Luther throwing out 7 books from the Bible

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

If you all will forgive this little rabbit trail:
I don't like being lumped in with the 'Protestants'. There are a lot of Lutherans that don't. The reason is that Lutherans (Conservative, confessional) don't agree with the majority of the doctrines and theologies of the 'Protestant' churches. For instance, Real Presence in Communion is absolutely unaccepted in the 'Protestant' religions (Presbyterians might be an exception). I know a lot of Espicopalians who don't like being called Protestants either.

The entire history of our identity is that which we did not want that was given to us:
Christian was first used to mock Christians (followers of The Way)
Lutheran used to mock evangelical Catholics
Protestant used to mock those the Catholic church viewed as breakaways.

All the words were borne out of negative intentions, and the idea of protestantism is apart from our idea of our identity. Not only do we not identify ourselves that way, but it just carries more negative ideas.

 

[charsan2]

Except Confessional Lutherans are not Protestant.

Oh, so they did not Protest against the Catholic Church. All that Luther did was a dream made up? Of course all Lutherans are the original Protestants

 

[DaRev]

Oh, so they did not Protest against the Catholic Church. All that Luther did was a dream made up? Of course all Lutherans are the original Protestants

The term "protestant" was first used at the second Diet of Speyer in 1529 toward the German princes who protested the diets attempt to surpress the Lutheran movement. It was not a term that was directed toward Lutheranism.

Luther's "protest" was not against the Church catholic, but against the numerous abuses brought forth by popes and councils that has introduced teachings and practices that obscured the Gospel. You need to remember that Luther didn't leave the Roman Church. It left him. So, in a way, the Church of Rome could be considered "protestant" in that it protested Luther's attempt to correct the abuses.

In any case, Lutherans are not Protestant . That term is used for those who seperated themselves from the Church catholic.

 

[ContraMundum]

Except Confessional Lutherans are not Protestant.

Most people regard Lutherans as Protestant, except a few Lutherans! Anglicans say the same thing about themselves too. The Catholics say we're all Protestant. It's nothing to be ashamed of, IMHO.

We protest for truth, not against Rome.

The "religion" of the Old Testament is the same as the New Testament. Thus the "religion" of the Old Testament is not, nor has it ever been, what we today call Judaism.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, unless I'm missing something here. The OT religion is not the NT, so therefore Judaism is not based on the OT? Judaism rejects the NT, not the OT. Judaism, as it is today, is based on the OT. As a Jew, you study, meditate on and live according to the OT, as much as is possible, according to the tradition of your ancestors. The Torah is studied, discussed and studied again from your youth. I know this first hand. I think there are Christian examples/versions of this, even in your own tradition.

Unless I'm completely reading you wrong, I don't think you have looked into Judaism enough to imply what I think you are implying.

Unless of course you subscribe to the heresies of Marcion.

?

Marcion has nothing to do with this, and I really don't see how on Earth you can come to that conclusion, based on the few things you have said already.

Marcion believed Judaism (what he understood as the religion of The OT) had a different, lower and tyrannical God. I'm not sure how you think this somehow annuls Rabbinic Judaism, you'd have to explain it further.

 

[Studeclunker]

Most people regard Lutherans as Protestant, except a few Lutherans! Anglicans say the same thing about themselves too. The Catholics say we're all Protestant. It's nothing to be ashamed of, IMHO.

We protest for truth, not against Rome.

Hmmm... I'm not sure you understand what I was saying. The Revrand does, quite well in fact. Though most Lutherans will admit to being more catholic than Protestant when pressed, I will concede they don't like the concept (out of a sincere loathing for the Papist Church).

That makes absolutely no sense at all, unless I'm missing something here. The OT religion is not the NT, so therefore Judaism is not based on the OT? Judaism rejects the NT, not the OT. Judaism, as it is today, is based on the OT. As a Jew, you study, meditate on and live according to the OT, as much as is possible, according to the tradition of your ancestors. The Torah is studied, discussed and studied again from your youth. I know this first hand. I think there are Christian examples/versions of this, even in your own tradition.

Unless I'm completely reading you wrong, I don't think you have looked into Judaism enough to imply what I think you are implying.

First of all, I'm confused by the above. Your Denomination is listed as Anglican. However, you are speaking as a Messanic (Jew). Are you of a Jewish background converted to Christianity through the Anglican Church, or am I completely confused here?

Now as to Christianity and the OT Jewish religion: They were (OT faithful, ie: Jews) indeed awaiting the coming of the Messiah. In fact, they knew (Thanks to Isaiah and Daniel) the approximate date and place of the promised Messiah's arrival. They were a bit confused as scripture described, aparently, two Messiahs. Jesus Ben David (the Conquering Messiah) and Jesus Ben Joseph (the Suffering Messiah). Hence, His apostles were constantly asking Jesus when He was going to set up His kingdom. Thus comes the modern premise that Christianity is a continuation of the OT religion. They (the OT) looked forward to Christ, we (the NT Church) look Back to Christ. The only ones that don't seem to have a problem with this concept are the non-christians who view Christians as a Jewdaic sect. To all appearances, the Jewish leaders seem to have given up on the messanic concept completely. Christians, however, are still awaiting the second comming of Jesus as the Conquering Messiah (Jesus Ben David). Thus, weather one is an OT Jew or a NT Saint (Christian), is merely a matter of dates and perspective.

Then again, as a prophet, I have a perfect track record of being wrong (to borrow a phrase from Rod Rosenbladt)...

EDIT:
Yes Doulos, exactly. The Protestant movement came After the Lutheran Reformation. There are many Historians who say that the Protestant movement couldn't have gotten going as strong as it has without the Lutherans. My issue with this theory is that the Lutherans have enough unwanted baggage without taking the blame for the Protestants as well..

 

[ContraMundum]

Hmmm... I'm not sure you understand what I was saying. The Revrand does, quite well in fact. Though most Lutherans will admit to being more catholic than Protestant when pressed, I will concede they don't like the concept (out of a sincere loathing for the Papist Church).

I hear ya!

First of all, I'm confused by the above. Your Denomination is listed as Anglican. However, you are speaking as a Messanic (Jew). Are you of a Jewish background converted to Christianity through the Anglican Church, or am I completely confused here?

Yes, I was converted (or rather was called to faith by Christ) from Orthodox Judaism and currently serve in the Anglican Church. For the record, I studied in a Lutheran sem, hence my love of Lutheran stuff.

Now as to Christianity and the OT Jewish religion: They were (OT faithful, ie: Jews) indeed awaiting the coming of the Messiah. In fact, they knew (Thanks to Isaiah and Daniel) the approximate date and place of the promised Messiah's arrival. They were a bit confused as scripture described, aparently, two Messiahs. Jesus Ben David (the Conquering Messiah) and Jesus Ben Joseph (the Suffering Messiah). Hence, His apostles were constantly asking Jesus when He was going to set up His kingdom. Thus comes the modern premise that Christianity is a continuation of the OT religion. They (the OT) looked forward to Christ, we (the NT Church) look Back to Christ. The only ones that don't seem to have a problem with this concept are the non-christians who view Christians as a Jewdaic sect. To all appearances, the Jewish leaders seem to have given up on the messanic concept completely. Christians, however, are still awaiting the second comming of Jesus as the Conquering Messiah (Jesus Ben David). Thus, weather one is an OT Jew or a NT Saint (Christian), is merely a matter of dates and perspective.

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree, but I would add one small point (well, two small points actually)- while some people view Christianity as a Jewish sect, I see it as the fulfillment of Judaism, so there is a foundational and traceable Jewish root to the church. However, as you rightly say, they are not the same religion.

Secondly, there are many Jews who are very zealous for the coming Messiah. Some of my family belong to a Hasidic sect that could be equated to "evangelical" devotion to the coming Messiah, so much so that they seek out Jews and encourage them to return to practicing Judaism in order to make the world ready for the Messiah. They think that the Messiah is waiting for the Jews to show repentance before he comes. In my past I remember being urged to pray that Messiah would come "now!" at the conclusion of the prayers when I was praying with Tefillin (phylacteries as they are known in the English speaking world) with members of that sect.

. My issue with this theory is that the Lutherans have enough unwanted baggage without taking the blame for the Protestants as well..

