Luther: Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God (Part Two)

Earlier I posted this entry which shed some light on an obscure Luther quote that's been circulating around cyber-space for quite a few years:

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.

What appears to have happened is this quote was put together in an edited form by using William Cole's article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, pages 132-133). It was sent off into cyber-space incorrectly documented as "Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521." Was the quoted checked against Luther's Magnificat for accuracy? It appears not. Sure, it may have been many years ago that this quote was taken from Cole's article, but even way back when, Luther's treatise on the Magnifcat shouldn't have been too hard to track down, especially if one were going to put such a quote either in a published article or book. Without the Internet, all it would have taken, all those years ago...  was a good college library.   

Cyber-space as it is, this bogus Luther quote traveled along, being cited here and there. It even got itself published.  It's not so much that Luther didn't say what's purported in the quote, it's that he said what he said in multiple places, in different contexts, not in this one quote. You see, William Cole's quote is actually a rather "loose" compilation of a few Luther quotes, from different treatises, with an emphasis on Luther's exposition of the Magnificat. If you count it all up, Cole provides around 20 references for 7 lines from Luther. 20 references? Something, obviously, doesn't add up. William Cole's documentation is somewhat free-style (for lack of a better phrase). His citation and documentation reads as follows:

Five years later, likewise preaching for the Feast of Visitation, he marvels at Mary's humility in the face of Elizabeth's great praise, which he makes equivalent to "No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sara, blessed above nobility, wisdom, and sanctity."

We cannot dispute the fact that Luther honored Mary wished her to be honored. As Preuss has observed,

Mary is and remains for Luther worthy of honor or veneration. He always maintains this although he changed the reason for it. For him the main reason is not that she has given us Christ, but that she is a model for our acceptance of Him.

There remains the question how. Luther himself responds in the Magnificat and many other places:

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace. God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect. But we must thereby straightway enter the right path, and this way is Christ, for Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ and she bore Christ for me, not herself.144

Putting it negatively,

One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.145

144 WA 1,60; cf. 7, 193, 553, 560, 565, 568, 575; 11, 60; 15, 477, 480; 17 (2), 320; 32, 265; 34 (2), 496.

145 WA 7, 564, 567, 568, 569, 574; 10 (3), 316; but especially 10 (2), 407.

What I did was attempt to work through the documentation to see exactly what Cole put together. I was able to track down the contexts for almost the entirety of his references with the exception of one (#8). For reference #8, I actually did a blog article on the treatise in question, and I'm working on getting it translated. This work is open to correction as well. Synching up Latin and German pages to English translations can be a bit tricky, but not impossible. Special thanks to Brigitte for help with #2, #9, #10.

1. WA 1, 60
This is reference to a Latin sermon from August 15, 1516. It's rather short (it ends on page 61). One would assume this reference would be to the first line of Cole's Luther citation. It isn't. In fact, I don't believe any of Cole's Luther citation comes from WA 1:60. Why then was this reference given? From the context, it appears Cole included it for in this early sermon Mary is put forth as "the most pure worshipper" of God who magnifies God in all things.  Cole makes a number of references to WA 1, 60, at one point even translating a section from it, but then connecting it to another sermon  from the same volume where Luther states Mary "boasts of nothing herself, nothing of merit, no work; she is, by her own admission, purely passive and a receiver, not a doer of good works." This basic thought will be the basis Cole builds on: Luther held Mary does nothing, Christ does it all.

2.  WA 7, 193
This is a reference to  the last section of a sermon from December 25, 1520. Nothing from this page appears to be part of Cole's quote. Why did Cole included it? Perhaps because Luther says that Mary abstained from praise, nor did she desire any praise. It would thus be a support reference for Cole's "The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace." Luther states:

...although she was a virgin she had to forgo all honor and praise, which she might have received from this (virginity and miraculous conception), but had to let it go. Similarly, even though by birth she was from the most noble and kingly tribe, she was still held to be nothing and did not receive praise. If she had wanted to received praise, she would have never come to the child (as Savior). But now her praise is preached in all the world and no one can praise her sufficiently. ( But) this is the entire good news, that we receive the child alone.

3. WA 7, 553
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521.  Here may be some of Cole's Luther quote. The German reads,

The bolded section below would be Cole's "One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds." LW translates:

Let this suffice in explanation of these two words, soul and spirit; they occur very frequently in the Scriptures. We come to the “magnifies,” which means to make great, to exalt, to esteem one highly, as having the power, the knowledge, and the desire to perform many great and good things, such as those that follow in this canticle. Just as a book title indicates what is the contents of the book, so this word “magnifies” is used by Mary to indicate what her hymn of praise is to be about, namely, the great works and deeds of God, for the strengthening of our faith, for the comforting of all those of low degree, and for the terrifying of all the mighty ones of earth. We are to let the hymn serve this threefold purpose; for she sang it not for herself alone but for us all, to sing it after her. Now, these great works of God will neither terrify nor comfort anyone unless he believes that God has not only the power and the knowledge but also the willingness and hearty desire to do such great things. In fact, it is not even enough to believe that He is willing to do them for others but not for you. This would be to put yourself beyond the pale of these works of God, as is done by those who, because of their strength, do not fear Him, and by those of little faith who, because of their tribulations, fall into despair. [LW 21:306]

4. WA 7, 560
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:313.  There doesn't seem to be anything similar to Cole's quote. However, on page WA 561 (LW 21:314), there is a thought Cole has been highlighitng, that it's not Mary's work to be praised, but God's work:

This, therefore, is what Mary means: “God has regarded me, a poor, despised, and lowly maiden, though He might have found a rich, renowned, noble, and mighty queen, the daughter of princes and great lords. He might have found the daughter of Annas or of Caiaphas, who held the highest position in the land. But He let His pure and gracious eyes light on me and used so poor and despised a maiden, in order that no one might glory in His presence, as though he were worthy of this, and that I must acknowledge it all to be pure grace and goodness and not at all my merit or worthiness.”

5. WA 7, 565
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:319. Here Luther discusses praising the work of God's grace in others. This section doesn't appear to contain any of the text Cole alludes to.

6. WA 7, 568
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. This appears to be Cole's "How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace." The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:321-322. There Luther states,

From this we may learn how to show her the honor and devotion that are her due. How ought one to address her? Keep these words in mind, and they will teach you to say: “O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, you were nothing and all despised; yet God in His grace regarded you and worked such great things in you. You were worthy of none of them, but the rich and abundant grace of God was upon you, far above any merit of yours. Hail to you! Blessed are you, from thenceforth and forever, in finding such a God.” Nor need you fear that she will take it amiss if we call her unworthy of such grace. For, of a truth, she did not lie when she herself acknowledged her unworthiness and nothingness, which God regarded, not because of any merit in her, but solely by reason of His grace.

7. WA 7, 575
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:329. Luther states,

Therefore she adds, “And holy is His name.” That is to say: “As I lay no claim to the work, neither do I to the name and fame. For the name and fame belong to Him alone who does the work. It is not proper that one should do the work and another have the fame and take the glory. I am but the workshop in which He performs His work; I had nothing to do with the work itself. No one should praise me or give me the glory for becoming the Mother of God, but God alone and His work are to be honored and praised in me. It is enough to congratulate me and call me blessed, because God used me and did His works in me.”

Perhaps the bolded section is Cole's "God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect." Or perhaps it's "The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace."

8. WA 11, 60
This a reference to sermon from March 11, 1523.

9. WA 15, 477
This appears to be another possible source for Cole's "God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect."

(Study) regarding the mother Mary, 2.) and the Son. Our salvation does not reside in the virginity of the mother, but in the Son, and for that reason this portion is more seen by us, which speaks of the Son, because thus far we have brought all glory to the mother and have been forgetful of the son. Certainly it is a great honor, that she is a virgin, more than a mother, but it is beneficial to her, not to me, save only that I demonstrate in her the mercy and glory of God, wherefore she is thus reverent, lest we make her an idol.

