Apocrypha and Luther

[Ben_Hur]

Why exactly did Martin Luther pull the apocrypha from the Bible? It seems that based on some of the things Jesus and Paul said, they read those books and considered them scripture. It is also my understanding that the Jews pulled them from the OT because they wanted to not promote Christianity. So what was Luthers reasoning for pulling them. I hope it was something other than just prayer. Apparently, he orginally pulled James, Revelation and a couple of other NT books that were replaced after he died. This raises issues with his credibility.

 

[II Paradox II]

Why exactly did Martin Luther pull the apocrypha from the Bible? It seems that based on some of the things Jesus and Paul said, they read those books and considered them scripture. It is also my understanding that the Jews pulled them from the OT because they wanted to not promote Christianity. So what was Luthers reasoning for pulling them. I hope it was something other than just prayer. Apparently, he orginally pulled James, Revelation and a couple of other NT books that were replaced after he died. This raises issues with his credibility.

hmm... well, I'm not much a Luther expert, but if I were you I'd try to understand Luther in total, not by trying to dissect one or two actions or decisions of his. He was a complex man in a very complex time and as such very prone to misunderstanding. In light of that, I'd get one of the better biographies of him and learn that way. The best I have seen is "Luther, man between God and the Devil" by Heiko Oberman.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_4/002-9892260-3998411?v=glance&s=books

ken

 

[eldermike]

A few points:
The word apocrypha, applied to the subject books, I believe came from Jerome while compiling the first Latin bible. I think He use the Hebrew cannon (could be wrong) but included the books we now call the apocrypha, but named them such. Apocrypha can mean hidden, it can mean other things. The name sends a message that needs study, but choose your study because you will find disagreement. I believe Jerome used a preface that somewhat discouraged these books. I am almost positive that Trent included these books as scripture.
Second point. The first bibles in common language included these books and came from wyclif using the Latin version. ( to the best of my memory)
Third point. The apocrypha is not considered scripture by many denominations but it is read widely by Christians of all denominations. The fact that it's not in the 66 book bible has nothing to do with it's being read or not read by Christians. We just don't accpet them as scripture but for reasons beyond Martin Luther. I have them and I have read them.
Last point. Luther was not the first to have a problem with these books.
All this IMHO
Eldermike

 

[A. believer]

Why exactly did Martin Luther pull the apocrypha from the Bible? It seems that based on some of the things Jesus and Paul said, they read those books and considered them scripture. It is also my understanding that the Jews pulled them from the OT because they wanted to not promote Christianity. So what was Luthers reasoning for pulling them. I hope it was something other than just prayer. Apparently, he orginally pulled James, Revelation and a couple of other NT books that were replaced after he died. This raises issues with his credibility.

I recommend you read this article for a fuller understanding of the Old Testament canon of the New Testament church. It's well-researched and well worth the read. The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: A Survey of the History of the Apocrypha From the Jewish Age to the Reformation

In particular, I recommend you pay attention to the section on Jamnia from Part I of this article, since this so-called council is one of the key arguments used by those who want to include the apocrypha as inspired Scripture.

 

[BAChristian]

Ben_Hur, while I think it's wise to continue to educate yourself on religion, in general, may I recommend that you also educate yourself on the authors of these articles.

Often, you may find literature written by authors who base their writings on misleading and often, severely skewed information.

For example, Jack Chick tracts come to mind.

Anyway, just a friendly reminder. I'm sure you know how to do your homework.

And if you feel led to, please feel free to ask these questions in IDD...or even in OBOB.

There are quite a few people on here that I'm sure would love to point you to some un-biased, neutral literature...(although it is hard to find something that is totally un-biased...I will admit.)

God bless...may you continue to seek his guidance.

 

[kimber1]

Luther was not the first to have a problem with these books.

not questioning you in the least i'm genuinely curious. who was?

 

[eldermike]

not questioning you in the least i'm genuinely curious. who was?

I mentioned Jerome already. However, the discussion of these books began about 400 AD and the issue was settled in the late 16 century. Not that there was a 1700 year non-stop discussion but there was plenty of disagreement. The title of this thread as many others have gives undo credit to Luther for begining things and issues when in fact He did not do anyting of the sort.

And, unbaised opinion does not exist. That includes me, you, and all others.

Eldermike

 

[Rechtgläubig]

Apparently, he orginally pulled James, Revelation and a couple of other NT books that were replaced after he died. This raises issues with his credibility.

He never removed James or Revelation. He questioned the canonicity of Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation, but never removed the books from his bible translations.






Maybe the question should be, "why were these books added?"

"Why, then did Rome take so new and daring a position (as to declare the Apocrypha canonical)? Because confronted by the Reformers, she lacked arguments to justify her unscriptural deviations. She declared that the Apocryphal books supported such doctrines​

as prayers for the dead (II Macc. 12:41); the expiatory sacrifice (eventually to become the mass, II Macc. 12:39-46); almsgiving with expiatory value, also leading to deliverance from death (Tobit 12:9; 4:10); invocation and intercession of the saints (II Macc. 15:14; Bar. 3:4); the worship of angels (Tobit 12:12); purgatory and the redemption of souls after death (II Macc. 12:42, 46)." (Pache)
​

 

[isshinwhat]

Maybe the question should be, "why were these books added?"

