Martin Luther's Apocrypha Removal

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Before I begin, I have 2 requests: please only reply if you're knowlegeable on the history around the Apocrypha (old & new testament), and this thread is not about a debate over the authenticity of the Apocrypha; I simply want to know more about how the Apocryphal books were chosen, and how/when they were or weren't officially removed from the Protestant Bibles.

Part of Martin Luther's attacks on the Catholic church was the books of the Bible now known as the Apocrypha; Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabbees, and Wisdom, along with some chapters of Daniel and Esther. As I understand it, he left them in the Bible, but moved them to the end of the Old Testament, in a new section he called the "Apocrypha", decreeing that they were good literature, but not inspired. Likewise, he also considered James, Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude to be nonapastolic, and moved them to the end of the New Testament, in another set of the "Apocrypha".
Why was it that the Old Testament Apocrypha was removed, but the New Testament Apocrypha still included, even to the point of James ("epistle of straw") being considered one of the best books to start reading the Bible with?
Feel free to include any corrections to details I may have messed, and please include links to articles on the subject.
Remember, this isn't a debate over the Apocryphas, but me trying to understand the history thereof.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Before I begin, I have 2 requests: please only reply if you're knowlegeable on the history around the Apocrypha (old & new testament), and this thread is not about a debate over the authenticity of the Apocrypha; I simply want to know more about how the Apocryphal books were chosen, and how/when they were or weren't officially removed from the Protestant Bibles.

Part of Martin Luther's attacks on the Catholic church was the books of the Bible now known as the Apocrypha; Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabbees, and Wisdom, along with some chapters of Daniel and Esther. As I understand it, he left them in the Bible, but moved them to the end of the Old Testament, in a new section he called the "Apocrypha", decreeing that they were good literature, but not inspired. Likewise, he also considered James, Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude to be nonapastolic, and moved them to the end of the New Testament, in another set of the "Apocrypha".
Why was it that the Old Testament Apocrypha was removed, but the New Testament Apocrypha still included, even to the point of James ("epistle of straw") being considered one of the best books to start reading the Bible with?
Feel free to include any corrections to details I may have messed, and please include links to articles on the subject.
Remember, this isn't a debate over the Apocryphas, but me trying to understand the history thereof.

Philip Melanchthon would not allow Luther to remove any of the New Testament. Said it would burn every bridge to the Catholic Church if he did. So, Luther's opinion aside, the books of the New Testament stayed. As to the Old Testament, Luther went with the Jewish canon. But the problem with going with the Jewish canon is that when the Jewish canon was fixed it was fixed in a way to exclude Jesus. We should not be bound to such a canon for NT or OT. Luther did know of Jerome's opinion of those books, but Jerome eventually sided with the historic Christian canon nonetheless.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not sure what your question is. It seems like he treated them the same: he translated both sets of books, but moved them to the end.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

I'm not sure what your question is. It seems like he treated them the same: he translated both sets of books, but moved them to the end.

As I understand it, he considered the Apocryphas as being non-inspired, and left them in the Bible, but in a seperate section, to seperate them from the rest of the Bible that he did consider inspired.
What I'm trying to understand is how the Old Testament apocrypha is no longer included in protestant Bibles, but the New Testament apocrypha is.

 

[hedrick]

As I understand it, he considered the Apocryphas as being non-inspired, and left them in the Bible, but in a seperate section, to seperate them from the rest of the Bible that he did consider inspired.
What I'm trying to understand is how the Old Testament apocrypha is no longer included in protestant Bibles, but the New Testament apocrypha is.

Ah. Decisions aren't made by a single person, but by the Church as a whole. Protestants generally agreed with the OT distinction but not the NT distinction. I don't claim to know what specific arguments they found convincing.

My own branch of the Church – mainline Protestantism – doesn't have a black and white distinction. We evaluate how books should be used individually. Personally the only NT letters that I'm confident were written by the traditional authors are the undisputed Pauline letters. That doesn't mean the others are worthless, but my priority list for determining doctrine is the Synoptics first, then (the undisputed letters of) Paul and John, then the other NT books. I give lowest priority to books that explicitly contain a claim for authorship that is probably wrong.

