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   		Besides, we are talking about OT texts-   		which in many parts are superceded by the NT  		(in the Xtian view).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: