Which books did Martin Luther place in the Apocrypha and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Martin Luther placed the 14 books commonly called the Apocrypha (the deuterocanonical books found in Roman Catholic Bibles — e.g., Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1–2 Maccabees, additions to Esther and Daniel) in an intertestamental section between the Old and New Testaments and labeled them “not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet useful and good for reading” [1] [2]. He included them in his German translation throughout his life but consistently treated them as secondary material, useful for edification but not authoritative for defining doctrine [3] [1].
1. Luther’s practical editorial decision: include but segregate
When Luther produced his German Bible he left the deuterocanonical books inside the printed Bible, but he placed them apart — commonly between the Testaments — and introduced them with a caution that they are not equal to canonical Scripture while still being “useful and good to read” [1] [2]. That placement became standard in Lutheran editions and signaled a middle position: retention within the Bible volume, but clearly demoted in authority [4] [3].
2. Which books are we talking about — the 14 usually called Apocrypha
Luther was dealing with the same 14 books later retained by Roman Catholic tradition as deuterocanonical: Tobit (Tobias), Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (and the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees, plus additions to Esther and Daniel. Protestant summaries and Lutheran publishers describe these as the 14 intertestamental books included in editions of Luther’s Bible and later Lutheran publications [5] [1] [6].
3. Why Luther treated them this way — scriptural caution, Hebrew canon, and doctrinal concerns
Luther and many Reformers noted these books were not part of the Jewish (Hebrew) Bible and therefore questioned their status as inspired Scripture; that historical-literary fact influenced his caution [2] [7]. He also opposed certain doctrines — notably prayers for the dead and purgatory — that found support in some deuterocanonical passages; Protestant writers link Luther’s theological disagreements with Roman positions to his reluctance to grant these books full doctrinal authority [1] [6].
4. Ambiguities and contradictions in Luther’s language and practice
Sources observe a tension: Luther’s prefaces sometimes use language that suggests respect for these books, and he quoted some apocryphal passages as authoritative in places, yet he insisted they not define doctrine [3] [8]. Scholars note this is why some historians characterize his stance as nuanced rather than simply “rejecting” the books — included in his Bible but categorized as secondary [4] [3].
5. How contemporaries and later traditions interpreted his move
Luther’s placement created a model for many Protestants: include the Apocrypha for instruction but exclude them from the core canon used to determine doctrine. Lutheran practice preserved the books in liturgical and devotional life for centuries; Concordia Publishing House later revived an English Lutheran edition of the Apocrypha with Lutheran notes, showing the material remained part of Lutheran heritage [5] [4].
6. Competing viewpoints and contested legacies
Catholic commentators argue Luther effectively “removed” or diminished books the Church had long accepted, framing his action as damaging to the canon — a theological critique repeated in apologetic sources [6]. Lutheran and other Protestant writers counter that Luther’s approach was driven by fidelity to the Hebrew canon and doctrinal caution, not mere iconoclasm; they emphasize his formulation that the books are useful for reading even while not equal to Scripture [7] [1].
7. What the available sources do not settle
Available sources do not mention any single definitive list in Luther’s own hand that reorders or permanently omits the Apocrypha from all editions; instead they show a consistent pattern of inclusion-with-disclaimer across his published Bibles and later Lutheran practice [3] [4]. Sources do not provide complete verbatim lists in every citation here, but they uniformly describe the 14-book grouping and his cautionary preface [5] [1].
Concluding note: Luther’s editorial move combined scholarship (appeal to the Hebrew canon), pastoral caution (limit doctrinal weight), and practical retention (keep the books available for reading). Different traditions read that mix either as reforming prudence or as a diminishment of a longer canon; the primary sources summarized here show Luther neither exterminated the Apocrypha nor endorsed them as equal Scripture [1] [3] [2].