The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

[tqualey]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

For someone who, “…couldn’t care less…” you surprised me!

Simply stated, you have been seriously defending Luther’s actions - by claiming that those who claim he ‘removed books from the Bible’ have been swept up in a myth. Some myth - its real life effects are apparent when you open up an abridged Protestant Bible. There should be 46 books in your OT and 27 books in your NT. If you have such a Bible just check this out.

Jim of course is correct - Luther’s real claim to infamy was to attempt to discredit the Inspired Word of God contained in these 7 books. No one ever reported that God appeared to Luther and told him to do this. Yet for almost 15 centuries we had these 7 books and once Luther’s pride get hold of the Bibe - we are suddenly short some books and their absence happens to help his ‘faith alone’ argument. This is no ‘myth’ - just do the counting and you figure out what happened in 1521 that involves Luther and the Bible - and then tell us. This is strictly historical. Of course, Luther could be totally innocent - and we all have been swept up in this myth -so please, provide the link that will give us the clear insights you claim to have in this matter being able to separate fact from fancy. Now… you may want to look over those links I have previously provided to you before responding.

God bless

Personally, I couldn’t care less about Luther’s authority to tamper or not tamper with the Bible; I’m not a Lutheran and don’t feel the need to defend him or his authority. My question was historical, not theological.

But what I do find very offensive (in post #3–and the OP for that matter–and many, many others making the same allegations) is people distorting the truth in a rhetorical attempt to deceive others. Perhaps they are simply mistaken, but it doesn’t come across that way.

The only thing I am asking for really is where people are getting their information. I do not see why this is an unreasonable question, or one that people would naturally shrink away from. If the assertion in post #3 is “common knowledge” then it should be easily referenced, but I guess that’s not the case? Further, the wiki on Luther’s canon (which, by the way, has tons of errors) doesn’t address the issue, unless I’m missing something. All I’m essentially getting for responses is “Luther hated these books.” Yes, we all know that; this is hardly breaking news. However, the oft-repeated assertion that I’m trying to test is that he “tried to remove the books” (NT here) and that “they stopped him.” This assertion doesn’t pass the smell test; Martin Luther didn’t answer to anyone.

Finally, as far as I am concerned, the “Ask an Apologist” feature of this forum is completely worthless because they never, ever respond to questions, or at least not to my questions. However, I will certainly submit a question and see what happens. I do think they screen their questions/answers pretty heavily to weed out ones they don’t wish to answer.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Bottom line is that Catholics trust the Church in all things. Those outside of her do not. Why not go then, in peace? Or, are you seeking?

Well that wraps it up for me.

Regards,

James

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

For someone who, “…couldn’t care less…” you surprised me!

Simply stated, you have been seriously defending Luther’s actions - by claiming that those who claim he ‘removed books from the Bible’ have been swept up in a myth. Some myth - its real life effects are apparent when you open up an abridged Protestant Bible. There should be 46 books in your OT and 27 books in your NT. If you have such a Bible just check this out.

Jim of course is correct - Luther’s real claim to infamy was to attempt to discredit the Inspired Word of God contained in these 7 books. No one ever reported that God appeared to Luther and told him to do this. Yet for almost 15 centuries we had these 7 books and once Luther’s pride get hold of the Bibe - we are suddenly short some books and their absence happens to help his ‘faith alone’ argument. This is no ‘myth’ - just do the counting and you figure out what happened in 1521 that involves Luther and the Bible - and then tell us. This is strictly historical. Of course, Luther could be totally innocent - and we all have been swept up in this myth -so please, provide the link that will give us the clear insights you claim to have in this matter being able to separate fact from fancy. Now… you may want to look over those links I have previously provided to you before responding.

God bless

I haven’t been defending Luther; all I’ve been doing is pointing out that some people here at CAF (with intent or not, I cannot tell) are falsifying the facts about his translation of the Bible. Again, if you are interested in the truth, I’ve already told you how to clearly and easily verify what I’m saying. If you are not, then further conversation on the topic is meaningless.

Because I now know about the significant problems with the “removed books” assertion, I suspect the allegation about “trying to remove books” from the N.T. is probably also not credible. But I’m giving people the chance to back up their assertions with evidence. So far, I have nothing. Given the circumstances I have to at least tentatively conclude that this is also false.

 

[po18guy]

But what I do find very offensive (in post #3–and the OP for that matter–and many, many others making the same allegations) is people distorting the truth in a rhetorical attempt to deceive others. Perhaps they are simply mistaken, but it doesn’t come across that way.

Let me get this straight: You care less about whether your bible is correct or not, but you are gravely offended at the suggestion that Luther did not like some books of the bible?

Let us investigate: Is this (unsubstantiated) claim consistent with Luther’s documented behavior regarding scripture?

Yes.

The only thing I am asking for really is where people are getting their information.

Then, correct the Wiki if it is wrong. You have a moral responsibility to do so. You apparently know more than the Lutherans who either contributed to, or have corrected the Wiki as it stands.

