Oh, he way, way, surpassed any of those guys. None of then threw part of the Bible in the trash can, but Luther did because he couldn’t find any way around free will being clearly spelled out in Sirach, Purgatory being laid out clearly in Maccabees, and a half dozen other things he couldn't even twist his way out of without just throwing them out. Just like he refused to accept anything from James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation because they all very clearly contradict the Gospel of Martin Luther even though they are without a doubt part of what Christ and the Apostles taught.
Here is a list of some Church leaders throughout history who rejected part or all of the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books:
•Origen, a second-century theologian, rejected the Apocrypha, listing the canon to be 22 books (equivalent to the Jewish and Protestant canon).
•Athanasius, the fourth-century bishop of Alexandria, rejected most of the Apocrypha, holding to a 22-book Old Testament canon.
•Jerome, who was commissioned by the Church in the fifth century to translate the Scriptures into Latin, produced the Latin Vulgate, which was the Church-approved translation for over a thousand years. He did not accept the Apocrypha but adhered to a Jewish canon of 22 books.
•Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, rejected the book of 1 Maccabees.
•The Venerable Bede, historian and doctor of the Church, in his commentary on Revelation, listed the Old Testament books to be 24 in number (the same as the Jewish and Protestant canon).
•Ambrose of Autpert, a ninth-century theologian, rejected all or part of the Apocrypha.
•Hugh of St. Victor, a leading theologian of the twelfth century had problems with it.
•John of Salisbury, one of the leading scholars of the twelfth century who became the Bishop of Chartres also rejected all or part of it.
•Rupert of Deutz, an early twelfth century theologian rejected it. •Hugh of St. Cher (Hugo Cardinalis), a Dominican cardinal of the thirteenth century rejected it.
•Nicholas of Lyra, one of the most highly regarded and influential theologians of the Middle Ages, surpassing even Thomas Aquinas in authority as a biblical commentator, rejected it.
•William of Ockham, in his Dialogues, wrote that the Church did not receive the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.
•Cardinal Cajetan, the opponent of Martin Luther, wrote a commentary on all the books of the Bible and even dedicated it to the Pope, saying that the Apocrypha was not canonical in the “strict sense.” Therefore, the deuterocanonical books were not included in his commentary and he fought against their canonization at Trent.
•Glossa ordinaria, the standard commentary of the late Middle Ages studied and respected by all in the Church, says that the Church did not believe the deuterocanonical books were inspired. Here is the preface: “The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them.” http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/why-do-i-reject-the-apocrypha/
Pharisee approved "set" but not subset of scripture, indeed.
How DARE you present OTHER things from history!!
—CatholicDude(—this space reserved for snappy comebacks—)
Let us know if you get an answer on that one.
Pinging daniel as he will find the information useful
There is a lot of stored up anger and fierce hostility towards Luther (especially coming from one who had claimed to be a former Lutheran) so this explains why, no matter what the subject of the thread or the direction of the dialog, this ONE (of but a few other favorites) rant is tossed out like a hand grenade - intended to score a victory, but which only proves to be a dud. Anyone who cares about the truth can see through the steam.
Meanwhile the idea that Luther was a maverick in rejecting some books as part of the canon proper has abundantly been refuted here many times, by God's grace, and here , as questioning and dissent from the canon which Trent would ratify extended down thru history and right into Trent.
And which has been show* to Rashputin, and the basis for rejection of the apocryphal books, though he/she refused to look at links that provide more substantiation.
*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2916060/posts?page=85#85
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=35#35
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=52#52
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=111#111
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=207#207
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=236#236