to under whose supervision did Martin Luther took away some books from the original compilation of the Bible?

Question

nora, maybe you need to educate yourself a little bit of history. it will widen your knowledge, I promise.

Jesussaves, God's? LOL! anyway, I don't really expect much from you. don't worry, you can give that as an answer, but I can't promise I won't laugh!

Answer 1

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).

Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra." The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal" Books.

The 7 books removed from Protestant Bibles are known by Catholics as the "Deuterocanonical Books" (as opposed to the "Protocanonical Books" that are not in dispute), and by Protestants as the "Apocrypha."


Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of "adding" Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering.
How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren't around to hear the Council of Jamnia's decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those "extra" 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.

Answer 2

yet differently to look on the region could be to state that Rome filled some spurious books (the Apocrypha) in the Bible that have been by no capacity in the unique Bible in the 1st place. Luther and the reformers bumped off them for good reason. Jesus quoted the prophets yet not the Apocrypha. Paul favorite to cite a Cretan incredibly than the Apocrypha (Titus a million:12). The prophets do not quote the Apocrypha. Orthodox Jews in basic terms know the regulation, the Psalms and the Prophets: 39 books. No apocrypha for them. Open up Isaiah and count quantity the chapters. Sixty-six, like a King James Bible. examine financial ruin 39. Now examine financial ruin 40 and observe the abrupt substitute in tone. Thirty-9 books in the old testomony, twenty-seven in the hot. The Bible itself defines its contents in Isaiah. Luther and the reformers have been putting issues right this moment. Rev. 22:18, Prov 30:6

Answer 3

It's a mistake to presume that Luther was singlehandedly responsible for this. If he'd had that much sway, some books of the New Testament would be gone too. Fortunately, Luther didn't have that much power.

The Hebrew scriptures were used instead of the Septuagint for the Protestant Bible because of a consensus among the reformers, not because of Martin Luther.

Answer 4

The books removed support Catholic Doctrine and that's why they were removed---The Maccabees have to do with the value of suffering and Purgatory ---and I mean for crying out loud even Tobit has an Archangel Rafael in it but, nooooo it is not inspired words of God---what abunch of hooey! Martin Luther had very little spirituality because if he really knew what he was doing he would not have split from the Church. He would have said the same as the Apostles "To whom should we go Lord, you have the words of Eternal Life"

Answer 5

This is fallacious. Luther translated the Greek and Hebrew texts into German. He had a major sticking point with the book of James, but he in no way recanonized scripture.

As far as the pseudepigrapha, these books became part of the canon more to do with Jerome's copy of the LXX than any choice by the "church". Luther and other Protestants merely agreed with the Hebrew scriptures and didn't add these books as they were not originally part of the OT canon.

Ath

Answer 6

His own

Luther simply disagreed with some of the books and left them out. And since he was a scholar most Christians (not all) did not challenge him. He even wanted to remove the book of James from the New Testament, calling it the "Book of Straw".After time people just began to believe that it was always like that.

Answer 7

What are those books and what did they concern? Of what importance are they to your own doctrine? Make a case for them being relevant to any point you are trying to make here.
You can't, can you? In order to do such a thing you would first have to have knowledge of the thing to which they pertain. Your intent is not to ask questions and learn, but to deride the same religions your own calls acceptable. A collection of words is not holy. A book is not to be worshipped.
"Your word have I hidden in my heart that I might not sin against you." Tell me what is lacking in that word.

Answer 8

This is going to sound crazy, but I have read that Martin Luther had close ties with the Freemasons and other secret societies that wanted the books out.

Answer 9

Martin Luther didn't...he stuck them in the middle and they were called the intermediate testaments..It was the KJV that took them out.

Answer 10

Gods