The Vulgate

[KatholikosMercy]

The whole post is junk-history.

Can you prove that?

I guess you haven’t read Janssen

Janssen writes of a hypocritical instance of Luther’s censorship (1529):

Luther . . . set his pen in motion concerning this Catholic translation of the Bible. ‘The freedom of the Word,’ which he claimed for himself, was not to be accorded to his opponent Emser . . . When . . . he learnt that Emser’s translation . . . was to be printed . . . at Rostock, he not only appealed himself to his follower, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg, with the request that ‘for the glory of the evangel of Christ and the salvation of all souls’ he would put a stop to this printing, but he also worked on the councillors of the Elector of Saxony to support his action. He denied the right and the power of the Catholic authorities to inhibit his books; on the other hand he invoked the arm of the secular authorities against all writings that were displeasing to him.
(Janssen, XIV, 503-504)

Luther and Melanchthon Suppress Swiss and Anabaptist Books:
When the controversy on the Lord’s Supper was started at Wittenberg, the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the latter’s views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the following effect:

Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of life and property.
(Janssen, XIV, 232-233; BR, IV, 549)

Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran teaching. The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed formally on the Index at Wittenberg.
(Janssen, XIV, 504; cf. Durant, 424)

Protestant Universities:
Moreover, antagonism had also grown up among the Protestant universities, and one reproached the other with being the fosterer and begetter of false doctrine . . . Wittenberg itself, but lately regarded as the birthplace of a new revelation and of the newly awakened Church of Christ, in 1567 was declared to be a ‘stinking cesspool of the devil.’
(Janssen, XIV, 231-232)

Various Protestant Cities and Areas:
At Strassburg Catholic writings were suppressed as early as 1524 . . . The Council at Frankfort-on-the-Main exercised . . . strict censorship . . . At Rostock, in 1532, the printer of the Brethren of the Common Life was sent to prison, because he had used his printing press to the disadvantage of Protestantism.
(Janssen, XIV, 502)

Wherever the prince, according to old Byzantine fashion, thought himself a theologian, he managed the censorship in person.
(Janssen, XIV, 233)

Instances could, of course, be multiplied, but the above examples suffice to illustrate the general Protestant hostility to a free press

 

[porthos11]

Slight hijack of the thread.

There’s an important arrow missing in the chart presented above. There should be an arrow pointing from the Authorized Version to the Challoner revision.

 

[Steadfast]

KM,

Let’s concentrate on the most egregious fallacy in your post:

When you say,

and also did not accept these New Testament books: Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, 2 Peter and Revelation. These books contained teachings which did not agree with his teaching.

And,

  	 				By the year 1700, however, Lutheran scholars had restored these books to the New Testament.

The implication is that Luther removed these books from the Bible and that later Lutherans put them back in.

This is patently false.

Luther’s Bibel not only contained the whole 27 books of the NT but the Deutero-Canonicals as well.

By the way, I’m Catholic.

 

[Hellisreal]

Good luck fighting KM on this one. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

KM,

Let’s concentrate on the most egregious fallacy in your post:

When you say,

And,

The implication is that Luther removed these books from the Bible and that later Lutherans put them back in.

This is patently false.

Luther’s Bibel not only contained the whole 27 books of the NT but the Deutero-Canonicals as well.

By the way, I’m Catholic.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I have a cd-rom copy of the Vulgate. I can’t read Latin, but it’s interesting to scan the text and see where many of our words come from.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

KM,

Let’s concentrate on the most egregious fallacy in your post:

Sure, I am game for dialogue

The implication is that Luther removed these books from the Bible and that later Lutherans put them back in.

This is patently false.

This claim was not a personal opinion but a historical fact researched by and quoted from David Armstrong’s web-site. I have no reason to believe he didn’t substantiate his claim. Do you? Although, I do admit I didn’t substantiate it myself.

Luther’s Bibel not only contained the whole 27 books of the NT but the Deutero-Canonicals as well.

Well of course it did. He took the bible from the True Church. There is no other. The contention is that he then negated the teaching of those books in lieu of his own individual interpretation which we know is denounced as nothing more than a divorce from the true church that has resulted in an epidemic of divorce, dissent and strife all in the name of Christendom.

I will grant you that it is slightly less barbaric than some events from previous history. The advancement of humanity is hardly dependant upon heresy but on the example of agape love being practiced by Gods Children. Protesting amounts to nothing more than disobedience regardless of the perceived self ability to obey.
The guidance of the Holy Spirit cannot be denied any more than Mercy will fail to prevail.

If you have reference to evidence to either substantiate or refute your claim that Luther didn’t deny books of the Bible please do provide it for consideration.

By the way, I’m Catholic.

Great, so am I. One in full communion with the Church I might add and only as liberal as the thorn in my side forces me to be. I hope you are as well.

