Dave Davis writes:  > Let my state my point as provocatively as possible. :-)   > After going through several study Bibles, I'm leaning heavily towards >the  > assertion that _Sirach_ ('The Wisdom of Ben Sira' or 'Ecclesiasticus') > is directly referenced by _James_ - in fact, I think  > Sirach is more directly referenced by James than _Job_ or _Ruth_ is  > referenced in any NT verse I've seen.  Good point.  The New Testament does not quote Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ruth, Job, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs, just as it does not quote from the Deuterocanon.  But if the non-quotation of the former does not disqualify them, neither does the non-quotation of the later.  And the Wisodm of Solomon was quite clearly an influence on St. Paul, especially in the letter to the Romans (cf especially Romans 1.18-32 and Wisdom 13-14).  [stuff deleted]  >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? Tradition (always a fav. with Episcop.) ? Tradition is >equivocal > on this subject. Sirach, I believe, is in Vaticanus & Sinaiticus > I don't know if it is listed in the Muratorian canon  > (the oldest list I know of).  Sirach (and the others) are discussed  > by the Fathers, as Scripture, but not unanimously.   True.  Not all accepted them as Scripture, though niether were all the books of the New Testament so accepted, which puts to the lie the whole argument of the books being excluded because they were debated and not universally accepted.  Hebrews, the Apocalypse, 2 Peter, Esther, and others were debated at various times, but eventually retained.  As for the Codexes you mention, both Vaticanus and Sinaitcus include the Deuterocanon, bothe of the New and Old Testaments, and Vaticanus (I think) inlcudes 1 Clement, the Shepard of Hermas, and the Epistle of Baranabas.  As for the Muratorian Canon, it deals with the New Testament only, though it is very valuable in its witness to those books.  > 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.  >Any takers?  I can be reasonable. (If all else fails :-) >Show me where I'm wrong.  	You're not wrong!  It is a `tradition of men' to exlcude them, as I will explain below.  "That nothing be read in the Church under the nmae of Divine Scripture, except the canonical Scriptures, and the canoncial Scriptures are - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Four books of Kingdoms [being 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], Two books of Paralpomenon [being 1&2 Chronicles], Job, the Psalter of David, the Five books of Solomon [being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and [misatributed to him] the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach], The books of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah [being Jeremiah, the Lamentations, Baruch, and the Letter, all of which were formerly counted as one], Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Two books of Ezra [being Ezra and Nehemiah], Two books of Maccabees.  And of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospel, One book of the Acts of the Apostles, Thirteen letters of Paul the Apostle, One Letter of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter the Apostle, Three of John, One of the Apostle Jude, One of the Apostle James, One book of the Apocalypse of John." 	-Council of Hippo, Statute 36, (393 AD)  	This same list was promulgated again at the Third Council of Carthage (397 AD), and at the Sixth Council of Carthage (419 AD) - at which council the same list was enumerated with the words "Because we have recieved from the Fathers that these are the books to be read in the Church."  Which ought to quiet those who assert "in the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those books of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church," as the Episcopal Church does in removing the Deuterocanon from the realm of Scripture.  (Though the Episcopalians hold them in high regard and read them in the Church, they are not counted as Scripture by them, and may not be used to prove dogma.  The Lutherans hold out similarly.) 	Earlier mention of the so-called Apocrypha as divine scripture can also be found, and below I inlcude only a portion of the quotes calling it divine scripture that could be found among the writings of the Fathers.  "And this is the reason why the Law of the old Testament is reckoned as consisting of twenty-two books: so that they may correspond to the number of letters [in the Hebrew alphabet].... It is to be noted also that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books, corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks." 	-St. Hillary of Poitiers, "Commentaries on the Psalms," prologue, 15 (365 AD)  "The twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are .... Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the Letter, reckoned as one .... and [also] there is Maccabees." 	-Origen, "Commentaries on the Psalms," Psalm 1 (245 AD)  "Divine Scripture, addressing itself to those who love themselves and to the boastful .... says most excellently [Baruch 3.16-19 follows]." 	-St. Clement of Alexandria, "The Instuctor of Children," 2, 3, 36, 3, (203 AD)  "....I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament ... Proverbs of Solomon, and also Wisdom ..." 	-St. Melito of Sardes, fragment found in Eusebius' "History of the Church," and dating from crica 177 AD, Book 4, 26, 14  "It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.  The list of the Old Testament .... Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book .... Tobit, one book .... Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books." 	-St. Damasus I, Pope, "The Decree of Damsus," section 2 (382 AD)