"Why, then did Rome take so new and daring a position (as to declare the Apocrypha canonical)? Because confronted by the Reformers​

​

For historical reference, here are the relevant texts from the Councils which declared the Canon. ​

God Bless,​

Neal​

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."

​

Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384),Decree of,Council of Rome,The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN,33

"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted."
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John."
Council of Carthage III,Canon 47(A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to [hich are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

Council of Trent, 1546

 

[A. believer]

[/font][/left]

For historical accuracy, here are the relevant texts from the Councils which declared the Canon. As can be seen , the Council of Trent did not add any books to the Canon, but only listed what it had received from the "orthodox Fathers" of the previous Councils and Synods. ​

God Bless,​

Neal​

​

I believe that Ben Hur is also involved in a thread over on the OBOB forum about this same issue where you're free to give the Roman Catholic interpretation of history (and where many people have been, in fact, doing just that.) I realize that you're the Adminstrator and I'm just a member, but it seems only fair that you should show the same respect for the intent of this forum that's expected from non-Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox members on the OBOB forum.

I recognize that you're one of the more gracious and fair-minded non-Protestant members of this board, and I respect you for that, but I hope you can understand my point here.​

 

[A. believer]

For historical accuracy, here are the relevant texts from the Councils which declared the Canon. As can be seen , the Council of Trent did not add any books to the Canon, but only listed what it had received from the "orthodox Fathers" of the previous Councils and Synods.

God Bless,​

Neal​

​

Since this was brought up here, I'll address it here, even though the whole thing is covered in the article I linked you to.

The issue of the canon and which books were considered to be divinely inspired by God was not settled in the church early on. There were a few early local synods in which the limits of the Old Testament canon were defined for the purpose of agreement among the churches, but there was never any universal agreement among all of Christendom that these books were, in fact, divinely inspired. And, in fact, although few of the Roman Catholics you'll meet on the internet are likely to be aware of this, even though the list of books at the early canons matched the list of books at Trent, in the case of two of the books, the early canons and Trent were not even referring to the same book. In other words, when Hippo and Carthage referred to 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras as canonical, they weren't referring to the same two books that Trent was when it referred to 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras as canonical. Again, this is all covered in the article I linked you to with a detailed explanation of the facts.


Nevertheless, the prevailing view among the laypeople between the fourth and the sixteenth century of the church was that of Hippo and Carthage, but the scholarly view of the church from Jerome to the Reformation was decidedly in favor of the smaller Protestant canon. Although Roman Catholics will tell you that Jerome "followed the judgment of the church" by including the apocryphal books in his Vulgate translation, but what they're really saying is simply that he included these books in his translation. There's no indication that Jerome considered these books to have the same status as the Hebrew canon, and in fact, Roman Catholic scholars will unashamedly admit this. It's only Roman Catholic apologists who suggest otherwise. Even the scholars in the church considered the apocryphal books of Trent to be good for reading in the church and for personal edification. After all, they contain all kinds of testimonies to the faithfulness of God and much wisdom. What pre-Reformation scholars and post-Reformation Protestants rejected was that they were suitable for defining doctrine. And in fact, even after the Reformation, most Protestant bibles included these books in their Bibles--they just qualified them as being not divinely inspired. And in fact, some of these books contain known historical errors, unlike any of the inspired books of the canon. Obviously, a book that isn't infallible cannot be divinely inspired in the same way that Scripture is divinely inspired.

What it boils down to is that there were two parallel traditions in the church between the fourth and the sixteenth century--the tradition of Jerome and the tradition of the Augustine. The Reformers held to the scholarly tradition originating with Jerome and Trent held to the tradition of the early councils (only with a minor difference that they weren't even aware of.)

Also, another thing that can be confusing when studying this issue is the way that the church fathers often used words like "canonical" and "Scripture" in various ways. It's important when you're studying it not to just read these words and assume that they meant exactly what we mean when we talk about it. If you do, you'll find yourself very confused because you'll think the same fathers are being self-contradictory in what they say.

And finally, although BAChristian is suggesting that William Webster might, in fact, be "biased," with the implication that those who interpret the historical facts in favor of Rome are, somehow, "unbiased," I hope you'll recognize the absurdity of that idea. There's no such thing as an "unbiased interpretation of history." History can only be interpreted within the context of a particular paradigm. Your goal should not be to expect to find neutral historians (that's an epistemologically nonsensical notion), but to learn to read critically so that you might be able to best discern which is the correct historical paradigm in which to rightly understand the events of history.

I know this is more confusing than you'd like it to be, but don't be overwhelmed, and don't jump to quick conclusions about what you read. History is rarely, if ever, that simple.

 

[eldermike]

There's no such thing as an "unbiased interpretation of history." History can only be interpreted within the context of a particular paradigm. Your goal should not be to expect to find neutral historians (that's an epistemologically nonsensical notion), but to learn to read critically so that you might be able to best discern which is the correct historical paradigm in which to rightly understand the events of history.