10. WA 15, 480

11. WA 17 (2), 320
This is a page from Luther's Kirchenpostille. The most relevant Marian section begins on the bottom of page 319, and continues to the top of 320. This appears to be a possible source for Cole's "Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ" :

This text reads:

Because of this you see that the dear Apostle Paul, John, Peter and Christ Himself use absolutely no words about His mother or the virgin Mary. For the greatest power does not rest upon her being a virgin, but rather everything depends on something else. So also everything else that happens, how this child is there for our sake, that for us He walked and stood, depends upon His being our LORD and God who wants to preserve and defend us. Before all things one should cry out and lift this up else if one only praises this mother and is silent about the rest, that must be judged as pure blasphemy. She is not there for her own sake, but for my sake, that she serve me and give me this child. She is surely worthy of all honor. Yet let her be the treasure chest without confusing her over and against this treasure. [Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, The Church Postils (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005), p. 139].

12. WA 32, 265
This a reference to a sermon preached December, 25, 1530. It can be cross-referenced to LW 51:213-214. Here appears to be Cole's "Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, she bore Christ for me, not herself." Luther states: 

When I die I shall see nothing but black darkness, and yet that light, “To you is born this day the Savior” [Luke 2:11], remains in my eyes and fills all heaven and earth. The Savior will help me when all have forsaken me. And when the heavens and the stars and all creatures stare at me with horrible mien, I see nothing in heaven and earth but this child. So great should that light which declares that he is my Savior become in my eyes that I can say: Mary, you did not bear this child for yourself alone. The child is not yours; you did not bring him forth for yourself, but for me, even though you are his mother, even though you held him in your arms and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and picked him up and laid him down. But I have a greater honor than your honor as his mother. For your honor pertains to your motherhood of the body of the child, but my honor is this, that you have my treasure, so that I know none, neither men nor angels, who can help me except this child whom you, O Mary, hold in your arms. If a man could put out of his mind all that he is and has except this child, and if for him everything—money, goods, power, or honor—fades into darkness and he despises everything on earth compared with this child, so that heaven with its stars and earth with all its power and all its treasures becomes as nothing to him, that man would have the true gain and fruit of this message of the angel. And for us the time must come when suddenly all will be darkness and we shall know nothing but this message of the angel: “I bring to you good news of great joy; for to you is born this day the Savior” [Luke 2:10–11].

13. WA 34 (2), 496.
This is a reference to a sermon on the Festival of Christ's Nativity (December 24, 1532). This also appears to be Cole's source for "Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, she bore Christ for me, not herself."   The relevant section Cole appears to be citing is the following:

The first thing to learn in this prophecy of Isaiah is that a child is born to you and is your child, just as we sing, "A child so praiseworthy is born to us today." We must accentuate the word "us" and write it large. That is, when you hear, A child has been born to us, make the two letters US as large as heaven and earth and say, The child is born, it is true; but for whom is he born? Unto US, for us he is born, says the prophet. He was not born solely to his mother, the Virgin Mary, nor solely for his compatriots, his brethren and kinfolk, the Jews. Much less was he born to God in heaven, who was in no need of the birth of this child; but he was born unto us humans on earth. Thus the prophet wants to say to you and to me, to all of us in general, and to each and every one in particular, Listen, brother, I want to sing a joyous song to you and proclaim the joyous news to you. There, in the manger at Bethlehem, lies a young child, a fine little boy; this little child is yours, he is granted and given to you.

Ah, Lord God, everyone ought open his hands here, take hold of and joyfully receive this child, whom this mother, the Virgin Mary, bears, suckles, cares for, and tends. Now, indeed, I have become lord and master and the noble mother, who was born of royal lineage, becomes my maid and servant. Ah! for shame, that I do not exult and glory in this, that the prophet says, This child is mine, it was for my sake and for the sake of us all that he has been born, to be my Saviour and the Saviour of us all! That is the way in which this mother serves me and us all with her own body. Really we all ought to be ashamed with all our hearts. For what are all the maids, servants, masters, mistresses, princes, kings, and monarchs on earth compared with the Virgin Mary, who was born of royal lineage, and withal became the mother of God, the noblest woman on earth? After Christ, she is the most precious jewel in all Christendom. And this noblest woman on earth is to serve me and us all by bearing this child and giving him to be our own! [Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 7(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 215-216]

14. WA 7, 564
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:317-318. The section Cole appears to be referencing is the following in which Luther exhorts his readers not to look to Mary, but rather to use them as a vehicle to cling to Christ alone. This may be Cole's "One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God":

As Jeremiah says (Jer. 9:23, 24): “Let no one glory in his might, riches, or wisdom; but if anyone wants to glory, let him glory in this,that he understands and knows Me.” And St. Paul teaches (2 Cor. 10:17): “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” Now, after lauding her God and Savior with pure and single spirit, and after truly singing the praises of His goodness by not boasting of His gifts, the Mother of God addresses herself in the next place to the praise also of His works and gifts. For, as we have seen, we must not fall upon the good gifts of God or boast of them, but make our way through them and ascend to Him, cling to Him alone, and highly esteem His goodness. Thereupon we should praise Him also in His works, in which He showed forth that goodness of His for our love, trust, and praise. Thus His works are simply that many incentives to love and praise His bare goodness that rules over us.

15. WA 7, 567- 568 - 569
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. These pages from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21: 320-323. For Cole, these three pages of text are meant to refer to two sentences: "One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God." It appears though to be only the exact reference for "Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.":

all those who heap such great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace.

Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceedingly abundant grace of God, who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What do you suppose would please her more than to have you come through her to God this way, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.

16. WA 7, 574
This is a reference to Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, 1521. The page from WA 7 can be cross-referenced to LW 21:328. Luther states,

This, then, is the meaning of these words of the Mother of God: “In all those great and good things there is nothing of mine, but He who alone does all things, and whose power works in all, has done such great things for me.” For the word “mighty” does not denote a quiescent power, as one says of a temporal king that he is mighty, even though he may be sitting still and doing nothing. But it denotes an energetic power, a continuous activity, that works and operates without ceasing. For God does not rest, but works without ceasing, as Christ says in John 5:17: “My Father is working still, and I am working.” In the same sense St. Paul says in Ephesians 3:20: “He is able to do more than all that we ask”; that is, He always does more than we ask; that is His way, and thus His power works. That is why I said Mary does not desire to be an idol; she does nothing, God does all. We ought to call upon her, that for her sake God may grant and do what we request. Thus also all other saints are to be invoked, so that the work may be every way God’s alone.

17. WA 10 (3), 316
This is a reference to a page from Luther's sermon, The Day of the Nativity of Mary (September 8, 1522). This appears to be the source for Cole's "One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God."  Luther states,

Her being given great grace is not done so that we should venerate her, but out of God's mercy for her. For we could not all be God's mother, but apart from that she is just like us and must also come to grace through the blood of Christ as we do. So you now personally receive the same grace for which we must honor the saints. By acknowledging this we keep ourselves from detracting from Christ. We are Christ-centered when we receive His blood and suffering and set our heart only upon that and on no saint beside. So honor the mother of God so far that you do not dwell on her, but rather press through to God and set your heart on Him and never take Christ out of the center. For we are altogether brothers and sisters since He Himself says He is our brother.[Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, The Church Postils (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005), p. 158-159].

18. but especially WA 10 (2), 407
This is the first page of Luther's explanation on the "Hail Mary." It can be cross-referenced to LW 43:39. Luther states,

Take note of this: no one should put his trust or confidence in the Mother of God or in her merits, for such trust is worthy of God alone and is the lofty service due only to him. Rather praise and thank God through Mary and the grace given her. Laud and love her simply as the one who, without merit, obtained such blessings from God, sheerly out of his mercy, as she herself testifies in the Magnificat [Luke 1:46–55].

"Tradition" as Viewed by Popular Roman Catholic Apologists... and a Response

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 06/07/09

In the written disputes and published propaganda between sixteenth-century Protestants and Roman Catholics, the mass-marketing victory clearly lay in the hands of Rome's detractors. Protestants out-published Rome's apologists winning the popular opinion. Catholic works were unlikely to sell, and therefore not sought out by printers. Rome exasperated the loss by not supporting her apologists in their written endeavors.(1)

Now five hundred years later, current popular Protestant writing produce more self-help tomes, fictional entertainment, and end times forewarnings than theological treatises specific to exposing Roman Catholic error. Roman Catholic writers though have consistently produced popular works specifically geared toward evangelizing Protestants.(2) One need only visit a big-chain bookstore and scan the shelves to notice apologetic works from Roman Catholic authors typically outnumber Protestant works geared toward defending Reformation principles. Producing works distinctively for laymen, Rome's apologists have hammered away specifically at sola fide and sola scriptura. In the popular Catholic convert book, Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic,(3) almost all of those recounting their swim across the Tiber mention that a rejection of sola scriptura was key in their subsequent rejection of sola fide.

Indeed a historical irony, Protestants defending the faith against Rome's popular writers now find themselves in a similar plight as the sixteenth-century Catholic apologist. More often than not, works specifically directed to defending the solas of the Reformation are least likely to find their way to the bookstore shelf, while Rome's champions have thoroughly penetrated the mass market.(4) These Catholic apologetic works have ready and confounding answers to counter the sole authority of Scripture. A Protestant unfamiliar with Catholic authority argumentation can easily be befuddled and silenced quickly.

Papal apologists often have an eager Protestant audience. It is often the draw of Tradition (5) that so intrigues many Protestants. Catholic polemicists offer it as an historical and / or interpretive solution for Protestants lacking any connection to those generations of Christians who came before. Tradition is put forth as that vehicle which connects an evangelical with a two thousand year old historical church. With the acceptance of Tradition, the notion of an historical hierarchical authority finds easier acceptance. With these other authorities standing beside sacred scripture, Catholic apologists seek to establish a basis for promoting a gospel of infused righteousness obtained through faith, sacraments, and works, in essence another gospel (Galatians 2:6-9).

Defusing the Catholic apologetic use of Tradition causes the fall of the entire system. It needs to be exposed as an incoherent authority, fraught with double standards, and unable to meet the qualification of theopneustos (God breathed) revelation. If the scriptures truly are the believers infallible sole rule of faith, it should follow necessarily that any other rule claiming a similar pedigree will be exposed as a counterfeit. Any other infallible rule of faith will not be consistent with either the facts of the Bible or history. If the Bible is the only infallible rule, any other alleged infallible rule will fail as a template to accurately size reality. While Protestants committed to Reformation principles may currently lack a voice in the public market, the first step to reversing this trend is to understand and counter the lynchpin of Catholic argumentation, Tradition.


What is Tradition According to Rome?

The official Roman claims for Tradition are found in statements from the councils of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II. Trent states the gospel truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves.(6) While Vatican I and II reaffirmed Trent's statements, Vatican II adds,

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move toward the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.(7)

These statements, while giving the appearance of clarity, are in actuality the exact opposite, being oft debated by Catholic scholars as to what exactly they imply. There is not a consensus opinion as to the exact content of Tradition, the precise relationship between scripture and Tradition, and exactly how the vehicle of Tradition functions and becomes known by the church. Rome's official statements do not explicitly define whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth. Does Tradition function as the interpreter of scripture, or is it interpreted by scripture, or do they interpret each other? Is the content of Tradition confirmed by historical scrutiny, or is it an unwritten opinion only confirmed by a movement within the developing church? Vatican II commands Catholics to accept and honor something quite ambiguous. One wonders if individual Catholics attempting devotion and reverence toward Tradition actually have the same or a differing concept in view. While dogmatic statements from official Roman Catholic councils are put forth to clarify truth, their statements on Tradition have done quite the opposite. II.



Current Popular Explanations of Tradition

The ambiguities of these official statements on Tradition have not been a hindrance to Catholic apologetical works. Rather, this lack of clarity allows Rome's popular writers to use the concept to their advantage depending on the situation or context. For instance, one of the most popular and groundbreaking recent Catholic works is Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians. Keating's goal was to counter fundamentalist attacks against Catholicism. In analyzing the charge that Roman Catholics logically believe in continuing revelation because some of her dogmas find no evidence in the Bible, Keating explains this false argument is based on a misunderstanding of Tradition. Keating states: "It is true that Catholics do not think revelation ended with what is in the New Testament. They believe, though, that it ended with the death of the last apostle. The part of revelation that was not committed to writing- the part that is outside the New Testament and is the oral teaching that is the basis of Tradition- that part of revelation Catholics also accept ..."(8) Here, the partim-partim view of Tradition allows Roman Catholics a basis for their distinctive views. One need not seek proof for every Christian belief in the Bible, for Tradition is the second part that completes the whole of God's revealed truth. Keating goes on to state this follows Paul's injunction to stand firm, then, brethren, and hold by the traditions you have learned, in word or in writing, from us (2 Thes. 2:14).

Contrary to Keating, another leading Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, affirms "It may surprise you to learn that the Catholic position allows for what we call, the material sufficiency of Scripture. This means that Scripture contains everything necessary for Christian teaching. All doctrines can be found there, implicitly or explicitly, but they're all there."(9) Madrid stated this during a debate against sola scriptura in an attempt to limit the scope of his opponents argumentation. In his writings, Madrid explains Tradition: the norm St. Paul wants Timothy to go by is not Scripture alone, but also the oral teaching he delivered to Timothy personally and through others. This oral teaching, the faithful and accurate handing down of the gospel of Christ in the Church, which includes the correct interpretation of the Scriptures is Sacred Tradition.(10) For Madrid, Tradition functions as the act of handing down the gospel and also as the interpreter of biblical revelation, rather than revelation proper. That interpretation is the property of the papal magisterium. The papacy is able to infallibly determine that the gospel was accurately handed down, and also what the apostles meant. The papacy can determine extra-biblical clarifications of the gospel passed down through history.(11)

Catholic apologist Mark Shea approaches Tradition similar to Keating by noting the Bible refers to positive extra-biblical revelation handed down.(12) Similarly to Madrid, he affirms a form of material sufficiency, "all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture."(13) "Build doctrine" is a key element in his understanding of Tradition. It is not only the correct interpretation of the Bible given by the apostles (As Madrid holds), but is rather also the correct interpretation of revelation that grows and develops through history: "Tradition grows like a mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less."(14) A Protestant that would charge a Catholic as holding to an extra-biblical tradition not traceable through history is answered that Tradition is "the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church."(15) For Shea, a current dogma has grown to its particular state, and Tradition functions as a tool to determine which acorn became what oak tree.

Here lies one the major weaknesses in Rome's appeal to Tradition. With each of these Catholic apologists, Tradition finds a different, and if not in some aspects contradictory meaning. Roman apologists may claim to provide converts with a Tradition that connects one to a two thousand year old church, but they cannot tell you exactly what they are giving you, making one question if they are giving anything at all. They cannot tell you with any infallible clarity exactly what is meant by Tradition, or exactly what Rome's definitive statements mean. They can only provide you with their particular private interpretation of Tradition, typically doing so while chiding Protestants for relying on private interpretation. All would claim harmony with Trent and subsequent infallible statements, yet would be unable to prove that harmony as Romes official position.


