Martin Luther on the Apocrypha

[Ignatius the Hermit]

Out of curiosity, what were Martin Luther's views on the Apocrypha?

 

[IowaLutheran]

Luther chose to place in the Apocrypha, an inter-testamental section of his bible, those portions of the Old Testament found in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. These were included in his earliest translation, but were later set aside as "good to read" but not as the inspired Word of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

I see. So as Luther continued to study the original languages, he was able to determine their inspiration then.

 

[DaRev]

I see. So as Luther continued to study the original languages, he was able to determine their inspiration then.

Rather, their lack thereof.

 

[ThePilgrim]

Rather, their lack thereof.

I thought that, unlike the Reformed, the Lutheran Confessions nowhere take a stand on the inspiration of the Apocrypha? When I was Lutheran, I knew different pastors with different opinions on it.

Is that wrong? Does the Book of Concord, or any official Lutheran document take a stand on the inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books?

In Christ,
John

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

Well said Pastor, that's what I meant. The reason I'm inquiring about this is because I've been reading Sirach, and to be fully honest, I really like it. Indeed, with no disrespect towards the word of the Lord, I like it better than Proverbs.

 

[DaRev]

Well said Pastor, that's what I meant. The reason I'm inquiring about this is because I've been reading Sirach, and to be fully honest, I really like it. Indeed, with no disrespect towards the Word of the Lord, I like it better than Proverbs.

Just so you know that it's not the word of God. I'm curious as to why you would like a secular writing "better than" the inspired word of God, though.

 

[IowaLutheran]

I thought that, unlike the Reformed, the Lutheran Confessions nowhere take a stand on the inspiration of the Apocrypha? When I was Lutheran, I knew different pastors with different opinions on it.

Is that wrong? Does the Book of Concord, or any official Lutheran document take a stand on the inspiration of the Deuterocanonical Books?

In Christ,
John

You won't find a list of the canon in the Book of Concord.

 

[ThePilgrim]

Just so you know that it's not the word of God. I'm curious as to why you would like a secular writing "better than" the inspired word of God, though.

Perhaps he considers Sirach to be part of the inspired word of God?

 

[DaRev]

Perhaps he considers Sirach to be part of the inspired word of God?

Then he would need to be corrected in his error.

 

[ThePilgrim]

Then he would need to be corrected in his error.

But I thought Lutherans had no official position on the Deuterocanon, no?

 

[AngelusSax]

Why were Apocryphal writings labeled as "non canon" by some, and canon by others? Is it true they were considered canon first, and then later removed, or were they always non-canon and then added in for some denominations (like, I think, Anglican and Roman Catholic, if my friends in those denominations who hold them to be canon are truly representative of the denominational teachings)?

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

I simply enjoyed it more. Obviously it is much longer than Proverbs, and it seems to cover so much more. Plus, there are some passages which echo the NT.

 

[DaRev]

It is my understanding that there was much disagrement concerning the Deuterocanon or Apochryphal writings in the early Church. They were included with the LXX (along with several other non-canonical writings) but not with the Masoretic or other Hebrew texts. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew texts to Latin discounted them as being apochryphal, thus they had been included in the Latin texts, they had not been considered part of the OT canon until the Council of Trent which added them to the OT canon in the Roman Church.

 

[BigNorsk]

Well it's actually easier to understand than people seem to want to make it. Luther did not change anything, he simply followed the accepted teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning canon. There were the authoritative books of the Old and New Testament. And there were the nonauthoritative for doctrine but useful for reading books that we call Apocrypha. Some called them an Ecclesiatical canon, meaning they were read in the churches. And that reading continues really right up till today. Though it would be true that many do not. The daily lectionary of the Lutheran Book of Worship still used readings from the Apocrypha though it did give alternative Old Testament readings.

Cardinal Cajetan, an opponent of Luther actually makes a very useful statement in his Commentary on the Old Testament, dedicated to Pope Clement VII in 1532 just a couple years before Luther published his complete translation.

[SIZE=+1]

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 among 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 canonical. For the words as well as 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 clear through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage’ (Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. Taken from his comments on the final chapter of Esther. Cited by William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: University Press, 1849), p. 48).

So we understand that the use of the term scripture can mean a couple of different things, it can in the narrow sense mean authoritative for doctrine or in a wider sense as read in the churches. The church fathers in their lists often mention that the list they are giving is those that are to be read in the church. If we are looking to authority, there are many patristic quotes that they recognized the Jewish canon of 22 Old Testament books as authoritative.

