HistoricalChristian.Faith

Did Luther pave the way for the deuterocanon's removal?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: plausible — for the modest "Luther's demotion was the originating step that made the later removal possible" form; the strong "his act naturally and inevitably led to the removal" form overstates. This is the retreating form of the headline "Luther removed the books" trope. Pressed with the fact that Luther's own 1534 Bible kept the seven deuterocanonical books, the apologist gives ground and recasts the charge as causation: Luther did not delete the books himself, but by demoting them from canon and gathering them into a separate "Apocrypha" appendix he set in motion the process that ended, three centuries on, in their removal from the common Protestant Bible by the Bible societies of the 1820s. So stated, it is the most defensible of the Luther charges. The modest core — that Luther's two-tier layout was the originating step, the necessary precondition, of the trajectory that produced the sixty-six-book Protestant Bible — is well-grounded and even conceded by a Catholic defender of the deuterocanon. What overstates is the force the slogan trades on: "naturally led," "inevitably," as if the 1826 removal flowed of itself from 1534. The books stood bound in the Protestant Bibles for nearly three centuries — even mandated — and their actual disappearance turned on distinct nineteenth-century factors Luther neither willed nor foresaw, he himself having kept the books and commended them "to read."

Related arguments: Luther and the deuterocanon — see also did Martin Luther remove the deuterocanonical books from the Bible? (assessment: weak) and did Luther reject 2 Maccabees in order to defeat the purgatory proof-text? (assessment: weak). The matched mirror from the opposite side is the Trent claim group — "Luther removed them" and "Trent added them" are the same sixteenth-century dispute read from opposite confessional sides.

Here the sub-claim is a causal thesis: not that Luther removed the deuterocanon (he did not — see the "removed" page) but that his demotion-and-segregation of it was the cause, or the necessary precursor, of its eventual removal by others. The question is therefore not what Luther did — the facts of 1534 are agreed across confessions — but how much of the later removal his act explains: an originating step, or a sufficient and inevitable cause?

The claim

The "paved the way" line is what the "Luther removed the books" trope becomes once its bare form is corrected. Confronted with the fact that Luther's 1534 German Bible contains Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1–2 Maccabees — gathered between the Testaments under the heading "Apocrypha… not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet… profitable and good to read" — the careful apologist no longer says Luther excised the books. The charge retreats to causation: Luther began it. He pulled the books out of the Old Testament proper, ranked them below Scripture, and quarantined them in an appendix; everything after — the Reformed confessions' harder line, the Bible societies' eventual decision to print Bibles without the appendix — followed from that first move. On this telling Luther is not the man who removed the books but the man who made their removal possible, the author of the category ("Apocrypha," a separable sub-canonical section) that a later generation simply deleted.

The claim comes in a modest and a strong form, and the difference is the whole question. The modest form: Luther's demotion-and-segregation was the originating step, the necessary precondition, of the process that produced the Apocrypha-free Protestant Bible. The strong form: that demotion naturally, even inevitably, led to the removal — the 1826 outcome already implicit in the 1534 act.

Who advances it

The most telling proponent is, again, a Catholic defender of the deuterocanon — which is what makes the modest form credible rather than merely partisan. Gary Michuta, having corrected his own side's "Luther removed them" slogan ("This is not entirely true. Luther's German translation of the Scriptures included the deuterocanon"), keeps the causal point his slogan was reaching for: he credits Luther with beginning the process that ended in the smaller Protestant Bible, while insisting throughout that Luther's own Bible kept the books and that the Apocrypha remained standard in Protestant Bibles for a century after.¹ That is the careful version of the charge: not "Luther took the books out" but "Luther started the train of events by which they were taken out." The looser popular form drops Michuta's caution and keeps only the momentum — Luther "paved the way," "opened the door," "set the precedent" — sliding from he began it to it followed of itself.

The evidence for

The modest, causal core is real, and largely conceded. Three links in the chain genuinely run back to Luther, and a flat denial ("Luther had nothing to do with the later removal") would be as false as the strong slogan is overstated.

