How do we know that Luther made right decision in removing OT books from canon

godenver1 said:

What if the reformers made a grave error in changing what was the accepted Christian scriptures during their reformations?

Imagine if a "reformer" did that today, and, for example, removed the book of Genesis or the minor prophets from the Bible, or maybe they included the Gospel of Thomas. We'd label them all sorts of things and ignore them and their theology. How do we know that Luther/reformers made the right decisions?

Click to expand...

People reject scriptures all the time when they clash with their particular beliefs : There is nothing new here .

godenver1 said:

Imagine if a "reformer" did that today

Click to expand...

I find this fascinating.
What makes anyone believe that after 1500 years the Church Needed "reforming" but after 2000 years it doesn't?

I believe the next great reformation will be one of Eschatology. The Church has never, not even once, established a monolithic, creed level stance on the scriptural eschaton.

I believe ours is the final genereration before that reformation takes place, and the Church will soon unite to extinguish the heresy of Premillennial Dispensationalism once and for all.

I beleive it will only take one more generation of failed dispensational predictions before the scales are tipped back to reality.

But I digress....
now back to the thread topic...

godenver1 said:

Maybe I could reframe the question. Catholic Answers writes this:

"During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history."

1. Is the above statement true or false, and why?
2. Is the above acceptance of the deuterocanon the correct one, or is it correct to acknowledge the apocrypha as useful, but ultimately lesser than "Scripture"?

Source: The Old Testament Canon | Catholic Answers

Click to expand...

Its a false statement.

The reason certain books were not considered as God-breathed (canonical) is because the valid line of prophets had ceased about Artaxerxes time. Josephus who overlapped the times of the apostles the beginning of Church history wrote this.

"8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them."
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/apion-1.htm

Why anyone would think that Christ and the apostles would add to the OT canon is beyond me.

To be clear, however, what some looked for per Malachi, etc about the forerunner became fulfilled as the last prophet rose up (John the Baptist). From then, we have the NT.

Melito circa CE 170 made a list that's the same as the canon today sans Esther. He wrote this quoted by Eusebius.

"14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, [also known as] Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras [Ezra/Nehemiah, maybe Esther]. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito."
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

parousia70 said:

I believe the next great reformation will be one of Eschatology. The Church has never, not even once, established a monolithic, creed level stance on the scriptural eschaton.

I believe ours is the final genereration before that reformation takes place, and the Church will soon unite to extinguish the heresy of Premillennial Dispensationalism once and for all.

I beleive it will only take one more generation of failed dispensational predictions before the scales mistakeare tipped back to reality.

But I digress....
now back to the thread topic...

Click to expand...

Don’t mistake today’s organized religion as Christ’s true church : Christ is in total charge of his true spiritual church : his true church is most certainly not in need of reform !

John tower said:

Don’t mistake today’s organized religion as Christ’s true church : Christ is in total charge of his true spiritual church : his true church is most certainly not in need of reform !

Click to expand...

Christ and the Apostles Instituted Organized Religion.

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Standing Up said:

The reason certain books were not considered as God-breathed (canonical) is because the valid line of prophets had ceased about Artaxerxes time. Josephus who overlapped the times of the apostles the beginning of Church history wrote this.

Click to expand...

But this is the Rabbinic Jewish belief, unto this day - that public Divine revelation (i.e. the writing of Scripture) had ceased by the time of Artaxerxes. The Christian belief is that public Divine revelation ceased with the death of John the Apostle. These two beliefs are originally contradictory.

I know you are probably about the belief that from Artaxerxes' time, there was a 400 year "age of silence" were public Divine revelation had ceased, until the time of John the Baptist, where Scripture could be written again, until the death of the Apostle John. But it still seems a little strange to hold that the canon was sealed, then reopened 400 years later, then sealed again within that generation. Not impossible, though.

Standing Up said:

Why anyone would think that Christ and the apostles would add to the OT canon is beyond me.

Click to expand...

But they didn't think about the canon as "OT canon". Dividing Scripture into OT and NT developed later. So when the Gospel writers wrote sacred history, they themselves were adding to the OT canon. So the early Christians didn't seem to think that the canon was sealed in the 400s BC. Of course, this doesn't prove that the Deuterocanonical books are inspired, per se, but it shows that the early Christians obviously didn't hold to this Jewish belief.

Standing Up said:

Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, [also known as] Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras [Ezra/Nehemiah, maybe Esther].

