Question about Catholic Bible

[JonNC]

aragon,

That may be true but it is because the authors of the NT spoke Greek and naturally used the Septuagent which is for Greek speakers.

Actually Luther used the Latin Vulgate. That was the bible he used to translate into German including the apochrypha. Luther followed Jerome who translated the Vulagate from Greek and Hebrew into Latin, who labeled the Deuterocanicals as “apocrypha” meaning not to be used for doctrines. This issue had never been settled by the RCC until Trent when the Deuterocanicals were said to be equal to the rest of scripture.

Rob

Not exactly, Rob. It is my understanding that Luther used primarily the Greek ( *Textus Receptus * ) and Hebrew, though some of his translation partners used the Latin.

Jon

 

[submariner2]

Not exactly, Rob. It is my understanding that Luther used primarily the Greek ( *Textus Receptus * ) and Hebrew, though some of his translation partners used the Latin.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I guess I had a different understanding that he translated direct from the Latin Vulgate. Do you have a source for your understanding that I could check?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Jon,

I guess I had a different understanding that he translated direct from the Latin Vulgate. Do you have a source for your understanding that I could check?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

I could be wrong and don’t have a source, but I thought he used the Greek text from Erasmus.

 

[JonNC]

I could be wrong and don’t have a source, but I thought he used the Greek text from Erasmus.

Correct, Michael. The textus receptus.

Originally Posted by submariner2
Hi Jon,

I guess I had a different understanding that he translated direct from the Latin Vulgate. Do you have a source for your understanding that I could check?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

Hi Rob,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

Yeah, I know. It wiki. But there are other sources that confirm it.

Jon

 

[submariner2]

I could be wrong and don’t have a source, but I thought he used the Greek text from Erasmus.

Hesychios,

I seriously doubt that. That was a terrible translation to begin with utilizing a 12th century manuscript. Much of the King James Version came from that.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Correct, Michael. The textus receptus.

Hi Rob,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

Yeah, I know. It wiki. But there are other sources that confirm it.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I read your Wiki description. I will continue checking this but another source says this “His (Luther) greatest acheivement was the translation of the entire NT from the ORIGINAL into the German tongue. The OT followed later.”

This is from the Reformation of the 16th Century by Roland H. Bainton. page 60.

Erasmus derived his version from other more original documents so his was not original as I would interpret it. I am not sure if what Wiki says is entirely accurate, but one could argue that none of them were really original. But it is an interesting subject and I will research it. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

 

[BornAgainRN]

Is it true that there are several other books of the Bible in the Catholic Bible? Why do Protestants claim the other books not included are not “spirit-breathed?” That’s what they told me. The books that were not included were not “God-breathed.”
I guess that is what I am wondering. The person who told me this had other ideas that seemed to go against Christ’s teachings. I was pretty much laughed out of that church. And forced out by nasty gossip and slander.
And is it okay if a Protestant chooses the Catholic Bible over the Protestant one? A lot of people I know wouldn’t like it if I started reading the Catholic Bible. But I want to know for myself what is true.

As a former Catholic, what I learned about the Catholic Bible is that the reason Protestants removed the Apocrypha was because the early Christian Church realized that they weren’t Inspired, because some things in these books contradicts other passages of Scripture, like Nebuchadnezzar being the king of Assyria, when Daniel tells us that he was king of Babylon. Plus, one Apocryphal book tells us that it’s not Inspired. When St. Jerome placed the Apocrypha in the Bible, even the Catholic church back then didn’t consider it Inspired. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the Catholic church ‘canonized’ the Apocrypha, & now calls it ‘Deuterocanonical’ ('Second Canon), out of pressure from the Protestant Reformers that many of the Catholic church’s teachings weren’t supported by Scripture, such as almsgiving for the dead, prayer to the dead, the Mass, etc. The Catholic church realized this, so it is no coincidence that they ‘canonized’ the Apocrypha to counter their claims, so they could claim that their beliefs are based on the Apocrypha, which is NOT Inspired.

Here are a few really good links to Christian Web sites that the talk about the Apocrypha:

gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html
carm.org/apocrypha-it-scripture

In Christ,
Steve.

