The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

[benjohnson]

tqualey:

Hi, Benjohnson,

Are you saying that the 7 books Luther claimed on his own authority were not inspired and dismissed from his bible - make for completeness?

They were no books dismissed from Luther’s German Bible - they are they there, just in a different place.

Luther may have said some stupid things, but his efforts to create a German-language bible were extensive and complete. All books are there - Ester, James, Revelation and the others. This continues to the current day with Lutheran bibles.

If you need a Catholic source to verify this:

cathtruth.com/catholicbible/cathprot.htm

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benjohnson,

What part of ‘myth’ are you having a problem with? Let’s try it this way - count up the books listed in the category of Old Testament - if your bible is complete, you should have 46, now do the same for the New Testament - and you should have 27. If you wind up 7 books short in the OT section, then you have a bible that is abridged and has its orign at about 1521. If you have the full set of books, then that bible has its origin in the Catholic Church’s Canon of Saced Scripture dating back to about 391AD.

But, I would like to point out that no one has responded to Po18Guy’s comment that Luther did something far worse than no keep these 7 books as designated in the Canon - on his own authority, Luther declared that they were not inspired by God. Seriously, who is this guy who thinks he can (could) do this? It is the same guy who thought he could create his own church with his own doctrines and interpretations. And, alas, the same guy who lived long enough (d. 11546) to see thousands die because of his pride (German Peasants War) and that Protestantism had already begun its splintering activities with Calvin, Henry VIII, Zwingli, Vasa and others. Today, the fruit of that labor is >30,000 competing groups, all claiming to be right, to interpret the Scriptures as they see fit and declaring that their human traditions will bring them to God by their ‘faith alone’. They all can’t be right - and, in reality, they are all wrong! Truly, while all of this chaos can not be directly attributed to Luther - we but need to identify him as the only who opened door to chaos by disputing Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16). Everything else simply flow from this and is handled so well by Luther’s pride.

Go back to the links I have provided on this thread. Claiming Luther did not do something that he did. And what he did was deny that these 7 books were inspired - a matter resolved in 391AD by the Catholic Church. Luther segragated these books in a section called the Apocrypha Here is a Lutheran Link: cyberbrethren.com/2008/07/27/the-apocrypha-%E2%80%94-missing-in-action-in-the-lutheran-church/ The author of this link really does have his facts backwards These 7 books were always in the Canon - and he claims these 7 were put in the Canon at the Council of Trent. Just check the dates for yourself.

God bless

Yes - it is a myth. Luther’s original German bible has all books of the bible, and my modern Lutheran bible does as well.

I ask that you help me to stop this myth from perpetuating as far as the Lutheran bible is concerned.

If you would like to verify the original German Lutheran Bible, I gave a link in a previous post. If you would like to verify a current Lutheran Bible, any Lutheran church would be more than happy to let you look at theirs.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benjohnson,

This is getting a bit difficult. It is not like you left two $5 bills on your desk and I came by and now there is only one $5 bill. We could all say that one of those bills is now missing and be clear, correct and well understood.

Luther did not drop these 7 books - and I was in error when I said he did. What he did - and on his own authority - was to claim they were not inspired and segragated them to a section that had previously not been established. In keeping with the analogy above, it would be like me taking one of thse $5 bills - claiming it had been printed by your brother-in-law and was bogus! I moved it away from the genuine $5 bill - so you would not get confused as to which was real and which was false. I made this determination on my own - I don’t work for the Treasury, had no special training in identifying bogus bills and took it upon myself to move the $5 bill and to make the claim.

Luther’s claim that these 7 books were not part of the original Canon as established in 391 is simply false - a ‘myth’ if you like - and one that needs to be told over and over again, lest people somehow get the idea that Chist did not found his Chruch on Peter - that Christ made an mistake and came back 1500 years later and re-founded it on Luther!!! In looking at these 7 books, we all need to look at where Luther got the authority to do this.

If I tell the Secret Service that I have the authority to print US Dollars - they have every reason to arrest me for breaking the law. If I tell others that I have this authority, they may believe me - and then these false papers will be spread. That is a bad problem with currency - it is a worse problem with God’s Word.

God bless

They were no books dismissed from Luther’s German Bible - they are they there, just in a different place.

Luther may have said some stupid things, but his efforts to create a German-language bible were extensive and complete. All books are there - Ester, James, Revelation and the others. This continues to the current day with Lutheran bibles.

If you need a Catholic source to verify this:

cathtruth.com/catholicbible/cathprot.htm

 

[benjohnson]

Hi, Benjohnson,

Let’s try it this way - count up the books listed in the category of Old Testament - if your bible is complete, you should have 46, now do the same for the New Testament - and you should have 27. If you wind up 7 books short in the OT section, then you have a bible that is abridged and has its orign at about 1521.
God bless

Are you perhaps confusing Lutherans with other Protestants? Most Baptists bibles are missing 7 books for example.

My bible has a complete set of 73 books, My OT had 39, NT 27 and the 7 “missing” OT ones are under the heading of “Apocrypha” along with some extra books like 4 Maccabees from our Eastern friends for purposes of study.

biblestudytools.com/apocrypha/nrsa/

Your bible and mine have the same number of books, but in a different order.

Luther’s bible did relegate some OT books to a section between the OT and NT, and moved a few NT books to the end of the NT. But between the covers of his bible, it was complete. Just not in the same order as the Vulgate bible.

Here’s a quote from a Catholic source:

The Lutheran and Anglican Bibles still carry these books in the appendix or give them at least a secondary place.

cathtruth.com/catholicbible/cathprot.htm

…

Now we can argue about Luther moving around of those books and if Luther started to get too much pride - but if my next printed version of the bible was in the Catholic/Vulgate order, it wouldn’t make me upset.

 

[po18guy]

I am sorry then that you didn’t understand my request for evidence (which had nothing to do with removing books from the Bible) and that this has been such a confusing thread to follow.

No kidding!

It is about “authority” and not about proof.

 

[Augustine3]

I understand the Protestant old testament bibles are generally taken from the Masoretic text. Does that mean there are 42 books in the Masoretic text?

God bless,

 

[benjohnson]

Luther did not drop these 7 books - and I was in error when I said he did. What he did - and on his own authority - was to claim they were not inspired and segragated them to a section that had previously not been established.

Cool!

I understand that shuffling the books of the bible around and putting some under a new label was probably not a good idea - especially given that others who took that as an indication that they could be removed !

Luther probably should have kept his opinions about different books of the bible as a manuscript. I’m all for reform, but only when the good will clearly outweigh the bad, and in this case I don’t think the reform was necessary.

I will say that Luther’s German Bible was a tremendous good in that millions of Germans were now able to read the word of God. Maybe a bit too good as - as Johann Cochlaeus said:

Luther’s New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity.

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay…so we have some folks who say Luther did not edit some books out and seriously call into the canonicity of some other commonly accepted books of the Bible.

I don’t care very much if he did or not because his expressed attitude would be the reason to reject him as a teacher.

Let’s look at some things he said about Bible books aside from the DCs, (since we already know that he hated the DCs because they support some Catholic teachings that he chose to reject.

Oh and…horror of horrors these are taken from an extremely anti-Catholic site. They proceed to outright condemn Luther and question his salvation! The Truth About Martin Luther

Luther Said: The Bible Could Use Some Improvement

“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” ('The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.)
“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (Ibid.)
“Of very little worth is the Book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch might be.” (Ibid.)
“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.)
“If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle.” (‘Pagan Servitude of the Church,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.)
Reading these words of Luther, it’s hard to imagine that he is the same man who so often claimed that he looked upon the Bible “as if God Himself spoke therein.” How could he have claimed to believe in the inspired Word of God as the ultimate authority on religious matters if he placed himself in judgment of Scripture? In doing so, he quite clearly set himself up as judge over God himself.
Believe it or not, in his hubris Luther even presumed to rank the gospels: “John records but few of the works of Christ, but a great deal of his preaching, whereas the other three evangelists record many of His works, but few of His words. It follows that the gospel of John is unique in loveliness, and of a truth the principal gospel, far, far superior to the other three, and St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.” (‘Preface to Romans,’ ed. Dillenberger, pp. 18-19.)
And he complained about the Book of Revelation: “to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books,
1987, p. 203.)
And finally, he admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About
Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

So…did he remove books? Not sure. Did he seem to want to? Looks like it.

