“Neither Lex Luthor nor Martin Luther did any such thing....”
Oops... looks like it’s true!
In my daughter’s sixth grade Confirmation class (LCMS), she was taught that Martin Luther thought that the New Testament books of James and Revelation were not correct and should not be included in the Bible. I had never heard this. I did see reference to the book of James in your Q&A section on Martin Luther but no mention of Revelation. Can you clarify all of this for us?
Luther’s controversial writing concerning the Epistle of James and the Revelation can be found in Volume 35 of Luther’s Works, American Edition, pages 395-397 and 399-400.
An excerpt from his “Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude” — “...I praise [the Epistle of James] and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.... However, ...I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
“In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]....
“In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ....
“In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him,”
Lutherans generally do not agree with Luther’s devaluation of this epistle.
An excerpt from Luther’s earlier preface to Revelation: “About this book of the Revelation of St. John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
“First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel.... I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it....”
In 1530, Luther revised the Preface, but had not really changed his view regarding Revelation:
“...Some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle.... For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from reading this as the work of St. John the apostle, or of whomever else he chooses....”
Lutherans generally do not agree with Luther’s devaluation of the book of Revelation.
When Luther wrestled with the question of whether these books belong in the canon of scripture, he was not questioning the inspiration or the authority of god’s word. The question for him was what is properly part of God’s Word.
As with other questions of faith and doctrine, Luther is never the final authority.
http://www.wels.net/sab/qa/luther-03.html
************
Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”[3] He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the Scriptures. His views on some of these books changed in later years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
He certainly never hurled James into the Elbe river as unbiblical, as he did sections of the apocrypha.