From Re-categorization to Reformation: Martin Luther and the Contested Canon of Scripture

Introduction: From “Removal” to Re-Categorization—Framing the Question of Luther’s Canon

The question of why Martin Luther “removed” books from the Bible is one of the most frequently asked and consequential in the history of Western Christianity. While the phrasing is common, it implies a simple act of excision that belies a far more complex reality. Luther did not, in fact, simply expunge books from existence or from his translation. Instead, he engaged in a profound act of theological and structural re-categorization, a re-contextualization of certain texts that had long occupied a disputed and ambiguous status within the Church’s tradition. He did not remove these books from his German Bible; rather, he segregated them, assigning them a subordinate status. The eventual complete omission of these books from most Protestant Bibles was a later development, driven by different forces.¹

To understand Luther’s actions is to journey through more than a millennium of debate about the very definition of “Scripture.” His decisions were not made in a vacuum. They were the culmination of long-standing scholarly questions, fueled by the intellectual currents of Renaissance humanism, and ultimately governed by a powerful and coherent theological vision. The central argument of this report is that Martin Luther’s handling of the biblical canon was not a capricious act of personal preference but a deliberate and theologically-driven decision rooted in a long, albeit subordinate, tradition of scholarly doubt within the Church. His actions were precipitated by the humanist call to return ad fontes (“to the sources”) and were ultimately governed by his Christocentric hermeneutic, forcing a definitive and dogmatic response from the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent and creating an enduring division in the scriptural foundation of Western Christendom.

This report will explore this complex history in several parts. First, it will establish the critical context by examining the state of the biblical canon before the Reformation, highlighting the competing traditions and the lack of a universally binding definition. Second, it will analyze the intellectual tools of humanism and the theological necessity of Sola Scriptura that prompted Luther’s re-evaluation. Third, it will delve into the heart of Luther’s theological criteria, principally his test of was Christum treibet (“what promotes Christ”). Fourth, it will detail the practical result of these criteria as seen in the revolutionary structure of his 1534 German Bible. Fifth, it will analyze the Roman Catholic Church’s definitive response at the Council of Trent. Finally, it will trace the long-term legacy of this 16th-century conflict, explaining how it led directly to the different Bibles used by Catholics and Protestants today.

I. The Contested Inheritance: Defining “The Bible” Before the Reformation

The most crucial piece of context for understanding Luther’s actions is the fact that prior to the 16th century, there was no single, universally dogmatized, and infallibly defined biblical canon for the entire Christian Church.¹ The “Bible” was a concept with fluid boundaries, and Luther’s position was less an unprecedented innovation and more a decisive choice between pre-existing and competing canonical traditions. This fluidity stemmed primarily from the existence of two different collections of Old Testament scriptures that were inherited by the early Church.

A. The Two Old Testaments: The Hebrew Canon vs. the Greek Septuagint

The earliest Christians inherited their sacred writings from Judaism, but they did so through two major streams of transmission, which contained different collections of books.

The Hebrew Canon (Tanakh)

The foundation of the Jewish scriptures is the Tanakh, an acronym for its three parts: the Torah (Law), the Nevi’im (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings).4 This collection, composed almost entirely in Biblical Hebrew with some Aramaic portions, corresponds to the 39 books of the modern Protestant Old Testament (though counted as 24 books in the Jewish tradition by combining works like 1-2 Kings or Ezra-Nehemiah).4 By the first century AD, this canon was remarkably stable. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 AD) described a collection of 22 books (a different grouping of the same material) which he claimed were justly held to be divine, and he asserted with confidence, “For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured neither to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable”.7 This reflects a strong sense within first-century Judaism of a closed and authoritative canon, a body of work whose prophetic lineage had ceased after the time of Artaxerxes.8

The Septuagint (LXX)

While the Hebrew canon was solidifying in Judea, a different collection of scriptures was in use among the large population of Greek-speaking Jews (Hellenistic Jews) throughout the Mediterranean, especially in Alexandria, Egypt. Beginning in the 3rd century BCE, the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Koine Greek, the common language of the era.9 This collection of translations is known as the Septuagint (from the Latin for “seventy,” after the legend of its 72 translators).11

Crucially, the Septuagint was not a single, formally canonized book but more of a library of Jewish religious texts in Greek.¹¹ Over time, this collection came to include books that were not part of the Hebrew Tanakh. These additional works, such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 & 2 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel, were largely composed in Greek during the centuries just before the Christian era.³ Because most early Christians, including the New Testament authors, were Greek-speaking, the Septuagint became the “Old Testament” for the nascent Church.⁴ The New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament using the Septuagint’s wording, which sometimes differs significantly from the Hebrew text that was later standardized as the Masoretic Text.⁹

This created a fundamental ambiguity for the Church: which Old Testament was authoritative? The one used by the Jews in Palestine, written in Hebrew? Or the wider Greek collection used by the apostles and the early Gentile church? This question was not definitively settled for centuries, and the tendency to refer to a fixed “Septuagint canon” is a misleading anachronism.¹³ The reality was far more fluid. Evidence from the second century shows that some Christian leaders were deeply invested in determining the scope of the original Hebrew scriptures. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170 AD), traveled to the East specifically to “learn accurately the books of the Old Testament” from the Jews. The list he produced is nearly identical to the Hebrew canon and, by extension, the Protestant Old Testament, notably omitting Esther and the books later termed the Apocrypha.¹ This demonstrates that a strong affinity for the shorter, Hebrew-based canon existed within the Church from a very early period, providing a deep historical precedent for the Reformers.

B. Voices of the Church Fathers: The Competing Views of Jerome and Augustine

The tension between these two Old Testament traditions crystallized in the fourth century in the differing opinions of two of the most influential theologians of the Western Church: St. Jerome and St. Augustine.

Jerome’s Position (Hebraica Veritas)

St. Jerome (c. 347–420 AD), a towering scholar commissioned to create a standard Latin translation of the Bible—the Vulgate—advocated for the primacy of the Hebrew canon. He championed the principle of Hebraica Veritas (“Hebrew Truth”), arguing that the original Hebrew text was more authoritative than its Greek translation.15 In the famous prefaces to his translations, Jerome made a clear distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and the additional books found in the Septuagint and the Old Latin versions he was replacing. He was the first to apply the term

“Apocrypha” (from the Greek for “hidden things”) to these additional works.² He argued that while these books were valuable for moral instruction and could be read in churches for the “edification of the people,” they were not to be used for the “authoritative confirmation of ecclesiastical dogmas”.³ This created a two-tiered system: canonical books for establishing doctrine and “ecclesiastical books” for general reading.¹⁷

Augustine’s Position (Ecclesiastical Usage)

In contrast, St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), a contemporary of Jerome, argued for the authority of the wider, Septuagint-based canon.1 Augustine’s criterion was less about original language and more about established ecclesiastical usage. He reasoned that since the apostles and the early Church had used the Septuagint, the books it contained should be received as fully canonical Scripture. His immense influence ensured that this view prevailed in the regional church councils over which he presided.1

C. The Weight of Tradition: Regional Councils and the Limits of Their Authority

Augustine’s position was formally endorsed by a series of local synods in North Africa, namely the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 AD).⁴ These councils produced lists of canonical books that included the deuterocanonicals, mirroring the list later affirmed by the Council of Trent.

However, a critical distinction must be made regarding the authority of these decisions. These were regional synods, not ecumenical councils representing the entire Church, like the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) which addressed the Arian heresy.¹ Their decrees were influential and reflected the practice of a large part of the Western Church, but they did not carry universal, binding authority and did not definitively settle the matter for all of Christendom.¹ There was no widespread heresy challenging the canon that would have necessitated an ecumenical council; therefore, the canon was allowed to “develop organically” through usage and scholarly debate, rather than being imposed by a single, early, authoritative decree.¹

D. A Millennium of Ambiguity: Scholarly Doubt in the Medieval and Early Renaissance Church

The debate between the positions of Jerome and Augustine did not end in the fifth century. Jerome’s critical view of the Apocrypha persisted as a strong, albeit minority, opinion throughout the Middle Ages and was very much alive at the dawn of the Reformation.³ This historical reality demonstrates that the pre-Reformation “canon” was not a fixed point but a spectrum of acceptable opinion.

This is most strikingly illustrated by the views of high-ranking Catholic clergy who were Luther’s own contemporaries. Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, the Primate of Spain and sponsor of the monumental Complutensian Polyglot Bible (a multi-language edition published 1514–1517), included the Apocrypha but echoed Jerome in his preface. He stated that these books “are books outside the canon which the Church has received more for the edification of the people than for the authoritative confirmation of ecclesiastical dogmas”.³ Even more pointedly, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, the papal legate sent to examine and debate with Luther at Augsburg in 1518, held the same view. He explicitly followed Jerome in distinguishing between the books of the Hebrew canon for matters of faith and the Apocrypha for edification.¹

The significance of this cannot be overstated. When Luther first began to articulate his preference for the Hebrew canon, he was not advancing a radical new heresy. He was aligning himself with a venerable and respected scholarly tradition within the Church, a position held by the very man sent by the Pope to correct him.³ The pre-Reformation Church was a body that could contain both the Augustinian and the Hieronymian (from Jerome) views. The Reformation did not invent this division; it forced a crisis that compelled each side to formalize its position, hardening what had been a spectrum of opinion into two mutually exclusive dogmas.

The following table illustrates the different canonical traditions that formed the complex inheritance received by the 16th-century reformers.

Table 1: Comparison of Old Testament Canons

Book	Hebrew Canon (Tanakh) / Protestant OT	Septuagint (Additional Books/Portions)	Roman Catholic OT (Deuterocanon)
Genesis	✓		✓
Exodus	✓		✓
Leviticus	✓		✓
Numbers	✓		✓
Deuteronomy	✓		✓
Joshua	✓		✓
Judges	✓		✓
Ruth	✓		✓
1 & 2 Samuel	✓		✓
1 & 2 Kings	✓		✓
1 & 2 Chronicles	✓		✓
Ezra	✓		✓
Nehemiah	✓		✓
Esther	✓		✓
Additions to Esther		✓	D
Job	✓		✓
Psalms	✓		✓
Psalm 151		✓
Proverbs	✓		✓
Ecclesiastes	✓		✓
Song of Songs	✓		✓
Isaiah	✓		✓
Jeremiah	✓		✓
Lamentations	✓		✓
Baruch		✓	D
Letter of Jeremiah		✓	D
Ezekiel	✓		✓
Daniel	✓		✓
Prayer of Azariah		✓	D
Susanna		✓	D
Bel and the Dragon		✓	D
Hosea	✓		✓
Joel	✓		✓
Amos	✓		✓
Obadiah	✓		✓
Jonah	✓		✓
Micah	✓		✓
Nahum	✓		✓
Habakkuk	✓		✓
Zephaniah	✓		✓
Haggai	✓		✓
Zechariah	✓		✓
Malachi	✓		✓
Tobit		✓	D
Judith		✓	D
Wisdom of Solomon		✓	D
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)		✓	D
1 Maccabees		✓	D
2 Maccabees		✓	D
3 Maccabees		✓
4 Maccabees		✓
1 Esdras (3 Esdras)		✓
2 Esdras (4 Esdras)		✓
Prayer of Manasseh		✓
Total Books	39		46

Key: ✓ = Canonical; D = Deuterocanonical (Canonical for Catholics, Apocryphal for Protestants)

II. The Reformer’s Toolkit: Humanism, Hebraism, and Sola Scriptura

Luther’s decision to formally subordinate the Apocrypha and question certain New Testament books was not born from theological concerns alone. It was enabled and encouraged by the powerful intellectual currents of his age, which provided him with both the tools and the motivation to re-examine the foundations of Christian faith.

A. Ad Fontes (“To the Sources”): The Renaissance Impact

The driving intellectual force of the Renaissance was the humanist cry of ad fontes, a call to go “to the sources”.²¹ Scholars across Europe grew dissatisfied with relying on centuries of medieval commentaries and Latin translations. They sought to engage directly with the foundational texts of Western civilization—Plato, Cicero, and, most importantly for the Church, the Bible—in their original languages. This movement, championed by figures like Erasmus of Rotterdam, created a scholarly environment where questioning the textual basis of the Latin Vulgate was not only possible but celebrated as a mark of intellectual rigor.²¹ It fostered a new generation of theologians who were skilled in Greek and Hebrew, allowing them to bypass the medieval tradition and form their own judgments based on the original texts.

B. The Primacy of the Hebrew Truth (Hebraica Veritas)

This humanist impulse led to a renaissance in Hebrew studies among Christian scholars. As they gained proficiency in the language of the Old Testament, the arguments of St. Jerome for the Hebraica Veritas gained new force.¹⁵ For reformers like Luther, the linguistic origin of a book became a key criterion for its authority. The fact that the deuterocanonical books were composed primarily in Greek, not Hebrew, and dated from the intertestamental period, was seen as strong evidence that they did not belong to the authentic, prophetic canon of ancient Israel.¹ This argument from antiquity and original language provided a powerful historical justification for separating these books from the Hebrew-based Old Testament.

C. The Foundation of Sola Scriptura: An Urgent Necessity

While humanism provided the tools, the core theological principle of the Reformation provided the urgency. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura—Scripture alone—posited that the Bible, and not popes or church councils, was the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.¹⁹ This principle was the bedrock of Luther’s challenge to practices like the sale of indulgences, which he argued had no basis in Scripture.¹⁴

However, the principle of Sola Scriptura immediately raises a critical question: what is Scripture? If the Bible is to be the ultimate arbiter of truth, then its contents must be defined with absolute clarity. The long-standing ambiguity over the canonicity of the Apocrypha could no longer be tolerated as a mere scholarly debate. It became a foundational crisis. For the Reformation to stand, the canon had to be settled. This necessity transformed the canonical question from a matter of historical inquiry into an urgent theological imperative, compelling Luther to draw a clear line and define the precise boundaries of the authority to which he appealed.

III. The Heart of the Matter: Luther’s Theological Criteria for Canonicity

While Luther employed historical and linguistic arguments drawn from the humanist tradition, his ultimate criterion for judging the books of the Bible was profoundly theological. He was not acting as a dispassionate historian but as a pastor and theologian whose primary concern was the clear proclamation of the Gospel. His approach was functional: the value of any biblical book was determined by its ability to deliver Christ to the sinner. This led him to develop a Christ-centered hermeneutic that served as his primary test for canonicity.

A. The Ultimate Test: Was Christum treibet (“What Promotes Christ”)

At the core of Luther’s theology was the question, “What is Scripture good for?”.²² His answer was that its superlative purpose is

was Christum treibet—a German phrase that can be translated as “what drives,” “preaches,” or “promotes” Christ.²² For Luther, the entire Bible, from Genesis to its final book, had one central theme and purpose: to reveal Jesus Christ and the doctrine of justification by faith alone (

sola fide).²² He famously described the Scriptures as “the swaddling-clothes and the manger in which Christ lies”.²⁵ The value was not in the manger itself, but in the precious treasure, Christ, that it contained.

This principle became his primary lens for evaluating every book. A book’s claim to canonicity and authority rested on its ability to clearly and powerfully present the gospel of grace. Books that did this were the true, authoritative heart of Scripture. Those that did so weakly, or, in his view, obscured this message, were of a lesser, subordinate status. This criterion was fundamentally theological and Christological, not historical. While he used historical arguments to support his case, the ultimate judgment rested on a book’s doctrinal content and its effectiveness in preaching Christ. This explains how he could fully embrace the Old Testament, which never names Jesus, because he saw it as prophetically pointing toward and “promoting” Christ, while simultaneously questioning a New Testament book like James, which he felt obscured Christ’s salvific work.²⁵

B. A “Canon within the Canon”: Distinguishing the “Chief Books”

Applying the was Christum treibet criterion led Luther to develop a hierarchy within the Bible, what scholars have termed a “canon within the canon”.¹⁹ He did not view all books as equally valuable or authoritative.

In his preface to the New Testament, he identified what he called the “true and noblest books,” the very kernel of Scripture. These were the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul (especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians), and the First Epistle of Peter. He praised these works because they “show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book”.²³ These books formed the core of the canon, the standard against which all others were to be measured. This hierarchical approach allowed him to retain books in his Bible while simultaneously expressing severe reservations about their doctrinal weight and apostolic authority.

C. The “Epistle of Straw”: A Case Study in Luther’s Critique of James

Luther’s most famous and controversial application of his canonical criteria was his critique of the Epistle of James. His sharp rhetoric, particularly his description of it as an “epistle of straw,” has often been misinterpreted as a desire to remove it from the Bible entirely.²⁶ In reality, his critique was more nuanced and serves as a perfect case study for his theological method. His objections were threefold.

1. Perceived Contradiction of Sola Fide

Luther’s primary theological struggle was against the doctrine of works-righteousness, the idea that a person could earn salvation through their own deeds. The cornerstone of his Reformation was the rediscovery of justification by grace through faith alone. He saw James 2:24—”You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”—as being in “flat contradiction to St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture”.28 While he acknowledged that harmonizations were possible, he found James’s argument to be a dangerous promotion of works that obscured the pure gospel of grace found in Paul’s writings, particularly Romans 3:28.23

2. Lack of Christ-Centered Gospel

Applying his was Christum treibet test, Luther found James wanting. He argued that the epistle “has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it” because it fails to preach the heart of the Christian message: the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.26 In a moment of hyperbole, he claimed, “It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning”.26 For Luther, a book that promulgated God’s law without clearly proclaiming the gospel of Christ’s work was doctrinally deficient.

3. Doubts about Apostolicity

Luther also raised historical doubts about the epistle’s authorship. He argued that its content seemed to post-date and react against Paul’s teachings, making it unlikely that it was written by an apostle.28 For Luther, “apostolic” was as much a qualitative term as a historical one; it meant “whatever preaches Christ”.23 Since he believed James failed this test, he concluded it could not be of true apostolic origin.

