LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

68 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW IX
this sort of thing brought to our attention in John 11:49-51; 18:34
(Caiaphas).
But, what about Luther’s definition of apostolicity He appears to be
saying that, in a pinch, the definition of apostolicity need not include origin
from an apostle, provided it complies with the other criterion of bearing
witness to Christ. The fact is that the definition of apostolicity does vary, or
develop, in the New Testament. The definition of apostolicity in Acts 1 does
not fit St Paul in all respects (“going in and out among us”), yet his genuine
apostolicity is affirmed in Galatians 1:1, 11-12. Later, the definition of
apostolicity was widened, to include Barnabas (I Corinthians 9:5-6), and
Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7).
The point to be noted, however, is that Luther still adheres to the
practice of the Early Church, in including content as well as origin in the
concept of apostolicity and canonicity. Moreover, he permits others to
disagree with him on his application of this criterion of apostolicity.
13. “PREFACE TO THE EPISTLES OF ST JAMES AND ST JUDE”
This is an appropriate time for a closer consideration of what Luther
actually said in his Preface to the Epistles of St James and St Jude. He
begins by reaffirming the claim that the Letter of James is outside the canon,
on the basis of external, historical evidence: “… this epistle of St. James was
rejected by the ancients”. 48
He then gives several reasons for not considering the letter to be
apostolic, introducing them with the words, “In the first place”, and “In the
second place”. 49 Because of this phrase, “In the first place”, there are some
who would wish to insist that the reason that follows should be regarded as
having priority over the reason given earlier, in the Preface to the Epistle to
the Hebrews. In other words, they want to insist that Luther’s overriding
reason for rejecting James from the canon lay in a consideration of content
of the Epistle, and not in a consideration of the external historical evidence.
There are at least three reasons for rejecting this interpretation as
invalid. In the first place, as noted above, Luther begins this Preface by
reaffirming the earlier verdict on the basis of the external historical
evidence: that the early church had rejected the Epistle of James from the
canon of Scripture. In the second place, the Preface to the Epistle of St
James is not directed to the question of canonicity, as such, but to the
subsidiary question of apostolicity: “I do not regard it as the writing of an
48 AE 35:395.
49 AE 35:396.