Do you agree with Martin Luther?

[NathanH83]

“just as it is proper for the first book (of Maccabees) to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out,”
-Martin Luther - Preface to the Second Book of Maccabees (1534)

The Apocrypha & Luther via Catholic Answers

 

[Lamb]

Luther said different things depending on what phase of his life he was in.

He also said this:

"Apocrypha … books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." – Martin Luther.

 

[Josiah]

“just as it is proper for the first book (of Maccabees) to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out,”
-Martin Luther - Preface to the Second Book of Maccabees (1534)

The Apocrypha & Luther via Catholic Answers

INCLUDED in a tome is not INCLUDED with Scripture. Apples and oranges.


YES, of course, Luther included extra books in his German translation, ONE MORE than The Catholic Church did in 1546. He included those typically found in Bibles used in Germany at the time. He never said those 8 should or should not be in Bibles, but he personally included them.


It is absurd to argue that because something is found between the covers of a book with the word BIBLE on the cover, therefore it is regarded as inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired Scripture. My Bible (published by the Lutheran Concordia Publishing House) has over 300 things listed in the Table of Contents, a fairly small percentage of the content is Scripture.


LUTHER: Apocrypha: books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." What part of that escapes you?



- Josiah



.

 

[Origen]

“just as it is proper for the first book (of Maccabees) to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out,”
-Martin Luther - Preface to the Second Book of Maccabees (1534)

The Apocrypha & Luther via Catholic Answers

 

[NathanH83]

Luther said different things depending on what phase of his life he was in.

He also said this:

"Apocrypha … books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." – Martin Luther.

But he specifically said he doesn’t view 1 Maccabees as Apocryphal. He says 1 Maccabees should be included among sacred scripture. He says the reason is because of understanding Daniel 11. Do you agree?

 

[Lamb]

But he specifically said he doesn’t view 1 Maccabees as Apocryphal. He says 1 Maccabees should be included among sacred scripture. He says the reason is because of understanding Daniel 11. Do you agree?

Did you read what I wrote:
Luther said different things depending on what phase of his life he was in.

 

[NathanH83]

Did you read what I wrote:
Luther said different things depending on what phase of his life he was in.

Ahh, so he rejected 1 Maccabees later.

Like, when? He wrote this in his intro to 2 Maccabees.

 

[NathanH83]

INCLUDED in a tome is not INCLUDED with Scripture. Apples and oranges.


YES, of course, Luther included extra books in his German translation, ONE MORE than The Catholic Church did in 1546. He included those typically found in Bibles used in Germany at the time. He never said those 8 should or should not be in Bibles, but he personally included them.


It is absurd to argue that because something is found between the covers of a book with the word BIBLE on the cover, therefore it is regarded as inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired Scripture. My Bible (published by the Lutheran Concordia Publishing House) has over 300 things listed in the Table of Contents, a fairly small percentage of the content is Scripture.


LUTHER: Apocrypha: books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." What part of that escapes you?



- Josiah



.

It’s not apples and oranges. He literally said “included among the sacred Scriptures”

What part of that escapes you?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Imo, the "profitable and good to read" part, while not layng claim to being equal to inerrant and inspired Holy scripture, still causes issues. As Protestants generally adhere to Sola Scriptura, the "proftitable and good to read" is often regarded as "not good" as it is not inspired.
**Please note, this is only personal opinion, not presented as objective fact

 

[Josiah]

He says 1 Maccabees should be included among sacred scripture.

Not "as" but "among."

LUTHER: "Apocrypha: books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." What part of that escapes you?

Luther included 1 and 2 Maccabees with other APOCRYPHA books in his German translation, noting "not regarded as equal to Scripture yet profitable and good to read."

Again, there is no law anywhere, no declaration of any Ecumenical Council, that states what is MANDATED and FORBIDDEN to be present in a tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. My tome (published by a Lutheran company) has over 300 things in it, only 66 of which are generally regarded as Scripture but about 250 other things placed AMONG them that are profitable. No law was committed in doing this, no heresy committed there. Putting something WITH and/or AMONG Scripture (even in the same book) is not a declaration of Christianity that such is all inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture. What part of that alludes you?



.

 

[NathanH83]

Imo, the "profitable and good to read" part, while not layng claim to being equal to inerrant and inspired Holy scripture, still causes issues. As Protestants generally adhere to Sola Scriptura, the "proftitable and good to read" is often regarded as "not good" as it is not inspired.
**Please note, this is only personal opinion, not presented as objective fact

What do you mean?

 

[NathanH83]

Not "as" but "among."

LUTHER: "Apocrypha: books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." What part of that escapes you?

Luther included 1 and 2 Maccabees with other APOCRYPHA books in his German translation, noting "not regarded as equal to Scripture yet profitable and good to read."

Again, there is no law anywhere, no declaration of any Ecumenical Council, that states what is MANDATED and FORBIDDEN to be present in a tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. My tome (published by a Lutheran company) has over 300 things in it, only 66 of which are generally regarded as Scripture but about 250 other things placed AMONG them that are profitable. No law was committed in doing this, no heresy committed there. Putting something WITH and/or AMONG Scripture (even in the same book) is not a declaration of Christianity that such is all inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture. What part of that alludes you?



.

Luther is making a distinction between 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. He’s saying 1 Maccabees should be in among the sacred scriptures and 2 Maccabees should be thrown out.

 

[Josiah]

Luther is making a distinction between 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. He’s saying 1 Maccabees should be in among the sacred scriptures

To place something AMONG things is not to equate with them.

Again, my Bible has some 300 things listed in the Table of Contents. All placed AMONG the Sacred Scriptures. That doesn't mean ergo some grand, authoritative Ruling Body of Christianity declared all 300 things to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. It simply means the publishing house markets a tome (with the word "BIBLE" on the cover) with lots of stuff in it, some 240 of which might not be regarded as Scripture.

and 2 Maccabees should be thrown out.

I know nothing of that, but even if he did say it, it seems he didn't do that. He didn't include 3 or 4 Maccabees, but 2 Maccabees is there in his German translation.


If you want to buy a tome with 2 Maccabees in it, you can. NOTHING prevents that. Easy. Simple.
If you want to buy a tome without 2 Maccabees in it, you can. NOTHING prevents that. Easy. Simple.
If you want to celebrate the Passover, you can. NOTHING prevents that. Easy. Simple.


And just a heads up.... Lutherans really don't care much what Luther said. Luther is not considered authoritative (or right) on anything simply because he said so. He said some wise things... he said some stupid things. Kind of like a lot of people. And his views changed (sometimes radically) over time (for much of his life, he was still very much Catholic, for example), and he doesn't always write in definitive ways (for example, he can use the same word to mean VERY different things).




.

 

[NathanH83]

To place something AMONG things is not to equate with them.

Again, my Bible has some 300 things listed in the Table of Contents. All placed AMONG the Sacred Scriptures. That doesn't mean ergo some grand, authoritative Ruling Body of Christianity declared all 300 things to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. It simply means the publishing house markets a tome (with the word "BIBLE" on the cover) with lots of stuff in it, some 240 of which might not be regarded as Scripture.






I know nothing of that, but even if he did say it, it seems he didn't do that. He didn't include 3 or 4 Maccabees, but 2 Maccabees is there in his German translation.


If you want to buy a tome with 2 Maccabees in it, you can. NOTHING prevents that. Easy. Simple.
If you want to buy a tome without 2 Maccabees in it, you can. NOTHING prevents that. Easy. Simple.
If you want to celebrate the Passover, you can. NOTHING prevents that. Easy. Simple.


And just a heads up.... Lutherans really don't care much what Luther said. Luther is not considered authoritative (or right) on anything simply because he said so. He said some wise things... he said some stupid things. Kind of like a lot of people. And his views changed (sometimes radically) over time (for much of his life, he was still very much Catholic, for example), and he doesn't always write in definitive ways (for example, he can use the same word to mean VERY different things).




.

Wow, you’re really in denial

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Luther said different things depending on what phase of his life he was in.

He also said this:

"Apocrypha … books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." – Martin Luther.

Imo, the "profitable and good to read" part, while not layng claim to being equal to inerrant and inspired Holy scripture, still causes issues. As Protestants generally adhere to Sola Scriptura, the "proftitable and good to read" is often regarded as "not good" as it is not inspired.
**Please note, this is only personal opinion, not presented as objective fact

What do you mean?

I was merely wondering how profitable many Protestants actually find the Apocrypha, given that it is typically not what is considered part of the inerrant canon of scripture. the "Luther said different things..." reasoning has come up before, especially regarding his early views on the Book of James. Had his views not changed on James, would it be part of what Protestants consider inerrant? Likewise, if his views on the First Book of Maccabees had changed, would we view that book differently as well?

 

[Lamb]

I was merely wondering how profitable many Protestants actually find the Apocrypha, given that it is typically not what is considered part of the inerrant canon of scripture. the "Luther said different things..." reasoning has come up before, especially regarding his early views on the Book of James. Had his views not changed on James, would it be part of what Protestants consider inerrant? Likewise, if his views on the First Book of Maccabees had changed, would we view that book differently as well?

Probably not.

Not everything that Lutherans follow are what Luther believed.

 

[NathanH83]

Probably not.

Not everything that Lutherans follow are what Luther believed.

So you disagree with Luther on this point? You think 1 Maccabees shouldn’t belong in the Bible?

What about just printing it in its own Apocryphal section? Do you agree with that? Or do you think it’s absolutely necessary to keep it out of the binding altogether?

 

[Lamb]

So you disagree with Luther on this point? You think 1 Maccabees shouldn’t belong in the Bible?

What about just printing it in its own Apocryphal section? Do you agree with that? Or do you think it’s absolutely necessary to keep it out of the binding altogether?

I don't believe that 1 Maccabees is canon. It can be at the end of the book as Josiah has told you repeatedly, but that doesn't make it canon.

 

[NathanH83]

I don't believe that 1 Maccabees is canon. It can be at the end of the book as Josiah has told you repeatedly, but that doesn't make it canon.

I think it should be included at least, even if it is in a separate section. It’s too integral to Biblical history to be omitted entirely.

Honestly, I think it’s so integral, I don’t see how it wouldn’t be canon, especially the way that its history fulfills the prophecies of Daniel 8.

What are the main reasons you think it’s not canon?

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Are not the apocryphal books in the Septuagint? Then the answer is simple. Those who what the apocryphal books should get an English translation of the Septuagint. I have one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

​