The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Don’t tase me bro’

What happened in the past is happened.

The subject at hand is that you claim that Luther took the Deuterocanonical (DC) books out of the Bible. Later you said that he put them in a different order/place.

I have not seen anything official about Luther taking the DC out of the Bible and I asked you to provide proof. Not opinions or deductive ideas… but solid proof of the claim. I like the DC, I accept them as inspired by the Church’s teaching and authority. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to go around bearing false witness to something I can’t prove. On the contrary, I am challenged to understand and bring peace and charity to those that differ from the authority of the Church. That doesn’t mean that I have to make every single thread about rocks and keys.

In my opinion, we (Catholic Church) failed to listen to the issues being brought forth by Luther and we lost a soul due to our stubbornness and pride. That’s right, it is our fault. That Luther went to the extreme after that is another issue. But initially we did not take care of our sheep. And that is just my opinion.

If you can’t show proof that Luther himself took the DC out of the Bible, then please stop making the claim and move on.

And please show me exactly where I launched and ad hominem against you… Being annoying is not an attack.

Show me the money!!!

 

[submariner2]

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?

poguy,

I am simply relaying the history that I know. Of course Jerome was not a pope but he was no doubt one of the most educated in the scrptures both Greek and Hebrew in his time. He had lived in Palistine for years and no doubt engaged in discussion with Jews there about the Hebrew scriptures.

I hope you will not take my comments personally.

Rob

 

[po18guy]

Don’t tase me bro’

What happened in the past is happened.

The subject at hand is that you claim that Luther took the Deuterocanonical (DC) books out of the Bible. Later you said that he put them in a different order/place.

Whoa! It has been clearly explained, I thought, that the thread title is incorrect. Numerous posts have cleared that up.

Luther did not “remove” any books from his bible. He declared seven books to be non-inspired and segregated them from what he personally considered to be inspired.

What he did, in rejecting the authority of Christ’s Church, was to make himself an authority.

By what authority did he do that?

 

[submariner2]

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…

Isaiah,

I think Luther just followed the tradition of Jerome in including the Deuterocanicals as apochrypha. Of course the Reformers must have been suspicious that the Catholics were wanting the Deurocanicals just for the support of some doctrines.

Luther was a Priest with a Parish to attend to who simply wanted the best for his church. If one reads his 95 theses one sees respect for the pope.

He was just one of those christians who could not shut up when he saw what he thought was wrong. Sometimes that leads to lots of trouble.

Rob

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah,

I think Luther just followed the tradition of Jerome in including the Deuterocanicals as apochrypha. Of course the Reformers must have been suspicious that the Catholics were wanting the Deurocanicals just for the support of some doctrines.

Luther was a Priest with a Parish to attend to who simply wanted the best for his church. If one reads his 95 theses one sees respect for the pope.

He was just one of those christians who could not shut up when he saw what he thought was wrong. Sometimes that leads to lots of trouble.

Rob

Rob,

Luther was angry, really angry and he had a potty mouth.

His 95 Thesis were posted at the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. And they were posted in Latin, not German because Latin was the scholarly language. It was never his intention for the thesis to spread the way it did.

Luther was also an attorney (I can hear Shakespeare’s prose in the background, lol).

I am all too familiar with Luther. But he was not alone (pun intended ).

Have you heard of Karlstadt? And his 151 theses a year (1516) before Luther’s (1517)?
About the Leipzig debate in 1519? And about Johann Eck? It wasn’t until 1520 that Pope Leo X issued “Exsurge Domine”!

These subjects (indulgences and clerical behavior) were even being brought up before them (Karlstadt and Luther, etc) in the 1400s when there were 2 Popes (Avignon / Papal Schism) by Jan Hus (Who was significantly influenced by Wycliffe). Hus brought other issues that dealt with the Eucharist and Authority and he was way more rebellious than Luther. But the fact remains that what Luther was complaining about was not new and there was a bad sense of willful ignorance on the matter.

