The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

[tqualey]

Hi, Submariner2,

You hae made a number of assumptions that are simply not valid - mixed in with some that are… Let me explain.

The DC did exist for Luther - and that is a fact.

Luther took it upon himself to doubt their canonical nature - a group of books that the Cahtolic Church determined to be Inspired by God in about 391AD. For about 1,100 years the books in the Bible were revered as the Word of God. This same Catholic Chruch made this determination for both the OT and the NT. Using his own guidance, Luther questioned the inerrancy of 7 OT books and ultimately accepted all the books of the NT. There is nothing to support the actions take by Luther concerning the Bible. And that is a fact.

Jerome translated the Old and New Testament in what has become known as the Vulgate. He also had some reservations about certain books that he translatated - and expressed these reservations to Pope Damasus. Now, Jerome for all of his wonderful qualities - had no guarantee of making an error free determination guided by the Holy Spirit. The Pope made a determination and Jerome accepted it. And, those are all facts.

Here is a very special link: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html

Ultimately, it comes down to this: how can anyone one be sure that the books of the NT are free of error? are inspired? and that we hhave them faithfully handed down to us? The origin for this is the Catholic Church. One can not claim that the Church got this right - but somehow dropped the ball concerning 7 books in the OT (while getting all of the other OT books right).

God bless

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

 

[submariner2]

Hi, Submariner2,

You hae made a number of assumptions that are simply not valid - mixed in with some that are… Let me explain.

The DC did exist for Luther - and that is a fact.

tqualey,

Of course they did. He put them in his German translation from the Vulgate.

Luther took it upon himself to doubt their canonical nature - a group of books that the Cahtolic Church determined to be Inspired by God in about 391AD. For about 1,100 years the books in the Bible were revered as the Word of God. This same Catholic Chruch made this determination for both the OT and the NT. Using his own guidance, Luther questioned the inerrancy of 7 OT books and ultimately accepted all the books of the NT. There is nothing to support the actions take by Luther concerning the Bible. And that is a fact

.

They and none of the scriptures had ever been canonized by the entire church. Your 391 reference was not church-wide and the Roman church was not even consulted. The first church wide canonization of scripture was Trent. Luther questioned some that Eusebius and Irenaeus and others had also questioned but in the end he accepted them. So what?
When he became a christian he started from scratch.

Jerome translated the Old and New Testament in what has become known as the Vulgate. He also had some reservations about certain books that he translatated - and expressed these reservations to Pope Damasus. Now, Jerome for all of his wonderful qualities - had no guarantee of making an error free determination guided by the Holy Spirit. The Pope made a determination and Jerome accepted it. And, those are all facts.

Jerome wrote directly into the Vulgate that certain books were “apochrypha.” ie not to be used for doctrine. That was never changed by any formal action by the church. Obviously Pope Damasus did not object because the Vulgate was published with Jeromes caveat.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: how can anyone one be sure that the books of the NT are free of error? are inspired? and that we hhave them faithfully handed down to us? The origin for this is the Catholic Church. One can not claim that the Church got this right - but somehow dropped the ball concerning 7 books in the OT (while getting all of the other OT books right).

Mainstream protestants teach that the bible came from christians who were the forebears of all of us and not just Roman Catholics. We also refer to ourselves as catholic.
The books of the bible were accepted by the churches by common consensus and no formal action or council. They utilized the Rule of Faith and not a central authority.
There was no formal action until Trent. This is the history I read even by Catholic writers writing for Catholics.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils.No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

It is very interesting to me that not only protestants call it apochrypha and not just long ago. The most recent edition of the New Jersalem Bible in its introduction refers to those books as apochrypha.

Rob

 

[De_Maria]

…
Jerome wrote directly into the Vulgate that certain books were “apochrypha.” ie not to be used for doctrine. That was never changed by any formal action by the church. Obviously Pope Damasus did not object because the Vulgate was published with Jeromes caveat…

I don’t see this caveat anywhere. Please provide the proof.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Submariner2,

You really do need to supply some references.

