J
Janet_S
Guest
Luther questioned the canonicity of the entire book of Esther–both its Hebrew and Greek parts. He never took it out of his OT canon, though.2.) I don’t think there was any debate around the canonocity of books such as Esther and the Song of Songs. Note that this isn’t a statement of a fact and I am open to correction on this if I am wrong.
There was debate about the canonicity of the book of Esther among members of the Church. Some of the early Christians–Melito (AD 180), Athanasius (AD, and Junilius (6th century)–excluded Esther from their canonical lists. The Catholic Encyclopedia, though, states that these omissions were accidental and unimportant:
This is another article about the OT canon from a Greek Orthodox perspective.The Book of Esther, thus taken in part from the Hebrew Canon and in part from the Septuagint, found a place in the Christian Canon of the Old Testament. The chapters taken from the Septuagint were considered deuterocanonical, and, after St. Jerome, were separated from the ten chapters taken from the Hebrew which were called protocanonical. A great many of the early Fathers clearly considered the entire work as inspired, although no one among them found it to his purpose to write a commentary on it. Its omission in some of the early catalogues of the Scriptures was accidental or unimportant. The first to reject the book was Luther, who declared that he so hated it that he wished that it did not exist (Table Talk, 59). His first followers wished only to reject the deuterocanonical parts, whereupon these, as well as other deuterocanonical parts of the Scriptures, were declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. IV, de Can. Scripturæ) to be canonical and inspired. With the rise of rationalism the opinion of Luther found many supporters. When modern rationalists argue that the Book of Esther is irreligious in character, unlike the other books of the Old Testament, and therefore to be rejected, they have in mind only the first or protocanonical part, not the entire book, which is manifestly religious. But, although the first part is not explicitly religious, it contains nothing unworthy of a place in the Sacred Scriptures. And any way, as Driver points out (Introduc. to the Lit. of the Testament), there is no reason why every part of the Biblical record should show the “same degree of subordination of human interests to the spirit of God”.
users.auth.gr/~mkon/S065.doc
According to this article, Athanasius lists Esther as non-canonical.
Of course, you’re probably aware the Catholic canon of Scripture contains more chapters to the book of Esther than the Protestant canon. We include both the Greek and Hebrew chapters; Protestants include only the Hebrew.