 

[ajcstr]

Hi Jon,

I guess I had a different understanding that he translated direct from the Latin Vulgate. Do you have a source for your understanding that I could check?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

I would have to agree with Jon in that I believe he translated from the Greek for the NT. Not sure what manuscripts he used or if he translated the OT from Hebrew or Greek but I am thinking Hebrew.

The Douay-Rhiems Bible was translated from the Vulgate to English.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I read your Wiki description. I will continue checking this but another source says this “His (Luther) greatest acheivement was the translation of the entire NT from the ORIGINAL into the German tongue. The OT followed later.”

This is from the Reformation of the 16th Century by Roland H. Bainton. page 60.

Erasmus derived his version from other more original documents so his was not original as I would interpret it. I am not sure if what Wiki says is entirely accurate, but one could argue that none of them were really original. But it is an interesting subject and I will research it. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Rob

Hi Rob,
Try this source.

christianitytoday.com/holidays/nbw/features/34h035.html

 

[lna419]

That’s not correct. The canon you are referring to was accepted in the Latinate church only, not universally.

The Latin Church is the Catholic church one and the same.

The other ancient churches developed their own biblical canons which vary with the Latinate canon as well as with each other.

What other ancient churches. From the first century to the 10th century their was only one church. In 1054 the split between that ONE church took place and then we had the greek orthodox. So for 10 centuries we had one church. Then in the 1517 the reformation started. It was sparked by the 1517 posting of Luther’s Ninety-five theses.

That’s not correct; Luther includes them as Scripture.

No he does not.

I’m curious would you ever call any book in scripture straw? That’s what Luther called the epistle of james, “epistle of straw”. That sounds pretty derogatory.

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon.He perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide.

In The Protestant Spirit of Luther’s Version, Philip Schaff (well known Protestant Theologian)asserts that:

"The most important example of dogmatic influence in Luther’s version is the famous interpolation of the word alone in Rom. 3:28 (allein durch den Glauben), by which he intended to emphasize his solifidian doctrine of justification, on the plea that the German idiom required the insertion for the sake of clearness. But he thereby brought Paul into direct verbal conflict with James, who says (James 2:24), “by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (“nicht durch den Glauben allein”). It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to harmonize the two apostles in this article, and characterized the Epistle of James as an “epistle of straw,” because it had no evangelical character (“keine evangelische Art”).

 

[submariner2]

Hi Rob,
Try this source.

christianitytoday.com/holidays/nbw/features/34h035.html

Jon,

Actually I think Luther probably did use the Erasmus Greek since he had access to none of the earlier manuscripts anyway. He was in hiding at the time to avoid being captured and sent to Rome for punishment. At that time they did not realize how poor the Erasmus Greek was but it was better than nothing at all and for the first time many Germans could hear scripture read in their own language, a blessing to them.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

I would have to agree with Jon in that I believe he translated from the Greek for the NT. Not sure what manuscripts he used or if he translated the OT from Hebrew or Greek but I am thinking Hebrew.

The Douay-Rhiems Bible was translated from the Vulgate to English.

ajcstr,

I think he did translate from the Erasmus Greek. For the first time in their lives many Germans were to hear the scripture in their own language, a blessing to them.

Rob

 

[JonNC]

=lna419;9379159]

I’m curious would you ever call any book in scripture straw? That’s what Luther called the epistle of james, “epistle of straw”. That sounds pretty derogatory.

that’s because you are using a partial quote, and out of context at that.

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon.He perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide.

Goodness. Where in Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation is there a contradiction of sola gratia, or sola fide? Even in James, there is no denial of either. One has to go back to Eusebius to find that the books you mentioned he called antilagomena (disputed) 1200 years before Luther.
Out of curiosity, can you cite a Luther quote where he says he wants them removed? I ask that because they were translated by him and included in his 1522 NT.

In The Protestant Spirit of Luther’s Version, Philip Schaff (well known Protestant Theologian)asserts that:

"The most important example of dogmatic influence in Luther’s version is the famous interpolation of the word alone in Rom. 3:28 (allein durch den Glauben), by which he intended to emphasize his solifidian doctrine of justification, on the plea that the German idiom required the insertion for the sake of clearness. But he thereby brought Paul into direct verbal conflict with James, who says (James 2:24), “by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (“nicht durch den Glauben allein”). It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to harmonize the two apostles in this article, and characterized the Epistle of James as an “epistle of straw,” because it had no evangelical character (“keine evangelische Art”).