Martin Luther didn’t answer to anyone.

Clearly not in this life.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

Actually, I went back to the beginning… yours was post #9 that asked for references.

I read one of the links you provided and some semantics seems to be in play here. The author went to some length to identify that Luther did not remove any books

Ok, I think you may be confused since I didn’t post any links to this thread.

 

[BListon]

The books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel. Collectively, these books are sometimes called the deuterocanonicals*.*

^ This. Not many people know that he also tried to remove the Epistle of James, and Revelation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

This has grown tedious. There is no way you could have even clicked on the links I gave you - much less read them.

So, let me ask you this: you have gone to great lengths to inform us about your determination to ‘find the truth’ about Luther and the books - and did so - yet, you can’t manage to produce such a valuable reference. Don’t you think this is a bit strange - such an insight into ‘the truth’ - and you just can’t do anything more than complain that we are laboring under a myth and you don’t. Does this make ay sense?

You are given references that dispute your position and you simply dismiss them. Logical argumentation about there being more books before Luther took up his pen then afterwards are ignored.

“What you’ve said is absolutely true about the Latinate biblical canon (but is false for the majority of the Church).”

What possible ‘majority’ can you be telling us about? In my opinion - if you are concerned about a ‘myth’ you’ve fallen into a big one.

Your concerns have been addressed - I think it is time for you work with you have been given in dilogue and do more than just dismiss this material.

God bless

So I’m not sure who “the author” is here, because it’s not the OP. But in any event, there is no question in my mind that Luther did not remove books–I’ve seen what is as close to the real thing as I will ever get. As I explained earlier, quite awhile ago I was tired of not getting a straight answer on the “removed books” assertion and finally went to the library and did that research myself. To my mind it is an absolutely false assertion. But if you re-read MY question (post #9, which you said you did read) you will see that that is not what I asked about.

Yes, everyone agrees Luther didn’t like these books. True as to the mis-translation, but this charge could be leveled at all of the great translators of the Bible, including Jerome.

What you’ve said is absolutely true about the Latinate biblical canon (but is false for the majority of the Church). Regardless, my original question is about books left in, not about the deuterocanonicals.

So you said above that Luther did NOT remove the books?

Sorry, but I couldn’t see how your links addressed my question; if I’ve missed something please point it out and I’m happy to review your links again. Also you should be aware that most of your links mention the Council of Jamnia, an historical falsehood that has been debunked numerous times on this site (by Catholics).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Let me get this straight: You care less about whether your bible is correct or not

It’s not a problem for me. I have access to all the material and can make my own judgments. What’s between the two covers of someone’s modern conception of the Bible makes no difference to me.

, but you are gravely offended at the suggestion that Luther did not like some books of the bible?

You’re significant misstating what I have written, which is neither fair nor honest. No, I’m not gravely offended at the idea of Luther not liking some of the books of the Bible. He’s entitled to his opinion. What’s more, he doesn’t attempt to force his opinion on anyone else, which I think is a point in his favor. What does gravely offend me is people trying to deceive others as I suspect is happening here at CAF.

Let us investigate: Is this (unsubstantiated) claim consistent with Luther’s documented behavior regarding scripture?

No, it’s completely inconsistent, as I have already pointed out. Luther didn’t answer to some mysterious “they”. He called the shots on his translation from start to finish. What’s more, his translation of the NT (the subject of the question) was done on his own. There was no “they” to argue with.

Then, correct the Wiki if it is wrong

. You have a moral responsibility to do so. You apparently know more than the Lutherans who either contributed to, or have corrected the Wiki as it stands.
Clearly not in this life.

Your sarcasm aside (which is very ugly btw), the content of Wikipedia is irrelevant because it doesn’t address my question. If you think it does, then please point that out, as I have already requested.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

Now, this is getting serious. Before there are any further comments - please go back to post #9. If you did not write this - then someone has hijacked your posting name…

So, please, either confirm or deny you wrote this.

And, really - you need to do a better job of responding to Po18Guy’s comments. Evading the obvious is … well … getting rather obvious.

God bless

Ok, I think you may be confused since I didn’t post any links to this thread.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This has grown tedious. There is no way you could have even clicked on the links I gave you - much less read them.

If I didn’t click on your links, how would I have known that they referred to the Council of Jamnia?

If you have evidence to provide in response to my question, then by all means come forward with it. If you don’t, why all this obfuscation?

What possible ‘majority’ can you be telling us about?

In case you weren’t aware the Latinate (Roman Catholic) biblical canon differs from that of the rest of the historic church. The Latinate view was a minority view at the time it was adopted. This has been discussed many times here at CAF with the info I’m sure available via a search.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

Now, this is getting serious. Before there are any further comments - please go back to post #9. If you did not write this - then someone has hijacked your posting name…

So, please, either confirm or deny you wrote this.

And, really - you need to do a better job of responding to Po18Guy’s comments. Evading the obvious is … well … getting rather obvious.

