Protestants: Please explain to me what gave Martin Luther the power to remove books?

[osddso]

Im not being condesending at all. im just curious. i dont quite understand. i was always under the impression all books in the bible are important.

i read the NKJV and i am Catholic. I prefer it over the NASB and ESV.

i just dont understand how extreme Protestants can say "what gives Catholics the right to <insert common complaint here>. It makes me wonder "what gave Martin Luther the right to exclude books?

im not being mean, i just dont know how else to put it.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Martin Luther wasn't the Protestant Pope and nothing present in Protestant theology is there on his authoritative say so. And moreover his translation of the Bible contains the exact same list of books in the Catholic canon.

But protestants do not consider the Apocrypha part of the canon because it wasn't part of the canon extant before the founding of the Church, nor did Christ or the Apostles use it, nor was there a consensus before Trent that they belonged in the Bible. There were certainly certain traditions and positions concerning the canon, many of which included the deuterocanon, but some of which didn't. And while Rome insists they were always part of the authoritative canon, if you don't believe Rome has the authority to declare one position to have always been the authoritative tradition after the fact, because you don't believe God preserves the church through infallable traditions in that manner, the "historical Catholic canon" becomes a much less definite list.

 

[MrPolo]

You can ask Martin Luther himself where he gets the authority to mess with Scripture:

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. (Martin Luther, An Open Letter on Translating, September 8, 1530)​

He gets the authority from his own will.

 

[mont974x4]

God.
He calls us all to be diligent students of His Word, and that implies the authority and ability to reject non-divine works. It is the same as me rejecting those added books and the book of mormon.

 

[MrPolo]

But protestants do not consider the Apocrypha part of the canon because it wasn't part of the canon extant before the founding of the Church, nor did Christ or the Apostles use it, nor was there a consensus before Trent that they belonged in the Bible.

None of these claims are true.

 

[mont974x4]

Actually it is true, it just does not agree with your faith's propaganda.

 

[Adelie]

Martin Luther wasn't the Protestant Pope and nothing present in Protestant theology is there on his authoritative say so. And moreover his translation of the Bible contains the exact same list of books in the Catholic canon.

But protestants do not consider the Apocrypha part of the canon because it wasn't part of the canon extant before the founding of the Church, nor did Christ or the Apostles use it, nor was there a consensus before Trent that they belonged in the Bible. There were certainly certain traditions and positions concerning the canon, many of which included the deuterocanon, but some of which didn't. And while Rome insists they were always part of the authoritative canon, if you don't believe Rome has the authority to declare one position to have always been the authoritative tradition after the fact, because you don't believe God preserves the church through infallable traditions in that manner, the "historical Catholic canon" becomes a much less definite list.

The gospels quote from several of those books that Martin Luther deemed uninspired.

Martin Luther didn't like the books because he thought they supported RCC doctrines. Just like he didn't like the epistle of James for the same reason.

 

[Epiphoskei]

You can ask Martin Luther himself where he gets the authority to mess with Scripture:

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. (Martin Luther, An Open Letter on Translating, September 8, 1530)
​

He gets the authority from his own will.

Luther gets sarcastic, and this is a good example of it. He gave a perfectly reasonable explanation in the same work, however:

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text &#8212; the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money"; or "No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain"; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; "Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?" There are countless cases like this in daily usage.
In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, "The farmer brings grain and kein money," but the words "kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

None of these claims are true.

http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

Rome has the habit of backwards declaring one tradition to always have been the authoritative tradition, although it wasn't considered such before the declaration, and the faithful believer would have no way of knowing what they are to believe, since the authoritative tradition hasn't been declared such yet, and their own bishop or priest may very well be teaching something entierly different. The neutral historian, however, could never view the spectrum of canonical opinions throughout Church history as evidence of a finalized canon.

The gospels quote from several of those books that Martin Luther deemed uninspired.

Without exact references, I can't interact with this statement, but usually when Roman apologists make this statement they bring out examples which are dubious, and perhaps allusions at best.

Martin Luther didn't like the books because he thought they supported RCC doctrines. Just like he didn't like the epistle of James for the same reason.

It's perfectly usual to grow frustrated with prooftexts, and sometimes that results in outbursts against the texts themselves, but with Luther it appears that this was restrained to considering James "an epistle of straw,&#65279; &#65279; compared to [the writings of John or Paul], for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it." Luther played favorites with the various books of the Bible, but don't we all?

 

[marlowe007]

The real question is not whether Luther wanted to remove a book, but how that set of books became 'the Canon'.

