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 throwing out 7 books from the Bible
- Thread starter BiblebelievingChristian
- Start date
QuiltAngel
Veteran
- Apr 10, 2006
- 5,355
- 311
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Read the first couple sections on this link, especially Section 1, Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From the Bible: Luther and the canon 3
Upvote
0
It would help if you did a little homework before making such statements. Luther didn't remove anything from the Bible. In fact, the Luther Bible contained the 7 books of the Apochrypha as a seperate section between the Testaments as many of the older codices has also done. Also, it wasn't that these texts did not exist in Hebrew. Some were written in Aramaic, others in Greek, but were translated into Hebrew. However, these texts were not part of the Masoretic Hebrew texts which are the basis of the Old Testament canon translation.
It also must be remembered that Luther could not have removed something that was never a part of the Old Testament canon. The 7 books of the Apochrypha were added to the OT canon at the council of Trent.
Upvote
0
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Luther didn't move them to the back. He placed them in between the Testaments where many of the ancient codices placed them. Even St. Jerome, who translated the the OT into Latin said that those books didn't belong with the OT canon. That's why many referred to them as the "deutero-canon" or "second canon". They weren't part of the OT until Trent.
Upvote
0
QuiltAngel
Veteran
- Apr 10, 2006
- 5,355
- 311
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
It is my understanding that these 7 books have been debated during and since the first century. The Roman Catholic Church had them in there and finalized the canon at the Council of Trent. Luther translated them into German and placed them between the Old and the New Testament. It was after the Council of Trent where other Protestant Churches were removing these books. It was in April 1546 when the Council of Trent finalized the canon, Luther died in Feb. 1546.
My research shows that they were not printed with the King James Version of the Bible in 1629. Soon after, other churches were lobbying for the removal of these books.
Let's review, Luther included these books as the Apochrypha and placed them in the middle of the Bible. Council of Trent confirmed them as the part of the canon. King James said these books shall not be read.
Hmmm, don't think you can blame Luther for the removal of the books.
My research shows that they were not printed with the King James Version of the Bible in 1629. Soon after, other churches were lobbying for the removal of these books.
Let's review, Luther included these books as the Apochrypha and placed them in the middle of the Bible. Council of Trent confirmed them as the part of the canon. King James said these books shall not be read.
Hmmm, don't think you can blame Luther for the removal of the books.
Upvote
0
That would be in back of the OT. That's what I meant when I said he put them in the back.
"Deutero" is not the same as calling it "apocrypha". Deutero only means that there was some dispute in the early Church before the canon of the Christian Bible was officially decided upon. There are some writings in the NT that were also in dispute at one time, but Luther didn't throw those writings out. The early dispute over the OT "deutero" writings and the NT "deutero" writings was ended by Church council after Church council which always reaffirmed those writings as part of the inspired canon of scripture. By calling the 7 books apocrypha one is saying that they definitely are not inspired, and no Church council before Trent ever called those 7 books apocrypha. Although Saint Jerome initially had some doubts about those books, he ultimately agreed with the Church councils and made those 7 books an integrated part of the OT canon in the Latin Vulgate which was the first Christian Bible.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 26, 2004
- 549,098
- 56,600
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
I kinda think Protestants are a bit lazy and don't want to read the extra books. Abridged versions are easier. Heck, if there was a Cliff's notes version of the Bible, that would be perfect!
I'm kidding. You know I love you, tiny Bible and all.
I'm kidding. You know I love you, tiny Bible and all.
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
More detailed information on history of Apochypha
Christian Cyclopedia | The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Christian Cyclopedia | The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Upvote
0
I kinda think Protestants are a bit lazy and don't want to read the extra books. Abridged versions are easier. Heck, if there was a Cliff's notes version of the Bible, that would be perfect!
I'm kidding. You know I love you, tiny Bible and all.
Upvote
0
QuiltAngel
Veteran
- Apr 10, 2006
- 5,355
- 311
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
BiblebelievingChristian,
What is your purpose of coming here and blaming us for something that Luther did not do? We have shown that these books have been in disputer since the early church and even among the Jews of the first century.
Yes, there were some books that Dr. Luther was not sure of in the New Testament, yet they remained in the canon. Did you even read the links that you have been provided? Or are you hear to tell us that we know nothing about Luther and such? The link I provided is written by a person who is not even Lutheran, but found him fascinating and set out to learn as much as he could and to find out if he said and did what the Roman Catholic Church said he did. READ THE LINKS First.
What is your purpose of coming here and blaming us for something that Luther did not do? We have shown that these books have been in disputer since the early church and even among the Jews of the first century.
Yes, there were some books that Dr. Luther was not sure of in the New Testament, yet they remained in the canon. Did you even read the links that you have been provided? Or are you hear to tell us that we know nothing about Luther and such? The link I provided is written by a person who is not even Lutheran, but found him fascinating and set out to learn as much as he could and to find out if he said and did what the Roman Catholic Church said he did. READ THE LINKS First.
Upvote
0
alexnbethmom
Lutheran Chick
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....
Upvote
0
QuiltAngel
Veteran
- Apr 10, 2006
- 5,355
- 311
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
It goes in spurts. Right now seems to be the time for it again. I guess they think they are telling us something new, that we don't know. They are so wrong.
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
alexnbethmom
Lutheran Chick
Upvote
0
Those 7 books were a part of the Septuagint OT which was used by the apostles and the early Church. And some of the writings of the NT were in dispute in the early days of the Church, but Luther didn't choose to reject those. And further, the Jews who rejected the 7 books of the Septuagint OT are the same Jews who rejected Jesus and the NT. If we were to follow their opinion of what should be in the Bible we would have no NT. I think the following prophecy about Jesus is the reason why the Jews who rejected Jesus didn't want this in their Scripture:
"'Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.' Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls" -Wisdom 2:12-22
Last edited:
Upvote
0
alexnbethmom
Lutheran Chick
BBC - have you even READ what DaRev explained to you, or read the links given? our forum is not for you to come in and debate with us....it's in the rules.....you want to debate this so badly, go to general.....
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
Similar threads