My sense is that Catholics actually are similar. Conservative Protestants have a comparatively literal view of Scripture. Any passage from any author can potentially be used in the same way. Hence the list of the canon is really critical, and anything that's questionable shouldn't be included. Catholic tradition has generally been freer in how Scripture is used. Hence the exact canon isn't as critical to Catholics.

 

[Anto9us]

Technically, books that are in NOBODY'S BIBLE should be called Apocryphal;

(works not canonized at all by any Christian church)

Books in Catholic and Orthodox bibles but not Protestant bibles should be called Deuterocanonical.

Orthodox have one more Psalm and a Prayer of Manasseh more than Catholics.

Protestants just have 39 OT books and 27 NT books.

Some Ethiopian Coptic church has more books IN THEIR NEW TESTAMENT than any of us, other wise 27 New Testament books are agreed on by the rest of us except the small Ethiopian church...

By and large, the Deuterocanonical works are not in the Hebrew Masoretic text, but they are in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament. Even Jerome debated about their status, eventually saying they were canonical.

There was a "fake kidnapping" of Martin Luther -- he went off to some castle with only the Masoretic Hebrew bible and Erasmus' Greek New Testament -- he had no Septuagint during the many months he "hid out" at Wartburg Castle translating Bible into German

the extra chapters of Daniel and Esther are only in Greek Septuagint, not Hebrew Masoretic text

Why Luther moved books around I don't know, but I know the Orthodox Bible has prophets in different order, Psalms in different numberings, cuz my son is Orthodox and I have been studying the Orthodox Study Bible

I don't think Martin Luther "attacked" the books you mentioned so much as he didnt have them available when he made a German Bible

The Episcopal church has an occasional reading of the Deuterocanonicals in their liturgy

I can't remember the name of that Ethiopian church that has extra New Testament books

 

[Anto9us]

The King James Bible originally had all the Deuterocanonical works as well, in its first printings. Remember England's form of "Protestantism" was never really Luther's. Maybe something as practical as saving printing costs went into things?

 

[Resha Caner]

Decisions aren't made by a single person, but by the Church as a whole.

This is the key point a Catholic needs to understand when approaching Lutheran history. Too much emphasis is placed on the man Luther, and the result is a misunderstanding of the reasons why Lutherans did what they did.

Don't get me wrong. Luther was very influential. And the misunderstandings go both ways - Lutherans often mischaracterize Catholics as well. I applaud your effort to dig a little deeper.

But my point is that the reasons the apocrypha are not included in the Bible go beyond Luther himself. Luther did not have (nor did he claim) some kind of all-encompassing authority to make such a unilateral decision.

So, we would need to clarify your question. Are you interested in Luther's position on the apocrypha and how he arrived at that position, or are you interested in knowing why the apocrypha are not included in the Bible? Those are two different questions.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It was my understanding that Luther did not really approve of certain books (there are passages in them that could dispute some of where his theology was taken) ... most directly James and the understanding of "faith alone" ... though Luther's original understanding appears to be much more in line with historic Christianity on this as well as the other Solas compared to the way they are understood by some more modern Protestant denominations.

While Luther moved them to a separate section, I understand it was monetary concerns that soon saw them no longer printed in Protestant Bibles.

If it had been up to Luther, I suspect James would certainly have been removed, and perhaps some of the other NT books he disapproved of as well.

For what it's worth, Christianity has traditionally held different parts of Scripture to varying levels of importance. The reason I mention that is that just because a book has less authority than another doesn't mean it should be removed. Particularly if one is going to accept the definition of canon by a non-Christian religion that specifically opposed Christianity.

Orthodoxy holds the Gospels in the highest regard, and most especially the direct words of Christ. There are various tiers of importance below that.

If a quote from Esther went against the words of Christ, for example, there would never be any question of which would have shaped doctrine. Not only that, but there would be much more nuanced understandings from various parts of Scripture - that's just an extreme example that I think most or all Christians would agree with.

 

[hedrick]

The King James Bible originally had all the Deuterocanonical works as well, in its first printings. Remember England's form of "Protestantism" was never really Luther's. Maybe something as practical as saving printing costs went into things?

Not sure why you see a distinction from Luther. They were placed at the end of the OT, as Luther did.

The decision to remove them was not made by any church, but by printers. However the fact that KJV readers have largely accepted this, means that the decision was effectively made by (part of) the Church as a whole, as in the Lutheran case.

 

[Resha Caner]

For what it's worth, Christianity has traditionally held different parts of Scripture to varying levels of importance.

While that is true in a historical sense, it is a mistake to turn such a position into a doctrinal statement.

 

[hedrick]

While that is true in a historical sense, it is a mistake to turn such a position into a doctrinal statement.

Are you sure? What parts of the Church would agree with the opposite, that doctrine can be made equally from any part of Scripture? I think de facto most of us actually make distinctions.

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you sure? What parts of the Church would agree with the opposite, that doctrine can be made equally from any part of Scripture? I think de facto most of us actually make distinctions.

I'm sure the Lutheran church doesn't rank the books. Doctrine can come from any part of the canon. Further, the Lutheran church holds that the more any doctrine is isolated within a single book or single verse, the more questionable it becomes. Finally, a Lutheran would never accept the possibility that a verse in Esther would contradict a verse in Matthew. Such an impression would be a mistaken interpretation of the reader.

With that said, it is of course easy to find people who give their opinion regarding favorite books or favorite verses.

 

[Resha Caner]

The decision to remove them was not made by any church, but by printers.

I'd love to see a credible historical citation supporting that statement. It sounds more like polemic than fact - and there has been quite a bit of that between the Catholic and Lutheran churches over the years. It was still alive and well when I was kid, though it seems to have died off in the U.S. since JFK.

 

[hedrick]

I'd love to see a credible historical citation supporting that statement. It sounds more like polemic than fact - and there has been quite a bit of that between the Catholic and Lutheran churches over the years. It was still alive and well when I was kid, though it seems to have died off in the U.S. since JFK.

Here's a detailed history of printing: King James Version - Wikipedia. The details of what was printed included edition, spelling, and cross references. These weren't based on any official Church decision, but by publishers. Of course it was informed by how potential readers valued the books.

 

[Resha Caner]

Here's a detailed history of printing: King James Version - Wikipedia. The details of what was printed included edition, spelling, and cross references. These weren't based on any official Church decision, but by publishers. Of course it was informed by how potential readers valued the books.

Well, first of all, I said "credible". I suppose I should have clarified that doesn't include Wikipedia.

Second, nowhere does the article say the printer's decided to leave out the apocrypha. It says the intent was to have different printers issue different sections, which didn't happen because of financial problems. The comment about the apocrypha comes at the end of that section as almost a footnote, with no real connection to the rest of the text or explanation as to why it's even mentioned.

Third, the section on the printer's initial financial problems is followed with a list of different editions - some including the apocrypha and some not ... so obviously it wasn't a widespread practice of printers to omit it from that point on. It even mentions how reading the apocrypha was common among the Puritans - which they wouldn't have been able to do if it were not being printed.

So, all in all, a poorly written article IMO. But I doubt you're going to accede to my opinion, so let me ask you a question: The Gideon's often hand out NT books. Does that mean the Gideons have decided to omit the OT from the canon? I know a member of the Gideons, so if I see him at church tomorrow, I'll ask that question.

IOW, this takes a very narrow incident in history and draws a broad conclusion - that a few printers in England with financial troubles determined the Protestant Bible the world over - in Scandanavia, in the German republics, in the Americas. It seems a pretty weak argument to me.

When I said, "credible", I meant something more like The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce. I'll check it to see if he mentions printers determining the canon.

 

[goldenboy]

Before I begin, I have 2 requests: please only reply if you're knowlegeable on the history around the Apocrypha (old & new testament), and this thread is not about a debate over the authenticity of the Apocrypha; I simply want to know more about how the Apocryphal books were chosen, and how/when they were or weren't officially removed from the Protestant Bibles.

Part of Martin Luther's attacks on the Catholic church was the books of the Bible now known as the Apocrypha; Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabbees, and Wisdom, along with some chapters of Daniel and Esther. As I understand it, he left them in the Bible, but moved them to the end of the Old Testament, in a new section he called the "Apocrypha", decreeing that they were good literature, but not inspired. Likewise, he also considered James, Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude to be nonapastolic, and moved them to the end of the New Testament, in another set of the "Apocrypha".
Why was it that the Old Testament Apocrypha was removed, but the New Testament Apocrypha still included, even to the point of James ("epistle of straw") being considered one of the best books to start reading the Bible with?
Feel free to include any corrections to details I may have messed, and please include links to articles on the subject.
Remember, this isn't a debate over the Apocryphas, but me trying to understand the history thereof.

A simple explanation:

1. Pre Reformation, even the RCC looked at the Apocrypha as being 'doubtful' or uninspired.

2. Luther came along and started emphasizing the Bible as the Ultimate Authority. BUT, more importantly for our discussion, "Justification by (personal)Faith!" for salvation, whereas the RCC was more flexible. OK, Luther 'started' Protestantism.

3. Now, both Protestants and Catholics called the Apocrypha 'doubtful' and uninspired.

4. Luther with help from Catholic pal, Erasmus with the giant brain, translate Bible into German. With Apocrypha.

5. As can be imagined, there is a CounterReformation. People are starting to read Luther's Bible and his Commentaries. People are starting to question established dogmas, viewing their theology through Luther's eyes. RCC says "Don't do this!" Tracts and books from both sides are printed up, distributed, read. An intellectual/theological war is happening.

6. As with most conflicting religious dogma, both sides need 'spiritual' and/or 'godly' proof. Both sides use 'inspired' Scriptures, but, the Protestant side goes with 'Scripture and reason', whereas the RCC goes with "Scripture AND traditions, Papal conclaves (or whatever), bulls, encyclicals, Councils". Ah, the last part, Councils! Here it comes!

7. I can't even remember the name of it, Council of Trent?? Council of Speier?? Whichever. NOW, regardless of the Council's name, another bullet is added. Somewhere around the 1560s, a Roman Catholic Council mentions that the Apocrypha is 'inspired', or whatever term that they use, meaning that it has the same weight as Scripture.

8. This approval of the Apocrypha can be overlooked as the RCC tightening up their doctrine, but, the relevant, and troublesome aspect is that THE APOCRYPHA TELLS US TO PRAY FOR THE DEAD! And, how convenient, just as the RCC needs a hammer to battle the Protestants, comes this revelation that the Apocrypha IS SCRIPTURE! Hmmm...mighty suspicious, said the Protestants!

9. From this point, printers, who are businesses, and not generally church affiliated, of Luther's and other Protestant Bibles start to let the Apocrypha slide from their publishing. After all, the Apocrypha was always doubtful, and, let's be real, the Scriptures that we KNOW are Scriptural are more than enough to keep us busy; why keep something in our Bible that is not a sure thing???

10. So, not to be a wiseguy or anything, the Apocrypha wasn't 'dropped'; it was, more properly, 'not included' any more.

That's about it.

 

[Anto9us]

Not sure why you see a distinction from Luther.

I contrast Church of England to the Protestantism of Luther just because the source of the split being English King couldn't get another divorce, so formed his own church -- not theologically motivated change as in Luther's case.

 

[Halbhh]

But the problem with going with the Jewish canon is that when the Jewish canon was fixed it was fixed in a way to exclude Jesus.

Maybe this has been asked and answered, but immediately one thinks of the many unambigous and very clear prophecies about Christ remaining. Really clear things. For instance, in Isaiah, and Psalms. Stuff so clear no one could help but be deeply encouraged and amazed by it.

That said, I intend to read these books I haven't yet, after I finish my current journey through the Old Testament (I'm in psalms atm).

 

[Anto9us]

I have read all the Deuterocanonicals in both Catholic NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE and Orthodox Study Bible

I have read R H Charles APOCRYPHA books, OT and NT - books that didnt make it in