MARTIN LUTHER ON CANON AND APOCRYPHA

Michael Root

I was initially asked to do a presentation on Luther’s attitude toward the Old Testament
deutorocanonical or apocryphal texts (which I will here call simply the controverted texts). At some
point, this assignment evolved into a general presentation on the Reformation on such texts.
This question is more complex than I thought and involved more reading. I will need to note
the more general attitudes to canon that lay behind attitudes to the OT controverted texts. I thus,
ended up only considering Luther here.

I. Some Distinctions
The patristic and Reformation era debates about the canon of the OT use slightly different
senses of the term ‘canon’ and different criteria for ascertaining canonicity without making these
different senses and criteria explicit. An analysis of these discussions needs to tease apart these
differences.
A. Canon
A canon is a rule or measure. A canon of the Bible is a list of books to be included in the
Bible. But what does it mean to be included in the Bible? At least two answer’s are possible,
producing two slightly different understandings of canon.
First, inclusion in the Bible can mean that a book is one that is read in the church’s liturgies
and used as the basis of sermons. When the early church came to depend on codices rather than
scrolls, these books would be bound in one codex. When Bibles came to be printed, these books
would be printed together as ‘The Bible.” This list of books can be called the ecclesiastical canon.
Second, inclusion in the Bible can mean that a book can be appealed to establish a particular
statement or practice as authentically Christian. If the Letter of James is included in this canon, then
when theologians are challenged to defend the Christian character of the statement, “faith without
works is dead,” they can appeal to the James 2:26. The list of books that can function in this way can
be called the authoritative canon.
The two senses of canon are obviously interrelated. One of the primary forms of the
exposition of Christian teaching is preaching. If preaching is based on texts in the ecclesiastical
canon, these texts will tend to authorize statements in the sermon.
B. Simple Canon or Hierarchy?
Is the canon a level plain, so the speak, all of equal status, or is their a hierarchy within the
canon? Are some books more central or decisive than others? A hierarchy within the canon is easier
to conceive if one is thinking of an authoritative canon than an ecclesiastical canon. Some books
might be taken as more decisive than others, even if the others must still be taken into account.
C. Criteria for Inclusion in the Canon
If a question arises whether a particular book belongs in the canon, one looks to criteria that
will distinguish canonical from non-canonical books. Various sorts of criteria can be used and these
can be distinguished.
First, one can distinguish intrinsic from extrinsic criteria. An intrinsic criterion is one that is
applied to the content of the text. For example, does the text agree in either its historical details or its
doctrine with the historical details and doctrine of clearly canonical texts? An extrinsic criterion is
one that looks at something external to the contents of the text. For example, is the text accepted as
canonical by the apostolic sees and, if so, by all or only some?
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 2

Second, one can distinguish at least two sorts of extrinsic criteria, criteria of origin and
criteria of reception. A criterion of origin looks to some aspect of the text’s production. For example,
was the text written by an apostle? A criterion of reception looks to some aspect of the text’s
acceptance by some group. For example, was a text accepted by all or some of the churches?
Appeals to such criteria often implicitly involve various theological assertions as warrants.
For example, John Gerhard argues that the only a prophet can write an inspired text prior to the
coming of Christ, that Malachi was the last prophet prior to John the Baptist, and thus any text
written between Malachi and John the Baptist cannot be inspired and thus cannot be canonical.
Augustine’s arguments about canonicity turn on the belief that the church as a whole, and especially
the apostolic sees, cannot err on a matter as fundamental as which books are to be included in the
Bible. Such theological assertions are not always made fully explicit, but can be seen at work in the
discussions of canonicity.
D. Grounds for the Canon’s Authority
What makes a book of the Bible, i.e., a book within the canon, authoritative? The almost
universal traditional answer is that these books are inspired by God or, more specifically, the Holy
Spirit. It is important to recognize the difference between the ground for a book’s authority and
criteria for recognizing it as an inspired book. For Augustine, an important criterion of canonicity is
reception by the church, especially the apostolic sees. It can appear at times that Augustine is saying
that the church bestows authority on the biblical books, i.e., that the authority of the book is
constituted by the church’s reception of it as such. That, however, is not what Augustine intends.
Ecclesiastical reception is a sign, even an infallible sign, that a book is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It
is the inspiration that constitutes a books’s authority. Thus, Augustine argues that the Septuagint
must be inspired, because it is accepted as the word of God by the churches. He thus concludes that
the Septuagint translators must have possessed the same prophetic spirit that was possessed by the
prophets (City of God, Book 18, c. 43). A book is authoritative in that it is inspired. The church’s
reception of a book as inspired is a sign that it is such.

