"Neither Apostolic nor Prophetic": Luther eliminates Revelation

[Flocculencio]

So, Luther was rather leery of John's Revelation, initially declaring it to be "neither Apostolic nor Prophetic" and that "Christ is neither known nor taught in it". What if this initial view endures and becomes the mainstream Protestant view. Revelation is classed with the rest of the Apocrypha and is excised from Protestant (and later Anglican) bibles along with Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit etc.

How does this affect the Protestant worldview given that eschatology now has to be based mainly on Christ's own parables in the gospels? Given that 90% of Protestant nuttiness derives from Revelation, I'd figure that the repercussions would be huge.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

God, I hate that book. I also hate what that book has done, which is make everybody think that everything under the sun is the Antichrist (which is a misunderstanding anyway. See: Link).

You essentially remove, if there is no other apocalyptic book, and apocalyptic view of the world and reality in Christian culture, and also remove things added on by the culture later which are not canon nor Biblical, such as the Rapture.

 

[Orry]

Not sure why this POD would get it taken out of the Anglican / English bible though.

Anglican is / was reformed catholic rather than protestant. Maintaining the orders of Bishop, Priest and Deacon as well as the traditional parish boundaries etc.

 

[eschaton]

You essentially remove, if there is no other apocalyptic book, and apocalyptic view of the world and reality in Christian culture, and also remove things added on by the culture later which are not canon nor Biblical, such as the Rapture.

Well, there still will be the book of Daniel, so it's not like the bible will be totally missing apocalyptic literature.

 

[Lord Insane]

You essentially remove, if there is no other apocalyptic book, and apocalyptic view of the world and reality in Christian culture, and also remove things added on by the culture later which are not canon nor Biblical, such as the Rapture.

Why would it remove it from Christian culture? Considering there is still two fairly large denominations that would not have excluded Revelation...

 

[Philip]

So, Luther was rather leery of John's Revelation, initially declaring it to be "neither Apostolic nor Prophetic" and that "Christ is neither known nor taught in it". What if this initial view endures and becomes the mainstream Protestant view. Revelation is classed with the rest of the Apocrypha and is excised from Protestant (and later Anglican) bibles along with Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit etc.

1. Thank you for not calling it Revelations.
2. This is a real possibility (along with the exclusion of several epistles as well). I am torn as to the short-term effect of this. It Luther only removes Revelation, I think the Reformation continues per OTL. If he cuts more, it will expose him to more accusations that he only keeps the portions that support his doctrine. Removing Revelation will strip Luther of some of his more vivid ammunition against the pope, but I have confidence he can make up for it elsewhere.

How does this affect the Protestant worldview given that eschatology now has to be based mainly on Christ's own parables in the gospels? Given that 90% of Protestant nuttiness derives from Revelation, I'd figure that the repercussions would be huge.

The Lutheran-Calvinism position of Historicism probably remains unchanged but rendered less necessary. This will have a great effect on the rise of Dispensationalism (I assume this is the aforementioned nuttiness) will greatly be affected, even ignoring the butterflies. Perhaps it is gone altogether. Perhaps Revelation is 'rediscovered'. Dispensationalism develops, but is largely considered outside the mainstream (it's to early for me to think of a better word) Christianity, something akin to LDS.

Not sure why this POD would get it taken out of the Anglican / English bible though. Anglican is / was reformed catholic rather than protestant. Maintaining the orders of Bishop, Priest and Deacon as well as the traditional parish boundaries etc.

And yet they followed Luther's redacting of the Bible.

You essentially remove, if there is no other apocalyptic book, and apocalyptic view of the world and reality in Christian culture,

No. There are other texts that could lead to similar thoughts. Daniel, for example, along with Christ's allusions to the same.

and also remove things added on by the culture later which are not canon nor Biblical, such as the Rapture.

Not entirely. For example, the concept of the Rapture comes from 1 Thessalonians. The term Antichrist comes from one of John's epistles.

Why would it remove it from Christian culture? Considering there is still two fairly large denominations that would not have excluded Revelation...

It would remove its acceptability from Protestant Christian culture. The reaction of most Protestants, especially Evangelicals, to the Deuterocanon is one of revulsion. If Revelation is classified with the OT Deuterocanon, then its teachings would be seen as false. That the Catholic and Orthodox still read Revelation would be just more evidence of their apostasy.

 

[Lord Insane]

It would remove its acceptability from Protestant Christian culture. The reaction of most Protestants, especially Evangelicals, to the Deuterocanon is one of revulsion. If Revelation is classified with the OT Deuterocanon, then its teachings would be seen as false. That the Catholic and Orthodox still read Revelation would be just more evidence of their apostasy.

Yes, but my point was that it is misleading to say that Protestant Christian culture is Christian culture without the Protestant qualifier.

 

[Philip]

Yes, but my point was that it is misleading to say that Protestant Christian culture is Christian culture without the Protestant qualifier.

Agreed. Filler filler filler

 

[Orry]

And yet they followed Luther's redacting of the Bible.

Eh no. It was the fourth session of the Council of Trent (8th April 1546) that added the apocrypha to the Roman Canon rather than Luther taking it out.

Jerome in his vulgate refered to those books as 'books of the church' not 'books of the canon'

The earliest full list we have is probably that of Bishop Melito of Sardis which includes all of our OT except the book of Esther and includes none of the apocraypha.

Athanasius of Alexandria used the same list and said of some of the books of the apocrypha that they are 'not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly joined us, and who wish for instruction in the word of Scripture'.

(Although some other writers did quote them in the same light as other Scriptures)

Athanasius view seems to be the same as the CofE which say of the apocrypha:

'and of the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; yet doth it not apply them to establish any Doctrine' (Article VI)

The development of the reformation in England ran in parallel with Luthur etc.

The Canon of the New Testament was a totally different kettle of fish. Even if Luther has some sort of 'fit' and excludes a New Testament book there is almost zero chance that other reformers would have gone with him. This counts double for the Anglican Church which already had a translation of the Bible into English which included all the Canonical books.

 

[Snake Featherston]

It won't affect Anglosphere Protestantism very much, though the outright deletion of Revelation would cause a great deal more theological division within Protestantism. Given that the earliest days of the Anglican Church was IIRC the same as the Early Modern Catholicism that preceded it except that Henry VIII was now head of the Church I can't see Anglicanism being anything beyond that.

What might be interesting would be the later butterflies on the English Civil War. The Radical Reformation already had enough of a batshit evil fringe without this kind of thing, but this would probably dial that up to 11. And in any case if this ATL Luther removes the book of Revelation, wouldn't he also end up removing James, too? So what happens to a *Lutheranism sans The Epistle of James or Revelation?

 

[Snake Featherston]

God, I hate that book. I also hate what that book has done, which is make everybody think that everything under the sun is the Antichrist (which is a misunderstanding anyway. See: Link).

You essentially remove, if there is no other apocalyptic book, and apocalyptic view of the world and reality in Christian culture, and also remove things added on by the culture later which are not canon nor Biblical, such as the Rapture.

That would strongly affect Continental Protestantism and perhaps the analogue to the English Civil War (might actually make it a lot worse if this leads to multiple fringe Protestanisms of a Cromwellian sort). It won't affect Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy retaining it in the Scriptures one bit.

I wonder if this ATL Luther would also remove the Epistle of James......

 

[Ioannes]

Why would it remove it from Christian culture? Considering there is still two fairly large denominations that would not have excluded Revelation...

To be fair, it's probably the least influential book in Orthodoxy. It's the only one not read in the Liturgy. Many of the early Fathers were quite leary of it, and recommended that it not be read by immature Christians or easily excitable people--and the Baptists who raised me are proof of why this is wise advice.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

No way, Revelation is the one of the most powerful books in the New Testament and removing that book will make Luther anti-Christ to my eyes and to the Christian Fundamentalists.

 

[Philip]

Eh no. It was the fourth session of the Council of Trent (8th April 1546) that added the apocrypha to the Roman Canon rather than Luther taking it out.

Odd then, isn't it, that Wyclif's English translation (1395) includes the books of Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the others. When he translated the Vulgate into English, was he seeing 150 years into the future to know to include the Deuterocanon, or was he translating books that were already part of the Catholic Bible?

One might also wonder how those books got into the various Orthodox Canons. After all, the Orthodox did not have the highest opinion of the Roman Church in 1546.

 

[Orry]

Odd then, isn't it, that Wyclif's English translation (1395) includes the books of Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the others. When he translated the Vulgate into English, was he seeing 150 years into the future to know to include the Deuterocanon, or was he translating books that were already part of the Catholic Bible?

One might also wonder how those books got into the various Orthodox Canons. After all, the Orthodox did not have the highest opinion of the Roman Church in 1546.

Well if you re-read my post you will see that they are in the vulgate and the note that Jerome put with them....

Obviously when he translated the vulgate he included all the material that it contained.

The books were in the septuagint but not in the origional Hebrew.

For what it is work Wikipedia says

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[30] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

 

[elder.wyrm]

Not sure why this POD would get it taken out of the Anglican / English bible though.

Anglican is / was reformed catholic rather than protestant. Maintaining the orders of Bishop, Priest and Deacon as well as the traditional parish boundaries etc.

Anglican very much is protestant, it merely retains the episcopal political structure.

 

[Snake Featherston]

No way, Revelation is the one of the most powerful books in the New Testament and removing that book will make Luther anti-Christ to my eyes and to the Christian Fundamentalists.

Technically speaking he started the ball rolling by deleting the Deuterocanonicals and wanted to delete James because he saw it as incompatible with Sola Gratia. In this case he'd probably have also deleted James, which would make the Fundies happy as no more "But the Bible also says" as regards works v. Faith.

 

[Orry]

Anglican very much is protestant, it merely retains the episcopal political structure.

As an Anglican Priest I beg to differ......

 

[elder.wyrm]

As an Anglican Priest I beg to differ......

On which part?

 

[Orry]

On which part?

That the Anglican church is 'protestant' rather tham 'Reformed Catholic'

Unlike on the continent the Anglican Church maintain a continuity with its past - the First Edward VI prayer book communion is basically the old Catholic Sarum rite with minor changes.

If you ever go to a BCP communion the reason the words of distribution are so long is that they combine the old words supportive of a catholic doctrine of transubstanciation and a more calvanist theory of memorial.