Luther, Apocrypha and James

[Tetzel]

I keep seeing papists claim that Luther wanted to remove James from the bible or that Luther did not translate the Apocrypha. Any good sites to refer them to?

[SPALATIN]

I keep seeing papists claim that Luther wanted to remove James from the bible or that Luther did not translate the Apocrypha. Any good sites to refer them to?
I'm not sure about websites. But I can say that Luther's early thinking on James being the "straw epistle" changed over time and later on he did have an evolved opinion on the epistle that was more favorable. As for the Apocrypha, he considered them worthy to be studied, but not inspired by God. He did not include them in his German bible that was translated from the Latin Vulgate, Greek and Hebrew texts available at that time.

Maybe some others here will be able to give you better web resources for what you are searching.

[OrthoCanuck]

I read that he thought about removing James among a few other books (ie. Hebrews,Revelation,and a fourth one), but decided against it. He just put them at the end of the NT. The books he was uncertain about in the NT were the same NT books that were disputed during the first few centuries of Christianity. As for the Apocrypha, I understood that he did in fact translate them. He did not accept them as full canon (like Jerome), but they were translated by him. I read these articles recently, so I'll do my best to track down these resources.

[OrthoCanuck]

Luther also briefly dicusses some of the OT canon in "Table Talk" including the apocrypha (Table Talk, xxiv). The passage is a bit long, so I won't post the whole thing here. Just google for Martin Luther's Table Talk and you can find the whole book online.

[Qoheleth]

What Luther did when he translated the Bible into German is that he put the "apocryhal" works into the German Bible but gathered them together in a special section between the Old and New Testaments. He also put in this superscription at the beginning of the "apocryphal" works, "Books that are not to be regarded as the equal of Holy Scripture but are nonetheless profitable and good to read."

Our own Lutheran Worship hymnal and The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH) contain a portion of "The Song of the Three Holy Children" (verses 35-65) which is also considered part of the "apocryphal" works. It is called "All You Works of the Lord (Benedicite, omnia opera)" It is hymn #9 in LW and is on page 120 in TLH. The "Three Holy Children" were Daniel's friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abendego and the song is believed to have been sung while they were in the fiery furnace.

Lutherans, like the Eastern Orthodox, do not have an official listing of books of the Bible. Only the Roman Catholics at the Council of Trent produced an "official listing" of the OT (46 books). Only the Reformed (American) Protestants arbitrarily produced an "official listing" of the OT (39 books). What we have in America is the American Protestant listing of the OT in the Bible. We as Lutherans could just as easily (and have) produce Bibles that put the "Apocryphal" in between the OT and the NT with Luther's superscription

Luther and the Canon
1. Luther had to work through the whole question of canonicity. Some German and Latin Bibles in the
Middle Ages included certain questioned or rejected books, and even apocrypha books.
2. Luther questioned the authority of James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. (The early Luther had
stronger statements than the older Luther.)
3. Luther’s main question was concerning apostolicity. He questioned what books should belong to the Bible; not was a Biblical book inspired.
4. Luther was wrong. But he rejected the books for the right reason.
5. Luther’s whole approach was one of only questioning, never rejecting. James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation are only questioned, they are never rejected.

VI. For us today the 27 books of the New Testament have won their place in the Canon. We accept these 27 books because they were written or approved by the Apostles.
Note that the 'apocrypha' were included in the German bibles for several hundred years. In fact almost all the Bibles printed in German by the Concordia Publishing House until the 1930's contained the Apocrypha; the Apocrypha was used in churches on Sunday mornings, studied by catechism children, and studied in the seminaries. When the church switched to English, CPH saved time and money by purchasing printing rights to American Bible editions, few of which contained the Apocrypha; indeed, American Protestants carried the anti-Apocryphal view which was common in England in the early 1800's.

[Tetzel]

What Luther did when he translated the Bible into German is that he put the "apocryhal" works into the German Bible but gathered them together in a special section between the Old and New Testaments. He also put in this superscription at the beginning of the "apocryphal" works, "Books that are not to be regarded as the equal of Holy Scripture but are nonetheless profitable and good to read."

