Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Why did Martin Luther remove 7 OT Books and wanted to take out Rev, James and Hebrews in the NT?

just curious why this is a little known fact with protestants, and how is it rationalized?

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Lives7
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Luther thought he was going to have only ancient Hebrew text, which he did by eliminating 7 OT books. Problem this canon by Jewish leaders was established after the Resurrection of Jesus to end this new sect of Judaism...What Luther did not know was that Jesus Himself is quoted in the Holy Gospels from the Greek Septuagint that Luther removed! Talk about irony!!!

    Saint Augustine give a clue to the original authentic Bible:

    "Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

    The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:--Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul--one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John." Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2:8,12 (A.D. 426).

    Source(s): Catholic and Lovin It
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    Just to clarify, the Roman Catholic Church has only one Bible which is the Latin Vulgatæ. At any rate they [the Protestants] pretty much followed the Jews who removed the 7 Deutero-Canonical books back around 90-95 AD. The Catholic Council of Trent, called to counter changes made by Martin Luther, again reaffirmed the canonicity of all 46 books of the Old Testament. Some Protestant reformers who attended, tried to get the Church to accept the list of books which the Jewish rabbis had chosen at Jamnia. The Church refused and upheld her teaching from Pope Damasus I, and the Council of Florence. As a result, Protestants have the same New Testament books as Catholics, but their Old Testament differs because it does not contain the books rejected by the rabbis at Jamnia, and much later, rejected by Martin Luther. It is interesting that for 1500 years all Christians accepted the same canon for the Old Testament. Only in the last 480 years, since the reformation, has there been disagreement from Protestants.

  • 1 decade ago

    We all have some wants and Martin Luther is not any different. I am happy he protested some of the Catholic teachings like paying your way to heaven, but he was not by far any perfect man of God.

    Martin Luther did not remove any books though

    I am a protestant Christian be cause I could never be a Catholic Christian, but I also protest some of the Luther's teachings. I do not follow any church and I definitely do not follow Luther even though I think that it was a good thing what he did by separating from Catholic church. I think that Catholic church is better today than it was at the time of Luther. I follow Jesus an not any denomination nor church

  • 1 decade ago

    The Palestinian canon was the one chosen by Martin Luther based on the acceptance of it by the 16th century German-Jewish community of Luther's time. This canon excludes the seven books that were accepted by the Apostles as Scripture. Why was the canon of the Protestant Old Testament decided by Jews and not Christians? In addition, why did Luther attempt to eliminate the Book of St. James and the Book of Revelation? Is it because the first contradicted his dogma of "faith alone" as opposed to grace, faith and works "combined?" And the second book proving the Catholic Church's stance on nothing "impure" entering into Heaven therefore "necessitating" purgation ?

    To have the Bible as the only and sole authority of Christianity is to invite chaos into His Church. There are at least 5 Protestant denominations created every year based on a different interpretation of the Bible. Theoretically, anyone who owns a Bible can create their own denomination based on their own interpretation of Scripture. Taken to its logical conclusion, chaos is what happens when the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is applied. And Christ stated "A tree is recognized by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33) and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura produces "bad fruit" (disunity, confusion and separation).

    What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all." Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages. All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone. Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church?

    During Jesus' time there were two Old Testament's in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , which is identical to the Protestant Old Testament, and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) also known as the Septuagint, which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Comparisons of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that an accurate "eyewitness" exists to the Septuagint. Jesus quotes the Septuagint in 80% of his Old Testament references. The Septuagint was the Scripture of Jesus' time. It has the order of Bible books that we find in modern Bibles, the Palestinian canon has a completely different order. The NIV Bible use the Septuagint's order of books, yet it leaves out some of the books (Deuterocanonical books) that we find there.

    The Alexandrian and Palestinian canons were almost identical except the Septuagint contained the seven Deuterocanonical books, which Protestants call the Apocrypha. ("Canon" means the list of books) The Apostles and the early Church including the early Church fathers used the Septuagint. The African Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) also approved it.

    Evangelicals favour the Palestinian canon because it is the one that the Jews ratified in 90 AD at the Jewish (non-Christian) Council of Jamnia. Catholics feel that this Jewish council was not binding by God because God's authority was passed over to Christians at the Pentecost (Acts 2:1) sixty years earlier. Some people question if an actual council occurred at Jamnia but that does not change the premise. The Jews decided reviewed their canon books after the resurrection of our Lord, and those decisions are not at all binding on Christians.

    Pastor Art (((SFECU))) Which Jewish Carpenter did you study again ?

    "Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome (4th century A.D.)

    Source(s): "Our faith receives its surety from Scripture." - St. Thomas Aquinas ("Summa Theologica" 13th century A.D.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IE&hl=en-GB&v=Kpog...
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Many churches, and also the biggest in countries such as South Africa, follow Luther, even today.

    The problem with these churches are their preachers are not allowed to preach from the whole Bible.

    Important subjects like the mark of the beast, (They do not believe) the 1000 years of peace (They believe we are in this 1000 years now) etc, etc.

    They will be the reason that millions go to Hell by taking the mark on their hands or forehead.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is rationalized by the truth: Luther did not do this. What Luther *did* do was

    * separate several Scriptures (not just 7 books) from the Old Testament and place them into a separate section titled "Apocrypha" - a section he included with every single one of his bibles

    * wrote that the Scriptures of the Apocrypha were worthy for study (but not to be used for the formation of Christian doctrine)

    * wrote about the lack of inspiration of the New Testament books you mention (and also Jude and Esther) - with similar comments as mentioned for his Apocrypha

    SO - how do you rationalize the fact that ol' ML left all of those Scriptures in his bibles?

    Jim, http://www.bibleselector.com/

  • 1 decade ago

    The canon of the Old Testament was and still is set by Jewish tradition and is the basis for the current books that are included (or not included) in that portion of the Bible.

    The Book of Hebrews has always been under scrutiny and is not treated at the same level as the rest of the New Testament by Orthodox Catholics. James is a problem for the saved by faith only group who argue against works, though Paul's writings also support both faith and works (along with grace) as being part of salvation.

    Revelation is a unique book and I suspect he had some valid reasons for wanting to exclude it from the scripture.

    Regardless, Martin Luther did not set the canon of the Bible, nor did he actually "remove" any works from it.

  • ?
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    What Luther did or didn't it's not a protestant's problem since protestants don't follow Luther neither Calvin, but the bible. And no, Luther didn't take out 7 books of the Old Testament. It was the catholic church that put it in 2000 years later the canon of the Old Testament was CLOSED (in 500 before Christ). Besides, as far as I know, Luther criticized the letter of James, but not hebrews neither Revelation, and He didn't mean to take James outta the NT.

    Your source is too ignorant, guy. Get another one.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Could have had something to do with the fact he had vicious hatred for the Jews.

  • 1 decade ago

    It is a little known fact because it is not a fact. It is not true.

    The Vatican web site even has an article about this which disagrees with you.

    Here is the link:

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cf...

    In brief this article tells us that the Roman Catholic Church added 7 books to the Canon in 1546 at the Council of Trent.

    Feel free to write a letter to the Vatcian and tell them that the guy who wrote this article didn't know what he was talking about.

    For those who want to know the truth about this question, read the article and see who wrote it.

    Hint: This article was written in 2001.

    Source(s): 43+ years following a Jewish Carpenter & studying His Book!
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.