Despite this harsh criticism and his infamous off-the-cuff remark that he might “feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove” ²⁸, it is crucial to note that Luther never actually removed James from his Bible. He included it in every edition of his translation. He even praised it elsewhere as a “good book” because it “vigorously promulgates the law of God”.²³ His “epistle of straw” comment was comparative; James was straw

compared to the gold of Romans and John, useful for structure but not for the foundation of faith.²⁸

D. Applying the Standard: Reservations about other Books

Luther applied this same rigorous, Christ-centered standard to other parts of the Bible, which informed his decision to re-categorize both the Old Testament Apocrypha and other New Testament books.

The Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha

These books failed Luther’s test on multiple grounds. First, their absence from the Hebrew canon suggested a non-prophetic origin.18 Second, he found that they did not “promote Christ.” Third, and perhaps most decisively, they contained passages that were used to support doctrines he vehemently rejected. For instance, 2 Maccabees 12:42-45, which describes a prayer and sacrifice for the dead, was a key proof-text for the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and the sale of indulgences.14 Similarly, Tobit 12:9 (“alms delivers from death”) was used to support justification by works.32 These doctrinal conflicts, combined with their disputed historical status, sealed his decision to subordinate them.

The New Testament Antilegomena

Luther’s critical eye fell on other New Testament books that had been disputed in the early Church (known as the Antilegomena, or “spoken against”). He placed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation at the end of his New Testament because of his reservations.23 He questioned Hebrews for its difficult passage on the impossibility of a second repentance for apostates (Hebrews 6:4-6). He was critical of Jude for its apparent citation of non-canonical works like the Book of Enoch. He found the Book of Revelation to be hopelessly obscure, arguing that “Christ is neither taught nor known in it” and that its prophetic visions were beyond certain interpretation.23 In all these cases, his judgment was based on a book’s perceived doctrinal clarity and its utility in preaching the gospel of justification by faith.

IV. The Luther Bible of 1534: A New Order for the Sacred Library

Luther’s theological and historical judgments were not confined to academic treatises. They took concrete, physical form in his monumental translation of the Bible into German, completed in 1534.²¹ This work was not merely a translation; it was a revolutionary restructuring of the biblical collection that would define the Protestant canon for centuries to come. Its influence was magnified exponentially by the power of the printing press, which disseminated this new biblical structure on an unprecedented scale.²¹

A. The Creation of the “Apocrypha” Section

The most significant structural innovation in the Luther Bible was the treatment of the deuterocanonical books. Following the precedent of Jerome, but making it a standard feature of a vernacular Bible, Luther removed these books from their traditional places within the Old Testament narrative (where they are found integrated in the Septuagint and the Vulgate). He gathered them together and placed them in a separate, self-contained section located between the Old and New Testaments.²

He titled this new section “Apocrypha,” decisively adopting Jerome’s critical term and popularizing it for a mass audience.² This physical segregation was a powerful visual and structural statement. It instantly communicated to the reader that these books were different from and subordinate to the canonical scriptures of the Old Testament that preceded them. This act of re-categorization, more than any other, is what is often misconstrued as “removal.”

B. The Preface: “Useful and Good to Read”

To eliminate any ambiguity about his intentions, Luther wrote a preface to this new Apocrypha section. In it, he delivered his famous and concise verdict: “Apocrypha: that is, books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read”.²³ This single sentence perfectly encapsulates his nuanced position. They were not divinely inspired Scripture suitable for establishing doctrine (

sola fide could not be based on them). However, they were not to be discarded. They remained part of the biblical tradition, valuable for the wisdom, history, and moral instruction they contained.¹⁸ They were worthy of study, but not of ultimate authority.

C. Reordering the New Testament

Luther’s hierarchical view of the canon was also reflected in his arrangement of the New Testament, first published in 1522. He disrupted the traditional order of the epistles to signal his reservations about the four books he most disputed—the Antilegomena. He moved Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to the very end of his New Testament, placing them after the other epistles and before no other books.² In the table of contents of his early editions, he listed the first 23 books with sequential numbers, but Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were set apart in a separate group without numbers, a clear visual cue of their disputed or secondary status in his mind.²³

D. The Power of Print and Translation

The Luther Bible was a landmark achievement, one of the first complete translations into a modern European language based not only on the Latin Vulgate but also on the original Greek and Hebrew texts.²¹ It was a collaborative effort involving scholars like Philip Melanchthon and was printed by Hans Lufft in Wittenberg.²¹ The work was an immediate success, making the Bible accessible to the common person in their own language as never before. This widespread distribution meant that Luther’s structural decisions—the creation of an intertestamental “Apocrypha” section and the reordering of the New Testament—were not merely his private opinion. They became the standard format for the Protestant Bible in the German-speaking world and profoundly influenced subsequent translations, including the English tradition. He had effectively created the physical form of the Protestant canon.

