Here's a statement evaluating Martin Luther's opinion of the Epistle of James.
Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation.
Soley for dogmatic reasons? As I've looked at this over the years, it's more complicated than that. There's actually contradicting evidence on Luther's opinion of the Epistle of James and exactly what his rejection entirely entails. Let's take a look at these charges and see if the real reason (or reasons) Luther rejected James can be determined.
Documentation
I came by the statement above on a website dedicated to early Christian writings. Searching for the author, the webpage cited: "Camerlynck, A. "Epistle of James." Early Christian Writings. 2023. 22 Jan. 2023." Doing a search for "Camerlynck, A," I discovered this webpage was a complete cut-and paste from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Achilles Camerlynck was a well-educated Roman Catholic scholar from long ago. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is generally not favorable to Luther, so it makes sense that multiple shots are taken at Luther by Camerlynck.
The early Christian Writings website appears to be selling CD-ROM's (remember those?) of the entire content of the website (I'm not sure what the legality of that is... selling someone else's work?). Back in 2015, the owner of the site gave a brief overview of who he was: a young man with Roman Catholic roots that's become some sort of agnostic (as of 2015). Where he is now on his spiritual journey, I didn't spend time to discover. His blog entries stop December 2015. From a cursory search, he appears to have fallen off the cyber-radar in 2015.
Letter of Straw? Epistle of Straw?
Luther's famous statement is "Saint James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw" compared to John's gospel and epistles, Paul's epistles, and 1 Peter, and, further, that James "has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (LW 35:362). The "epistle of straw" line comes from Luther's Preface to the New Testament, originally penned in 1522. These are negative comments.
Back in 2004, I addressed the "epistle of straw" comment in Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture (on the now defunct NTRmin.org website). In 2007, I put up a short article on aomin.org: Six Points On Luther's Epistle of Straw. Now years later, there's nothing significant to add beyond repeating this pertinent fact: The "epistle of straw" comment was deleted by Luther himself. He eventually dropped this comment along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books (see LW 35:361-362, particularly the footnotes, and also fn. 5 on p. 358). The editors of Luther's Works include all the deleted text, using brackets [ ] to delineate what was dropped from the final text. The older Philadelphia edition does the same thing. I suspect they simply intended to be transparent and scholarly (presenting a type of critical text). What the final product though practically does is insert back into the text what Luther wanted edited out!
Why did Luther delete his text? The editors of LW offer this reason: they suggest Luther's early biblical prefaces had a polemic bent directed toward his opponents:
Divergences from the original 1522 text were due primarily to Luther’s desire to accommodate the text of the New Testament prefaces to that of the Old Testament prefaces with which they were—in the 1534 complete Bible—to appear for the first time, rather than to criticism on the part of Emser or other opponents (LW 35:357, fn 5).
It would be interesting to see which of Luther's contemporary opponents criticized Luther's view of James, especially those early on in the 1520's. In 1530, the Roman Catholic respected theologian Johann Eck included it against Luther:
106 Many, with much probability, have asserted that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit (Luther).
After Luther's death, his archrival Cochlaeus wrote,
For Luther seemed to the best people to have proceeded too maliciously against the Sacred Scripture of the New Testament; since he had, with an audacious censorship, rejected the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James, the Letter of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John from the canon of the New Testament. He defamed these books openly, with savage falsehoods, in his prefaces.
Luther saw fit to delete the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should at least mention his deletion. The "epistle of straw" comment is cited by those favorable and unfavorable to Luther. I suspect many of those not hostile to him citing it often don't know about the deletion and that Luther did not intend the statement to be part of his enduring legacy. For those who cite it against him, the deletion probably doesn't matter anyway. They will find a way to spin the comment to use against him.
Unworthy of the Apostolic Spirit?
The basic thrust of "unworthy of the apostolic spirit" is that Luther did not believe the Epistle of James was written by an apostle or eyewitness of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. He argued at times that James was a second-generation Christian. Camerlynck probably took the phrase he used from Luther's 1520 treatise, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In commenting on the Roman Catholic sacrament of extreme unction, Luther writes:
But I say: If ever folly has been uttered, it has been uttered especially on this subject: I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative. But even if the apostle James did write it, I still would say, that no apostle has the right on his own authority to institute a sacrament, that is, to give a divine promise with a sign attached. For this belongs to Christ alone (LW 36:118).
Original text: Ego autem dico: si uspiam delyratum est, hoc loco praecipue delyratum est. Omitto enim, quod hanc Epistolam non esse Apostoli Iacobi nec apostolico spiritu dignam multi valde probabiliter asserant, licet consuetudine autoritatem, cuiuscunque sit, obtinuerit. Tamen si etiam esset Apostoli Iacobi, dicerem, non licere Apostolum sua autoritate sacramentum instituere, id est, divinam promissionem cum adiuncto signo dare. Hoc enim ad Christum solum pertinebat (WA 6:568).
A blatant thing to note here is that there's nothing in the context about faith alone. Luther is expressing doubts about the authorship of James in regard to extreme unction. Here Luther presents two options but appears to favor the Epistle of James as not apostolic... though grants the possibility of it being apostolic. For Luther, the epistle of James may have been written by a later Christian, therefore not an apostle or eyewitness of the risen Christ, therefore not canonical.
Just a year earlier (1519), Luther wrote the following, (and this may be his earliest criticism of James):
For although it is argued from the epistle of the Apostle James that ‘faith without works is dead,’ the style of that epistle is far inferior to the Apostolic majesty of St. Paul, and should in no way be compared with him. Paul speaks of living faith, for a faith that is dead is not faith but opinion. Yet you see theologians who hold on to this one authority and care nothing at all that the rest of Scripture teaches faith without works. That’s how these fellows do it. They rip out one little phrase from a text and set it up against all of Scripture (Resolutiones Lutherianae super propositionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis, English translation by Jason D. Lane).
Original text: Quod autem Iacobi Apostoli epistola inducitur ‘Fides sine operibus mortua est’, primum stilus epistolae illius longe est infra Apostolicam maiestatem nec cum Paulino ullo modo comparandus, deinde de fide viva loquitur Paulus. Nam fides mortua non est fides, sed opinio. At vide theologos, hanc unam autoritatem mordicus tenent, nihil prorsus curantes, quod tota alia scriptura fidem sine operibus commendet: hic enim mos eorum est, una abrepta oratiuncula textus contra totam scripturam cornua erigere] (WA 2:425).
Here, faith alone is in view. Luther appears to accept James as an authority, but of lesser authority than Paul. Luther says James lacks "Apostolic majesty," which echos "apostolic spirit," therefore questioning apostolic pedigree (and therefore, canonicity). Luther's emphasis is on those who use James as a prooftext to refute "the rest of scripture." Luther accuses his detractors of misusing James: "They rip out one little phrase from a text and set it up against all of Scripture." Luther explains what Paul means but does not overtly explain what James meant.
Then in his 1522 Preface to James, Luther reiterates that James was written by a second-generation Christian,
...[H]e throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching [LW 35: 396-397].
Original text: Aber diser Jacobus thutt nicht mehr, denn treybt zu dem gesetz vnd seynen wercken, vnd wirfft so unordig eyns vns ander, das mich dunckt, es sey irgent eyn gut frum man gewesen, der ettlich spruch von der Aposteln Jungern gefasset, vund also auffs papyr geworffen hat, oder ist villeicht aus seyner predigt von eynem andern beschriebon (WA Db 7:386).
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]: “Love covers a multitude of sins” [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” [1 Pet. 5:6]; also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul (LW 35:397).
Original text: Uber das, furet er die spruch Sanct Petri. Die liebe bedeckt der sund menge, Jtem demutiget euch vnter die hand Gottis, Jtem Sanct Paulus spruch Gal. 5. den Geyst gelust wider den hass. So doch Sanct Jacobus zeytlich von Herodes zu Jerusalem, fur S. Peter todtet war, das woll scheynet, wie er lengst noch S. Peter vnd Paul gewesen sey (WA Db 7:386).
When challenged that the Epistle of James stood against justification by faith alone, in 1543 Luther stated:
The authority of this [James] is not so great that (it detracts from the divine promise [or that] on its account one should abandon the doctrine of faith and depart from the authority of the rest of the apostles and all of Scripture (LW 73:349-350).
Original text: Non est tanta eius autoritas, ut propterea doctrina fidei relinquatur et discedatur ab autoritate reliquorum apostolorum et totius scripturae (WA 39.2: 219).
Luther is recorded in a 1542 Table Talk utterance saying,
We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.' This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles.” (LW 54:424).
Original text: Epistolam Iacobi eiciemus ex hac schola, denn sie soll nichts. Nullam syllabam habet de Christo. Er nennet auch Christum nicht eins nisi in principio. Ich halt, das sie irgents ein Jude gemacht hatt, welcher wol hat horen von den christen leuten, abr nit gar zusam schlagen; vnd dieweil er hat gehört, das die christen also sehr auff den glauben in Christum dringen, hat er gedacht: Halt, du wilt in begegnen vnd schlecht die opera treiben! Wie er den thut. De passione et resurrectione Christi sagt er nicht ein wort, das doch allr apostell predigt ist gewest. Dazu ist da kein ordo noch methodus. Jzt sagt er von kleidern, bald von zorn, fellet imer von einem auff das ander. Er gibet ein gleichnus: Sicut corpus non vivit sine anima, ita fides nihil est sine operibus. Ei Marge, Gotts mutter! Wie ein arme similitudo ist das! Confert fidem corpori, cum potius fides animae fuisset comparanda! Das haben auch die alten gesehen¹⁴, darumb haben sie die epistolam nicht pro catholica epistola gehalten (WA Tr 5:157).I say "recorded in the Table Talk" because Luther didn't write these words, someone else transcribed them, context unknown. The comments though match up to the sentiment found in Luther's earlier statements.
Did Luther simply arrive at this authorship conclusion without precedent? No. He maintained a position that echoed other voices from church history. Eusebius and Jerome both recorded doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. The great Roman Catholic humanist Scholar Erasmus likewise questioned the authenticity of James, as did Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars. Some think the early influence of Erasmus impacted Luther view. consider the speculation from Lutheran scholar J.M Reu:
It is possible that the position of Erasmus had influenced Luther in some particulars. Luther had first expressed his critical attitude towards the Epistle of St. James in his Resolutiones of 1519; afterwards more energetically in De Captivitate Babylonica. Under such conditions we have no reason to be surprised that Luther entered into the question in his New Testament of 1522, especially as the fundamental understanding of Scripture that had come to him compelled him to take a stand, at least concerning James, and furthermore, he did not think that these matters were to be kept hidden from the congregations but even discussed them in his sermons [M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with a collection of Sources (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934), 176].
Reu points out that Erasmus "had assumed a critical attitude towards [James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation] in the Annotationes of 1516" (Reu, 175). Reu then later speculates, that Luther publicly altered his criticisms of James "to keep his personal opinions in the background, especially as the German Bible was intended for the whole congregation" [Reu, 226]. Reu documents the changes from Luther's September-Testament to the softening revision in the 1530's (p.226-227):
In fine, he wanted to guard against those who tried to rely on faith without works but he was too weak in spirit, understanding and words, and so he rends Scripture and opposes Paul and all Scripture, trying to accomplish by the occasion of the Law what the other apostles effect by incentives to love. Therefore I will not have him reckoned in my Bible in the number of the real chief books, but will not prevent anyone from esteeming him as he pleases, for otherwise it contains many good sayings. One man is reckoned, as no man in worldly affairs. How then should this one alone count against Paul and all the rest of Scripture ?
