Andrew - continuing the discussion on the Deuterocanonicals...  In article <May.13.02.29.43.1993.1508@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes: >poram@ihlpb.att.com wrote: >: 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? > >"Authoritative" is not a quality of the writing itself- it is a statement >by the community of faith whether it will accept the writing as normative.  Arguably, it is both. Since authority is a matter of both communicator and recepiant we can say that, for example "Jesus is Lord" whether the world at large accepts the authority or not. Thus the Bible can be considered for its authoritative content whether or not it is accepted (This issue is at the heart of Pilate's pragmatic question "What is truth?" to Jesus when our Lord was brought before Him. Jesus' reply was to appeal to the authority of his Father) You also might like to consider the claimed authority represented by the statements "thus says the Lord" in the Bible, which claim to put across the exact words of God.  You fall into the danger of relativism with your rejection of inherant authority and claim that it lies only in the "community of faith" - does something become truth because it is accepted? The main thrust of my argument is that there is a Godward direction as well as a manward (which is where the reference to Rev 22 came in.)  >: 2. Is it prophetic? > >How is "prophecy" to be defined? If it is "speaking forth" of God's message, >much of the apocrypha must surely qualify.  If we narrowed it down to the predictive elements - which will cut out some of the 39 accepted OT books as well - we nonetheless have criteria for determining the validity of the book: Jesus' standards were that "Scripture cannot be broken". Can you name a single prophecy that fits the bill in the Apocrapha? (ie definitely fulfilled AFTER it has been written)  >: 3. Is it authentic? > >Again, by what standard?  Is "authenticity" a function of the authors? the >historical accuracy?   Does it have a subjective 'ring of truth' about it - and does other evidence that has come to light contradict or confirm the authenticity? (archaeological, other textual evidence for example)  >: 4. Is it dynamic? > >What is this supposed to mean?  Many of the apocryphal books are highly >"dynamic" -thought provoking, faithful, even exciting.  What this is getting at is the relationship between text and reader. It is to do with the quality of writing, which should have the ability to fire the mind, affect our thought life and cause us to act in a certain way - there is something of this in Jesus' quote: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord". (Matt 4.4)  >: 5. Is it received, collected, read and used? > >By whom?  Of course the apocryphal books were received (by some), >collected (or else we would not have them), read and used (and they still are, >in the Catholic and Orthodox churches).  Does the Catholic Church give the same authority to the Apocrapha as to the accepted 66 books? Certainly it is not as widely used as the OT and NT.  >: On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God. > >This is demonstrably false.  Think about what I have said above. You may want to revise your conclusion. In addition think about other 'sacred writings', eg the Koran, the book of Mormon and how and why you would categorise them using the above principles. One word of caution - you may find some 'reflected glory' in some of these books: in that the 'inspired quality' may be derived from the Bible. Remember that Lucifer is quite capable of appearing as an angel of light and quoting Scripture.  >: To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha: >: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and >: anachronisms. > >So do other books of the Bible.  What were you thinking of?  >[deletions] > >: 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. > >These words clearly were meant to refer to the book of Revelation alone, >not to the whole body of scripture.  Revelation itself was accepted very >late into the canon.  The church simply did not see it as having a primary >role of any kind in identifying and limiting scripture.  We've lost the point and the context here. I am not arguing that the statement in Rev. can be applied indescriminately, just that the whole acceptance/rejection idea does not just follow on from man-made traditions - but there is I believe an act of God involved in the selection and criteria of what is classified as Scripture and comes under the definition of 2Tim 3.16.  > >revdak@netcom.com