V. A Line Drawn in Stone: The Council of Trent’s Response

Luther’s re-categorization of the biblical books and the foundational Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura presented a direct and existential challenge to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. By questioning the scope of the canon, the Reformers were simultaneously undermining key Catholic doctrines, such as Purgatory and the efficacy of works like almsgiving, which drew support from the deuterocanonical books.¹⁹ The long-standing ambiguity over the canon, once a matter of tolerable scholarly debate, had become an untenable liability. A definitive, authoritative, and dogmatic response was required. That response came from the Council of Trent.

A. The Decree De Canonicis Scripturis (8 April 1546)

In its Fourth Session, the Council of Trent (1545–1563) issued the landmark decree De Canonicis Scripturis (“On the Canonical Scriptures”).³³ This decree was a direct and polemical answer to the Protestant position.¹⁹ It set out to resolve the canonical question once and for all. The council fathers, after debate, decided to affirm the longer, Augustinian canon that had been endorsed by the regional Councils of Florence, Hippo, and Carthage.¹

The decree provided a specific list of books that were to be considered canonical. This list explicitly included the deuterocanonical works: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and the additions to Daniel and Esther. Crucially, the council made no distinction whatsoever between these books and the books of the Hebrew canon.³³ All were declared to be equally and fully canonical.

B. From “Deuterocanonical” to “Canonical”: Elevation to an Article of Faith

The most significant act of the Council of Trent regarding the canon was its elevation of the list of books to an absolute article of faith.¹⁹ Prior to this moment, no ecumenical council had ever issued such a binding and infallible definition of the Bible’s contents. Trent transformed the canon from a matter of long-standing tradition and scholarly discussion into a non-negotiable dogma. The decree stated that the Church “receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both”.³⁶ By including the deuterocanonicals in this declaration, the council officially closed the Catholic canon and ended the internal debate that had persisted since the time of Jerome.

C. The Anathema: Solidifying the Divide

To leave no room for dissent, the decree concluded with a solemn anathema, a formal curse of excommunication:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” ³³

This anathema made the rejection of the deuterocanonical books a formal heresy. It was no longer possible for a Catholic in good standing, like Cardinal Cajetan had been, to hold Jerome’s view. The line had been drawn in stone. This act created an unbridgeable dogmatic gap between the Catholic and Protestant positions on the nature of Scripture itself.

D. The Authority of the Vulgate

In a subsequent decree from the same session, the Council of Trent also declared that St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation was to be held as the “authentic” edition for use in public readings, disputations, and preaching.³³ While this did not forbid study of the original languages, it granted a unique authoritative status to a specific Latin translation, further distinguishing the Catholic position from the Protestant emphasis on returning to the original Hebrew and Greek texts as the ultimate source.

The actions of the Council of Trent were as much a reaction to Protestantism as they were an affirmation of tradition. While the council endorsed the longer canon that had been used for centuries, the manner of the decree—its dogmatic finality and its attached anathema—was a direct consequence of Luther’s challenge. The ambiguity that the Church could once tolerate had become a threat in the face of the Reformation. Trent’s decision was therefore a powerful act of self-definition, hardening a previously more fluid tradition into immutable dogma in order to create a clear, defensible boundary against the new Protestant movements.

The following table synthesizes the views of the key historical actors, illustrating the long debate that culminated in the opposing decisions of Luther and the Council of Trent.

Table 2: Key Figures and Councils on the Status of Disputed Books

Authority/Figure/Council	Approximate Date	Stance on Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha	Key Rationale / Representative Snippet
Melito of Sardis	c. 170 AD	Excluded. His list, based on the Hebrew canon, omits them.	Traveled to the East to “learn accurately the books of the Old Testament” from the Jews.6
Origen	c. 220 AD	Distinguished. Recognized the 22 books of the Hebrew canon.	Referred to the books of Maccabees as good for reading but not inspired.1
Athanasius	367 AD	Distinguished. His Festal Letter lists the Hebrew canon as primary.	Listed the deuterocanonicals (Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith) separately as books “not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read”.1
St. Jerome	c. 400 AD	Subordinated. Coined the term “Apocrypha.”	“These books the church reads for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine”.3
St. Augustine	c. 400 AD	Included. Argued for the full canonicity of the wider collection.	Based on long-standing and widespread use within the Church (ecclesiastical usage).1
Councils of Carthage	397, 419 AD	Included. Affirmed the wider, Augustinian canon.	Regional councils whose lists were influential but not universally binding.4
Cardinal Cajetan	c. 1518 AD	Subordinated. Followed Jerome’s distinction.	Held that these books were not canonical in the strict sense for confirming articles of faith.1
Martin Luther	1534 AD	Segregated. Placed them in a separate “Apocrypha” section.	“Books which are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read”.23
Council of Trent	1546 AD	Included and Dogmatized. Declared all books fully canonical.	“If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts… let him be anathema”.33

VI. The Legacy of a Divided Canon

The theological and political decisions of the 16th century cast a long shadow, creating a division in the scriptural foundation of Western Christianity that persists to this day. The immediate result was the formalization of two distinct canons, but the long-term legacy involved a further evolution, particularly within Protestantism, that Luther himself did not enact.