Then, this statement was modified in the 1530's:
In fine, he wanted to guard against those who tried to rely on faith without works but was too weak for the undertaking, trying to accomplish by the coercion of the Law what the other apostles effect by incentives to love. Therefore I will not have him reckoned in my Bible in the number of the real chief books, but will not prevent anyone from esteeming him as he pleases. For it contains many good sayings.Did Luther Want to Throw the Epistle of James in the Stove?
That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did (LW 34:318).
Original text: Illa epistola Iacobi nobis multum facesseit negotii. Eam enim solam amplectuntur reliquis omnibus omissis papistae. Ego hactenus solitus sum iam operare et interpretari secundum sententiam reliquae scripturae. Nam nihil ex ea contra manifestam scripturam sanctam statuendum esse iudicabitis. Si igitur non admittent meas interpretationes, tum faciam quoque ex ea vastationem. Ich wil schier den Zedel in den offen werffen wie der pfaff vom Kalenberg (WA 39.2:199).
The preacher of Kalenberg, when visited by the duchess, heated the room with the wooden statues of the apostles. The statue of James was the last and as the preacher shoved it into the stove he exclaimed, “Now bend over, Jimmy, you must go into the stove; no matter if you were the pope or all the bishops, the room must become warm" (LW 34:318, cf. WA 39.2:199, n.2).
Even though Luther isn't saying to throw the actual Epistle of James into the stove, it's obvious there's a sarcastic intent to his comment and frustration being expressed. For a full treatment of this quote, see this entry.
Luther Did Not Reject James Because of "Faith Alone"?
There is also evidence from Luther that complicates the information above. For instance, even while criticizing James, he positively quoted it throughout his career. He also occasionally preached from the book: in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21, Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, "Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle." But more surprisingly, there are also statements in which Luther harmonized James and Paul on the relationship of faith and works!
In his early lectures on Romans, Luther provides a harmonious explanation of James on faith and works (LW 25:234-235), "Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works" [LW 25:235]:
Therefore, when St. James and the apostle say that a man is justified by works, they are contending against the erroneous notion of those who thought that faith suffices without works, although the apostle does not say that faith justifies without its own works (because then there would be no faith, since, according to the philosophers, “action is the evidence that form exists”), but that it justifies without the works of the Law. Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works (LW 25:235).
Original text: Igitur quando b. Iacobus et Apostolus dicunt ex operibus hominem Iustificari, contra falsam intelligentiam disputant eorum, qui fidem sine operibus suis sufficere putabant, Cum Apostolus Non dicat, quod fides sine suis propriis operibus (quia tunc nec fides esset, cum 'operatio arguat formam adesse' secundum philosophos), Sed sine operibus legis Iustificat. Igitur Iustificatio requirit non opera legis, Sed viuam fidem, quę sua operetur opera. (WA 56:249).
James is dealing with a moral point, not theological, just as he is almost entirely about morality. Morally speaking, it is true that faith without works is dead- that is, if faith does not do works or if outward works do not follow faith. In this way then, faith cannot exist apart from works; that is, it cannot fail to do works, else there is no faith alone.
We, however, are dealing with a theological point here since we are discussing justification before God. Here we assert that faith alone is counted as righteousness before God, apart from works and merits." (LW 61:183-184).
Original text: Iacobus versatur in loco Morali, non in Theologico, sicut fere totus est moralis. Moraliter loquendo verum est fidem sine operibus esse mortuam i. e. si non operetur fides, aut si fidem non sequantur opera foris. Hoc enim modo fides non potest esse sine operibus, i. e. non potest non operari, aut nulla est fides ibi.
Sed nos hic in loco Theologico sumus, ubi de iustificatione coram Deo loquimur. Hic dicimus fidem solam pro iusticia reputari coram Deo, sine operibus et meritis, Quia Deus merita nostra non curat, sed fidei donat per promissiones suas (WA 30.2:664).
In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:17, 26). Therefore, dead faith justifies. Luther responded:
The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, ‘faith’ ought to be placed with the word ‘justifies’ and the portion of the sentence ‘without works justifies’ is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word ‘justifies,’ not to ‘faith.’ In the minor premise, ‘without works’ is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. ‘Without works’ is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. [LW 34: 175-176].
Original text: Argumentum est sophisticum et ἔλεγχος per grammaticam solvitur. In maiore fides debet constitui cum verbo iustificat, et particula sine operibus iustificat ponitur in periphrasi praedicati et est referenda ad verbum iustificat, non ad fidem. In minore vero sine operibus est in periphrasi subiecti, et ad fidem refertur. Nos loquimur, quod iustificatio fiat sine operibus, non quod fides sit sine operibus. Nam illa, quae caret fructu, non est efficax, sed ficta fides. Est igitur aequivocatio: sine operibus. Ideoque nihil concludit hoc argumentum. Aliud est fidem iustificare sine operibus, aliud est esse fidem sine operibus (WA 39.1:106).
In a 1521 sermon Luther is recorded as saying,
This is what James means when he says: 2, 26: “Faith which does not work is dead. Just as the body without the soul is dead, so faith without works is also dead” (James 2[:17,26]). This does not mean that faith is in a person and does not work, which is impossible, for faith is a living, restless thing. Rather, this means that people should not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have none of it; rather, they should look at their works, that is, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign they have true faith. However, if they do not do this, then they only have the sound of faith. What happens to them is like the person who examines himself in the mirror. When he goes away, he no longer sees himself. Through looking at other things, he forgets the face he saw in the mirror, as also St. James says (James 1 [:23-24] (LW 79:75-76).
Original text: Sihe, das meynet S. Jacob. Jaco. ij. "Der glawbe, so er nit wirckt, ist er todt. Und wie der leyb on seel todt ist, so ist auch der glaub on werck todt". Nit das der glaube ym menschen sey und nit wircke, wilchs nitt muglich ist, denn der glawb ist ein lebendig unrugig ding, sondern das sich die menschen nitt selb betriegen und meynen, sie haben den glawbenn, so sie doch nichts davon haben, sondern sollen ansehen yhr werck, ob sie auch yhrn nehisten lieben und yhm woll thun. Thun sie das, so ists ein zeychen, das sie dissen rechten glauben haben. Thun sie aber nit, so haben sie nur das gehore vom glawben. Und geschicht yhn, wie dem, der sich ym spiegel besihet: wenn er davon geht, szo sihet er sich nymmer, und durch ansehen anderer ding vorgisset er des spiegels gesicht, alsz auch Jaco. i. geschrieben stet (WA 8:361-362).
The deceivers and blind masters have stretched this passage of James so far that they have destroyed faith and set up only works, as if righteousness and salvation consist not of faith but of works. To this great darkness they have added an even greater darkness and have taught only good works which are of no benefit to your neighbor, such as fasting; saying many prayers; observing festival days; not eating meat, butter, eggs, and milk; building churches, cloisters, chapels, and altars; instituting Masses, vigils, hours; wearing gray, white, or black clothes; becoming clergy; and innumerable similar things from which no one has any benefit or enjoyment, and all of which God condemns, and justly. St. James, however, says this intentionally, since a Christian life is nothing except faith and love. Love means nothing else than doing good and being useful to all people, enemies and friends. Where faith is correct, it certainly loves and acts toward others in love, just as Christ has acted in his faith. Thus each one should be on his guard so that he does not have a dream and fiction in his heart instead of faith, and thus deceive himself. He can recognize this in nothing better than in works of love. Christ Himself gives the sign of this when He says, ‘By this everyone can know that you are My disciples, if you love one another’ (John 13:35). Therefore, St. James means to say, ‘Be on your guard, lest your life not serve others, you live for yourself, and you take no interest in your neighbor, for then your faith is certainly nothing, since it does not do what Christ has done for it.’ Yes, he does not believe that Christ has done good for him; otherwise he would not omit also doing good for his neighbor (LW 79:76).
Original text: Dissen spruch Jacobi haben die vorkurer und blinden meyster szo weyt gezogen, bysz das sie den glawben vortilget unnd nur die werck auff gericht haben, alsz stehe die gerechtickeyt und selickeyt nit ym glawben, szondern yn den wercken. Zu der grossen finsternisz haben sie darnach noch eyn gröszere thunn unnd nur die gutte werck geleret, die dem nehisten feyn nütz sind, alsz fasten, viel gepet sprechen, feyren, nit fleysch, putter, eyer, milch essen, kirchen, kloster, capeln, altar bawen, mesz, vigilien, horas stifften, graw, weisz, schwartz kleider tragen, geistlich werden, und der unzehlich gleichen, davon doch keyn mensch nütz noch geniesz hatt, wilch auch got alle vordampt, und billich. Aber S. Jacobus will das, sintemal eyn Christlich leben ist nichts denn glawbe unnd liebe. Liebe ist nichts denn eyttel woll thun und nuy seyn allen menschen, feynden und freunden. Unnd wo der glawb recht ist, szo liebt er auch gewiszlich und thut den andern ynn der liebe, wie yhm Christus than hatt ynn seynem glawben. Szo soll nu eyn iglicher sich fursehen, das er nit eynen trawm und geticht an stat des glaubens ym hertzen habe und sich selber betriege: das wirt er bey seynem ding alsz woll erkennen, alsz bey den wercken der liebe. Wie auch Christus dasselb zeychen gibt und spricht: "Da bey kan man wissen, das yhr meine iunger seyt, szo yhr euch untereinander liebt". Darumb will S. Jacob sagen: Sihe fur dich, steht dein leben nit also, das es andern diene, und du fur dich selbs lebist, nympst dich deynsz nehisten nit an, szo ist deyn glawbe gewiszlich nichts, denn er thut nit, wie yhm Christus than hatt. Ja er glowbt nit, das yhm Christus woll than hat, sonst liesz er nitt, er thet seynem nehisten auch wol (WA 8:362).
Similarly, In a 1522 sermon Luther states:
This is what St. James means in his Epistle when he writes: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2[:26]). That is, when works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there, but a dead thought and dream, which they falsely call “faith.” This is how we understand these words of Christ: “Make friends for yourselves with the unrighteous mammon” [Luke 16:9]; that is, plainly demonstrate your faith with external giving, by which you gain friends, so that from your obvious works the poor can be witnesses that you have genuine faith. External giving of itself can never make friends, unless it happens from faith. Christ rejects the Pharisees’ alms (Matthew 6[:1–4]); they made no friends with their alms, because their hearts were false. Now no heart ever becomes right without faith, so that even nature is forced to confess that no works make anyone righteous, but the heart must first be righteous and good (1522 published sermon, LW 78:324).
Original text: Das meynet S. Jacobus yn seyner Epistel, da er spricht "Der glawb on werck ist todt". Das ist, weyll die werck nicht folgen, ists eyn gewiß heychen, das keyn glaub da sey, sondern eyn todter gedancke und trawm, den sie falschlich glawben nennen. Also verstehen wyr nu diß wortt Christi "Machet euch freundt von dem unrechten Mammon", das ist: beweyset offenbar mit eußerlichem geben ewren glawben, damit yhr freundt ubirkomet, das die armen ewrs offinbarn wercks zeugen seyn kunden, das yhr rechtschaffen glauben habt, denn das eußerlich geben von yhm selber mochte nymmer mehr freundt machen, wo es nicht auß dem glawben geschech. Sintemal Christus Matt. 6. Der Phariseer almoßen verwirfft, das sie keyn freundt damit machten, weyll das herz falsch war. Nu wirt yhe keyn herz recht on den glawben, das also auch die natur zwingt zu bekennen, das keyn werck frum macht, sondern das herz zuvor frum und gutt seyn muß (WA 10.3:288).
Conclusion
The extant evidence of Luther's view is therefore conflicting. On the one hand, Luther overtly doubted the apostolic pedigree of the Epistle of James and saw that it conflicted with Paul. On the other hand, Luther approvingly cited James, preached from it, embraced a harmonious way of understanding James and Paul, and softened his earlier criticisms. This contradictory evidence appears to run parallel throughout his life. It could very well be that definitive answer on Luther's view of James... is that there is not a definitive answer! It seems to me that in light of Rome's defenders generally, Luther argued James was not canonical, particularly if pressed by Rome's advocates that James refuted justification by faith alone. In other contexts generally, Luther treated James as harmonious with the rest of Scripture. As I've read Luther over the years, the balance of these positions seems to lean more towards the former evidence that James was not an apostolic witness. This could simply be the result of the continual polemical conflicts Luther found himself in.
Perhaps Reu's speculation that Erasmus influenced Luther on authorship and LW's conclusion that his papal opponents were citing James against him may be the pertinent factors that explain the confusion as to Luther's view. For both of these speculations, I would need to see evidence. For the former, I have never seen a statement from Luther demonstrating he was following Erasmus on James. For the later, I searched through my collection of early polemical writers against Luther and did not come across meaningful early uses of James being cited against Luther... though I suspect it certainly was! It seems to be assumed as a papal criticism in the many disputations Luther took part in throughout his life.
Addendum #1: Interacting With Rome's Defenders on Luther's View of James
If you're dealing with Luther's detractors, most often Rome's defenders... keep in mind that one of the main reasons they're bringing up Luther's view of James is that the intention is to put forth the infallible authority of Rome in determining the canon of the Bible. Simply in response: it does not follow that unless Rome infallibly determines the canon of the Bible, everyone will pick and choose their own Biblical canon. Despite Luther's view of James, this has practically not happened. To my knowledge, there was not any significant following of Luther on his view of James, nor has Protestantism created 30,000 canons to match the alleged 30,000 denominations Rome's defenders continually squawk about. I would exhort the reader to realize that the choice between the infallible authority of Rome and total anarchy is a false dilemma.
If you're engaging Rome's defenders on the canon and Luther's view of the canon comes up, a counter question that they should be forced to consider is answering.... why has the canon of the Bible remained very consistent despite Luther's views? Is Rome responsible for this? Is so, how? If Luther's view amounts to a subjective personal canon, why is it that the canon has been so stable since the publication of Luther's opinions found in his translation of the Bible?
I've argued elsewhere that Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had a right within the Roman Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the canon previous to the dogmatic declarations of the Council of Trent. All expressed some doubt. Theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. The editors of Luther’s Works note that both Eusebius and Jerome raised or confirmed similar doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James:
In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author… writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.”… Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3)…Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status [LW 35:396].
Follow this up the following from The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III Can to Col (New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1967), p. 29.
Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen, M.A., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: Patrick O'Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 5, 1966
Rome's defender Robert Sungenis admitted the validity of my argument in regard to Trent and the canon.
Addendum #2: John Warwick Montgomery
Here's nitpicking myself: Back in 2004, I addressed the "epistle of straw" comment in Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture. I cited John Warwick Montgomery writing,
Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.In my old paper I summarized Montgomery saying, "An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface to the New Testament." LW 35:358, fn. 5 though states: "The portions here set in brackets did not appear in any editions of the complete Bible, nor in editions of the New Testament after 1537." It appears to me that editions of Luther's New Testament previous to 1537 and incomplete editions of the Bible previous to 1534 probably did include the "epistle of straw" comment.
Revised April 2026
Posts