Ok. Let’s get the Luther “book of straw” quote correct.

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.

Luther’s complaint, beyond the question of authorship, is that it speaks to the law, and less to Gospel. So he further says:

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;

He praises it, and considers it a good book, even though it was rejected by the ancients (check out Eusebius).

Somehow, this doesn’t sound like a desire to remove the books.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Luther’s complaint, beyond the question of authorship, is that it speaks to the law, and less to Gospel. So he further says:

He praises it [James], and considers it a good book, even though it was rejected by the ancients (check out Eusebius).

Somehow, this doesn’t sound like a desire to remove the books.

Jon

The question is, are we to consider James to be inspired? Luther speaks highly of the Pauline corpus and of the gospel of John, but much less so of the other gospels. Read his preface to his New Testament. What do you think the New Testament would look like if Luther had compiled it instead of the early catholics?

Why do you think he wrote a preface at all, except to influence people as to how they should understand it and to strengthen his own theology? No, more sober minds prevented him from leaving these other books out entirely, but we get an idea of how he thought by reading his prefaces.

Luther was willing to rank order the word of God in order to advance his own thinking!

 

[mackbrislawn]

. For the first time in their lives many Germans were to hear the scripture in their own language, a blessing to them.

Rob

You mean the Germans did not hear scripture read to them in German when they went to church? And do you mean that Luther’s translation was the first into German?

 

[CopticChristian]

ajcstr,

I think he did translate from the Erasmus Greek. For the first time in their lives many Germans were to hear the scripture in their own language, a blessing to them.

Rob

This whole idea of finally in their own langauge decries the reality that Luther published his treatises in Latin and John Calvin published his Religous Institutes in Latin…did they not want the common man to understand these important documents?

 

[submariner2]

You mean the Germans did not hear scripture read to them in German when they went to church? And do you mean that Luther’s translation was the first into German?

mack,

Possibly some had. But most had not. Luthers congregations were blessed by that.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

This whole idea of finally in their own langauge decries the reality that Luther published his treatises in Latin and John Calvin published his Religous Institutes in Latin…did they not want the common man to understand these important documents?

Coptic,

Latin was the formal language for theogians. Luthers bible was in German for the common person, a very innovative idea.

Rob

 

[JonNC]

=mackbrislawn;9406373]The question is, are we to consider James to be inspired? Luther speaks highly of the Pauline corpus and of the gospel of John, but much less so of the other gospels. Read his preface to his New Testament. What do you think the New Testament would look like if Luther had compiled it instead of the early catholics?

If one reads what Luther said, he gives great sway to what the early Church, ECF’s etc. thought. One of his complaints regarding James was his impression of how 1500’s Catholics* used *it, in a way that he seemed to think as superior to Paul.

Why do you think he wrote a preface at all, except to influence people as to how they should understand it and to strengthen his own theology? No, more sober minds prevented him from leaving these other books out entirely, but we get an idea of how he thought by reading his prefaces.

I’m still looking for a link to where he said he would have eliminate books, save the influence of others. In fact, it seems that, if this were the case, he would not have even bothered making sure the deuterocanonical books were translated and included in his 1534 translation.

Again, I contend two things: 1) that while Jerome and Eusebius held great sway to his thinking, so did the tradition of the western Church, and 2) that in apolegetics more is made of this issue than is actually the case. Luther’s view of the canon of scripture was not drastically outside what had been said, and permitted by the Church, before him.

Luther was willing to rank order the word of God in order to advance his own thinking!

Why not just choose to not translate and include them? Why even bother with “rank order”?

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

mack,

Possibly some had. But most had not. Luthers congregations were blessed by that.

Rob

Are you sure? You mean congregations had the epistles and gospels read to them in Latin? Was Luther’s the first translation into German? Didn’t priests have to learn Latin? Couldn’t they translate the readings into the vernacular themselves?