[boatbums]

That position is not supported by historical fact. You may argue that the Canon was flawed, but Luther DID remove entire books from the Bible.

You know, I could swear you were a participant on the recent thread where this subject was discussed. But, just in case, here is a link (though there are many more) that proves Luther definitely did NOT remove any books from the Bible that he translated into the German vernacular:

From http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a2:

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.’”[9]

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.”[10] 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…”[11] 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.”[12]

Thus, 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.’”[13] 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.

A common complaint many make about these Catholic vs. Protestant threads is that the same issues keep getting rehashed as if nothing is ever resolved one way or another. On points of doctrinal differences, we probably may never fully resolve to everyone's satisfaction. But can we at least cease from the ONE in particular? It is a historical and provable fact that Martin Luther did NOT remove books from the "his version" of the Bible. He did not. He even translated the "Apocryphal" books and included them - something ill informed people may emphatically deny, but they are wrong. Just as the King James Version of Bible included them, so did and does Luther's German translation. Can we at least put THIS argument to bed once and for all?

Speaking of bed....Good night!

[Natural Law]

"Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522."

That should have been your first clue that this was a bogus effort. There are slightly under 8,000 versus in the New Testament. That means that, before computers, word processors and printing presses were invented, Luther accurately researched and translated over 200 versus per day. Riiiiiggghhhtt.