II. Background
Two important aspects of the background of the Reformation era discussion should be noted.
A. Patristic and Medieval Background
What was the status of the OT canon as received in the Western church in the centuries
prior to the Reformation? A simple answer to that question is hard to give. Not only is there very
mixed evidence in the documents, but often the distinction noted above between significant A
problem in many discussions of this question is that the varying senses of the term ‘canon’ are not
noted. Does the term ‘canon’ refer to those books that could be read in the church’s liturgies, and
especially the mass, or does it refer to those texts that could be referred to as final authorities in
determining the Church’s teaching? The third synod of Carthage in 397 gave a list of the canon, a list
that included the controverted texts1 and which became an important precedent for later Catholic
definitions of the canon (Dz 186). What Carthage states, however, is that only canonical scripture
[scripturas canonicas] are to be read in church [in ecclesiam legatur]. Does the predicate ‘canonical’
mean only that a text can be read in the church’s liturgies, or does it imply more? The Decretum
damasi accepted by a synod in Rome in 382 includes the controverted texts among those ‘divine
scriptures’ which the church receives [recipiat], but says nothing about what such reception implies
(Dz 179). The most important magisterial statement from the West on the OT canon prior to the
Reformation was the Bull of Union with the Copts, adopted by the Council of Florence in 1442,
which listed the books of the Old and New Testaments. These books have God as their author, are

————————————

1
Baruch is not listed, but may have been included as an appendix to Jeremiah.
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 3

written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are accepted and venerated [suscipit et
veneratur] by the Church (Dz 1334). The list includes the controverted OT books, with no
distinction made between them and other OT books (Dz. 1335). Just what ‘acceptance and
veneration’ imply, however, is not elaborated. The term ‘canon’ is not used.
As far as I can tell, there was no dispute in the West prior to the Reformation that 1) the
controverted texts of the OT were to be read in the Church’s liturgies, including the mass, with no
distinction made between these readings and readings taken from uncontroverted OT texts;2 2) the
controverted OT texts were to be included in copies of the Bible; 3) the controverted OT texts were
to be dispersed throughout the OT, rather than gathered into a separate section.3 If ‘canon’ refers to
a list of the books to be included in Bibles, then the controverted OT texts were clearly canonical for
the medieval Western church. The only question was whether a distinction should be made
between more and less authoritative texts in theological argument.
That question was open, but not a pressing matter. On the one hand, Jerome’s identification
of some texts widely accepted as within the OT as not existent in Hebrew and his assertion that these
texts were “not in the canon”4 and not to be used to establish the church’s teachings, even if they are
good and useful to read, was widely known in the West, since he makes these assertions in various of
the prologues that were included in copies of the Vulgate. These comments are repeated in the
Glossa ordinaria and in Nicholas of Lyras’ commentaries. Eusebius’ similar distinction between three
levels of texts (clearly canonical; accepted by most, but disputed by some; rejected) was also known
in the West.5 On the other hand, theologians were also acquainted with Augustine’s vigorous
defense of the authority of the controverted texts in De doctrina Christiana, III, 8, 126 and De civitate
Dei, XVIII, 41-43. It is easy to find medieval theologians (e.g., Hugh of St. Cher or Ockham) who
repeat Jerome’s strictures on citing the controverted texts in theological arguments. Nevertheless,
one also constantly finds theologians citing such texts to seal a theological argument without any sign
that doing so is problematic.7 The Scripture index in Norman Tanner’s Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils shows that Tobit, Wisdom, and Sirach were cited by pre-Reformation councils.
As far as I can tell, however, the question of the OT canon was not a prominent issue in
medieval discussions. The canon is not a distinct issue in Lombard’s Sentences and so is not a matter
that the many Sentence commentaries of the Middle Ages had to take up. The canon is not a distinct
topic in either of Aquinas’ Summae. If a passage from the controverted texts had played a significant
role in a medieval controversy, we could then see how many authors made use of the argument that
the passage came from a text not to be used to buttress a theological argument. Unfortunately, I
cannot think of any such passage. My sense is that a medieval theologian could go his entire life and
never be faced with a decision on the authority of the controverted texts.

