“Did Martin Luther Deny the Canonicity of Esther?”
Perhaps, but guess what. The book of Esther was the only book from the old testament that was not among the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1946. Sirach and Maccabees were the only ones from the Apocrypha.
Kind of gives credibility to his claim.
Tobit in the Dead Sea Scrolls
"Prior to the 1952 discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments of Tobit among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave IV at Qumran, it was believed that Tobit was not included in the Jewish canon because of its late authorship, which was estimated to be circa 100 AD.[1] However, the Qumran fragments, which date from 100 BC to 25 AD and are in agreement with the Greek text existing in three different recensions, evidence a much earlier origin than previously thought.[1] These fragments evidence authorship no later than the 2nd Century BC, and thus at least contemporary to the date modern scholars ascribe to the final compilation of the Book of Daniel, which did attain canonical status." [2]
Also of note, the Book of Daniel includes the "apocryphal" chapters, but not the final one, which is accepted in the Hebrew/Protestant canon. This undermines the argument that these chapters were later additions
[1] Fitzmyer, Joseph A., "Tobit", (de Gruyter, 2003), Commentaries on early Jewish literature, ISBN 3-11-017574-6 pp. 55-57
[2] R. Glenn Wooden, "Changing Perceptions of Daniel: Reading Chapters 4 and 5 of Daniel," in From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith, Brackney & Evans eds., p. 10 (Mercer Univ.Press 2007) ISBN 0-88146-052-4.
“Kind of gives credibility to his claim.”
It does? How does the fact that one particular book out of dozens is NOT found in ONE PARTICULAR collection of books and fragments lend credence to a claim made by a German monk nearly 1500 years later?
For no reason, just because, without any thought or reason at all I am sure. lol.
This is quite hilarious.