The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

[MartinMark]

I have to agree with po18guy. …If God inspired the original “set” of Bible Books before Luther felt inspired by God to remove several, wouldn’t that mean that God was correcting Himself?"

Luther disliked some Books in the Bible,so he made his adjustments with those. One of the subjects that caused my friend and I to look further into was Purgatory, which he as a Baptist at the time laughed at. It’s been a while but I believe it is the 2nd Book of Maccabees that addresses Purgatory best. Luther didn’t seem to like Purgatory thoughts, and the 2nd Maccabees is not in the Protestants’ Bible.

Thanks, Marty

 

[mackbrislawn]

It was Malanchthon in particular that prevailed upon Luther to continue the traditional view that Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude et al were to be considered inspired.
Although even today it seems Protestants continue to have a “canon within the canon,” some books that preach better than others, and from which to interpret the others.

From Luther’s perspective, he would not be removing books from the bible, because he would say they weren’t really in the bible to begin with. They were merely mistakenly believed by the Church to be so.

Because of the Reformers, the Council of Trent finally dogmatically defined them to be truly inspired and part of the canon.

For Protestants, it would seem that the canon still can be considered a matter of personal opinion. If a person doesn’t agree with a particular book or passage, why not disregard it as inspired? After all, that is Luther’s precedent.

 

[TertiumQuid]

It was Malanchthon in particular that prevailed upon Luther to continue the traditional view that Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude et al were to be considered inspired.

If you could prove this about Melanchthon, I would be amazed. But, after 10 years of researching this topic, no such proof has ever been put forth. Seeing that you can’t even spell his name correctly, I’ll make a wild prediction that you can’t prove this point either.

Let’s try it again slowly: GOOOOOGLE.

ah, never mind. carry on.

JS

 

[TertiumQuid]

It’s been a while but I believe it is the 2nd Book of Maccabees that addresses Purgatory best. Luther didn’t seem to like Purgatory thoughts, and the 2nd Maccabees is not in the Protestants’ Bible.

Find me ANY quote from Luther that says he took 2 Maccabees out of the Bible because of Purgatory.

Let’s try it again slowly: GOOOOOGLE.

 

[mackbrislawn]

If you could prove this about Melanchthon, I would be amazed. But, after 10 years of researching this topic, no such proof has ever been put forth. Seeing that you can’t even spell his name correctly, I’ll make a wild prediction that you can’t prove this point either.

Let’s try it again slowly: GOOOOOGLE.

ah, never mind. carry on.

JS

Neither of us was there so we ourselves don’t know.

There is no proof you will accept if you don’t want to believe it. I don’t know what research you did, other than google. Is that what you are relying upon? Why is it so important?

And why is it so important for some people whether the deutero-canonicals are inspired or not? Perhaps for you as well as me it is not important. Inspired or not they are a testimony to beliefs and practices of the Jews at that time.

Anyway it is not important to me to prove to you anything. You need to prove to me, and I think that is why Luther disliked certain books, including James and portions of the deutero-canonicals, is because they did not support his views, or supported views he opposed.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Boy, if the book of Revelation were not in the bible, the Millerites, the JW’s, the Adventists, Jimmy Swaggart, et al would be deprived of all their fun. No more prophecy seminars!

 

[Elizium23]

Google turns up a bunch of polemics, a bunch of self-published junk from tiny one-man ecclesial communities (Evangelical “churches”), and a bunch of other stuff that would never be acceptable to cite in a term paper. Please give us citations to reputable scholarly articles, books from respected publishers, and quit repeating the tired mantra of “Google”.

You have seen from Luther’s own hand his writings about his opinion of the Book of James. You have seen by his own actions how he felt about the Deuterocanonicals. I think these speak for themselves.

 

[po18guy]

There is no proof you will accept if you don’t want to believe it. I don’t know what research you did, other than google. Is that what you are relying upon? Why is it so important?

Sola scriptura types, for obvious reasons, have a tendency to desire written proof only. They are actually huge on tradition, but only written tradition. Cursory examination of the history of the bible (and the prologue to Luke) reveals that the written tradition (scripture) was produced by the oral (Apostolic Tradition) and is a sub-set of it. To those who deny this, I demand written proof that God dropped the 66 book bible from heaven.

Anyway it is not important to me to prove to you anything. You need to prove to me, and I think that is why Luther disliked certain books, including James and portions of the deutero-canonicals, is because they did not support his views, or supported views he opposed.

Indeed! Those who follow those who left the Church have the case to prove - not those who remain in the Church.

 

[po18guy]

Google turns up a bunch of polemics, a bunch of self-published junk from tiny one-man ecclesial communities (Evangelical “churches”), and a bunch of other stuff that would never be acceptable to cite in a term paper. Please give us citations to reputable scholarly articles, books from respected publishers, and quit repeating the tired mantra of “Google”.

You have seen from Luther’s own hand his writings about his opinion of the Book of James. You have seen by his own actions how he felt about the Deuterocanonicals. I think these speak for themselves.

Well, if one’s theology is privately developed, then other privately developed sources that agree are not only acceptable, they are perfect. But, search quickly, before those sites disappear!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

Great post … but, you left something out…

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.

The reference that we can all go to and see the falsity you are proclaiming.

Looking forward to see this objective reference.

 

[po18guy]

It was Malanchthon in particular that prevailed upon Luther to continue the traditional view that Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude et al were to be considered inspired. Although even today it seems Protestants continue to have a “canon within the canon,” some books that preach better than others, and from which to interpret the others.

Glad you spelled his name right. Apparently, yoiu are not a true Christian unless you can correctly spell it

From Luther’s perspective, he would not be removing books from the bible, because he would say they weren’t really in the bible to begin with. They were merely mistakenly believed by the Church to be so.

It seems to me that this line of thought asserts that the gates of hell did prevail. I see it as being further developed by Joseph Smith and others into the “great apostasy.” It’s all a matter of following that spirit of division.

Because of the Reformers, the Council of Trent finally dogmatically defined them to be truly inspired and part of the canon.

Point of fact: Church councils are called mainly in response to heresy. The fact that the rebels gained ground afterward is testament only to their obedience to the spirit of division that lead them away from the Church. After all, the vast majority of those in the Church remained faithful, and worked hard to reform the Church from within.

For Protestants, it would seem that the canon still can be considered a matter of personal opinion. If a person doesn’t agree with a particular book or passage, why not disregard it as inspired? After all, that is Luther’s precedent.

How many micro-Calvinist groups use mainly the Letter to the Romans? I saw a flyer on a car windshield that even proclaimed the “Romans Road” to salvation! A shame that Jesus did not proclaim it. Some of them no longer baptize, which is evidence of a radical departure from our Lord’s commands. IMB, they are not even Christian, but pseudo-Christian, practicing what has become a parallel (but derivative and diluted) religion.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Neither of us was there so we ourselves don’t know.
There is no proof you will accept if you don’t want to believe it. I don’t know what research you did, other than google. Is that what you are relying upon? Why is it so important?

This is supposed to be Catholic “Answers”. If Melanchthon stopped Luther from taking books out of the Bible, I request that this assertion either be substantiated or retracted.

In regard to “Google”, keep in mind, Google includes “Google Books.” Google Books includes books written by Reformation scholars.

In regard to my own research methodology, I have an extensive collection of Luther / Reformation-related books. As to the research I’ve done on Luther and the canon, you can skim through this link.

If you’re interested in the most extensive treatment of Luther’s Bible (in English), see: J.M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible.

Regards,
James

 

[TertiumQuid]

Google turns up a bunch of polemics, a bunch of self-published junk from tiny one-man ecclesial communities (Evangelical “churches”), and a bunch of other stuff that would never be acceptable to cite in a term paper. Please give us citations to reputable scholarly articles, books from respected publishers, and quit repeating the tired mantra of “Google”. You have seen from Luther’s own hand his writings about his opinion of the Book of James. You have seen by his own actions how he felt about the Deuterocanonicals. I think these speak for themselves.

As I stated previously, Google includes “Google Books.” Google Books includes books written by Reformation scholars.

As to “citations to reputable scholarly articles, books from respected publishers”, the most extensive treatment of Luther’s Bible (in English), see: J.M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible. I have found no book better than this one on the construction of Luther’s Bible and the issues surrounding it. Reu’s shorter book on the subject is also helpful: Luther and the Scriptures. If there’s another book in English that treats the subject of Luther’s Bible as extensively as Reu’s “Luther’s German Bible”, I would be surprised.

Of course, it would be best to actually get Luther’s Works published by Concordia.

Here are a few other materials:

Willem Jan Kooiman,* Luther and the Bible* (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961),
Jaroslav Pelikan,* Luther The Expositor *(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959),
Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966)

Mark F. Bartling, “Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?” (Presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District, LaCrosse, WI, on April 12, 1983)]
John Warwick Montgomery, “Lessons From Luther On The Inerrancy Of Holy Writ’s,” Westminster Theological Journal Volume 36.
“A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James" by Timothy George (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall 2000)

In regard to my own treatment of Luther’s canon, see my old paper, Luther’s view of the Canon of Scripture. In regard to other issues I’ve worked through on Luther’s canon, see this link.

Regards, James

 

[po18guy]

This is supposed to be Catholic “Answers”. If Melanchthon stopped Luther from taking books out of the Bible, I request that this assertion either be substantiated or retracted.

In regard to “Google”, keep in mind, Google includes “Google Books.” Google Books includes books written by Reformation scholars.

In regard to my own research methodology, I have an extensive collection of Luther / Reformation-related books. As to the research I’ve done on Luther and the canon, you can skim through this link.

If you’re interested in the most extensive treatment of Luther’s Bible (in English), see: J.M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible.

Regards,
James

We are laypersons. You may always use the Ask an Apologist" section, of you want a paid response. As to the canon, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta is a good one, if you do not have it.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Sola scriptura types, for obvious reasons, have a tendency to desire written proof only.

