Why did Luther remove the biblical books he did?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Didi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Didi

Guest
I understand that Luther removed several books (deuterocanonical or apocryphal books) during the reformation.

Does anyone have some brief answers as to why he removed the books he did? (I have short-term memory problems, so reading long articles about it is difficult for me.)

For example, I’ve read that Macabees was removed because of its obvious teaching on praying for the dead and purgatory. But what about the others?

Thanks!
 
Didi said:
I understand that Luther removed several books (deuterocanonical or apocryphal books) during the reformation.

Does anyone have some brief answers as to why he removed the books he did? (I have short-term memory problems, so reading long articles about it is difficult for me.)

For example, I’ve read that Macabees was removed because of its obvious teaching on praying for the dead and purgatory. But what about the others?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The short answer is they didn’t agree with his particular theology.

Sub
 
Thanks! LOL!

I wanted a brief answer, but not quite that brief!

I’m wondering what, specifically, is in each book that he disagreed with that led him to remove them.
 
Didi said:
I understand that Luther removed several books (deuterocanonical or apocryphal books) during the reformation.

Does anyone have some brief answers as to why he removed the books he did? (I have short-term memory problems, so reading long articles about it is difficult for me.)

For example, I’ve read that Macabees was removed because of its obvious teaching on praying for the dead and purgatory. But what about the others?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Sorry to disappoint, but Luther didn’t remove any books from the Bible. 🙂
 
1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, part of Daniel: because the Jews had excluded them from their 90AD canon

Esther: apparently too pagan

Hebrews: author unknown and teaches that Christians that sin deliberately face a fiery judgment

James: teaches the necessity of works alongside faith

Jude: quotes Enoch which is non-canonical

Revelation: too fiery, Luther felt it was not like God in the rest of the New Testament
 
“In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”
Click to expand...
The deuterocanonical books were accepted as Sacred Scripture until luther removed them as he removed the letter of James for James II:24 “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”(the only place in the bible outside, of Luther’s personal version, that the term faith alone appears)
“[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.”[14] It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal. In these prefaces, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”[15] was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated.[15] was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated.
Click to expand...
the above is from Sandusky’s link. James teaches the exact opposite of his teaching and therefore must, from the paradigm of Luther, considered to be grossly inferior to the rest of the bible. Therefore to say it was included in his “cannon” as an equal to his doctored edition of Romans, and the rest of his bastardized bible is clearly and patently false. I will agree however that he removed no books from the cannon… solely because he lacked the authority to do so.
 
Thank you all; this has been very helpful. Additional insights welcome!👍
 
Take a listen to THIS - it’s not very long and a great quick history of where the Bible came from.

For even more indepth info on the history of the creation of the Bible, go HERE

~Liza
 
Luther did question many books, but what he did, when you look at his bible was to agree with the authorities of his time. If you left it up to Luther it’s likely the Bible would contain 1 Maccabbees but not Esther.

Anyway to see some of the evidence showing the broad agreement on canon at the time of Luther see: christiantruth.com/sippocanon.html

Briefly, it tells you how the Vulgate in it’s prefaces agrees with Luther, how the Glossa ordinaria the textbook of the Church for hundreds of years agrees with Luther, how the Latin translations at the time of Luther agree with Luther, and indeed how even critics of Luther, like Erasmus and Cajetan, agreed with Luther.

JJ
 
JTBT said:
it has always been my understanding the books listed above were added, at the Council of Trent, after Luthers death!!:eek:🙂
Click to expand...
Your understanding is wrong. If you look in the Church’s councils, these seven books were in the very first council’s canon, I believe it was a synod (local council) in Rome. Then the Councils of Carthage and Hippo re-affirmed the findings of the synod in 393 and 396 (approximately).

The Church held this canon, with few disagreements, St. Jerome being the most famous disagreement, until the Reformation. During this time, the Council of Trent declared the Canon binding. The only different before the councils decision and after it is that is was required for Catholics to accept this teaching after Trent. Even though it was not-binding prior to Trent, it was universally accepted (again, with just the few minor complaints). This is typical of other teachings that Christians say the Church “invented” in Her later years, such as Transubstantiation to explain the Eucharist.
 
NotWorthy said:
Your understanding is wrong. If you look in the Church’s councils, these seven books were in the very first council’s canon, I believe it was a synod (local council) in Rome. Then the Councils of Carthage and Hippo re-affirmed the findings of the synod in 393 and 396 (approximately).

The Church held this canon, with few disagreements, St. Jerome being the most famous disagreement, until the Reformation. During this time, the Council of Trent declared the Canon binding. The only different before the councils decision and after it is that is was required for Catholics to accept this teaching after Trent. Even though it was not-binding prior to Trent, it was universally accepted (again, with just the few minor complaints). This is typical of other teachings that Christians say the Church “invented” in Her later years, such as Transubstantiation to explain the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
so why was it made binding if the Church had generally accepted it for 1500 years?
 
JTBT said:
so why was it made binding if the Church had generally accepted it for 1500 years?
Click to expand...
Because it was generally accepted until Luther. No need to bind something when people are already doing it. It is only when there is significant dissent that the Church deems it necessary to bind.
 
Hmm, this is all news to me.

My understanding is that Luther’s translation, like other protestant translations, use the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, which has 7 books less than the Septuagint Version. The Septuagint was used by the early Christian Church and did so, until the Reformation.

FYI, the Septuagint is the Greek version of the Old Testament which was for Greek Speaking Jews.

Jim
 
JTBT said:
so why was it made binding if the Church had generally accepted it for 1500 years?
Click to expand...
The Protestant
Reformation.

Incidentally, the reformers were invited to the Council of Trent. They chose not to come.
 
JTBT said:
so why was it made binding if the Church had generally accepted it for 1500 years?
Click to expand...
That’s how Council work. They confirm matters that have generally been accepted for most of the time. The Church doesn’t make up new things. Moreover, most Councils were called to counteract heresies. Lutheranism was one of the biggest ones Christianity has ever faced.

The political reason Luther removed this books because he wished to create his own Church based upon Lay Investiture. Read his letter to the German Princes if you don’t believe me.

CDL
 
JTBT said:
:hmmm:Martin Luther was dead! so I don’t think he got the invite
Click to expand...
He should have stuck around a bit longer:shrug: Perhaps the “reformers” were too busy plotting with the German Princes to attend an ecumenical council. Or perhaps they heard how the Turks were trying to destroy Europe and they wished to help.

CDL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top