Talk:Luther's canon
POV tag
This article needs a lot of work - Luther's bible had 74 books, that's one more book than the Catholic cannon declared in Trent. All the books in the Apochrapha are in Luther's German Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.81.42 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that no Lutheran scholarly book that I've read believes Martin Luther advocated a closed canon for the New Testament, I find an article titled, "Luther's canon" preposterous. Specifically, Luther advocated an open canon, with a consideration of the distinctions between Homologoumena & Antilegomena, simply noting which books had been termed as such by the Church Fathers (although following Erasmus in not including 2nd Peter as antilegomena, given that he thought Jude was an extract of it and not vice-versa). Catholics often argue that Luther set a canon because this allows them to say he put himself over Scripture, but that is their POV about Luther. This article at the present is an essay for the Catholic point of view.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whether Luther advocated a closed or open canon is probably a separate question, this article merely describes the canon that is attributed to Luther, and which is consequently used by Lutherans and others. Since the Lutheran canon hasn't really evolved since the time of Luther, I suppose that suggests that Lutherans haven't yet adopted an open canon and have essentially stuck to what they believe is Luther's canon. ADM (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- The manner Luther treats the canon in the article is that which is attributed to him by Catholic apologists, both ancient and modern. Although you have read the Catholic literature on the subject, it is clear to me that you are unaware of certain details. In this case, the details make all the difference and have been distorted by those out of sympathy with the Reformation. Lutherans have undergone several shifts in their thoughts on the canon. The most significant of them was at the time of Johann Gerhard. Lutherans today still have an open canon and publicly acknowledge that, however, but it is not open in the way a higher-critic would force the term to mean (that is, that there is a "canon within the canon"). If you want to read up on it, the best book I have seen on the subject is:
- Preus, Robert. The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the 17th Century Lutheran Dogmaticians. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957.
- (which I'd expect to find in any large academic library)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- The manner Luther treats the canon in the article is that which is attributed to him by Catholic apologists, both ancient and modern. Although you have read the Catholic literature on the subject, it is clear to me that you are unaware of certain details. In this case, the details make all the difference and have been distorted by those out of sympathy with the Reformation. Lutherans have undergone several shifts in their thoughts on the canon. The most significant of them was at the time of Johann Gerhard. Lutherans today still have an open canon and publicly acknowledge that, however, but it is not open in the way a higher-critic would force the term to mean (that is, that there is a "canon within the canon"). If you want to read up on it, the best book I have seen on the subject is:
- Actually, the article quotes heavily from liberal Protestant scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Philip Schaff. They are the ones who are currently being used as sources, and not any type of anti-Lutheran Catholic apologist. ADM (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have a hunch that the Protestants quoted were first used by Catholic apologists, and someone simply looked up the source and cited it straight from them rather than the apologetic source.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
An open canon is still a canon, especially since no Lutherans I know would say that any book could be in the Lutheran Bible or for example that the Book of Mormon could be considered part of the Lutheran Bible. You might want to read Lutheran Cyclopedia: Canon, since it's the Lutheran Cyclopedia and the section is called "canon". 75.15.201.67 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It definitely needs a lot of work. Judging from Luther's use of the Apocrypha, in both sermons and teaching, he regarded it as inspired and useful. Further, if he had considered the Apocrypha not part of scripture, it is doubtful that such as Martin Chemnitz would have made such substantial use of those books in his works (cf. Examination of the Council of Trent). Further, I am not impressed with the credibility of the bible-researcher.com source. The man behind it is neither a theologian nor a church historian; in other words, he's hardly an expert to be citing. Dismalscholar (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[quote author=190339327 post=542889965]
What books are included, exactly?
We have a whole page dedicated to Luther's canon... yet nowhere in it are the contents of that canon even listed! It's great to have a vague statement that he moved the Catholic deuterocanonicals to an intertestamental Apocrypha section, but *which* works are included in that? Just the texts affirmed by the Council of Trent? What about Greek Ezra (3 Esdras), Latin/Apocalyptic Ezra (5+4+6 Esdras), the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151, which are found in early Catholic manuscripts but which weren't affirmed by Trent? What about the Prayer of Solomon, which is found in the earlier Gutenberg Bible? And do Lutheran Bibles today have the "additions to Esther" included in their Apocrypha section, while keeping the protocanonical Esther in the Old Testament? This page lacks some basic information.