————————————

2
I have not researched, however, how often readings from the controverted texts were included in
medieval lectionaries.
3
The ordering of the books given in the texts noted vary, but all integrate the controverted and
uncontroverted OT texts into a single, mixed listing.
4
Jerome, “Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament,” in The Principal Work
of St. Jerome, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series 2, Vol. 6 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 490.
5
The original text is in Eusebius’ History of the Church, III, 25. This passage was included in Rufinus’
Latin translation.
6
In this passage of De doctrina christiana, however, Augustine also makes clear that all canonical texts
are not of equal weight. A text which has the support of all the churches carries greater weight than one sup-
ported only by some. In addition, acceptance by the apostolic sees is to be given greater consideration. He thus
opens the door to some hierarchy of authority within the canon.
7
For example, Lombard (Sentences, IV, XLV, 6,3) cites Tobit 12:12 in support of the assertion that
angels take our prayers to God and Aquinas (Sent, IV, d. 45, q.2, a. 1, qc. 2) cites II Macc 12:46 to argue that the
works of the living can assist the dead.
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 4

B. Humanists Discussions Immediately Before the Reformation

Discussions of the canonical status of some books of both the OT and NT markedly increased
in the years just prior to the Reformation.8 Humanistic study of the Bible was raising questions
about the authorship of some NT books. In particular, the Annotations in Erasmus’ Greek NT of
1516 expressed sharp doubts about the identification of the authors of Hebrews, 2nd and 3rd John,
Jude, and Revelation.9 Erasmus “carefully, but clearly” [Lohse, 173) raised the question whether a
decision against apostolic authorship had implications for the canonicity of these books, although he
did not take a clear position on the matter. Erasmus had a series of public disputes over questions of
authorship and canon in relation to the NT with Faber Stapulensis in 1517 and with the Paris
theological faculty in the 1520s. Doubts similar to those of Erasmus on NT authorship were
expressed by Cardinal Cajetan.
At about the same time, the Complutensian Bible of 1520, a significant work of scholarship
and the first printed polyglot Bible, contained a prologue by Cardinal Jiménez in which Jerome’s
assertion that the OT controverted texts were useful to be read, but not to be cited in theological
argument was affirmed. Again, Cajetan publicly agreed with this affirmation.
Thus, questions of canon in relation to both testaments were in the air at the beginning of the
Reformation. Lohse describes the early Reformation discussion of canon as “a continuation, but also
a radicalization” of the humanist discussions (Lohse, p. 176).

III. Luther and the Canon in the Early Years of the Lutheran Reformation
A. Luther before 1522
In his theological work up through 1519, Luther appealed to various OT controverted texts in
the same way he appealed to other biblical texts, without any sign that such an appeal was
problematic.
A shift occurs in 1519. During the Leipzig debate with Johannes Eck, Luther was pressed on
his statement that, while he accepted the existence of purgatory, he found little evidence for it in
scripture. Although Eck had not mentioned 2 Maccabees explicitly, Luther took it up in his
response. “The book of Maccabees, since it is not in the canon, has force for the faithful, but
accomplishes nothing with the pertinacious.”10 Eck responded that while 2 Maccabees is not in the
Hebrew canon, it had been taken up into the canon of the church, citing Augustine and a collection
of church constitutions.11 Luther responded that Eck “was arguing about an equivocation and we
will easily be able to agree. I know that the church receives this book and I have said that. But the
church cannot impart more authority or strength to a book than it has in itself, as it approves and
receives the writings of other fathers, but does not therefore establish or render them better.”12 The
————————————

8
In this discussion, I am heavily dependent on Lohse, Bernhard. 1992. “Die Entscheidung der
lutherischen Reformation über den Umfang des alttestamentlichen Kanons.” In Verbindliches Zeugnis I: Kanon
- Schrift - Tradition, edited by Wolfhart Pannenberg and Theodor Schneider, 169–94. Freiburg i.B.: Herder.
Lohse is himself dependent for the NT discussion on Leipoldt, Johannes. 1908. Geschichte des
neutestamentlichen Kanons. Part 2: Mittelalter und Reformation. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
9
He had doubts, but not as strong, about the authorship of James and 2nd Peter.
10
WA 2, 324. The revised version of this text in WA 59, 527f apparently changes “accomplishes noth-
ing” [nihil facit] to “avails nothing” [nihil valet].
11
Ibid. As Lohse notes (p. 179), Eck here does not appeal to the Council of Florence, another sign that
the conciliar decision played little role at this point.
12
WA 2, 325. Eck “contendit ad equivocationem et facile concordabimur. Scio, quod ecclesia recipit
hunc librum, et hoc dixi: sed non potest ecclesia plus tribuere auctoritatis aut firmitatis libro quam per
seimpsum habeat, sicut et ceterorum patrum opuscula approbat et recipit, sed non ideo confirmat aut meliora
reddit.”
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 5

equivocation to which Luther is referring is not clear, but it would appear to refer to the canon as a
decision of the Church about what texts to be used in differing circumstances (to which Eck was
referring) and canon as a statement about the authority of a text, which can only be inherent and
God-given, and cannot be bestowed by the Church (to which he, Luther, was referring).
The Leipzig debate is often cited as a turning-point in Luther’s attitudes toward the
authoritative texts and decisions. In the context of a discussion of the condemnation of Jan Huss by
the Council of Constance in 1415, Luther asserted that councils can err and must be measured by
scripture. A significantly greater gap is thus opened between Scripture and any authoritative text or
decision produced by the Church. In the wake of the Leipzig debate, Philip Melanchthon formulates
what has been argued to be the earliest version of a Reformation sola scripture principle.13
B. Karstadt’s De canonicis scripturis
In the summer of 1520, Luther’s colleague Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt published a
small book, De canonicis scripturis.14 He continued along a trajectory already traced by Erasmus. In
the OT, he distinguished three groups of texts: the Hebrew canon, which is primary; hagiography,
which included Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees; and inauthentic texts, including 3
and 4 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Baruch, and the additions to Daniel. On the significance of
these distinctions, is not far from Jerome. The third group should be excluded entirely; the second
can be read usefully, but cited as authority only when it repeats what is said in the Hebrew canon.
While Karlstadt considered the received NT texts as all canonical, he discerned a hierarchy
within the canon. The first rank belonged to the Gospels and Acts, for in these Christ is most clearly
revealed. Then came the epistles whose apostolic authorship seemed clear (all those traditionally
associated with Paul, except Hebrews; James, 1 Peter, 1 John). Finally came the texts whose apostolic
authorship had been doubted within the early church (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude,
Revelation). All these books are canonical, unlike texts whose authenticity was to be rejected
(interestingly, the inauthentic texts, besides Paul’s alleged epistle to the Laodiceans, included Mark
16:9ff). The hierarchy seems to relate entirely to relative authority.
Karlstadt’s arguments about what to include in the canon and, in part, about relative
authority, seem to be almost exclusively criteria of origin: were the texts in fact by the alleged
author?; were they in Hebrew? The criterion of reception, e.g., was 2 and 3 John accepted by the
early church, turns out to be a criterion of origin, since acceptance is a sign whether or not to trust
the claim of apostolic authorship.
C. Luther’s NT of 1522
In Luther’s translation of the NT of 1522, we see something of his attitude to the canon and
how that attitude is embodied in the printed text. He sets a pattern to be repeated with the OT.
At the beginning of the volume, the books of the NT are listed. The list follows the standard
order and each book is numbered, 1 through 23, with the exceptions of Hebrews, James, Jude, and
Revelation. These are listed after the others, slightly indented, and are given no number. A
significant step beyond Erasmus is thus taken; the biblical text is rearranged on the basis of an
argument about canon.
The basis for this rearrangement is given in the general preface to the NT and the prefaces to
the individual books. Most of the general preface deals with the nature of the gospel, which
demands [foddert] faith rather than works. At the end, the question is asked “which are the true and