A. From Segregation to Omission: The Disappearance of the Apocrypha

It is a common misconception that Protestants immediately began printing Bibles without the Apocrypha. For more than two centuries after the Reformation, the vast majority of Protestant Bibles followed Luther’s model. The original Luther Bible (1534), the Geneva Bible (1560), and even the King James Version (1611) all included the Apocrypha as a separate, intertestamental section.² The preface to the Geneva Bible, for example, explained that while these books were not to be used “to prove any point of Christian religion,” they were valuable for historical knowledge and instruction.²

The final step of complete omission was largely a product of the 19th century. The impetus came not from a new theological movement but from the pragmatism of Bible Societies. Organizations like the British and Foreign Bible Society, founded in 1804 with the mission to distribute Bibles widely, faced pressure to produce volumes as inexpensively as possible. In the 1820s, after contentious debate, the society adopted a policy of printing Bibles without the Apocrypha to reduce costs, size, and weight, making them easier to print and distribute globally.¹ This practical, economic decision, more than any single theological decree, is what led to the widespread absence of the Apocrypha from the Bibles used by most English-speaking Protestants today.

B. The Enduring Divide: Modern Catholic and Protestant Bibles

The direct consequence of this long and complex history is the tangible difference one finds on the contents page of modern Bibles. The Roman Catholic Bible contains 73 books. The deuterocanonical books are fully integrated into the Old Testament, in the order established by the Septuagint tradition, and are considered inspired Scripture on par with Genesis or Isaiah. The standard Protestant Bible contains 66 books, following the shorter Hebrew canon for the Old Testament and typically omitting the Apocrypha entirely. This difference is not merely a matter of page count; it is the living legacy of a 1,500-year debate that reached its crisis point in the Reformation and was solidified by theological decree and, ultimately, the economics of the printing press.

Conclusion: Recapitulation of a Complex Legacy

In conclusion, the assertion that Martin Luther “removed” books from the Bible is an oversimplification of a deeply historical and theological process. He did not act in a vacuum or out of personal whim. Rather, he inherited a Christian tradition in which the precise boundaries of the Old Testament canon had remained a subject of scholarly debate for over a thousand years. Armed with the humanist tools of his day and driven by the theological urgency of Sola Scriptura, Luther made a decisive choice in a long-standing argument, siding with the Hieronymian tradition that favored the Hebrew canon.

His ultimate criterion was theological: was Christum treibet. He evaluated every book based on its perceived ability to preach Christ and the gospel of justification by faith alone. This led him to subordinate the deuterocanonical books, which he found lacking in this regard and containing doctrines he opposed, by segregating them into a separate “Apocrypha” section in his German Bible. He labeled them as “useful and good to read” but not equal to Holy Scripture. His theological critiques extended even to the New Testament, causing him to reorder the books to reflect his reservations about James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.

Luther’s actions, amplified across Europe by the printing press, forced the Roman Catholic Church to respond. At the Council of Trent, the Church ended centuries of internal debate by dogmatically defining the canon to include the deuterocanonical books, condemning any dissenting view with an anathema. This act solidified a division in the scriptural canon that remains a primary distinction between Catholics and Protestants. The eventual disappearance of the Apocrypha from most Protestant Bibles was a later development, driven more by the pragmatic concerns of 19th-century Bible Societies than by Luther’s original intent. Thus, the different Bibles in the hands of Christians today are a direct result of this complex legacy—a legacy of ancient textual traditions, competing patristic opinions, Renaissance scholarship, and the revolutionary theology of one man who, in seeking to clarify the foundation of faith, forever altered the shape of the Christian Bible.

