Why didn't Martin Luther like the book of Jude?

[Nelka]

What was it about this book that he didn’t like or that didn’t agree with his views?

Thanks.

 

[Todd977]

Perhaps he was uncomfortable with Jude’s criticism of those who “reject authority.” (Jude 8)

 

[kdbueno]

Protestant theology by reason of the Trinitarian law, approves that its incorrectness is infinitely possible.

 

[MaryT777]

Thanks for the informative reply, Deacon Jeff.

Mary.

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

Since you quote from Swan’s webpage, I can only point out a quote found by Swan’s “nemesis” of sorts, Dave Armstrong:

True enough, all the editions of Luther’s German Bible – right to the last one he himself supervised (1545) – retain the classification by which the four antilegomena are grouped together, in a kind of bibliographical ghetto, after the other books. Comments remain in the Prefaces (e.g., Romans) indicating that Luther always held to a hierarchy of biblical books, with the Gospel of John and Romans constituting the empyrean. A careful study of Luther’s remarks on and treatment of James throughout his career has shown that, wholly apart from the Prefaces, the Reformer consistently held a low view of the book’s utility. (Montgomery, comments preceding footnotes 54 and 55)

My link also quotes from Luther’s 1522 edition of his Preface to James and Jude, which answers the OP’s question, and which is perhaps a quote made more strikingly than what Luther was comfortable with in his 1545 edition of the same work:

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

The true " chief books " i.e. , he did not deny its canonicity , he just held it to be of lower value

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The true " chief books " i.e. , he did not deny its canonicity , he just held it to be of lower value

And why would Luther hold them of lower value? Revelation, the book that anti-Catholics LOVE to use against His Church, was despised by Luther. Luther added the word “alone” to Paul’s discourse on justification by faith. And what does Scripture say about those who add to God’s Word?

 

[mattp0625]

Luther often claimed his rejection had to do with authorship, however:

We are NOT saved by faith alone (per Epistle of James) - problem for his sola fide? Of course it is.

In the Epistle of Jude:

8** Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are [j]destroyed. 11 Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay [k]they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

17 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, [r]worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on some, who are doubting; 23 save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and [t]forever. Amen.

It seems Jude is rejecting rebellion against authority, including the rebellion of Korah, where people rebelled against the authority of Moses (Book of Numbers).

Sound familiar? (e.g. Protestant Reformation)

The epistle also seems to reject the notion of saved by faith alone. In other words, we shouldn’t “sin boldly”.**

 

[po18guy]

Some interesting reading from Philipp Melancthon, Luther’s accomplice and confidant - who wrote an apologia reconciling James with the Pauline epistles. Why would Melancthon, during a period of great turmoil, devote the time and energy to justify a letter already in use for 1,500 years? He himself did not argue against James, but rather for it. Could it be to convince Luther that it should be included in the 1545 Luther Bibel? There is little doubt that Melancthon was a moderating influence on Luther. But, in his writing, it is seen that Melancthon doted upon Luther, hanging upon and defending his every word and action. Almost worshiping him. I said “almost.” Melancthon also describes Luther’s mental instability, moderating it into some form of zeal.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/melan/lifea-01.txt

 

[JMM1957]

The true " chief books " i.e. , he did not deny its canonicity , **he **just held it to be of lower value

Yes, “he”, one man, held it to be of lower value. I prefer to follow what the “Church” had to say about it. The same goes for the epistle of James.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Luther often claimed his rejection had to do with authorship, however:

We are NOT saved by faith alone (per Epistle of James) - problem for his sola fide? Of course it is.

In the Epistle of Jude:

8** Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority**, and revile angelic majesties. 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are [j]destroyed. 11 Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay [k]they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

17 But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, [r]worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on some, who are doubting; 23 save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and [t]forever. Amen.

It seems Jude is rejecting rebellion against authority, including the rebellion of Korah, where people rebelled against the authority of Moses (Book of Numbers).

Sound familiar? (e.g. Protestant Reformation)

The epistle also seems to reject the notion of saved by faith alone. In other words, we shouldn’t “sin boldly”.
The correct translation was " let your sin be great " not " sin boldly " , and James is compatible with faith alone , Jude opposed rebellion against Legitimate authority, he never opposed reforming corrupt institutions.

