The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible. - Page 5

TertiumQuid · #61 May 30, '12, 4:03 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mackbrislawn

I suppose an historian that says Melanchthon was an associate of Luther and guided his thought considerably, even to the canon, would by definition not be reputable. Therefore, no reputable historian can be found.

It was you just a little while ago that stated, "It was Malanchthon in particular that prevailed upon Luther to continue the traditional view that Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude et al were to be considered inspired."

This Melanchthon-myth is simply one of a number of related problems with Roman Catholic perspectives on Luther's canon views. I'm simply amazed by how far and how long certain myths travel. I think many Roman Catholics should understand this, because there are plenty of myths about the Roman Catholic Church.

Think about it before you continue to defend myths like the one you recently posted.

James

tqualey · #62 May 30, '12, 7:51 am

Hi, TertiumQuid,

I must confess...I am getting confused here...

I looked at the links you provided and, at least as I understand what you are saying, Luther did not remove any books from the Bible. (Is that correct?) What he did do...and this is a bit tricky ... he either chose not to include them and/or he re-arranged the Canon that had been established in 393AD (http://www.staycatholic.com/the_canon_of_scripture.htm ) and reaffired in 397AD. There was no confusion for about 1200 years as to which books were inspired and which weren't. Actually, there has never been confusion in the Catholic Church about this matter. But, those who revolted from Christ's Church spread both confusion and on-going error as Protestantism continues to splinter out of control, as >30,000 competing groups can well attest

Luther did three things that you really hae ve not addressed in any depth.

1.) He set up his own belief system with Sola Scriptura being the foundation for all future error. And he compounded this by his intentional mistranslation of Scripture. While claiming to clarity, this mistranslation went hand-in-hand with his heretical '...faith alone...' position.

2.) He denied the power of God to effect reforms in the Catholic Chruch (note that St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) did not respond to the even more obvious and severe problems in Christ's Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm) as Luther did. Had he followed her well documented example, he might be called St. Martin Luther today :thumbsup

3,) He not only addressed the obvious abuses he saw - by denying the power of Christ to keep His Church from teaching error - he launched an entirely new belief system that lead other souls from Christ.

These are really serious issues and no word-game is going to meet the mark. Whether Luther omitted the 7 OT books, deleted them, rearranged the order or what have you - he had NO AUTHORITY to make any changes. He self-proclaimed his determination to make himself 'pope' of his own church based on his unbounded but totally misplaced pride. Let's just call a spade a spade and move forward.

God bless

tqualey · #63 May 30, '12, 8:18 am

Hi, TertiumQuid,

Maybe you need to at least try to 'de-mythologize' this topic - just so we are all clear about what it is you are calling myth.

In your opinion (actually a reference or two would be appreciated) what role in the development of the Lutheran Bible did Melanchthon have?

And, in your enthusiasm for clarification, did anyone else besides Melanchthon have any role here?

Previously, I had, some simplistically thought that Luther was 100% responsible (not that he did not get ideas from others - just that he was the one who made the decision to accept or reject these ideas). The fact that he openly disparaged certain Books (James receiving the greatest criticism, but also Hebrews) as questionable (spurious - and not inspired) and liberally translated what he chose because he chose to do so is the basis for my thought here. But, maybe this is just another 'myth' that needs your clarifying light.

Have a go at it and let's see what you really have.

God bless

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

It was you just a little while ago that stated, "It was Malanchthon in particular that prevailed upon Luther to continue the traditional view that Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude et al were to be considered inspired."

This Melanchthon-myth is simply one of a number of related problems with Roman Catholic perspectives on Luther's canon views. I'm simply amazed by how far and how long certain myths travel. I think many Roman Catholics should understand this, because there are plenty of myths about the Roman Catholic Church.

Think about it before you continue to defend myths like the one you recently posted.

James

pablope · #64 May 30, '12, 9:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

Sorry, but I'll not pay an apologist to answer questions that I already know the answer to.

As to Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, I happen to have an autographed copy from Mr. Michuta. I've also worked through Mr. Michuta's argumentation concerning Luther in his book:

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#1)

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2)

I happen to like Mr. Michuta. I give him credit for attempting to put out a fresh book on the canon from a Roman Catholic perspective.

Regards, James

Well, James...I read your links....and your conclusion.....I'll stick with the canon that God gave the Jews. Protestant Bibles may be smaller, but I would argue it's not because of Luther, but rather because God gave specific books to His people, and the Apocryphal books were not among them.

So several questions:

When did the Jews have a definite canon? Did it not occur several centuries after the 33AD?

And besides, this canon of the Jews...was it not in response to the growing numbers of Jewish converts to The Way....and their action was to reject The Way...and they rejected the NT too. So if you are going to follow the Jews, should you also reject the NT?

How do you know the Apochrypal (or DCs) were not included among them?

I know that from being on here, I have come across some protestants who do not believe Mark is not inspired, some believe Hebrews is not, Revelations is not....and so forth.

And so following your preference to follow your own whim on which canon to follow...isn't this opening the floodgates of every protestant following their own whim on a canon?

Do you think that there should be an an authority to set the Canon....and who should that authority be?

Dave Noonan · #65 May 30, '12, 10:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Dave Noonan,

Great post ... but, you left something out...

The reference that we can all go to and see the falsity you are proclaiming.

Looking forward to see this objective reference.

Yes. Simply go to the library and look at a facsimile of Luther's 1534 Bible.

mackbrislawn · #66 May 30, '12, 10:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

It was you just a little while ago that stated, "It was Malanchthon in particular that prevailed upon Luther to continue the traditional view that Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude et al were to be considered inspired."

This Melanchthon-myth is simply one of a number of related problems with Roman Catholic perspectives on Luther's canon views. I'm simply amazed by how far and how long certain myths travel. I think many Roman Catholics should understand this, because there are plenty of myths about the Roman Catholic Church.

Think about it before you continue to defend myths like the one you recently posted.

James

I suppose if an historian states views contrary to those you would like to be true, then he is automatically not reputable. This must be awfully important to you, because, yes, it would be disheartening to think that one's hero tampered with scripture.

Dave Noonan · #67 May 30, '12, 10:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

Clearly, he made some compromises in an attempt to hold his fracturing rebellion together. To a greater or lesser degree he was impelled, or restrained, by those around him.

This is the assertion for which I'd like to see historical evidence.

The idea of "inspiration" as some sort of litmus test for biblical texts doesn't come along until the advent of modern Evangelicalism; it's really not part of the Reformation discussion.

TertiumQuid · #68 May 30, '12, 12:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mackbrislawn

I suppose if an historian states views contrary to those you would like to be true, then he is automatically not reputable. This must be awfully important to you, because, yes, it would be disheartening to think that one's hero tampered with scripture.

I'll take any historian at this point proving your assertion "Malanchthon in particular that prevailed upon Luther to continue the traditional view that Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude et al were to be considered inspired."

Give me anything. I'm genuinely curious what historian or book you're using as historical documentation.

James

TertiumQuid · #69 May 30, '12, 12:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tqualey

Maybe you need to at least try to 'de-mythologize' this topic - just so we are all clear about what it is you are calling myth.

I certainly could live on these boards for a while and interact with every question raised. I think it's probable that if you search my posts here on Catholic Answers, I've been involved with this same discussion more than a few times since I joined back in 2004.

My specific wording was "This Melanchthon-myth is simply one of a number of related problems with Roman Catholic perspectives on Luther's canon views." There are a number of issues involved. Here would be one of the major problems I find with Roman Catholics jumping all over Luther on this subject: double standards. The following was posted right here on Catholic Answers by me not all that long ago:

I have 2 questions for those of you fixated with Luther's comments on which books were canonical or not.

1) In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, Cajetan expressed doubts on the canonicty of some of the New Testament books. These men all share one thing in common. They formed their opinions on the canon previous to the dogmatic and binding decisions of the Council of Trent. At the Council of Trent, the question of canonicity was put forth before the Council once and for all, and they issued a dogmatic pronouncement of which books were "canon" for the entire church. Isn't the liberty that Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan expressed simply the liberty as allowed by the Roman Catholic Church previous to dogmatic pronouncement? [By the way, if you simply respond by citing earlier councils, I'm going to then ask you if the councils you cite were ecumenical or local, and why the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon”].

2. I would like a Roman Catholic who believes that Trent closed the canon issue once and for all to explain the following riddle. Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta states:

Quote:

"The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent's list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books.

...The question of Esdras' canonical status was left theoretically open." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 240-241].

If Michuta is correct, isn't it possible that there exists a book that is canonical, but not currently in the canon? If it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, and this book isn't simply hypothetical, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to chastise Luther for making a personal opinion on canonicity previous to Trent, while you're free to speculate on the Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees previous to the Roman church finally setteling the issue?

James

Addendum
You all do realize there was a group of Roman Catholic scholars at the Council of Trent that argued against including the Deuterocanonicals in the canon?

**po18guy** · #70 May 30, '12, 2:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

My specific wording was "This Melanchthon-myth is simply one of a number of related problems with Roman Catholic perspectives on Luther's canon views." There are a number of issues involved.

The elephant: Authority. Luther had none - only followers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

I have 2 questions for those of you fixated with Luther's comments on which books were canonical or not.

Consider having a look in the mirror. If Luther had no authority, your bible is incomplete, as is your theology. Luther does not even enter into Catholic consciousness until heresy is introduced into the discussion. He has zero effect on my faith, but very much on those who followed his forceful leadership.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

1) In the 16th Century Catholic men like Erasmus, Luther, Cajetan expressed doubts on the canonicty of some of the New Testament books. These men all share one thing in common.

Yes, they do: they were men without ecclesial authority in and of themselves. To interject that Jerome doubted, or Cajetan doubted or Luther doubted is indicating only the exceptions which prove the rule. A faith of exceptions is not an exceptional faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

I would like a Roman Catholic who believes that Trent closed the canon issue once and for all to explain the following riddle. Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta states:If Michuta is correct, isn't it possible that there exists a book that is canonical, but not currently in the canon? If it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, and this book isn't simply hypothetical, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to chastise Luther for making a personal opinion on canonicity previous to Trent, while you're free to speculate on the Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees previous to the Roman church finally setteling the issue?

It all depends upon whether you follow one man, or the Church that Christ founded. No more complicated than that. All extant books were examined. Those outside of the canon were not condemned, but rather left outside of the canon. Why endlessly complicate the matter? Jesus did not leave us orphans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

Addendum
You all do realize there was a group of Roman Catholic scholars at the Council of Trent that argued against including the Deuterocanonicals in the canon?

Saint Paul wrote about factions. They have their purpose.

Are you claiming that your salvation would be more complete if 3 and 4 Esdras were added? Think of what you allege here: Your 66 book bible is "sufficient", right? Yet, you raise the question of whether or not additional books are canonical while dismissing them in your own denomination. Could you be seeking to build up your private beliefs on the ashes of the Catholic Church?

Let me ask you a question: Do you frequent Orthodox forums and give them grief over their canon? If not, ask yourself why you do not. It is a question which should be pondered.

As to Luther, not one of the books in the Deuterocanon had ever been rejected by a council. In essence, Luther elevated himself to a council of one. This is even more apparent if Melanchthon neither persuaded nor dissuaded him in his decisions.

Do you not think it strange that all heretical cults cling to Luther's list of 66 canonical books? The Mormons cling to Luther's "canon." The Jehovah's Witnesses cling to the idea. The Oneness Pentecostals cling to the idea. Every embarrassing odd-ball cult does. It certainly serves the purpose of being anti-Catholic, as well as advancing every heresy under the sun. Why, if the 66 books are truth, does every demon-lead lie use them as a foundation?

Bottom line is that Catholics trust the Church in all things. Those outside of her do not. Why not go then, in peace? Or, are you seeking?

pablope · #71 May 30, '12, 2:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TertiumQuid

I certainly could live on these boards for a while and interact with every question raised.

Addendum
You all do realize there was a group of Roman Catholic scholars at the Council of Trent that argued against including the Deuterocanonicals in the canon?

At every Church council, there are those of the opposing view. What matters is the decision that came out of that council.

So...no...it does not matter to us Catholics. But let me ask...why does it seem to matter to you?

And I would appreciate an answer to my quesions in a previous post....

**po18guy** · #72 May 30, '12, 2:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pablope

At every Church council, there are those of the opposing view. What matters is the decision that came out of that council.

In Acts 15, we see that many believed that circumcision was required for salvation. You are correct in asking the theological question, "So, what?"

tqualey · #73 May 30, '12, 4:09 pm

Hi, Dave Noonan,

Are you playing a game? Can you provide a reference for your statement or not? I will not be wasting my time on some foolish field trip to find something that may or may not be what you are talking about.

Besides, it is courtesy to supply a back-up reference when asked to do so. You don't want to be like those other Protestants on the list that, when asked for a reference evade, avoid and then leave because they really do not have one... do you?

Try again.

God bless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan

Yes. Simply go to the library and look at a facsimile of Luther's 1534 Bible.

Dave Noonan · #74 May 30, '12, 4:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Dave Noonan,

Are you playing a game? Can you provide a reference for your statement or not? I will not be wasting my time on some foolish field trip to find something that may or may not be what you are talking about.

Besides, it is courtesy to supply a back-up reference when asked to do so. You don't want to be like those other Protestants on the list that, when asked for a reference evade, avoid and then leave because they really do not have one... do you?

Try again.

God bless

No, of course I am not playing a game. I have found so much misinformation about the Bible on this site that I finally had to go to the source and find out for myself. It's not that difficult and being able to separate truth from falsehood is important to me. If I knew of an Internet copy of Luther's 1534 Bible I would link you too it. Unfortunately, I don't know of one although I have looked for it.

IF you are really interested in the truth, the only thing I can do is suggest that you do as I did and take the time to find out for yourself. If you are not interested in the truth, then our dialogue is futile in any event.

You will note my entry into this thread was to ask for a historical reference for post #3. So far, nothing....

**po18guy** · #75 May 30, '12, 5:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan

No, of course I am not playing a game. I have found so much misinformation about the Bible on this site that I finally had to go to the source and find out for myself. It's not that difficult and being able to separate truth from falsehood is important to me. If I knew of an Internet copy of Luther's 1534 Bible I would link you too it. Unfortunately, I don't know of one although I have looked for it.

IF you are really interested in the truth, the only thing I can do is suggest that you do as I did and take the time to find out for yourself. If you are not interested in the truth, then our dialogue is futile in any event.

You will note my entry into this thread was to ask for a historical reference for post #3. So far, nothing....

I think that, indeed you are playing a game - but not the one you think. You have a microscope out, and are challenging common knowledge about Luther's scriptural preferences. You have not answered a simple "yes" or "no" to the question of whether or not Luther was given the authority, by God, to add to or subtract from settled scripture.

If post #3 is all that offensive, PM the poster. Ask the professional apologists here at CAF in stead of playing small potatoes with us laymen. Do you fear the answer?

From the Wiki (Not a Catholic source) on Luther:

Quote:

View of canonicity

Initially Luther had a low view of the Old Testament book of Esther and of the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John. He called the Letter of James "an epistle of straw," finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the Revelation of John, saying that he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."[11] In his translation of the New Testament, Luther moved Hebrews and James out of the usual order, to join Jude and the Revelation at the end, and differentiated these from the other books which he considered "the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."[12] His views on some of these books changed in later years.

Luther chose to place the Biblical apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. These books and addenda to Biblical canon of the Old Testament are found in the ancient Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Luther left the translating of them largely to Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas.[13] They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament, and in the 1534 Bible they were given the well-known title: "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read".[14] See also Biblical canon, Development of the Christian Biblical canon, and Biblical Apocrypha.

^ "Martin Luther - Questions and Answers". Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2009-04-15.
^ http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
^ Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, James L. Schaaf, trans., 3 vols., (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985-1993), 3:98.
^ ibid.

Please explain how you are not straining the gnat while swallowing the camel of Luther's unauthorized tampering with scripture. To my jaundiced eye, it appears that you are searching for support of your opinion at potential cost to the truth. I hope that I am wrong on this, though.