Biblical Argumentation Supporting Tradition Used By Catholic Apologists

Luther chided the early Catholic apologists for their lack of Scripture in response to him. Now, such books as The Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching, The New Catholic Answer Bible, and Where Is That in the Bible are typical of the materials geared toward converting Protestants to the Roman Catholic Church. Rome's apologists have learned the best way to convert Protestants is to use not only their language, but also their paradigm of proving doctrine by the Bible. They are steadily producing works training Catholics to answer Protestant biblical argumentation with counter biblical argumentation. Tradition is one such topic that is no longer defended by simply appeals to dogmatic pronouncement. Rather, popular Catholic apologists have attempted to ground their concept of Tradition in the Biblical text. Catholic apologist Mark Shea argues vigorously "Scripture says a great deal about Sacred Tradition- all of it agreeing perfectly with the picture of the Catholic Church drawn by the Second Vatican Council." (16)

Even though sola scriptura does not deny that there was a period of inscripturation in which the word of God was oral, Roman apologists typically use 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15, John 20:30, and John 21:25 in defense of the Catholic understanding of Tradition. These verses are offered as proof of an oral tradition functioning during the New Testament period, and therefore prove the existence of Rome's concept of Tradition. Catholic apologists never explain why the notion of a period in which the gospel was oral necessarily means God intended extra-biblical revelation to be passed on via Tradition. They simply conclude that if at some time God's word was oral, God intended more than what was inscripturated.

The New Catholic Answer Bible states "Paul commands Christians to hold fast to the traditions he has passed on to them, both those that were written down (and were later recognized as Scripture) and those that were not written down (see 2 Thes. 2:15)."(17) Chantel Epie states, "In [the Gospel of John] we read, There is much else besides that Jesus did; if all of it were put in writing, I do not think the world itself would contain the books which would have to be written... So it appears clearly that there was a considerable part of the Lord's teachings, later taught in turn by the Apostles, that was not written down and cannot therefore be found in the Bible. These teachings, however, were faithfully transmitted to the Christian communities."(18)

The Catholic assumption in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is that the unwritten traditions referred to are different than those which were written. Such cannot be proven from this verse. The Catholic must be pressed to prove that both categories contain different information. 2 Thessalonians 2:14 speaks of the gospel, not doctrines like papal infallibility, indulgences, or the assumption of Mary. If these Traditions indeed exist, the act of producing them should be an easy task. However, Rome's apologists can only point to highly debatable vague inferences from Scripture on such doctrines, further impaired by any lack of infallible biblical definition from the papacy. Note what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:5, after writing on the man of lawlessness, Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? The content being told matched that being written.(19)

Those Roman Catholics using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 whose views imply partim-partim must be pressed to produce what they claim to have. If they claim the use of church history as that which provides proof for their particular extra-biblical dogmas, let these peculiar dogmas be traced through two thousand years of history. Such dogmas like the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility find their journey back through the pages of history meet dead ends long before they arrive in the first century.

Are John 20:30 and 21:25 solid scriptural proofs for authoritative non-biblical oral tradition? Catholic apologetic works never provide evidence of any other things Jesus did later handed down via infallible Tradition. They cannot produce extra-biblical information on any miracle Jesus performed or teaching imparted. John asserts, if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. Exactly how much of this content and depth of detail of this content does the Roman Catholic Church have? If Scripture + Tradition = a complete rule of faith, one must press the Catholic use of these verses to provide that complete rule of faith. It appears the Catholic position must borrow capital from the Protestant position. Protestants hold a sufficient authority does not need to be exhaustive in every detail. By implication, the Catholic must also adhere to this, unless they can provide the complete content mentioned in John 21:25.

John says earlier, Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30-31). That of which John wrote was for a purpose: that one may believe Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. He doesn't say the rest was left as infallible Tradition so that one may believe Jesus is the Christ and Son of God.

An Example of Historical Argumentation Supporting Tradition Used By Catholic Apologists

In the popular Catholic work Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, appeals are made to the church fathers as proof for Tradition as another equally authoritative source of divine revelation. For instance, Patrick Madrid cites Basil of Caesarea stating, "Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force "(On the Holy Spirit, 27).(20) Madrid states, "Basil's appeal to an authoritative body of unwritten apostolic Tradition within the Church is frequent in his writings."(21) Was Basil referring to an unwritten apostolic Tradition that held contents like the Marys assumption or papal infallibility, passed down from the apostles? Was Basil the recipient of unwritten God-inspired Traditions, passed down from the apostles, able to infallibly decide between disputing parties? Was Basil simply referring to Tradition as interpretation of revelation, or the development of Tradition?

Many of the Church fathers cited by Catholic apologists did embrace a form of tradition that was independent of Scripture (like Papias, Tertullian, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Augustine and Basil the Great). What Basil and these others meant in no way supports Madrid's position. Basil, in using the term tradition is describing mysteries of the Christian faith that were allegedly communicated in an unwritten form. These refer to liturgical rites of practices like baptism or the Eucharist. Basil was not teaching two sources of infallible revelation, with Tradition functioning similarly to scripture, but rather referred to a tradition of ecclesiastical practices or customs. Most often, doctrine was not in view. After discussing Basil and other Early Church Fathers, the great patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly noted, "Indeed, all the instances of unwritten tradition lacking Scriptural support which the early theologians mention will be found, on examination to refer to matters of observance and practice (e.g. triple immersion in baptism; turning East for prayer) rather than of doctrine as such, although sometimes they are matters (e.g. infant baptism; prayers for the dead) in which doctrine is involved."(22)

Madrid shuffled Basil around just enough so that one is left unsure of what exactly Basil held to. Madrid did not define what contents make up Tradition for either himself or Basil, or even if they together believe the same content of Tradition. Basil though did define the contents of the Tradition he was speaking of. William Webster points out, "Basil's teaching primarily had to do with customs and practices such as triple immersion in baptism and turning to the East in prayer, practices of secondary importance."(23)

Conclusion

Whereas once the conversion story was the unspoken property of Evangelicalism, Roman Catholics now are highly successful in using them in there own evangelism efforts. They serve as a vehicle in which to persuade others to accept Rome's paradigms of authority. In the popular book Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic, Al Kresta stated of his conversion to Catholicism, "In reviewing the beliefs of the primitive Church, I noticed that the Church Fathers didnt hesitate to invoke biblical authority, but they never tried to prove their case by the Bible alone. They also appealed to an authoritative Church tradition handed down through a succession of bishops that could be traced all the way back to the apostles themselves."(24) He then goes on to note such Biblical doctrines as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ are not self-evident in Scripture, but are rather "the result of centuries of deep reflection on the Scripture and the oral tradition of interpreting Scripture that had been handed on to the Church by the apostles."(25) This sentiment is typical of many Roman Catholic conversion stories. The appeal of being plugged into a two thousand year old visible, ecclesiastical body holds quite a sway for many Protestants whose particular Protestant church may be at best, five hundred years old, or at worst less than a decade old.

But have these converts really engaged what either Rome or her apologists mean by Tradition? As was demonstrated, Rome's statements on Tradition are vague and open to multiple interpretations. In two thousand years, none of Rome's popes, clergy, or apologists has infallibly and exhaustively defined or produced the doctrinal content of oral tradition.

Roman Tradition claims need to be pressed for definition and clarity. By doing so, Rome's claims to a secondary binding authority are exposed as a counterfeit. If they were legitimate, one would find Rome's view of Tradition consistent with the Bible. Rome's apologists are correct that there is indeed a binding authority of apostolic tradition given by the apostles. This tradition was inscripturated and serves as the sole authority for a believer. Rather than the Scriptures serving as a foundation for extra-biblical revelation from God, the scriptures stand as a verifiable body of truth. One need not guess what constitutes God's word. The scriptures exist as the only record of God's voice. If Rome claims another record of God's voice exists, they bear the burden of proof. If Rome's Tradition is theopneustos, they need to demonstrate this is the case. So far, they have not.

In regard to history, if Rome's claims were true, the concept of Tradition would find unifying themes and content throughout history. Recent Catholic apologists may refer to Tradition as a body of truths not found in Scripture, but these same apologists struggle to trace these through history back to the apostles. Add in the fact that there are Traditions alluded to by the Church Fathers that claim to come from the apostles, yet today's Roman Catholic would deny their veracity. One such example would be that, according to Irenaeus, Jesus was more than fifty years old when He died. Irenaeus claimed this information came from those who knew the apostles.

Others refer to Tradition as interpretation, yet until a dogma is infallibly defined, Roman Catholics are granted freedom to privately interpret. The history of Roman Catholic theology is replete with multiple private interpretations on virtually every aspect of theology. Even after an infallible definition, Roman Catholics are granted freedom to interpret infallible pronouncements, as long as they do not contradict that infallible pronouncement. Therefore, in terms of certainty, Tradition does not provide what her apologists claim- they are not reproducing a body of truth from the apostles, but rather are invoking anachronism by claiming her recent developments were held by the apostles, when in fact they are the result of the movement of private interpretation within the church.

Protestants can counter Roman Catholic argumentation effectively by beginning with a dismantling of Tradition. While Protestants may be losing the publishing war in the market place, they need not lose the argument. Even though Catholics are now using the Bible and are doing so effectively by combining it with the conversion story, Protestants can still point to and provide an extant body of revealed sacred truth, the Holy Scriptures, which are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17). There is no divine statement recorded that Tradition will thoroughly equip the man of God. Rather than seeing Rome's triumph in the market place as Protestant failure, Protestants need to cling even more steadfastly to that which thoroughly equips, and view Rome's success as an opportunity to share the contents of the sole rule of faith and expose the counterfeit.


Endnotes

1. David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's Early Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518-1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 218-219. Catholic apologists were often provoked to bitterness from lack of papal support. Cochlaeus, one of Rome's most zealous defenders complained to a high Roman Catholic official, "If I am ignored by you any longer, I shall wash my hands of the Catholic cause and denounce all bishops and prelates before God and before men" (Bagchi, 219). Cochlaeus, devoted to defending the Roman Church despite no help from her, went on to publish vigorously against the reformers, maintaining his own printing press. Johann Eck, perhaps the leading sixteenth century Catholic apologist, complained throughout his career over a lack of sufficient or sustained material help from Rome (Bagchi, 218).

2. Throughout this blog article, I will be referring to popular Catholic apologetics, as opposed to scholarly Roman Catholic theology. I have found that Catholic works currently with the most impact in the United States are those produced by layman apologists. Such popular writers would include Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, and Robert Sungenis, to name only a few. Organizations like Catholic Answers (with a yearly budget over a million dollars) have promoted and popularized layman apologists, many of whom are ex-Protestants.

3. Patrick Madrid, ed., Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994).

4. As proof, visit any large chain bookstore like Borders or Barnes and Noble. In the religious section of books, many Catholic works are typically apologetic in nature, while Protestant works typically have little to do with a Reformation distinctive, or an apologetic against Rome.

5. Throughout this blog article I will use Tradition with a capital "T" as Romes apologists do. Catholic apologists generally use Tradition to refer to either a sacred body of truth, sacred interpretation, or an historical development of sacred truth, as distinguished from tradition with a small "t" which refers to non-essential customs throughout church history. Catholic apologist Mark Shea explains this distinctionin his article, What is the Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition? found in Robert Sungenis, ed., Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Santa Barbara: QueenshipPublishing, 1997), 170-173.

6. Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 80.

7. David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume I (Battle Ground: Christian Resources Inc., 2001), 64.

8. Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988) 151.

9. James White, Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? Available from: http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html..

10. Patrick Madrid, Answer Me This! (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003) 42.

11. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church can determine that when the Lord said "This is my body" he meant that the bread was to be the transubstantiated essence of his body, rather than the words being figurative.

12. Robert Sungenis, ed., Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1997), 176-181. Mark Shea notes Jannes and Jambres, the dispute with Satan over the body of Moses, and the seat of Moses as examples of Tradition operating within the Bible.

13. Ibid., 181.

14. Ibid., 209.

15. Ibid., 198.

16. Ibid., 208.

17. Paul Thigpen, ed., The New Catholic Answer Bible (Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005), N2.

18. Chantal Epie, The Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching (Manchester: Sophia Institute Press, 2002), 6-7.

19. Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis sees 2 Thes. 2:5 as proof for unwritten oral tradition because no reference to the man of lawlessness can be found in 1 Thessalonians. However, Sungenis never produces the extra-biblical content allegedly taught by Paul and passed on via Tradition. See Sungenis, 259.

20. Sungenis, 7.

21. Ibid., p.8.

22. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1960), 47.

23. William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. II (BattleGround: Christian Resources Inc., 2001), 144.

24. Madrid, Surprised by Truth, 261.

25. Ibid., 261-262.

Luther: Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God

There's a bit of discussion going on here as to where the following Luther quote comes from:

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.

The quote is said to come from Luther's exposition of the Magnificat. It's usually documented as "Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521."  Is this any sort of helpful reference? Not at all. As some in the discussion have speculated, the quote isn't one quote, but rather various sentences strung together. This is indeed the case. The quote is from a secondary source:  William Cole's article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, page 132-133. Cole states,

Five years later, likewise preaching for the Feast of Visitation, he marvels at Mary's humility in the face of Elizabeth's great praise, which he makes equivalent to "No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sara, blessed above nobility, wisdom, and sanctity."

We cannot dispute the fact that Luther honored Mary wished her to be honored. As Preuss has observed,

Mary is and remains for Luther worthy of honor or veneration. He always maintains this although he changed the reason for it. For him the main reason is not that she has given us Christ, but that she is a model for our acceptance of Him.

There remains the question how. Luther himself responds in the Magnificat and many other places:

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace. God has given Mary the honor to be the Mother of God and this honor we all wish to give her, to praise her highly, and to hold her in respect. But we must thereby straightway enter the right path, and this way is Christ, for Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ and she bore Christ for me, not herself.144

Putting it negatively,

One must not attach himself to the mother of God and depend upon her, but through her he must press on to God. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.145

144 WA 1,60; cf. 7, 193, 553, 560, 565, 568, 575; 11, 60; 15, 477, 480; 17 (2), 320; 32, 265; 34 (2), 496.

145 WA 7, 564, 567, 568, 569, 574; 10 (3), 316; but especially 10 (2), 407.

Luther quotes like these have floated around the Internet for years. I've found more than a few Luther / Mary quotes come ultimately from Cole. I don't have much to say about this, other than the person who asked for documentation about this alleged Luther quote asked the right questions. It's the same question I've asked, often.  It's obvious that Cole was attempting to make a summary statement for Luther using Luther's words.


Cyber-space as it is, this bogus Luther quote traveled far. It even got itself published. It's not so much that Luther didn't say what's purported in the quote, it's that he said what he said in multiple places, in different contexts, not in this one quote. You see, William Cole's quote is actually a rather "loose" compilation of a few Luther quotes, from different treatises, with an emphasis on Luther's exposition of the Magnificat. If you count it all up, Cole provides around 20 references for 7 lines from Luther. 20 references? Something, obviously, doesn't add up.

Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha ?

Here's an old post written by my friend Ray Aviles. I originally posted it 06/14/06.

By Ray Aviles

There’s an argument going around the Catholic apologetic circles claiming that Jerome changed his position on the Apocrypha later in his life. That he came to accept these books as inspired because of the “judgment of the churches” on this matter. Furthermore, they claim the evidence of this lies in his citing these books using the word “Scripture” to define them. RC apologist Mark Shea provides an example of this in an Envoy Magazine article (found here: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html). He writes:

"In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Shea not only claims that Jerome accepted them, but that he “strenuously” defended them. A word used to intrigue the reader, but there is no evidence that he defended them, let alone “strenuously.” Furthermore, from the citation above, he states that Jerome followed the “judgment of the churches”, which Shea translates as the synods of Hippo and Carthage, but he is mistaken. Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:

"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Jerome goes on to say that he is merely stating Jewish opinion against these books. Although this was the view he espoused, he was not the originator, and it put him in the uncomfortable position of arguing with the Jews on this. J.N.D. Kelly expounds:

"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].

