The books that Martin Luther took out of the bible

#12

Martin Luther regulated the deutercanonicals (Apocrypha) to a section between the OT and NT. He did not consider these books a source of doctrine, but edifying to read for historical and moral purposes.

As for wanting to remove certain books from the NT- there is no denying that he wished this. The reason being is that he did not see them clearly articulate the Gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone. However, Martin was only a man; as noted, the others put him in his place, and they were kept.

The Apocrypha were kept in their traditional spot between OT and NT until the major switch (in America, anyways) from German publishing to English publishing. At this point, they used what had already been translated by others, and it did not include the Apocrypha. Why they didn't translate the Apocrypha themselves and put it in is anybody's guess. :shrug:

As for re-ordering the NT: Now that is something I've not heard before. Interesting...

0 Likes

#13

And what’s your source for this information? And who are these “others” that “made” him do what they said? Whatever you might say about Luther, he was not know for his docile theological demeanor.

0 Likes

#14

[quote="Todd_Easton, post:2, topic:124478"]
The books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel. Collectively, these books are sometimes called the deuterocanonicals.

[/quote]

Nope neither Luther or Calvin removed those books from the Canon. They were removed by the English Bible Society during the 19th C long after both Luther and Calvin were dead.

You have poor information.

Luther may have disputed the canonicity of certain books but when he published his German Bible he did not remove any books.

God Bless

0 Likes

#15

Segregation is the first phase of ilimination.

0 Likes

#16

Define segregation.

I am reading Jesus of Nazareth in which the Pope declares Daniel was written 200 years before Christ, but Jesus declares it was wirrten by Daniel who was in the Court of Nebbuchadnezzer.

So what exactly do you mean by discrimination; debating Canon and changing nothing or apparently disregarding the words of Christ and saying it changes nothing?

BTW I love the book I just think the Pope is wrong about this, just like I think Luther was wrong about the Deuteros. But that does not make him responsible for something that occurred 300 later.

God Bless

0 Likes

#17

[quote="Dave_Noonan, post:9, topic:124478"]
I'd be curious where you're getting this information. If you could reveal the source, perhaps we could stamp out this myth.

[/quote]

There may be some conjecture out there about what Luther said about this or that book, but it does seem according to my research, at least with regard to the book of James, that he would like to have nixed it from teaching use if not throw it out of the canon:*We should throw the epistle of James out of this school **Wittenberg], for it doesn't amount to much.*It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning.*I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.*Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, 'Wait a moment!*I'll oppose them and urge works alone.'*This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, althought this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. No he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constatntly shifting from one to the other.He presents a comparison: 'As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.' O Mary, mother of God!! What a terrible comparison that is!!!!*LW, 54, 424-425
Elsewhere he explicitly said James had errors in his theology:*James argues in his letter (Jas. 2:21) that Abraham was justified on the basis of his works. Because the text says:`Now I see that you are righteous', he wants to conclude from this that previously Abraham was not righteous. . . . .Abraham was righteous by faith before God acknowledged him as such. Therefore **James*concluded falsely that now at last he was justified after that obedience,*for faith and righteousness are known by works as by the fruit. But it does not follow, as James raves: `Hence the fruits justify' just as it does not follow: 'I know a tree by its fruit; therefore the tree becomes good as a result of its fruit.*Therefore **let our opponents be done with their James, whom they throw up to us so often(Luther 4:134).I believe that last quote is from Luther's Works.Saw these quotes here a while back. I've also seen part of the latter quote cited as LW 4.26)

0 Likes

Did Martin Luther remove books from the Bible?
#18

He very famously called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw” From the Wiki:

“In Reformation times a few theologians, most notably Martin Luther, argued that this epistle should not be part of the canonical New Testament.[22][23]”

As well, he did not like Hebrews, since the author was unknown (what does that have to do with inspiration?). Again, from the Wiki:

“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.”

So, would it be 65 books, had Luther had his way with Esther?

0 Likes

#19

[quote="bogeydogg, post:14, topic:124478"]
Nope neither Luther or Calvin removed those books from the Canon. They were removed by the English Bible Society during the 19th C long after both Luther and Calvin were dead.

You have poor information.

Luther may have disputed the canonicity of certain books but when he published his German Bible he did not remove any books.

