Updated 10:00 p.m.Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has been posting on the Catholic Answers message boards. He’s been mentioning his new book due out this month (I pre-ordered my copy on Monday), “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story Of The Lost Books Of The Protestant Bible.” Here’s a sneak preview:
"I probably shouldn't do this because it is one of several bombshells in my book, but I'll give you a little preview. Luther, apparently, shouldn't be counted as just one of several confused theologians of his era. If the Protestant scholar H. H. Howarth is correct (and I've read a lot of his works and he is always very accurate), Luther originally held the Deuterocanon to be canonical. In 1517, in a debate with the head censor of Rome, Luther claimed that he would only be persuaded in argument by the "canonical Scripture." In this same debate, Luther quotes both Sirach and Tobit against his opponent. One year later, in the Second Disputation at Leipzig, the Catholic Eck cornered Luther with a citation from Second Maccabees. Luther rejected Maccabees from the canon, but added the interesting concession that Maccabees "has weight with the faithful, but it won't avail against the obstinate." A phrase BTW that I have on my Deuterocanon page that has raised the ire of a certain anti-Catholic. I give the blow-by-blow of the Disputation in my book."
First, Gary says, "In 1517, in a debate with the head censor of Rome, Luther claimed that he would only be persuaded in argument by the "canonical Scripture." In this same debate, Luther quotes both Sirach and Tobit against his opponent. " Af far as I know, Luther did not debate the head censor of Rome in 1517. I think Gary means Luther's discussion or "interview" with Cardinal Cajetan in October 12-14, 1518. It was not a "debate". Luther was asked to recant, and angered Cajetan by wanting to discuss the matter. July 4-14, 1519, Luther particiated in an actual debate with John Eck in Leipzig. In fact, Gary corrects his mistake here.
"I probably shouldn't do this because it is one of several bombshells in my book, but I'll give you a little preview. Luther, apparently, shouldn't be counted as just one of several confused theologians of his era. If the Protestant scholar H. H. Howarth is correct (and I've read a lot of his works and he is always very accurate), Luther originally held the Deuterocanon to be canonical. In 1517, in a debate with the head censor of Rome, Luther claimed that he would only be persuaded in argument by the "canonical Scripture." In this same debate, Luther quotes both Sirach and Tobit against his opponent. One year later, in the Second Disputation at Leipzig, the Catholic Eck cornered Luther with a citation from Second Maccabees. Luther rejected Maccabees from the canon, but added the interesting concession that Maccabees "has weight with the faithful, but it won't avail against the obstinate." A phrase BTW that I have on my Deuterocanon page that has raised the ire of a certain anti-Catholic. I give the blow-by-blow of the Disputation in my book."
First, Gary says, "In 1517, in a debate with the head censor of Rome, Luther claimed that he would only be persuaded in argument by the "canonical Scripture." In this same debate, Luther quotes both Sirach and Tobit against his opponent. " Af far as I know, Luther did not debate the head censor of Rome in 1517. I think Gary means Luther's discussion or "interview" with Cardinal Cajetan in October 12-14, 1518. It was not a "debate". Luther was asked to recant, and angered Cajetan by wanting to discuss the matter. July 4-14, 1519, Luther particiated in an actual debate with John Eck in Leipzig. In fact, Gary corrects his mistake here.
Second, Gary says that Luther rejected Maccabees from the canon, yet the book "has weight with the faithful, but it won't avail against the obstinate." I'm very curious to see the context of this quote, and look forward to Gary's book.
Third, I managed to track down the names of some source documents of Howarth that I think Gary may be using, and I’ll probably have some of them within the week:
H. H. Howarth, "The Origin And Authority Of The Biblical Canon In The Anglican Church", Journal Of Theological Studies, 1906, Issue VIII, Volume XXIX, pp. 1–40
H. H. Howarth, "The Origin And Authority Of The Biblical Canon According To The Continental Reformers: I. Luther And Karlstadt", Journal Of Theological Studies, 1907, Issue VIII, Volume XXXI, pp. 321–365
H. H. Howarth, "The Origin And Authority Of The Biblical Canon According To The Continental Reformers: II. Luther, Zwingli, Lefèvre, And Calvin", Journal Of Theological Studies, 1908, Issue IX, Volume XXXIV, pp. 188–230
H. H. Howarth, "The Canon Of The Bible Among The Later Reformers", Journal Of Theological Studies, 1909, Issue X, Volume XXXVIII, pp. 183–232
Fourth, I think that’s me being described in the last sentence of Gary's sneak preview. I think the word “ire” might be a bit of poetic overkill. I am not angry that Gary cited Luther saying, “Maccabees has weight with the faithful, but it won't avail against the obstinate.” I simply wanted a reference. Even if Gary was quoting an older blog entry I did, even there I’m not angry, just looking for some more information. In fact, if you read this older entry, you'll see why the quote caught my attention.
I await Michuta’s book. As I’ve mentioned many times, I’m not interested in making Luther anything other than what he was. If Michuta’s work shows Luther held the canonicty of Second Maccabees, and then later rejected it, fine. Big deal. If though, Michuta simply cites Howarth, it will make me suspect he never read the primary document, in which case, I’ll have to do the work of looking up the reference and tracking it down. I don’t know too much about Gary, other than seeing him at the apocrypha debate he did against Dr. White a few years ago. I’ve never read a book by him, so I await to see how he presents his information. I hope for the best.
I await Michuta’s book. As I’ve mentioned many times, I’m not interested in making Luther anything other than what he was. If Michuta’s work shows Luther held the canonicty of Second Maccabees, and then later rejected it, fine. Big deal. If though, Michuta simply cites Howarth, it will make me suspect he never read the primary document, in which case, I’ll have to do the work of looking up the reference and tracking it down. I don’t know too much about Gary, other than seeing him at the apocrypha debate he did against Dr. White a few years ago. I’ve never read a book by him, so I await to see how he presents his information. I hope for the best.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment