In article <May.7.01.09.00.1993.14498@athos.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes: >Dave Davis (ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com) wrote: > >[lots deleted, with which I generally agree; there is no inherently >defensible argument for the inclusion or exclusion of the Deuterocanonical >books]  >:  I think everyone would agree that principles that cannot be  >:  consistently applied are not very useful as principles.  >:  So, if we are to exclude them (not accord them the authority of >:  Scripture) we would appear to require other reasons. What might these  >:  reasons be?  Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we can ask: 1. Is it authoritative? 2. Is it prophetic? 3. Is it authentic? 4. Is it dynamic? 5. Is it received, collected, read and used?  On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God. To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms. 2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with sacred Scripture. 3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture. 4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.  >:   >:  My interim conclusion is that Protestant exclusion of  >:  (at least one of) these writings is one of those 'traditions >:  of men' one hears of so often. They were excluded during the >:  Reformation, and that appears to be the reason many people >:  continue to exclude them.  But the problem with this argument lies in the assumption that the Hebrew canon included the Apocrapha in the first place, and it wasn't until the sixteenth century that Luther and co. threw them out. The Jewish council you mentioned previously didn't accept them, so the reformation protestants had good historical precedence for their actions. Jerome only translated the apocrapha under protest, and it was literally 'over his dead body' that it was included in the catholic canon.  >The simple fact is that Protestant exclusion, Roman inclusion, Orthodox >inclusion of still other books, or any other definition of a closed canon >is the decision of a community of faith about what the standard collection >of scripture shall be for that community.  They _all_ are "traditions of >men."  Whether one considers that to be a problem or not depends on which >community happens to be yours, and how you accept/ define authority within >it.  I personally believe that the concept of a closed canon, whether >Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox is one that developed rather late in the >history of the church, and which has not served the church well.  How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city" (Rev 22.18-9) Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.  It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John 10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus  that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the  OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51 taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.  >See Dr. Lee MacDonald's _The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon_ >(Abingdon, 1988) for a clear and faithful examination of the origins and >issues of the canon.  I am not familiar with the book.  Some other arguments you might like to consider are found in Chapter 3 of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict.