Luther's Cannon?

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

On another thread this has been asserted:

This same Canon of scripture was in use up through the time of Luther who removed 7 books from the Old Testament and 4 books from the New Testament and called them Appocrypha.

Luther's FIRST bible was published with these 11 books (7 OT and 4 NT) books removed from the canon of scipture."

Never heard this one before


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Lotar]

If I remember correctly, his first version was NT only. I think he put James and Revelations in the back and labeled them non-canonical. His later versions, after he finished translating the OT, only had the extra Greek OT books labeled Apocrypha.

 

[II Paradox II]

This same Canon of scripture was in use up through the time of Luther who removed 7 books from the Old Testament and 4 books from the New Testament and called them Appocrypha.

Luther's FIRST bible was published with these 11 books (7 OT and 4 NT) books removed from the canon of scipture."

It's only partially true. Luther included them in his german bible, though he seperated them and made editorial notes as to their condition (the apocrypha were prefaced by these words, "Apocrypha. These books are not held equal to the sacred scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading").

The apocrypha didn't really start to disappear from prot bibles till the mid 1600's. As for the 4 NT books, they were included as well but with editorial comments as to their suspect nature as canonical. One thing to note however is that Luther didn't pull these things out of his head. As an academician, he was well familiar with the long disputes over the canonicity of all the books he doubted as well. James, Revelations, 2nd Peter and a few others had long been the object of doubt for many fathers and doctros of the church along with a few other books. These questions about the even the NT canon persisted throughout the church even through the Reformation. It is anachronistic to see these things as settled issues which Luther simply decided to rebel over.

ken

 

[theologia crucis]

The very first portion of the Bible that Luther published was strictly the New Testament as we have it today in September 1522 (it is sometimes called the "September Testament", and was largely accomplished while Luther was holed up in the Wartburg).

After the NT was published, Luther immediately began work on the OT, publishing it piecemeal from 1523 to 1532.

From 1529 to 1534, Luther translated the OT Apocrypha, and in 1534, Luther's (though in reality he had much help) complete German Bible was published, which included what we call the Apocrypha.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Thank you all for your respones much to look at and search out.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Flynmonkie]

Good Day,

Thank you all for your respones much to look at and search out.

Peace to u,

Bill

Thanks so much for asking this BBAS! Someone told me the same thing, that Lutherns kept these too. I went to my best friend whom is Luthern and asked if she had these books in her Bible....she had no clue what I was talking about either! She had never even heard Apocrypha or the Duterocanon This is some of the Pretty confusing stuff out there!

 

[InquisitorKind]

Good Day,

On another thread this has been asserted:

This same Canon of scripture was in use up through the time of Luther who removed 7 books from the Old Testament and 4 books from the New Testament and called them Appocrypha.

Never heard this one before


Peace to u,

Bill

I would question their raw factual knowledge. The early church held to a variety of canons, New Testament and Old. Hippo and Carthage, even if it is allowed that they had the same canon as Trent, didn't officially settle the matter. You find some fathers advocating different, contradictory lists of which books of the deutero-canonicals are Scripture, while others, like Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan, rejected the Apocrypha entirely.

How is this person defining "This same Canon of Scripture" and "in use up through the time of Luther"? The facts don't support a face-value reading of their comments.

~Matt

 

[BBAS 64]

I would question their raw factual knowledge. The early church held to a variety of canons, New Testament and Old. Hippo and Carthage, even if it is allowed that they had the same canon as Trent, didn't officially settle the matter. You find some fathers advocating different, contradictory lists of which books of the deutero-canonicals are Scripture, while others, like Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan, rejected the Apocrypha entirely.

How is this person defining "This same Canon of Scripture" and "in use up through the time of Luther"? The facts don't support a face-value reading of their comments.

~Matt

Hi, Matt

Thank you, for remining me of some issues in this debate. The thread is in GT fourm. Brought up some of the incosistant views of some ECF. got standard answer 1 man does not speak for the church.

Hope you r Well,

Bill

 

[InquisitorKind]

Hi, Matt

Thank you, for remining me of some issues in this debate. The thread is in GT fourm. Brought up some of the incosistant views of some ECF. got standard answer 1 man does not speak for the church.

Hope you r Well,

Bill

Bill,

If you haven't already, ask them who does speak for the church and why nobody listened to that voice on the matter of the canon, including Cardinal Cajetan.

~Matt

 

[FreeinChrist]

I've been trying to do some research on the Apocrypha, and found these little comments:

Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3 - creation being spoken into existence from nothing by the word of Almighty God. Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 - God created the world out of “formless matter” .

