Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Deuterocanicals, eps. Sirach
Message-ID: <May.12.04.27.53.1993.9938@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 12 May 93 08:27:54 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Lines: 108
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Thanks for the responses so far. I hope that I have 
sparked some thought (which is more my intent than 
to restart one of the Reformations).

I'm just going to tug on two threads:

In Message-ID: <May.10.05.07.21.1993.3479@athos.rutgers.edu>
db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes, 

>	And I must point out that
>the Jews only drew up their canon in 90 AD, 60 years after the founding
>of the Christian Religion upon the Cross.  Why should we adhere to a
>canon that was drawn up by the faithless, in reaction to the Chrsitian
>use of the Greek Septuagint, which includes the deutero-canon?  

I was simply observing that as a non-Jew, I am not in that community
which might be bound by such a decision (I don't know much about
the Council of Jamnia, but I have heard that it is not well-attested
historically). 'Faithless' has nothing to do with it, and I prefer
not to speculate about motives.

>As early
>as 150 AD, St. Justin had already accused the Jews of mutilating the
>Canon of Scripture by their removal of certain books.  

I wish the Dialogue_with_Trypho were a real transcript of a real
dialogue,, but I think it a fictional effect on Justin's part.
Putting that to one side, Justin's point may be evidential; one
would want to know- 'which books?'

>Protestants apparently prefer to think that God's revelation was limited 
>by a decree of the Jews [...]

Perhaps the reformers were traveling in all the light (MS evidence)
they had. Let's stick to the issues. Again, I prefer not to speculate
about motives. One would need quotes from Luther, Calvin, etc. to
evidence this 'preference'.

-----
In Message-ID: <May.9.05.38.22.1993.27327@athos.rutgers.edu>
wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)

>That is not quite accurate.  Otherwise we would have the book
>of Enoch in the canon (as Dave noted).  One can say that the 
>apocrypha are not quoted by Christ.  

Is this the principle: 'Any (BC) text not quoted by Christ cannot
be counted as Scripture' ? Think well about this- Job, Ruth...?

I wrote:
 		These is a logically invalid *a priori*. 
 		Besides, we are talking about OT texts- 
 		which in many parts are superceded by the NT
 		(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
 		principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
 		This principle cannot be consistently applied.

Dave W. answers:
 
>I have to reject your argument here.  The Spirit speaks with one
>voice, and he does not contradict himself.  

Meaning what? Do you affirm the principle (that the D.c's can be
excluded since they contain 'false doctrine') or do you deny it? 
If affirmed (as is implied in your statement) how does one determine 
that doctrine X is false? Do you affirm every teaching in _Ecclesiastes_?

>The ultimate test of canonicity is whether the words are inspired
>by the Spirit, i.e., God-breathed.  It is a test which is more
>guided by faith than by reason or logic.  

If so, it may be a test that cannot be applied. The Orthodox
faithfully believe that Psalm 151 is canonical. How can my
faith say 'Not!' ? All I hear here is the *a priori* I mentioned
before.

>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  

This is contrary to fact.

>They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
>rest of Scripture.  

Can this be elevated to a principle? How is 'spiritual quality'
measured? I'll take the 'spiritual quality' of most of Sirach over 
Joshua or Chronicles, any day.

>I do not believe the church that added these
>books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  

What can I say? You believe what you believe- I'm asking for
a consistency check. I don't see that the books were added- in any
construction this formulation begs the question. No one can validly
ask me to 'have faith' that these books are noncanonical.


Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

"Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has
 happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something
 that actually takes place in a human life.  For `consciousness of sin' is a
 real event, and so are despair and salvation through faith.  Those who speak
 of such things (Bunyan, for instance) are simply describing what has happened
 to them, whatever anyone may want to say about it." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