You also need to understand why the Catholic Church called Councils - and that was to combat heresy. Prior to Luther, there was never a serious threat to the canonical books identified in the 4th Century. This challenge did not happen until Luther’s attack - and this is when the Council of Trent moved.

Sts Eusebius and Irenaeus along with Jerome and many others were truly saintly men and did their best to further God’s work through His Church (all of these guys were in the Catholic Church), but they were not infallible - and, this is where the Pope comes in. The Pope occupies Peter’s Chair and identified this original Canon as Inspired.

This claim you have made about, “…mainstream Protestants teach that the bible came from christians who were the forebears of all of us and not just Roman Catholics” lacks, references, accuracy and even a definition of just who is ‘mainstream’ - and who decided that? There is no creiditable literature that substantiates that ther were ‘primative Protestants’ following Christ while avoiding His Church (Matt 16 does not have Christ setting up 1 Church under Peter and 11 others to combat it).

So, please, show us the documentation.

God bless

They and none of the scriptures had ever been canonized by the entire church. Your 391 reference was not church-wide and the Roman church was not even consulted. The first church wide canonization of scripture was Trent. Luther questioned some that Eusebius and Irenaeus and others had also questioned but in the end he accepted them. So what?
When he became a christian he started from scratch.

Jerome wrote directly into the Vulgate that certain books were “apochrypha.” ie not to be used for doctrine. That was never changed by any formal action by the church. Obviously Pope Damasus did not object because the Vulgate was published with Jeromes caveat.

Mainstream protestants teach that the bible came from christians who were the forebears of all of us and not just Roman Catholics. We also refer to ourselves as catholic.
The books of the bible were accepted by the churches by common consensus and no formal action or council. They utilized the Rule of Faith and not a central authority.
There was no formal action until Trent. This is the history I read even by Catholic writers writing for Catholics.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils.No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

It is very interesting to me that not only protestants call it apochrypha and not just long ago. The most recent edition of the New Jersalem Bible in its introduction refers to those books as apochrypha.

Rob

 

[po18guy]

Jerome wrote directly into the Vulgate that certain books were “apochrypha.” ie not to be used for doctrine. That was never changed by any formal action by the church. Obviously Pope Damasus did not object because the Vulgate was published with Jeromes caveat.

Jerome was of the opinion that the Deuterocanonical books were not inspired, but dutifully translated them in submission to Church authority. Neither did Jerome have the authority to declare them either canonical or non-canonical. Jerome did provide “prologues” to many of the books, but his comments are not binding, and remain his personal opinion. One may hold his opinion higher than that of Church authority if they reject the Church, or desire to follow a single opinion with which they happen to agree.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Po18guy,



I see you noticed that too … Jerome just doesn’t appear anywhere in Matt 16 about having the authority to bind and lose!

Once the smoke of rhetoric and spurious historic claims clears, it all boils down to a single question: who do you belive? One either picks a disgrunteled 16th Century monk or Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. There really aren’t any other options on this one.

God bless

Jerome was of the opinion that the Deuterocanonical books were not inspired, but dutifully translated them in submission to Church authority. Neither did Jerome have the authority to declare them either canonical or non-canonical. Jerome did provide “prologues” to many of the books, but his comments are not binding, and remain his personal opinion. One may hold his opinion higher than that of Church authority if they reject the Church, or desire to follow a single opinion with which they happen to agree.

 

[mackbrislawn]

tqualey,

Of course they did. He put them in his German translation from the Vulgate.

 

[submariner2]

I don’t see this caveat anywhere. Please provide the proof.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“He (Jerome) writes,‘This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction
to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that
what is not found in our list must be placed among the Apochryphal writings’. He then
exludes Wisdom. Sarach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd and 1&2 Maccabees. He does not mention
Baruch.”

Rob

 

[submariner2]

tqualey;9371894]Hi, Submariner2,

You really do need to supply some references.

This claim you have made about, “…mainstream Protestants teach that the bible came from christians who were the forebears of all of us and not just Roman Catholics” lacks, references, accuracy and even a definition of just who is ‘mainstream’ - and who decided that? There is no creiditable literature that substantiates that ther were ‘primative Protestants’ following Christ while avoiding His Church (Matt 16 does not have Christ setting up 1 Church under Peter and 11 others to combat it).

tqualey,

There is no literature to prove any denomination was the primitive church except perhaps the Church of God mentioned in the NT. Naturally we do not see Matt 16::18 as you do. And we see no successors in the manner you do. We think our bishops and pastors are as much successors of the apostles as any other church.
We believe that most historians, Catholic as well as protestant, support our view.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Jerome was of the opinion that the Deuterocanonical books were not inspired, but dutifully translated them in submission to Church authority. Neither did Jerome have the authority to declare them either canonical or non-canonical. Jerome did provide “prologues” to many of the books, but his comments are not binding, and remain his personal opinion. One may hold his opinion higher than that of Church authority if they reject the Church, or desire to follow a single opinion with which they happen to agree.

poguy,

Of course he had no authority to canonize them. But he did declare them to be “apochrypha” and wrote that directly into the Vulgate. Of course it was his personal opinion which was accepted by many up to the time of Trent when the bible was canonized for the first time Catholic church-wide.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

When we say “remove from the bible” we mean that certain writings are not to be considered inspireed, not to be considered canonical. Luther did not consider them inspired, so he “removed them from the bible.” Of course Luther himself would say he didn’t remove them because they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Mack,

It is unfair to say anyone removed anything from the bible when it had never been canonized churchwide. Luther included the Deuterocanicals in his German bible just as Jerome did in the Vulgate, as “apochrypha.”

Apochrypha means ‘hidden.’ Today it has taken the meaning of ‘false.’ What meaning did Jerome attach to the word?

Harpers Bible Dictionary
Jerome and the Vulgate
Page37
“He (Jerome) treated the apochraphal works as edifying but not to be used for the
purpose of establishing doctrine.”

Yes and no. Protestantism is a phenomenon of western Europe. Western Europe was evangelized by the Roman church, hence the bible came to western Europe and Protestantism via the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholics are the direct forebears of Protestants.

The term “protestant” was coined by a German prince. It has no offical connotation execept the informal meaning of those churches derived from the Reformation.

This is what Protestants commonly say about the books of the bible. But “common consensus” is an awfully vague phrase, so vague that it doesn’t have any real meaning. Also to say that there was no formal action nor council is misleading. The bishops determined the books used in their churches. Athanasius gave us the first list of the 27 NT books. There were early, 4th century local, nonecumenical councils that did decide what books were officially canonical for the regions affected by those councils. Other regions went along with the usages of these councils

The term “consensus” is utilized by historians. I agree with your presentation. The point is there was no church-wide decision or by some Church authority. They just individually decided the 27 we have was correct - in other words - a consensus.

No one had defined the limits of the Bible for the entire church until the Council of Trent. But other bishops had defined the Bible, including local councils.

I do not argue with that. So?

What does apochrypha mean?

Technically it means “hidden.”

Harpers Bible Dictionary
Jerome and the Vulgate
Page37
“He (Jerome) treated the apochraphal works as edifying but not to be used for the
purpose of establishing doctrine.”

This is what caused many arguments between protestant and Catholic scholars about doctrines. When the Catholic brought up a Deuterocanical, the protestant reminded him of the opinion of Jerome. Hence Trent set the record straight for Catholics. It was quite late however and naturally was not convincing to the protestants who agreed with Jerome.

Interestinig subject. You ought to get that little book I referred to. It is excellent and actually takes the Catholic side regarding the Deuterocanicals. It can be purchased used and cheap on amazon.com. It is quite good for the history. The real argument about the Deuterocanicals is another subject. Usually in discussions like this I cannot get past real history into the actual argument which is also very interesting.

Rob

 

[po18guy]

poguy,

Of course he had no authority to canonize them. But he did declare them to be “apochrypha” and wrote that directly into the Vulgate. Of course it was his personal opinion which was accepted by many up to the time of Trent when the bible was canonized for the first time Catholic church-wide.