————————————

13
Jens-Martin Kruse, Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform: die Anfänge der Reformation in
Wittenberg, 1516–1522 (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2002), 219–32.
14
Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, De canonicis scripturis libellus (Wittenberg: J. Viridimontanum,
1520). Discussed in Lohse, 180-183. I have not had time to read the text itself, which can be downloaded from
Google.
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 6

noblest books of the NT?” The answer is that the best books are the Gospel of John, Paul’s letters,
especially Romans, and 1 Peter. These give “the true kernel and marrow of all the books.” Here one
finds “how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives life, righteousness, and salvation.”
Only one books is singled out as not good, James, here labeled “an epistle of straw” because “it has
nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”15 Here, the issue is a hierarchy of books within the NT,
not a canon of books to be included. If (as seems likely) the description of James as “an epistle of
straw” is a reference to 1 Cor 3:12, then he is not denying that James may have been built on the “one
foundation” which is Jesus Christ, but stating that James has built on that foundation with straw.
The criteria here are entirely intrinsic and relate to the content of the books.
In the prefaces to the individual books, arguments are given that justify that innovative
arrangement of the books. He begins the preface to Hebrews, the first of the four separated books,
with the statement: “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the
NT. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation” (p. 394) The
argument is now focussed on extrinsic criteria; here, the criterion of reception by the ancient church.
Luther’s discussion of the four individual separated books continues in a similar vein.
Hebrews cannot be by Paul, for Paul say he received his gospel from God, not men (Gal 1:1), yet the
author of Hebrews says that salvation “was declared at first by the Lord and it was attested to us by
those who heard him” (Heb 2:3). In addition, Hebrews’ statements about the inefficacy of post-
baptismal repentance (Heb 6:4-6; 10:26f; 12:17) is contrary “to all the gospels and St. Paul’s epistles”
(p. 394), undercutting any claim that the text is by Paul. Luther appeals to content, but here content
is analyzed as evidence of apostolic or non-apostolic authorship. Similarly, he argues that Jude is
dependent on 2 Peter and speaks “like a disciple who comes long after them [the apostles]” (p. 397f).
“This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures” (p. 398).
In the case of Revelation, “I miss more than one thin 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” (p. 398).
The preface to James, however, indicates a crucial ambiguity in Luther’s presentation. What
initially appears important is that, although Luther says that he can praise James “and consider it a
good book, because it . . . vigorously promulgates the law of God,” nevertheless “I do not regard it as
the writing of an apostle” (pp. 395f). First, “it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in
ascribing justification to works. . . . This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of
any apostle” (p. 396). Here the argument still seems to focus on apostolic authorship. The
problematic content of James is taken as a sign that it could not be the work of an apostle.
But Luther continues: “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.” This
omission violates “the office of a true apostle” which is “to preach of the Passion and resurrection and
office of Christ and to lay the foundation for faith in him.” This remark can be read as still arguing
about apostolic authorship. A true apostle would not abandon the apostolic office so completely;
thus, James cannot be by an apostle.
The next, oft cited sentences, however, shift ground. ”All the genuine sacred books agree in
this, that all of them preach and inculcate Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all
books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. . . . Whatever does not teach Christ is not
yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ
would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod were doing it.” Criteria of origin, of
authorship, now fall away. All that matters is content, regardless of who wrote the text. “Apostolic”
does not mean “written by an apostle,” but “ containing the apostolic gospel.” Such a sense of

