Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duck · 08-06-2004, 06:27 AM

I came across a web page that has information about Martin Luther's viewpoint on the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John: Luther's Treatment of the Disputed Books of the New Testament

I think that this info is common knowledge to all Biblical scholars but is probably unknown to the majority of Biblical "amateurs".

Here are some excerpts:

Quote:

Luther himself took the liberty of criticizing some of these books in a polemical manner which few Lutherans today would find completely acceptable. He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."
...
Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle...

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth.

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

Duck · 08-23-2004, 07:58 AM

I've come up with a few possible reasons why there was no response to my post:

1) I didn't ask a question.
2) I didn't present an argument.
3) Everyone already knew about Luther's questioning the canonicity of some books of the Bible.
or
4) Nobody cares.

So:

1) Does anyone think that Luther's views are relevant when discussing the supposed inerrancy of the Bible?
2) Luther was the main insitigator of the Protestant reformation. His questioning the canonicity of various books supports the argument that the current version of the "Bible" (as a single book) is not the Word of God.
3) Did everyone already know about Luther's views?
4) Does anybody care?

Toto · 08-23-2004, 10:54 AM

Hi Duck - don't take it personally. The topic is of some interest, but most people who do care already know that Luther had doubts about the canon; there are few inerrantists here, and you did not press hard enough on a "hot button" that would set off a righteous flame war.

Besides, it's August, and a lot of people are on vacation.

Don't give up.

jbernier · 08-23-2004, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck

1) Does anyone think that Luther's views are relevant when discussing the supposed inerrancy of the Bible?

I do not. I think that his views are interesting in terms of the history of hermeneutics but not in terms of determining what our hermeneutics should be. I think that inerrancy is a properly hermeneutical question in that it clearly presupposes the nature of the text before any examination or interpretation of the text; therefore one must ask whether or not this largely determines one's interpretations a priori and whether or not such pre-determination of interpretation is warranted.

The only real relevancy I can see is that it points out the historically contingent nature of the canon; that is to say the fact that the contents of the canon were challenged by a mainstream Christian thinker as late as the 16th century (and, of course, Luther was not the last to so question the canon) points out that the canon is not ahistorical - the canonical listing of Biblical texts is a product of history and this helps demonstrate that fact.

Quote:

2) Luther was the main insitigator of the Protestant reformation. His questioning the canonicity of various books supports the argument that the current version of the "Bible" (as a single book) is not the Word of God.

Not necessarily. What it does suggest, however, is that the sense in which the Biblical canon might be "the Word of God" is not independent of history. Which is to say that any theology of Biblical inspiration must be able to deal with the historical contingency of the text. In consequence revelation must be understood as something that occurs within history and not apart from history. The Biblical text, then, in order to be understood as inspired, must be located within the history in which it was inspired and revealled. Hence any ahistorical readings would not take the doctrince of inspiration seriously.

Chili · 08-24-2004, 06:23 AM

Quote:

I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

Hi Duck, I think Luther missed the mark on all books if he missed on the Revelation which is a natural follow-up wherein salvation come to a closing end. It is therefore apostolic but not prophetic.

funinspace · 08-24-2004, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck

1) Does anyone think that Luther's views are relevant when discussing the supposed inerrancy of the Bible?

Only in that he is the most famous from a more recent time that rehashed a very old debate. I find it much more interesting and telling when looking at the other Churches outside of Rome significant influence during 300-500AD. There you have the Syriac Church never accepting Revelations. The Armenian Church not accepting Revelations until circa 1000AD. The Ethiopian Church having all of the RCC books plus a few others like 1,2 Clement et.al. Looking at the various Synod's it is fairly telling that it was never a clear process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck

2) Luther was the main insitigator of the Protestant reformation. His questioning the canonicity of various books supports the argument that the current version of the "Bible" (as a single book) is not the Word of God.

I would say that the various churches of the Mediteranian say much more about the veracity of the "Bible" than this one man. His views and the churches that the west ignores, is something that most Protestants do seem to try to not talk about much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck

3) Did everyone already know about Luther's views?

I'm sure many here already did.

jbernier · 08-24-2004, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

Only in that he is the most famous from a more recent time that rehashed a very old debate. I find it much more interesting and telling when looking at the other Churches outside of Rome significant influence during 300-500AD. There you have the Syriac Church never accepting Revelations. The Armenian Church not accepting Revelations until circa 1000AD. The Ethiopian Church having all of the RCC books plus a few others like 1,2 Clement et.al. Looking at the various Synod's it is fairly telling that it was never a clear process.

Agreed. As I have said here before the canon is "fuzzy" at best. There is not one Christian Biblical canon but actually several.

08-23-2004, 07:58 AM	#2
Duck Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Walden Pond Posts: 274	Hmmmmm ... I've come up with a few possible reasons why there was no response to my post: 1) I didn't ask a question. 2) I didn't present an argument. 3) Everyone already knew about Luther's questioning the canonicity of some books of the Bible. or 4) Nobody cares. So: 1) Does anyone think that Luther's views are relevant when discussing the supposed inerrancy of the Bible? 2) Luther was the main insitigator of the Protestant reformation. His questioning the canonicity of various books supports the argument that the current version of the "Bible" (as a single book) is not the Word of God. 3) Did everyone already know about Luther's views? 4) Does anybody care?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-23-2004, 10:54 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Duck - don't take it personally. The topic is of some interest, but most people who do care already know that Luther had doubts about the canon; there are few inerrantists here, and you did not press hard enough on a "hot button" that would set off a righteous flame war. Besides, it's August, and a lot of people are on vacation. Don't give up.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.