Luther throwing out 7 books from the Bible

doulos_tou_kuriou

Located at the intersection of Forde and Giertz
Apr 26, 2006
1,846
69
MinneSO-TA. That's how they say it here, right?
✟17,424.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I would note that even the council of trent did not accept the entire apocrypha. So one should begin to wonder right there how to determine the authoritative nature of these books or how one determines authority among them. It should also be noted that it was not Luther who coined the phrase deuterocanonical, so again, stop trying to blame us.

"In 1546 the Council of Trent finally resolved the issue by accepting the Apocrypha as canonical albeit with the exclusion of six books. In 1566, Roman Catholic theologian Sixtus of Siena introduced the term deuterocanonical, i.e., of secondary canonicity, to describe the Apocrypha; this term has been widely accepted in church and acedemic literature."
-Pocket Dictionary of Church History p.15
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Those 7 books were a part of the Septuagint OT which was used by the apostles and the early Church.

There are several places in the NT where OT Scripture is quoted. Not one of them is from the Apochrypha.

I's also be interested in your reasoning for the RCC to dismiss the number of other books which appear in the Septuagint, such as III and IV Maccabees, III and IV Esdras, et. al.
 
Upvote 0

doulos_tou_kuriou

Located at the intersection of Forde and Giertz
Apr 26, 2006
1,846
69
MinneSO-TA. That's how they say it here, right?
✟17,424.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
There are several places in the NT where OT Scripture is quoted. Not one of them is from the Apochrypha.

I's also be interested in your reasoning for the RCC to dismiss the number of other books which appear in the Septuagint, such as III and IV Maccabees, III and IV Esdras, et. al.

Isn't Jude 14 a quote/reference?
 
Upvote 0

Zecryphon

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2006
8,987
2,005
51
Phoenix, Arizona
✟19,186.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Luther's excuse for throwing out 7 books from the Old Testament was that there were no known ancient manuscripts for them in Hebrew. However, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revealed that there were ancient manuscripts of those books in Hebrew. So, why haven't those 7 books been returned back to Protestant Bibles knowing that Luther's reason for throwing them out was a decision based on a mistake? Are people going to just look for new excuses to keep them out because it's inconvenient to admit to Luther making a mistake?

I'm so sick of hearing this, I'm also sick of non-Lutherans coming in here and making wild accusations based upon ZERO research into the truth of the matter. Luther didn't throw them out of the Bible. If you ever got a chance to look at Luther's original translation of the Scriptures into German you would see that he did include these 7 books, but put them in between the Old and New Testaments, as he did not consider these books to be Scripture, but did consider them important to read. If you're really looking to point the finger at someone for taking these books out, give that finger to a Protestant like King James or Tyndale. Luther didn't do it.
 
Upvote 0

Zecryphon

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2006
8,987
2,005
51
Phoenix, Arizona
✟19,186.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If Luther would not have moved those 7 books to the back of his Bible other Protestants would not have later taken it a step further to remove them completely. That's why I place the bulk of the responsibility on Luther. It's the classic slippery slope. And the canon of the Bible in the Church from the East to the West had always included those 7 books before they were moved by Luther and removed completely later in Protestant Bibles. Trent was in reaction to Luther's actions against those books, and Trent only reaffirmed what every other Church council had before it concerning what should be the canon of scripture.


Do you even know what you're talking about? Because in your first post you said Luther took out these 7 books, now you say he put them in the back of his translation? Which is it?
 
Upvote 0

Zecryphon

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2006
8,987
2,005
51
Phoenix, Arizona
✟19,186.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Quilty - we seem to be overrun with people coming in here of late and blaming Lutherans/Luther for things that they/he did not do....is this the time of year for that? honestly, i think that DaRev can tell them til he's blue in the face about what is what with this subject, and others can post links proving them wrong, but they won't read the information - they believe they are completely right and we are completely wrong....

Yeah, I'm gettin' sick of coming to my own forum and reading such unprovoked attacks. We don't go into their forums and attack them like this, so why all the hostility? It's actually more peaceful in GT than it is in here at times. If these people ever tell us we're wrong, that's a forum violation and they're gettin' turned in. Consider this fair warning, trolls.
 
Upvote 0

doulos_tou_kuriou

Located at the intersection of Forde and Giertz
Apr 26, 2006
1,846
69
MinneSO-TA. That's how they say it here, right?
✟17,424.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I thought that was a reference to I Enoch.... which is canon for the Ethiopian Orthodox only.

Therein again lies the problem with the Apocrypha, there seems to be no clear consensus on what from it is scripture and what is not. Some communities accept these books from it, others accept those books, so on and so forth.
 
Upvote 0

BigNorsk

Contributor
Nov 23, 2004
6,736
815
65
✟18,457.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Luther's excuse for throwing out 7 books from the Old Testament was that there were no known ancient manuscripts for them in Hebrew. However, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revealed that there were ancient manuscripts of those books in Hebrew. So, why haven't those 7 books been returned back to Protestant Bibles knowing that Luther's reason for throwing them out was a decision based on a mistake? Are people going to just look for new excuses to keep them out because it's inconvenient to admit to Luther making a mistake?

