Is it true that Martin Luther stuck "Revelation" in the Appendix when he translated the Bible into German?

Answer 1

You know, in a weird way this makes sense. Revelation does seem to follow the speech patterns of the OT more then the New. I could see this as being more like the final book of the OT and they just moved it to the end of the NT to serve their purposes...

Answer 2

Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) translated the bible with his own interpretations. He was dissatisfied with the corrupt catholic church ( nothing changes) and founded the Protestant movement. Gutenberg had only in 1455 printed the first bibles, such enabling real copies being made, where all the handwritten bibles where different to each other. So, with Luther and Gutenberg, making the first time the bible readable to ordinary people, it had a profound influence on our todays known bible, opening up the dark ages and wrestling power away from the tyranny of the church. Under Cheney and Gonzales, Luther and Gutenberg would have been held in Guatamo.

Answer 3

He wanted to, because he thought it was incomprehensible. There was some tradition on his side, because a number of early editions of the N.T. didn't include Revelation at all. Luther also wanted to exclude James because it was too Jewish in its theology.

Answer 4

No, I have a better one for you, he didn't like jews and Hitler caught wind of it and used Luthers writing against Jews to fuel his own sails. Luther was a great man, but a sinner to. Hitler is drowning in the blood of all his victims forever drowning.

Answer 5

He didn't put the book of Revelation in the Appendix.

Luther said about the book of Revelation, "...we can profit by this book and make good use of it...We can rest assured that neither force nor lies, neither wisdom nor holiness, neither tribulation nor suffering shall suppress Christendom, but it will gain the victory and conquer at last."1

The following are two responses to Martin Luther’s view on both James and Revelation.
“It took about three centuries after Jesus' ascension for all the churches everywhere to agree on all of the 27 books that we call the New Testament. Why? There were s number of reasons for this.
1.Not all the churches were immediately familiar with all the books.
2. Certain false teachers misused the Book of Revelation, making some of the churches suspicious of that book.
3. There were questions as to whether this or that book was written by an apostle (or by someone who worked closely with an apostle).
4. Through those early centuries many other books were written, claiming to be the Gospel or Epistle or Acts or Revelation of this or that apostle or biblical figure. It took time to sort out some of these false claims. Books that were "spoken against" by some leaders in some places during the first centuries were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.
Actually, the books of the New Testament came to be accepted and are trusted by us today because they demonstrate their trustworthiness and power as the written Word of God.
It is true that Luther at least once expressed the opinion that Revelation is "obscure," and that James is "a straw epistle" because (he) Luther though that James was opposing Paul on justification through faith. He had questions about the authorship of Hebrews.
The books and words of Scripture stand on their own authority, regardless of Luther's opinions.

Luther's controversial writing concerning the Epistle of James and the Revelation can be found in Volume 35 of Luther's Works, American Edition, pages 395-397 and 399-400.

An excerpt from his "Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude" -- "...I praise [the Epistle of James] and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.... However, ...I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.

"In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]....

"In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ....

"In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him,"

Lutherans generally do not agree with Luther's devaluation of this epistle.

An excerpt from Luther's earlier preface to Revelation: "About this book of the Revelation of St. 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.

"First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel.... I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it...."

In 1530, Luther revised the Preface, but had not really changed his view regarding Revelation:

"...Some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle.... For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from reading this as the work of St. John the apostle, or of whomever else he chooses...."

Lutherans generally do not agree with Luther's devaluation of the book of Revelation.

When Luther wrestled with the question of whether these books belong in the canon of scripture, he was not questioning the inspiration or the authority of god's word. The question for him was what is properly part of God's Word.

As with other questions of faith and doctrine, Luther is never the final authority.”2

And finally, two paragraphs from PBS’s website:


"Where did put the Book of Revelation in his Bible?

When Martin Luther first translated and published the New Testament, he thought that Revelation should not have the same status or authority as the gospels or the letters of Paul or Peter. And so he put it at the end, but he didn't number it. He didn't put a "saint" in front of [John's] name. He thought it was an edifying book, but not of the same status. But what's interesting, even though he felt that way, it's the one book that he illustrated, where he put woodcuts, because Revelation allowed him to make one of his central points, which was that the papacy was the Antichrist, and the end of the world was coming. And so there you see the only woodcuts in the New Testament. You see the whore of Babylon wearing a papal crown. You see the seven-headed beast wearing a papal crown. The message was clear. You didn't have to read (as most people didn't). You got the message. The papacy, the papal office--not the individual popes but the papal Church--was where Satan was working to undermine Christendom. And the fact that Satan was there meant the world was coming to an end soon. ...

Was Luther conflicted about Revelation? Was he uncomfortable with the book?

When Luther began, he was uncomfortable with the Book of Revelation. But as the Reformation went on and more and more opponents sprang up, he had difficulty, he became more and more interested in Revelation. And later in his life, he took it with the utmost seriousness, and even tried to figure out all the symbolism in it, to determine when the end of the world was going to come. ... "3

No offense, but the other answers that have been presented are either severely lacking, totally wrong and/or down right lame. What do you expect from the Wiki generation.

Answer 6

No. Otherwise, it wouldn't have appeared in the Catholic canon.

Answer 7

I don't think so.