I can readily understand that too!

 

[DaRev]

That makes absolutely no sense at all, unless I'm missing something here. The OT religion is not the NT, so therefore Judaism is not based on the OT? Judaism rejects the NT, not the OT. Judaism, as it is today, is based on the OT. As a Jew, you study, meditate on and live according to the OT, as much as is possible, according to the tradition of your ancestors. The Torah is studied, discussed and studied again from your youth. I know this first hand. I think there are Christian examples/versions of this, even in your own tradition.

Modern Judaism is loosely based on a total misinterpretation of the Old Testament. The Old Testament preaches Christ, who is to come. The New Testament preaches Christ who has come and will come again. Judaism rejects Christ, and thus rejects the true teaching and message of the Old Testament. The two Testaments of Scripture are both equally God's inspired word and a continuation of the same teaching and message. Any "religion" that claims to adhere to the OT and at the same time reject the NT is a false religion.

The "religion" of the Old Testament is the same as the "religion" of the New Testament. There is only one true faith, the catholic faith, which we confess in the creeds.

Marcion has nothing to do with this, and I really don't see how on Earth you can come to that conclusion, based on the few things you have said already.

Marcion believed Judaism (what he understood as the religion of The OT) had a different, lower and tyrannical God. I'm not sure how you think this somehow annuls Rabbinic Judaism, you'd have to explain it further.

In general, Marcion seperated the "religion" of the OT from that of the NT, just as you are doing. The reality is, they are one and the same. Judaism rejects the NT, thus they by default also reject the OT since the teaching and message are one and the same.

 

[Studeclunker]

It's interesting that Catholics don't call the Eastern Orthodox Protestants which brings up an interesting question. Why didn't Luther become EO if his only complaints were against the Catholic Church?

there were discussions with the EO. Trouble is, they've gone down yet another road of error. The EO leaders were'nt willing to accept the five solas. They wanted to add tradition as equal with scripture and Luther wasn't willing to open that trap again.

 

[Studeclunker]

I hear ya!

Yes, I was converted (or rather was called to faith by Christ) from Orthodox Judaism and currently serve in the Anglican Church. For the record, I studied in a Lutheran sem, hence my love of Lutheran stuff.

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree, but I would add one small point (well, two small points actually)- while some people view Christianity as a Jewish sect, I see it as the fulfillment of Judaism, so there is a foundational and traceable Jewish root to the church. However, as you rightly say, they are not the same religion.

The Revrand is the one stressing the difference in this respect. However, I would agree insofar as fulfillment of OT Judaism.

Secondly, there are many Jews who are very zealous for the coming Messiah. Some of my family belong to a Hasidic sect that could be equated to "evangelical" devotion to the coming Messiah, so much so that they seek out Jews and encourage them to return to practicing Judaism in order to make the world ready for the Messiah. They think that the Messiah is waiting for the Jews to show repentance before he comes. In my past I remember being urged to pray that Messiah would come "now!" at the conclusion of the prayers when I was praying with Tefillin (phylacteries as they are known in the English speaking world) with members of that sect.

Did you wear your Tefillin on your forehead or arm? Forgive me for asking, just a wee bit nosey...

Well, it is written that in the 'Last Days' there will be a mass conversion of Jews to the Way. Thus, when you see this happening, you can tell your old friends He's on his way. If they'll even speak with you, that is...

 

[SummaScriptura]

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?<snip>

I agree. Luther was less the innovator than he is often believed to have been. In regards to the disputed books of the O.T., Luther was well within the tradition of Western Christendom. It was Jerome who was the innovator in regards to using the Hebrew text of the O.T. as the basis for his Vulgate.

Jerome abondoned what had been the Church tradition for the first four centuries of Christianity; he translated from the Hebrew text tradtion of the Jews, rather than the Greek text tradtion 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.

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 the bus in 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.

Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship has shown that the Septuagint text tradition in large part sprung from a Hebrew text tradition other than the Masoretic one, but demonstrably as ancient.

The Apostles quote in the New Testament from the text tradition from which we derive the Septuagint more often than they quote from the one upon which the Masoretic one is based.