Luther simply followed practices of his reference works.

For instance, one of the Latin translations he used had them in a separate section, the other one clearly labeled them as nonscripture.

The glossa Ordinaria he used had them clearly labeled as nonscripture.

The Vulgate talked of them as apocryphal books.

That gives you a taste.

See the major problem I have is that your entire idea is based off the rewritten history that is used to attack Luther.

The list of resources Luther used were the best of his time, put out by the most learned of his time.

They all agree with Luther's treatment of the books.

Yet Catholics minimize them in passing like they are an aberation.

Luther was so mainstream with them did you notice not one of the many who attacked him in his lifetime used his treatment of them as something to attack him over?

It wasn't until Trent that they appeared to be treated different.

Even there it's open to dispute just how differently they were treated. It's been taken as the same thing to say they are a part of the canon and they are authoritative. However, Jedin says in his history of the Council of Trent their authority was not decided.

If you simply look at their treatment even by Catholics it's easy to see they are still treated differently than the authoritative books. Since the authority hasn't been decided in Council one would have to argue it's an open question in Catholicism.

In any case, don't get your history from the critics of Luther, they had a tendency to just make up things or be so biased they misunderstood.

Like when the fellow said Luther had his insight into the just shall live by faith while sitting on the toilet. This amazed people for years until someone pointed out that being down in the crapper was an idiom in German for feeling down and out or depressed. We still use it in English today in slightly different forms.
 
Upvote 0

LutheranChick

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2007
1,405
141
63
Iowa
✟9,888.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yeah, I'm gettin' sick of coming to my own forum and reading such unprovoked attacks. We don't go into their forums and attack them like this, so why all the hostility? It's actually more peaceful in GT than it is in here at times. If these people ever tell us we're wrong, that's a forum violation and they're gettin' turned in. Consider this fair warning, trolls.

Aww don't worry about it. They hate us because we're right. :D:D:D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If I were to try to correct some of the incorrect history being given out in this thread, would I be tossed out since I'm not Lutheran? Bear in mind, I would not post something anti-Luther, but it would not necessarily be the version of history as told by many Lutherans and/or the version told by many Catholics.
 
Upvote 0

seajoy

Senior Veteran
Jul 5, 2006
8,092
631
michigan
✟19,053.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
If I were to try to correct some of the incorrect history being given out in this thread, would I be tossed out since I'm not Lutheran? Bear in mind, I would not post something anti-Luther, but it would not necessarily be the version of history as told by many Lutherans and/or the version told by many Catholics.

Ask a mod - we can't give out advice. :)
 
Upvote 0

AngCath

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,097
144
40
✟12,588.00
Faith
Anglican
If I were to try to correct some of the incorrect history being given out in this thread, would I be tossed out since I'm not Lutheran? Bear in mind, I would not post something anti-Luther, but it would not necessarily be the version of history as told by many Lutherans and/or the version told by many Catholics.

You certainly ought to be able to, but whether the many eyes watching will allow you to is another matter...
 
Upvote 0

doulos_tou_kuriou

Located at the intersection of Forde and Giertz
Apr 26, 2006
1,846
69
MinneSO-TA. That's how they say it here, right?
✟17,424.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
If I were to try to correct some of the incorrect history being given out in this thread, would I be tossed out since I'm not Lutheran? Bear in mind, I would not post something anti-Luther, but it would not necessarily be the version of history as told by many Lutherans and/or the version told by many Catholics.

I would encourage you not to debate or to directly "call out" what you believe to be "incorrect". If you come in and state "such and such happened on such and such date" to make your point not to "oppose" I think that would fall well enough within guidelines. But keep in mind members would be able to respond and you could not necessarily debate their response/analysis per forum rules.

Personally I don't mind debate, but I realize that some do and per the guidelines they have the right to make that call.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In the history of Western Christianity there has been a gradual process of "throwing out" books from the Bible, though no one specifically set out to throw them out, per se.

When Jerome sought to render his Old Testament into Latin and abondoned what had been the Church tradition, established during the first four centuries of Christianity, he translated from the Hebrew of the Jews, rather than the Greek of the Church.

There is valid debate as to whether Jerome thought to denigrate the Greek O.T. as a valid text for the O.T of the Church. Despite whatever motives he had, the effect has been in the West to hold up the Masoretic text of the O.T. as the model text of the O.T.

Modern scholarship, especially Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship, I think has shown with reasonable certainty that the Greek text of the O.T. is at least as old as the precursor to our current Masoretic text (Hebrew O.T. text).

Jerome was the first to place Greek O.T. Scripture in an appendix when he removed the parts of Greek Esther not found in Hebrew Esther to the back of Esther. If that does not imply a lesser value, then I am mistaken.

By elevating the Hebrew text as "original" and therefore superior to the Greek O.T. Western Christians in general, have denigrated the Greek O.T.

Jerome did not bring all the books in the Greek O.T. forward. Those he did, he denigrated and or translated/paraphrased sloppily, imo. Luther's practice in moving the remaining Greek O.T. portions to an O.T. appendix was only the later step in a centuries-long Western practice.
 