This is fairly simple, if you follow the course of the discussion. I’ve asked for proof that Melanchthon stopped Luther from removing books from the Bible. It’s that simple. Other than written proof from a reputable historian, what else would qualify to answer this question? Tell you what, if you can produce some other sort of meaningful evidence other than written proof from a reputable historian, I’ll certainly take a look at it.

for what it’s worth, as I’ve bee able to trace this myth about Melanchthon, it’s been popularized by Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray, who may have picked it up from Henry G. Graham.

Regards, James

 

[TertiumQuid]

We are laypersons. You may always use the Ask an Apologist" section, of you want a paid response. As to the canon, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Michuta is a good one, if you do not have it.

Sorry, but I’ll not pay an apologist to answer questions that I already know the answer to.

As to Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, I happen to have an autographed copy from Mr. Michuta. I’ve also worked through Mr. Michuta’s argumentation concerning Luther in his book:

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#1)

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2)

I happen to like Mr. Michuta. I give him credit for attempting to put out a fresh book on the canon from a Roman Catholic perspective.

Regards, James

 

[TertiumQuid]

How many micro-Calvinist groups use mainly the Letter to the Romans? I saw a flyer on a car windshield that even proclaimed the “Romans Road” to salvation!

This is a bit off-topic, but as a Calvinist, here’s how I would answer.

In the old days, when I bought my first computer and printer, I actually had to get the instruction manual out to learn how to hook up the printer. This was in 1990. Now, the instruction manual mentioned the printer all over the place, but when I needed specific instructions on hooking up the printer, I had to go to the specific section in the manual that addressed hooking up the printer.

This analogy explains why Calvinists are very interested in Romans. While the Bible speaks about salvation and justification throughout, the specific place where it addresses justification in great detail is the book of Romans. In other words, if I want to learn about any particular Biblical topic, it’s best to go to the specific place that topic is addressed in detail, and then move out to the other areas where it may be mentioned in passing, or not to the same extent it does in the detailed section.

I make no excuses that I see Romans as that part of the Bible that presents the most extensive discussion on justification. This doesn’t mean the other parts of the Bible are not important. It simply means that one should go to to those sections of the Bible that are most relevant to a particular topic.

Regards,

James

 

[mackbrislawn]

This analogy explains why Calvinists are very interested in Romans. While the Bible speaks about salvation and justification throughout, the specific place where it addresses justification in great detail is the book of Romans. In other words, if I want to learn about any particular Biblical topic, it’s best to go to the specific place that topic is addressed in detail, and then move out to the other areas where it may be mentioned in passing, or not to the same extent it does in the detailed section.

I make no excuses that I see Romans as that part of the Bible that presents the most extensive discussion on justification. This doesn’t mean the other parts of the Bible are not important. It simply means that one should go to to those sections of the Bible that are most relevant to a particular topic.

What you say sounds logical, but it isn’t really. Because thorough grounding in prior basics is still needed to prevent misunderstanding.

This is fairly simple, if you follow the course of the discussion. I’ve asked for proof that Melanchthon stopped Luther from removing books from the Bible. It’s that simple. Other than written proof from a reputable historian, what else would qualify to answer this question? Tell you what, if you can produce some other sort of meaningful evidence other than written proof from a reputable historian, I’ll certainly take a look at it.

I suppose an historian that says Melanchthon was an associate of Luther and guided his thought considerably, even to the canon, would by definition not be reputable. Therefore, no reputable historian can be found.

 

[po18guy]

This is fairly simple, if you follow the course of the discussion. I’ve asked for proof that Melanchthon stopped Luther from removing books from the Bible. It’s that simple. Other than written proof from a reputable historian, what else would qualify to answer this question? Tell you what, if you can produce some other sort of meaningful evidence other than written proof from a reputable historian, I’ll certainly take a look at it.

for what it’s worth, as I’ve bee able to trace this myth about Melanchthon, it’s been popularized by Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray, who may have picked it up from Henry G. Graham.

Regards, James

As a matter of principle, let’s just say that Melanchthon never existed. The elephant in the 66 book bible living room is that no one outside of Christ’s Church (which wrote the NT, and assembled and canonized both testaments of scripture) had authority to add or subtract from scripture. Luther’s opinion of the scriptures is extremely well documented outside of these forums. Does it really matter who or what, if anything, affected his personal decision to modify the canon per his own desires?

We should be discussing the elephant.

 

[po18guy]

Sorry, but I’ll not pay an apologist to answer questions that I already know the answer to.

As to Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, I happen to have an autographed copy from Mr. Michuta. I’ve also worked through Mr. Michuta’s argumentation concerning Luther in his book:

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#1)

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2)

I happen to like Mr. Michuta. I give him credit for attempting to put out a fresh book on the canon from a Roman Catholic perspective.

Regards, James

You don’t pay. They are paid Catholic Answers’ apologists who will gladly answer your question with information that pre-dates the rebellion by over 1,000 years. You have nothing to lose, and a much more historic point of view to gain, What could be wrong with that, other than the possibility that pre-conceived notions might be at risk?