The set of books listed as 'the Bible' were eventually settled on in about 400 AD. The listed 'compiler' was Jerome, who also objected to several texts as 'not as worthy' as others. I recall his criteria was 'if it was written in Hebrew for the OT' the text had more weight than not. He also cribed from the older latin translations of the LXX. As for the NT I think he acceped what is given today as the set of books.

The 'apocrypha' were always classed as deuterocanonical, ie slightly less than 'the Holy Word', and perhaps useful for examples but not for theological development.

 

[MrPolo]

Untitled Document

You might want to investigate further. The link you provide says this:

"The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books."​

The first thing that is peculiar is why would Protestants take as their authority on such a matter Jerome, Rufinus, and Athanasius? Do these 3 men hold the authority in the same sense that a Catholic would refer to a Magisterium?

But second, let's examine these 3 fellows. Take Athanasius. He writes:

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.​

A few observations. 1. He concludes that this "thus far" constitutes the Old Testament. 2. Where is Baruch in the Protestant canon? 3. Where is the "epistle" of Jeremiah in the Protestant canon? 4. Where is Esther in Athanasius' list? We read further:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.​

More observations. 1. Esther, which is in the Protestant canon, is listed among other books that Protestants call "apocrypha." 2. Athanasius distinguishes these books from "apocryphal" writings.

Today, we speak of 2 classes of ancient Christian writing. It's either "canonical Scripture" or "uninspired Apocrypha." But Athanasius is using here three different classifications. The 22 books he calls "canonical" (which includes Baruch). Other Deuterocanonical books + Esther he says are not "canonical" but of "necessity" are "to be read" for "instruction in the word of godliness." These are distinct from a third classification he calls "apocryphal." This is largely where the Protestant historian has erred (besides specious assignment of which ECFs they wish to consider authoritative).

So how can we know how Athanasius viewed the Deuterocanical books (besides Baruch which he said is canonical)? We look at how he uses them and references them.

But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life. (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, #11)​

That quote is from Wisdom 14:12. And remember above how he had that book classified as "non-canonical." Yet he plainly refers to it as "Scripture." Those books he listed above as "non-canonical" he believed to be "Scripture." He had a different understanding of terms than we do today.

I could go on into Rufinus or Jerome, but this post is long enough.

 

[ebia]

Is this a thread about the Old Testament 'canon' (if such is the appropriate word at all), or about Martin Luther?

To answer the OP, neither Martin Luther nor protestants more generally saw themselves as removing books, but as reforming and correcting which books were accepted. To what extent they were and are right about that is an entirely separate question.

 

[MrPolo]

Is this a thread about the Old Testament 'canon' (if such is the appropriate word at all), or about Martin Luther?

To answer the OP, neither Martin Luther nor protestants more generally saw themselves as removing books, but as reforming and correcting which books were accepted. To what extent they were and are right about that is an entirely separate question.

It's about what books Martin Luther didn't consider Scripture as I understand.

 

[ebia]

It's about what books Martin Luther didn't consider Scripture as I understand.

The question in the title is "what gave him the 'power' to remove them", not how did he judge what should not be there.

 

[Epiphoskei]

You might want to investigate further. The link you provide says this:

"The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books."
​

The first thing that is peculiar is why would Protestants take as their authority on such a matter Jerome, Rufinus, and Athanasius? Do these 3 men hold the authority in the same sense that a Catholic would refer to a Magisterium?

But second, let's examine these 3 fellows. Take Athanasius. He writes:

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
​

A few observations. 1. He concludes that this "thus far" constitutes the Old Testament. 2. Where is Baruch in the Protestant canon? 3. Where is the "epistle" of Jeremiah in the Protestant canon? 4. Where is Esther in Athanasius' list? We read further:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.
​

More observations. 1. Esther, which is in the Protestant canon, is listed among other books that Protestants call "apocrypha." 2. Athanasius distinguishes these books from "apocryphal" writings.

Today, we speak of 2 classes of ancient Christian writing. It's either "canonical Scripture" or "uninspired Apocrypha." But Athanasius is using here three different classifications. The 22 books he calls "canonical" (which includes Baruch). Other Deuterocanonical books + Esther he says are not "canonical" but of "necessity" are "to be read" for "instruction in the word of godliness." These are distinct from a third classification he calls "apocryphal." This is largely where the Protestant historian has erred (besides specious assignment of which ECFs they wish to consider authoritative).

So how can we know how Athanasius viewed the Deuterocanical books (besides Baruch which he said is canonical)? We look at how he uses them and references them.

