The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

[bogeydogg]

The are called, collectively, the Deuterocanonicals. Someone else has listed them for you so I won’t bother. The Protestants call them the “Apocrypha”.

I believe it is significant. However, neither Protestants nor Catholics like my opinion on this matter. I guess its too “mystical” or something. Anyway…

Sheva is the Hebrew word for “oath”. It is the basis of the word, “Sabbath”. It is also the basis of the word, “Seven”. As in, God made the world in “seven” days.

Therefore, in Scripture, the number, 7, is considered a “mystical” number. It is repeated many times.
God blessed the seventh day.

Look at Genesis 7 and count how many times the number 7 is repeated:
7 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by** sevens**, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

4 For yet **seven **days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.

6 And Noah …10 And it came to pass after** seven **days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. etc. etc.

Genesis 8:4
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the** seven**teenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

And on and on. Therefore, the number 7 is believed to represent both “God’s oath or covenant with mankind” and “fullness or completeness”.

So, by by Luther removing the 7 books, I believe God has given us a message. He has removed the Covenant of God and left the Protestants with an incomplete book.

If that were all, I wouldn’t blame anyone for not believing the significance of this number. But there is much more.

Let’s look at the number of books which remained in the Protestant Scriptures. 66

What is the number of the Beast? 666

Also, 7 is fullness and 6 is the lack thereof.

And finally, what is the number of Catholic books. 73.

Seven signifies fullness and signifies “oath or Covenant”. What does 3 signify?

The Trinity.

What we have here is “the complete Covenant of the Holy Trinity.” This is what Luther destroyed when he took out seven books from the Sacred Bible.

I’m just throwing it out there.

You’re welcome.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Luther removed zero books from Scripture.

666 is the number of a man; namely Nero. The Church has always understood it this way.

God Bless

 

[Dave_Noonan]

cogwriter.com/luther.htm

This is a very interesting read.

It’s pretty easy to reject anything coming from the Worldwide Church of God out of hand, but even setting that aside, I don’t see where this link even addresses the assertion that Martin Luther tried to remove books from the Bible but that others somehow stopped him or overrode his decision.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m not certain of that poster’s source, but pablop provided one and here is another (New and Old Testaments, respectively):
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

In fact, Martin wanted to remove certain other books from the New Testament too: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He wasn’t able to convince the rest of the protesters, so Protestants still kept them. But Lutheran Bibles tend to print these books as the last books of the New Testament in memory of Martin’s dislike for these. So if Martin got his way, it would be 11 books.

I don’t see where these articles address the issue I was raising so perhaps you could explain how they do so. Also (sadly) the articles don’t cite any sources related to this topic.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

There may be some conjecture out there about what Luther said about this or that book, but it does seem according to my research, at least with regard to the book of James, that he would like to have nixed it from teaching use if not throw it out of the canon:***We should throw the epistle of James out of this school ***Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much.*It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning.*I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.*Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment!*I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’*This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, althought this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. No he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constatntly shifting from one to the other.*He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.’ O Mary, mother of God!! What a terrible comparison that is!!!!LW, 54, 424-425
Elsewhere he explicitly said James had errors in his theology:*James argues in his letter (Jas. 2:21) that Abraham was justified on the basis of his works. Because the text says:Now I see that you are righteous', he wants to conclude from this that previously Abraham was not righteous. . . . .Abraham was righteous by faith before God acknowledged him as such. Therefore **James*concluded falsely that now at last he was justified after that obedience***,*for faith and righteousness are known by works as by the fruit. But it does not follow, as James raves: Hence the fruits justify’ just as it does not follow: 'I know a tree by its fruit; therefore the tree becomes good as a result of its fruit.Therefore let our opponents be done with their James, whom they throw up to us so often(Luther 4:134).*I believe that last quote is from Luther’s Works.Saw these quotes here a while back. I’ve also seen part of the latter quote cited as LW 4.26)

Again, here is the assertion (very often repeated here at CAF) for which I was requesting a source:

In fact, Martin wanted to remove certain other books from the New Testament too: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He wasn’t able to convince the rest of the protesters, so Protestants still kept them. But Lutheran Bibles tend to print these books as the last books of the New Testament in memory of Martin’s dislike for these. So if Martin got his way, it would be 11 books.

