Looking for Lost Books...

This week I want to address something that has weighed on my mind for a long time.  When Martin Luther kick started the Reformation, what became the Protestant church (which included those that followed Luther, called Lutherans) removed 9 books from biblical cannon, because they claimed they weren’t cannon.  Well, 7 or 9, depending on who you’re asking.

So the books that came under question were Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Baruch, the Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees 1 and 2, the Prayer of Manasseh, and some chapters of Esther and Daniel.

Incidentally the confused numbering is “Do you count Maccabees 1 AND 2 or just Maccabees all together, and can you really count editing Esther and Daniel as a “book”?”

My answer is, 1 and 2 are separate books for a reason, and yes, Esther and Daniel count.

The question that bothers me and what brings about today’s discussion is “Why?”

I’m not particularly a fan of historical censorship of any kind, I personally believe we need to have access to it all no matter how good, bad, or ugly it is.  However, as it turns out, these books weren’t censored because of content, but rather timing and a lack of historical data.  When Jesus came to Earth, the tome of scriptures included the books I just listed.  They were cannon at that time.  Then 70 AD came along and the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple due to the large number of Christians popping up.  The Jews then decided to get their house in order and part of that was to determine what was scripture and what wasn’t.  They…THEY were the first ones to edit out the big 9 (or seven if you want) because they questioned whether these specific books were ever written in Hebrew.  When the Catholic Church put together their Bible based on a lot of criteria, they included the books again.

Then Luther came along and since he felt there was no historical data to support these books in the first place, he put them basically as “extra reading, but not required”.

Then this happened:

The Dead Sea scrolls were found and over the last fifty or so years have been translated, validating the existence of several Old Testament books in their original Hebrew…including parts of Tobit and other Sirach.  Over the last few decades, these books have been surfacing in historical data supporting that they were valid the whole time.

So are they pertinent?  Are Protestants and Lutherans really missing anything?

Well yes, and I could go on and on about that, but I’d rather you find out yourself by checking out these lost books.

Now what about the books that were almost lost?

Martin Luther had a very low opinion of the Paul’s letter to Hebrews, the books of James, Jude, and Revelation, all of which he wanted removed but eventually relented to placing in the back of the Bible, placing more focus on what he considered the core text.

So why does this matter to me?  Well, I was born and raised Lutheran, and I know there are those of you reading this who will say “You weren’t born Lutheran, you may have been raised, but you weren’t born Lutheran.”  Which I respond with: The point is I am a cradle Lutheran so I never questioned the Bible as it was presented to me.  There is a big thing in the Protestant church and its practically a battle cry for Lutherans “Sola Scriptura” or “scripture alone”.  That means that you base your faith solely on the Bible and what it says and not based on anyone’s interpretation of that scripture.  I was okay with that for the longest time.  “Bible says it, I believe it, that’s it.”  You’ll hear that in any Bible study, but now I have this problem: How can you talk about what scripture says if you can’t question what scripture says?

Further, how can you believe in “sola scriptura” if you have “inabsolutus scriptura”, incomplete scripture?  That’s the equivalent of saying “I believe you are a person, except for your hand.  Your hand is a chair, or at worst doesn’t exist at all.”

Just something to think about.

 

Thanks for reading.