God Bless

[/quote]

Luther left them in his bible, but placed them in a separate location, believing them not to be inspired. Much later, the books were eliminated altogether, but it began with Martin, who declared them uninspired.

0 Likes

#20

[quote="jesusismyrock, post:1, topic:124478"]
I will first say for those who do not know me that I am a 15 year old Strong Charismatic Hardcore Roman Catholic girl who only wants to know more and more about my faith and live my life for Jesus Christ.

My question is: What 7 books did Martin Luther take out of the Bible

[/quote]

The are called, collectively, the Deuterocanonicals. Someone else has listed them for you so I won't bother. The Protestants call them the "Apocrypha".

and could there possibly be any significance in it being 7 books that were taken out since (from what I have been told) the number 7 is supposed to be an important spiritual number? (I don't know much of anything about that Idea or if it is fact, I am simply wondering...)

I believe it is significant. However, neither Protestants nor Catholics like my opinion on this matter. I guess its too "mystical" or something. Anyway...

Sheva is the Hebrew word for "oath". It is the basis of the word, "Sabbath". It is also the basis of the word, "Seven". As in, God made the world in "seven" days.

Therefore, in Scripture, the number, 7, is considered a "mystical" number. It is repeated many times.

God blessed the seventh day.

Look at Genesis 7 and count how many times the number 7 is repeated:
7 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by** sevens**, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

4 For yet **seven **days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.

6 And Noah ....10 And it came to pass after** seven **days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. etc. etc.

Genesis 8:4
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the** seven**teenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

And on and on. Therefore, the number 7 is believed to represent both "God's oath or covenant with mankind" and "fullness or completeness".

So, by by Luther removing the 7 books, I believe God has given us a message. He has removed the Covenant of God and left the Protestants with an incomplete book.

If that were all, I wouldn't blame anyone for not believing the significance of this number. But there is much more.

Let's look at the number of books which remained in the Protestant Scriptures. 66

What is the number of the Beast? 666

Also, 7 is fullness and 6 is the lack thereof.

And finally, what is the number of Catholic books. 73.

Seven signifies fullness and signifies "oath or Covenant". What does 3 signify?

The Trinity.

What we have here is "the complete Covenant of the Holy Trinity." This is what Luther destroyed when he took out seven books from the Sacred Bible.

I'm just throwing it out there.

Thanks so much!!

You're welcome.

Sincerely,

De Maria

0 Likes

#21

[quote="De_Maria, post:20, topic:124478"]
The are called, collectively, the Deuterocanonicals. Someone else has listed them for you so I won't bother. The Protestants call them the "Apocrypha".

I believe it is significant. However, neither Protestants nor Catholics like my opinion on this matter. I guess its too "mystical" or something. Anyway...

Sheva is the Hebrew word for "oath". It is the basis of the word, "Sabbath". It is also the basis of the word, "Seven". As in, God made the world in "seven" days.

Therefore, in Scripture, the number, 7, is considered a "mystical" number. It is repeated many times.

God blessed the seventh day.

Look at Genesis 7 and count how many times the number 7 is repeated:
7 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by** sevens**, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

4 For yet **seven **days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.

6 And Noah ....10 And it came to pass after** seven **days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. etc. etc.

Genesis 8:4
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the** seven**teenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

And on and on. Therefore, the number 7 is believed to represent both "God's oath or covenant with mankind" and "fullness or completeness".

So, by by Luther removing the 7 books, I believe God has given us a message. He has removed the Covenant of God and left the Protestants with an incomplete book.

If that were all, I wouldn't blame anyone for not believing the significance of this number. But there is much more.

Let's look at the number of books which remained in the Protestant Scriptures. 66

What is the number of the Beast? 666

Also, 7 is fullness and 6 is the lack thereof.

And finally, what is the number of Catholic books. 73.

Seven signifies fullness and signifies "oath or Covenant". What does 3 signify?

The Trinity.

What we have here is "the complete Covenant of the Holy Trinity." This is what Luther destroyed when he took out seven books from the Sacred Bible.

I'm just throwing it out there.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[/quote]

Luther removed zero books from Scripture.

666 is the number of a man; namely Nero. The Church has always understood it this way.

God Bless

0 Likes

#22

[quote="Randal796, post:10, topic:124478"]
cogwriter.com/luther.htm

This is a very interesting read.