I don’t really see how this link addresses my objection.

 

[De_Maria]

Luther removed zero books from Scripture.

Luther removed 7 books.

666 is the number of a man; namely Nero.

Revelation 13:16-18
King James Version (KJV)
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

The Church has always understood it this way.

God Bless

The Church does not contradict Scripture.

God bless you as well,

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Cable]

And he added the word “alone” to faith, to make it “faith alone.” It’s not in the Greek.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t really see how this link addresses my objection.

It just addressed the book of James, which was included in the poster’s post. The poster’s quote says Luther “wanted to remove…James.” I think what I quoted provides strong evidence of such.

 

[Elizium23]

This is a very interesting read.

I would be very wary of that particular source; it is anti-Catholic and claims to adhere to the “Living Church of God”. They quote Church documents and followers when it suits them, but they also teach that the Catholic Church is false and leading its members astray, so take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[Byzman]

I don’t see where these articles address the issue I was raising so perhaps you could explain how they do so. Also (sadly) the articles don’t cite any sources related to this topic.

Here is an interesting article with excerpts from Luther’s Bible from the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. This should satisfy what you are looking for on how he felt towards these books!
internetmonk.com/archive/a-bible-youd-never-find

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Who gave Luther the authority to do anything?

 

[bogeydogg]

Who gave Luther the authority to do anything?

The Roman Catholic Church; he was an ordained priest.

God Bless

 

[Elizium23]

The Roman Catholic Church; he was an ordained priest.

God Bless

Ordained priests have the authority to confect the Eucharist and hear confessions. These are the faculties granted to them by God and the Church by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Nobody gave Luther the authority to mess with the canon of Scripture and nobody gave him the authority to lead his flock astray with false teachings. (I can think of someone who put those ideas into his head, but no authority comes from the one I am thinking of.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Randal,

Yes, indeed, this was very interesting. Actually, I have not read a comprehenisve treatment of Luther’s writings - and intentional mistranslations of Scripture - prior to this from one source.

But, you know, at the very beginning, I got this lump in my throat… a Hebert W. Armstrong group, claiming to be older than the Catholic Church is a heck of a source group. Yes, it does seem like I am being biased (OK, I confess…) but I really am a loss on this one.

God bless

cogwriter.com/luther.htm

This is a very interesting read.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Po18Guy,

I think it would be a very interesting story to find out what really stopped Luther from having his way in not throwing out all the books he disagreed with.

He was very ‘successful’ with books in the OT only. But, none in the NT- especially James who specifically says ‘Faith alone’ - in a totally opposite meaning from what Luther was using. Yet, Luther failed in having James’ book pitched.

I am sure there is real evidence of the Divine Hand of God here - but, there is probably a truly uniquie human story, too. Any ideas?

God bless

He very famously called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw” From the Wiki:

As well, he did not like Hebrews, since the author was unknown (what does that have to do with inspiration?). Again, from the Wiki:

So, would it be 65 books, had Luther had his way with Esther?

 

[po18guy]

Hi, Po18Guy,

I think it would be a very interesting story to find out what really stopped Luther from having his way in not throwing out all the books he disagreed with.

As I understand it, it was fellow reformers who realized that he was going too far.

He was very ‘successful’ with books in the OT only. But, none in the NT- especially James who specifically says ‘Faith alone’ - in a totally opposite meaning from what Luther was using. Yet, Luther failed in having James’ book pitched.

…and in achieving Christian unity.

I am sure there is real evidence of the Divine Hand of God here - but, there is probably a truly uniquie human story, too. Any ideas? God bless

Taken within the context of:

1 Corinthians 11:18-19
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.

…I think it makes sense, and is a prophetic fulfillment of Paul’s words.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It just addressed the book of James, which was included in the poster’s post. The poster’s quote says Luther “wanted to remove…James.” I think what I quoted provides strong evidence of such.

IMO it doesn’t provide any evidence at all. If Luther wanted to remove James or any other book, he would have done so–it’s pretty simple, really. It’s his translation—he could do whatever he wanted. Luther basically provides his personal opinion on the various books of the Bible, which he tells his readers that they can take or leave.

