news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) (03/09/91)
In <Mar.5.23.38.52.1991.23057@athos.rutgers.edu> appears:
me> Actually, as I recall, seven of the New Testament books were excluded by
me> one or another Reformation leader. The Epistle of James was a particular
me> target, with its emphasis on the importance of works. I may hunt up a
me> complete list of the New Testament books which were attacked.
clh> [There are certainly NT books that some Reformers are more
clh> enthusiastic about than others, but I think it's going too far to say
clh> that they were excluded. Luther called James a "strawy epistle",
clh> but it still appears in the German Bible he translated.
Okay, I double checked. I had one source that described seven NT books
that were "rejected" by various Reformation figures, but that word seems a
bit strong for three of those books. And in part, it depends on what we
mean by "excluded." Do we mean not printed, or do we mean labelled
non-canonical? After all, Luther *did* translate the Deuterocanonical/
Apocryphal books of the OT in his Bible, he basically just labelled them
non-canonical and only for private use. This is the core of what I found:
In 1522, Luther's translation of the NT gave clear second-class treatment
to Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations. He included them in his NT, but
whereas the other 23 books were numbered, these were gathered at the end,
unnumbered, and with comments by him on why they should be regarded as
lesser works. In 1596, Jacob Lucius published a Bible where the above
four books were labelled "Apocrypha", although some of his other wording
suggests he may have still considered them part of the NT. However, in
the same year, David Wolder in Hamburg published a Bible where the above
four books were explicitly designated as non-canonical. Also, the
Gustavus Adolphus Bible published in Sweden labelled them Apocr.(yphal)
New Testament (sic in the book that I got this from). Zwingli is cited as
explicitly saying the Apocalypse is not a book of the Bible.
Three other books, namely 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John were disputed to a
lesser extent. People like Karlstadt classified them with the four above
books as beneath the authority of the other books of the NT, but above all
other works.
So the most accurate statement appears to be that some of the Protestant
reformers, including Luther, felt that some of the NT books were not to be
regarded as of equal authority to the rest of the NT, but should be
retained in the Bible. Luther felt this way about Hebrews, James, Jude,
and Revelations - other reformers added 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John to this
list. Some later reformation figures felt even more strongly about
Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations, and explicitly declared one or more
of these four non-canonical. However, all of these books apparently
continued to be published in all editions of the NT, labelled non-canonical
at times, much as the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal works of the OT appeared
in Luther's own (and many of the other early Protestant) Bible editions.
The above information came from:
The Text and Canon of the New Testament, by Alexander Souter. Published
1913 by Charles Scribner's Sons. Library of Congress number BS 2320 S6
The Canon of the New Testament, by Bruce Metzger. Published 1987 by
Clarendon Press. Library of Congress number BS 2320 M47 1988.
Leo Chouinard
leo@hoss.unl.edu