————————————

15
All quotations from the NT prefaces are from Martin Luther, “Prefaces to the New Testament,” in
Luther’s Works: Vol. 35, ed. and trans. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 361f. Page
numbers for the other prefaces will be given in the text.
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 7

apostolic makes Luther’s discussions of authorship in relation to these four separated texts, however,
pointless.
The problem would seem to be that Luther has run together two closely interrelated, but
distinct issues. One question is that of canon, understood rather generically. What books belong to
the NT? He treats this question much as had his humanist predecessors, utilizing a criterion of
origin, viz., authorship. His innovation was to physically separate the doubtful books from the
undoubtedly authentic books within the NT, thus accentuating the distinction in a way Erasmus had
not done with his Greek NT. A second question is that of a hierarchy of authority. Do some books
define Christian preaching and practice more than others? Here is answer is based strictly on the
intrinsic criterion of content. John is no more an apostle than Matthew, but John’s Gospel, focussing
on Jesus’ words more than his deeds, gives a clearer understanding of the Christian message and is
thus more decisive for defining Christian thought and practice (see p. 362). As he says, a text by
Pilate and Herod could provide more of a touchstone for what is truly Christian than a text by one of
the 12 written on an off day.
One reason Luther easily runs these two concerns together is that the books which
contemporary scholarship thought were of doubtful apostolic authorship were also the books in
which Luther found the gospel most veiled.
D. Luther’s List of the OT Books in his Pentateuch of 1523
In 1523, Luther published in translation of the Pentateuch. Included was a list of the books
of the OT. The pattern of the NT of the previous year is followed, now applied to the OT canon.
The books of the Hebrew canon are listed according to the traditional Christian ordering, each book
with a number. Then follows a list of the books not in the Hebrew canon, slightly indented, with no
number. These books are given no heading (i.e., they are not here labeled ‘Apocrypha’) and are
given in this order: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees. No explanation of
given for the separation or the ordering.16 The close similarity to the NT of 1522 would lead one to
think that Luther intended a distinction between the Hebrew and non-Hebrew books of the OT
similar to that between the clearly authentic and doubtful books of the NT. Just how that similarity
would square with the significant disanalogies between the two cases is not explained.

IV. The Complete Bible Translations

A. The Complete Bible of 1534
Translations of the non-Hebrew OT texts began to appear under Luther’s auspices in 1529, a
few translated by him, but others by colleagues. In 1534, a complete Bible was published. The
pattern follows the listing given in the 1523 Pentateuch, but the non-Hebrew texts now bear the
heading: “Apocrypha: that is, books which are not held equal to Holy Scripture, but which are useful
and good to read.”17 These books are numbered and listed: Judith, Wisdom, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch,
Maccabees, sections of Esther, and sections of Daniel.18 There then follow, not listed and numbered,

————————————

16
Lohse (p. 185) notes that we do not know why Luther does not list Esdras first, as he would if he were
following the Vulgate order, as he otherwise does.
17
”Apocrypha. Das sind Bücher: so nicht der heiligen Schrift gleich gehalten ; und doch nützlich und
gut zu lesen sind.’ Martin Luther, Die Übersetzung des Apokryphenteils des Alten Testaments, Luthers Werke,
Deutsche Bibel, Vol. 12 (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1961), 2. This volume of the Weimar Ausgabe
gives a critical edition of Luther’s prefaces to the Apocrypha and the translation, some of which are fro his own
hand.
18
Only Susannah is here included.
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 8