The assertion that I’m trying to tackle (see the specific wording in post #3) is that Luther “tried” to remove books from the NT but that “others stopped him.” This assertion, along with the “Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament” is repeated over and over and over here at CAF. I used to believe the assertion about Luther and the 7 books, but then I finally did my own research and found it to be false, or in a big stretch, exceedingly misleading. I’m guessing the other statement is equally false but I’m giving people the benefit of the doubt and allowing them to provide some historical evidence for this alleged conflict over the NT books, and who is was exactly that stopped Luther from removing them. The whole story doesn’t jibe with what we know about Luther. So far, I’m not seeing any evidence, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

 

[po18guy]

IMO it doesn’t provide any evidence at all. If Luther wanted to remove James or any other book, he would have done so–it’s pretty simple, really. It’s his translation—he could do whatever he wanted. Luther basically provides his personal opinion on the various books of the Bible, which he tells his readers that they can take or leave.

Do you not see a huge problem with this?

As well, his actions, including his translation did not occur in a vacuum. Clearly, he made some compromises in an attempt to hold his fracturing rebellion together. To a greater or lesser degree he was impelled, or restrained, by those around him. His opinion of James is well attested to. Is that not an indicator of a larger problem? He took books that were used by the united Church since the earliest days and segregated and downgraded them, based on his opinion.

Question: If those books are actually inspired, was he not opposing God?

In asserting his personal authority and in taking his action, he elevated himself to the office that he hated - that of pope. If his actions were restricted, or moderated at all, it was by the pressure of those who were trying to remain faithful to him - his “council” if you will. In acting as he did, he made himself pope and those around him became his council. In rejecting Church and council, they became a parallel church and council.

Bottom line: Luther knocked seven books off of their pedestal, but allowed them to remain in “his” bible. Later followers ejected them completely. Either way, it began with him. Point: This also marks the first time in history that a man’s name becomes a modifier to the nouns “church” and “bible”. A man’s name. Not even the most corrupt of popes dared do that.

The assertion that I’m trying to tackle (see the specific wording in post #3) is that Luther “tried” to remove books from the NT but that “others stopped him.” This assertion, along with the “Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament” is repeated over and over and over here at CAF. I used to believe the assertion about Luther and the 7 books, but then I finally did my own research and found it to be false, or in a big stretch, exceedingly misleading.

What were your sources?

I’m guessing the other statement is equally false but I’m giving people the benefit of the doubt and allowing them to provide some historical evidence for this alleged conflict over the NT books, and who is was exactly that stopped Luther from removing them. The whole story doesn’t jibe with what we know about Luther. So far, I’m not seeing any evidence, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

I think we are stuck on a perception and on semantics here. Luther did not “take out” or “remove” books. He left them in his bible, but, and this is a huge but, declared them, by his own authority, to be non-inspired. What individual had ever done that solely on personal authority? Jerome, who may have shared his opinion of the (pre) Deuterocanon, deferred to the Church, while Luther simply left the Church.

 

[benjohnson]

I’d like to point out that no Lutheran (And I certainly don’t) should think that Martin Luther was without sin, error, and pride. However, looking at my “Lutheran” bible, it seems complete, with the 7 missing books tucked neatly in the back. Out of order, but not out of the Bible.

Keep in mind, the removal of the 7 books in the English Protestant bibles was done, as I understand it, by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Our Easter Orthodox friend would chide us all for missing the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees and 3 Maccabees - and I think they have another book of Ezra too if I’m not mistaken.

…

Rather than the question of removed books, in my opinion perhaps a better question should be “How to we convince Lutherans to put theses books back into their original places rather than in the appendix.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

I’ve been involved with Luther-related Internet discussions for over 10 years. This topic comes up at least every other week.

I could understand, 10 years ago someone asking about Luther allegedly “removing” books from the Bible… but now, there’s a lot material available on-line that addresses this subject.

Let’s all say it together slowly: GOOOOOGLE.

 

[javid]

In fact, Martin wanted to remove certain other books from the New Testament too: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

Would you please, give me a evidence for it(if it be a protestaunt evidence it would better)

God bless you