 

[SummaScriptura]

In the end, Saint Jerome agreed with all the Church councils that the 7 OT deuterocanonicals are an inspired part of the OT. That's why Saint Jerome included them in his fished work of translating the bible which is the Latin Vulgate which is the same Bible that became the official Bible of the Catholic Church.

If so, then why did he dump the other books and chapters of the deuterocanonicals which are preserved by the EO?

 

[ContraMundum]

Modern Judaism is loosely based on a total misinterpretation of the Old Testament. The Old Testament preaches Christ, who is to come.

Has the thought ever occurred to you that the Jews are merely sticking to the tradition that they have received? They can and do have apologies against the Western Christian paradigm. The notion that Jesus is the centre of scripture to them is a novelty invented by Christians in an attempt to win converts. They wait for what they expect the Messiah to be, according to the OT, as they have received it. As Christians, we say that their interpretation is wrong, but the reality is that their teachings about the Messiah have existed for many years before the Advent of Christ. This is why so many rejected Him. Of course, there were Jews who saw Christ in scripture, and accepted Him. They founded our Church. More than one Messianic school of thought existed in those days. Modern day Jews are the tradition largely of the Pharisees, and they are happy to say that.

I don't think you have had much exposure to Judaism first hand. Am I right?

The New Testament preaches Christ who has come and will come again. Judaism rejects Christ, and thus rejects the true teaching and message of the Old Testament. The two Testaments of Scripture are both equally God's inspired word and a continuation of the same teaching and message. Any "religion" that claims to adhere to the OT and at the same time reject the NT is a false religion.

I understand that, but I don't think I agree with your conclusion. I say that yes, both Testaments teach the one religion, but the latter Testament completes the revelation of God. So, to me, the Jews are merely following a truncated version of the Faith, which is from two reasons, namely that they reject Christ and His Law (the New obedience, as it can be called), and they no longer have the benefits of the Priesthood and the sacrificial system (which has happened before Christ too).

Yes, the Rabbinic religion has added a lot to the observation of the Law, but I must say that it is not as stupid as you might believe. They have been doing this for centuries.

In general, Marcion seperated the "religion" of the OT from that of the NT, just as you are doing. The reality is, they are one and the same. Judaism rejects the NT, thus they by default also reject the OT since the teaching and message are one and the same.

I have never separated the true religion of both Testaments, so I have no idea why you would say such a thing. I do, however, reject false understandings of both Testaments.

This is not Marcionism, and I think you have made an overstatement.

 

[DaRev]

Has the thought ever occurred to you that the Jews are merely sticking to the tradition that they have received? They can and do have apologies against the Western Christian paradigm. The notion that Jesus is the centre of scripture to them is a novelty invented by Christians in an attempt to win converts. They wait for what they expect the Messiah to be, according to the OT, as they have received it. As Christians, we say that their interpretation is wrong, but the reality is that their teachings about the Messiah have existed for many years before the Advent of Christ. This is why so many rejected Him. Of course, there were Jews who saw Christ in scripture, and accepted Him. They founded our Church. More than one Messianic school of thought existed in those days. Modern day Jews are the tradition largely of the Pharisees, and they are happy to say that.

The bottom line is that there is one truth and only one truth. That one truth is revealed in the whole of Scripture. Judaism rejects the whole of Scripture and thus rejects the one truth. I really don't care what their traditions are or for how many years they have existed. They are wrong, pure and simple.

I don't think you have had much exposure to Judaism first hand. Am I right?

I've had enough to know that it's a false religion.

I understand that, but I don't think I agree with your conclusion. I say that yes, both Testaments teach the one religion, but the latter Testament completes the revelation of God. So, to me, the Jews are merely following a truncated version of the Faith, which is from two reasons, namely that they reject Christ and His Law (the New obedience, as it can be called), and they no longer have the benefits of the Priesthood and the sacrificial system (which has happened before Christ too).

There can be no "truncated version of the faith". Either one believes or they don't.

Yes, the Rabbinic religion has added a lot to the observation of the Law, but I must say that it is not as stupid as you might believe. They have been doing this for centuries.

OK. They've been wrong for centuries. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I have never separated the true religion of both Testaments, so I have no idea why you would say such a thing. I do, however, reject false understandings of both Testaments.