Lastly sound familiar ( eg Great Schism )

 

[Starwarsfan2]

And why would Luther hold them of lower value? Revelation, the book that anti-Catholics LOVE to use against His Church, was despised by Luther. Luther added the word “alone” to Paul’s discourse on justification by faith. And what does Scripture say about those who add to God’s Word?

Luther added nothing , multiple previous Catholic translations of Romans have the word " alone"

 

[Thorolfr]

What was it about this book that he didn’t like or that didn’t agree with his views?

Thanks.

Here’s what Luther says about Jude in the preface to editions of his translation of the Bible before 1530. They have been translated in Luther’s Works, vol. 35:

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html

 

[JonNC]

Yes, “he”, one man, held it to be of lower value. I prefer to follow what the “Church” had to say about it. The same goes for the epistle of James.

No, not he one man. As has been pointed out, Luther references the “ancients” regarding James, primarily, I suspect, Eusebius, who did not include it as part of the canon.

AFAIK,none of Luther’s views about particular books are novel to Luther. None of the books does he exclude, and again as it has already been pointed out, none because they didn’t agree with his theology.

BTW, there are books for me that are of greater value than others, including the Prayer of Manasseh. Now, that doesn’t mean the Prayer of Manasseh is now all of a sudden canonical and all the others are not. I don’t have the power to make that so, and neither did Luther. It just means it has great value to me, and some others, even canonical ones, do not.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And why would Luther hold them of lower value? Revelation, the book that anti-Catholics LOVE to use against His Church, was despised by Luther. Luther added the word “alone” to Paul’s discourse on justification by faith. And what does Scripture say about those who add to God’s Word?

He did not “add” the word “allein”. He translated. His reasoning for “allein” in his translation:

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 [klar und gewaltiglich], 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. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I am to follow these donkeys, they will lay the original before me literally and translate it thus: “Aus dem uberfluss des hertzen redet der mund” [out of the excessiveness of the heart the mouth speaks]. Tell me, is that speaking German? What German could understand something like that? What is “the excessiveness of the heart”? No German can say that; unless, perhaps, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too generous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be correct. “Excessiveness of the heart” is no more German than "excessiveness of the house, “excessiveness of the stove” or “excessiveness of the bench.” But the mother in the home and the common man say this: “Wes das hertz vol ist, des gehet der mund über” [What fills the heart overflows the mouth]. That is speaking good German of the kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always successfully. The literal Latin is a great obstacle to speaking good German.

This from his open letter on translating. There is more, but this is essentially his reasoning.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thank you, Deacon Jeff.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Since you quote from Swan’s webpage, I can only point out a quote found by Swan’s “nemesis” of sorts, Dave Armstrong:

My link also quotes from Luther’s 1522 edition of his Preface to James and Jude, which answers the OP’s question, and which is perhaps a quote made more strikingly than what Luther was comfortable with in his 1545 edition of the same work:

I think the first line is noteworthy, the one not bolded in your post:

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words.

This indicates that Luther in fact did not believe in faith without works. In fact, throughout his writings, he emphasizes the importance of good works. * Sola fide* does not mean works are not required.

Jon

 

[steido01]

He did not “add” the word “allein”. He translated. His reasoning for “allein” in his translation:

This from his open letter on translating. There is more, but this is essentially his reasoning.

Jon

Not to mention, Pope Benedict has specifically taught that Luther was correct to translate; “alone.”

Of course, to the Lutheran, Faith is never alone.

 

[mattp0625]

The correct translation was " let your sin be great " not " sin boldly " , and James is compatible with faith alone , Jude opposed rebellion against Legitimate authority, he never opposed reforming corrupt institutions.

Lastly sound familiar ( eg Great Schism )

Ok. Let your sin be great. Saint Jude clearly didn’t think so.

The bible never says saved by faith alone, but t does say faith without works is dead. I know Luther can jump through hoops to get around that, but the words are there.

I believe Jude snd James on these matters, not Luther. The former were appointed by Jesus, not the latter.

The Great Schism is nothing to hang your hat on, either. The eastern church has several schisms which, according to Ignatius of Antioch, is not how to model a church to put it lightly.