Upvote 0

Studeclunker

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2006
2,325
162
People's Socialist Soviet Republic Of California
✟10,816.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
You have a very valid view point Suma. However, you miss a point about the 'Old Testament': It was the Jewish Bible. The Greek version was a translation of the Hebrew original. Ask any Jew (for whom this was THE Scriptures) and they will tell you the Hebrew version is the most reliable. In fact, the majority of Christians will tell you the same. This is not to denigrate the Greek version of the O.T. any more than to put it in it's place, as a translation. Hebrew was the original language of the Jewish Scriptures (still is). Therefore the Masoric version of the O.T. has the superior position. Any embelishments to the scriptures in the Greek version must be held as just that, an embellishment. Therefore, not including these in the current version of the scriptures is not cheating anyone of anything.

The Priestly and Rabbinical authorities who were in charge of copying the scriptures were careful in the extreme. They wouldn't even tolerate one tiny mistake in a scroll. If there was such, it was destroyed and the scribe had to start over. Hence, there is an astonishing accuracy to the modern Scriptures compared to the few surviving examples of Ancient relics.

The Scriptures as transcribed by Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles stand on their own quite well without additions from either Rabbis or Christian teachers.

Hence, when I hear about the Aprocrypha, Gospel of Thomas or any other book not accepted into Biblical Cannon, I'm not overly concerned. If one wishes to read these books they're readily available. As for myself, I'm quite busy with the accepted cannon, thanks.
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Luther's excuse for throwing out 7 books from the Old Testament was that there were no known ancient manuscripts for them in Hebrew. However, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revealed that there were ancient manuscripts of those books in Hebrew. So, why haven't those 7 books been returned back to Protestant Bibles knowing that Luther's reason for throwing them out was a decision based on a mistake? Are people going to just look for new excuses to keep them out because it's inconvenient to admit to Luther making a mistake?


The Jews in the Holy Land did not accept those books as canon with the same authority as the Hebrew canon. The books were more accepted in the Jewish diaspora because of the familiarity of the Greek language that they were written in. However, no Jewish authority has ever recognised them with the same level inspiration as the books of the Hebrew canon. They have always been considered useful though.

The Reformation churches merely re-affirmed the original, traditional position regarding the OT canon of God's people.
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You have a very valid view point Suma. However, you miss a point about the 'Old Testament': It was the Jewish Bible. The Greek version was a translation of the Hebrew original. Ask any Jew (for whom this was THE Scriptures) and they will tell you the Hebrew version is the most reliable. In fact, the majority of Christians will tell you the same. This is not to denigrate the Greek version of the O.T. any more than to put it in it's place, as a translation. Hebrew was the original language of the Jewish Scriptures (still is). Therefore the Masoric version of the O.T. has the superior position. Any embelishments to the scriptures in the Greek version must be held as just that, an embellishment. Therefore, not including these in the current version of the scriptures is not cheating anyone of anything.

The Priestly and Rabbinical authorities who were in charge of copying the scriptures were careful in the extreme. They wouldn't even tolerate one tiny mistake in a scroll. If there was such, it was destroyed and the scribe had to start over. Hence, there is an astonishing accuracy to the modern Scriptures compared to the few surviving examples of Ancient relics.

The Scriptures as transcribed by Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles stand on their own quite well without additions from either Rabbis or Christian teachers.

Hence, when I hear about the Aprocrypha, Gospel of Thomas or any other book not accepted into Biblical Cannon, I'm not overly concerned. If one wishes to read these books they're readily available. As for myself, I'm quite busy with the accepted cannon, thanks.
That is exacltly how I taught it for decades and for sure it is the standard postition for most Protestants, not just Lutherans.

It is helpful however to realize that the complete Hebrew text we have today is itself somewhat a translation. Ulike the New Testament which was finalized quickly by men who were all contemporaries and knew one another, the Old Testament was passed through many hands and copies and centuries in different regions; even Hebrew needed updating over that space of time. It would be simple if all this stayed regional, but there was a migration of text traditions both to and from Israel, Alexandria, Babylon and Aksum (Ethiopia).

Here is the clincher: the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest existing copies of Hebrew Old Testament texts, often follow the reading of the text as we have it preserved in the Septuagint. And the Apostles in the New Testament, more often than not, quoted from that text tradition.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Jews in the Holy Land did not accept those books as canon with the same authority as the Hebrew canon. The books were more accepted in the Jewish diaspora because of the familiarity of the Greek language that they were written in. However, no Jewish authority has ever recognised them with the same level inspiration as the books of the Hebrew canon. They have always been considered useful though.<snip>
That is both true and untrue.

1st century Judasim both within and without Israel was not monolithic.

There were Jews who rejected all books except for the five ascribed to Moses. There were Jews who accepted a narrower list of Scripture books and those with a broader list.

The Jews of a later date, a generation after the Ascension of Christ, (who should be irrelevant to this discussion) attempted to seal the canon as what we now have in the Hebrew Scriptures, but even that did not stick for all Jews.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0