LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

56 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW IX
To support Luther’s claim that James was rejected by the ancients, the
editor of AE 35 refers to the following statement of Eusebius:
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 St.
Jude’s. 15
Once again, it is clear that Luther excluded James from the canon on the
basis of external evidence, not on the basis of a private “canon within the
canon”. What he says subsequently is said in justification of the decision of
the ancient church, not of his own conclusion.
Nor does the fact that he calls James “a good book” necessarily imply
that he includes it in the canon, because he said something very similar
concerning the apocryphal books of the Old Testament: “these books are not
held equal to the Scriptures but are useful and good to read”. 16
Furthermore, the Preface to the Epistles of St James and St Jude, in
every printing of Luther’s New Testament from 1522 to 1529, included the
following disclaimer:
Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true
chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including
or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings
in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this
single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture 17
From 1530 onward, this comment was amended as follows:
Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would
not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases,
for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. 18
The significance of the amendment may be debated. It seems to be the
case that, from 1530 onwards, Luther was less insistent about excluding
James from the canon. That seems to follow from his omission of “I will not
have him in my Bible”, coupled with the omission of the word “true”. This
sentence thus could be interpreted by those who wished to retain James
within the canon as a denigration of James, not in relation to the canonical
books as such, but in relation to the most valuable books within the canon.
In other words, while the Preface does not necessarily indicate that Luther
had changed his mind about the canonicity of James, his comment is more
even-handed, for the sake of those who wished to retain James in the canon.
15 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II:xxiii.25; AE 35:395f. n. 47.
16 AE 35:337 n. 1.
17 AE 35: 397 n. 55.
18 AE 35:397 n. 55.