 

[Porknpie]

Fyi, There were already 8 bibles in German at the time Luther wrote “his” bible. All courtesy of the Catholic church. Luther was not the first to write the bible in German, only his (mis)translation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benjohnson,

There have been some excellent posts about the motivation Luther had in ‘shuffling the books’ and about the net effect of this action. Actually, it is a bit of a shock to read the outright contempt Luther had for some books - that had been part of the established Canon for at least 1,100 years.
Your quote from Johann Cochlaeus was interesting. What is really noteworthy was not that the tradesmen and peasants of the day were in love with what they understood to be God’s Word (that’s great! ) but rather that it was combined with Luther’s novel doctrines of Sola Scriptura and personal interpretation. Since anyone could not read but could draw their own conclusions - I can imagine that there were rather heated ‘debates’ from many people all advancing their own personal opinion (and, claiming it was inspired, too!)

I have a theory - and not one supported by any reference … My guess is that Luther got carried away with his activities, and simply did not know how to stop - or, if he did stop where would he begin to back away from his prior statements. Admitting he was wrong about anything was simply out of character for this proud man. I was wondering if you had some thoughts on that?

God bless

Cool!

I understand that shuffling the books of the bible around and putting some under a new label was probably not a good idea - especially given that others who took that as an indication that they could be removed !

Luther probably should have kept his opinions about different books of the bible as a manuscript. I’m all for reform, but only when the good will clearly outweigh the bad, and in this case I don’t think the reform was necessary.

I will say that Luther’s German Bible was a tremendous good in that millions of Germans were now able to read the word of God. Maybe a bit too good as - as Johann Cochlaeus said:

Luther’s New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

The idea is that you have glossed over Luther and his unparralled attack on Sacred Scripture - delcaring some works to not be Inspired that had been in the Canon for at least 1,100 years and threatening other books with destruction if he were given a free hand (the Elba River looked like his favorite dumping spot for Canonical Books he did not agree with).

The idea of Luther being some mild and misunderstood monk who was just trying to set things straight while he re-wrote the Bible giving the world a unique mis-translation doesn’t really capture the totality of this man. He was also a politically motivated manipulator. The German Peasants found this out the hard way.

It is your choice to engage or not. If you do, there will probably be some who seriously disagree with your view - and then you will have to confront what is going on: when challenged you realize that you either rise to the occasion or fold. Sounds like you are folding.

God bless

Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you’re referring to or trying to get across here that is related to my question. For my part, I will have to end this exchange.

 

[benjohnson]

Hi, Benjohnson,

My guess is that Luther got carried away with his activities

Sure, all men get carried away.

Lutherans certainly don’t say that Luther was without faults. Remember, this was a man who was cast out of his church, and just saw 100,000 peasants starved and slaughtered for political/religious reasons, all the while his Pope Leo X still thought it was important to keep an elephant. The times were strange indeed.

My main point is that it would be fair to say “Luther moved the books around in the bible” and begin a discussion on if that was a good idea. It is grossly unfair to say “Luther removed books from the bible.” and begin a discussion based on false facts.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benjohnson,

I am surprised to spent time on Pope Leo’s (white) elephant when I think it would have been better to mention his election as pope without having first ordained a priest, Or his appointment of Archbishop Arcimboldi to Denmark-Norway and how badly that was managed. Yes, while Leo is probably a good example of, ‘…men getting carried away…’ but, I think it would be ‘…grossly unfair…’ to put him in the same boat as Luther. Leo - for all of his faults (and they are many) never taught heresy. And, I think it is in the spiritual realm that the actions of these men and others needs to be evaluated. You’re right, the times were very strange.