Rob

He had neither the authority to canonize, nor to declare them non-inspired. What he did have was opinion, which is what he wrote.

Jerome believed in the seven Sacraments. Explain how you are not cherry-picking by siding with him here, and rejecting him there?

As well, you do realize that, canonically speaking, you have elevated Jerome to your own pope?

I thought you rejected the pope?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is there an official document where Luther declares that the Deuterocanonical books were to be excluded from the Bible and create a new canon?

Obviously after he painstakingly translated the entire Bible used by the Church at the time without taking any of the Deuterocanonical books out?

I understand not liking Luther on a personal basis but if we are to keep the Commandments we must keep this one in mind:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Just because he expressed an opinion doesn’t mean that he created the Luther Canon…

 

[po18guy]

Is there an official document where Luther declares that the Deuterocanonical books were to be excluded from the Bible and create a new canon?

Obviously after he painstakingly translated the entire Bible used by the Church at the time without taking any of the Deuterocanonical books out?

I understand not liking Luther on a personal basis but if we are to keep the Commandments we must keep this one in mind:

Just because he expressed an opinion doesn’t mean that he created the Luther Canon…

He declared the 7 Deuterocanonical books to be not the inspired word of God and placed them in a separate section of the bible, out of order, pejoratively identifying them as “apocrypha”. This is history - documented fact. The bible calls us to admonish the sinner, and tampering with God’s word was most certainly sinful.

Have you noticed that no fringe or heretical sect or cult uses the 73 book Catholic bible, but EVERY ONE of them uses Luther’s 66 book bible? Every single one. Asserting private control over the Word of God opens pandora’s box.

Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

He declared the 7 Deuterocanonical books to be not the inspired word of God and placed them in a separate section of the bible, out of order, pejoratively identifying them as “apocrypha”. This is history - documented fact. The bible calls us to admonish the sinner, and tampering with God’s word was most certainly sinful.

Have you noticed that no fringe or heretical sect or cult uses the 73 book Catholic bible, but EVERY ONE of them uses Luther’s 66 book bible? Every single one. Asserting private control over the Word of God opens pandora’s box.

Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits”

So you don’t have a historical document excluding them from the Bible? Only the reference that he put them in a different order?

Did we take books out of the Septuagint? Like 3 Maccabees, an extra Psalm, the Prayer of Manasseh, the Hymn of the Three Young Men at the end of Daniel, and the Epistle of Jeremiah? Would our Orthodox brothers disagree with our Canon officially declared in Trent? Would they view it as we taking books out of the bible?

Definitely agree with you on this:

tampering with God’s word was most certainly sinful.

Except that it still applies and it is across the board with no exceptions.

 

[po18guy]

So you don’t have a historical document excluding them from the Bible? Only the reference that he put them in a different order?

Martin Luther declared seven books to be non-inspired. You dispute this?

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches accept those seven books to be inspired, and have used them in their liturgies since the Church was founded.

Did we take books out of the Septuagint? Like 3 Maccabees, an extra Psalm, the Prayer of Manasseh, the Hymn of the Three Young Men at the end of Daniel, and the Epistle of Jeremiah? Would our Orthodox brothers disagree with our Canon officially declared in Trent? Would they view it as we taking books out of the bible?

What do you mean, “we”? Are you Orthodox? I believe that the Orthodox position is not that the west excluded books, but rather that they did not include them. Might be wrong on that.

Definitely agree with you on this: Except that it still applies and it is across the board with no exceptions.

So, it applies to the Catholic Church, but not to yours? Huh?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Martin Luther declared seven books to be non-inspired. You dispute this?

My understanding is that he questioned them in about the same sense St. Jerome did. I have not seen an official declaration from Luther about the 66 books canon. So I’m asking for one, I’m not the one saying he did…

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches accept those seven books to be inspired, and have used them in their liturgies since the Church was founded.

And where did I say the contrary?

What do you mean, “we”? Are you Orthodox? I believe that the Orthodox position is not that the west excluded books, but rather that they did not include them. Might be wrong on that.

So we would need another official declaration. Other than that we are just having opinions.

