Luther’s
View of the Canon of Scripture
August 2004
Introduction: Playing The "Luther Card"
1: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible: Was Martin Luther a sixteenth century Marcion? Did he publish a Bible missing books? A brief overview on the construction of Luther’s Bible.
2: Luther’s Concept of The Canon Of Scripture: How did Luther view the canon of Scripture? A synopsis of Luther’s prefaces. A look at Luther’s Christocentric hermeneutic.
3: Luther’s Liberty With The Canon And Trends In Church History: A look at the scholarly understanding of the canon in the sixteenth century. The opinions of Luther’s Catholic contemporaries Desederius Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan.
4: Martin Luther Called The Book Of James “An Epistle Of Straw”: A look at the most frequently used Luther quote on his view of the canon, and Luther’s subsequent retraction.
5: Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of James: A paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Luther’s Preface to the Epistle of James.
6: Luther Cited And Preached From The Book Of James: The rarely documented positive usage of the Epistle of James by Luther.
7: Did Luther Want To Throw The Book Of James In The Stove?: Ever heard this one? Did Luther want to warm his house by using the Epistle of James in his stove?
8: Martin Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of Jude: A paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Luther’s preface to the Book of Jude.
9: Martin Luther’s Opinion Of The Book Of Revelation: A brief look at Luther’s original preface to the Book of Revelation and its later revision.
10: Martin Luther’s Opinion On The Book Of Hebrews: A paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Luther’s preface to the Book of Hebrews.
Conclusion: Removing The “Luther-Card”
Appendix A: Patrick O’Hare’s Spurious "Facts" About Luther’s Canon: A look at one of the worst books on Luther ever written: The Facts About Luther, and its citations of Luther on the Old Testament.
Appendix B: Luther’s Sermon on James: An entire sermon by Luther from James 1:16-21 – “Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle”
Endnotes: Bibliographic material and interaction with various anti-Luther writers and Catholic apologists.
*Throughout
this paper, citations from Martin Luther will be in blue.
If you’ve ever entered into a discussion on the canon of Scripture, the issue of Luther’s view inevitably comes up. Roman Catholics are prone to play the “Luther-card”: a tangential criticism claiming one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides for himself which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century.
Sometimes they make the radical
charge that Luther removed books from the Bible[1];
more often they accuse Luther of creating his own canon.[2]
The charge most often says Luther’s opinion is the result of subjectivism.[3]
Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar has said, “[Luther] treats the venerable canon of Scripture with a liberty which annihilates
all certitude… Luther makes religious sentiment the criterion by which to
decide which books belong to the Bible, which are doubtful, and which are to be
excluded.”[4] Father Patrick O’Hare says Luther “twisted,
distorted, and mutilated [the Bible]… He feels abundantly competent, by
his own interior and spiritual instinct, to pronounce dogmatically which books
in the canon of Scripture are inspired and which are not.”[5] The Catholic argues sureness on the canon
can only be found in a declaration from their church.[6] They conclude any other option is ultimately
subjectivism.
Within popular Catholic apologetics, Luther is utilized as a theological pawn. The facts of his view on the canon are rarely put forth accurately. Seldom is his view interpreted in his written or historical framework. Luther is selectively cited: his words are yanked from their context, and then hoisted into a polemical argument, often painting him as an arrogant, irrational, subjective, heretic. Some even see him setting himself up as an infallible authority.[7] On the other hand, Protestants don’t always know what do with Luther’s view on the canon: “Luther really said that?” His view is best to simply avoid!
I thought it would be helpful to provide a brief overview of the most frequent Luther-related issues on the subject of the canon of Scripture. My goal is to encourage both Catholics and Protestants to at least seek to understand his view, even if one ultimately disagrees with it. Understanding Luther’s view of the canon is no small undertaking, nor do I claim to have successfully exhausted this topic or provided answers to every question. Understanding Luther on this issue demands approaching him from two perspectives:
1. Luther’s perspective on the canon as a sixteenth century Biblical theologian
2. Luther’s personal criterion of canonicity expressed in his theology
My primary focus will be on the first point since Roman Catholics tend to completely disregard it. Any attempt though to understand Luther’s view of the canon that neglects either of these is prone to distortion and caricature. My aim is not to develop excuses for Luther. You will find no argument in favor of removing James (or any other book) from the canon of Scripture. Here you will find no argument for Luther as an infallible authority. What I hope to present is Luther, a sixteenth century Biblical theologian and his concerns with the canon of sacred Scripture.
