CPH — Fall Bible Sale

This in from CPH .. get orders in from your congregations through Sept 30th and get free shipping as well!

 

BIG FALL BIBLE SALE STARTS TODAY!!! Do not miss this. We are offering ten of our most popular Bibles at savings up to 35%, and for orders of ten or more Bibles, you, and/or your congregation will receive FREE shipping/handling, etc. The offer is good through September 30.

Please visit this web site to see all the Bibles on sale.

About Norm Fisher

Norm was raised in the UCC in Connecticut, and like many fell away from the church after high school. With this background he saw it primarily as a service organization. On the miracle of his first child he came back to the church. On moving to Texas a few years later he found a home in Lutheranism when he was invited to a confessional church a half-hour away by our new neighbors.

He is one of those people who found a like mind in computers while in Middle School and has been programming ever since. He's responsible for many websites, including the Book of Concord, LCMSsermons.com, and several other sites.

He has served the church in various positions, including financial secretary, sunday school teacher, elder, PTF board member, and choir member.

More of his work can be found at KNFA.net.

Comments

CPH — Fall Bible Sale — 44 Comments

  1. And…the Apocrypha: Lutheran Study Edition is now available for pre-order. I’ve reviewed the entire manuscript and … wow, it is fantastic.

    Thanks for mentioning our Fall Bible Sale, Norm.

  2. Martin Luther had 3 favorite books in the Apocrypha.
    1 Maccabees, Baruch, and Wisdom of Solomon
    This fact is related in one of the volumes of Luther’s
    Works. I am not sure, perhaps it is Volume 35.

  3. I wish they carried an updated edition of the Deluxe Reference Bible – Concordia edition in genuine leather. With apocrypha even. I just won’t bring the Study Bible to church, as much as I love it, and I can’t stand (or read) 6.5 font micro-Bibles. I know this sounds somewhat finicky in an era of unprecedented abundance in print editions of scripture, but I think a book of such importance is worth investing in more quality formats. Paperback is better than nothing, but the book deserves to be printed on gold plates with diamond imprinting. I’d like to see CPH offer something to rival Cambridge University Press. That would stand out from evangelical publishers.

  4. Thanks for your thoughts, Miquel.

    A Bible produced on gold plates with diamond imprinting would certain be impressive!

    At this point, our focus is on offering as many possible editions of The Lutheran Study Bible to reach as many people as possible, with a price range that has, at the high end, leather bound editions, to the lower end hardback editions, as well as several digital formats. And this is all in addition to the wide range of other Bible resources we produce, focussing on providing an age appropriate format and edition from early childhood to adults.

  5. The advantage of owning the large print LSB
    in hardback……It weighs 5 pounds and makes
    your arms stronger as you carry it around.
    It builds up your faith as well as your body.
    No need to pump iron at your local Gold’s
    Gym. Save money and buy the large print
    LSB in hardback.

  6. Biblical and Scriptural, not canonical, in the sense of being equal to the books universally accepted by the Church. The Apocrypha was in every Lutheran Bible until the Lutheran Church around the time of WWI abandoned German, and embraced the American version of the KJV which had expunged the Apocrypha do to American Romaphobia, born more of racism against immigrants who came from Roman Catholic countries

    It’s a long and interesting history to track how the Apocrypha went MIA in the English speaking Lutheran Church.

  7. @Rev. Paul T. McCain #9

    I have been led to believe that the KJV was published sans Apocrypha from about 1825 when English Bible societies were printing inexpensive Bibles for the mission fields and omitting the Apocrypha to save a bit on paper and printing costs.
    No?

    That does not excuse a denomination which had the Apocrypha in its Bibles into the 20th century, (in German, of course).

  8. Helen, I’ve not heard that before, not saying it might not be true, just not sure. The American editions of the KJV though were, to my knowledge, never inclusive of the Apocrypha, as far as I can tell, a good part of that being a sort of innate anti-Roman Catholic cultural bias among most of American Protestantism.

    The really interesting thing to try to figure out is how The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod went from simply accepting the Apocrypha as part and parcel of the Luther Bible tradition, including it in all Bibles produced by CPH, in German, well into even the 1960s, and then, how quickly attitudes changed just before, during and decidedly after WWI, to the point that a LCMS pastor in the 1930s told my mother during her confirmation instruction that the Apocrypha were the “devil’s books” and “only Roman Catholics use them.”

    A terribly far cry from Dr. Luther’s attitude about them, as being “good to read” and his work to translate and include them in his translation of the whole Bible, first published in 1534, continuing up to his death and included thereafter in all orthodox Lutheran publishing.

    Luther preached on lessons from the Apocrypha in his sermons, readings from the Apocrypha were routinely included in church year lectionaries, well into the 17th century, for instance, in Magdeburg. Walther routinely quoted from the Apocrypha, obviously by memory, you see this in his sermons and even in Law and Gospel, etc. He preached on a reading from Tobit as part of weddings sermons, etc.

    The Apocryphal books strongly influenced orthodox Lutheran hymnody, such as “Now Thank We All Our God” which is nearly verbatim in many places from one of the Apocrypha books.

    Goes to show how in only a couple generations such dramatic shifts can occur in church culture.

    It is good we are rescuing the Apocrypha after they have been MIA to English speaking Lutherans for far too long.

  9. Did a bit more poking around, Helen.

    You are correct that in 1825 the British mission societies stopped printing the KJV with the Apocrypha, possible for the reasons you indicate, though, I suspect, there was general malaise over against the Apocrypha combined with some deeply seated cultural anti-Romanism in Britain as well.

    Also learned that in 1661 many printings of the KJV stopped including the Apocrypha, again, in large part due to anti-Romanism.

    But, of course, this was all a moot point for rank and file in The LCMS who were nearly all native, or first generation, German speakers throughout the 19th century, and even into the 20th century.

    Interesting, no?

  10. Rev McCain,

    But don’t the Apocryphal books contain serious problems, such as talking about using magic, as well as containing serious historical error?

  11. What does it say that this CPH thread has the
    fourth highest responses of the twenty threads
    currently posted?

  12. CPH is the engine that drives the LCMS.

    People can blather and bloviate on their
    blogs, but the best resource to study God’s
    Word is the LSB. Amen.

  13. Wow….interesting. Can’t disagree with you about The Lutheran Study Bible. I think it is simply a priceless gem.

    Of course, the Lutheran Service Book is also a wonderful teaching and worship resource!

    : )

  14. @Rev. Paul T. McCain #12: “Also learned that in 1661 many printings of the KJV stopped including the Apocrypha, again, in large part due to anti-Romanism.”

    Well, see! I knew there was probably a good reason behind it.

  15. @Rev. Paul T. McCain #11 : “The Apocryphal books strongly influenced orthodox Lutheran hymnody, such as “Now Thank We All Our God” which is nearly verbatim in many places from one of the Apocrypha books.”

    Oh?!? Let’s look and see. Of the 668 hymns in The Lutheran Hymnal (CPH:St. Louis, 1941), The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal (W. G. Polack, CPH:St. Louis, 1942, p. 610) lists only two hymns (36 and 581) with references from the Apocrypha, although not to those parts of the Apocrypha containing errors in doctrine and history.

    Only the hymn, “Now Thank We All Our God,” appears in the LW (443) and the LSB (895). The two TLH hymns refer to:

    Ecclesiasticus 39, v. 35: “And therefore praise ye the Lord with the whole heart and mouth, and bless the name of the Lord.”

    Ecclesiasticus 50, vs. 22-24: “Now therefore bless ye the God of all, which only doeth wondrous things every where, which exalteth our days from the womb, and dealeth with us according to his mercy. He grant us joyfulness of heart, and that peace may be in our days in Israel for ever: That he would confirm his mercy with us, and deliver us at his time!”

    One could likely find very similar words in Scripture talking about praising the Lord, blessing His name, His dealing with us in mercy, and granting us joyfulness of heart.

    There are three other TLH hymns with non-Scriptural references: 251, 252, 253; they are based on the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed.

  16. @J. Dean #13 : “But don’t the Apocryphal books contain serious problems, such as talking about using magic, as well as containing serious historical error?”

    No need, J. Dean, for anyone to (claim to) “guess” whether the Apocrypha is inerrant in doctrine and history… or have to buy a book to find out. The Apocrypha has plenty of errors; it is not Holy Scripture, or the Bible.

    In fact the publisher of CPH puts out a study guide, “Life’s Big Questions, God’s Big Answers,” which clearly states, “The Bible is without contradiction or error” and regarding the Apocrypha, “The source and authorship of these books are in question. Their content is inconsistent.”

    For some errors, here are a few places to start: Baruch 3:4; Judith 1:1,7; 2 Maccabees 12:41-45; Tobit 1:3-5; Tobit 12:9; Tobit 14:1,2; Wisdom 8:19,20; Wisdom 11:17.

    If you are going to read the Apocrypha, you’ll need a bottle of whiteout for making corrections.

  17. And, like clockwork, there goes Richard Strickert…..

    He demonstrates, once again, that he is more interested in preserving 1930/1940s era Missouriana than the consensus of the Lutheran Church.

    Rick is one of those persons who is often wrong, but never in doubt.

    He considers himself quite the armchair theologian.