I am not condoning Luther’s decisions but we must look at the entire picture in order to subtract a more informed opinion.

 

[Porknpie]

Rob,

Luther was angry, really angry and he had a potty mouth.

His 95 Thesis were posted at the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. And they were posted in Latin, not German because Latin was the scholarly language. It was never his intention for the thesis to spread the way it did.

Luther was also an attorney (I can hear Shakespeare’s prose in the background, lol).

I am all too familiar with Luther. But he was not alone (pun intended ).

Have you heard of Karlstadt? And his 151 theses a year (1516) before Luther’s (1517)?
About the Leipzig debate in 1519? And about Johann Eck? It wasn’t until 1520 that Pope Leo X issued “Exsurge Domine”!

These subjects (indulgences and clerical behavior) were even being brought up before them (Karlstadt and Luther, etc) in the 1400s when there were 2 Popes (Avignon / Papal Schism) by Jan Hus (Who was significantly influenced by Wycliffe). Hus brought other issues that dealt with the Eucharist and Authority and he was way more rebellious than Luther. But the fact remains that what Luther was complaining about was not new and there was a bad sense of willful ignorance on the matter.

I am not condoning Luther’s decisions but we must look at the entire picture in order to subtract a more informed opinion.

 

[po18guy]

Perhaps lost in all of this argumentation is a search for the truth. Case in point: the 66 book “canon” leaves an inexplicable gap in scripture during the time leading directly to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. This just strikes me as strange. Those two centuries laid much of the groundwork for the greatest movement of God since creation - the Incarnation of His only Son. Would God really fail to inspire any writings in that period of time - a time designed both as a preparation for and introduction of the Savior of the world - a time in which the new and eternal covenant would be instituted?

In recent centuries, the protestant phrase “Intertestamental period” has been devised to name those two alleged scripture-less pre-Christian centuries. It may name them, but cannot explain them. Frankly, there is no explanation for the the Lord’s alleged silence - it is not in prophecy. Have a look at this protestant bible time line. Notice that the two centuries leading up to Christ are devoid of scriptural coverage. Does that seem right?

The Deuterocanonical books of 1&2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom and Sirach (ever read Sirach? Amazing stuff) were written in this precise time frame. Let’s consider only the books of 1&2 Maccabees. Man’s resurrection is mentioned three times in 2 Maccabees - the first appearance in all of scripture. Eternal life is mentioned for the first time in all of scripture in 2 Maccabees. This was written in the time in which reformers claim God was silent. If God was silent, then just where did the concepts of the resurrection and eternal life come from? Christ was not yet incarnate.

Are those the Catholic doctrines that “reformers” were suspicious of? I hope not!

We also know that Jesus had to be born under the Mosaic Law, in order to fulfill that law, correct? From the timeline website:

"In 168 BC, Antiochus IV desecrated the Jerusalem Temple and made the practice of Jewish religion a capital offense.

That timeline shows that the books of Song of songs, Eccelsiastes, and the Psalms stopped at that point, since Judaism was banned. How could our Lord then be born under the law so as to fulfill it?

From the 66 book protestant bible, there is no answer for this and we have not the slightest clue. Let’s go back to the Deuterocanon books of 1&2 Maccabees. They tell of the Maccabean revolt against the oppressive Selucid empire, which maintained the ban on the Mosaic Law. Judas Maccabeus, in particular, was stunningly effective in fighting against overwhelming odds in the restoration of Jewish rule over Jerusalem and Judah. Restoration of the Law in time for Christ to be born and raised under the law so as to fulfill it. There is a Jewish holy day that came about by the victory of the Maccabean revolt: Hannukkah. Ever hear of it? The feast of lights - the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem. Preparation for the Light of the World soon to come.

On a purely doctrinal level, the resurrection to eternal life is critically important. From a purely historical standpoint, the restoration of the Mosaic law and the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem are critically important. Neither is mentioned in the 66 book bible.