An obvious sign that someone has
not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, “Luther removed
books from the Bible,” or “Luther removed books from the New Testament.” It is
a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all
of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released
a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he
finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years,
various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised
to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luther’s
Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther
also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the
canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the
caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to
read.’”[8]
Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, “He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.”[9] Great care and work went into Luther’s Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, “The work was done with great method…”[10] Todd then relates this famous description:
“Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctor’s cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present…M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text…The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.”[11]
This information is provided to show that Luther’s Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: “Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, ‘the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.’”[12] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with “Luther removed books from the canon.” For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luther’s Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.
2: Luther’s Concept of The
Canon Of Scripture
A. Luther’s Prefaces
Those more familiar with Luther’s view postulate he removed books from the canon of Scripture. It is sometimes argued that Luther’s position on the canon shows strong similarities to the second century heretic Marcion. Marcion published his own canon consisting of his “doctored-up” version of Luke and ten of Paul’s Epistles. Marcion had concluded that these were the only canonical books, and expunged the entirety of the Old Testament as well as a large portion of the New. Luther though did no such thing. All the canonical books are found in his Bible.
When Luther published his Bible, a layman found the entirety of the canon. Luther expressed his thoughts on the canon in “prefaces” placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. These prefaces were not out of the ordinary. Luther was not engaging in any sort of outrageous scholarly behavior:
“In providing prefaces for the books in
the German Bible, Luther was simply following a traditional practice. The
inclusion of a prologue illuminating the main thoughts of a treatise was a
practice associated with the best in scholarly exposition as far back as
Aristotle. Jerome’s Vulgate had prefaces to almost every book in the Bible,
plus others for groups of books such as Paul’s epistles and the seven catholic
epistles.... The second edition of Erasmus’ New Testament in 1518 began with
one hundred twenty folio pages of introductory material.”[13]
Luther scholar Paul Althaus explains, “[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.”[14] It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal. In these prefaces, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”[15] was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated. Althaus explains,
“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principle of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is "that which is apostolic." Luther's concept of apostolicity is based not only on a historical factor, that is, that Christ himself called and sent out a group of witnesses. Rather, it is determined by the content of a book. An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior. "Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the suffering, resurrection, and office of Christ." This shows that an apostle is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and this gives him his authority and infallibility. Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of the Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ.”[16]
Certain books that did not express this were critically questioned by Luther: particularly James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. The editors of Luther’s Works explain,
“In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and
Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate
of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which
followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly
listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the
other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English
Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to
that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha.”[17]
Sometimes it is said that in the actual printings of Luther’s New Testament these four books were printed last without page numbers. The citation above says it was a “list” without page numbers.[18] Also of importance to note is Luther did not treat the four questionable New Testament books in the exact same way as he did the Old Testament apocrypha. Luther critic Hartmann Grisar has explained, “…[Luther] simply excluded the so-called deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament from the list of sacred writings. In his edition they are grouped together at the end of the Old Testament under the title: ‘Apocrypha, i.e., books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read.’ …Luther’s New Testament is somewhat more conservative.”[19] Grisar dubs Luther “conservative” because Luther did not include such a heading before the New Testament books he questioned. Luther’s opinion on the apocrypha was solidified, whereas with the New Testament Luther uses caution.
Luther also found different levels of Christocentric clarity within the Old Testament. He observed that Genesis, Psalms, and Jonah spoke more to the apostolic standard, while the book of Esther did not. The editors of Luther’s Works further explain the judgments contained in the prefaces:
"Luther’s prefaces… brought something new by means of which he revealed his understanding of the Scriptures, namely a set of value judgments and a ranking of the books into categories. For him the Gospel of John and the epistles of Paul as well as I Peter, rank as “the true kernel and marrow of all the books.” As books of secondary rank come Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. While Luther’s assigning of a standard of values to the New Testament books may have been simply an act of religious devotion, it proved to be also, as Holl readily points out, a pioneering step toward modern biblical scholarship. Luther’s prefaces are thus more than simply popular introductions for lay readers. They reveal a theological position of Christocentricity which inevitably affects his understanding of the New Testament canon.”[20]
Luther cannot be criticized for explicitly removing books from the canon of sacred Scripture. One can though disapprove of Luther’s critical questioning of particular New Testament books. Paul Althaus explains, “Luther did not intend to require anyone to accept his judgment, he only wanted to express his own feeling about these particular books.”[21] Althaus finds this to be apparent in Luther’s original prefaces of 1522, but even more so in his revisions of 1530. Lutheran writer Mark Bartling concurs: “Luther’s whole approach was one of only questioning, never rejecting. James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation are only questioned, they are never rejected.”[22] Roland Bainton notes,
“Luther treated Scripture with royal freedom, but
not at a whim. There was a clear determinative principle that the word of God is
the message of redemption through Christ Jesus our Lord without any merit on
our part, and that we are saved solely through heartfelt acceptance in faith.
Yet despite the recognition of levels within Scripture, Luther did not treat
the book as a whole and shrank from demolishing the canon by excluding James
and Esther. The pope, the councils and the Canon Law might go, but to tamper
with the traditional selection of the holy writings was one step too much.”[23]
Luther was a Doctor of Theology,
and was familiar with canon issues, including the on-going debate as to the
canonicity of particular books.[24]
For instance, a part of Luther’s argument in regards
to the book of James was that its contents were the writings of a second
century Christian, therefore not an apostle nor an eyewitness of the risen
Christ. Did Luther simply arrive at this conclusion with no basis? No.
Throughout his career, he maintained a position that echoed other voices from
church history. The editors of Luther’s Works explain:
“Up to the fourth century the Epistle of James was not included in the canon by many Christian leaders, and earlier writers did not quote from it. Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, 23, 25.” [25]
“In the earliest general history of the
church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author (died
ca. 339) writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of
the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is
denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the
Epistle called Jude’s.” ... Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of
“Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3). …. Cf. the statement by Jerome (d.
420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity
ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of
authoritative status….”. [26]
Lutheran writer Mark Bartling points out, “Luther had
to face the whole issue of canonicity and reevaluate the question of what books
belong to the Bible. The Latin Bible, the Vulgate, contained the Apocrypha
Books of the Old Testament. In some Medieval manuscripts of the Bible we often
find included a 5th Gospel, the
Gospel of Nicodemus. Some printed German Bibles, before Luther’s, had the
Epistle to the Laodiceans.”[27]
This uncertainty and debate among some scholars carried on into the sixteenth century.[28] Two key Roman Catholic contemporaries of Luther similarly expressed concern over the certainty of the canon: Desiderius Erasmus, best known for publishing the Greek New Testament and Cardinal Cajetan, remembered as the papal legate that questioned Luther in Augsburg in 1518. Both expressed similar doubts about particular Biblical books, and both were regarded as important sixteenth century scholars. The editors of Luther’s Works point out:
“There was in practice considerable lack
of unanimity on the extent of the New Testament canon even in the late Middle
Ages. Erasmus' critical attitude toward these four books (James, Jude, Hebrews,
Revelation), known to Luther from his Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New
Testament, was openly accepted by the Catholic Cajetan.”[29]
Similar to Luther, Erasmus questioned the canonicity of particular books. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out,
“…[T]he attitude of Erasmus towards the text of the
New Testament is an extremely radical one, even if he did not follow out all its
logical consequences. In his opinion the Epistle of St. James shows few signs
of the Apostolic spirit; the Epistle to the Ephesians has not the diction of
St. Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews he assigns with some hesitation to
Clement of Rome…”[30]
Erasmus went as far as removing verses from the first edition of his Greek New Testament. He omitted 1 John 5:7-8 because he could find it in no manuscript. Roland Bainton notes,
“There was such an outcry that he agreed to restore
it in case it could be discovered in any manuscript. One was found…and Erasmus,
having sworn, was true to his oath…Unhappily the spurious verse passed from
this second edition into the textus receptus and then into the King James
translation. In the late nineteenth century, Pope Leo XIII declared it to be
genuine, but forty years later a commission of the church reversed his verdict.
Today no Catholic would defend its authenticity.”[31]
Interestingly, Luther followed the first edition of Erasmus, and kept 1 John 5:7 out of the Luther Bible.[32]
Cardinal Cajetan also questioned
the authenticity of certain Biblical books. The Catholic Encyclopedia points
out he questioned “the authorship of
several epistles… Hebrews, James, II
Peter, II and III John, Jude.”[33]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a stronger position on his
“questioning”and says, “He expressed strong doubts about the literal meaning
of Canticles and the Apocalypse; the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20 and Jn 8:1-11;
and the authorship of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John, and Jude.”[34] In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old
Testament. In this work, Cajetan
leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be
Canonical.[35] Cajetan said,
“Here we close our commentaries on the
historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit,
and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical
books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus,
as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw
scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the
sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of
councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now,
according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and
Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible)
are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters
of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule
for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the
canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou
mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is
written in the provincial council of Carthage.” [36]
Similarly
to these two men, one finds Luther engaged with the verification of the authenticity
of the Biblical books. His was not simply an infallible self-propelled
declaration as to the content of the canon. He was engaged in the history of
the church and canon. John Warwick Montgomery has helpfully pointed out:
“In his Preface to Jude we heard Luther say:
“Although I value this book, it is an Epistle that need not be counted among
the chief books which are to lay the foundations of faith”; why? “The ancient
fathers excluded this Epistle from the main body of the Scriptures.” Again and again in his Prefaces we find
Luther arguing in this vein: “Up to this point we have had to do with the true
and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from
ancient times had a different reputation.” “This Epistle of St. James was
rejected by the ancients.” “Many of the fathers also rejected this book
[Revelation: Luther’s Preface of 1522] a long time ago.” Here Luther appeals
not to subjective considerations but objectively to the judgments of the early
church, specifically to what Jerome says in his De viris illustribus,
chap. 2, and to what Eusebius reports in his Ecclesiastical History, Bk.
II, chap. 23 and Bk. III, chap. 25. The negative evaluations of antilegomena by
certain church fathers were certainly unjustified, as history proved, but
Luther had every right to raise the question in terms of the fathers. Unless
one is going to make the fatal error of accepting the content of Scripture
because the institutional church has declared it such,… there is no choice but
to refer canonicity questions to the earliest judgments available historically
concerning the apostolic authority of New Testament books. Christ promised to
the apostolic company a unique and entirely reliable knowledge of His teachings
through the special guidance of His Holy Spirit (John 14:26), so the issue of
the apostolicity of New Testament writings has always been vital for the
church. As a theologian, Luther had the right, even the responsibility, to
raise this issue, and did not become a subjectivist by doing so.”[37]
Even
with his historical criticism, Jaroslav Pelikan has pointed out,
“[Luther] did not pretend that the
church could undertake the construction of the canon anew, or that it could
function with a canon open at both ends. Never, even at the height of his
criticism of James, did he drop it from his editions of the Bible, any more
than he dropped the Old Testament Apocrypha. From his own experience he could
testify that often a Christian found one or another book of the canon difficult
or useless to him at a particular time, only to discover later on that it was
just what he needed in a time of trouble or temptation. Had such a person been
permitted to re-edit the canon on the basis of his passing mood, he would have
been deprived of the patience and comfort of the Scriptures when he needed them
most. Within the received canon Luther made sharp distinctions, to the point of
constructing a private miniature canon. But he was realistic enough in his
theology to know that one had to operate with the canon as given by tradition.
That realism provided the framework within which he could say and do the things
he did in relation to the canon without involving himself in a hopeless set of
contradictions.”[38]
4: Martin Luther Called The Book Of James “An Epistle Of Straw”
The most frequent charge against Luther’s view on the canon is his opinion on the book of James.[39] Luther wrote this statement in his original Preface To The New Testament in 1522:
“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first
epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and
St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all
that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see
or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an
epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing
of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”[40]
Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” compared to “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.
An interesting fact about this
quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in
the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick
Montgomery points out: “Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters
do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s
Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of
his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the
various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an
“Epistle of straw.”[41]
Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative
tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s
career.”[42] For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle
of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to
retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in
mind.[43]
5: Luther’s Opinion Of The
Book Of James
Luther appears to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. In 1520 he wrote, “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”[44] Toward the end of his life in 1542, a Table Talk recorded similar sentiments.[45] Detractors are keen on selectively quoting Luther’s preface to James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity.[46] Rarely does one encounter a spirit of fairness; that is, one who may disagree with Luther’s conclusions, yet seek to understand why he is saying what he says. To fully understand Luther’s opinion, it is helpful to work slowly through his preface to James:
“Though this epistle of St.
James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it
a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates
the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without
prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;
and my reasons follow.”[47]
The first thing Luther wants to tell us is his awareness that the book of James has an uncertainty in regards to its canonicity, and that he does not consider James an apostle. The editors of Luther’s Works include an interesting footnote after the word “ancients,” noting that both Eusebius and Jerome raised or confirmed similar doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James.
“In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author… writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.”… Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3)…Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status.”[48]
The second thing Luther tells us is that he praises James and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Luther clearly values the law of God. Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform its readers that Luther praises James, or point out Luther’s respect for God’s law. On the other hand, I have seen many papers insisting Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian.[49] Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth God’s law. Luther then says he is going to state his own opinion, “without prejudice to anyone.” These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or “super-pope.”
Paragraph 2
“In the first place it is
flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing
justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works
when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4[:2–22] St. Paul
teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his
faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis
15[:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an
interpretation devised for this justification by works, it
cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement
in Genesis 15[:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not
of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore,
proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.”[50]
Luther sees a contradiction between Paul and James, though he did become aware of the solution. Roland Bainton has pointed out, “Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting a reconciliation. ‘Faith,’ he wrote, ‘is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith’”[51] Paul Althaus agrees: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith.”[52] In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:
“The argument is
sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise,
“faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the
sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must
refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without
works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification
is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith
which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is
ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing
that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists
without works.”[53]
Even though Luther
arrived at the harmonizing solution, it is probably the case that the question
of James’ apostleship out-weighed it. One cannot argue that Luther was never
presented with a harmonization between Paul and James. He seems to have granted
the validity of it, yet still questioned the canonicity of the book.
“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. He names Christ several
times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith
in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and
resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him,
as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], “You shall bear witness to me.” All the
genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by
which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For
all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing
but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not
yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the
teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas,
Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.”[54]
Here Luther
expresses his Christocentric hermeneutic. Paul Althaus explained that Luther
held “An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching
Christ as Savior…an apostle is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and this gives him
his authority and infallibility. Since apostolic authority manifests itself in
the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of the
Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of
God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a
New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the
clarity of his witness to Christ.”[55] Luther did not find this in the book of
James.
Althaus continues,
“For Luther, ‘preaching’ Christ means proclaiming that the crucified and
risen Christ is the Savior and that the salvation he brings is received through
faith alone. Luther was so certain of this, as well as of the interpretation of
Scripture, that he did not think of himself as approaching the canon with an
arbitrary and autonomously chosen criterion but with the standard which
Scripture itself offers in its on-going central proclamation…Luther obtained
this standard from nowhere else than the Scripture. To this extent it is the
Scripture itself that criticizes the canon.”[56]
“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. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis
of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls
it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.”[57]
The bottom line: James preaches the law, and not the gospel. Luther also adds that James is constructed “chaotically”. Luther was perhaps years a head of his time: commentators noting the awkward structure of James have debated whether it characteristics and themes reflect “an epistle, sermon, a form of wisdom literature, a diatribe, [or] a moral exhortation.”[58]
“Moreover he cites the
sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]: “Love covers a multitude of sins” [I Pet. 4:8],
and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” [I Pet. 5:6];
also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], “The Spirit lusteth against
envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod
[Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that
[this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.”[59]
Luther makes a genuine mistake at this point. The editors of Luther’s Works correctly point out, “Luther overlooks the fact that the James to whom the book is traditionally ascribed is not the brother of John [Matt. 4:21] martyred by Herod [Acts 12:2], but the brother of the Lord [Matt. 13:55] who became head of the apostolic church at Jerusalem [Acts 15:13; Col. 1:19].”[60]
Paragraph
6
“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.”[61]
This last paragraph underwent significant editing by Luther. It originally contained much stronger language against James.[62] It shows once again what John Warwick Montgomery noted above: Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.”