    Apparently, he is more aware and knowledgeable about these issues than Martin Luther, Martin Chemnitz, Johann Gerhard, and all the other orthodox pastors and theologians of the 15-20th centuries, including, of course, C.F.W. Walther.

    I think he should stick to his vocation and stop speaking about things he knows so little about.

  18. Paul, I have provided factual information in response to claims or questions about the Apocrypha. If you have something relevant to that information, please state it.

    Your ad hominem blather just doesn’t cut it.

  19. The point is, Rick, you keep posting comments like the ones above, that I doubt anyone disagrees with, I certainly do not. You seem bound and determined to remain oblivious to the fact that the Apocrypha was part and parcel of every Lutheran pastor’s, and layman’s, Bible reading and faith-life throughout the vast majority of Lutheran history, from the 1534 Luther Bible to present day.

    These are good books to read, and benefit the Christian. Our Lutheran fathers considered them to be a natural part of the Bible, not on the same level of authority as the canonical Scriptures, but certainly understood to be both “Biblical” and “Scriptural” as Luther and our others fathers often referred to them.

    Until The LCMS ran quickly away from the German language around the time of WWI and rapidly so since then. The attitude of LCMS pastors toward the Apocrypha as reflected in my mother’s confirmation pastor’s remarks indicates just how quickly and far LCMS attitudes slipped away from orthodox Lutheran understandings re. the Apocrypha.

    This is to be pitied, not celebrated, or considered healthy.

    Fortunately, the solution is coming:

    The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes.

  20. Congratulations to Rev. Paul T. McCain for setting
    a new record for most posts in a Steadfast Lutherans
    thread with 13. When you realize there were only
    28 total posts, this is an amazing feat. Almost a
    50 percent ranking in one thread. But records are
    made to be broken. If anyone can do it, it is
    Mr. CPH. Again, Congratulations.

  21. Not sure what your comment is trying to contribute to this discussion, Ted.

    Here’s a pretty good explanation of the “now you see it, now you don’t” nature of the Apocrypha in the KJV, from an interesting article I found.

    Those who viewed the “Apocrypha” as somehow being the last vestige of “popery” pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the “Apocrypha”) as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther’s Bible – with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The “Apocrypha” remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the “bigger” Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the “Apocrypha.” The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800’s enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the “Apocrypha” was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

    It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the “Apocrypha.” It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the “Apocrypha” appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the “Apocrypha” until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

    “These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

    What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called “Apocrypha” and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther’s gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an “Apocrypha” appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

  22. Attention John Rixe……Please help me.
    On this current thread Rev. McCain has 14 posts
    out of 32 total posts. You could do me a favor
    and decipher your reference and see if there
    is someone who is close to 50 percent of the
    total posts. Thank you in advance.

  23. @Rev. Paul T. McCain #27: “The point is, Rick, you keep posting comments like the ones above, that I doubt anyone disagrees with, I certainly do not.”

    Several years ago, on another Lutheran blog with which you’re familiar, the Rev. Dr. Holger Sonntag warned:

    “Do we need the apocrypha to double up on the law? What signal does that send? You wonder why Rick Warren hasn’t discovered the five laws of life in the apocrypha…”

    “In other words, people already believe that they’re saved by loving their neighbor. What does the promotion of the apocrypha do to remedy that situation? Remember: Luther never ‘promoted’ the apocrypha in the way he ‘promoted’ the gospel of life in Christ. He simply worked with what was there and interpreted it according to the gospel.”

    Dr. Sonntag followed up in another post by stating, in part:

    “We need to instruct laypeople (and pastors!) in what is essential and familiar; we don’t need to distract them by what is exotic and novel — they do that by themselves already as the good old sinners we are (Acts 17:21). Daily meditation on the catechism, not on the apocrypha (or the Eastern fathers) — that was Luther’s advice for an ignorant church in his day. Let’s heed it, otherwise we fall into just another form of running after the next big / ancient thing — a vice whose mirror image we readily spurn when we see it in the contemporary crowd.”

    “Let’s instead spend ourselves on the promotion of genuine Lutheranism and the true, Lutheran understanding of God’s word. And, as said before, I doubt that the apocrypha are essential to this understanding.”

    A year ago Dr. Sonntag posted five more cogent comments on the hyped BJS thread, “Coming from CPH — The Apocrypha: Lutheran Edition with Notes – A Tantalizing Tidbit of the Feast to Come.” You attacked him, too, with similar unsubstantiated ad hominems. Paul, your trail of burnt roasts continues.

  24. “Congratulations to Rev. Paul T. McCain for setting
    a new record for most posts in a Steadfast Lutherans
    thread with 13.”

    Help me. Do these words mean the the “most posts” or the biggest percentage?

    – Fussbudget Accountant 🙂

  25. John Rixe, I am looking at the biggest
    percentage. This would be more of an
    achievement than most posts. Thanks.