Now, one is certainly free to persist in declaring that the books of the Maccabees are not inspired. But, think about this: In doing so, have you just declared that the resurrection and eternal life - written about for the first time in scripture and in the time immediately leading up to Christ, as well as the restoration of the Mosaic Law and the Temple to Israel - to be not of God?

Like the bible, our Lord has a back story. Neither He, nor the bible just fell out of the sky.

 

[Porknpie]

Rob,

Luther was angry, really angry and he had a potty mouth.

His 95 Thesis were posted at the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. And they were posted in Latin, not German because Latin was the scholarly language. It was never his intention for the thesis to spread the way it did.

Luther was also an attorney (I can hear Shakespeare’s prose in the background, lol).

I am all too familiar with Luther. But he was not alone (pun intended ).

Have you heard of Karlstadt? And his 151 theses a year (1516) before Luther’s (1517)?
About the Leipzig debate in 1519? And about Johann Eck? It wasn’t until 1520 that Pope Leo X issued “Exsurge Domine”!

These subjects (indulgences and clerical behavior) were even being brought up before them (Karlstadt and Luther, etc) in the 1400s when there were 2 Popes (Avignon / Papal Schism) by Jan Hus (Who was significantly influenced by Wycliffe). Hus brought other issues that dealt with the Eucharist and Authority and he was way more rebellious than Luther. But the fact remains that what Luther was complaining about was not new and there was a bad sense of willful ignorance on the matter.

I am not condoning Luther’s decisions but we must look at the entire picture in order to subtract a more informed opinion.

Isaiah, I thought Luther dropped out of law school after only a few weeks before entering a monastery. His time in the monastery was less than two years. I don’t believe he was ever a lawyer or at least he never had a law degree. Did he get one after becoming a monk?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah, I thought Luther dropped out of law school after only a few weeks before entering a monastery. His time in the monastery was less than two years. I don’t believe he was ever a lawyer or at least he never had a law degree. Did he get one after becoming a monk?

I believe you are correct Porknpie. I remember reading about his dad being angry at him for getting into the monastic life and leaving a law career. Maybe after the lightning incident? But I am not sure whether he finished his degree or not.

My apologies if he didn’t finish his law degree and thanks for the correction.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Perhaps lost in all of this argumentation is a search for the truth. Case in point: the 66 book “canon” leaves an inexplicable gap in scripture during the time leading directly to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. This just strikes me as strange. Those two centuries laid much of the groundwork for the greatest movement of God since creation - the Incarnation of His only Son. Would God really fail to inspire any writings in that period of time - a time designed both as a preparation for and introduction of the Savior of the world - a time in which the new and eternal covenant would be instituted?

In recent centuries, the protestant phrase “Intertestamental period” has been devised to name those two alleged scripture-less pre-Christian centuries. It may name them, but cannot explain them. Frankly, there is no explanation for the the Lord’s alleged silence - it is not in prophecy. Have a look at this protestant bible time line. Notice that the two centuries leading up to Christ are devoid of scriptural coverage. Does that seem right?

The Deuterocanonical books of 1&2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom and Sirach (ever read Sirach? Amazing stuff) were written in this precise time frame. Let’s consider only the books of 1&2 Maccabees. Man’s resurrection is mentioned three times in 2 Maccabees - the first appearance in all of scripture. Eternal life is mentioned for the first time in all of scripture in 2 Maccabees. This was written in the time in which reformers claim God was silent. If God was silent, then just where did the concepts of the resurrection and eternal life come from? Christ was not yet incarnate.

Are those the Catholic doctrines that “reformers” were suspicious of? I hope not!

We also know that Jesus had to be born under the Mosaic Law, in order to fulfill that law, correct? From the timeline website: That timeline shows that the books of Song of songs, Eccelsiastes, and the Psalms stopped at that point, since Judaism was banned. How could our Lord then be born under the law so as to fulfill it?