Click to expand...

The brackets are not in the original texts, so it could be also understood as "... the Proverbs of Solomon, and Wisdom also [by Solomon] ...". So according to some interpretations, Melito's canon also includes the Book of Wisdom (also known as the Wisdom of Solomon). It is a little ambiguous.

godenver1 said:

What if the reformers made a grave error in changing what was the accepted Christian scriptures during their reformations?

Imagine if a "reformer" did that today, and, for example, removed the book of Genesis or the minor prophets from the Bible, or maybe they included the Gospel of Thomas. We'd label them all sorts of things and ignore them and their theology. How do we know that Luther/reformers made the right decisions?

Click to expand...

Not being a Lutheran, I had to do some quick research about Martin Luther and the Canon, but now I would like to post a second response to your thread.

Martin Luther had his own opinion what the Canon should be, but that doesn't have a major effect on the Protestant Canon, does it? My understanding is that the books of the Apocrypha are not considered Canonical by anybody. However the Catholics think they are worth including in the Bible, and the Protestants don't. Anybody can buy a copy of the Apocrypha if they wish.

"Canonical" has historically meant two things: 1) The first and primary meaning is that a book is used in the Church's services and incorporated into her cycle of public readings; 2) that a book is sound and is good to be read privately.

Not all books that are in "the 66" were always considered as fit to be read publicly in the Church's cycle of readings. Esther, for example, has never been part of the Eastern lectionary (it is never read from publicly) in the church, yet we consider it to be "scripture" just like the rest. The same goes with Revelation, for that matter.

dreadnought said:

Not being a Lutheran, I had to do some quick research about Martin Luther and the Canon, but now I would like to post a second response to your thread.

Martin Luther had his own opinion what the Canon should be, but that doesn't have a major effect on the Protestant Canon, does it? My understanding is that the books of the Apocrypha are not considered Canonical by anybody. However the Catholics think they are worth including in the Bible, and the Protestants don't. Anybody can buy a copy of the Apocrypha if they wish.

Click to expand...

Knee V said:

"Canonical" has historically meant two things: 1) The first and primary meaning is that a book is used in the Church's services and incorporated into her cycle of public readings; 2) that a book is sound and is good to be read privately.

Not all books that are in "the 66" were always considered as fit to be read publicly in the Church's cycle of readings. Esther, for example, has never been part of the Eastern lectionary (it is never read from publicly) in the church, yet we consider it to be "scripture" just like the rest. The same goes with Revelation, for that matter.

Click to expand...

My experience is that we have 66 books, all of which are as good as the next. We are mostly Protestant and Catholic in this part of the world, so I don't know much about the Orthodox Church.

dreadnought said:

My experience is that we have 66 books, all of which are as good as the next. We are mostly Protestant and Catholic in this part of the world, so I don't know much about the Orthodox Church.

Click to expand...

But the Catholics agree more with the Orthodox on this issue, than with the Protestants. "The 66" are all well and good, of course. But as I have shown, the idea of 39 Old Testament books is a very Protestant concept, appearing first in the 1500's. Until the 1500's, all Old Testaments in all Christian Bibles had (at least) 46 books, which were all treated as inspired and canonical Scripture.

Mark_Sam said:

But the Catholics agree more with the Orthodox on this issue, than with the Protestants. "The 66" are all well and good, of course. But as I have shown, the idea of 39 Old Testament books is a very Protestant concept, appearing first in the 1500's. Until the 1500's, all Old Testaments in all Christian Bibles had (at least) 46 books, which were all treated as inspired and canonical Scripture.

Click to expand...

The Bible is a pretty long book, even without the Apocrypha.

Without a uniform consensus the question will be debated. For all practical purposes, I usually tend toward the "good and useful" way of reading the Deuterocanonicals. But it's hard to pretend that the Canon is closed without a truly ecumenical council to seal the deal as it were. As it stands different groups hold to differing opinions, and being in schism with one another means that we aren't exactly going to be rushing to all agree on something like this any time soon--which is also why a truly ecumenical council that is agreed upon isn't going to happen any time soon either. For one, from Rome's perspective there already is an ecumenical council that has fully addressed this (Trent), from most Protestant perspectives their church's confessional texts and statements of faith are sufficient to consider the matter already decided anyway, with a lot of retroactive arguments to defend the position.

I have a tendency to challenge both sides of the debate, because I think both sides overstate their case.

