The Good, the Bad, and Ugly Things Martin Luther said:
"Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man."--Martin Luther Against the Peasants
Martin Luther, commonly called the founder of the Protestant religion, is infamously known for "sola fide" and "sola scriptura" but it is odd how in one case they worked together.
Martin Luther professed faith alone and justified it from his interpretation of St Paul's Epistles, but what is commonly ignore is the fact that Luther was not ignorant of Jame's Epistle which says "not faith alone," Luther actually acknowledge St James as rejecting sola fide, and ironically
Luther deleted the "Catholic Books" (4) from the New Testament including:
The Epistle of St James
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle of St. Jude
and The Apocalypse of St. John the Divine (Revelation)
Luther's preface to James says "In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works" (Luther's preface to James and Jude)
and also removed the "Deutrocanonical" from the Old Testament (7)
First Maccabees
Second Maccabees
Sirach (Luther said this book was not found in Hebrew, around 1900 a 2000 year old Hebrew version was found)
Wisdom
Tobit
Baruch
Judith
Total number of books removed from Luther's canon of the Bible to: 11
Although there are 11, there are many more books in the bible which the Father of the Protestant deformation was no fond of, including the book of Job. Unfortunately most Protestants are ignorant of this history and tend to accept Luther's Canon for the Old Testament, but eventually STOPPED following his canon for the New and reinstated the catholic books.
These books, contrary to common belief were ACCEPTED by the Catholic Church prior to Luther, many of the Church Father read from them, Pope Damacus had theses book in his canon in AD 390, and the Council of Florence/Basle PRIOR to the Reformation in 1415 REAFFIRMED the bible canon, which includes ALL the book which Luther later deleted and depised.
Luther called it a "good book" but obviously it was not good enough to be in the bible. Luther professed solascriptura, but denied the book of James as biblical. How convient!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (C) 1963) "In the 16th century the Protestant relegated the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament as, apocryphal" works to an appendix in their Bible, partly on the authority of the few Fathers of the Church who had doubted about them, partly for the reason that some of these books offered passages opposed to Protestant tenets (e.g. 2Mc 12,43 on sacrifice for the dead; Tob 4,10; 2,9; Sir 3,3o; 29,11f on the merit of good works), and partly on the fact that these books are not in the Hebrew Bible, on which the Protestants based their new translations."
+++(THE IMPERIAL ENCYCLOPEDIA AND DICTIONARY, Volume IV (C) 1903 Garretson Cox & company) "At the time of the Reformation. Erasmus denied the apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse. Luther ventured to declare the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse ‘apocryphal.’ Melanchthon, Gerhard, and Chemnitz went in the same direction, and Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews."
+++(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (C) 1963) "Luther denied canonicity to Heb, Jas, Jude and Ap, and the early Lutherans followed him in this;"
+++"In the Reformation there was questioning of the New Testament Canon, notably by Luther, who would reject especially James, because it’s disagreement with the Lutheran tenant of justification by faith alone." (The Columbia Encyclopedia, copyright 1958, p. 1393)
+++(The Books of The Bible (C) 1997)"Martin Luther had developed his theory that only those books that taught his Dogma of Justification by Faith Alone should be accepted as part of the canon. However, he didn't work out this theory until after he had lost a debate with a Catholic (either Cardinal Cajetan in 1518 or Johann Eck of Ingolstadt in 1519 AD), when 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 was quoted to refute Martin Luther's "Faith Alone." His subjective standards were also the given for his reason for claiming that Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation were also not to be considered as fully the Inspired Word of God. (Although, evidently the Lutherans of the 17th century added these New Testament books back into their canon.) "
+++(How Came The Bible? (C) 1940)"Luther esteemed any scripture only in pro-portion as it "taught Christ." "Was treibt Christus" was his test. So approached, some books even of the New Testament fell far behind others in his esteem. The most back-ward were Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation. These books Luther could not quite exclude from the New Testament, but he put them together at the end of it, separating them from the rest in numbering the books, so that they appear almost like an appendix. He numbered the others from 1 to 23, but he gave these four no numbers....Luther's rearrangement of the later books of the New Testament, indeed his depreciation of some of them, influenced Tyndale in his arrangement and treatment of them; in fact, John Rogers, in his Bible of 1537, still follows Luther in putting Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation at the end of the New Testament. Even the Great Bible of 1539 reproduces Luther's order in the table of contents, but interestingly enough abandons it in the table of contents on the New Testament title page and also in the actual arrangement of the books." (91-93)
+++(The Books of The Bible (C) 1997)"In Luther's German translation of the Bible, he took Hebrew, James, Jude and Revelation and placed them at the end of the New Testament. He categorized them as inferior to the rest of the Bible. He also had done this with the seven Deutero Canonical Old Testament books. (Until recently, the Deutero Canonical books called "Apocrypha," were still in many Protestant Bibles, but in a separate section at the end.) The book of James contradicts Luther's principle of Justification by Faith Alone. James 2:24 says "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Rather than change his theology, Luther just denied that, James the Apostle, was the author of James and removed it from his canon. "
+++ (Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, (c) 2001, p. 116)"Luther's principle, while the testimony of the Holy Spirit was Calvin's. With Luther the Reformation was based on justification by faith. This truth Luther held to be confirmed (a) by its necessity, nothing else availing, and (b) by its effects, since in practice it brought peace, assurance, and the new life. Then those Scriptures which manifestly support of it determined the degree of their authority. Thus the doctrine of justification by faith is no accepted because it is found in the Bible; but the Bible is accepted because it contains this doctrine. Moreover, the Bible is sorted and arranged in grades according as it does so more or less clearly, and to Luther there is 'a NT within the NT,' a kernel of all Scripture, consisting of those books which he sees most clearly set forth the gospel. Thus he wrote: 'John's Gospel, the Epistles of Paul, especially Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter---these are the books which show thee Christ, and teach all that it is needful and blessed for thee to know even if you never see or hear any other book, or any other doctrine. Therefore is the Epistle of James a mere epistle of straw (eine rechte stroherne Epistel) since it has no character of the gospel in it' (Preface to NT , 1522; the passage was omitted from later editions). Luther places Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse at the end of his translation, after the other NT books, which he designates 'the true and certain capital books of the NT, for these have been regarded in former times in a different light.' He regards Jude as 'indisputably an extract or copy from 2 Peter.' Nevertheless, while thus discriminating between the values of the several books of the NT, he includes them all in his translation. Luther's friend Carlstadt has a curious arrangement of Scripture in three classes, viz. (1) The Pentateuch and the 4 Gospels, as being 'thee clearest luminaries of the whole Divine truth'; (2) The Prophets 'of Hebrew reckoning' and the acknowledged Epistles of the NT, viz. 13 of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John; (3) the Hagiographa of the Hebrew Canon, and the 7 disputed books of the NT. Dr. Westcott suggested that the omission of Acts was due to its being included with Luke . Calvin is more conservative with regard to Scripture than the Lutherans. Still in his Commentaries he passes over 2 and 3 John and the Revelation without notice, and he refer to 1 John as 'the Epistle of John,' and expresses doubts as to 2 Peter; but he adds, with regard to the latter, 'Since the majesty of the Spirit of Christ exhibits itself in every part of the Epistle, I feel a scruple in rejecting it wholly, however much I fail to recognize in it the genuine language of Peter' (Com. on 2 Peter, Argument). Further, Calvin acknowledges the existence of doubt with respect both to James and to Jude; but he accepts them both. He allows full liberty of opinion concerning the authorship of Hebrews; but he states that he has no hesitation in classing it among Apostolic writings."
+++(Luther's works. (C) 1960)"But this James does nothing more than drive to the Law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the Apostles and thus tossed them off on paper…In a word he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task."( Volume 35 Word and Sacrament I, pages 395-397 ed. E.T. Buchman [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960.])
+++(Luther's works. (C) 1960)In another translation of Martin Luther's writings, "Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings" Dillenberger, page 35, we read in the Prefaces to Luther's German Translation of the New Testament in 1522 in regard to the epistle of St. James: "Firstly, because in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the rest of the bible, it ascribes justification to works, and declares that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his son. St. Paul, on the contrary, in Romans 4:3, teaches that Abraham was justified without works, by his faith alone, the proof being in Gen. 15:6 which was before he sacrificed his son. Although it would be possible to save the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer Moses's word in Gen. 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This defect proves that the epistle is not of Apostolic provenance." (Volume 35 Word and Sacrament I, pages 395-397 ed. E.T. Buchman [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960.])