God bless

Yup, post #9 is me. No links there. Here was my simple question:

“I’d be curious where you’re getting this information. If you could reveal the source, perhaps we could stamp out this myth.”

Maybe there is something seriously wrong with your computer. I’m sorry that you have become so confused.

 

[benjohnson]

Luther’s Bible, published in 1534 is complete - to say otherwise is wrong.

If you can read old German, you can take a look for yourself and verify it:

Goto here

lutherbibel.net/

Click on the large image that says “Biblia”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

^ This. Not many people know that he also tried to remove the Epistle of James, and Revelation.

I’d be curious where you got that information.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

You have all the access that we have provided you - but, you’ve just dismissed this. Naturally, such limitations will impact that judgment.

Based on my readings of your posts, I really do not think you have been misunderstood. If there is some concern about misunderstanding it would be how you are handling our posts.

You have a romanticized view of Luther - time for a reality check with the German Peasant War and his role in the death of many of these peasants who foolishly believed Luther who then condemned their revolt! Here is a wake up link: encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/German+peasants+war+of+1524-1525

God bless

It’s not a problem for me. I have access to all the material and can make my own judgments. What’s between the two covers of someone’s modern conception of the Bible makes no difference to me.

You’re significant misstating what I have written, which is neither fair nor honest. No, I’m not gravely offended at the idea of Luther not liking some of the books of the Bible. He’s entitled to his opinion. What’s more, he doesn’t attempt to force his opinion on anyone else, which I think is a point in his favor. What does gravely offend me is people trying to deceive others as I suspect is happening here at CAF.

No, it’s completely inconsistent, as I have already pointed out. Luther didn’t answer to some mysterious “they”. He called the shots on his translation from start to finish. What’s more, his translation of the NT (the subject of the question) was done on his own. There was no “they” to argue with.

Your sarcasm aside (which is very ugly btw), the content of Wikipedia is irrelevant because it doesn’t address my question. If you think it does, then please point that out, as I have already requested.

 

[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?

I have no knowledge of any German - old or new - but, there have been an abundance of links provided on this thread showing that Luther acted pridefully and in error concerning his work with the bible. Merely saying, “No, that is not what happened!” honestly falls short of the mark.

Maybe you have a link (in Engish, I hope) that God appeared to Luther and authorized him to do this, or that Christ was in error in founding His Church on Peter and should have waited for Luther, or some other area that provides a reference to back up what you have claimed.

Looking forward to hearing form you.

God bless

Luther’s Bible, published in 1534 is complete - to say otherwise is wrong.

If you can read old German, you can take a look for yourself and verify it:

Goto here

lutherbibel.net/

Click on the large image that says “Biblia”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi, Dave Noonan,

You have all the access that we have provided you - but, you’ve just dismissed this. Naturally, such limitations will impact that judgment.

Based on my readings of your posts, I really do not think you have been misunderstood. If there is some concern about misunderstanding it would be how you are handling our posts.

You have a romanticized view of Luther - time for a reality check with the German Peasant War and his role in the death of many of these peasants who foolishly believed Luther who then condemned their revolt! Here is a wake up link: encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/German+peasants+war+of+1524-1525

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]

by claiming that those who claim he ‘removed books from the Bible’ have been swept up in a myth.

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, Dave Noonan,

No problem with my computer, thank you very much.

You are asking for references to back up a statement - then complained about not having gotten them.

I gave you some references in response to your request. There is no myth that Luther removed books from the Bible - he did. Just count them. Then look at the order of the books that was established in the Canon prior to 400AD - or, over 1,100 years before Luther determined that they were not to his liking.

There is no confusion on my part.

God bless

Yup, post #9 is me. No links there. Here was my simple question:

“I’d be curious where you’re getting this information. If you could reveal the source, perhaps we could stamp out this myth.”

Maybe there is something seriously wrong with your computer. I’m sorry that you have become so confused.

 

[Porknpie]

Here’s some quotes and a specific reference from the book The Facts About Luther by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare, originally published in 1916. It has imprimatur status by the Archbishop of NY at that time.

The Epistle of St. James Luther denounced as “an Epistle of straw”. “I do not hold it to be his writing and can not place it among the capital books.”

Of Revelation, “it bears upon it no marks of apolostolic or prophetic character…I myself feel an aversion to it and to me this is sufficient reason to reject it.”

There’s more on his not liking Hebrews and favoring the Gospel of John over the synoptics.

(Sammtliche Werke [collected works], 63, 169-170).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

Hi, Dave Noonan,

No problem with my computer, thank you very much.

You are asking for references to back up a statement - then complained about not having gotten them.

I gave you some references in response to your request. There is no myth that Luther removed books from the Bible - he did. Just count them. Then look at the order of the books that was established in the Canon prior to 400AD - or, over 1,100 years before Luther determined that they were not to his liking.

There is no confusion on my part.

God bless