Bel and the Dragon, the Song of the Three Young Men, and the Prayer of Manasseh.19 With some
minor variations, this pattern continues in other Bibles published in Wittenberg during Luther’s
lifetime.
B. The Prefaces to the Apocrypha
Luther gives no systematic defense of this organization of the OT. In the Prefaces he wrote
for each book, however, various reasons for the classification are given. As with the NT, he does not
explain or defend the criteria he is applying and one can wonder how they hang together in a
coherent and integrated understanding of canon.
First, authorship is invoked in the cases of Wisdom and Sirach. On Wisdom, he argues: “the
ancient church fathers, however, excluded it outright from the sacred Scriptures. They believed it
was made to appear like the work of King Solomon, so that the name and fame of such a renowned
king would gain for the book greater attention and reputation among the mighty men on earth, for
whom it was mainly written” [LW 341; WA 48]. Since it is not by Solomon (Luther believes a good
argument can be made that it is by Philo, but he takes no firm position), it apparently does not
belong in the canon, despite Luther’s unqualified praise for the book’s contents.
In the case of Sirach, he notes that the book is named after it’s author. He adds: “This is how
the books of Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, and all the prophets are named, after their authors. Yet the
ancient fathers did not include this one among the books of sacred Scripture, but simply regarded it
as the fine work of a wise man.” That the author is not to be counted among the prophets (which
include Moses, Joshua, and Solomon) counts against his book being canonical.
Second, with 1 Maccabees [LW, 350; WA 416] and the Greek sections of Esther and Daniel
[LW, , Luther simply states that these are not in the Hebrew canon and takes that as a self-evident
reason for their inclusion in the Apocrypha. He says of 1 Maccabees: “This is another book not to be
found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of
sacred Scripture. This would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very
necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel.”20 The sole reason
for exclusion seems to be that it is not in the Hebrew canon.
Third, Luther implicitly argues that the events depicted in a canonical book must have
actually happened. In Judith and Baruch, he is bothered by contradictions between their historical
chronology and that of the other books of the OT. About Judith he says: “If one could prove from
established and reliable histories that the events in Judith really happened, it would be a noble and
fine book, and should properly be in the Bible. Yet it hardly squares [schwerlich reimen] with the
historical accounts of the Holy Scriptures, especially Judith and Ezra” [LW, 337; WA, 4]. Judith is
thus not a true story, but a “beautiful spiritual poem or fiction” [geistlich schöne geticht; LW, 338;
WA, 4]. The chronology in Baruch also “does not agree with the histories” [LW, 349; WA 290].
Luther’s comments on Tobit are similar to those on Judith: “If the events really happened, then it is a
fine and holy history. but if they are all made up,then it is indeed a very beautiful, wholesome, and
useful fiction or drama [geticht und spiel] by a gift poet” [LW, 345; WA, 108]. Luther lays out only
sketchy reasons for thinking it is a not history. He thinks the Greek version reads as if the original
form of the text was a play and he finds the names of various person in the text allegorical (Tobit
means righteous; Anna means amiable; Raphael means healer). As with Judith, he finds the text
highly commendable. “It is the work of a fine Hebrew author . . . whose writing and concerns are

————————————

19
III and IV Esdras are dropped. In his preface to Baruch, Luther explains that they were not included
“because they contain nothing that one could not find better in Aesop or in still slighter works” Martin Luther,
“Prefaces to the Apocrypha,” in Luther’s Works: Vol. 35, ed. and trans. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1960), 350. The original German as WA DB 12, 290, Further references to the prefaces will be
given in the text, both to the German in the WA and the translation in the LW.
20
The prophesy of the Antichrist and its fulfillment in 1 Maccabees is his concern here.
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 9

extraordinarily Christian” [LW, 347; WA, 110]. The problem is that the book is not authentic
history.
Fourth, on occasion, Luther appeals to theological content. He find Baruch “very skimpy”
[seer geringe is dis buch; LW, 349; WA 290]. “It is hardly credible that the servant of St. Jeremiah,
whose name is also Baruch (and to whom the letter is attributed), should not be richer and loftier in
spirit than this Baruch.” Thus, the book is so thin, Luther doubts that it is by the Baruch who was
associated with Jeremiah. As noted, he found III and IV Esdras so wanting, he completely dropped
them. He does include Baruch in the Apocrypha “because he writes so vigorously against idolatry
and sets forth the law of Moses” [LW, 350; WA, 290]. He also notes the problem in 2 Maccabees that
the suicide of Razis is seemingly held up as praiseworthy [LW, 353; WA 416]. In no case, however,
does he argue that a text is included in the apocrypha and the canonical OT because of its theological
content. For the most part, he has high praise for the theological content of the apocryphal books.21
Luther thus argues that the apocryphal books are of dubious authorship, or not in the
Hebrew canon, or of dubious historicity, or dubious theologically. Not all problems are to be found
in all; most he commends theologically. All have some defect, however.
It should be noted that Luther can similarly critical of books in the canonical OT. He voices
opinions that Jeremiah, Hosea, and Isaiah are collections of statement by the prophets named, but put
together by disciples, as similarly with Solomon and Proverbs.22 He is far more vehement about
Esther. In The Bondage of the Will, he states of Esther that “despite their [the Catholics] inclusion of
it in the canon [it] deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as non-canonical”
(LW, vol. 33, p. 110). He is more theologically critical of Esther than of any apocryphal book. In On
the Jews and Their Lies, he says: “Oh, how much they [the Jews] love the book of Esther which so
well fits their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous greed and hope” [LW, vol. 47, p. 19]. Yet, at no
time does he suggest dropping Esther into the apocryphal category or out of the OT entirely.