From the 66 book protestant bible, there is no answer for this and we have not the slightest clue. Let’s go back to the Deuterocanon books of 1&2 Maccabees. They tell of the Maccabean revolt against the oppressive Selucid empire, which maintained the ban on the Mosaic Law. Judas Maccabeus, in particular, was stunningly effective in fighting against overwhelming odds in the restoration of Jewish rule over Jerusalem and Judah. Restoration of the Law in time for Christ to be born and raised under the law so as to fulfill it. There is a Jewish holy day that came about by the victory of the Maccabean revolt: Hannukkah. Ever hear of it? The feast of lights - the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem. Preparation for the Light of the World soon to come.

On a purely doctrinal level, the resurrection to eternal life is critically important. From a purely historical standpoint, the restoration of the Mosaic law and the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem are critically important. Neither is mentioned in the 66 book bible.

Now, one is certainly free to persist in declaring that the books of the Maccabees are not inspired. But, think about this: In doing so, have you just declared that the resurrection and eternal life - written about for the first time in scripture and in the time immediately leading up to Christ, as well as the restoration of the Mosaic Law and the Temple to Israel - to be not of God?

Like the bible, our Lord has a back story. Neither He, nor the bible just fell out of the sky.

Po,

I love the DCs. I believe I read something about the Zealots wanting to fight the Roman Empire the way the Maccabees fought the Greeks.

Let’s just put the 66 books canon where it belongs and not put it on someone who didn’t decide it.

 

[po18guy]

Po,

I love the DCs. I believe I read something about the Zealots wanting to fight the Roman Empire the way the Maccabees fought the Greeks.

Let’s just put the 66 books canon where it belongs and not put it on someone who didn’t decide it.

Martin Luther loved them, too. But, do you believe that they were inspired by God? That is the question. In my view, either the Church got it right, or no one did.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Except that it has become the seemingly impossible to kill zombie canon…

That is sad indeed…

Although the DCs are becoming more and more read I believe. The ESV has a translation for them and the Lutherans (MS) at Concordia are coming up with a book dedicated exclusively to them. I know they are not together and in the place they should be but hey… a thousand miles journey starts with one step

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Martin Luther loved them, too. But, do you believe that they were inspired by God? That is the question. In my view, either the Church got it right, or no one did.

I believe they are. Like I have said many times here: I don’t remember Jesus and/or the Apostles saying anything about the Scriptural books they had at the time.

Also, I was reading Isaiah 56 last Thursday and I could not help but see the consistency between Isaiah 56:3 and Wisdom 3:14

 

[po18guy]

I believe they are. Like I have said many times here: I don’t remember Jesus and/or the Apostles saying anything about the Scriptural books they had at the time.

Also, I was reading Isaiah 56 last Thursday and I could not help but see the consistency between Isaiah 56:3 and Wisdom 3:14

Good! I believe that a major point of determination, among many others of course, is the principles they put forth. They cannot conflict, in principle, with any other scripture. Naturally, more is revealed in the NT than was known in the old, so details are different, and concepts are more fleshed out, but the principle remains the same.

So, looking over the table of contents in my NIV, it is apparent that it has no Wisdom in it. Sorry, you can have your money back on that one…

 

[mackbrislawn]

This is a curious thread.

Protestants have always accused Catholics of ‘adding’ books to the bible. This allegation has the implication that certain books weren’t there to begin with, but that Catholics found some that nobody knew about and added them. But now the Catholics are responding that they haven’t added any books at all, but that Protestants (particulary Martin Luther) removed them. Meaning they were always there, but that Luther took them out of the bible.

All right, what does ‘took them out of the bible’ mean? The ‘bible’ is a list, or collection (not a book), of canonical writings. Being on the canonical list means that they are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. So if they are removed from the canonical list it is ‘taking them out of the bible.’

Now, having a collection of all the canonical writings under one cover is a comparatively modern invention. A man-made tradition, if you will. The actual God-given format is a collection of scattered scrolls, not a codex under one cover. But today many people think of that codex under one cover as “the Bible.” Hence they can point to Luther’s bible and say, look, there the DC’s are, they haven’t been taken out of the bible after all!

In a way, it was permitted for Luther to consider the DC’s as not truly inspired because he had historical prrecedent (which has been discussed here) and the Church at that time had been happy to rely on tradition and local councils as to what the canon was. There was not actual church-wide decision.

Until the Reformation. Since Trent finally declared dogmatically that these books were inspired, I take this as evidence, on the face of it, that the Reformation wanted to remove some writings from the canon;.

Was it Luther? Alone? (heh, heh) Luther was a passionate individual, but he was not alone. Is it a fairy tale that people around him influenced him? Why is it so important for some people to deny that those such as Melanchthon put a more sober restraint on him? I suppose it is because they are on the defensive now rather than on the offensive, so all they can do is cry, proof, proof!

To show how Luther did view certain books, we can read his preface to his New Testament, which I’ll put in the next post.

 

[po18guy]

Here is an excellent article entitled “5 Myths about 7 Books” written by former Evangelical Mark P. Shea*

• Was thankfully Evangelical. Now is thankfully Catholic.

 

[po18guy]

Now, having a collection of all the canonical writings under one cover is a comparatively modern invention. A man-made tradition, if you will.

It has been noted in another thread that the bible has come to be viewed, in some circles, as a divine self-help book; a spiritual tool box, if you will. Thus, its content is broken up into bits, like wrenches or screwdrivers that are applied to specific problems. The desire to make it compact, portable and easily accepted has invariably lead to tinkering with it.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Luther’s opinions about scripture in his preface to his New Testament (English translation):

"It would be right and proper that this book should appear without preface and without any other name than that of its authors, and convey only its own name and its own language. But many wild interpretations and prefaces have driven the thoughts of Christians to a point where no one any longer knows what is gospel or law, Old Testament or New. Necessity demands, therefore, that it should have an announcement or preface, by which the simple man can be brought back from the old notions to the right road, and be taught what he is to expect in this book so that he may not seek laws and commandments where he ought to be seeking the gospel and God’s promises…

"If I had to do without one or the other–either the works or preaching of Christ–I would rather do without His works than His preaching. For the works do not help me, but his words give life, as He himself says. Now John writes very little about the works of Christ, but very much about his preaching. But the other evangelists write much of his works and little of his preaching. Therefore Johnn’s gospel is the one tender true chief gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of St Paul and St Peter far suprpass the other three gospels–Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

“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 good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St Jame’s epistle is really an epistle of straw compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”

What do you think Luther’s real motives were for not liking the other three gospels, and Jame’s epistle?

Luther was willing to rank order the Word of God to advance his own theology.

How much confidence could we have in the New Testament canon if it had been compiled by Luther rather than the early Catholics?

 

[submariner2]

Now, one is certainly free to persist in declaring that the books of the Maccabees are not inspired. But, think about this: In doing so, have you just declared that the resurrection and eternal life - written about for the first time in scripture and in the time immediately leading up to Christ, as well as the restoration of the Mosaic Law and the Temple to Israel - to be not of God?

Like the bible, our Lord has a back story. Neither He, nor the bible just fell out of the sky

poguy,

The Reformers of course believed in those things so I am sure they are not saying what you conclude. They simply held to the ancient tradition of Jerome that those books were not for determining doctrine. Martin Luther did not throw them out but rather included them in his translation in the same manner than Jerome included them in the Vulgate.

Regarding resurrection and eternal life, the NT covers it well. I dont think that was an issue with the Reformers. They just did not like appealing to those OT books for NT doctrines.
Seems like if they had been a NT doctrine they would have been mentioned in the NT.

Rob

 

[guanophore]

Who gave Luther the authority to do anything?

My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O’Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916–1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).

[Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was "“Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet” (Luther, 682) - also translated as “I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ’s word, so my mouth is His who utters the words”(God’s words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm, September 25, 2003).]

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in 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; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

in the same letter:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”