The Apocrypha including texts like the Book of Sirach is not considered part of the Protestant cannon of scripture, but Martin Luther did suggest the Apocrypha was “profitable and good to read.” The Apocrypha is a collection of works primarily in Greek, and they can help provide historical context for the period between what is identified as Jewish scriptures and the Christian scriptures. They also can help us better understand God and our world.
As they contain teachings that some traditions find unbiblical, they can be challenged. Jewish people of Luther’s time and today have consistently found that they are not the level of scripture. That said, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox world both consider the Apocryphal texts scripture, but they do recognize some different texts as part of those works. So, there’s no fully ecumenical or interfaith consensus. Our Lutheran bibles often include them with explanation (and we do study them in seminary), but I’ve read some Protestant editions began to drop them over time after the Reformation to help make the Bible more affordable. So, they aren’t always well known.
And still, some Evangelicals and others – like Pat Robertson who I saw once denounce them as dangerous – have had no use for them. It’s a minority voice among worldwide Christianity, and I have suggested that if such people don’t want you to risk reading the Apocryphal texts, then perhaps they should offer the same counsel about their own writings available for purchase. For, those aren’t scripture either.
I stand with Luther. There’s no consensus among Jewish traditions nor Christian ones regarding them. That gives me pause to consider them scripture. Yet, they are profitable and good to read, for historical insights or wisdom including this saying by Sirach about friends (Sirach 6:14-17):
14 A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter: he that has found one has found a treasure. 15 There is nothing so precious as a faithful friend, and no scales can measure his excellence. 16 A faithful friend is an elixir of life; and those who fear the Lord will find him. 17 Whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship aright, for as he is, so is his neighbor also.
Through chapter 6, he argues, “True friends are discerned not by prosperity (v. 11), but through the trials of adversity: distress, quarrels (v. 9), sorrow (v. 10) and misfortune (v. 12) (USCCB Daily Readings, 2025).
The Book of Sirach which was written in Hebrew remains the oldest example of such wisdom literature. It is absolutely applicable to modern times as it addresses friendship. Similar to Proverbs or Ecclesiastes, it offers helpful sayings about ethics written by Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira (Ben Sira), a Hellenistic Jewish scribe of the Second Temple period, yet it also can inspire or encourage.
Friends prove a treasure as other scriptural texts and my own life suggest. Friends helped me reconnect to the Church and lift me up after traumas in my past. Friends helped identify my call as a pastor, and they have concretely and through prayer supported my work. Friends helped me as I grieved the death of loved ones, faced cancer, or experienced past jobless periods in my life. In many ways, I discover Gospel truth and holy wisdom through them, not of the level of scripture but true nonetheless.
Friends, new and old, I covet your prayers always, and give thanks for you as I pray. Peace+ and love be with you this day and always. Yet if you ever find yourself doubting or afraid, if you ever feel like giving up, remember your trusted friends. For Christ is waiting in their hearts ready to help and embrace you.
Recently in a Bible study, we examined Luke 4:21-30. A participant asked why this account of Jesus being rejected by his hometown neighbors differed from other Gospels – particularly the threat to push him over the side of a cliff. Where were his disciples?
In following up with that question, I used a book called “Synopsis of the Four Gospels” (K. Arland, Ed., 1985) which tries to line the stories up as they parallel. In doing so, you find some of the stories are seemingly out of sync chronologically or even in detail. For example, Jesus chasing the money changers out of the Temple courts happens very early in John (the start of Jesus’ ministry). In the other Gospels, it happens during Holy Week (at the end of Jesus’ ministry).
Why do they differ? Scholars wrestle with this as do everyday believers. Some suggest that these versions were inherited oral stories from the source before being written down. So, errors occurred. Others argue that the named persons wrote them, but they tell the story as they remember or in a way that makes the story flow. (Minds do play tricks on people when it comes to memories.) Still, others attribute it to who wrote them and when they were written. Not all the Gospel writers knew Jesus or walked with him.
