Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21603
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach
Message-ID: <May.14.02.11.26.1993.25198@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 14 May 93 06:11:27 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 21
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Michael Siemon writes:

>Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the Reformers "threw out" these
>books.  Basically, they just placed them in a secondary status (as Jerome
>had already done), but with the additional warning that doctrine should
>not be based on citations from these ALONE.

Protestants love to play up Jerome for all he is worth. They should
remeber that after the Decree of Pope St. Damsus I, Jerome did not
hesitate in accpeting the deuteroncanon, and quoted them as Scripture in
his later writings.  And as I have already pointed out, in a previous
letter on this subject, the Catholic Church has accepted the
deuterocanon from the beginning.  And the Protestants in the 1500's all
of a sudden revived the old theory of some, condemned by Pope, Council,
and Church, that the deuterocanon were not inspired.

Again, why must the Church of Jesus Christ adopt the canon of the
unbelieving Jews, drawn up in Jamnia in 90 AD, in countering the
Christian use of the Septuagint.                 ^^^^^

Andy Byler
