Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Why did Martin Luther exclude certain books from Protestant canon?
Executive Summary
Martin Luther excluded certain books—primarily the seven Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament and questioned a few New Testament books—from the core Protestant canon because he prioritized texts that matched the Hebrew Bible and his theological standard of sola scriptura, and he judged some books deficient in apostolic authorship or doctrinal clarity [1] [2]. Luther’s actions were both a scholarly decision about source texts—favoring Hebrew and Greek over the Latin Vulgate—and a theological move that provoked immediate and lasting Catholic rebuttals, which defended the Septuagint and conciliar determinations of canon [3] [4].
1. What people are actually claiming — the headline controversies that drove Luther’s choices
Analysts consistently claim Luther removed or relegated several books because he saw them as non-canonical either for lacking Hebrew original status or for posing doctrinal problems. One recurring claim is that Luther followed Jewish practice by excluding the Deuterocanonical books, asserting that the Hebrew Bible’s contents should be the Old Testament core [3] [2]. Another common claim is that Luther questioned Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation for reasons tied to authorship and theological usefulness, though he left them in the New Testament with special markings in some editions [1] [5]. Critics counterclaim that Luther’s move represented a break from Christian tradition because the early Church and the Septuagint had long included those books [4].
2. How the textual and historical facts shape the argument — Septuagint versus Hebrew canon
The historical record shows that early Christians widely used the Septuagint, a Greek Old Testament that included the Deuterocanonical books and was often cited in the New Testament and by Church Fathers, creating a longstanding tradition of their acceptance [4] [6]. Luther’s appeal to the Jewish canon overlooked that the Jewish canon’s current form solidified after Christianity began to develop and that different Jewish communities held different canons; therefore his reliance on a later Jewish boundary as the decisive standard is historically contested [6]. Catholic defenders stress that the early Church’s use of the Septuagint and conciliar affirmations gave the Deuterocanonicals canonical weight long before Luther’s era [3] [2].
3. Luther’s stated reasons — theology, authorship, and pastoral concerns
Luther argued from sola scriptura—the view that Scripture alone is the final authority for faith and practice—so texts not clearly apostolic or consonant with core gospel doctrines merited lower status, in his view [2]. He also made textual-critical moves: preferring Hebrew originals where available and treating books not present in Hebrew manuscripts with skepticism [5]. Luther raised specific content objections—he famously criticized 2 Maccabees for what he saw as problematic doctrinal implications and expressed discomfort with James because it seemed to conflict with his emphasis on justification by faith [2] [7]. These were presented as doctrinal and methodological criteria rather than arbitrary excision.
4. What Luther actually did in practice — translation choices and editorial framing
In his German translation completed in the 1530s Luther kept disputed New Testament books but sometimes placed them apart or added warnings, and he moved the Deuterocanonical books out of the Old Testament proper into an intertestamental/Apocrypha section rather than discarding them outright [1] [5]. This editorial placement signals that Luther did not entirely erase these writings from Christian use but sought to differentiate authoritative Scripture from useful but non-normative texts. Protestant churches later codified similar exclusions, while some Lutheran editions retained the Apocrypha for edification, reflecting mixed pragmatic and theological motives [7].
5. The Catholic and wider Christian counter-claims — councils, continuity, and agendas
Catholic responses emphasize that the Church, guided by conciliar decisions and tradition, recognized the Deuterocanonical books long before Luther; the Council of Trent [8] explicitly affirmed these books as canonical, framing Luther’s moves as a Protestant departure justified by Reformation polemics [4] [3]. Scholars and defenders of the Deuterocanon argue that the Septuagint’s apostolic-era usage and patristic citations establish a continuous canonical practice that Luther disrupted, and they warn that his selections were influenced by Reformation-era polemics against Catholic doctrines that relied upon those books [3] [4]. Protestant advocates, in contrast, present Luther’s approach as a principled return to original-language texts and a correction of later accretions [5].
6. The big picture — canon formation, authority, and enduring consequences
The episode highlights divergent criteria for canonical status: apostolicity, liturgical use, textual lineage, and doctrinal harmony. Luther’s intervention foregrounded original-language texts and doctrinal clarity, prompting Protestant traditions to adopt canons aligned with Hebrew scripture; Catholic responses reasserted conciliar and patristic precedent and defended the Septuagint’s utility [6] [2]. The practical consequence is that modern Christian Bibles reflect these contested histories: Catholic and Orthodox Bibles retain the Deuterocanonical books, while most Protestant Bibles exclude them or relegate them to an appendix—an outcome that reveals how theological priorities and historical claims about authority shaped the map of Christian Scripture [4] [7].