture.

 

[Maccabees]

TertiumQuid
Luther was a Doctor of Theology, and was familiar with canon issues, including the on-going debate as to the canonicity of particular books. Throughout his career, he maintained a position that echoed other voices from church history. The editors of Luther’s Works explain:

“Up to the fourth century the Epistle of James was not included in the canon by many Christian leaders, and earlier writers did not quote from it. Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, 25.”

Well yeah I kinds pointed that to you in the earlier post.
Are you reading to comprehend?
Look I listed more than half of the books in the new testament were in dispute in church history of rarely used by the early fathers. In fact James is in far better standing than the book of Revleation which isn’t even read in the Orthodox churches due to weakness of using them in the East in their liturgical tradtion since many Eastern fathers had doubts about the book. My point is if your drop James you have to drop all the books I listed becuase they were disputed as well it is selective for Luther to say this books was diputed thus I won’t list it under the canon. WEll blot all the books out that have any doubt if you are going to be consistent. The Bible didn’t fall from the sky many many books were disputed till the 3rd 4th and 5th centuries.
But where does Luther have the right to unilaterally decalre what is scripture and not. Look its one thing to write a commentary of the merits and demerits of a book but to not list it as scripture is another thing.
Honestly don’t you think this is dishonest and reckless.
The only proof you need is that the other protestnat bodies didn’t play his games with the new testament. With the old Testmanet the reformers could go to another authoriyt the Jews. But with the new testamnet was a product of the church and even they respected th tradtion of the canon not to toy with it on an indivual level. WEll except the pompous Luther.

Luther was a theologian as you are quick to remind me. As only a priest and theologian no matter how brilliant he may be where does he have the authority to declare what is scripure and what is not scripture all by himself?

And no I won’t buy your spin about him joking about buring a book the holy Bible. That is not funny in the least. Much like Luther was not funny in threatening to put the Jews in labor camps.
Oh that Luther what a funny man!
Ok maybe to you but he has some sick tendencies burning James and his anti-semetism were not funny any kind of way no matter what context you try to spin that into.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Maccabees:

My assertion that Lutehr did not deem Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation as canonical in the Lutheran Bible still stands whether he said good things about them and preached from them is besides the point.

Again, Luther questioned their canonicity, as did his contemporaries Erasmus and Cajetan.All Catholics should be aware that these men formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the council of Trent. The New Catholic Encyclopedia has 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.” When one looks at the totality of Luther’s New Testament canon criticism, it is quite minute: four books. Of his opinion he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. His overall opinion softened later in life by the exclusion of many negative comments in his revised prefaces. Of the four books, it is quite possible that Luther’s opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation).If Luther had dogmatically rejected these four books, he would not have translated them and included them in his Bible.

Luther had many good things to say about the apocrapha and still preached from them. Still neither group of books did he deem as inspired by the holy spirit and the word of God all of these books were profitable for reading but not holy writ. Once again you skirt the issue by attempting to change the subject.

Luther did not treat the four questionable New Testament books in the exact same way as he did the Old Testament apocrypha. 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, and fluctuated throughout his career.

What is is also interesting is that in his debates with Eck he quoted the dueterocanonicals as scripture. As to use them against the church. WHen he is the loosing side of the scripture debate such as 2 Maccabeees he turns the table and all of the suddent the dueterocanonicals are not scripture.

Please provide the references if you wish to discuss this. Which verses? What was the context? What sources on Luther are you using to document this? Context matters to me, I hope it does for you as well.

Have A Nice Day,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm

 

[TertiumQuid]

Maccabees:

Well yeah I kinds pointed that to you in the earlier post. Are you reading to comprehend?

Again, your posts are in need of a moderator.

Look I listed more than half of the books in the new testament were in dispute in church history of rarely used by the early fathers.

Two things.

1.Luther was a Christian, not a radical higher atheistic Bible critic. He did not question the majority of the NT books, simply because he saw the Gospel message in them, and the arguments against them did not convince him of non-apostolic origin.

1. The books in question are popularly known as "antilegomena.“These books were **questioned ** by Christians throughout church history. Luther’s contemporaries Erasmus and Cajetan questioned these four books as well, and like Luther, accepted the rest of the NT (more or less).These men followed the work of Eusebius, as did most 16th Century theologians, who classified the four books in question as antilegomena.” In other words, the bulk of material you supply to prove your argument that Luther was not consistent is irrelevant. Try to put your mind in the 16th Century. what books did Luther, Erasmus, and Cajetan rely on for their opinions?

But where does Luther have the right to unilaterally decalre what is scripture and not. Look its one thing to write a commentary of the merits and demerits of a book but to not list it as scripture is another thing.

Luther, Erasmus, and Cajetan were sixteenth century Biblical theologians. Their “liberty” was simply the liberty as allowed by the sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church. If the New Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All 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. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.

And no I won’t buy your spin about him joking about buring a book the holy Bible. That is not funny in the least. Much like Luther was not funny in threatening to put the Jews in labor camps. Oh that Luther what a funny man! Ok maybe to you but he has some sick tendencies burning James and his anti-semetism were not funny any kind of way no matter what context you try to spin that into.

I suggest you find the quote in context, and read the explanatory footnote provided by editiors of Luther’s Works. As to your other provoking comments, you sir, are in desperate need of a moderator here at Catholic Answers. Your tone and rhetoric lack a spirit of polite dialog.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Exporter]

BrianBerian,

What are your credentials to allow you to post so much knowledge about what books were in the Old Testament during Jesus’ lifetime?

**It seems to me you are offering an “opinion” too.:tsktsk: **

 

[brianberean]

Pedro:

Which canon are you referring to Brian? The only canons before Trent recognized by the Catholic Church are those of the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century, and Rome in the early 5th century (which was simply a reaffirmation of the canons of the earlier councils). All of them included the deuterocanonicals.

The OT canon. Since you bring up Hippo and Carthage, did you know that they recognized a slightly different canon than Trent?

You mentioned the Hebrew OT - the Jewish Palestinian canon that was decided on by a Jewish council around the end of the 1st century. The Catholic Church never recognized this canon. Neither did the Eastern Orthodox Church, so no church recognized it before the Reformation. My guess is it was rejected because this canon did not exist during Jesus’ or the apostle’s time, or because this Jewish council also declared the Gospels as “not inspired”.

Is this the canon that you base your OT on?

This canon you say that was never recognized by the Catholic Church was the same OT canon that was recognized as inspired in the Catholic produced bibles (i.e. Biblia Compulsia) I’ve listed here and in another thread. These bibles contained sharp admonistions against the canonicity of the deuteros as well as questioning their inspiration. The Gloss Ordinaria was a commentary that accompanied many bibles in the middle ages, it also contained sharp admonitions against the canonicity of the deuteros. IMO, you can’t ignore this evidence and still speak credibly on the subject.

Brian