Martin Luther's Apocrypha Removal

sparow · Mar 3, 2018

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:
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.

The Latin Vulgate I a translation of the Greek OT used by Greek speaking Jews in dispersion; those extra books at a history of those Jews while in dispersion. Whether they are true or false is not relevant; the RCC derives doctrine from them like Purgatory.

chevyontheriver · Mar 3, 2018

goldenboy said:
A simple explanation:! 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.

Problem is that the canon of Scripture given by the Council of Trent in the 16th century is the exact same canon of Scripture as from the Council of Florence in the 15th century predating the Reformation. And that canon is the same as from the regional Council of Hippo at about 400 AD. Yes, there was some debate about the books of the Deuterocanon but they were canonized (as inspired) well before the Reformation. There was some debate about the book of the Apocalypse as well, but that debate resolved too.

~Anastasia~ · Mar 3, 2018

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

Forgive me ... I'm not trying to set doctrine for anyone. People often remain in the ways they are used to doing. If they are inclined to put more emphasis on a verse in Esther or a particular Levitical law than on the words of Christ, I suppose they will. Though I doubt it's a very common practice among Christians.

I'm merely reporting how the Christianity as a whole has viewed Scriptures in a historic sense.

If you're looking for arguing of points, that's not why I'm here. Was only seeking to add a bit more info on the questions asked by the OP.

goldenboy · Mar 3, 2018

chevyontheriver said:
Problem is that the canon of Scripture given by the Council of Trent in the 16th century is the exact same canon of Scripture as from the Council of Florence in the 15th century predating the Reformation. And that canon is the same as from the regional Council of Hippo at about 400 AD. Yes, there was some debate about the books of the Deuterocanon but they were canonized (as inspired) well before the Reformation. There was some debate about the book of the Apocalypse as well, but that debate resolved too.

Well, I think that this is getting into a debate about the Apocrypha, which is outside of the OP. Jerome included the 'Apocrypha' in the Vulgate, yet he called it apocryphal. The Council of Trent deemed that Jerome's text, the Vulgate, was the official text of "The Bible", just to give a short and fair account. The Vulgate's Apocrypha being the offending text, to Protestants.

chevyontheriver · Mar 3, 2018

goldenboy said:
Well, I think that this is getting into a debate about the Apocrypha, which is outside of the OP.

You don't want me to 'debate' yet I was trying to provide some history of the canonicity of those books, particularly that the Council of Trent copied the council of Florence copying the regional council of Hippo going all the way back to Augustine. I am not trying to be offensive.

Resha Caner · Mar 3, 2018

~Anastasia~ said:
If you're looking for arguing of points, that's not why I'm here. Was only seeking to add a bit more info on the questions asked by the OP.

I've no interest in arguing with you, but it is possible to disagree without arguing. If you expect people to let your words pass without comment, then I don't see much point in making any comments at all.

~Anastasia~ said:
I'm merely reporting how the Christianity as a whole has viewed Scriptures in a historic sense.

And I agree that some Christians throughout history have emphasized one book or passage over another. It has been the source of many a heresy.

~Anastasia~ said:
People often remain in the ways they are used to doing. If they are inclined to put more emphasis on a verse in Esther or a particular Levitical law than on the words of Christ, I suppose they will.

But Jesus is the Word. The entire Bible is the words of Christ, not just the red letters in the Gospels. In fact, the Gospels don't make sense without the OT - Esther and Leviticus included. So, to focus on a small set of passages in a particular section of the Bible is to reduce Christ and cast from ourselves the full gift that is given us.

URA · Mar 3, 2018

chevyontheriver said:
You don't want me to 'debate' yet I was trying to provide some history of the canonicity of those books, particularly that the Council of Trent copied the council of Florence copying the regional council of Hippo going all the way back to Augustine. I am not trying to be offensive.

I suppose this and the preceding messages are partly debate, but they still contain the historical aspect I'm looking for, so thank you for your posts.
This has been a very good discussion so far, with a lot of good information. As long as it stays more focused on the history, that's what I'm looking for; I suppose a bit of debate is inevitable, though.
Carry on!

Resha Caner · Mar 3, 2018

chevyontheriver said:
Problem is that the canon of Scripture given by the Council of Trent in the 16th century is the exact same canon of Scripture as from the Council of Florence in the 15th century predating the Reformation. And that canon is the same as from the regional Council of Hippo at about 400 AD. Yes, there was some debate about the books of the Deuterocanon but they were canonized (as inspired) well before the Reformation. There was some debate about the book of the Apocalypse as well, but that debate resolved too.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It seems somewhat disingenuous. The Synod of Hippo included the five books of Solomon, works not accepted by the current RCC as canonical if I understand correctly.

Your post seems to imply the canon has been set since 400, which simply isn't true.

FireDragon76 · Mar 3, 2018

Lutherans do not object to James principally because of the denial of justification by faith alone (it would be cruel indeed to engage in a self-delusion where we exclude things from concsideration merely because they don't fit with our pre-existing beliefs ), but because the work is considered antilegomena or of disputed apostolicity by the early Church witnesses we have and today, by many scholars. Luther himself knew this as well, which is why he did not esteem the epistle as much as the ones from Paul which are undisputed.

There's lots of inspiring literature out there worth reading. Luther himself recommended the Theologica Germanica alongside the Bible as worth reading. So that's not the issue. The issue is, given the diverse set of Christian writings, which writings bear unique apostolic witness to the faith.

~Anastasia~ · Mar 3, 2018

Resha Caner said:
I've no interest in arguing with you, but it is possible to disagree without arguing. If you expect people to let your words pass without comment, then I don't see much point in making any comments at all.

And I agree that some Christians throughout history have emphasized one book or passage over another. It has been the source of many a heresy.

But Jesus is the Word. The entire Bible is the words of Christ, not just the red letters in the Gospels. In fact, the Gospels don't make sense without the OT - Esther and Leviticus included. So, to focus on a small set of passages in a particular section of the Bible is to reduce Christ and cast from ourselves the full gift that is given us.

Sure you are free to disagree.

My point is not to say "everyone must do this because I say it's best" but rather simply to say "this is the way Christianity interpreted the Scriptures since early times". That's a matter of history, not opinion. What Luther or anyone else does with that is their own matter. I am sure that everyone has good intentions and does what they consider best according to their own judgement.

I would actually take the opposite position though - the OT must be understood through the lens of the Gospel. Trying to understand Scripture with a view of the reverse has indeed led to many errors. (I would not use the term "heresy" because that has a formal definition - not every error is heresy.) I wouldn't expect this to be controversial when one considers that the Jews were wrong about the Messiah they expected, were wrong by focusing too much on external legalities rather than the condition of the heart, and so on. Christ came and clarified these things, so this is one reason why Christianity in the historic sense has used His direct words to interpret the rest of Scripture. The Scripture itself says that God at one time spoke in a veiled sense, but clearly through Christ. So, as I said, I wouldn't have expected this to be controversial. But st any rate, in just stating the way Christians interpreted the Scriptures since the early centuries.

If you believe there are heresies that have resulted in giving too much weight to the actual words of Christ, I'd be very curious to know what they are.

At any rate, I thought this would be relevant to the inquiry of the OP.

Resha Caner · Mar 3, 2018

~Anastasia~ said:
I would actually take the opposite position though - the OT must be understood through the lens of the Gospel. Trying to understand Scripture with a view of the reverse has indeed led to many errors. (I would not use the term "heresy" because that has a formal definition - not every error is heresy.)

I actually agree with you here, so I don't see what you've said as the opposite of my words. Rather, I accept your clarification, with the understanding that this doesn't in some way elevate the Gospel above the OT. Rather, it makes the Gospel complete.

God chose to tell his story beginning with Genesis, and I think it would be arrogant for us to suppose we know how to tell it better. So, while Genesis should most definitely be read through the lens of the Gospel, the Gospel should not (as you seemed to imply) be read without Genesis, etc.

- - -

Further, I understand that not every error is a heresy, yet it remains that many heresies stem from a limited reading of the Bible.

~Anastasia~ · Mar 4, 2018

Resha Caner said:
I actually agree with you here, so I don't see what you've said as the opposite of my words. Rather, I accept your clarification, with the understanding that this doesn't in some way elevate the Gospel above the OT. Rather, it makes the Gospel complete.

God chose to tell his story beginning with Genesis, and I think it would be arrogant for us to suppose we know how to tell it better. So, while Genesis should most definitely be read through the lens of the Gospel, the Gospel should not (as you seemed to imply) be read without Genesis, etc.

- - -

Further, I understand that not every error is a heresy, yet it remains that many heresies stem from a limited reading of the Bible.

For the sake of clarity then ... not to argue

(And its fine if we don't agree - no harm done.)

I would not say we should ignore Genesis or any other part of Scripture. But yes, we (in Orthodoxy) DO elevate the Gospels, and even parts of the Gospels, above the rest of Scripture. There have been strata of importance within the Scriptures since the earliest meetings of the ekklesia.

I find it interesting the idea you seem to be suggesting of an importance of Genesis as it begins our Bible. Where only the OT is considered, I would agree with you that it has great importance, being the foundation of all human history and our relationship to God. At certain times of the year, we read quite a bit from Genesis, second probably only to Psalms in the OT (and Psalms are read because they are the original prayer book of Christianity).

Again, no desire to argue. My interest is simply in the historic aspects of how Scripture was handled - even before it was Scripture. Again, that seemed relevant to the OP.

God be with you.

Quid est Veritas? · Mar 4, 2018

There was an ongoing debate since earliest days what was or was not, canon. Some Church luminaries had variant opinions, such as Jerome, who favoured the Vita Hebraica - prefering OT books written originally in Hebrew or partially so, to the later Aramaic ones, or giving precedence to the LXX.
This continued right through the mediaeval period, so that people like Bede and Aquinas and others had a rich tradition of debate. Hugh of St. Victor argued extensively against the Maccabees, for instance.

This came to a head in the Reformation, in which Protestants came to exclude the debated books and the Catholics to consequently confirm them at Trent (Orthodoxy sort-of confirmed them in 1672).
There were levels of exclusion though, so that some Protestants rejectex them outright, and others relegated them to second tier (which over time resulted in the commensurate decrease in their importance). As far as I know, Luther was of the latter group. This is why the Deuterocanonical books and various Apocrypha came to on occasion be added to Bibles or be discussed.

No one rejects the vast majority of the Bible, and these few books are more related to abtuse points of doctrine than the basic message, in my opinion. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism only came down on different sides of mediaeval debates, which is usually what happened. The Reformation has been called, tongue-in-cheek, merely disagreement over what Augustine and Jerome had meant.

A71 · Mar 4, 2018

Wow. What a great thread.
Immediately I concur in the Spirit.
Esther and Daniel are fundamental, and the four books of Maccabees too.

That would make the Bible to be 70 books, a much more satisfying number. Perhaps also Enoch and Jasher can be considered as an 'extra' two, since they are both quoted in Scripture. That would make 70/72 books, as per the number of apostles sent out on ministry.

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:
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.

Resha Caner · Mar 4, 2018

~Anastasia~ said:
I find it interesting the idea you seem to be suggesting of an importance of Genesis as it begins our Bible. Where only the OT is considered, I would agree with you that it has great importance, being the foundation of all human history and our relationship to God. At certain times of the year, we read quite a bit from Genesis, second probably only to Psalms in the OT (and Psalms are read because they are the original prayer book of Christianity).

Yes, there is that. But also Genesis contains the first statement of the Gospel (Gen 3:15), and there is no need for the Gospel without Genesis.

Further, Genesis is more than just the creation story. In fact, the creation story is just a setup for other things. One would be questions like, "Couldn't God have saved us a different way? Couldn't he just have wiped out all the bad people with, for example, a flood, and started over? Wouldn't that make a new Eden?" Of course the answer is no. So, all those attempts to build a new world - as the Puritans tried to do - is pointless.

But the biggest part of Genesis is the story of Joseph. It occupies Genesis 37 to 50. And Joseph is a huge Christ figure. He sets up the entire history of Israel - shows that God's plan for Christ runs through all of history - shows that God interacts in history and is not some gnostic mystical knowledge - and on and on.

brocke · Mar 4, 2018

Resha Caner said:
But Jesus is the Word. The entire Bible is the words of Christ, not just the red letters in the Gospels.

Does that include the erotica of Songs of Solomon?

How fair and pleasant you are,
O loved one, delectable maiden!
You are stately s a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
I say I will climb the palm tree
and lay hold of its branches.
O may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,
and the scent of your breath like apples,
and your kisses like the best wine
that goes down smoothly,
gliding over lips and teeth. (Song of Solomon 7:6-9)

Radagast · Mar 4, 2018

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:
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.

The O.T. Apocrypha were the non-Hebrew books that the Jews did not consider part of Scripture. Luther was essentially taking the Jewish view of canonicity here, as well as echoing doubts from some early Christian leaders. Later Reformers would say "The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion." Much earlier, St Athanasius had written in somewhat similar words that these were "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness."

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:
Likewise, he also considered James, Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude to be nonapastolic

On this, Luther echoed some other doubts by early Christians. But other Reformers soon corrected him, and Protestants soon agreed that James, Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude were apostolic. However, it's interesting that Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther, doubted these books as well.

chevyontheriver · Mar 4, 2018

Resha Caner said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It seems somewhat disingenuous. The Synod of Hippo included the five books of Solomon, works not accepted by the current RCC as canonical if I understand correctly.

Your post seems to imply the canon has been set since 400, which simply isn't true.

You don't want me to 'debate' so my hands are tied in responding to your 'debate'.

Resha Caner · Mar 4, 2018

brocke said:
Does that include the erotica of Songs of Solomon?

Yes.

Resha Caner · Mar 4, 2018

chevyontheriver said:
You don't want me to 'debate' so my hands are tied in responding to your 'debate'.

Feel free to 'inform' me.

Martin Luther's Apocrypha Removal

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Pray in silence...God speaks softly

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Expert Fool

† Handmaid of God †

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Supreme Ruler of Universe

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Expert Fool

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency