Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
While researching an answer to a different question, I found that Martin Luther attempted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the Bible.
What was his purpose in removing these four books? Was it a doctrinal stance against these four books? Do these four books contain doctrines that we should, per Martin Luther, not believe?
The key point of Luther's biblical exegesis was his conviction of Christ's being the rex scripturae.1 There is a famous passage from his preface to the "Epistel S. Jacobi und Judas" saying:
This is the right touchstone to criticize all the books: See if they preach Christ or not. […] What Christ did not teach, that is not apostolic, may it have been taught by St. Peter or Paul. And what Christ did teach, that is apostolic, may it have been taught by Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herode.2
With this key exegetical principle, that the doctrine of justification is paramount,3 Luther found a critical standard for the individual biblical writings. The Epistle of James,4 Second Maccabees, Revelation, and Esther did not meet that standard in his eyes. He was so hostile to them that he wished they didn't even exist: he wanted to "almost put them out of the bible."5
1: 40 I, 421
2: "Auch ist das der rechte prufsteyn, alle bucher zu tadelln, wenn man sihet, ob sie Christum treyben odder nit. […] Was Christum nicht lehret, das ist noch nicht apostolisch, wenns gleich S. Petrus oder Paulus lehret. Wiederum, was Christum prediget, das wäre aposolisch, wenns gleich Judas, Hannas, Pilatus oder Herodes tät", WADB 7, 384
3: And mainly the things that are taught in the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle of Peter.
4: There's a dinner speech where he once said: "I'm going to heat up the oven with Jeckel [=Jakob=James]." ("Ich werdem einmal mit dem Jeckel den Ofen heizen."), Ti. 5,382,17
5: "schier aus der Bibel stoßen", Ti. 5,414
It might be much better if you re-worded your question. Luther was never seeking to change the canon. Instead, it might be better to simply say that Luther was seeking to find the canon. Very early in the Christian church there were false-teaching men who pretended to be Christians, but clearly did not teaching and preach what was handed down to the apostles by Jesus (Valendinius, Cerinthus, Arius, et multa.) As a result of these false teachers there were different categories of books floating around the Mediterranean world. I will explain them as follows:
The principal books of the New Testament, the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John, which are designated by Eusebius as “Homologumena,” were in general use in the church after the middle of the second century, and acknowledged to be apostolic, inspired by the Spirit of Christ, and therefore authoritative and canonical. This is established by the testimonies of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, of the Syriac Peshito (which omits only Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation), the old Latin Versions (which include all books but 2 Peter, Hebrews, and perhaps James and the Fragment of Muratori
Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Christianity (History Of The Christian Church 2; Accordance electronic ed. 8 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), n.p.
Concerning the other seven books, the “Antilegomena” of Eusebius, viz. the Epistle to the Hebrews,943 the Apocalypse,944 the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle of Jude, — the tradition of the church in the time of Eusebius, the beginning of the fourth century, still wavered between acceptance and rejection. But of the two oldest manuscripts of the Greek Testament which date from the age of Eusebius and Constantine, one — the Sinaitic — contains all the twenty-seven books, and the other — the Vatican — was probably likewise complete, although the last chapters of Hebrews (from Heb. 11:14), the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Revelation are lost.
Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Christianity (History Of The Christian Church 2; Accordance electronic ed. 8 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), n.p.
All of this is vitally important to know in answering your question, Richard, because, by the time Luther came along, the western church had added many books to the bible that the church had never considered part of the bible. And Luther faced the difficult task of testing them to see if they belonged in the bible or not. Some of the apocryphal books (e.g. Maccabees), he considered interesting and useful in some contexts, but not part of the bible. The last group he wrestled with was the antilegomena. His struggle with James is well-known. But where he ended up is clear. In his prefaces to the books of the bible, in the beginning, he had no use for James. But in prefaces to his final editions, before his death, he admitted that it belonged in the bible.
Conclusion
Luther never changed the canon. Instead, it would be better to say that he rediscovered it. And he rediscovered it not by taking out a blow-torch and a machete and cutting out parts the bible, but instead studying the bible and comparing the books of the bible with themselves first of all. Then he looked at what the early Christian church used and how they evaluated the books that were in the bible and the books that were outside of the bible.
Pastor Steve Bauer (http://stevebauer.us)
