Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?

[Michie]

“It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.” (CCC 120)


Amid all the damage Martin Luther did in rending the body of Christ, perhaps his most deeply ingrained legacy is his shortened canon of Scriptures.

Many people seem to believe Catholics “added” books to the Bible. They don’t seem to realize that Luther removed seven entire books and parts of three others from it for no other reason than that they didn’t fit his idea of “what God really wanted.” Luther claimed they celebrated Judaism and because he wanted to justify his challenging the authority of the Catholic Church, he threw them out.


The Protestant Bible consists of only 66 books ― 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. The Catholic (i.e., the original canon) settled upon in the 4th century is contains 73 books including Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees ― what Protestants call the Apocrypha.

In fact, Luther’s first German translation was missing 25 books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He referred to the Epistle of James as “straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder.” The rest he called “Judaizing nonsense.” Subsequent Protestants, deciding that Luther wasn’t reallyinspired by the Holy Spirit, replaced most of the books he had removed.

Continued below.
Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?

 

[Michie]

Luther argued that the Catholic Church had no right to decide matters of canonicity, completely disregarding that fact that he had awarded himself that very right. He held that the internal worth of a book was the chief factor in deciding if it should be kept or not. This argument is silly, because Judaism obviously doesn’t recognize the 27 Christian books either.

Luther’s mistakes are obvious. The reformer’s intention wasn’t to get at the truth of the Scriptures but rather to edit out the “messy parts” that contradicted his new vision of Christianity. So why would anyone trust a man who hated all Jewish references in the Bible so much that he singlehandedly corrupted it?

Though the Hebrew Bible that Jesus read didn’t include these books, he referred to them in his ministry. The New Testament we have today is completely dependent upon the Septuagint and thus, for the sake of continuity, historicity and authenticity, Luther should have kept his unauthorized editing to himself.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[narnia59]

View attachment 301371

The idea that we had to wait 1500 years for the Bible to be correctly canonized does sort of shoot bullets in the whole theory of sola-Scriptura.

 

[Michie]

THE MYTH: Martin Luther was a simple reformer who desired to rid the Church of corruption and abuses, but when he challenged the pope on the issue of indulgences he was unjustly condemned, which forced him to break from the Church.

THE REAL STORY: This narrative is false. Luther was an unrepentant heretic whose teachings caused irreparable harm to the Catholic Church and Western civilization. When Pope Leo X (r. 1513-1521) recognized the danger of Luther’s teachings he strenuously and patiently urged his repentance.

Giovanni de’ Medici came from one of the most powerful families in Italy. His father, Lorenzo the Magnificent, was a diplomat, politician, patron of several great Renaissance artists including Michelangelo, and ruler of the Florentine Republic. From an early age, Giovanni was molded for a life in the Church. He was created a cardinal by Pope Innocent VIII at the age of thirteen but did not officially assume the functions of the office until he turned sixteen.

Continued below.
Leo and Luther—The Real Story of the Pope and the Heretic

 

[Michie]

Question:
A non-Catholic co-worker claims there were early Christian councils that upheld the 66 books of the Old Testament, but the Catholic Church suppressed them, and it was Martin Luther who finally stood up to the Church and reclaimed the true Bible for Christians. Is there any truth to his statement?
Answer:
No. There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

Continued below.
Was Martin Luther’s Revision of the Bible a Return to the “True Bible” of the Early Church?

 

[Michie]

Who Was the Real Martin Luther?

 

[Michie]

I think we can all agree Luther was a fascinating character.

 

[chevyontheriver]

“It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.” (CCC 120)




In fact, Luther’s first German translation was missing 25 books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He referred to the Epistle of James as “straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder.” The rest he called “Judaizing nonsense.” Subsequent Protestants, deciding that Luther wasn’t reallyinspired by the Holy Spirit, replaced most of the books he had removed.

I think the article writer was misinformed. I don't know how that happened exactly. It is possible, since translation is a slow thing, that Luther published in stages and that his very first New Testament was only a few books.

I think Angelo Stagnaro is working with some wrong or misleading material.

But Luther did have trouble with Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, as well as Esther and those seven books of the OT. Were it not for Philip Melenchthon those NT books would never have made it in the Luther Bible.

Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?

 

[Michie]

I think the article writer was misinformed. I don't know how that happened exactly. It is possible, since translation is a slow thing, that Luther published in stages and that his very first New Testament was only a few books.

I think Angelo Stagnaro is working with some wrong or misleading material.

But Luther did have trouble with Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, as well as Esther and those seven books of the OT. Were it not for Philip Melenchthon those NT books would never have made it in the Luther Bible.

I researched it afterwards and posted the link. I did not see anything misleading but then again, Martin Luther was quite the character that comes along with a lot of legends.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I researched it afterwards and posted the link. I did not see anything misleading but then again, Martin Luther was quite the character that comes along with a lot of legends.

He was a character. A deeply troubled individual, almost as troubled as I am. No. Maybe even worse on his part. An anti-Semite of grand proportions. An anti-Catholic of grand proportions. A dangerous denier of actually inspired books of the Bible, who wanted to remove James and other books of the New Testament.

I've read huge chunks of Luther's Works. And I've never seen a disrespect by him for the other three gospels or Romans. I do not recall Jaroslav Pelikan mentioning that either in his book 'Whose Bible Is It?'. He would have known, being the guy who compiled 'Luther's Works' in English as a Lutheran and he later became Orthodox.

 

[Michie]

I’ve never understood how someone that claims to follow Christ could be such an anti-Semite. I know there have been past clergy in our Church that were anti-Semites as well. Never understood it. I did read something once that a lot of Luther’s feelings sprung from his failure to convert them to his brand of Christianity. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know.

He was a character. A deeply troubled individual, almost as troubled as I am. No. Maybe even worse on his part. An anti-Semite of grand proportions. An anti-Catholic of grand proportions. A dangerous denier of actually inspired books of the Bible, who wanted to remove James and other books of the New Testament.

I've read huge chunks of Luther's Works. And I've never seen a disrespect by him for the other three gospels or Romans. I do not recall Jaroslav Pelikan mentioning that either in his book 'Whose Bible Is It?'. He would have known, being the guy who compiled 'Luther's Works' in English as a Lutheran and he later became Orthodox.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I’be never understood how someone that claims to follow Christ could be such an anti-Semite. I know there have been past clergy in our Church that were anti-Semites as well. Never understood it. I did read something once that a lot of Luther’s feelings sprung from his failure to convert them to his brand of Christianity. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know.

That's what I heard. He thought that he could make Jewish converts to his 'true' religion. Didn't work. He got angry and the rest is history.

There is no reason to be an anti-Semite and a shame that any Christians have ever been that. Luther owns the big stink eye in that regard.

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread has had a heavy cleaning. This forum is for Catholics, not Lutherans, not other Protestants. I know that sometimes material is posted that other denominations feel compelled to "set straight", but this is not the forum for that.

Please do not debate or teach in this forum if you are not Catholic. That would be a Statement of Purpose violation.

Also, do not complain about people posting content in other forums that you may feel is wrong. If it is an open forum, discuss it and set the record straight, if it is a closed forum (like this), respect that safe harbor.

ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[Fr. Appletree]

It is easy to be sympathetic to early Luther who criticised rightly the corruption of his day, but he fell when he deemed to make himself an authority he was not. He, being not even ordained a priest, thought to act with the authority of a bishop. He then fell into the deception that he uniquely had the Holy Spirit that made him think his vision was God's.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is easy to be sympathetic to early Luther who criticised rightly the corruption of his day, but he fell when he deemed to make himself an authority he was not. He, being not even ordained a priest, thought to act with the authority of a bishop. He then fell into the deception that he uniquely had the Holy Spirit that made him think his vision was God's.

Was he not ordained to the priesthood on April 3rd, 1507 by Jerome Schultz, the Bishop of Brandenburg, in Erfurt Cathedral? Do you have other evidence?

 

[Gnarwhal]

It is easy to be sympathetic to early Luther who criticised rightly the corruption of his day, but he fell when he deemed to make himself an authority he was not. He, being not even ordained a priest, thought to act with the authority of a bishop. He then fell into the deception that he uniquely had the Holy Spirit that made him think his vision was God's.

This is the first I've ever heard that he wasn't ordained, I'm pretty sure he was...

I pulled this from Catholic.org encyclopedia:

Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. The precise date is uncertain. A strange oversight, running through three centuries, placed the date of his ordination and first Mass on the same day, 2 May, an impossible coincidence. Kostlin, who repeated it (Luther's Leben, I, 1883, 63) drops the date altogether in his latest edition. Oerger fixes on 27 February. This allows the unprecedented interval of more than two months to elapse between the ordination and first Mass. Could he have deferred his first Mass on account of the morbid scrupulosity, which played such a part in the later periods of his monastic life ?

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is the first I've ever heard that he wasn't ordained, I'm pretty sure he was...

I pulled this from Catholic.org encyclopedia:

So no disputing that he was ordained but a tiny controversy about the dates of his ordination or first mass. I don’t know where the ‘Luther was not ordained a Vatholic priest’ meme came from. As far as I’m concerned, his ordination is a done deal.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

This is the first I've ever heard that he wasn't ordained, I'm pretty sure he was...

I pulled this from Catholic.org encyclopedia:

Yes, I was confused this morning. I realized my error not long after I posted. The gist of what I'm saying is still accurate, because he removed himself from the authority of the priesthood as the authority derived from the bishop and from the church. While the indelible mark remains, the authority doesn't when separated.

 

[BrAndreyu]

I don't understand especially why Baptists use the version of the Bible that tosses out 7 books when they claim to be the heirs to the original church. None of that ever made sense to me.