I could not agree more.

 

[isshinwhat]

I realize that you're the Adminstrator and I'm just a member, but it seems only fair that you should show the same respect for the intent of this forum that's expected from non-Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox members on the OBOB forum.

I recognize that you're one of the more gracious and fair-minded non-Protestant members of this board, and I respect you for that, but I hope you can understand my point here.

I thank you for your kind words. I should have left the latter part of my comment out. I will edit it now.

As for your last post... haven't we talked about that before? What thread was that on, do you remember?

And an Amen right along with eldermike. Read the primary sources yourself!

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Rechtgläubig]

There was no unanimity among Roman Catholic scholars regarding the limits of the canon until the Council of Trent in 1546.​

​

Why in the 1500's, would Pope Leo X allow and approve Cardinal Ximenes of Spain's Complutensian Polyglot Bible? It has some of the Apocrypha missing, because the cardinal claimed that Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and additions to both Esther and Daniel were not canonical.


Anyway to get back on the subject tract, Luther removed the Apocrypha for several reasons, some examples:

1. Some of the Apocrypha contain anti-Scriptural teachings, as other clear, inspired Bible passages tell us.

2. II Maccabees 14:41-46 speaks approvingly of suicide, contrary to the clear words of the Fifth Commandment. Some of its history is also false.​

3. Tobit 6:15ff. speaks of using the heart and liver of a fish to scare away a demon. That is the sort of magic strenuously forbidden for the children of God by passages like Deut. 18:10, 11 and especially by the Second Commandment.​

4. Parts of other Apocrypha are obviously fiction, for example, the story of Judith, or the claim that King Solomon wrote the Book of Wisdom that bears his name.​

"The Apocrypha are books that must not be considered like the holy Scriptures, and yet they are useful and good to read." - Martin Luther
​

 

[Follower of Christ]

I recommend you read this article for a fuller understanding of the Old Testament canon of the New Testament church. It's well-researched and well worth the read. The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha: A Survey of the History of the Apocrypha From the Jewish Age to the Reformation

In particular, I recommend you pay attention to the section on Jamnia from Part I of this article, since this so-called council is one of the key arguments used by those who want to include the apocrypha as inspired Scripture.

Wonderful link....
I have studied a bit on this, but that link had some other things in it I wasnt aware of.

thanks

 

[A. believer]

I thank you for your kind words. I should have left the latter part of my comment out. I will edit it now.

You're welcome, and thank you for editing your post.

As for your last post... haven't we talked about that before? What thread was that on, do you remember?

It was on a thread in the OBOB forum when I first came to the board which would be the end of June, beginning of July, but I don't remember the name of the thread. It's being discussed right now in the IDD forum on a thread entitled, "Hebrew Scriptures vs. Apocrypha."

 

[pmarquette]

Why exactly did Martin Luther pull the apocrypha from the Bible?

Luther is given quite a bit of credit for what he didn't do ...
The Apocrypha ( 1,2 Macabees , Tobit , Judith , Baruch , Wisdom , additions to Daniel , etc. ) were found in Luther's , Tyndale's , Cromwell's , etc. bibles ; placed between the Old and New Covenants , filling in the 300 year gap between Malachi and Matthew , denoting the rise of the Pharisees and Saducees , Macabbean revolt , and roman occupation .

The Apocrypha were removed at the production of the King James version in 1609 +/- when they were removed .... for they supported catholic doctrine which the reformers rejected ...

 

[Lotar]

Not quite true. Luther removed the apocrypha as inspired scripture, but left it in as reference. He thought of it in the same way as he did tradition, it was to be used, but not put on equal grounds as scripture.

 

[BBAS 64]

Why exactly did Martin Luther pull the apocrypha from the Bible?

Luther is given quite a bit of credit for what he didn't do ...
The Apocrypha ( 1,2 Macabees , Tobit , Judith , Baruch , Wisdom , additions to Daniel , etc. ) were found in Luther's , Tyndale's , Cromwell's , etc. bibles ; placed between the Old and New Covenants , filling in the 300 year gap between Malachi and Matthew , denoting the rise of the Pharisees and Saducees , Macabbean revolt , and roman occupation .

The Apocrypha were removed at the production of the King James version in 1609 +/- when they were removed .... for they supported catholic doctrine which the reformers rejected ...

Good Day, Pmarquette

The apocrypha books were included in the ASV KJV of 1611. The history of that translation was based on the Bishops Bible of the times. Based on what I have found and I admit it is very limited these books were removed some time in the 1830's by the Archbishop of Cantabury. The reasons as to why this was done at this time to me are unclear, all i have found out it was related to the Bible version approved by and subsidised by the Congress of the USA during this period. If you would like some links on this please let me know and I will dig them up for you.


For His Glory Alone!

BBAS

 

[BBAS 64]

Not quite true. Luther removed the apocrypha as inspired scripture, but left it in as reference. He thought of it in the same way as he did tradition, it was to be used, but not put on equal grounds as scripture.

Lotar

You have my VOTE!!

Did luther add the apocryypha as an appendix? Was it identified as seprate reading materal.


VP choice??

BBAS