The Gospels were likely written in this order: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The Gospel of Mark is thought to be written by a companion of Paul named John Mark or Marcus. Matthew’s Gospel was traditionally attributed to the Apostle. Some suggest there might have been an earlier edition lost to us in Aramaic. Luke was another companion of Paul, a doctor from Asia minor with Greek heritage. He also wrote the Book of Acts, and some scholars like to consider it as Luke-Acts, a kind of continuing story. John is commonly believed to be written by the Apostle. Tradition states that he cared for Mary, the Mother of God, after Christ’s death. Other texts are also attributed to him.
When you look at a parallel synopsis of the four Gospels, one thing becomes clear. The stories paralel in many places, but there are many differences as well – some important, some less so. In the case of Luke 4:21-30, they are synced in my resource with Matthew 13:53-58, Mark 6:1-6a, and John 7:15, 6:42, and 4:44. In Luke, the incident happens before the call of the disciples. In Matthew, Mark and John, an incredibly similar incident (or wording) happened after the call of the disciples.
The Gospel writers are indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they aren’t puppets or zombies of the Holy Spirit. Like anyone else including your pastor, the testimony of the Gospel was transmitted through a human lens and can come out differently as best as one understands the stirring of the Spirit or within the limitations of the human mind and vocabulary. As I have argued before, it is like multiple witnesses in a court case. They might all tell the story differently, but they aren’t necessarily lying. In evaluating all the stories together, one might come closer to the truth of things.
With any such discrepancy, there is the possibility that a similar incident happened more than once, but with what we have, we cannot definitively know that. Some early Christians wanted to harmonize the stories similar to the way modern movies might, but as these texts were deemed sacred and inspired, the early Church rejected this. For two thousand years, the texts, apart from the unintentional errors of scribes, have not been changed. People went to great effort to copy them exactly. Most often, multiple versions of manuscripts written over years if not centuries apart coincide with little variation, but in some cases, as with the ending of Mark, earlier manuscripts differ significantly from later ones. Bible editors often highlight these differences with brackets or footnotes perhaps saying, “other ancient sources indicate (insert the difference).”
Amidst such differences, we accept them as they are, and we have to deal with the very real inconsistencies through faith and scholarship. In this coming Sunday’s Gospel passage, perhaps it is a different but similar incident or Luke inherited the story from Paul but erred in the chronology of it. We just cannot know. For those that argue such inconcitencies indicate the Bible is false, I think it important to recognize how liars normally behave. Conspirators often try to “get the story straight.” Here, the Christian community refused to do so fully aware of textual tensions and disagreements. Perhaps this actually is an argument for their veracity!
An error on the part of an Evangelist might seem heresy to a fundamentalist needing every word, phrase, and sentence to be true in isolation. Yet in our Lutheran tradition, I think we take a better approach – one Martin Luther introduced and popularized in the 1500s. We seek an exegesis of the text. We consider context and how scripture interacts with and interprets scripture. We look at varied manuscripts written over time with an eye for any differences. Here, we examine the testimony of scripture in light of proximity to the incident and firsthand accounts. Accounts written earlier might be more authoritative. We also consider the author’s social placement and characteristics. For example, Luke’s vocation as a Gentile doctor likely encouraged him to share stories mentioning women, gentiles, and physicality in more detail than other Gospel writers. We also evaluate language and phrases used. In ancient times, it was not consider deceitful to write in anothers name, particulalry one’s teacher or mentor. Who wrote the text and when can impact its accuracy. We draw from and compare archeology and outside contemporary texts, and we even consider sociological and literary approaches. In the end, Gospels are not meant to be histories. They are theological witnesses. The details do not matter as much as the ultimate truths they reveal.
Thus, a discrepancy need not indicate a falsehood nor even technically an error. The storyteller (witness) is telling the story through a lens reflecting their experience, interests, culture, or maybe what they deem most important to share. Memories might differ. Styles won’t be the same. Yet taken together, one might note how these accounts corroborate one another. And some scholars suspect they might at times even rely on one another as source material. For example, Luke and Matthew seem to echo Mark’s earlier account. Scripture might be inerrant in substance (ultimate truth) without being exactly the same in detail.
True, an interpreter can certainly err as well. Group think or assumptions might interefere with how we hear and understand the Word of God. Or, new discoveries can transform our understanding. Someone helped by the Spirit might even come up with brilliant new insights. Yet, this all reinforces the critical need to interpret scripture in community with others. Further, we should consider the voices and perspectives of past believers as well as the present Christian community. In the mind of Martin Luther, scripture trumped traditions, but he did not mean to say that past understandings don’t matter. We should evaluate them to benefit from the good and reject the bad. In the end, we might not be able to understand why things are the way they are in scripture at times. When this happens, we will have to rest in the tension that exists. Faithful people might need to disagree at times, humbly recognizing that we might be the one who is wrong. Still, we trust scripture to be a gift from God and normative lens for our Christian life above all others.
I hope this short essay helps Bible readers better understand what is going on with the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany’s (Revised Common Lectionary, Year C) Gospel text. It might also help as one seeks to address other texts encountered in the future. We should remain honest admiting that we can never know all we need to about the Bible, but we trust in the One who does. Our faith is ultimately in God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – not the Bible. And as an earlier believer once said, “God is still speaking.”
Reference:
Aland, K. (1985, Rev.). Synopsis of the Four Gospels, English Edition. “33. Jesus’ Preaching in Nazareth.” Swindon, United Kingdom: United Bible Societies, p. 31-33.
This blog post was expanded from an email written to members of a Christ Lutheran Bible study on January 26, 2022.
“Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (Psalm 8:9)
On January 1, the Church celebrates the Feast of the Name of Jesus as recorded in Luke 2:15-21. On the eighth day after our Lord’s birth, Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple as prescribed by Mosaic Law. There, he would be circumcised, a sign that he belonged to the ancient covenant between God and Abraham. Circumcision was an initiation for males into the Jewish tribes, but more importantly, into all of God’s plans and promises. The Jewish people had been chosen and set apart to glorify God and bless the world. It was also at this time that Jesus formally received the name the angel had given him. In ancient Hebrew, his name was Joshua. In the Greek of the New Testament, his name is translated as Jesus. In any language, his name means “God is salvation.” Through the Jewish people, the world’s hope had become manifest.
Perhaps it is appropriate to hear and remember his name in its many forms. Jésus (French), Jesús (Spanish), Jézus (Hungarian), Yexus (Hmong Daw), İsa (Azerbaijani), Tsisa (Cherokee), and many more variations exist in the more than 6,500 languages of our world. For “when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law” – all peoples of the Earth – “so that we might receive adoption as children” (Galatians 4:4-5). God’s plan was never to limit love to the Jewish people but to spread love throughout the earth and into our individual hearts.
No matter our genetic heritage, whatever our family name, through our faith and baptism, we are claimed and gifted with a new name; that of “Christian.” The ancient name Christian means “Christ bearer.” Much like our siblings of the Jewish faith, we are grafted into their ancient, shared call, and wrapped in God’s promises and glory. As we start this new year, our lectionary reminds us that we “are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God” (Galatians 4:4-7). We are now part of God’s family – never forgotten, never alone. We are allowed to know and claim God as Abba, Father.
What wonderous news to begin our year with! God calls our individual names in love. God’s word shapes us into community. Together with all God’s peoples, we share a sacred purpose – God’s purpose. This means that in good times or times of suffering, every moment of our life matters to God, and Christ will somehow be made known. For wherever this year leads us, Jesus walks with us. He will never forget our names, those whom he lived, suffered, and died for. He will never reject us and will always speak love to us.
Like you, I cannot tell what the future will bring in detail, but I know this, Jesus is Lord. Nothing can truly harm us, not even death. He has called us by name. So let us lift up our heads and look for God’s presence. God is here and now. God is waiting to welcome us into the future. God is our salvation. For we have been declared and made God’s own, and he will never forget our names. In fact, God love us so much that God has inscribed our names in the palms of his hands (Isaiah 49:16). Our names remain before God’s eyes and in God’s heart forever.
Happy New Year, dear Church! I look forward to what God will do.
Originally published in the January 2022 newsletter of Christ Lutheran Church, Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations for this post are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation.
Picture credit: Gerard Seghers (attr) – The Four Doctors of the Western Church, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430); or as I would call it, “Let me think, think, think…”
At a recent “Three Priests” theology discussion, one sticking point remained as we closed our talk on the Word of God: Is the biblical canon closed? Well, I argue that depends on how you look at it.
Due to some modern fictional books and movies, the Emperor Constantine is sometimes wrongly given credit for the canon inherited in Western Christendom. Constantine did call the Council of Nicea (325), which was the first general conference or “ecumenical Council” of the Christian church, but this first gathering is not reported to have addressed the canon. In 330 CE, Constantine did finance the copying of fifty Christian “bibles,” comprised of commonly accepted books, but he, too, does not seem to have officially influenced the cannon.
So, did any council approve what we know as the cannon? That in itself is a tricky question. There *was* a “council” (small “c”) to help establish the Roman Catholic/Western cannon and later councils affirmed it, but these were not any of the seven great “Ecumenical Councils” which occurred before the split of Eastern and Western Christendom.
The Synod of Hippo of 393 is one of several gatherings of bishops sharing this name. (Synods of Hippo were also held in 394, 397, 401 and 426.) This specific gathering is commonly held by Roman Catholics as the first time any council of bishops (again, not to be confused with one of the seven “Ecumenical Councils”) listed and approved a Christian biblical canon. This list corresponds closely to the modern canon in the West. This canon included the six later books classed as deuterocanonical/apocryphal as well as First Ezra/Esdras and Second Ezra/Esdra. Also included among these apocryphal texts: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, parts of Esther and parts of Daniel. It left out some apocryphal books recognized by the Orthodox.
This canon list was later approved at
the Council of Carthage (again a series of synods and not listed as one of the seven
ecumenical councils) pending ratification by the “Church across the
sea”, that is, the See of Rome. This Council of Carthage (the third of
several synods in the 3rd, 4th and 5th
Centuries sharing this name) affirmed the canon established in Hippo on 28
August 397 (and again in 419).
The councils held at Hippo were held under the authority of Augustine, and I’ve read he considered the cannon closed. In reality, others (both saints and heretics) continued to propose varied lists. Indeed, First Ezra/Esdras was excluded in the Vulgate Bible (late fourth century) and ceased to be considered canonical in the West. The modern Book of Ezra formerly included the Book of Nehemiah in a single book, but it is now commonly split since the 9th century onwards. It was not until 1516/17, in the first printed Rabbinic Bible of Daniel Bomberg that the separation was introduced generally in Hebrew Bibles.
The cannon solidified over time in the West, but Luther stirred the pot again with his Reformation review when he asked, “What is truly scripture?” He evaluated opinions and judgments of the past, but he wasn’t afraid to challenge them. He ultimately rejected the Apocrypha. Jewish religious leaders of Germany tended to reject them, so why shouldn’t Christians? He also attempted to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon. To him, they were out of whack with “grace alone” and “faith alone” doctrine. Other Reformers disagreed. In the end, he kept these New Testament books, but these books are still to be found toward the end of the German Language “Luther Bible.”
The Council of Trent (1545-1563), the 19th “ecumenical council” of the Roman Catholic Church, was called in response to the Reformation. Indeed, my old priest and Sunday school teacher (from pre-Lutheran days), Father Foley, considered this council the start of the “Catholic Reformation” in response to the “Protestant Revolt.” (These terms were common among Catholics, and remains so among some hard-corps, conservative Roman Catholics.) This council was not truly ecumenical, as it did not include anyone from the Orthodox Church. In response to the Reformation, it approved the Catholic Cannon we know today. This includes apocryphal books.
The Lutheran/Protestant cannon continued
to exclude the Apocrypha as scripture. Although not viewed as being the
standard of scripture, these works remained valued even by Martin Luther. They
are often included in modern editions of scripture, but you will find them
clearly designated as apocryphal or deuterocanonical texts.