  26. @John Rixe #35
    “the unbelievable percentage of 100”

    “Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.'”
    – Mark Twain’s Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

  27. @Rev. Paul T. McCain #30
    “Not sure what your comment is trying to contribute”

    I was just injecting a little humor, trying to defuse the tension by coining a sniglet: Romophobe. Objections to the works-righteousness taught by the bishop of Rome (and the Apocrypha?) could be dismissed as ridiculous fear (Romophobia) — the same way objections to homosexuality are summarily dismissed as homophobia.

    My second favorite sniglet: “Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.”
    ttp://www.alphadictionary.com/fun/sniglets.html

    My all-time favorite: [WARNING: Do not click here if you are offended by barnyard language.] http://musings.elisair.com/2011/sniglet-of-the-day-april-26/

  28. Rick, thanks for confirming, once again, that you are willing to place 1920s era LCMS practice above that of the historic Lutheran Church. Predictable, but always good to having it confirmed by your own words.

  29. In contrast to Paul’s cyberblather, here are some clear statements about the Apocrypha from Dr. Sonntag’s posts in last year’s BJS thread:

    “In all the heated apologetics in favor of the CPH edition, it seems to get lost easily that Luther called the gospel of John, Galatians, etc. — NOT: Sirach, etc — the main books of the entire bible because there the gospel of salvation in Christ was proclaimed most clearly. And Lutherans, even / especially today, should be about clarity, esp. when it comes to the saving gospel.”

    “According to Luther’s appreciation for the Hebrew canon of the OT — which excludes all the apocrypha — and for the canonical NT scriptures, we can’t base any doctrines on apocryphal / antilegomena texts alone anyway.”

    “That also seems a notion that’s easily lost when we’re advocating even the homiletical use of the apocrypha. What do we get from them that we don’t get more abundantly from the canon as it is?”

    “Because their Catholic opponents worked also with the Apocrypha — which the Catholics to this day consider part of the OT canon — to defeat Lutheran arguments, Lutheran theologians defensively had to engage these writings in terms of both classifying them properly in relation to canonical scripture and interpreting them properly in accordance with the analogy of faith established from the canonical scriptures alone. For, as Luther put it, only God’s biblical Word may establish articles of faith — not pious writings, dreams, etc.”

    “However, they [the Apocrypha] are practically treated by Lutheran theologians according to Luther’s rule for interpreting the church fathers: if they can be interpreted to agree reasonably with canonical scripture, one may use them; if they cannot be interpreted and reconciled in such a way, Christians are forced to disregard them. After all, at best, they are the pious writings of good men, no more “inspired” by the Spirit than a good writing of Augustine or Luther.”

    “Given today’s level of Christian education / formation in our parishes we don’t need more allegorical-flowery texts to preach on, esp. when they are not even in the bible (the three year lectionary already provides its share of flowers). We need the clearest texts possible that we can find so as to being able to instruct our people with clarity in faith and love, in the doctrines set forth in the catechism.”

  30. Rick, Holger Sonntag is certainly welcome to his opinion, but his private views do not, in any way, trump the majority view of our Lutheran fathers from the Reformation until 1920s era Missouriana. You are simply again trying to push forward the notion that the foibles of the Missouri Synod in the twenties are somehow determinative or normative for sound Lutheran doctrine and practice as compared to the consensus of our Lutheran fathers from the earliest days of the Reformation.

    I wonder why that is?

    Very odd.

  31. Paul, your comments in #40 and #42 are childish, fallacious, and off-topic.

    My posts #23 and #24 addressed a specific claim or question about the Apocrypha book promoted by CPH on this thread. My post #22 favored a historical point about the Apocrypha you yourself admitted in #12.

    My posts #33 and #41 presented excerpts from BJS and your own blog by a LCMS theologian similarly concerning the Apocrypha. All of these posts and excerpts are in agreement with your own statement in #27:

    “The point is, Rick, you keep posting comments like the ones above, that I doubt anyone disagrees with, I certainly do not.”

  32. Rick, no, in fact my comments are right on target. You keep insisting on ignoring the orthodox Lutheran use of the Apocrypha to present day, and ignoring the fact that it was only in post-WWI Missouri practice that it was allowed to fall by the wayside. Of course, it was still there. TLH even includes a canticle from the Apocrypha.

    Why are you so determined to insist that the decline in Missouri Synod appreciation of the Apocrypha, once it moved into English, is somehow normative for good Lutheran practice?

    In so doing, you are insisting that Luther and all the orthodox Lutheran fathers, including Walther, Pieper and all early Missouri Synod theologians were wrong, ill informed and otherwise not serving the church well.

    Very odd, indeed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.