You have seperated them by giving credibility to the false religion of modern Judaism and their complete misinterpretation of Scripture.

 

[Korah]

You have the right to your opinion, but I firmly disagree with it, even though I have as little partiality for Judaism as you do.

 

[ContraMundum]

The bottom line is that there is one truth and only one truth. That one truth is revealed in the whole of Scripture. Judaism rejects the whole of Scripture and thus rejects the one truth. I really don't care what their traditions are or for how many years they have existed. They are wrong, pure and simple.

I've had enough to know that it's a false religion.

There can be no "truncated version of the faith". Either one believes or they don't.

OK. They've been wrong for centuries. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I have no problem with saying that they are theologically wrong, and I wouldn't have paid a very high personal price for that belief, but I would object to any mis-representations of the the reasoning behind the errors of Rabbinic Judaism. This is the main thing here- is it ok for us to reject (and teach others to do likewise) something for reasons that are not accurate? Most people would say no. It's better to understand something properly.

You have seperated them by giving credibility to the false religion of modern Judaism and their complete misinterpretation of Scripture.

I don't think there is a "complete" misinterpretation of scripture on the part of the Jews here. That's not even a scriptural perspective. There are many things that modern Judaism has right. The fact that your own mentor Dr Luther agreed with their canon is one of the points this thread has raised. He even had to learn Hebrew from them.

Here's what he said about Jewish doctrine, in relation to Romish doctrine:

"When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians?"


Furthermore:

"I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived." (Both from "That Jesus was born a Jew", 1523)

Even Lutheran scholar John L. Loh Jr. says that Luther studied Judaism in order to get to the bottom of understanding the OT:

"Luther was also a rare theologian who could read the Old Testament in its original Hebrew (many who did translate the Bible used the Latin Vulgate as their starting point). Luther spoke with and debated with Jewish scholars and studied the Talmud rather than burn it. He knew that to get to the essence of the Old Testament, which pointed to Christ, he had to get to the essence of God's Chosen People." From here.

I could go on. I've been collecting quotes on this matter for around 10 years. Luther made it personal with his infamous treatise of 1543, which should go unmentioned.

My understanding of those things this thread is about is simple: Luther used the arguments of Jerome (as he knew them) to argue for the canon of scripture. Jerome got the argument for the Hebrew canon from the Jews he met in Palestine. He translated the whole LXX canon after putting up some resistance.

In those times the canon was not quite fixed, and the arrangement and order of the books was quite different than they are today, but in the end, the Reformers went with the Hebrew canon, as did the Jews well before them (especially around the time of the Masoretic text)

It's easy to see why Luther held to the Hebrew canon:

"The Hebrew language is the best language of all ... If I were younger I would want to learn this language, because no one can really understand the Scriptures without it. For although the New Testament is written in Greek, it is full of Hebraisms and Hebrew expressions. It has therefore been aptly said that the Hebrews drink from the spring, the Greeks from the stream that flows from it, and the Latins from a downstream pool." (from Table Talk)

Obviously, Luther remained faithful with the NT canon, even if he commented that one book was an epistle of straw. I don't think anyone can seriously build a case that he made judgments on the canon by himself outside of tradition.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The bottom line is that there is one truth and only one truth. That one truth is revealed in the whole of Scripture. Judaism rejects the whole of Scripture and thus rejects the one truth. I really don't care what their traditions are or for how many years they have existed. They are wrong, pure and simple.



I've had enough to know that it's a false religion.



There can be no "truncated version of the faith". Either one believes or they don't.



OK. They've been wrong for centuries. I don't see what that has to do with anything.



You have seperated them by giving credibility to the false religion of modern Judaism and their complete misinterpretation of Scripture.

Rev, I must agree with your statement 100%.

We must also be mindful that Judaism was the "visible Church", and that the "Church invisible" did indeed exist within Judaism before the coming of our Lord; in that there were Jews who had faith and confidence in the Messiah prior to the birth of Christ. They like St. Simeon accepted the Messiah even before His incarnation; therefore, the historic Jewish Cannon is indeed part of the Christian Cannon as it pertains to the "Old Covenant" and prophesied to the "New Covenant". The New Testament is a continuation of this Christian Cannon which reveals the "New Covenant" to the Church.