I am primarily interested in the facts and their validity. You are contrary to my OP but provide nothing to substantiate your accusation that it’s false. I respect your opinion but need more than that to go on. I have provided you with examples of Janssen’s writings from the period. You have provided me with nothing to the contrary.

For me the Primacy of Peter and the Infallibility of the Magisterium teaching authority are facts that are undisputable. Do you dispute those or any of the other 16 Dogma of the Universal Pillar and Foundation of Truth?

I have no problem being corrected and would humble myself to any such admonishment because its easy enough to make a mistake in regards to a historical claim because we are subject to the records we are presented as evidence.

Of course, save that, which would be in defense of the heresy posted on the Wurttemberg doors
.

 

[Steadfast]

Are you really meaning to say that you cut and pasted an entire page from Dave’s site without a link or a citation?

Isn’t that against the rules?

A link to Dave’s site would be helpful, preferably to the page where he maintains that Luther removed books from the Bible and that later Lutheran scholars restored them.

I haven’t read everything ever written about Luther, but what I have read (which is a lot, evidently more than you have) indicates pretty clearly that this claim of yours (Dave’s) is balderdash.

The burden of proof isn’t on me. I didn’t come in here spreading false information.

But lets tone it down a bit. I’ll make a simple request that you show me where Luther left books out and later scholars restored them. If you can’t or won’t do that I’ll have to ask that you retract the claim as uncharitable, spurious and untrue.

On the other hand, if you can prove the point I will beg your pardon and be much better off for having learned a new thing.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Are you really meaning to say that you cut and pasted an entire page from Dave’s site without a link or a citation?

Isn’t that against the rules?

A link to Dave’s site would be helpful, preferably to the page where he maintains that Luther removed books from the Bible and that later Lutheran scholars restored them.

I haven’t read everything ever written about Luther, but what I have read (which is a lot, evidently more than you have) indicates pretty clearly that this claim of yours (Dave’s) is balderdash.

The burden of proof isn’t on me. I didn’t come in here spreading false information.

But lets tone it down a bit. I’ll make a simple request that you show me where Luther left books out and later scholars restored them. If you can’t or won’t do that I’ll have to ask that you retract the claim as uncharitable, spurious and untrue.

On the other hand, if you can prove the point I will beg your pardon and be much better off for having learned a new thing.

Sure, I would be glad to. But first I must ask, are you not even going to attemt to answer my questions in the last post?

Do you not think my questions were legitimate either?

A dialogue needs to be a two way street does it not?

How it works is this; One person asks a question and another answers then its the other persons turn to ask.

So far you haven’t answered me with anything but more denials and questions.

 

[Steadfast]

For the record though, here is the table of contents for Luther’s Bibel as late as 1545. Note, please the presence of both the complete New Testament and the Old Testament Deuteros.

Here, no less an authority than the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that Luther included the Old Testament Deuteros in his translation.

No one is maintaining that Luther didn’t have a different view of Scripture than that which prevailed among the majority of Christian scholars of his day at least as regards the canon of the Old Testament, but his view was certainly not unique and, among scholars had been gaining currency.

But that’s not what is in dispute here.

What is in dispute here is your (or Dave Armstrong’s) contention that he removed books from the Bible (specifically, per your post, New Testament books, leaving aside the question of the Old Testament canon entirely) and that later Lutherans restored them in the 18th century.

I consider my point carried that Luther included all the books of the New Testament as any reference to any 16th century edition of his Bibel will show and that therefore the claim that they were restored later is ridiculous and patently false.

His decision to remove the Old Testament Deuteros to an appendix and pronounce them Apocryphal is another issue.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

For the record though, here is the table of contents for Luther’s Bibel as late as 1545. Note, please the presence of both the complete New Testament and the Old Testament Deuteros.

Here, no less an authority than the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that Luther included the Old Testament Deuteros in his translation.

No one is maintaining that Luther didn’t have a different view of Scripture than that which prevailed among the majority of Christian scholars of his day at least as regards the canon of the Old Testament, but his view was certainly not unique and, among scholars had been gaining currency.

But that’s not what is in dispute here.

What is in dispute here is your (or Dave Armstrong’s) contention that he removed books from the Bible (specifically, per your post, New Testament books, leaving aside the question of the Old Testament canon entirely) and that later Lutherans restored them in the 18th century.

I consider my point carried that Luther included all the books of the New Testament as any reference to any 16th century edition of his Bibel will show and that therefore the claim that they were restored later is ridiculous and patently false.

His decision to remove the Old Testament Deuteros to an appendix and pronounce them Apocryphal is another issue.

I see. Well I wish I had substantiated my claim better before posting now.

The link to Luthers Bible you provided seems to be missing the book of Hebrews. Would that be due to his denial of the dogma or Purgatory? And these two seem extra: Die Epistel zu den Ebreern
Die Epistel Jacobus. How do you explain this?

To tell you the truth it has been in a word document on my computer for quite some time and I couldn’t find the sources again just now when I tried.