Luther says he cannot include James among his “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.” In a conversation I once had with a Roman Catholic, my opponent underlined the words, “cannot include him among the chief books,” while I, utilizing the same quote underlined “though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” The Roman Catholic emphasized Luther’s questioning of James, while I emphasized how Luther was not dogmatic: he allowed people the freedom to disagree with him. John Warwick Montgomery has rightly concluded:
“Even in his strongest remarks on the four
antilegomena (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation), Luther intersperses positive
comments and makes quite plain that the question of how to treat these books
must be answered by his readers for themselves. If he can speak of James as an
“Epistle of straw,” lacking the gospel, he can also say of it—simultaneously:
“I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men but
vigorously promulgates God’s law.” Since Luther is not exactly the model of the
mediating personality— since he is well known for consistently taking a stand
where others (perhaps even angels) would equivocate—we can legitimately
conclude that the Reformer only left matters as open questions when he really
was not certain as to where the truth lay. Luther’s ambivalent approach to the
antilegomena is not at all the confident critical posture of today’s
rationalistic student of the Bible.”[63]
An interesting fact not usually mentioned is that even though Luther had doubts about James, these were not enough to deter him from preaching from the book. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, "Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle." I have included the sermon below in Appendix B so one can see the respect with which Luther treated the text. As one reads through it, it is apparent that Luther did find many good things in James worthy to be preached. Similarly, one can find Luther positively quoting from the book of James throughout his writings. Below are only a few examples, which span the length of his academic career:
Sermons On The First Epistle of St. Peter:
“And there is no other
Mediator than the Lord Christ, who is the Son of God. Therefore the faith of
the Jews and the Turks is false. They say: “I believe that God created heaven
and earth.” The devil believes the same thing (cf. James 2:19), but it does not
help him. For the Jews and the Turks have the audacity to come before God
without Christ the Mediator.”[64]
That These Words Of Christ,
“This Is My Body,” Etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics
“You see, the circumcision
of Abraham [Gen. 17:10 ff.] is now an old dead thing and no longer necessary or
useful. But if I were to say that God did not command it in its time, it would
do me no good even if I believed the gospel. So St. James asserts, “Whoever
offends in one point is guilty in all respects.”[65]
Lectures on
Genesis:
“Thus God’s
testing is a fatherly one, for James says in his letter (1:13): “God is not a
tempter for evil”; that is, He does not test in order that we may fear and hate
Him like a tyrant but to the end that He may exercise and stir up faith and
love in us. Satan, however, tempts for evil, in order to draw you away from God
and to make you distrust and blaspheme God.”[66]
“Only let us be on our
guard lest after we have once begun to pray, we immediately grow weary. But let
us seek and let us cast all our care, misfortune, and affliction on God (1
Peter 5:7) and set before Him the examples of every kind of deliverance.
Finally let us knock at the door with confidence and with incessant raps. Then
we shall experience what James says (5:16): “The prayer of a righteous man has
great power”; for it penetrates heaven and earth.” [67]
Commentary on Psalms
“James 1:2 says: “Count it all joy when
you fall into various trials” (that is, into the pot of Moab). Therefore, on
the contrary, regard it as every kind of grief if you fall into various joys
(that is, the dining room and bed of Moab), as the same James says, James 5:1:
“Come now, you rich, weep and howl in your miseries.”[68]
“But perfect as the man is who makes no
mistakes in a single leaf (cf. James 3:2), more perfect is certainly he whose
leaves are blooming and plentiful, but most perfect is he whose leaf does not
fall off, who is worthy to have his thoughts and sayings deserve eternal
remembrance and authority.”[69]
“St. James also says (James 2:13):
“Judgment without mercy will be spoken over the one who has shown no mercy.” At
the Last Day, therefore, Christ will also cite this lack of mercy as the worst
injury done to Him, whatever we have done out of a lack of mercy.”[70]
7: Did Luther Want To Throw
The Book Of James In The Stove?
Some say Luther’s hatred for the
Epistle of James was so severe, he said, “I feel like throwing Jimmy in the
stove.”[71]
Yes, Luther did say this. The context though is fascinating. The quote comes
from The Licentiate Examination
Of Heinrich Schmedenstede,
July 7 1542. In this treatise, forty-six theses are put forth. Theses eighteen through twenty-one read:
18.
The papists and sophists believe in vain in God the Father and all the other
articles of our faith, since they reject the work of Christ completed for us.
19. For they deny that we are justified by faith alone, or what is the
same thing, solely by Christ’s completed work.
20. For solely by faith in Christ, once promised, now delivered, the
whole church is justified, from the beginning of the world to the end.
21. Thus it is by faith alone, so that neither reason, nor law, nor the
very fulfillment of the law, which is called love, accomplish anything toward
justification.[72]
Those involved in the discussion considered Catholic counter arguments as well. At one point, James 2 is raised as a potential counter argument: “James says that Abraham was justified by works. Therefore, justification is not by faith.”[73] Protestant Heinrich Schmedenstede countered this by saying, “James is speaking of works as the effect of justification, not as the cause.”[74] Luther then gave his opinion:
“That epistle of James
gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the
rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret
it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that
none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly,
if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it.
I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg
did.”[75]
Note also that Luther does not deny the answer put forth by Schmedenstede. What Luther does point out is heavy Catholic reliance on James 2. It troubled him that this passage weighed so strongly in Catholic arguments against justification by faith alone. Interestingly, he says that he has previously interpreted it “according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures.” Here we find that in practice, Luther admits to weighing it as Scripture. In his Lectures on Romans we find a clear example of how he interpreted it:
“The question is asked, “How can justification
take place without the works of the Law, and how by the works of the Law
can there be no justification, since James 2:26 clearly states: ‘Faith apart
from works is dead’ and ‘a man is justified by works,’ using the example of
Abraham and Rahab (James 2:23–25)?” And Paul himself in Gal. 5:6 speaks of
“faith working through love,” and above in chapter 2:13 he says that “the doers
of the Law will be justified before God.” The answer to this question is that
the apostle is distinguishing between the Law and faith, or between the letter
and grace, and thus also between their respective works. The works of the Law
are those, he says, which take place outside of faith and grace and are done at
the urging of the Law, which either forces obedience through fear or allures us
through the promise of temporal blessings. But the works of faith, he says, are
those which are done out of the spirit of liberty and solely for the love of
God. And the latter cannot be accomplished except by those who have been
justified by faith, to which justification the works of the Law add nothing,
indeed, they strongly hinder it, since they do not permit a man to see himself
as unrighteous and in need of justification.”[76]
But what of the comment “I feel like throwing Jimmy in the stove”? What is not explicit in the context above is the historical background of Luther’s comment. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “The preacher of Kalenberg, when visited by the duchess, heated the room with the wooden statues of the apostles. The statue of James was the last and as the preacher shoved it into the stove he exclaimed, “Now bend over, Jimmy, you must go into the stove; no matter if you were the pope or all the bishops, the room must become warm.”[77] Is Luther saying he wants to throw the Epistle of James in the stove? Possibly.[78] More likely, Luther’s comment is simply an expression of frustration, or perhaps dark humor. Luther does not explicitly say he wants to throw the book of James into the stove. Rather, he says he felt like doing what the priest in Kalenberg did, which would be throwing a statue of James into the stove.
8: Martin Luther’s Opinion
Of The Book Of Jude
In Luther’s preface to Jude he wrote the following:
“Concerning the epistle of
St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second
epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like
a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents
that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the
ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the
Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to
Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write
Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be
counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of
faith.”[79]
Similar to Luther’s comments on James, we find that his questioning of Jude primarily has to do with its status in Church history, and it’s internal evidence as to its apostolicity. This though did not deter Luther from positively citing it throughout his writings, as well as delivering an entire series of sermons on Jude. Luther began these sermons by pointing out,
“This epistle is ascribed
to the holy apostle St. Jude, the brother of the two apostles James the Less
and Simon, the sons of the sister of the mother of Christ who is called Mary
the wife of James or Cleophas, as we read in Mark 6:3. But this letter does not
seem to have been written by the real apostle, for in it Jude refers to himself
as a much later disciple of the apostles. Nor does it contain anything special
beyond pointing to the Second Epistle of Saint Peter, from which it has
borrowed nearly all the words. It is nothing more than an
epistle directed against our clerics—bishops, priests, and monks.”[80]
While Luther might say it is “nothing more than an epistle directed against our clerics—bishops, priests, and monks,” he goes on to make a multitude of valuable spiritual insights. For instance, his comment on Jude 20-21 Luther says,
“Here [Jude] summarizes in a few words what a completely Christian way
of life is. Faith is the foundation on which one should build. But to build up
means to increase from day to day in the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ.
This is done through the Holy Spirit. Now when we are built up in this way, we
should not do a single work in order to merit anything by it or to be saved;
but everything must be done for the benefit of our neighbor. Here we must be
concerned to remain in love and not to fall from it like the fools who set up
special works and a special way of life and thus divert people from love. Wait
for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. This is the hope;
here the holy cross begins. Our life should be arranged in such a way that it
is nothing else than a constant longing and waiting for the future life. Yet
this waiting must be directed toward the mercy of Christ, so that we call upon
Him in order that He may help us from this life into the life to come out of
pure mercy, not through any work or merit.”[81]
9: Martin Luther’s Opinion
Of The Book Of Revelation
Luther’s Preface To The Revelation of St. John is frequently cited by Luther detractors, that is, in its original form written in 1522.[82] Luther eventually rewrote it entirely in 1530. The rewrite is hardly ever referred to within anti-Luther polemics. John Warwick Montgomery points out,
“Luther’s short and extremely negative Preface to
the Revelation of St. John was completely dropped after 1522, and the Reformer
replaced it with a long and entirely commendatory Preface (1530). Because “some
of the ancient fathers held the opinion that it was not the work of St. John
the apostle,” Luther leaves the authorship question open, but asserts that he
can no longer “let the book alone,” for “we see, in this book, that through and
above all plagues and beasts and evil angels Christ is with His saints, and
wins the victory at last.” In his original, 1532 Preface to Ezekiel, Luther
made a cross-reference to the Revelation of St. John with no hint of criticism;
in his later, much fuller Preface to Ezekiel, he concludes on the note that if
one wishes to go into prophetic study, more deeply, “the Revelation of John can
also help.”[83]
Even in the earlier 1522 version,
Luther again explains that his opinion is not to be binding: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone
free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,”[84] and also, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.”[85] Similar to
the other antilegomena Luther says, “Many of the fathers also rejected this book [Revelation]
a long time ago…”[86]
The editors of Luther’s Works add: “The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius
of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Synod of Laodicea
in a.d. 360, though it was
accepted by others as Eusebius reports…. Erasmus had noted in connection with
chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal.”[87]
As far as my research has been able to uncover, Luther never explicitly adds Revelation to his list of “chief books.” However, his tone of writing in the 1530-revised preface contains only a remnant of the doubt as to its canonicity. Luther says,
“Because its interpretation
is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now,
especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of
St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book
III, chapter 25. For our part, we still share this doubt. By that,
however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John
the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses.”[88]
10: Martin Luther’s Opinion On
The Book Of Hebrews
Luther begins his treatment of Hebrews by pointing out that throughout Church history it has had a “reputation” of uncertain canonicity. The editors of Luther’s Works point out, “Luther has in mind the statement from Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, III, iii, 5: “Some dispute the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was rejected by the church of Rome as not being by Paul.”… Tertullian ascribed the epistle to Barnabas.”[89] Luther saw that internally, the book appears to lack apostolicity:
“The fact that Hebrews is
not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle, is proved by what it says
in chapter 2[:3], that through those who had themselves heard it from the Lord
this doctrine has come to us and remained among us. It is thereby made clear
that he is speaking about the apostles, as a disciple to whom this doctrine has
come from the apostles, perhaps long after them. For St. Paul, in Galatians
1[:1], testifies powerfully that he has his gospel from no man, neither through
men, but from God himself.”[90]
Jaroslav Pelikan points out, “At times [Luther] proceeded on the assumption that for the New Testament ‘canonical’ was synonymous with ‘apostolic,’ and that the demonstration of the apostolic origin of a writing gave it automatic entrée to the New Testament canon. Thus the status of the Epistle to the Hebrews was problematical partly on the grounds that its apostolicity was in doubt.”[91]Even with uncertain origins, Luther goes on to say:
“Who wrote it is not known,
and will probably not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should
be satisfied with the doctrine that he bases so constantly on the Scriptures.
For he discloses a firm grasp of the reading of the Scriptures and of the
proper way of dealing with them.”[92]
The editors of Luther’s Works note though that Luther’s opinion fluctuated throughout his career: “… Luther was never consistent in either accepting or rejecting the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews but spoke of Paul as its author even when he had set forth the bold and brilliant suggestion that it was written by Apollos.”[93]
Luther’s theological evaluation is similar to his comments of James. Luther explains his “opinion is that this is an epistle put together of many pieces, which does not deal systematically with any one subject.”[94] Luther’s analysis finds