1. Luther created the category that was later deleted. Before 1534 the disputed books were interleaved among the Old Testament books of the Latin Vulgate; one could not "drop the Apocrypha" because there was no "Apocrypha" section to drop. Luther lifted the books out, set them together between the Testaments, and headed the gathering with the two-tier label — "books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." The 1826 removal operated precisely on that separable unit: it could remove "those Books and parts of Books usually termed Apocryphal" as a class because Luther had first made them a class.²

2. Luther's layout became the template the later Bibles inherited. The arrangement was not a Wittenberg peculiarity that died with him; it became the model for the vernacular Protestant Bibles that followed — the Swedish (1541), Danish (1550), Geneva, Bishops', and 1611 King James Bibles all carrying the Apocrypha as a distinct, sub-canonical section between the Testaments. The very thing the Bible societies later removed was the Lutheran inter-testamental appendix, propagated across three centuries of Protestant printing.³

3. Luther's vocabulary became the doctrinal precedent the removal enacted. Luther's "not equal to Holy Scripture, yet useful and good to read" is the seed of Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles (the Apocrypha read "for example of life and instruction of manners," not to "establish any doctrine") and, hardened, of the Westminster Confession (1.3): the Apocrypha, "not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture, and therefore are of no authority… nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings." The 1826 Bible-society decision did in print what Westminster had already declared in principle.⁴

So the chain is genuine: Luther made the books a separable, sub-canonical category; that category traveled into every later Protestant Bible; and the rank he assigned them hardened into the confessional principle the Bible societies finally acted on. The modest claim — Luther's act was the originating step and a necessary precondition of the removal — is sound, and even a defender of the books grants it.

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The modest, causal core. Luther did originate the two-tier "Apocrypha" layout; that layout did become the template the later Protestant Bibles carried; and the rank he gave the books did harden into the Reformed-confessional principle that the 1826 removal enacted. Without Luther's demotion-and-segregation there is no "Apocrypha section" for a nineteenth-century society to drop. As a claim that Luther took the first step on the road to the sixty-six-book Protestant Bible — a necessary precondition of where it ended — the argument is well-grounded, and it is the rare apologetic point a Catholic defender of the deuterocanon (Michuta) concedes outright.

What is overstated. The force the slogan trades on — "naturally," "inevitably," "led to." A necessary precondition is not a sufficient cause, and three facts keep the strong form from holding.

1. Three centuries of inclusion sit between the act and the outcome. The books Luther is said to have set on the road to removal stayed bound in the Protestant Bibles for nearly three hundred years — and were at times positively required: every King James Bible printed before 1666 carried the Apocrypha between the Testaments, and in 1615 Archbishop George Abbot forbade, on pain of a year's imprisonment, the printing of an English Bible without it. That this long retention was deliberate — a positive choice, not inertia — is pressed even by the deuterocanon's Catholic defenders: the eighteenth-century Cambridge divine John Hey remarked that "At the Reformation, when men had been brought up to revere them, it would have been both imprudent and cruel to set [the Apocrypha] aside," and Gary Michuta turns the observation into a rhetorical question — why would removal have been "imprudent and cruel" unless the earliest Protestants "recognized their authoritative status"? The retention was indeed deliberate, which is precisely why Luther's act cannot have "naturally" produced the removal; but it proves less than Michuta wants, for Hey — who himself upheld the sub-canonical ranking of the Thirty-Nine Articles — grounds it in the people's inherited reverence and in pastoral prudence, not in any Reformation-era judgment that the books were canonical Scripture.⁵ A cause that takes three centuries to operate, against stretches of active resistance, is not acting "naturally" or "inevitably"; the long delay is itself evidence that further, contingent factors were needed.³

2. The actual removal turned on distinct nineteenth-century drivers, not Luther's act. The disappearance of the Apocrypha dates to the "Apocrypha controversy" of the 1820s: the British and Foreign Bible Society's 1826 resolution to fund only "the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those Books and parts of Books usually termed Apocryphal," the American Bible Society following in 1827. Its drivers were of their own moment — a Reformed-Puritan campaign led from Scotland (Robert Haldane, Andrew Thomson) and the plain printing economy of mass Bible distribution (not paying to print books judged uninspired) — none of them set going by Luther, and the compromise it broke had itself stood for years. The proximate cause of the removal is the 1820s, not the 1530s.⁶

3. Luther's own tradition did not remove the books — which breaks the "naturally led" claim at the root. If the removal followed naturally from Luther's demotion, the tradition closest to Luther should have removed the books first. It did the opposite: German Lutheran Bibles kept the Apocrypha section for centuries, and Lutheranism never adopted the Bible societies' excision as a confessional principle. The books were dropped specifically by the Reformed/Anglo-American stream and its Bible societies — which shows the removal was the work of a particular later development, not the natural unfolding of Luther's act. Luther himself kept the books, prefaced them, and commended them "to read"; he is a poor candidate for the author of their deletion.⁷

A further stage — the erased cross-references — fits the same shape, and is over-read the same way. Michuta presses the staged process one step past the books themselves: the Reformers, he says, chose "to first put them on a lower level than Scripture, then eventually move them to the back of the Bible, and then eventually not only get rid of them but also remove all cross-references to these books." The last step is a real and often-forgotten datum. The original 1611 King James Bible printed marginal cross-references from New Testament texts to the deuterocanon — the clearest being Hebrews 11:35 ("others were tortured… that they might obtain a better resurrection") keyed to the Maccabean martyrdoms of 2 Maccabees 7, with further New-Testament-to-Apocrypha links elsewhere in the apparatus (e.g. Daniel 8:25 → 2 Macc 6:9, Acts 13 → 2 Macc 7:27) — and later Authorized Version printings stripped them out, Benjamin Blayney's standard 1769 Oxford edition dropping the Apocrypha cross-references from the margins "wherever these had been provided by the original translators." So a printed link tying the canonical New Testament to the deuterocanon really was, in time, erased. But the datum shows less than the rhetoric wants, in two ways. First, it belongs to the same demotion narrative already granted rather than proving a fresh point: a cross-reference is editorial apparatus, not a canon-marker, and pruning the links to a section the tradition had ranked below Scripture and was on its way to jettisoning is of a piece with that demotion — not evidence that anyone had newly discovered the books to be authoritative. Second — and against the "not only get rid of them but also remove all cross-references" ordering — the erasure ran the other way in time: Blayney cut the Apocrypha cross-references in 1769, more than half a century before the British and Foreign Bible Society's 1826 vote removed the books, and his edition still printed the Apocrypha; the pruning came as part of a general overhaul of a marginal apparatus that a later editor (F. H. A. Scrivener) judged largely worthless to the English reader, since a majority of the 1611 cross-references keyed to the Vulgate's chapter-and-verse rather than the English Bible's. The erased cross-references thus corroborate the staged-demotion shape the modest claim already carries; what they do not carry is Michuta's further inference — that stripping an editorial link registers a fresh verdict on the deuterocanon's canonical standing.⁸

What the dispute really turns on. Stripped of the "naturally led" force, the genuine claim that remains is modest and true: Luther took the originating step — he demoted the books and made them a separable category — and that step was a necessary precondition of the removal three centuries later. What it was not is a sufficient or inevitable cause; the removal required a later, contingent confessional-and-economic development that Luther neither willed nor foresaw, and that his own tradition declined. The deeper question underneath — whether Luther's demotion of the books from canonical, doctrine-establishing status was warranted in the first place — is the Hebrew-canon question this timeline traces at length (Romans 3:2, the first-century Jewish canon, Jerome's reasons); the causal "paved the way" claim leaves that question exactly where it found it.

Assessment

Plausible — for the modest, causal core; the strong "naturally and inevitably led" form overstates. That Luther's demotion-and-segregation of the deuterocanon was the originating step and a necessary precondition of its eventual removal is well-grounded: Luther created the separable "Apocrypha" category that the later Protestant Bibles carried and that the British and Foreign Bible Society's 1826 resolution finally deleted, and the sub-canonical rank he assigned hardened into the Reformed-confessional principle (the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Westminster Confession) the removal enacted — a chain even a Catholic defender of the books, Gary Michuta, concedes when he credits Luther with "beginning the process." What does not hold is the inevitability the slogan smuggles in. The books stood — at times by law — in the Protestant Bibles for nearly three centuries; their actual removal turned on distinct 1820s drivers (Reformed-Puritan agitation and mass-printing economy) Luther never set going; and Luther's own Lutheran tradition kept the Apocrypha, so the removal was the work of a particular later stream, not the natural unfolding of 1534. A necessary first step, then — not a sufficient or inevitable cause. The argument is the most defensible of the three Luther charges (stronger than the bare "removed" and the "in order to defeat purgatory" forms, both weak), because its modest core is true; flag on its popular framing only the slide from "Luther took the first step" (true) to "the removal followed naturally and inevitably from it" (overstated).

Sources