And I think the reasonable conclusion to reach is that the matter isn't settled at all, and the question of the canonical status of the Deuterocanonicals continues to remain, at least technically speaking, open.

-CryptoLutheran

godenver1 said:

What if the reformers made a grave error in changing what was the accepted Christian scriptures during their reformations?

Click to expand...

It WAS a grave error. Without having any authority to do so, the Protestant Refomers removed books that had been recognised as canonical since the Council of Hippo in the 4th Century. Even St. Jerome ended up agreeing that they were part of the canon of Sacred Scripture, and every list of the canon since then included them until Luther came along with his wild heresies.

godenver1 said:

What if the reformers made a grave error in changing what was the accepted Christian scriptures during their reformations?

Imagine if a "reformer" did that today, and, for example, removed the book of Genesis or the minor prophets from the Bible, or maybe they included the Gospel of Thomas. We'd label them all sorts of things and ignore them and their theology. How do we know that Luther/reformers made the right decisions?

Click to expand...

Luther did not remove the Old Testament.

And the Hebrew Bible is unchanged as is the New Testament.

Only the Apocryphal Jewish books - that even the Jews rejected as not belonging to the canon as Josephus notes in the first century. So to this very day the Protestant OT and the Hebrew bible -- are the same text.

Even Jerome's Vulgate contained a preface to each apocryphal book noting that it did not belong in the Hebrew Bible at all. Nor was it a Christian text... ever.

Mark_Sam said:

But this is the Rabbinic Jewish belief, unto this day - that public Divine revelation (i.e. the writing of Scripture) had ceased by the time of Artaxerxes. The Christian belief is that public Divine revelation ceased with the death of John the Apostle. These two beliefs are originally contradictory.

I know you are probably about the belief that from Artaxerxes' time, there was a 400 year "age of silence" were public Divine revelation had ceased, until the time of John the Baptist, where Scripture could be written again, until the death of the Apostle John. But it still seems a little strange to hold that the canon was sealed, then reopened 400 years later, then sealed again within that generation. Not impossible, though.


But they didn't think about the canon as "OT canon". Dividing Scripture into OT and NT developed later. So when the Gospel writers wrote sacred history, they themselves were adding to the OT canon. So the early Christians didn't seem to think that the canon was sealed in the 400s BC. Of course, this doesn't prove that the Deuterocanonical books are inspired, per se, but it shows that the early Christians obviously didn't hold to this Jewish belief.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting distinction that could be better termed prophecy (OT) and fulfilled prophecy (NT). But then that is what they thought per Josephus and 1 Macc says it as well. It excludes itself on that same ground.

So no, the apostolic era from the first and last apostles to die (James-John sons of thunder) weren't adding more prophecy of forerunner and Messiah, but fulfillment.

The brackets are not in the original texts, so it could be also understood as "... the Proverbs of Solomon, and Wisdom also [by Solomon] ...". So according to some interpretations, Melito's canon also includes the Book of Wisdom (also known as the Wisdom of Solomon). It is a little ambiguous.

Click to expand...

That is what [brackets] mean. There is some ambiguity depending on translation, but only if one ignores the whole context from Christ to Melito. And Melito does distinguish the OT which presumably means a NT by circa CE 170.

PS. The point is the Reformers didn't remove any part of canon (God-breathed scripture). And the RC bible didn't exist from the beginning at Pentecost CE 30.

parousia70 said:

What makes anyone believe that after 1500 years the Church Needed "reforming" but after 2000 years it doesn't?

Click to expand...

That's why Protestants have the slogan Semper Reformanda.

godenver1 said:

What if the reformers made a grave error in changing what was the accepted Christian scriptures during their reformations?

Imagine if a "reformer" did that today, and, for example, removed the book of Genesis or the minor prophets from the Bible, or maybe they included the Gospel of Thomas. We'd label them all sorts of things and ignore them and their theology. How do we know that Luther/reformers made the right decisions?

Click to expand...

The bigger question is why could Luther not accept the book of James? He actively talked about how much he hated it, calling it a "strawing epistle". I assume it was based on the call to works present within it. Luther seemed to have ego issues and often in my opinion put his own opinions above that of the established theology, and kind of started the whole trend of believing whatever you want outside the church councils.

☦Marius☦ said:

The bigger question is why could Luther not accept the book of James?

Click to expand...

He revisited debates from the early church regarding its authenticity. But he included it in his Bible.