No. There was a running debate among theologians throughout the centuries previous to Luther. Even at Trent, there was debate between Roman Catholic theologians about the apocrypha. Interestingly, some of the best theologians at Trent were against the apocrypha.
Yet no matter how brilliant a theologian, or how Catholic, they cannot represent the Magesterium.
Jerome too, was the best theologian of his day, and was against inclusion of many works. In the end, he deferred to the authority of the Magesterium of the Church.
Interestingly, the great 16th century Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan also questioned the authenticity of certain Biblical books. In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. Cajetan said,
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 amongst 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 as canonical. For the words as well 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 clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."
This then, was the milieu in which Luther formented his opinions about Deuterocanicals and certain New Testament works.
Well, I haven't hear this one before. Now Luther is responsible for the entire Apocrypha being deleted from later Protestant Bibles!
If you hadn't heard it before, then you haven't hear it yet.
Read carefully. The whole intent of what I was writing was that Luther did not delete these works. He was not as responsible for their eventual deletion as were the likes of Cardstadt, and even Calvini's followers(ie the Geneva Bible).
The main way in which I propose that Luther was responsible would be in his physical separation of the lesser works of the deuterocanicals, and others from the 'key works'.
Also the opinions of this man carried great weight among later Protestants. His opinions that these books were not of equal value were followed up on by others who did not even find them particularily useful of good reading.
This does injustice to Luther in my opinion. The editors of 'LuthersWorks' explain, In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."
And that is exactly what I have been saying!
Your view is far too simple. What of Erasmus? Surely his impact on Biblical scholarship cannot be denied. Secondly, while Luther may have impacted the Protestant world, one finds that others in the Reformation did not follow Luther in his every belief. That's why the Reformed has differences from Luther. They didn't eventually drop the apocrypha becasue of Luther's work. One finds a great many scholars in the Reformed tradition. Calvin for instance was a master of church history. Beza likewise was a gifted historian and theologian.
A paragraph of two of discussion does not of course represent the whole of my views. The simplicity of brevity is a virtue on discussion boards!
Certainly, Erasmus had great effect in biblical scholarship, in promoting reform within the Church, in Biblical translation, and in promotong humanist ideas.
It does not do Luther injustice, however, in pointing out that he became something of an icon for many Protestants and Reformationists that came after him.
No, there was no love lost between Lutherans and Calvinists of later days. But Luther was the one that paved the way in not only questioning the authority of many books of the Bible, but in asserting his own opinion above that of Church authority.
He proved that this could be done and still live!
Herein lies the difference between Luther and Erasmus and Jerome, or even lesser knowns such as Catejan, I suppose. As Catholics, we all have our opinions, as Luther had his.
Ultimately though, being Catholic means our yielding our own opinions in deference to the Magesterium of the Church.
For Luther, what was affirmed as canon centuries before him, and was then reconfirmed as canonical at Trent, held less weight than his own personal opinion. What constituted canon or merely good reading after Luther, was no longer truth revealed through the Church, but a personal spirit-derived opinion.
Let the reader decide!
Luther could then put his opinion about
James being a comparitive letter of straw in the introduction of one printing of his bible, and then omit it from another. We are all entitled to change our minds, after all.
It was upon this point of the worthiness of their own authority (if not Luther's), that later reformers agreed. The truth or worthiness of a book therefore becomes arbitrated by opinion.
