Why do we have 7 more books

[Tietjen]

I would be curious as to your evidence behind the existence of a Greek (LXX) *canon *—versus simply the availability of Greek translations of various biblical books—prior to or up to the first century. I certainly don’t know of any. And IF such a canon did exist, why wouldn’t it be the same as the historical Greek canon/Septuagint? Versus the shorter Roman Catholic canon?

So, you don’t believe that there was a septuagint? Forgive me, as I don’t mean to be disrespectful; but this really shouldn’t be something that we cannot agree on. Please take a few minutes and read up on it and then come back.

Luther’s biblical theology really had nothing to do with the Hebrew canon.

Actually, Luther’s biblical theology had nothing to do with the creation of the Hebrew canon. However, the fact that Luther used the Hebrew Canon as a source for his bible is really not disputable… no matter how inconvenient that may be for Protestants to hear.

I would be curious where you got this information. As far as I know, there is no historical evidence to support this assertion.

Well… take more time and know more. I’m not going to start pulling sources out to prove what is already common knowledge concerning Luther. If you want proof, read his works. If you need proof that there is a sky… look up, don’t ask someone else to prove it to you.

 

[Pwrlftr]

So, you don’t believe that there was a septuagint? Forgive me, as I don’t mean to be disrespectful; but this really shouldn’t be something that we cannot agree on. Please take a few minutes and read up on it and then come back. QUOTE]

He may have been commenting on the fact that there wasn’t “a” septuagint. We only have Christian manuscripts of the LXX. None of the manuscripts match our canon exactly (and none match the Protestant canon either) and none of these date any earlier than around the fourth century.

We just don’t have enough information to say for sure if there was really a single Greek canon.

What we can say for sure is that all the early councils point to the inspiration of the dc’s and Trent dogmatically settled the OT canon once and for all.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So, you don’t believe that there was a septuagint? Forgive me, as I don’t mean to be disrespectful; but this really shouldn’t be something that we cannot agree on. Please take a few minutes and read up on it and then come back.

Certainly there were translations of various books of the Bible into Greek, but no–there was no “the Septuagint,” in the first century as the codex (bound book with covers) hadn’t been invented yet. There were scrolls. As to an authoritative list of books? I don’t know of any but would love to hear about it if you know of one.

But even if there were a compiled Septuagint in the first century, why wouldn’t The Septuagint be the same as the Greek biblical canon as opposed to the Roman Catholic biblical canon? As it is today?

Actually, Luther’s biblical theology had nothing to do with the creation of the Hebrew canon. However, the fact that Luther used the Hebrew Canon as a source for his bible is really not disputable… no matter how inconvenient that may be for Protestants to hear.

Actually, that’s incorrect, even though many Evangelicals would have you believe so. Luther’s understanding of the various books of the canon was based on the extent to which he believed the books were “bearers of Christ” and relevant to salvation. Their status really had nothing to do with being in or out of the Jewish Canon. The last thing Luther would have done would be to take a cue from Jews about anything–he was horrendously anti-Semitic.

Well… take more time and know more. I’m not going to start pulling sources out to prove what is already common knowledge concerning Luther. If you want proof, read his works. If you need proof that there is a sky… look up, don’t ask someone else to prove it to you.

Snarky. And more notably, not an answer. I do know a substantial amount about Luther, the development of the Bible, the Reformation and Catholicism. So I would be curious as to the source of your information. I hope you will choose to share it.

 

[Tietjen]

Snarky. And more notably, not an answer. I do know a substantial amount about Luther, the development of the Bible, the Reformation and Catholicism. So I would be curious as to the source of your information. I hope you will choose to share it.

It’s only not an answer because I didn’t spoon feed it to you. Read my other posts in this thread. I won’t repost over and over again each time just to save you time and energy of having to scroll through the thread. If you don’t want to even do that, how I am supposed to believe that you have actually researched anything on your own? I’ve looked at some of the other threads you’re active in and this issue of Catholic vs Protestant Bibles seems to be a favorite of yours yet you never cite your sources which led you to your conclusions, you just demand others to cite theirs. Then when they do, you simply dismiss the source as a misrepresentation or as being flawed. I won’t waste time… again, if you want proof that there is a sky, look up. Don’t ask me to prove it to you.

 

[Tietjen]

Tietjen;9354758:

So, you don’t believe that there was a septuagint? Forgive me, as I don’t mean to be disrespectful; but this really shouldn’t be something that we cannot agree on. Please take a few minutes and read up on it and then come back.

He may have been commenting on the fact that there wasn’t “a” septuagint. We only have Christian manuscripts of the LXX. None of the manuscripts match our canon exactly (and none match the Protestant canon either) and none of these date any earlier than around the fourth century.

I agree that there wasn’t “a” book containing the greek translations of the Hebrew Torah. The translation was compiled using scrolls and not chapters and verse or even page numbers. However, I disagree, respectfully, with the premise that the Greek translation didn’t exist prior to the 4th century. The Talmud perpetuates the story of the Letter of Aristeas:

'King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one’s room and said: “Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.” God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.

However, I will concede that I did not witness the event myself and I understand that for some, believing means seeing (I am not suggesting this in your case).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It’s only not an answer because I didn’t spoon feed it to you. Read my other posts in this thread. I won’t repost over and over again each time just to save you time and energy of having to scroll through the thread. If you don’t want to even do that, how I am supposed to believe that you have actually researched anything on your own? I’ve looked at some of the other threads you’re active in and this issue of Catholic vs Protestant Bibles seems to be a favorite of yours yet you never cite your sources which led you to your conclusions, you just demand others to cite theirs. Then when they do, you simply dismiss the source as a misrepresentation or as being flawed. I won’t waste time… again, if you want proof that there is a sky, look up. Don’t ask me to prove it to you.

I’ve asked this same question before about the claim of Luther wanting to remove books from the New Testament but being denied–many times, actually. But so far no one is willing to share where they are getting this information. As far as I know the claim is completely false, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. When responders do provide links it’s general information about Luther, or something related to Luther and the Bible, but nothing specific to this question. I am sorry that you too are unwilling to share your sources, but it’s not the first time I’ve gotten this type of response from Catholics. Thanks anyway.

 

[Tietjen]

I’ve asked this same question before about the claim of Luther wanting to remove books from the New Testament but being denied–many times, actually. But so far no one is willing to share where they are getting this information. As far as I know the claim is completely false, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. When responders do provide links it’s general information about Luther, or something related to Luther and the Bible, but nothing specific to this question. I am sorry that you too are unwilling to share your sources, but it’s not the first time I’ve gotten this type of response from Catholics. Thanks anyway.

And I am sorry it was too much to ask that you scroll up to my earlier replies in this thread. I know it would have taken at least 10 to 15 seconds. Peace and go with God.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

And I am sorry it was too much to ask that you scroll up to my earlier replies in this thread. I know it would have taken at least 10 to 15 seconds. Peace and go with God.

Wow, so hostile. I did read your links in #12 and #13, but I didn’t understand how they demonstrated that Luther wanted to remove books from the canon–but I certainly understand and agree that Luther had extremely negative views on certain books. So it’s back to the same problem. Nevermind.

 

[Tietjen]

Wow, so hostile. I did read your links in #12 and #13, but I didn’t understand how they demonstrated that Luther wanted to remove books from the canon–but I certainly understand and agree that Luther had extremely negative views on certain books. So it’s back to the same problem. Nevermind.

Not hostile, just correct. Luther (in his own words) said that these were not inspired books and went so far as to say of the book of James, “Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books…” The fact that these books do actually remain in the New Testament of Protestant Bibles today tells us that someone, or something overrode his desire to throw them out as he had hoped to do; although he did manage to have them moved to an obscure place (an appendix) in his German translation of the Bible because after all, in his opinion they didn’t belong in “his bible” anyway.

James is an “Epistle of Straw” in Luther’s 1522 Bible commentary. Thank God that today, not all Protestants view the inspired Word of God in the same light!

Look up… do you see the sky yet? But yeah, nevermind.

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay…so we have some folks who say Luther did not edit some books out and seriously call into the canonicity of some other commonly accepted books of the Bible.

I don’t care very much if he did or not because his expressed attitude would be the reason to reject him as a teacher.

Let’s look at some things he said about Bible books aside from the DCs, (since we already know that he hated the DCs because they support some Catholic teachings that he chose to reject.

Luther Said: The Bible Could Use Some Improvement

“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” ('The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.)
“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (Ibid.)
“Of very little worth is the Book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch might be.” (Ibid.)
“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.)
“If nonsense is spoken anywhere, this is the very place. I pass over the fact that many have maintained, with much probability, that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and is not worthy of the spirit of the apostle.” (‘Pagan Servitude of the Church,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 352.)
Reading these words of Luther, it’s hard to imagine that he is the same man who so often claimed that he looked upon the Bible “as if God Himself spoke therein.” How could he have claimed to believe in the inspired Word of God as the ultimate authority on religious matters if he placed himself in judgment of Scripture? In doing so, he quite clearly set himself up as judge over God himself.
Believe it or not, in his hubris Luther even presumed to rank the gospels: “John records but few of the works of Christ, but a great deal of his preaching, whereas the other three evangelists record many of His works, but few of His words. It follows that the gospel of John is unique in loveliness, and of a truth the principal gospel, far, far superior to the other three, and St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.” (‘Preface to Romans,’ ed. Dillenberger, pp. 18-19.)
And he complained about the Book of Revelation: “to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books,
1987, p. 203.)
And finally, he admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About
Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

Oh and…horror of horrors these are taken from an extremely anti-Catholic site. They proceed to outright condemn Luther and question his salvation! The Truth About Martin Luther

So…did he remove books? Not sure. Did he seem to want to? Looks like it.

 

[patrick457]

Not hostile, just correct. Luther (in his own words) said that these were not inspired books and went so far as to say of the book of James, “Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books…” The fact that these books do actually remain in the New Testament of Protestant Bibles today tells us that someone, or something overrode his desire to throw them out as he had hoped to do; although he did manage to have them moved to an obscure place (an appendix) in his German translation of the Bible because after all, in his opinion they didn’t belong in “his bible” anyway.

James is an “Epistle of Straw” in Luther’s 1522 Bible commentary. Thank God that today, not all Protestants view the inspired Word of God in the same light!

Look up… do you see the sky yet? But yeah, nevermind.

I did find something interesting in Barbara Sher Tinsley’s Pierre Bayle’s Reformation: Conscience and Criticism on the Eve of the Enlightenment (pages 61-65) about the whole matter of Luther, James, and it being a stramineam epistolam. I’m feeling rather lazy to type all of that here, so I’ll just recommend you folks to read it over the link.

Of course, you could find some commentaries touching on it in a very general way, such as Douglas J. Moo’s The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary, or Luke Timothy Johnson’s Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James, or Patrick J. Hartin’s James (part of the Sacra Pagina).

 

[Tietjen]

Wow… I had never heard that last quote that you included regarding “alone” and his take on his own authority OVER scripture. If true, I sit I stunned, angry and taken aback by his incredible arrogance! I had heard that he had added the word “alone” just never heard his defiant proclamation concerning it.

 

[patrick457]

Okay…so we have some folks who say Luther did not edit some books out and seriously call into the canonicity of some other commonly accepted books of the Bible.

I don’t care very much if he did or not because his expressed attitude would be the reason to reject him as a teacher.

Let’s look at some things he said about Bible books aside from the DCs, (since we already know that he hated the DCs because they support some Catholic teachings that he chose to reject.
Oh and…horror of horrors these are taken from an extremely anti-Catholic site. They proceed to outright condemn Luther and question his salvation! The Truth About Martin Luther

So…did he remove books? Not sure. Did he seem to want to? Looks like it.

To be honest I’ve stopped expecting to find anything of quality from most anti-Catholic sites. (No, make that all anti-Catholic sites.) Now if someone could just provide all these quotes once more in their context…

 

[Pwrlftr]

I agree that there wasn’t “a” book containing the greek translations of the Hebrew Torah. The translation was compiled using scrolls and not chapters and verse or even page numbers. However, I disagree, respectfully, with the premise that the Greek translation didn’t exist prior to the 4th century. The Talmud perpetuates the story of the Letter of Aristeas:
However, I will concede that I did not witness the event myself and I understand that for some, believing means seeing (I am not suggesting this in your case).

There was certainly a Greek translation or translations prior to the 4th century. The problem arises when we (Catholics) want to make more of this than the data allows.

For example, we do not know precisely what books were in the LXX or how many variations of the LXX there were in the 1st century.

What we do know is that the early councils all included the dc’s as canonical scripture. I don’t think Trent or the other councils that listed the OT canon even mention the LXX but I may be wrong on that.

 

[patrick457]

There was certainly a Greek translation or translations prior to the 4th century. The problem arises when we (Catholics) want to make more of this than the data allows.

For example, we do not know precisely what books were in the LXX or how many variations of the LXX there were in the 1st century.

What we do know is that the early councils all included the dc’s as canonical scripture. I don’t think Trent or the other councils that listed the OT canon even mention the LXX but I may be wrong on that.

Not exactly related, but different textual variants of the Septuagint text do exist. (No, it’s not limited to the New Testament.) And, the common text of the Septuagint used by Greek-speaking Christians even today most likely isn’t the original but one of the later (Christian) revisions.

 

[Church_Militant]

Not to mention that in the 1950s they discovered Hebrew portions of the DCs in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which actually puts paid to Jerome’s misgivings about them not being available to him in Hebrew at the time he translated the Vulgate, which is often an n-C objection.

 

[JillianRose]

Just little old me speaking friends. I think it was common knowledge that Luther wanted to “can” some books. I found that information in a regular Encyclopedia.