But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life. (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, #11)
​

That quote is from Wisdom 14:12. And remember above how he had that book classified as "non-canonical." Yet he plainly refers to it as "Scripture." Those books he listed above as "non-canonical" he believed to be "Scripture." He had a different understanding of terms than we do today.

I could go on into Rufinus or Jerome, but this post is long enough.

What you are arguing unreasonably constricts Protestantism to a Roman approach to the Church Fathers. The Protestant does not need to accept the "authority" of any Chuch Father, be it Jerome, Athinasius, or whomever, to point out that his writings are not in keeping with the Roman teaching on a given matter. The point of examining the canon through Church History is to show that at no time was there ever a true "catholic" canon recieved by all Christians, not to seek to justify an alternate canon from an alternate tradition.

This is where the major Protestant-Roman breakdown in communication occurs most often. As one apologist puts it, you need to read the Church Fathers as the Church Fathers, not as proto-Baptists, nor as Roman Catholics, but simply as the Church Fathers, a group of men who, while Christians all, held to various strange and often contradictory views, and were all of them in one way or another dabbling in minor heresies, and whom God used despite themselves.

The problem arises that Roman Catholicism is so attached to the idea of an authoritative tradition handed down through the Church that when the Protestant makes the argument that there was no such tradition recognizable at the time because the ECF's have such different opinions which would have been impossible if the various Churches were keeping and handing down traditions faithfully, the Roman apologist will frequently respond as if the Protestant had been claiming some secondary tradition.

 

[MrPolo]

The Protestant does not need to accept the "authority" of any Chuch Father, be it Jerome, Athinasius, or whomever, to point out that his writings are not in keeping with the Roman teaching on a given matter. The point of examining the canon through Church History is to show that at no time was there ever a true "catholic" canon recieved by all Christians, not to seek to justify an alternate canon from an alternate tradition.

This explanation says that Protestants have no capacity to determine what is in Scripture!

 

[MrPolo]

The question in the title is "what gave him the 'power' to remove them", not how did he judge what should not be there.

True, but don't you think Luther's justification for declaring what and what is not in Scripture is related to his authority to do so? In other words, from my memory, there were times when he appealed to Jerome (selective Jerome anyway) as his support for excluding the deuterocanon. So shouldn't we examine the history behind that appeal? I think the issues are related.

 

[Epiphoskei]

This explanation says that Protestants have no capacity to determine what is in Scripture!

Not at all, it simply says such cannot be done on the basis of traditions or authority of men.

 

[ebia]

True, but don't you think Luther's justification for declaring what and what is not in Scripture is related to his authority to do so? In other words, from my memory, there were times when he appealed to Jerome (selective Jerome anyway) as his support for excluding the deuterocanon. So shouldn't we examine the history behind that appeal? I think the issues are related.

If we've decided to get beyond the deliberately emotive question of the thread title to a more sustantial historical question instead, possibly.

If we are going to do so we need to ditch the word power, and even the word authority needs to be carefully worked through - there are many ways of thinking about different sorts and sources of authority which tend to get equivocated in this sort of discussion. The sort of authority Luther would be thinking about looking at historical texts like the writings of Jerome would be a very different sort of authority to Papal fiat, or even how the established church looked at Jerome, but all three could could appropriately use the word 'authority'.

FWIW, I think both Luther and the church he was trying to reform were trying to categorise shades of grey into black and white on this one.

 

[Christos Anesti]

nor did Christ or the Apostles use it, nor was there a consensus before Trent that they belonged in the Bible.

They were in the Septuagint. The Bible used by Greek speaking Christians from the beginning (also the main translation used by Greek speaking Jews for a long time) . The books of the so called "Apocrypha" are quoted and referenced in the New Testament as well.

As a side note... no Bible is complete without the Wisdom of Solomon which is one of the best books of the OT with some of the most explicit references to the Deity of Christ. The Fathers often quoted it to disprove the teachings of the Arians.

 

[Epiphoskei]

They were in the Septuagint. The Bible used by Greek speaking Christians from the beginning (also the main translation used by Greek speaking Jews for a long time) . The books of the so called "Apocrypha" are quoted and referenced in the New Testament as well.

The deuterocanon was in the Septuagint, yes, however that doesn't indicate its books were considered canon. The Septuagint was not so much a single volume translated to be "the Bible" the way we use the term, but simply a collection of Greek translations over the 3rd to 1st centuries BC. One can make the argument that the only reason they became compiled in one volume is because they shared the common characteristic that they were all works in Greek.

And there are no clear quotations from the apocrypha in the New Testament. The examples which I have seen are pretty dubious.