So, is the cannon closed? Theoretically, it closed in the 300s, but one can see there have been and remain variations. The Church (East and West; Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) could work toward more unity someday, as unlikely as that sounds. Or, maybe the West might accept just as my Orthodox friend, Father Adam Sexton, proposes, “The Orthodox Church is right. We have received what we were meant to receive.” Then, in that sense, the West could accept the East’s ruling and “go back” to that. Yet many of those Christians who are orthodox (small “o” meaning more traditional) would say, the canon is absolutely closed as is. Some suggest the canon was closed with the death of the last Apostle. Others say that scripture points to the revelation in the Christ which has fully come in Jesus.
Yet some scholars and others do indeed argue about the closing of scripture. Usually, they suggest better, more complete surviving texts might someday be found calling for an amendment to the canon. Or, they suggest texts formally rejected for theological or political reasons might need to be reevaluated. Or, they argue that there is nothing in scripture that defines the canon, only councils of men did. Yet again, most of the catholic (small c meaning universal), orthodox (small o, meaning more traditional) Church deems the canon closed by the Spirit. To do otherwise can be viewed heretical and certainly false prophets and revelation could mislead us.
In practice, some argue that the canon was closed with early gatherings of bishops (in the 300s), as well as with the East-West break, or even with the Reformation and/or Council of Trent (1500s). Yet even after choosing any of these historic markers, disputes remain between Christians over exactly which books belong. Is it really closed if the entire church can’t reach a consensus? Some past and present Protestants believe that the Church recognizes the canon, but it does not have the authority to close it.
Looking at history, Karl Barth, a Reformed theologian of the 20th Century, put it this way, “The insight that the concrete form of the Canon is not closed absolutely, but only very relatively, cannot be denied even with a view to the future” (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Vol. I/2, trans. Bromiley, G. W., & Torrance, T. F. London; New York: T&T Clark. 2004. Print. p. 476). Another major shaking of the Church could yet cause the books to be reevaluated, shuffled, or who knows what. Well, as I said last night, only God knows, and we will find out. Until then, we seem to be left with a general, human consensus – we trust guided by the Holy Spirit – and thus could be in error or not done discerning, “What is scripture?”
*As this was just for fun and general edification, I’m not listing all my resources, but they included the Catholic Encyclopedia, US Catholic Bishops Conference website, multiple Wikipedia articles (yeah, I know, not always authoritative), multiple blogs (some kind of out there), and classes by Father James Foley, SJ (may he rest in peace).
When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. (Matthew 2:10)
The word joy is one of the most frequent words found in scripture – about 200 times depending upon the translation you read. This might surprise some people who think of faith as a burden. Yet, joy is exactly what God desires for us.
Oh, it isn’t that joy we get as we open a new Christmas gift. Nor was it fully reflected in the joy of the Magi as their journey came to an end by the manger. No, this joy goes deeper, lasts longer, and never ends. It is the joy that Christ gives us through trusting in his love for us. It is the kind of joy that can’t help but overflow.
Indeed, Jesus is our joyful gift; to welcome into our hearts or reject freely. Rather than forcing us to come to him, he comes to us. He put people in your life to invite you, challenge you, and call you to himself. He saves you because he delights in you (Psalm 18:19). You bring him joy! In fact, he says he chose you as you are, so that you can share in his mission of bringing his joy to others and find joy along your way.
Jesus said that his life, teachings and example were given for us “so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.” This joy isn’t something we chase after or hide away. Instead, it is something we live in community – whenever we love one another as Jesus taught.
Discussion questions: How are you personally called to bring the joy of Christ to others? What joy do you share with your family of faith?
The above reflection was originally published in Messiah Lutheran Church and School’s worship bulletin for the Third Sunday of Advent, 2013. It is meant to complement Creative Communications’ Bright Star of Bethlehem series for Advent and Christmas.
Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations for this article are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation.
Husband, Pastor, Law Enforcement Chaplain, and member of the Clerical Errors (aka "The Three Priests"), I'm sharing my two cents with anyone who cares...
You can also find me on social media as Loudluthrn (Lou-d-Luthrn or Lou the Lutheran). It is a moniker given me while attending a Presbyterian Seminary, but I'm a loud and proud Lutheran too (just not too loud and proud, mind you).
2pennyblog 