Works cited

1. How did we get our cannon because every time I engage with a Catholic they make the claim that Luther removed books for the Bible : r/Protestantism – Reddit, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Protestantism/comments/1iy7sbo/how_did_we_get_our_cannon_because_every_time_i/
2. Biblical apocrypha – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
3. The Origins of the Reformation Bible – OUP Blog – Oxford University Press, accessed August 8, 2025, https://blog.oup.com/2018/01/origins-reformation-bible/
4. Biblical canon – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
5. Development of the canon – Theopedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.theopedia.com/development-of-the-canon
6. The Early Church Fathers on the Canon of Scripture – James Attebury – WordPress.com, accessed August 8, 2025, https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2023/07/01/the-early-church-fathers-on-the-canon-of-scripture/
7. The Biblical Canon – The Gospel Coalition, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-canon/
8. Which canon did the Early Church recognize? – Christianity Stack Exchange, accessed August 8, 2025, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80280/which-canon-did-the-early-church-recognize
9. Key Differences Between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible, accessed August 8, 2025, https://uasvbible.org/2024/09/08/key-differences-between-the-septuagint-and-the-hebrew-bible/
10. Canons and Their Development – Saint Mary’s Press, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.smp.org/dynamicmedia/files/7ea1a850fc77f50da7a7816f3753b425/TX001001_1-content-Canons_and_Their_Development.pdf
11. What is the difference between Hebrew Bible and Greek septuagint? – Quora, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Hebrew-Bible-and-Greek-septuagint
12. Early Christian History: Misconceptions — The Reality of the Biblical Canon, accessed August 8, 2025, https://earlychristianhistory.net/canon.html
13. Was There a “Septuagint Canon”? – Logos Bible Software, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.logos.com/grow/was-there-a-septuagint-canon/
14. Pre-Reformation History of the Bible – GreatSite.com, accessed August 8, 2025, https://greatsite.com/the-pre-reformation-history-of-the-bible-from-1400-bc-to-1400-ad/
15. Why doesn’t the Catholic Bible include all books from Septuagint?, accessed August 8, 2025, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3190/why-doesnt-the-catholic-bible-include-all-books-from-septuagint
16. When was the Biblical canon formalised? – Christianity Stack Exchange, accessed August 8, 2025, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/27555/when-was-the-biblical-canon-formalised
17. No, Jerome Didn’t Accept a Larger Canon – YouTube, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHUeTZjeuQ
18. Luther and the Apocrypha : r/LCMS – Reddit, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/qc2hpo/luther_and_the_apocrypha/
19. Scripture and Traditions at the Council of Trent (Chapter 4) – Cambridge University Press, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-the-council-of-trent/scripture-and-traditions-at-the-council-of-trent/5EEE2AB4834AD8D3A872342A59AA6A7F
20. How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
21. Luther Bible – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
22. “You Shall Bear Witness to Me”: Thinking with Luther About Christ and the Scriptures, accessed August 8, 2025, https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=faculty_articles
23. Luther’s canon – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon
24. Chapter 5 The Murderous God of Genesis 22 (the Akedah) in Three, accessed August 8, 2025, https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004434684/BP000015.xml?language=zh
25. Luther’s Preface to the Old Testament from his German Bible | De Profundis Clamavi ad Te, Domine, accessed August 8, 2025, https://deprofundisclamaviadtedomine.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/luthers-preface-to-the-old-testament-from-his-german-bible/
26. Did Martin Luther Really Want James Taken Out of the Bible? – Zondervan Academic, accessed August 8, 2025, https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/martin-luther-james-bible
27. www.thegospelcoalition.org, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-epistle-of-straw-reflections-on-luther-and-the-epistle-of-james/#:~:text=Martin%20Luther%20famously%20called%20James,according%20to%20his%20individual%20opinion.
28. The “Epistle of Straw”: Reflections on Luther and the Epistle of James – The Gospel Coalition, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-epistle-of-straw-reflections-on-luther-and-the-epistle-of-james/
29. Martin Luther and the Book of James: Faith and Works – Spiritual Transformation, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.livestransforming.com/martin-luther-and-the-book-of-james/
30. Chasing Down the Luther Quotes about James – Taylor Marshall, accessed August 8, 2025, https://taylormarshall.com/2006/02/chasing-down-luther-quotes-about-james.html
31. Why did Martin Luther famously consider James an “epistle of straw,” criticizing it as disputed scripture unworthy of canon? : r/Lutheranism – Reddit, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Lutheranism/comments/1eq0g8p/why_did_martin_luther_famously_consider_james_an/
32. What the Early Church Believed: Old Testament Canon | Catholic Answers Tract, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-old-testament-canon
33. Canon of Trent – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Trent
34. General Council of Trent: Fourth Session – Papal Encyclicals, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fourth-session.htm
35. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent – Bible Research, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
36. Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures | EWTN, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/decree-concerning-the-canonical-scriptures-1494
37. Development of the New Testament canon – Wikipedia, accessed August 8, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
38. Early Church Fathers: Canon of Scripture | Dr. Pat’s Orthodox Super Sunday School Curriculum, accessed August 8, 2025, https://orthodoxsundayschool.org/church-history/middle-school/early-church-fathers-canon-scripture