Luther, the Church Fathers, and the Apocrypha

I've recently been talking to a kind Roman Catholic woman and noticed her repeating an often-told tale: the tale of how Martin Luther mutilated the Bible and removed books from it. It's a wonderful and widely-accepted tale; the problem is that it's not true.

Luther's Bible
Because Luther was fond of stating his opinion (fonder, possibly, than was wise, but I'm a blogger so who am I to find fault?), and because Luther was often forceful and hot-headed (again I feel a strange reluctance to criticize that bit of dust in his eye), people who want to find something with which to criticize Luther really have no shortage of material. It's easy to find people arguing that Luther really wanted to remove this, that, or the other book from the Bible. But the truest test of what a person wants is what they actually do, given the chance. When Luther actually published his translation of the Bible into German, it did contain the books now known either as Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical (depending on your preferences); they were included as sort of an appendix to the Old Testament. To argue that Luther removed books from the Bible is less than accurate; his translation included the books.

Still, the question of Luther and these books becomes more interesting when we look at the comment he placed in their preface in his translation of the Bible. Before we examine his comment on these books, it will help to review some comments of the early church which Luther seemed to have in mind, echoing their language as he does.

Jerome on the Canon of Scripture
Jerome, one of the fathers of the early church, is probably best known for his work on the standard translation of Scripture into Latin, a translation used by the western church for centuries afterward. In the so-called "helmeted prologue" to his early translation of Samuel and Kings, he lists the books of the Old Testament but his list does not include any of the books in question. He then makes this comment on books outside the list:

Whatever falls outside these must be set apart among the Apocrypha. Therefore Wisdom, which is commonly entitled Solomon's, with the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias and the 'Shepherd' are not in the canon. I have found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew, the second is in Greek, as may be proved from the language itself.

Here Jerome lists the canon, and does not include Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and so forth in the canon.

But what did the separate division of "Apocrypha" mean for practical purposes? Jerome explains in his prologue to The Three Books of Solomon:

Therefore as the church indeed reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom and Sirach aka Ecclesiasticus - ed.) for the edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.

It is important to note that Jerome does not cite his own opinion here, but appeals to the practice of the church that these books are not received in the same way, or with the same status as the others, and are not suitable for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas. As you may already know, this becomes a topic of importance in church history, especially concerning Luther and which doctrines he contested, doctrines established on the authority of the books of Maccabees.

Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture
Athanasius, famed church father and defender of orthodoxy, was also patriarch of Alexandria and, as such, in charge of one certain function for the entire church catholic: sending a letter each year to announce the date of the following Resurrection celebration. The letters also tended to answer questions that had arisen during the year. In his 39th Festal Letter written to announce the date of the upcoming Resurrection celebration for AD 367, Athanasius wrote down the canon of Scripture, apparently in order to deal with people introducing other works as Scripture, and to make sure the limits were clearly set for which books were Scriptural. He lists the Old Testament canon with twenty-two books which is largely identical to the Protestant canon but lacks Esther and may contain some additional material of Jeremiah. He lists the New Testament canon with an identical list to that found in modern Bibles but in a different order. After concluding these two lists, his comments are worth quoting at length; emphasis added where I wish to call attention to certain portions:

These are the 'springs of salvation', so that one who is thirsty may be satisfied with the oracles which are in them. In these alone is the teaching of the true religion proclaimed as good news. Let no one add to these or take anything from them. For concerning these our Lord confounded the Sadducees when he said, ' You are wrong because you do not know the scriptures.' And he reproved the Jews, saying, 'You search the scriptures, because ... it is they that bear witness to me.'

For the sake of greater accuracy I must needs, as I write, add this: there are other books outside these, which are not indeed included in the canon, but have been appointed from the time of the fathers to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of the true religion. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobit, the so-called 'Teaching of the Apostles' and the 'Shepherd'. But while the former are included in the canon and the latter are read, no mention is to be made of the apocryphal works.

We should not assume that Athanasius and Jerome had the same status in mind in using "apocryphal". Jerome seems to have meant "outside the canon but permissible for reading in church". Athanasius also recognizes the category of books which are outside the canon but permissible for reading in church, but uses "apocryphal works" to mean things beyond that which are considered spurious and not approved for reading. It is worth noting that Athanasius does not list the books of Maccabees either among the canon of Scripture or among those useful to be read.

Luther's Comments on the Apocrypha
Back to Luther. He did include the disputed books in his translation of the Bible. He placed them in a separate section, as mentioned, as an appendix to the Old Testament. That section was titled as follows:

The Apocrypha: Books which are not to be held equal to holy scripture, but are useful and good to read.

Questions of Authority
Luther's comment introducing the Apocrypha raises several questions of authority. After Jerome and Athanasius had recorded the comments reviewed above, various local or regional church councils recognized additional books. This recognition never occurred at a church-wide ecumenical council such as the famous council of Nicea which gave us much of our current Nicene Creed. The lack of an ecumenical council to discuss the canon is one reason why the Eastern churches and the Western churches still have somewhat different canons of Scripture to this day, the Eastern churches generally having additional Old Testament books not read in our Western churches. Was Luther right to return those books to their more ancient status in the church, a status which affirmed they were suitable for reading but not suitable for dogma? Or when Rome later accepted these books into the Western canon, did their status change as far as their suitability for establishing dogma? If a status change like that were made affecting the whole church, why was there no ecumenical council? Could the unequivocal opinion stated by Jerome and Athanasius be reversed without doing violence to the idea of a continuity of teaching from the earliest days of the church? If the church, as an ongoing concern, has its own authority, to what extent can it reverse the earlier opinion of the church? To what extent does a reversal of opinion in some quarters cause a legitimate question about credibility, permanence of decrees, and claims to fixed and objective standards? Is a return to the more ancient beliefs of the church ever wrong? If so, what happens to apostolic origins? If not, is church authority limited and circumscribed by what has gone before?

I'm not going to pretend to answer those questions. It's likely obvious enough where I stand. It's also likely obvious enough why there is tension over this issue between the Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic churches. For today, if I have shown that Luther did not actually mutilate the Bible, that will do. But, as is typical of Luther, he does raise some important questions, whether or not you agree with his answer.

Faulty statistics? What are the odds?

BK over at CADRE Comments has an update on the Talpiot tomb. The first interesting fact is that the Talpiot tomb is not the only known tomb in the vicinity with the names Mary, Martha, Matthew, Joseph, and Jesus. This badly discredits the current claims that finding such names in combination would be incredibly rare, a claim which had already taken a pounding on statistical grounds.

Even more interesting is the fact that a write-up on this other tomb was referenced by Simcha Jacobovici in his works, so that this other tomb was known to the makers/financial beneficiaries of the current Talpiot tomb hype. This tends to discredit their scholarship, if not their honesty then at least their thoroughness.

I suspect that these further facts coming to light will not make much difference in the hardcore anti-Jesus circuit, as there are some who will hold onto their views against Jesus no matter the evidence. (Have I mentioned lately that 100% of the evidence about Jesus' resurrection is in favor, and 0% is against?)

Mary Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple?

Just as groundwork for rebutting future "Magdalene/Christ" coverup/conspiracy theories, I wanted to briefly review some of the current claims that the "beloved disciple" who wrote the fourth gospel was actually Mary Magdalene.

First, the fourth gospel identifies the beloved disciple as male.

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?) When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

Jesus answered, if I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." Becasue of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. (John 21:20-24; the Greek consistently uses the masculine to refer to the beloved disciple, which is reflected in the translators' consistent choices of masculine pronouns to refer to him.)

Second, the fourth gospel identifies the beloved disciple as someone other than Mary Magdalene when Mary Magdalene speaks with the beloved disciple and is outrun by the beloved disciple and Peter the morning of Jesus' resurrection.

Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him."

So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linene lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went intot he tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. (John 20:1-11)

More could be said from early Christian sources outside the Bible, but these should suffice to show that identifying the beloved disciple as Mary Magdalene is poorly researched if not outright dishonest, and that the theory is completely untenable.

Christianity in Tolkien: Compassion and Redemption

In the Lord of the Rings, one of the central relationships and conflicts revolves around Frodo and Gollum/Smeagol.
Frodo recognizes that he is not so different from Smeagol. He knows that the same temptation would destroy them both, so he knows that abandoning hope for Gollum also means abandoning hope for himself,
	and that keeping hope for himself means refusing to give up on Gollum.
In Tolkien, several central teachings of Christ are shown most clearly in the relationship between Frodo, the most resilient against evil, and Gollum, long since conquered by it. Frodo knows humility, the inseparable link between the best of us and the worst of us, the commonness of sin even in the best, and therefore the commonness of hope for redemption, even for the worst.

---

All graphics from New Line Cinema's Lord of the Rings trilogy directed by Peter Jackson, presented under fair usage.

Bono's Acceptance Speech at the NAACP: Transcript

See the video at the Thinklings, it's much better as video than as transcript. But it's good enough to be quoted, so it needs a transcript. I typed the transcript myself so let me know if you see any corrections that need to be made. I numbered the paragraphs for just one reason: so I could tell you, maybe you can skip paragraph #1 (possibly) without missing too much, but by the time you get to #7 you'll be hearing one of the more stirring Christian speeches of our generation. If you don't have time for the video, you should at least know that the audience gave him an impromptu standing ovation. I've italicized the part that had the audience spring to their feet -- in case it wasn't obvious.

Bono’s Acceptance Speech 2007 NAACP Image Awards
Bono Accepts NAACP Chairman’s Award
March 2, 2007

1. Wow. Shee! Tyra Banks you are gorgeous! I was a finalist in Ireland’s Next Top Model. I look up to you. Literally. You’re beautiful. You’re beautiful too. I of course am so truly humbled to share the stage with the great Julian Bond. Just, wow. Cool customer. I’m also – you know, when people talk about the greatness of America, I just think of the NAACP, that what I think of – it genuinely comes to my head. And I’m also honored to be on the same stage as the other honorees, Sold Out, Bill Cosby, Prince. So cool, so cool.

2. See, I grew up in Ireland, and when I grew up, Ireland was divided along religious lines, sectarian lines. Young people like me were parched for the vision that poured out of pulpits of Black America. And the vision of a Black reverend from Atlanta, a man who refused to hate because he knew love would do a better job. These ideas travel, you know, and they reached me clear as any tune and lodged in my brain like a song, I couldn’t shake that. This is Ireland in the 70’s growing up, people like me looked across the ocean to the NAACP. And I’m here tonight and (?) feels good, feels very very good.

3. Well today the world looks again to the NAACP. We need the community that taught the world about civil rights to teach it something about human rights. Yeah! I’m talking about the right to live like a human, the right to live period. Those are the stakes in Africa right now. Five and a half thousand Africans dying every day of AIDS, a preventable, treatable disease. Nearly a million Africans most of them children dying every year from malaria. Death by mosquito bite. This is not about charity, as you know here in this room. This is about justice, it’s about justice and equality.

4. Now I know that America hasn’t solved all of its problems and I know AIDS is still killing people right here in America, and I know the hardest hit are African-Americans, many of them young women. Today at a church in Oakland, I went to see such extraordinary people with this lioness here, Barbara Lee, took me around and with her pastor J. Alfred Smith – and may I say that it was the poetry and the righteous anger of the Black church that was such an inspiration to me, a very white, almost pink, Irish man growing up in Dublin.

5. This is true religion. True religion will not let us fall asleep in the comfort of our freedom. “Love thy neighbor” is not a piece of advice, it’s a command. And that means in the global village we’re going to have to start loving a whole lot more people, that’s what that means. That’s right. “His truth is marching on.”

6. Two million Americans have signed up to the One campaign to make poverty history. Tonight the NAACP is signing up to work with us, and so can you. “His truth is marching on.” Because where you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die.

7. And to those in the church who still sit in judgment on the AIDS emergency, let me climb into the pulpit for just one moment. Because whatever thoughts we have about God, who He is, or even if God exists, most will agree that God has a special place for the poor. The poor are where God lives. God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is where the opportunity is lost and lives are shattered. God is with the mother who has infected her child with a virus that will take both their lives. God is under the rubble in the cries we hear during wartime. God, my friends, is with the poor. And God is with us if we are with them.

8. This is not a burden, this is an adventure. Don’t let anyone tell you it cannot be done. We can be the generation that ends extreme poverty.

9. Thank you.

I Know That My Redeemer Lives: From Apologetics to Evangelism on the Talpiot Tomb

Tonight, for the first time since the old news about Talpiot started to be trotted out again, I expect to be around a number of anti-Christians, folks who are likely to buy into the "Jesus at Talpiot" story simply because it fits their anti-Christian worldview. They probably won't be familiar with the reasons why even non-Christians shouldn't believe that Jesus' remains are in the Talpiot tomb, reasons that have already been reviewed around the blogosphere.

A Tomb Full of Red Herrings
It's easy to spend all the time on "reasons why even an atheists shouldn't buy this". It's a necessary part of the conversation, showing that rather than the Christians believing anything that suits their worldview, it's very much the other way around for those falling for this Talpiot nonsense. Mary Magdalene's name wasn't Mariamenon; she was buried elsewhere; Jesus of Nazareth wasn't married; Jesus of Nazareth didn't have a son. It's necessary to review all that so they can see why any rational can know this isn't Jesus of Nazareth: it contradicts loads of known facts. While it's a necessary part of the conversation, it cannot be the whole conversation. That's because it stops short of discussing the most important of all known facts: that God raised Jesus from the dead, six weeks after which he ascended to heaven.

I Know That My Redeemer Lives
When I picture myself in a conversation with anti-Christians tonight, I will be glad to let them make the opening move about Talpiot. But if they go there, I'd like to ask: Can we talk about Mary Magdalene? Do you know what she's most famous for? She's most famous for being the first person to see Jesus of Nazareth alive again after God raised him from the dead. It was Sunday morning, the third day after his execution. She had gone to the tomb where she had seen him be buried three days before. She went to help finish preparing the body; the preparations for burial had been interrupted by the Sabbath. The tomb was open, and nobody was there. In a panic, she ran and got some of Jesus' disciples. Peter and John came back with her to the tomb and found it empty just as she said. While Mary was waiting there, crying, she saw someone was there and assumed it was the gardener. She asked where he'd moved the body. "Mary!" he called to her, and she looked up and saw that it was Jesus. She ran to him, she held onto him, crying at his feet. He got her up and sent her to tell the disciples that she had seen him, very much alive. That is what Mary Magdalene is most famous for. She never married him and he never married; she never bore his child and he never had a child; she is famous for being one of the earliest people to have seen him alive again after God raised him from the dead.

That day he showed himself alive again to Peter and to two more as they walked on the road to a nearby town. That night while the disciples were eating behind locked doors for fear that they, too, might be executed, Jesus came and met with them. They were terrified. He stayed with them, talked with them, ate with them, very much alive. He met them again the next week, and over a period of six weeks after God raised him from the dead he would meet with them, eating with them, showing his wounds from his death, teaching them what the Scriptures taught about the Messiah. While they had thought as Messiah he would immediately bring restoration, Jesus explained from Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets that instead the Messiah had to suffer and die first, and the restoration of all things would not be until his return. David had prophesied that Messiah would die, and that the Holy One would not see decay. Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be led like a sheep to the slaughter and would be laid in a rich man's tomb, but then would prolong his days. Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah's suffering and death would be a covenant, that it would sprinkle and sanctify the nations so that the Word of the LORD would go forth from Jerusalem into the whole world, the light of the Gentiles and the glory of Israel. After he had visited with them and talked with them and taught them for six more weeks after God raised him from the dead, he ascended to heaven just as Elijah had before him. But this time, instead of only Elisha seeing as with Elijah, many of Jesus' disciples saw him ascend to heaven. Now we await the promised restoration of all things, when the Messiah comes with power on the clouds of heaven, rather than humble and riding on a donkey; the prophets had foretold both comings of Messiah.

It's not merely that Talpiot is the wrong tomb and if only you find the right tomb it will have a body. It's that we can show you the right tomb, but he is not there. He is risen.

Apologetics and Evangelism: The Case of Talpiot
Apologetics accepts the anti-Christianity of a rational person and argues why Jesus isn't in this particular tomb. It's a decent opening move. But evangelism goes one better: it challenges whether a rational person can remain anti-Christian. Evangelism notices that, while Mary Magdalene being buried outside of Jerusalem is well-supported in the old histories, and Jesus having no children is well-supported in the old histories, that his resurrection from the dead is better supported in the old histories. Convincing an atheist that Jesus' body isn't at Talpiot should be easy enough; but the atheist will keep looking for another tomb until we show him the right tomb, which is forever empty.

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #2 Is Up

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #2 is up at Dr. P.'s blog. Many thanks to our kind host of the month! Go give it a read.