Now, I do think you have an excellent idea: “It is grossly unfair to say “Luther removed books from the bible.” and begin a discussion based on false facts.” So, let us first dispense with any and all ‘false facts’ (I guess these would not be ‘facts’ at all, eh? ) So, tell me - what are the correct and documented facts that brought Luther to the point where he, ‘…moved the books around in the bible’?

Looking forward to hearing back from you.

God bless

Sure, all men get carried away.

Lutherans certainly don’t say that Luther was without faults. Remember, this was a man who was cast out of his church, and just saw 100,000 peasants starved and slaughtered for political/religious reasons, all the while his Pope Leo X still thought it was important to keep an elephant. The times were strange indeed.

My main point is that it would be fair to say “Luther moved the books around in the bible” and begin a discussion on if that was a good idea. It is grossly unfair to say “Luther removed books from the bible.” and begin a discussion based on false facts.

 

[benjohnson]

I am surprised to spent time on Pope Leo’s (white) elephant
Looking forward to hearing back from you.

I try not to pick on Leo X too much so that we don’t get lost in a argument about him. Certainly, if ever there was a Pope that inspire dissent, I think he may possibly be on the list.

As a teacher, Luther is welcome to his opinions on the relative merits of differing books of the bible. Even throughout my life, different books have been more applicable in my life - when I had children, I first began to appreciate Proverbs for example.

Luther’s mistake was get carried away - but also keep in mind, Luther’s language was abrupt and curt and comes across much more acrimonious today than it would have in 1500’s Germany.

Like I said, if I work up today and all my bibles were in the Vulgate order, I wouldn’t be upset in the slightest.

 

[benjohnson]

Tom, to answer your question directly, my guess is that Luther began to apply his same reasoning to the Bible as he did to the teaching of the Church. If he felt that the Church was in error, is it not too surprising that he may have felt that the written word could have been in error.

I have to admit that I make the same mistake too - there’s some portions of the Bible that make me uncomfortable and I rebel against them. So rather than re-arrange the bible like Luther did, I just ignore them. As I get wiser, I hope that I’m more willing to listen. If Luther lived a bit longer, perhaps age would have brought wisdom too.

We wee this quest for more-authentic truth in modern times, with SSPX using reasoning to determine “Authentic Magisterium.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benjohnson,

Yes, Pope Leo X had a number of problems - thank God for men like our recent popes who have been both saintly and pastoral.

Now, time to get down to business… As I recall, you stated that there were ‘false facts’ out there and a solid discussion can not have such encumberances (my paraphrase ) And, I responded:

"So, tell me - what are the correct and documented facts that brought Luther to the point where he, ‘…moved the books around in the bible’? "

Please, tell me - better yet enumerate (I’m guessing that there is more than one) these ‘false facts’ so that we can clear the air and move forward. The idea is to clearly and correctly understand why Luther rearranged the bible.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Tom, to answer your question directly, my guess is that Luther began to apply his same reasoning to the Bible as he did to the teaching of the Church. If he felt that the Church was in error, is it not too surprising that he may have felt that the written word could have been in error.

I have to admit that I make the same mistake too - there’s some portions of the Bible that make me uncomfortable and I rebel against them. So rather than re-arrange the bible like Luther did, I just ignore them. As I get wiser, I hope that I’m more willing to listen. If Luther lived a bit longer, perhaps age would have brought wisdom too.

We wee this quest for more-authentic truth in modern times, with SSPX using reasoning to determine “Authentic Magisterium.”

 

[benjohnson]

Please, tell me - better yet enumerate (I’m guessing that there is more than one) these 'false facts
God bless

If I used the plural, I’m was in the wrong - the only ‘false fact’ that I don’t like seeing in this discussion was ‘Luther removed books from the bible.’ Speaking only for myself, as I don’t think that Luther was perfect, I don’t think the mystery of his biblical rearrangement merits much inspection. The regrettable outcome of other sects removing those sections troubles me, but that’s not my problem, as I’m a Lutheran.