So, it applies to the Catholic Church, but not to yours? Huh?

I said:

Originally Posted by Isaiah45_9 View Post
Definitely agree with you on this: Except that it still applies and it is across the board with no exceptions.

No exceptions includes me… How can you exclude me from a universal proposal?

 

[po18guy]

My understanding is that he questioned them in about the same sense St. Jerome did. I have not seen an official declaration from Luther about the 66 books canon. So I’m asking for one, I’m not the one saying he did…

The content and layout of Luther’s bible speaks for him, and online bios also indicate his opinion of the Deuterocanon, as well as several of the NT scriptures that were not his favorites. He did place the Deuterocanon in a separate section of the bible that bears his name. The fact that “his” bible bears his name strikes me as a little icky.

And where did I say the contrary?

I know that when folks say “I was just saying…” it usually does not need to be said, but in this case, I was just saying…

So we would need another official declaration. Other than that we are just having opinions.

Having received the grace of being accepted into the Catholic Church, I can place all of my trust, both explicit and implicit, in the Church’s authority and ability to decide without question.

No exceptions includes me… How can you exclude me from a universal proposal?

What I mean is: how do we know who’s right? Is it 66 books, 73 books, 80+ books? Is anyone correct? Are all wrong and we will never know what God’s inspired word is or is not?

Available online evidence indicates that Luther may have considered as few as 59 books as canonical. Even if 66 books is true, why would God allow his Church to proceed in error for 1,500 years? Did Jesus leave us orphans, not knowing what is scripture and what is not? If you look at this listing of accepted books, you will see that, in addition to the Catholic, virtually all Orthodox and other eastern Churches disagree with Luther’s opinion of the Deuterocanon. As I see it, it boils down to reformation period Germany, France and Switzerland throwing in with Luther and “demoting” the Deuterocanon to the level of apocrypha, while the rest of the Christian world held to them. Since Luther was formulating his church, he apparently began from scratch on his canon.

If our Lord did not found His Church on Peter, where is the scriptural evidence that He founded it on Martin Luther?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The content and layout of Luther’s bible speaks for him, and online bios also indicate his opinion of the Deuterocanon, as well as several of the NT scriptures that were not his favorites. He did place the Deuterocanon in a separate section of the bible that bears his name. The fact that “his” bible bears his name strikes me as a little icky.

I know that when folks say “I was just saying…” it usually does not need to be said, but in this case, I was just saying…

Having received the grace of being accepted into the Catholic Church, I can place all of my trust, both explicit and implicit, in the Church’s authority and ability to decide without question.

What I mean is: how do we know who’s right? Is it 66 books, 73 books, 80+ books? Is anyone correct? Are all wrong and we will never know what God’s inspired word is or is not?

Available online evidence indicates that Luther may have considered as few as 59 books as canonical. Even if 66 books is true, why would God allow his Church to proceed in error for 1,500 years? Did Jesus leave us orphans, not knowing what is scripture and what is not? If you look at this listing of accepted books, you will see that, in addition to the Catholic, virtually all Orthodox and other eastern Churches disagree with Luther’s opinion of the Deuterocanon. As I see it, it boils down to reformation period Germany, France and Switzerland throwing in with Luther and “demoting” the Deuterocanon to the level of apocrypha, while the rest of the Christian world held to them. Since Luther was formulating his church, he apparently began from scratch on his canon.

If our Lord did not found His Church on Peter, where is the scriptural evidence that He founded it on Martin Luther?

Please save your Catholic rhetoric for a non-Catholic…

Just another canned response because you can’t produce evidence of your claim that Luther took the books out of the bible.

Show me the money!!!

 

[po18guy]

Please save your Catholic rhetoric for a non-Catholic…

Just another canned response because you can’t produce evidence of your claim that Luther took the books out of the bible.

Show me the money!!!

Calm down a bit, bro! It was not a canned response. Why not address it, instead of launch an ad hominem?

Luther, by his actions, asserted that the Church had somehow failed in determining the canon. It was up to him, and remains with those who follow him, to demonstrate their case.