[/quote]

It's pretty easy to reject anything coming from the Worldwide Church of God out of hand, but even setting that aside, I don't see where this link even addresses the assertion that Martin Luther tried to remove books from the Bible but that others somehow stopped him or overrode his decision.

0 Likes

#23

[quote="ahs, post:11, topic:124478"]
I'm not certain of that poster's source, but pablop provided one and here is another (New and Old Testaments, respectively):
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

[/quote]

[quote="peregrinus_sg, post:3, topic:124478"]

In fact, Martin wanted to remove certain other books from the New Testament too: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He wasn't able to convince the rest of the protesters, so Protestants still kept them. But Lutheran Bibles tend to print these books as the last books of the New Testament in memory of Martin's dislike for these. So if Martin got his way, it would be 11 books.

[/quote]

I don't see where these articles address the issue I was raising so perhaps you could explain how they do so. Also (sadly) the articles don't cite any sources related to this topic.

0 Likes

#24

[quote="MarcoPolo, post:17, topic:124478"]
There may be some conjecture out there about what Luther said about this or that book, but it does seem according to my research, at least with regard to the book of James, that he would like to have nixed it from teaching use if not throw it out of the canon:**We should throw the epistle of James out of this school *Wittenberg], for it doesn't amount to much.*It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning.*I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.*Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, 'Wait a moment!*I'll oppose them and urge works alone.'*This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, althought this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. No he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constatntly shifting from one to the other.He presents a comparison: 'As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.' O Mary, mother of God!! What a terrible comparison that is!!!!LW, 54, 424-425
Elsewhere he explicitly said James had errors in his theology:James argues in his letter (Jas. 2:21) that Abraham was justified on the basis of his works. Because the text says:`Now I see that you are righteous', he wants to conclude from this that previously Abraham was not righteous. . . . .Abraham was righteous by faith before God acknowledged him as such. Therefore **James*concluded falsely that now at last he was justified after that obedience,*for faith and righteousness are known by works as by the fruit. But it does not follow, as James raves: `Hence the fruits justify' just as it does not follow: 'I know a tree by its fruit; therefore the tree becomes good as a result of its fruit.*Therefore **let our opponents be done with their James, whom they throw up to us so often*(Luther 4:134).*I believe that last quote is from Luther's Works.Saw these quotes here a while back. I've also seen part of the latter quote cited as LW 4.26)

[/quote]

Again, here is the assertion (very often repeated here at CAF) for which I was requesting a source:

[quote="peregrinus_sg, post:3, topic:124478"]

In fact, Martin wanted to remove certain other books from the New Testament too: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He wasn't able to convince the rest of the protesters, so Protestants still kept them. But Lutheran Bibles tend to print these books as the last books of the New Testament in memory of Martin's dislike for these. So if Martin got his way, it would be 11 books.

[/quote]

I don't really see how this link addresses my objection.

0 Likes

#25

Luther removed 7 books.

666 is the number of a man; namely Nero.

Revelation 13:16-18
King James Version (KJV)
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

The Church has always understood it this way.

God Bless

The Church does not contradict Scripture.

God bless you as well,

Sincerely,

De Maria

0 Likes

#26

And he added the word "alone" to faith, to make it "faith alone." It's not in the Greek.

0 Likes

#27

It just addressed the book of James, which was included in the poster’s post. The poster’s quote says Luther “wanted to remove…James.” I think what I quoted provides strong evidence of such.

0 Likes

#28

I would be very wary of that particular source; it is anti-Catholic and claims to adhere to the “Living Church of God”. They quote Church documents and followers when it suits them, but they also teach that the Catholic Church is false and leading its members astray, so take it all with a grain of salt.

0 Likes

#29

[quote="Dave_Noonan, post:23, topic:124478"]
I don't see where these articles address the issue I was raising so perhaps you could explain how they do so. Also (sadly) the articles don't cite any sources related to this topic.

[/quote]

Here is an interesting article with excerpts from Luther's Bible from the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. This should satisfy what you are looking for on how he felt towards these books!
internetmonk.com/archive/a-bible-youd-never-find

0 Likes

#30

Who gave Luther the authority to do anything?

0 Likes

#31

[quote="Jerry-Jet, post:30, topic:124478"]
Who gave Luther the authority to do anything?

[/quote]

The Roman Catholic Church; he was an ordained priest.

God Bless

0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.