Our own Lutheran Worship hymnal and The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH) contain a portion of "The Song of the Three Holy Children" (verses 35-65) which is also considered part of the "apocryphal" works. It is called "All You Works of the Lord (Benedicite, omnia opera)" It is hymn #9 in LW and is on page 120 in TLH. The "Three Holy Children" were Daniel's friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abendego and the song is believed to have been sung while they were in the fiery furnace.

Lutherans, like the Eastern Orthodox, do not have an official listing of books of the Bible. Only the Roman Catholics at the Council of Trent produced an "official listing" of the OT (46 books). Only the Reformed (American) Protestants arbitrarily produced an "official listing" of the OT (39 books). What we have in America is the American Protestant listing of the OT in the Bible. We as Lutherans could just as easily (and have) produce Bibles that put the "Apocryphal" in between the OT and the NT with Luther's superscription

Luther and the Canon
1. Luther had to work through the whole question of canonicity. Some German and Latin Bibles in the
Middle Ages included certain questioned or rejected books, and even apocrypha books.
2. Luther questioned the authority of James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. (The early Luther had
stronger statements than the older Luther.)
3. Luther’s main question was concerning apostolicity. He questioned what books should belong to the Bible; not was a Biblical book inspired.
4. Luther was wrong. But he rejected the books for the right reason.
5. Luther’s whole approach was one of only questioning, never rejecting. James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation are only questioned, they are never rejected.

VI. For us today the 27 books of the New Testament have won their place in the Canon. We accept these 27 books because they were written or approved by the Apostles.
Note that the 'apocrypha' were included in the German bibles for several hundred years. In fact almost all the Bibles printed in German by the Concordia Publishing House until the 1930's contained the Apocrypha; the Apocrypha was used in churches on Sunday mornings, studied by catechism children, and studied in the seminaries. When the church switched to English, CPH saved time and money by purchasing printing rights to American Bible editions, few of which contained the Apocrypha; indeed, American Protestants carried the anti-Apocryphal view which was common in England in the early 1800's.
This is a great post. The problem is that I need to be able to point to source and say, "such and such expert says this" Sources like newadvent.org shamelessly assert lies on this topic as authoritative truth

[Zoomer]

But Luther translated the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament; and when he had finished these, he found a number of books that were in the Latin and German Old Testaments left over. Luther in his edition called them "Apocrypha" and now proceeded to translate them from the Greek text, except one, Second Esdras, of which no Greek but only a Latin version could be found. As we have seen in an earlier chapter, when he finished his translation of the Bible in 1534, he put them in a group by themselves, after the Old Testament.
The above quote is from
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/gallery_of_the_apocrypha.htm

Then this shows some of the Apocrypha translated in German...
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/martin_luthers__apocrypha.htm

[filosofer]

Luther and the Canon
1. Luther had to work through the whole question of canonicity. Some German and Latin Bibles in the
Middle Ages included certain questioned or rejected books, and even apocrypha books.
2. Luther questioned the authority of James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. (The early Luther had
stronger statements than the older Luther.)
3. Luther’s main question was concerning apostolicity. He questioned what books should belong to the Bible; not was a Biblical book inspired.
4. Luther was wrong. But he rejected the books for the right reason.
5. Luther’s whole approach was one of only questioning, never rejecting. James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation are only questioned, they are never rejected.

Excellent post, Qoheleth. And one further point: Luther's questioning of the anit-legomena (the seven "spoken against" NT writings, i.e. James, Hebrews, etc.) was not his own personal vendetta or tyrannical imposition on the Reformation Church. He traced the early church's struggle with the very same issues regarding these writings. And he end up at the same spot as the early church fathers. He never did take the anti-legomena out of the NT. And he never felt he had the authority to do that.

[PurpleBunny]

Note that the 'apocrypha' were included in the German bibles for several hundred years. In fact almost all the Bibles printed in German by the Concordia Publishing House until the 1930's contained the Apocrypha;
I have one of these at home!

[Tertiumquid]

I keep seeing papists claim that Luther wanted to remove James from the bible or that Luther did not translate the Apocrypha. Any good sites to refer them to?Hi Tetzel,

I did a rather extensive study on Luther's view of James and his view on the Canon. See this link-

Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture (http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm)

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

I welcome any comments or criticism. You also said, "The problem is that I need to be able to point to source and say, "such and such expert says this" Sources like newadvent.org shamelessly assert lies on this topic as authoritative truth." As is my custom, I include extensive footnotes, pointing you to good primary sources.

