A friend of mine was explaining to me how the Lutheran Bible recognizes more books in “the New Testament” than, say, the Kings James version. If I understood him correctly, he says the additional books come from the (formerly lost) Dead Sea scrolls. I believe he called the collection of additional writings the Acry- or Acro-something or other? (What word is this?)
If these additional writings come from the Dead Sea scrolls, then I am confused. Weren’t the Dead Sea scrolls only recently translated? (Maybe 20 years ago, tops?)
There isn’t any particular “Lutheran Bible”. Most use the same English versions that other Protestants use (like the King James), and largely do not include the Apocrypha (the term you’re looking for). Most Catholic churches that I’m aware of do use versions that include the Apocrypha.
So either your friend was mistaken, or your friend was referring to the Luther Bible, which is the common name given to the version translated by Martin Luther. This does include the Apocrypha, at least mostly. Luther included them after the other books, and did not number them, since he felt they were less important. Of note, he did this to some of the New Testament books as well. Also, there were a few different versions published, and I think some of them may have been marked differently.
Another possiblity - if your friend was German - the Luther Bible has about the same respect in German linguistically and religiously as the King James Bible in English, so there probably are or were some Lutherans using it as their primary Bible.
edit : If the wikipedia Apocrypha article is to be believed, Luther must not have needed to translate, since the Bible was apparently written in German. :dubious:
The words are related, of course (Lutheran = follower of Luther, in some sense). Since Luther was primarily aiming for reform, not schism, he wasn’t writing a Bible specifically for a group. In fact, he would probably hate the term Lutheran. Lutherans tended to follow his ideas, and since he considered the Apocrypha non-scriptural, they use the same Bibles most other Protestants use.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, they included some of the earliest versions of some of the books in the Apocrypha, along with other Jewish writings. They also included portions of the Tanakh (the ‘original’ Hebrew Bible — i.e., the same books used for the Protestant Old Testament). Here’s some more information.
More on Luther’s Bible - the 1535 version section containing the Apocrypha says :
(“Books that are not to be considered equal with the Holy Scriptures, but nevertheless are useful and good to read.”)
The books he included in that section are :
Judith
Jesus Syrach (Ecclesiasticus)
Tobias
Baruch
Maccabees (probably this is 1 & 2)
Fragments of Esther
Fragments of Daniel
The books he separated out in the New Testament ( Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) do not have the same disclaimer separating them (though there may be something in the notes about them).
There are also a few psalms that are either apocryphal or in different positions in various Bibles, but I forget which ones.
‘Lutheran’ in English refers to the Protestant group (and the modern denomination) that formed around Luther during the Reformation. The ideas are primarily based on Luther’s writings, but are not necessarily the same. The term Lutheran generally is not used as an adjective for ‘pertaining to Martin Luther’ to avoid confusion. Hence the slightly awkward “Luther Bible” (following the German form).
Well, there is a similarity between the two. Both set the standard for their language. The language, phrasing, grammar, and vocabulary of Luther’s Bible was ,or became, the standard German of the 16th Century just as the King James Bible was written in and became the standard English of the early 17th Century (think Shakespear). Modern “correct” German owes a lot to the form of German spoken in Saxon universities during Luther’s heyday and spread across Northern Germany by his Bible. Modern “correct” English likewise is derivative of academic English of the Midlands. It wasn’t the English spoken by James I of England and VI of Scotland – he spoke a broad Scotts dialect that was nearly unintelligible by his court officers and servants, but then he was a Lowland Scot so what would expect?
That rather depends on the particular version of the ‘King James Version’. Until the nineteenth century, most editions of the KJV did include the Apocrypha, reflecting the non-canonical-but-interesting status accorded to them in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles.