 

[DaRev]

Rev, I must agree with your statement 100%.

We must also be mindful that Judaism was the "visible Church", and that the "Church invisible" did indeed exist within Judaism before the coming of our Lord; in that there were Jews who had faith and confidence in the Messiah prior to the birth of Christ. They like St. Simeon accepted the Messiah even before His incarnation; therefore, the historic Jewish Cannon is indeed part of the Christian Cannon as it pertains to the "Old Covenant" and prophesied to the "New Covenant". The New Testament is a continuation of this Christian Cannon which reveals the "New Covenant" to the Church.

The point that I'm trying to make is that the pre-incarnation "Judaism" is NOT what we know today as Judaism. They are two different things. What you stated above is indeed 100% correct as long as we understand your use of "Judaism" refers to the former rather than the latter.

 

[DaRev]

I have no problem with saying that they are theologically wrong, and I wouldn't have paid a very high personal price for that belief, but I would object to any mis-representations of the the reasoning behind the errors of Rabbinic Judaism. This is the main thing here- is it ok for us to reject (and teach others to do likewise) something for reasons that are not accurate? Most people would say no. It's better to understand something properly.

I don't think there is a "complete" misinterpretation of scripture on the part of the Jews here. That's not even a scriptural perspective. There are many things that modern Judaism has right. The fact that your own mentor Dr Luther agreed with their canon is one of the points this thread has raised. He even had to learn Hebrew from them.

Here's what he said about Jewish doctrine, in relation to Romish doctrine:

"When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians?"


Furthermore:

"I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived." (Both from "That Jesus was born a Jew", 1523)

Even Lutheran scholar John L. Loh Jr. says that Luther studied Judaism in order to get to the bottom of understanding the OT:

"Luther was also a rare theologian who could read the Old Testament in its original Hebrew (many who did translate the Bible used the Latin Vulgate as their starting point). Luther spoke with and debated with Jewish scholars and studied the Talmud rather than burn it. He knew that to get to the essence of the Old Testament, which pointed to Christ, he had to get to the essence of God's Chosen People." From here.

I could go on. I've been collecting quotes on this matter for around 10 years. Luther made it personal with his infamous treatise of 1543, which should go unmentioned.

My understanding of those things this thread is about is simple: Luther used the arguments of Jerome (as he knew them) to argue for the canon of scripture. Jerome got the argument for the Hebrew canon from the Jews he met in Palestine. He translated the whole LXX canon after putting up some resistance.

In those times the canon was not quite fixed, and the arrangement and order of the books was quite different than they are today, but in the end, the Reformers went with the Hebrew canon, as did the Jews well before them (especially around the time of the Masoretic text)

It's easy to see why Luther held to the Hebrew canon:

"The Hebrew language is the best language of all ... If I were younger I would want to learn this language, because no one can really understand the Scriptures without it. For although the New Testament is written in Greek, it is full of Hebraisms and Hebrew expressions. It has therefore been aptly said that the Hebrews drink from the spring, the Greeks from the stream that flows from it, and the Latins from a downstream pool." (from Table Talk)

Obviously, Luther remained faithful with the NT canon, even if he commented that one book was an epistle of straw. I don't think anyone can seriously build a case that he made judgments on the canon by himself outside of tradition.

I don't disagree that there are aspects of even modern Judaism that are correct. But modern Judaism has strayed far from what was pre-incarnate "Judaism". And of course any attempt to reach modern Jews must start from the perspective of what we agree on. My point has always been that modern Judaism is not the same as the "religion" of the Old Testament.

Also, understanding the OT scriptures in the original language is the very reason that learning Hebrew is required at seminary.

 

[ContraMundum]

I don't disagree that there are aspects of even modern Judaism that are correct. But modern Judaism has strayed far from what was pre-incarnate "Judaism". And of course any attempt to reach modern Jews must start from the perspective of what we agree on. My point has always been that modern Judaism is not the same as the "religion" of the Old Testament.

Also, understanding the OT scriptures in the original language is the very reason that learning Hebrew is required at seminary.

Exactly. We are in accord.