He was further riled by the fact that the churches followed the translation of a known heretic instead of a Christian such as himself. As an aside, Shea wrongfully associates Pope Damasus as being in agreement with the alleged “decision” at Hippo and Carthage, but Damasus died in 384 A.D, nine years before Hippo (393) and thirteen years before Carthage (397).

Shea continues with the usual RC apologetic misrepresentations against Martin Luther, naming him as the culprit who excluded the deuterocanonicals (Jim Swan did a wonderful job of putting the proper perspective on Luther and the canon here) Yet, I’ve always found this to be odd reasoning considering the Roman Catholic canon wasn’t decided until Trent. Cardinal Cajetan (the same one who opposed Luther) and Cardinal Ximenes, both contemporaries of the era, wrote against the canonicity of these books as well. Further, there was opposition within Trent regarding these books, spearheaded by the group led by Giralamo Cardinal Seripando (for more information on this, read Hubert Jedin’s Cardinal Seripando, Papal Legate at Trent). The mere fact that there was opposition at Trent substantiates that no canon was in effect where the “judgment of the churches” would authoritatively bind the Catholic to the decision at Hippo and Carthage.

Shea reiterates his error here:

"As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition."

Again, Shea is embellishing Jerome’s statements regarding the “judgment of the churches” to mean something that it isn’t. As I’ve already shown, contextually, Jerome is saying something else entirely. Yet, Shea isn’t the only one who tries to make Jerome pro-deuteros. Some Catholic apologists play more loosely with Jerome’s words. An apologist who calls himself “Matt1618” asserts in his internet article “Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture” (found here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html) that Jerome did indeed show an acceptance of these books because he never denied them inspiration and he called them “Scripture” in his later writings. This is merely “reading between the lines” in an attempt to find something more favorable to his position. He states:

"In fact it is true that none of the Fathers, even St. Jerome, ever deny their inspiration."

I don’t know how “Matt1618” would define this “denial”, but all this amounts to wishful thinking. To put it simply, what Jerome states in his prefaces and commentaries amounts to a denial of their inspiration as well as their canonicity. To put it plainly, if Jerome states that a book isn’t canonical it is only because Jerome doesn’t believe it is inspired. Scripture is “God-breathed” and men wrote as they were inspired of God. Inspired books are in the canon because they came from the very mouth of God. It defeats the purpose of the canon if some “God-breathed” Scriptures are included and others aren’t. If a book is not in the canon, it is because it is not inspired. In essence, “Matt1618” is implying that Jerome didn’t see “inspiration” as the criterion for inclusion into the canon and that a book can be “inspired” and “Scripture” and, for whatever reasons, be outside of the canon. In his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."

According to Jerome, these books are ecclesiastical, capable of spiritual teaching, but cannot be used for supporting church doctrine. This begs the question: Since when is known Scripture not to be used for supporting doctrine? Even Scripture itself attests:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Furthermore, Jerome, emphatically states in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings:

"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

In his preface to the Daniel he states:

"I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume."

Four things are to be noted here. The first being that the additions weren’t in the Hebrew Scriptures; secondly, that Jerome calls Bel and the Dragon a “fable”; thirdly, that they were appended to his Vulgate; and fourthly, that they were marked with an “obelus” which is a critical symbol used in ancient manuscripts to mark a questionable passage. Nothing here reveals any indication that Jerome held, at least, the additions to be inspired Scripture.

Again, to Jerome, the extra books were “…not to give authority to the doctrines of the Church” and they “…are not in the canon.” Attempting to draw skepticism by claiming that he didn’t call them “uninspired” is leading the reader at best. Sure, they have some ecclesiastical value within them, but a book doesn’t need to be inspired or canonical to have ecclesiastical value. Although there are other passages from his writings that I can cite, I believe these suffice in showing that Jerome did not believe the Apocryphal books were inspired.

Next, “Matt1618” states there is evidence that Jerome did indeed cite these books and cited them “…approximately 55 times.” This is easy to refute. After all, if Paul can cite pagan writers such as Menander, Epimenedes, or Aratus, I’m sure Jerome can cite from these books which he claimed were good for the edification of the church as well as others. But “Matt 1618” goes further and says that he cited them as Scripture. He then goes to give a few selected quotes from Jerome:

(I am citing from his article, my comments are in black fonts and brackets)

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207 [* Matt1618 is correct, Jerome does call this verse from Sirach “Scripture”, but one must question if what he means is in the “inspired” sense. Considering he has already stated that “Ecclesiasticus” (Sirach) is not to be used doctrinally (see above) we can assume that this is not the case]

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119 [* Matt1618 is reading too much into this citation, although he “cites” these books, citing them doesn’t mean he viewed them as “Scripture”, especially in light of the fact that he stated the books can be used “ecclesiastically”]

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159 [* Same as above]

[It is true that a festival such as the birthday of Saint Peter should be seasoned with more gladness than usual;] still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45 [* In the beginning brackets, I added what “Matt1618” left out considering this adds context to the passage. If I would’ve left it exactly as he cited it, then it would seem as if this is one thought. However, the first “Scripture” is within the context of the festival of St. Peter. The second “sacred volume” is in the context of the presents given to Jerome. These are two thought and not one. Thus, when he cites Baruch, he isn’t specifically calling it Scripture and, again, Jerome could be citing it for its ecclesiastical value].

As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation." Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390 [* Matt1618 makes the assumption that Jerome’s usage of the phrase “it is written” is being used in the biblical sense—that there is an air of Scriptural credibility within this phrase—but he never stops to think if Jerome simply meant that these citations were “written”, nothing more and nothing less).

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, WHICH IS INSCRIBED WITH HIS NAME, SOLOMON SAYS: "GOD CREATED MAN TO BE IMMORTAL, AND MADE HIM TO BE AN IMAGE OF HIS OWN ETERNITY."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."

7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, NPNF2, VI:87-8 [* In context, Jerome gives more then seven Scriptures within this passage and there is no way of telling whether the citation from Wisdom is amongst the “seven”, but for the sake of argument we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know why “Matt1618”capitalizes “which is inscribed with his name” and I can only hope he isn’t implying that “his name” refers to God, thus indicating inspiration. On the contrary, this evidently refers to Solomon who it is said wrote this book].

A. "Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, test, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is[Num. 35:8] commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who[Ezek. 18:23] would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live. C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?
A. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION: [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" "Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5" [* He submits these together, but anyone can see that when Jerome refers to Scripture in the passage, he is referring to canonical Scripture (Job, Numbers, and Ezekiel). The citation from Sirach is independent of the above citation and there is no indication that Jerome cites it as Scripture].
"And in the proverbs Solomon tells us that as "the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.(Prov. 25:23)" It sometimes happens that an arrow when it is aimed at a hard object rebounds upon the bowman, wounding the would-bewounder, and thus, the words are fulfilled, "they were turned aside like a deceitful bow," (Psalm 128:57) and in another passage: "whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head." (Sir. 27:25) Jerome, To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:251 [* Again, although Sirach is used in context alongside Scripture, it doesn’t prove much, especially in light of ecclesiastical usage]
9. Let me call to my aid the example of the three children, (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3) who, amid the cool, encircling fire, sang hymns, (Song of Three Holy Children, found only in Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel 3) instead of weeping, and around whose turbans and holy hair the flames played harmlessly. Let me recall, too, the story of the blessed Daniel, in whose presence, though he was their natural prey, the lions crouched, with fawning tails and frightened mouths.(Daniel 6) Let Susannah also rise in the nobility of her faith before the thoughts of all; who, after she had been condemned by an unjust sentence, was saved through a youth inspired by the Holy Ghost (Susanna 45, or Daniel 13:45). In both cases the Lord's mercy was alike shewn; for while Susannah was set free by the judge, so as not to die by the sword, this woman, though condemned by the judge, was acquitted by the sword. Jerome, Letter 1:9, NPNF2, VI:2 [* Jerome cites the additions to Daniel, but this doesn’t mean he cited this as inspired Scripture and not ecclesiastically]
6. I salute your mother and mine with the respect which, as you know, I feel towards her. Associated with you as she is in a holy life, she has the start of you, her holy children, in that she is your mother. Her womb may thus be truly called golden. With her I salute your sisters, who ought all to be welcomed wherever they go, for they have triumphed over their sex and the world, and await the Bridegroom's coming, (Mt. 25:4) their lamps replenished with oil. O happy the house which is a home of a widowed Anna, of virgins that are prophetesses, and of twin Samuels bred in the Temple! (Luke 2:36, Acts 21:9, 1 Sam. 2:18) Fortunate the roof which shelters the martyr-mother of the Maccabees, with her sons around her, each and all wearing the martyr's crown! (2 Macc. 7) For although you confess Christ every day by keeping His commandments, yet to this private glory you have added the public one of an open confession; for it was through you that the poison of the Arian heresy was formerly banished from your city. Jerome, to Chromatius, Jovinus, and Eusebius, Letter 7:6, NPNF2, VI:10 [* Jerome cited a historical fact which happens to be recorded in 2 Maccabees 7. Citing history doesn’t make the history book “Scripture”]
But now that a virgin has conceived (Isa. 7:14) in the womb and has borne to us a child of which the prophet says that "Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called the mighty God, the everlasting Father," (Isa. 9:6) now the chain of the curse is broken. Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary. And thus the gift of virginity has been bestowed most richly upon women, seeing that it has had its beginning from a woman. As soon as the Son of God set foot upon the earth, He formed for Himself a new household there; that, as He was adored by angels in heaven, angels might serve Him also on earth. Then chaste Judith once more cut off the head of Holofernes (Jud. 13).Then Haman--whose name means iniquity--was once more burned in fire of his own kindling (Est. 7:10) Then James and John forsook father and net and ship and followed the Saviour: neither kinship nor the world's ties, nor the care of their home could hold them back. Then were the words heard: "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34) For no soldier goes with a wife to battle. Even when a disciple would have buried his father, the Lord forbade him, and said: "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." (Mt. 8:20-22) So you must not complain if you have but scanty house-room. In the same strain, the apostle writes: "He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married careth for the things of the world how she may please her husband." (1 Cor. 7:34-36). Jerome, to Eustochium, Letter 22:21, NPNF2, VI:30 [* Again, citing an apocryphal book doesn’t mean that Jerome viewed it as “Scripture” when he could be using it ecclesiastically]
For it is not ecclesiastical rank that makes a man a Christian. The centurion Cornelius was still a heathen when he was cleansed by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Daniel was but a child when he judged the elders.( Dan. 13:55-63, or Susanna 55-63) Amos was stripping mulberry bushes when, in a moment, he was made a prophet (Amos 7:14) David was only a shepherd when he was chosen to be king.(2 Sam. 16:11-13) And the least of His disciples was the one whom Jesus loved the most. My brother, sit down in the lower room, that when one less honorable comes you may be bidden to go up higher (Luke 14:10). Jerome, to Heliodorus, Letter 14:9, NPNF2, VI:17. [* Jerome refers to a history recorded in Susanna. Again, nothing that would place Jerome as citing inspired Scripture]
These things, dearest daughter in Christ, I impress upon you and frequently repeat, that you may forget those things which are behind and reach forth unto those things which are before (Phil. 3:12). You have widows like yourself worthy to be your models, Judith renowned in Hebrew story (Jud. 13) and Anna the daughter of Phanuel (Lk 2) famous in the gospel. Both these lived day and night in the temple and preserved the treasure of their chastity by prayer and by fasting. One was a type of the Church which cuts off the head of the devil (Jud. 13:8) and the other first received in her arms the Saviour of the world and had revealed to her the holy mysteries which were to come (Lk 2:36-38). Jerome, to Salvina, Letter 79:10, NPNF2, VI:168 [* Jerome explicitly calls the Judith account a “Hebrew story”, but the account of Phanuel in Luke 2 he calls “the gospel.” If he were citing them both as Scripture, why classify Judith this way and contrast it to a gospel account? I think the answer is obvious].
To summarize, “Matt1618” has only one instance of Jerome calling an Apocryphal book “Scripture”, maybe two if we ease up a bit and include Jerome, Letter 51, NPNF2, VI:87-8. Yet, in neither of these instances do we have anything which would enthrall the reader into believing he accepted these books as inspired Scripture. J.N.D. Kelly sheds light on Jerome’s usage of these books and his usage of the word Scripture:
Jerome’s conversion to ‘the Hebrew verity’ [i.e. in contrast to the LXX] carried with it an important corollary—his acceptance also of the Hebrew canon, or list of books properly belonging to the Old Testament. Since the early Church had read its Old Testament in Greek, it had taken over without question the so-called Alexandrian canon used in the Greek-speaking Jewish communities outside Palestine. This had included those books (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, etc.) which are variously described as deuterocanonical or as the Apocrypha. Around the end of the first century, however, official Judaism had formally excluded these, limiting the canon to the books which figure in English Bibles as the Old Testament proper. Since Origen’s time it had been recognised that there was a distinction between the Jewish canon and the list acknowledged by Christians, but most writers preferred to place the popular and widely used deutero-canonical books in a special category (e.g. calling them ‘ecclesiastical’) rather than to discard them. Jerome now takes a much firmer line. After enumerating the ‘twenty-two’ (or perhaps twenty-four) books recognised by the Jews, he decrees that any books outside this list must be reckoned ‘apocryphal’: ‘They are not in the canon.’ Elsewhere, while admitting that the Church reads books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which are strictly uncanonical, he insists on their being used solely ‘for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical’. This was the attitude which, with temporary concessions for tactical or other reasons, he was to maintain for the rest of his life—in theory at any rate, for in practice he continued to cite them as if they were Scripture. Again what chiefly moved him was the embarrassment he felt at having to argue with Jews on the basis of books which they rejected or even (e.g. the stories of Susanna, or of Bel and the Dragon) found frankly ridiculous. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), pp. 160-161.
RC apologists, those who argue this way, are merely using sophistry to recreate Jerome and place him on the side of the Deuterocanonicals, but the evidence really doesn’t give them much to stand on. I guess this is due to the fact that Jerome is one of the Doctors of the Church and he happened to disagree that these books were inspired Scripture. It is a source of embarrassment to them so they attempt to salvage whatever they can and find themselves reading “between the lines” of his writings in a futile attempt to win him back. There is no record showing that Jerome had a change of heart regarding these books and the very fact that scholarly clergymen, such as the aforementioned Cardinals, used Jerome’s position as a catalyst for their own disagreements with these books shows an understanding that he never wavered, never changed his position. But some RC apologists choose to blind themselves from the facts.
In conclusion, Augustine, who was a contemporary of Jerome, advocated the Apocryphal books and used his weighty suffrage to influence the African synods (Hippo and Carthage), but his appeal to them was strictly emotional and, as evidenced in the City of God, he used folklore to gain acceptance of these books. Regarding canon issues and languages, it was Jerome who was the canon scholar and not Augustine. In their correspondence on the issue of the Latin translation (dated 404 AD), Jerome chides Augustine for misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html). Augustine chose not to side with Jerome, but continued to push the Septuagint over the Hebrew, even though the Septuagint itself was translated into Greek from the Hebrew. Augustine’s adherence to the LXX was based on the story of the “Seventy” which were the 72 Jewish translators who translated the Hebrew into the Greek language. Augustine tells the story of how these men worked separately in cells and when they compared their manuscripts, they were uniform in every detail, word for word. Jerome calls the story of the cells “fables” and made up, but Augustine claimed that because they worked under the same Spirit, they were led in this endeavor, thus proving the LXX to be of God. What Augustine either didn’t understand or ignored is that the “Seventy” only translated the first 5 books of Moses, the Pentateuch. In the website “The Septuagint Online” states:
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the style of the Greek Penteteuch [sic]. Over the course of the next three centuries, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in an order that is not altogether clear. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are trying to stitch together a history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in the collection of scriptures (from http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/index.htm)
Only the Pentateuch was translated by the “Seventy” and Augustine truly had no clear reasoning in accepting the Septuagint and the books not found in the Hebrew text. It would seem he influence men through the use of quaint myths or hearsay, but as for Jerome he was resolute and never changed his mind, never follow a “decision” made by the councils influenced by Augustine and, most obviously, he never felt the need to. Jerome denied both the inspiration and the canonicity of the added books and no amount of historical revision will change the facts.

Luther: "What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it"

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Pride":

Christ taught: “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled.” Luther teaches: “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it”[Weimar, Vol. 18, Pg. 401].
Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should be humble, while Luther pridefully claims his teachings are true "even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it."

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Weimar, Vol. 18, Pg. 401." This page can be found here. It's the last page from the treatise entitled, "Ein Sendbrief von dem barten Büchlein wider die Bauern" (1525). In English, it's referred to as "Circular Letter on the Severe Booklet Against the Peasants" or "An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants." In the English LW set, the quote can be found in LW 46:84, and also in the earlier Works of Martin Luther IV:281.

The possibilities the author of Luther, Exposing the Myth actually reading any of the above sources is rather slim. It's more probable the quote was taken from Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, page 28. There the author states,

Luther knew that he was superior to any man or saint. “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” “They shall respect our teaching which is the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, through our lips”. “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He as on me” (E61, 422). “God has appointed me for the whole German land, and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ” (W15, 27). “Whoever obeys me not, despises not me but Christ.” “I believe that we are the last trump that sounds before Christ is coming”. “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it.” (W18, 401). “Whoever rejects my doctrine cannot be saved.” “Nobody should rise up against me”.

Wiener probably got the quote from reading Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar. Grisar cites the same quote on page 284 of Martin Luther His Life and work, and also on page 208 of Luther volume 2.

Historical Context
This quote comes from Luther's writings during the peasants war.  Luther's statements about the peasants and rulers were being maligned from friend and foe alike. In the writing in question, Luther offers a public explanation for his views. LW explains, 

In this treatise Luther defends at length the views he had advanced in Admonition to Peace and Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. The peasants should not have rebelled, for the duty of a Christian is to suffer injustice, not to seize the sword and take to violence. His opponents, Luther says, can criticize him as they will, but they cannot change the fact that in the light of God’s word the rebellious peasants deserved to be put to death and to have their insurrection suppressed by the full force of the governing authorities. Force was the only language the rebels understood. Furthermore, Luther argues, his critics’ sudden surge of sympathy for the defeated peasants marks them as secret rebels against God and state.

But if there was no excuse for the peasants to rebel, neither was there any excuse for the rulers to indulge their lust for rebel blood. Here, however, Luther is not moved by any sense of “fair play.” He disclaims responsibility for the wanton cruelty of the rulers, which, he says, is nothing but the flagrant abuse by the princes of their God-given office. Such cruelty is as reprehensible and sinful as insurrection. The princes, he says, will surely reap God’s wrath for such conduct. [LW 46:61]

Context
An important question to ask is exactly what Luther was referring to when he said "What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it." The quote in question comes from the very last paragraph of the treatise:

This, dear sir and friend, is my answer to your letter. I hope that I have more than satisfied you. If anyone is not satisfied, let him remain, in God’s name, wise and prudent, righteous and holy; and let me remain a fool and a sinner. I wish that they would leave me in peace; but they will not win, and what I teach and write will still be true, even though the whole world were to burst. If anyone wants to be peculiar, I, too, shall be peculiar, and we shall see who is right in the end. [LW 46:83-84]

Interestingly, the very same sort of comment can be found in the beginning of the treatise:

Here I do not want to hear or know about mercy, but to be concerned only about what God’s word requires. On this basis, my little book was and remains fight, even though the whole world take offense at it. [LW 46:56]

What is it that God's word requires?

God’s word says, “My son, fear the Lord and the king; if you do not, disaster will suddenly come upon you” [Prov. 24:21–22]. And in Romans 12 [13:2], “Whoever resists God’s authority will incur judgment.” Why is not St. Paul merciful? If we are to preach God’s word, we must preach the word that declares his wrath, as well as that which declares mercy. We must preach of hell as well as heaven, and help extend God’s word and judgment and work over both the righteous and the wicked, so that the wicked may be punished and the good protected.[LW 46:66]

Conclusion
In this treatise, Luther offers a thorough defense of his earlier writings about the peasants. This is not the place to restate all those arguments, the interested reader can seek them out.

What concerns me is the particular interpretation placed on Luther's words by his various critics. Luther, Exposing the Myth sees the statement as prideful. Peter F. Wiener interprets the statement as a claim to superiority. What the context though shows is a carefully argued defense based on a Scriptural principle that the government bears the sword. I would simply ask Luther's critics to explain Romans 13 before charging him with either pride or a superiority complex:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Addendum
As an aside, one could argue that those rulers who slew the peasants were overly harsh, so Luther was simply helping tyrants be tyrannical. Such an argument though would be at the expense of Luther's stated position:

I made it plain that I was speaking of those who were first approached in a friendly way, and would not respond. All my words were directed against the obdurate, hardened, blinded peasants, who would neither see nor hear, as anyone may see who reads them; and yet you say that I advocate the merciless slaughter of the poor captured peasants. If you are going to read books this way and interpret them as you please, what book will have any chance with you? Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now: Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and slay, as though among mad dogs, so that by so doing he may show mercy to those who are ruined, put to flight, and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained. It is better to cut off one member without mercy than to have the whole body perish by fire, or by disease [Matt. 5:29–30]. How do you like that? Am I still a preacher of the gospel who advocates grace and mercy? If you think I am not, it makes little difference, for you are a bloodhound, and a rebellious murderer and destroyer of the country, you and your rebellious peasants, whom you are flattering in their rebellion.[LW 46:73]

I earnestly ask you, and everyone, to read my book fairly, and not run through it so hurriedly. Then you will see that I was advising only Christian and pious rulers, as befits a Christian preacher. I say it again and for the third time. I was writing only for rulers who might wish to deal in a Christian or otherwise honest way with their people, to instruct their consciences concerning this matter to the effect that they ought to take immediate action against the bands of rebels both innocent and guilty. And if they struck the innocent, they were not to let their consciences trouble them, since they were by the very act confessing that they were bound to do their duty to God. Afterward, however, if they won, they were to show grace, not only to those whom they considered innocent, but to the guilty as well.

But these furious, raving, senseless tyrants, who even after the battle cannot get their fill of blood, and in all their lives ask scarcely a question about Christ—these I did not undertake to instruct. It makes no difference to these bloody clogs whether they slay the guilty or the innocent, whether they please God or the devil. They have the sword, but they use it to vent their lust and serf-will, I leave them to the guidance of their master, the devil, who is indeed leading them.

Luther goes on to further describe such rulers:

Why should I write for scoundrels and hogs like that? The Scriptures call such people “beasts” [Titus 1:12], that is, “wild animals,” such as wolves, boars, bears, and lions, and I shall not make men of them; and yet we must put up with them, when God plagues us with them. I had two fears. If the peasants became lords, the devil would become abbot; but if these tyrants became lords, the devil’s mother would become abbess. Therefore I wanted to do two things: quiet the peasants, and instruct the pious lords. The peasants were unwilling to listen, and now they have their reward; the lords, too, will not hear, and they shall have their reward also. However, it would have been a shame if they had been killed by the peasants; that would have been too easy a punishment for them. Hell-fire, trembling, and gnashing of teeth [Matt. 22:13] in hell will be their reward eternally, unless they repent.[LW 46:83-84]