# Help with an apocrypha argument



## Edm (Feb 23, 2015)

This may be the wrong place to place this question but it is where I think it should go.

On another forum, I have stumbled myself into a discussion with a catholic who is insisting that Luther ripped parts of the bible out. I am not an expert, but it is my understanding that Luther didn't rip anything out, only said that they were not inspired by God, and that these books were still part of the Protestant Bible until the 1880s. They were not Cannonized until the Council of Trent, in response to Luther. Can someone direct me where to look for historical fact here? I will not post a link here but if you would like to read what has been written, iM me and I will send you a link. I feel I am in over my head. I am not trying to convert anyone there, just dispute some claims.


----------



## Edward (Feb 23, 2015)

Two online versions of the Luther Bible seem to omit the Apocrypha. 

Read the Luther Bible 1912 (German) Free Online (1912 version)
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Luther-Bibel-1545-LUTH1545/ (1545).


----------



## Edm (Feb 23, 2015)

If he did I am man enough to admit I am wrong. Like I said, I don't know as much as I would like to. I have just heard that he moved them to the end and didn't delete them.


----------



## Philip (Feb 23, 2015)

Edm said:


> If he did I am man enough to admit I am wrong. Like I said, I don't know as much as I would like to. I have just heard that he moved them to the end and didn't delete them.



Most Protestant vernacular Bibles included the apocrypha up until the 18th century. They weren't considered canonical, simply useful. For example, the 1611 Authorized Version uncluded the apocrypha.


----------



## Jake (Feb 23, 2015)

Are you referring to Luther regarding parts of the NT or the deuterocanonical/apocryphal texts?


----------



## Edm (Feb 23, 2015)

The OT. The books that are part of the Catholic bible and are not in mine.


----------



## joebonni63 (Feb 23, 2015)

Edm said:


> This may be the wrong place to place this question but it is where I think it should go.
> 
> On another forum, I have stumbled myself into a discussion with a catholic who is insisting that Luther ripped parts of the bible out. I am not an expert, but it is my understanding that Luther didn't rip anything out, only said that they were not inspired by God, and that these books were still part of the Protestant Bible until the 1880s. They were not Cannonized until the Council of Trent, in response to Luther. Can someone direct me where to look for historical fact here? I will not post a link here but if you would like to read what has been written, iM me and I will send you a link. I feel I am in over my head. I am not trying to convert anyone there, just dispute some claims.



Sorry this is from Wikipedia and very historical in the short version...........

Deuterocanonical books[edit]
Main articles: Deuterocanonical books and Biblical apocrypha
Luther eliminated the deuterocanonical books from the Catholic Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[4] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of the Book of Esther from the canon to the Apocrypha, because without the deuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God. As a result, Protestants and Catholics continue to use different canons, which differ both in respect to the Old Testament and in the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament.

Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation[edit]
Main article: Antilegomena
Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]

"If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times". [6] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon".[7]

In his book Basic Theology, Charles Caldwell Ryrie countered the claim that Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical.[8] In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: "St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.

However, Ryrie's theory is countered by other biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: "I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. …I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship."[9]

I have had Catholic Priest tell me that Martin Luther stuffed the Apocrypha in the back of the bible but here there is no evidence of that at all..........


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 24, 2015)

Is it possible the reference is to Luther's heartburn with the book of James?

I would likely turn the discussion to the early church fathers and their recognition of the canon rather than arguing what any church authority established.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 24, 2015)

> The most notable feature of early Christian manuscripts was that they were almost always in the form of a codex.82 The primary form of a book in the broader Greco-Roman world was the scroll (or roll), which was made from sheets of papyrus or parchment pasted together (end to end) in a long strip and rolled up.83 Writing was done only on the inside of the scroll so that when it was rolled up the words were protected.84 The codex, in contrast, was created by taking a stack of papyrus or parchment leaves, folding them in half, and binding them at the spine.
> 
> Kruger, Michael J. (2012-04-30). Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Kindle Locations 7252-7257). Crossway. Kindle Edition.





> What is remarkable about the early Christian preference for the codex is that it stood in sharp contrast to the surrounding culture. While Christians overwhelmingly used the codex, both Judaism and the broader Greco-Roman world continued to prefer the roll for centuries to come.87 Indeed, it was not until the fourth century and beyond that the rest of the ancient world began to prefer the codex to the roll, something Christians had done centuries earlier.88
> 
> Kruger, Michael J. (2012-04-30). Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Kindle Locations 7263-7267). Crossway. Kindle Edition.





> When it comes to just scriptural books, the Christian preference for the codex is so overwhelming that one is hard-pressed to find copies that are not on codices.95 Indeed, in the entire second and third centuries, we do not have a single example of a New Testament document copied onto an unused roll.96 *At the same time, Christians still employed the roll format on occasion for other kinds of books*: for example, P.Oxy. 405 (Irenaeus, Against Heresies); P.Mich. 130 (Shepherd of Hermas); P.Vindob.G. 2325 (The Fayûm Gospel fragment); P.Oxy. 655 (Gospel of Thomas). In fact, about one third of all nonscriptural Christian books were written on rolls. Of course, this pattern does not suggest that any book copied onto a codex was considered scriptural by early Christians—we have numerous extrabiblical books on codices.97 However, it does suggest that Christians (in certain instances) may have reserved the roll format for books that they did not consider scriptural. Put differently, *Christians not only had a general preference for the codex, but, as Hurtado has stated, “Christians favored the codex particularly for the writings they treated as Scripture*.”98
> 
> Kruger, Michael J. (2012-04-30). Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Kindle Locations 7295-7306). Crossway. Kindle Edition.


I recommend reading the book for a lot of other similar material.

Let me put it like this (because I was thinking about this very topic yesterday). Early Christians collected writings in addition to Scripture like we do today. If you look at my bookshelf, you'll see many texts that I might use for pastoral work - commentaries, devotional material, etc. The presence of those books in my library (or my occasional use of them) does not make them canonical. Yet, look at the way I (and others) _use_ the Scriptures in contrast to these other writings. I use the Bible more than any other book so it has to be accessible. If I was using a physical Bible it would be worn out from having read through it 15 times and being picked up daily to read to my family. You would see some evidence of the esteem I place on those Books by the fact they are bound and accessible.

In a similar fashion, the books we see the early Church putting in codices for regular use are the books we use. They collected other writings but they were not treated in the same manner. Not only so but they are even spoken of, by various Church theologians, as useful but non-Canonical. The _only_ reason to accept these books as canonical is Sola Ecclesia because history is not on their side.


----------