I looked here also: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-lutheranism-index-page.html and couldn’t find anything and am beginning to doubt that it actually was derived from quotes on his page at all now.

Irregardless, I will try better to be more factual in the future. I attempted to edit the original post just now and found that I need special permission after 20 minutes to change it.

I will have to let your dispute stand as plausable.

What I was trying to show in the OP is that magisterim has the authority to determine the cannon and as such the authority to interpret it as well.

The OP was not with the intent to discredit Luther but only the method of falsely interpreting scripture.

I understand your right to dispute less than accuate information and am humbled by my nearly irrelevant mistake.

My stance on hermenutics and litteral interpretation of scripture remains presently Catholic just the same.

Peace and Gods speed.

 

[Steadfast]

Wow,

I am floored. This almost never happens.

You have restored my faith in internet apologetics!

God bless and thanks.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Wow,

I am floored. This almost never happens.

You have restored my faith in internet apologetics!

God bless and thanks.

I think edited the previous post after you got a chance to see what I added.

Question:

The link to Luthers Bible you provided seems to be missing the book of Hebrews. Am I mistaken and if not do you think that would be due to his denial of the dogma of Purgatory?

And though I read German on a very rudimentary level only these two letters seem extra:

Die Epistel zu den Ebreern
Die Epistel Jacobus.

How would you explain this?

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I have a cd-rom copy of the Vulgate. I can’t read Latin, but it’s interesting to scan the text and see where many of our words come from.

You can get a free - literal translation - of the Latin Vulgate in the evangelical software program called e-sword.

Its free and easy to find on the internet. A simple seach should yield you the link.

Also avialable in it for free is the Douai-Rheims translation and the Anti-Nicene fathers.

I assume they are not tampered with Catholic versions but I have not checked that for myself so take it with a grain of salt unless your sure.

Personally I have two NAB’s, a RSV and a Douai-Rheims in print.

I am only fully confident in the translation of the Ignatius RSV.

For what diffferent Bible Versions and Commentaries are approved and endorced by the Church and what to watch out for in translations see here:

Translations approved by ACCB

 

[Chris_LaRock]

You can get a free - literal translation - of the Latin Vulgate in the evangelical software program called e-sword.

Its free and easy to find on the internet. A simple seach should yield you the link.

Also avialable in it for free is the Douai-Rheims translation and the Anti-Nicene fathers.

I assume they are not tampered with Catholic versions but I have not checked that for myself so take it with a grain of salt unless your sure.

Personally I have two NAB’s, a RSV and a Douai-Rheims in print.

I am only fully confident in the translation of the Ignatius RSV.

For what diffferent Bible Versions and Commentaries are approved and endorced by the Church and what to watch out for in translations see here:

Translations approved by ACCB

I got this cd rom at a dollar store. It has Mormon writings, Muslim writings, Jewish writings, Christian writings, Hindu writings, Buddhism, and even atheism. Both Catholic writings and Protestant writings are on it. Pretty good deal for only a dollar.

It has the BoM, Koran, 6 different bibles, ect.

John 1:1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

 

[tee_eff_em]

The link to Luthers Bible you provided seems to be missing the book of Hebrews. Am I mistaken and if not do you think that would be due to his denial of the dogma of Purgatory?

And though I read German on a very rudimentary level only these two letters seem extra:

Die Epistel zu den Ebreern
Die Epistel Jacobus.

How would you explain this?

I am not facile in German as I am in Latin, but I believe those would be the Letters to the Hebrews and to James, respectively.

tee

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I got this cd rom at a dollar store. It has Mormon writings, Muslim writings, Jewish writings, Christian writings, Hindu writings, Buddhism, and even atheism. Both Catholic writings and Protestant writings are on it. Pretty good deal for only a dollar.

It has the BoM, Koran, 6 different bibles, ect.

You might be interested in this site then:

textkit.com

(Teach yourself Greek and Latin for free)

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I am not facile in German as I am in Latin, but I believe those would be the Letters to the Hebrews and to James, respectively.

tee

That would explain it then. Thanks.

For Steadfast, if you see this then please disregard my question.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

You might be interested in this site then:

textkit.com

(Teach yourself Greek and Latin for free)

Cool! I’ll check it out.

 

[rciadan]

KM,
By the way, I’m Catholic.

Steadfast, please forgive me for asking; but, what do you mean when you describe yourself as a “moderate Catholic” in your profile. I am bringing forth no arguement of any kind, I promise. I just don’t know what that means…

 

[Steadfast]

Steadfast, please forgive me for asking; but, what do you mean when you describe yourself as a “moderate Catholic” in your profile. I am bringing forth no arguement of any kind, I promise. I just don’t know what that means…

Not much really…

For example, I believe the diocesan priesthood should be open to married men but not to women

Here is a thread I started which outlines some of the things I think and believe, many of which make me “potentially heterodox” in the sight of some around here.