More questions about Lutheran faith

[ninja]

Are Lutheran Ministers/Pastors allowed to marry?

Does the Lutheran version of the Bible include the books of the second canon (OT Apocrypha)?

If the OT Apocrypha is include how do Lutherans view these books?

If the OT Apocrypha is not include is there any official reason why they aren’t?

[I can eat 50 eggs]

1. yes

2. No

3. I believe Luther said they were edifying to read, but not to be place on the level of Canon (help here guys!)

[filosofer]

Does the Lutheran version of the Bible include the books of the second canon (OT Apocrypha)?

If the OT Apocrypha is include how do Lutherans view these books?

If the OT Apocrypha is not include is there any official reason why they aren’t?

The Lutheran Confessions have no article about the canon. That is, different than the Council of Trent, which specified the extent of the canon for the RCC in 1546-1564, and different than the Calvinist Confessions which also specified the extent of the canon, the Lutheran Confessions contain no "list of books in the canon". The Lutheran Confessions accept the historic Church's position on the canon. On the other hand, the Lutheran Confessions do refer to the OT Apocryphal writings, but as noted, hold them not on the same level as Scripture.

[theologia crucis]

Are Lutheran Ministers/Pastors allowed to marry?

Yes.

Does the Lutheran version of the Bible include the books of the second canon (OT Apocrypha)?

The 1534 Luther Bible (and all the subsequent variations thereof), do contain the Apocryphal books. (As a complete aside, Luther translated the Koran [sic] as well...)

If the OT Apocrypha is include how do Lutherans view these books?

Like Luther: "Apocrypha: these books are not held equal to the Scriptures but are useful and good to read.”

Luther, Martin. Vol. 35, Luther's Works, Vol. 35 : Word and Sacrament I. Edited by Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1960.

Why? The oldest lists of the Jewish Bible do not contain them. And Dr. Andrew Steinman has done a good job in his book "The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon" for the case that the Jewish "canon" of Jesus' day was quite likely the books held in the Temple in Jerusalem, and they had been in the same form since about 250 BC (I'm ROUGHLY paraphrasing). The book can be found at Concordia Publishing House.

From Luther:

"If one could prove from established and reliable histories that the events in Judith really happened, it would be a noble and fine book, and should properly be in the Bible. Yet it hardly squares with the historical accounts of the Holy Scriptures, especially Jeremiah and Ezra." LW 35:337

[Wisdom of Solomon] "For a long time this book has stood in the cross fire of controversy as to whether or not it should be included among the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, especially in view of the fact that the author suggests in chapter 9[:7] that throughout the book it is King Solomon speaking—he whose wisdom is also extolled in the Book of Kings [I Kings 4, 10].

The ancient church fathers, however, excluded it outright from the sacred Scriptures." LW 35:340

"What was said about the book of Judith may also be said about this book of Tobit. If the events really happened, then it is a fine and holy history. But if they are all made up, then it is indeed a very beautiful, wholesome, and useful fiction or drama by a gifted poet." LW 35:345

[Ecclisiasticus] "Its real name is otherwise Jesus Sirach, after its author as its own prologue and the Greek [50:27] indicate. This is how the books of Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, and all the prophets are named, after their authors. Yet the ancient fathers did not include this one among the books of sacred Scripture, but simply regarded it as the fine work of a wise man. And we shall let it go at that." LW 35:347

"Whoever the good Baruch may be, this book is very skimpy. It is hardly credible that the servant of St. Jeremiah, whose name is also Baruch (and to whom this letter is attributed), should not be richer and loftier in spirit than this Baruch. Furthermore, the book’s chronology does not agree with the [accepted] histories. Thus I very nearly let it go with the third and fourth books of Esdras, books which we did not wish to translate into German because they contain nothing that one could not find better in Aesop or in still slighter works. As to the Fourth Book of Esdras, St. Jerome says it contains vain fancies; nor did Lyra want to comment on it. Besides, it does not exist in Greek.

"Whoever is so inclined may and should translate them; only let him not include them among these [recognized] books. Baruch, however, we shall let run with the pack because he writes so vigorously against idolatry and sets forth the law of Moses. LW 35:349

"This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel. For the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy in that chapter, about the abomination and misfortune which was going to befall the people of Israel, is here described—namely, Antiochus Epiphanes—and in much the same way that Daniel [11:29–35] speaks of it: a little help and great persecution by the Gentiles and by false Jews, which is what took place at the time of the Maccabees. This is why the book is good for us Christians to read and to know." LW 35:350

"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." LW 35:352

"Here follow several pieces which we did not wish to translate [and include] in the prophet Daniel and in the book of Esther. We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel and Esther). And yet, to keep them from perishing, we have put them here in a kind of special little spice garden or flower bed since much that is good, especially the hymn of praise, Benedicite, is to be found in them.

But the texts of Susanna, and of Bel, Habakkuk, and the Dragon, seem like beautiful religious fictions, such as Judith and Tobit, for their names indicate as much. For example, Susanna means a rose, that is, a nice pious land and folk, or a group of poor people among the thorns; Daniel means a judge, and so on. Be the story as it may, it can all be easily interpreted in terms of the state, the home, or the devout company of the faithful." LW 35:353

If the OT Apocrypha is not include is there any official reason why they aren’t?

Again, they used to be in Luther's translations of the Bible, but aren't in modern English ones, due to modern publishers. Both the Lutheran Book of Worship (ELCA, 1978) and Lutheran Worship (LCMS, 1982) contain readings from the apocryphal books in the daily lectionaries (if memory serves).

And, after close observation of the historical records, the Jews seem to have had a canon set by 250 BC, the apocryphal books were never in the Jewish Bible, and the oldest Christian correspondence on the issue excludes them. They start being added at later dates (3rd-4th century)... (I apologize in advance for not getting all the terminology exactly right, I'm typing somewhat extemporaniously...)

[theologia crucis]

Hey eggs, is that encyclopedic enough, or do you want me to expound some more?!!

[pastel]

I know the 1611 version of the KJV Bible has the Apocrypha in it. This is because I own one, and it is certainly present. :)

Yeah, I know, probably off-topic...so sue me. :o