Jer. 52:12-13 - Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on the tenth day, fifth month, or the nineteenth year of his reign the both Jeremiah and his scribe, Baruch, were taken into Egypt (Jer. 43:6-7). According to Baruch 1:1-2,at this very time Baruch was in Babylon.

Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.) - a span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5)!

The Apocrypha contains a belief of the pre-existence of the soul, like the heathen cultures around Israel, suggesting that the kind of body one now has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life. “Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). This is contrary to the biblical view that the soul of man is formed with him at conception (Psa. 139:13-16; Zech. 12:1). (Think Joseph smith must have liked this. )

Tobit 3:9 suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms. “It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin” Is this suggested anywhere else in scripture?

Tobit 6:1-17 describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away.


And from Eusebius, Ecclesastical history 4:26:14, he writes of Melito who listed the books of the OT:
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,(235) Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,(236) the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,(237) Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book(238) ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.(239) From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.
The Esdras in this list would be Ezra, Nehemiah (orginally they were one book).

So I understand why the question about those books.
Any thoughts?

 

[Flynmonkie]

The Apocrypha contains a belief of the pre-existence of the soul, like the heathen cultures around Israel, suggesting that the kind of body one now has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life. “Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). This is contrary to the biblical view that the soul of man is formed with him at conception (Psa. 139:13-16; Zech. 12:1). (Think Joseph smith must have liked this. )

Tobit 3:9 suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms. “It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin” Is this suggested anywhere else in scripture?

Tobit 6:1-17 describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away.


And from Eusebius, Ecclesastical history 4:26:14, he writes of Melito who listed the books of the OT:
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,(235) Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,(236) the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,(237) Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book(238) ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.(239) From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.
The Esdras in this list would be Ezra, Nehemiah (orginally they were one book).

So I understand why the question about those books.
Any thoughts?

Can I ask where you found this? I started a thread in Theology forum about these books....you are way ahead of me.....I am still trying to figure out what was written when, by whom and who took them out put them in etc..

 

[BBAS 64]

Bill,

If you haven't already, ask them who does speak for the church and why nobody listened to that voice on the matter of the canon, including Cardinal Cajetan.

~Matt

Hi, Matt

Starting back with Origen I hav been reading lots up to the letter of Innocent 405. It is very hard to keep it all straight "many peice of paper to shuffle though" hope to chart it out if I can not find a chart . Do you have a referance for the Cardinal?

Peace to u,

BBAS

 

[BBAS 64]

I've been trying to do some research on the Apocrypha, and found these little comments:

Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3 - creation being spoken into existence from nothing by the word of Almighty God. Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 - God created the world out of “formless matter” .

Jer. 52:12-13 - Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on the tenth day, fifth month, or the nineteenth year of his reign the both Jeremiah and his scribe, Baruch, were taken into Egypt (Jer. 43:6-7). According to Baruch 1:1-2,at this very time Baruch was in Babylon.

Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.) - a span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5)!

The Apocrypha contains a belief of the pre-existence of the soul, like the heathen cultures around Israel, suggesting that the kind of body one now has is determined by the character of his soul in a previous life. “Now I was a goodly child, and a good soul fell to my lot; Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). This is contrary to the biblical view that the soul of man is formed with him at conception (Psa. 139:13-16; Zech. 12:1). (Think Joseph smith must have liked this. )

Tobit 3:9 suggests that one may atone for his sins by the giving of alms. “It is better to give alms than to lay up gold: alms doth deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin” Is this suggested anywhere else in scripture?

Tobit 6:1-17 describes magical potions which are alleged to drive demons away.


And from Eusebius, Ecclesastical history 4:26:14, he writes of Melito who listed the books of the OT:
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,(235) Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,(236) the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,(237) Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book(238) ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.(239) From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito.
The Esdras in this list would be Ezra, Nehemiah (orginally they were one book).

So I understand why the question about those books.
Any thoughts?

Good Day, Free in Christ

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

It seems for some when the weight of historical is pitted agaist them, for some reason they draw colcusions that are un founded.

Peace to u,

BBAS

 

[InquisitorKind]

Do you have a referance for the Cardinal?

Bill,

William Webster referenced the following on Cardinal Cajetan:

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.

Webster attached the following footnote:

Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

So far I have not seen or read of anyone who has contested the context of this quote or its validity. However, since I would like to fully confirm Webster's quotation, I'm going to see if I can locate any of the appropriate sources at my library. I'll let you know if I find anything.

~Matt