V. Canon and Hierarchy

Luther makes various arguments about the Apocrypha, some negative, many positive. In the
end, however, he does not alter the standard division between the Hebrew canon and the books that
fell outside of the Hebrew canon. He accepts a widely shared conviction among humanists of his
time that Jerome was right when he said that the non-Hebrew books of the OT should be read for
edification, but not cited for doctrine. As with the NT, he radicalized the humanist position by
actually rearranging the printed OT along lines consistent with such a view. On this general
question of canon, he relied mostly on extrinsic criteria: authorship and presence in the Hebrew
canon.
As with the NT, for more important for Luther than the general question of the canon was
the question of the hierarchy of authority. What texts define Christian teaching and practice? This
question was connected with the question of canon, but for Luther not identical. The connection
between canon and authority was looser for Luther than for most theologians.
A sign of this loose connection is Luther’s expressed lack of concern with the question of
canon. After he notes that Sirach, despite its virtues, was not included in the Hebrew canon, he
simply concludes: “And we shall leave it at that” [da bey wirs auch lassen bleiben; LW, 347; WA,
144]. At the end of his preface to 2 Maccabees, which is included in the Apocrypha of Luther’s Bible,
he states: “To sum up: just as it is proper [billich] that first book [1 Maccabees] should be included

————————————

21
In the prefaces, he does not criticize Tobit for ascribing forgiveness to almsgiving or 2 Maccabees for
implying present works can aid the dead.
22
Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, trans. Eric W. Gritsch and Ruth C. Gritsch
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 192.
 Root, Canon & Reformation, 1/6/16 8:33 PM - Page 10

among the sacred Scriptures, so proper that this second book is thrown out, even though it contains
some good things. However, the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to
decide” [LW, 353; WA 417f]. Because the edges of the canon are inevitably low in the hierarchy of
authority, whether they are or are not included in the canon is not so significant. Luther could thus
in later editions of his NT move back to a normal ordering, not separating out the four books he
earlier found dubious, without any significant change in his position. If the center that defines the
Christian message was established, then the margins could be left undefined.
Luther thus left an ambiguous legacy on canon. On the one hand, despite his fulminations,
he left the NT canon as he found it and altered the OT canon along lines already explored by others.
Perhaps the decisive change in relation to the shape of canon was the physical separation of the OT
non-Hebrew texts, which made their removal from many Lutheran bibles later much easier. On the
other hand, his emphasis on a hierarchy of authority distinct from questions of canon undercut the
significance of canon. If one cites James, the response is always possible that what is important is
only whether a text “bears Christ.”
The pendulum has swung between these two poles among Luther’s heirs. In the polemics of
the century after Luther’s death, the emphasis fell back on a more uniform, less hierarchical canon,
with the result that the limits of the canon became a more important topic, as can be seen in the
detailed discussions of the OT canon in Martin Chemnitz’ Examination of the Council of Trent and,
even more vehemently, Johann Gerhard’s Loci Theologici, which contains extensive discussions of
the canonical status of each of the controverted texts. More recently, those who claim Luther’s
mantle have grasped the other pole, insisting, for example, that the later texts of the NT represent a
Frühkatholizismus inimical to true Christianity.