Redstone said:

---

Luther's first German translation was missing 25 books. They weren't worthy of his canon.

For example:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation

Epistle of James?

"straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder"

---

I know I said I was done with this conversation, but I did need to correct this egregious error.

I'm not sure what is more interesting...That you can make this claim, without any support or evidence, or that 3 people seemingly think what you wrote has any semblance of accuracy.

If I give you the most benefit of the doubt possible, then sure what Luther printed in 1522 did not include the OT, because the first thing he translated and released was the New Testament. It then took him and others another 12 years to complete the Old Testament and Apocrypha, to create the complete Bible translation in 1534.

But don't take my word for it...Here is what The Oxford Companion says:

https://www-oxfordreference-com.cui.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780198606536.001.0001/acref-9780198606536-e-2935

Quote:

---

Convinced of the truth and liberating force of the Holy Scripture, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther began to translate the New Testament from *Erasmus' Greek version in 1521 while staying in Wartburg castle. He finished the task in eleven weeks. In September 1522, *Lotter printed the result (Das Newe Testament Deutzsch), later known as the September Bible. Outspokenly reformist in its extensive prefaces and marginalia, it placed the Letters to the Hebrews and to James at the end. The concluding Apocalypse is illustrated with 21 full-page woodcuts by *Cranach that depict the Dragon and the ***** of Babylon wearing a papal tiara. The high retail price of the venture did not impair its success. In December a second, revised edition was printed, with tiaras removed. Luther then started work on the Old Testament. In 15234 three volumes appeared, comprising the canon up to the Song of Songs; the Prophets remained a work in progress until 1532, and the apocryphal books, translated jointly with Melanchthon and others, were included only in the complete Bible of 1534, printed by *Lufft. All editions were lavishly illustrated by Cranach and his workshop. In 1540, the first two-column version appeared with illustrations by G. Lemberger. A general revision and smaller corrections led to the final edition of 1546. Working from several sourcesthe original Hebrew (Brescia, 1494) as well as the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and commentariesLuther created a German of vivid, often graphic and poetic clarity (less lofty than the later King James Bible) that became instantly popular, so much so that Catholic rivals often felt compelled to imitation. Its impact on the development of the German language and poetry can scarcely be overestimated and is noticeable even today. In Ein Sendbrieff von Dolmetzschen (1530) and Summarien vber die Psalmen (1533), Luther explained his method, famously demanding that one observe 'mothers, children on the street and the ordinary man on the marketplace and see how their mouths work'. By 1534, more than 80 editions had appeared, prompting other vernacular translations; Tyndale used Luther's version for his English New Testament (1525/6). By 1626, more than 200,000 bibles had been printed in Wittenberg alone. From 1892 onwards, several revisions have tried to modernize Luther's vocabulary, but the original remains unsurpassed.

---

Your claim falls completely flat as just something with no truth behind it.

Thanks for engaging on this question. Briefly, for now, did Luther wish to exclude books from the established canon (at the councils and synods detailed on this thread)

?

Redstone said:

---

Thanks for engaging on this question. Briefly, for now, did Luther wish to exclude books from the established canon (at the councils and synods detailed on this thread)

?

---

If you want any sort of further engagement, you need to acknowledge that what you said previously was incorrect and does not have any historical support for it.

I decline.

The reason is a term from the time - by Luther's quite opinionated judgment - which influenced the sequence of, and attention to, translations:

"disputed books"

If books were at some point included in his work, does that negate the point? That Luther so disputed?

One dispute especially sticks out ….

His arguments that James contradicts Paul is a direct contradiction to 1,000 plus years of unified Church teaching.

Gotcha.

So to summarize:

You made a completely unsubstantiated claim.

When corrected, with sources, your response is to change the subject to avoid having to acknowledge the spurious nature of the original claim

Given the opportunity to acknowledge this, and continue the conversation, you make even more unsubstantiated claims.

So once again, I'll bow out.

No.

I further contextualized a correct statement.

Martin Foord, who teaches Protestant theology at the Evangelical Theological College of Singapore, characterizes what I've articulated in a way I agree with:

A "two-level view" of the New Testament.

Some books he found worthy, and others he did not.

Against the unified view of the church for over 1,000 years as he wrote, quite harshly against James for example.

Luther also uses "straw" when considering Hebrews.

Why? Because it could be read beneficially, BUT ALSO was less edifying, and something like not as "pure" (my characterization, which is fair)

Does anyone dispute this?