Talk:Luther's canon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV tag[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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][reply]

The lead itself is misleading: "Luther's canon is the biblical canon attributed to Martin Luther, which has influenced Protestants since the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. While the Lutheran Confessions[1] specifically did not define a canon, it is widely regarded as the canon of the Lutheran Church. It differs from the 1546 Roman Catholic canon of the Council of Trent in that it rejects the deuterocanonical books and questions the seven New Testament books." This leads the reader to believe that the Lutheran/Protestant canon is Luther's canon, which is simply not true, nor is "it is widely regarded.." even substantiated. The Protestant canon is larger than that of Luther, and who expressly stated that it was his own judgment which others could disagree with. Thus the second sentence is misleading and should be removed. Too bad Swan's research cannot be cited: https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luthers-view-of-canon-of-scripture.html Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What books are included, exactly?[edit]

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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Luther's canon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luther's first canon[edit]

I'm pretty sure this was the page that had lists of all three of Luther's canons of the Bible. And now it contains none! They are not present anywhere on the internet, so I'd like for the editors of this page to bring that back or direct me to where I can find them. 2601:180:303:1F34:2682:C8B:515E:BF5B (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luther%27s_canon&oldid=1203475196"