That reduces something very weighty and difficult to something inappropriately simple, Del - which this matter of canon most definitely is not.Del wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:18 amLuther was a "dogmatic declaration by a ministerial authority" unto himself.durangopipe wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:08 pmIn the original King James Version of the Bible, the apocrypha were included but separated from the other books of the Bible and placed in a separate section to indicate lesser authority.Del wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:44 pmActually, I've never heard of this Schofield guy. I was going to let the knowledgeable folk answer Fain's question.
I appreciate this general advice regarding Bible versions: The version that you will actually read and use is the best one.
The original KJV had all 73 of the Sacred Books.
As I understand it, the missing Books weren't taken out of English-language versions of The Bible until early in the 1800's.... and that was a style decision made by printing companies at the time, rather than being any sort of dogmatic declaration by a ministerial authority.
Thorny theological stuff, Dell.
The KJV Scofield Reference bible was a very commonly used edition of the Bible that included copious linked references and commentary influenced by dispensationalist theology.
I didn’t know what Luther’s Bible included, so I looked it up and found this:
Luther’s Bible included them with a note that said, “Apocrypha: These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading.”
Simply.... He was his own pope. Which was fine, as far as that goes. But I have no idea why anyone else should listen to him, when everyone else can go and be his own pope.
The books that constitute canon are not consistent throughout Christendom. It’s not just a matter of the difference between Luther’s canon and the current Catholic canon. And it wasn’t just Luther who is responsible for the issue.
The Orthodox Churches’ canons are different from the Protestant and Roman canons. The proper place, use and significance of the several canons and parts of canon divide the Christian world.
Canon was one of the grave matters faced by the early church. The way canon has been presented within traditions has changed in the modern world (the King James bible’s handling of the Apocrypha is an example). It remains a grave and complex matter.
After the mystery of the trinity, few other difficult matters have divided the church as deeply.
This isn’t all about Luther. I don’t believe it’s even mostly about Luther.
Of course, if you believe that every professing Christian (or biblical scholar, or theologian) who does not affirm your own faith tradition’s current understanding of canon is wrong, this difficult matter becomes far less difficult.
But I don’t think you’re the kind of person who would want to say that. Your heart is too big.