…

The popes of my lifetime have been amazing people, reading their encyclicals, they have obviously been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God bless you too!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benjohnson,

Well, I am delighted to have been corrected on this one … he didn’t ‘remove’ the books from the Bible. Actually, I thought he had.

Now, by so doing (along with his other comments) Luther challenged the 1,100 year history of all books in the Canon being inspired by God. And, as you have seen, once this revolt got started, Luther had no more power to control it then firemen fighting a forest fire on a windy day. The next logical step - given Luther’s self-appointed authority to rearrange books is others who splintered from the Catholic Church felt they could simply remove the un-inspired books.

As you have seen, this entire activity has been very harmful to unity Christ prayed for.

God bless

If I used the plural, I’m was in the wrong - the only ‘false fact’ that I don’t like seeing in this discussion was ‘Luther removed books from the bible.’ Speaking only for myself, as I don’t think that Luther was perfect, I don’t think the mystery of his biblical rearrangement merits much inspection. The regrettable outcome of other sects removing those sections troubles me, but that’s not my problem, as I’m a Lutheran.

…

The popes of my lifetime have been amazing people, reading their encyclicals, they have obviously been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God bless you too!

 

[benjohnson]

Perhaps we shouldn’t blame Luther for the actions of subsequent sects; You could use the same logic to blame the Catholic church for Luther’s actions.

The good news as far as Lutheran sensibility is that recent Popes have increasing been like pastoral brothers in Christ, rather than (in Luther’s term) an emperor. In that I hope for one day a reconciliation under Christ between brothers in Christ.

 

[submariner2]

wonderful questions jesusismyrock! If the internet and it’s forums like these had been around when I was a teen maybe I would’ve been in in your position that you are in right now. In fact many are STILL learning about the Scriptures and differences in religious doctrines of Christianity and it’s many many splinterings off of over 33,000 denominations is the direct fruit of sola scriptura or ‘‘Bible alone’’ theology. One of which Martin Luther was deciding which books were inspired Words of God, and which were not. To change or deny the authority Christ gave to His deciples and apostles, Popes, and Bishops in determining the authenticity and incorrupt teachings of the Bible.
Luther objected to the Deuterocanical books because at that time in history there were no Hebrew counterparts to go alongside the Greek translations.
However, research into the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Qumran have discovered ancient Hebrew copies of some of Luthers disputed books! So that the grounds of them ‘‘not existing’’ is unsupportable by Lutheran theology and teachings on things in the Bible. Luther didn’t like that we as Catholics pray for the dead or to the saints. He did not believe firmly enough in their real presence in heaven with God our Father in heaven. And it is also the re-wording of some of the texts, that Luther himself makes the err of assuming that symbolism and truncating the Bible to his personal preference, will make the theology of the Bible somehow easier to follow, or make people inspired to follow Martin Luther, and not the Word of God, given to the 12 Apostles, and the RCC, to guard, govern, teach, and guide it’s followers by.

Bernadette,

Actually Martin Luther never claimed the deuterocanicals did not exist. He knew they did because he included them in his translation from the Latin Vulgate into German. Many protestant bibles include them. Luther followed the tradition set down by Jerome (translated the bible into Latin Vulgate) that they were “apochrypha” meaning to be included but not used for doctrine. Neither did the Reformers take them out. The RCC had never overridden Jeromes opinion officially. But when the Reformers pointed to the Vulgate in arguments over some doctrinse the RCC confirmed the canon of the bible including the apochrypha for the first time at Trent. It had never done so church wide.

There were some fragments of the Deuterocanicals in the Dead Sea scrolls which proves only that they were utilized to some degree at that time. But entire books of the OT were also there which indicated that the Deuterocanicals were not considered near as important.

Rob