Probably the best book on the subject is J.M. Reu's book, Luther and the Scriptures. Unfortunately, the book is very hard to find (I treasure my copy!). Other good books on Luther's view of the canon-

Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959).

Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966

Luther's Works volume 35 has much helpful information on his view of the canon.

Of special importance for both Lutheran and non-Lutherans is John Warwick Montgomery’s article “Lessons From Luther On The Inerrancy Of Holy Writ’s (http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar37.htm)” originally found in the Westminster Theological Journal Volume 36. Also, for a brief article on Luther and the canon see, Mark F. Bartling, “Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?” (http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/B/BartlingLuther/BartlingLuther.pdf)(Presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District, LaCrosse, WI, on April 12, 1983). I utilized all these sources when researching my paper. All are very helpful, and from respectable sources.

Anti-Luther Roman Catholics make all sorts of claims. Rarely do they accurately represent Luther's views on anything. For instance, on a Roman Catholic discussion board I recently read this totally inane description of Luther:

The truth is that Luther split Christendom into thousands of denominations, with wounds so severe that gangrene has set in; approved the bigamy of Phillip of Hesse and sent his co-conspirator Melanchthon as his witness of the event; said he could find no Scriptural basis for forbidding polygamy and did not oppose its practice; was a great sinner and encouraged others to sin; urged mankind to "sin and sin strongly"; taught that one could commit adultery or murder a thousand times a day and not lose his salvation; cut eleven books out of the Bible; invented such pernicious doctrines as Sola Scriptura and Sole Fide; was violently anti-Jewish and became the model for the Nazi's; and still he's a hero credited with restoring "biblical purity" to Christianity.Notice the above paragraph says Luther "cut eleven books out of the Bible." No he did not. It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “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.’”


Regards,
James Swan

[Qoheleth]

Very nice work James!

[Tertiumquid]

Very nice work James!
Well...i'm hoping you and I can be friends!:)

God Bless and thanks,
James

[Organist]

I was Googling a search for another topic, and a site came up that was very strong on "Luther Bashing" - and blaming Luther on the Nazi's, and Hitler's ideals, etc. Poor Martin Luther, and he's not even here on earth to defend himself! :(

This site went on to say the Ephesian Church in the N.T. didn't know how to baptize properly, etc., etc., that a person should only be baptized in Jesus's name, not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (as they said). Anyway, there was a lot of blathering on about nothing, so I left that site and continued with my search.

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Tetzel

This may help:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Peace to u,

Bill

[Qoheleth]

Well...i'm hoping you and I can be friends!:)
Im sure we will. BTW, are you Lutheran?

[Tertiumquid]

Im sure we will. BTW, are you Lutheran?
Since I have such a deep interest in Luther, i'm always thought to be a Lutheran. I am not. The church I am a member of is: http://www.pprbc.org/. My church is part of the United Reformed Churches in North America: http://www.iserv.net/~bethany/URC.htm. I am a seminary student, taking classes via Westminster Seminary (at a snails pace, I work full time, and no longer have youth on my side).

I enjoy studying Luther. I, like so many others, consider him my favorite author. I enjoy reading his sermons especially. Probably the book that most influenced me in my approach to Luther was Gerhard O. Forde's On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080284345X/qid=1104492522/sr=2-3/ref=pd_ka_b_2_3/102-6958045-7074512 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080284345X/qid=1104492522/sr=2-3/ref=pd_ka_b_2_3/102-6958045-7074512)). This book simply revolutionized the way I "do" theology, as well as give me an even greater respect for Luther.

My studies on Luther were challenged often by Roman Catholics, particularly on the CARM discussion boards. It was there some years back I began interacting with anti-Luther polemics from those committed to the Papacy.

Dr. Eric Svendsen (http://www.ntrmin.org/), who has written many books exposing the errors of Roman Catholicism, graciously has allowed me to put some of my Luther papers on his web site. These can be found here:

http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm.