There is really much more very strong evidence of what I say. Let us first turn to Michael Marlow the bible researcher who tells us the resources Martin Luther used to make his translation. It's actually a reprint of an article by Philip Schaff. http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html

The basis for Luther's version of the Old Testament was the Massoretic text as published by Gerson Ben Mosheh at Brescia in 1494. (24) He used also the Septuagint, the Vulgate of Jerome (25) (although he disliked him exceedingly on account of his monkery), the Latin translations of the Dominican Sanctes Pagnini of Lucca (1527), and of the Franciscan Sebastian Münster (1534), the "Glossa ordinaria" (a favorite exegetical vade-mecum of Walafried Strabo from the ninth century), and Nicolaus Lyra (d. 1340), the chief of mediaeval commentators, who, besides the Fathers, consulted also the Jewish rabbis. (26)

This list is very telling. For there is strong agreement among it on the canon. The Massoretic text would have only had the Jewish canon. The Septuagint had many books but no commentary. Jerome's Vulgate had the clear statement from Jerome in the introduction to Kings which books were and were not authoritative. Jerome used the term apocrypha for the others.

The earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the scholarly Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books. Still another Latin Bible, this one an addition of Jerome’s Vulgate published at Nuermberg by Johannes Petreius in 1527, presents the order of the books as in the Vulgate but specifies at the beginning of each Apocryphal book that it is not canonical. Furthermore, in his address to the Christian reader the editor lists the disputed books as ‘Libri Apocryphi, sive non Canonici, qui nusquam apud Hebraeos extant’ (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180).

So here we see the error in thinking Luther was an innovator in setting off the Apocrypha in a separate section, it had already been done, during the time he was working on his translation, in a Latin translation clearly done with the knowledge and approval of Rome.

The Glossa ordinaria, was the standard commentary on the bible used by all Roman Catholic centers of training theologians. It too was in agreement that the Apocryphal books were not authoritative scripture. It told of the common mistake of the unlearned of the day who thought they were but contrasted that with those who knew better. Each Apocryphal books started with the stern statement that the book was not scripture. Martin Luther had been given his copy by his Bishop.

So we see that every reference Luther had that testified to the position of the church were in complete agreement. And so his bible follows them, as we really do to this day.

There were other references that are in agreement with these too. The Complutensian polyglot, that Greek text superior to Erasmus', done first but published after with the approval of Rome by Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, states that the Apocryphal books are not canonical scripture but permitted to be read for edification. It was dedicated to and published with the authority of Pope Leo X.

Erasmus in at least two works was also in agreement with the view of the canon.

And so it is that the so called Protestant canon is actually the accepted canon of the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation.

Then along came Trent. The unlearned that the Glossa ordianaria warned about, they were there, the scholars of the church, absent. Even then, in one of the great underwhelming votes of history, they supposedly infallibally set the authoritative canon of scripture. 25 aye, 15 nay, 16 abstain. Something which the revisors of history say was a simple confirmation of what was previously done and well understood. Impossible to explain why less than a majority of the participants knew that, if it were but true.

And so you have the Lutheran view of canon. The authoritative books of the Old and New Testament and the useful for reading but not authoritative books of the Apocrypha.

The usage of scripture for the Apocryphal books even made it into the Book of Concord, which, while it pointed to the books of the Old and New Testament as the authorities, did, in one instance refer to an Apocryphal book as scripture.

albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees, 15, 14.​

Article XXI Apology​

I think that should make it pretty clear.​

Marv​

​

[/SIZE]

 

[DaRev]

Great post, Marv!!

 

[Qoheleth]

[SIZE=+1]The authoritative books of the Old and New Testament and the useful for reading but not authoritative books of the Apocrypha.[/SIZE]

Isnt it true though that the Lutheran Confessions do not either specifically or implicitly state that the Apocryphal books are devoid of any authority or inspiration? Neither do the Confessions debate a list of books (canon) and I believe leave the canon of Scripture open...yes?


Q

 

[DaRev]

Do they have to explicitly mention something that was already a known fact?

 

[Qoheleth]

Do they have to explicitly mention something that was already a known fact?

Well that opens a whole big can of worms on many doctrines of the church, not mentioned explicitly.


I suppose the question remains...

But I thought Lutherans had no official position on the Deuterocanon, no?

Q

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

I have to second DaRev, really, a great post Marv!