I do not consider myself an expert on Luther. I do though enjoy the challenge of finding what Luther actually said and the context he said it in. I have heard it said that more books have been written about Martin Luther in the last 500 years than any other historical figure, with the exception being Jesus Christ. With such a wealth of material from a number of differing points of view, studying Luther is not a simple task. Luther left behind a vast amount of writings born in a complex historical time period. A researcher approaching Luther has an overwhelming task. He must be familiar with such things like 16th century culture, medieval theology, Roman Catholic doctrine, the history of Germany, and a host of other religious, sociological, philosophical, and political factors. For the 21st Century reader of a Luther biography, a certain amount of faith must be placed in the author who’s work one is reading. One must hope that the author has researched Luther as thoroughly as possible. One hopes that the author has given some effort to see past their inherent biases (all authors have a bias!). One must hope they have taken great strides to present Luther in his context, both theological and historical.

By and large, my Roman Catholic friends in cyber-space do Luther a deep injustice. They quote him out-of-context, or don't even have a clue as to the original context. Luther's views on the Canon is a great example. Rarely do they put forth an accurate picture of what Luther actually believed.

God Bless,
James Swan

[OrthoCanuck]

Dr. Eric Svendsen (http://www.ntrmin.org/), who has written many books exposing the errors of Roman Catholicism, graciously has allowed me to put some of my Luther papers on his web site.


I knew I recognized your real name. I've been reading a good number of articles on the ntrmin website, including some of yours. There are some very good articles on the site. I recommend it to others reading this thread.

[Qoheleth]

I do though enjoy the challenge of finding what Luther actually said and the context he said it in.
James, what has your studies revealed for you concerning Luther's beliefs on the Sacraments?

[Singing Bush]

Howdy all. I was wondering if any of you could provide some information on why exactly Luther was so hesitant about the deuterocanonical texts of the Old Testament? Wink, wink Tertiumquid. :) Thanks.

[BigNorsk]

Why did Martin Luther question those books, because he had to.

Martin Luther regected Catholic Traditions as the rule of Christian Life. He accepted the scriptures as the only Christian Rule.

He set out to translate the newly received Greek New Testament Eramus produced into German. He also translated the Old Testament and the Apochrypha. In order to do this, he had to rightfully determine which books were scriptural and which were not. He couldn't just accept Catholic Tradition. It's not really correct to say he only questioned some books, he really had to question all books, it is just that the evidence is so stronge in many cases, there was never any doubt at all. Other people of which he was well aware, had questioned the same books before him. He had a great responsibility, one which he did not undertake lightly.

In the end, he got it right. He did it so well when the King James Version was translated they followed Luther's decisions exactly even to the point of putting the Apochrypha between the Old and New Testaments, just as Luther had done.

To this day, English Protestant Bibles follow Luther's order, even with the vastly greater resources available to us today we find not that Luther was wrong, but that Luther was right.

Marv

[pastel]

I have read the book of James before. Now I must read it again, and look at it from this perspective. :sorry:

[Tertiumquid]

Howdy all. I was wondering if any of you could provide some information on why exactly Luther was so hesitant about the deuterocanonical texts of the Old Testament? Wink, wink Tertiumquid. :) Thanks.

Luther was a Doctor of Theology, and was familiar with canon issues, including the on-going debate as to the canonicity of particular books. There was definite debate still going on as to the status of the apocryphal books. The older tradition within the church was to not accept the apocrypha as canonical. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “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.’”

Even within the Roman Catholic Church, one find serious debate about these books at the Council of Trent. One finds scholars that felt the same way Luther did about the apocrypha. One of the key scholars at Trent was Cardinal Seripando. The Catholic historian Hubert Jedin explains,


“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentic!"; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

“For the last time (Seripando) expressed his doubts (to the Council of Trent) about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”

Similarly, in 1532, Cardinal Cajetan (a very important Catholic theologian) wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. Cajetan said,

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”


This type of information does not stop Catholic apologists in the least from attacking Luther. For instance, Catholic apologist James Akin says,

“Why would Martin Luther cut out (2 Maccabees) when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament (book of Hebrews)? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.).”

Akin completely neglects the aspect of Luther’s historical and critical reasoning. Had Akin simply checked LW 35:352-353, he could have read Luther’s most explicit statement for rejecting 2 Maccabees:

“This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second.  But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well.It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books.  It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14[:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.”


Regards,
James Swan

[Singing Bush]

Oops, read your post a few days ago but forgot to reply w/ a thanks. Gracias kind sir. Appreciate it.