From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 102

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.

: 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.

: 3. Is it authentic?

Again, by what standard?  Is "authenticity" a function of the authors? the
historical accuracy? 

: 4. Is it dynamic?

What is this supposed to mean?  Many of the apocryphal books are highly
"dynamic" -thought provoking, faithful, even exciting.

: 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).

: On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.

This is demonstrably false.

: 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.

: 2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
: which are at variance with sacred Scripture.

"False" by whose interpretation?  Those churches that accept them find no
contradiction with the rest of scripture.  

: 3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
: subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.

This is a purely subjective evaluation.  The apocryphal books demonstrate
the same categories and forms of writing found in the other scriptures.
(In fact, one could argue that the apocryphal "Additions to the Book of
Esther" act rather to bring the "unscripturelike" book of Esther more into
line with other books.)

: 4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
: Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
: poetic and religious feeling.

Have you ever read the Wisdom of Ben Sira or the Wisdom of Solomon?  They
exhibit every bit as much "poetic and religious feeling" as Psalms or
Proverbs.

[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.

: 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.

Jesus does not refer to the canon for the simple reason that in his day,
the canon had not been established as a closed collection.  The books
of the apocrypha were part of the Septuagint (which was the Bible of
the early church).  The Hebrew canon was not closed until 90 c.e.
The Torah (Pentateuch/ "Law") was established in Jesus' day, as were
the Prophets (with the _exclusion_ of Daniel).  The Writings, however,
were still in flux.  Jesus does not refer to the Writings, only to the
Psalms, which were part of them.  The books of the apocrypha were all
part of the literature that was eventually sifted and separated.

To argue that Jesus is referring to the Jewish canonical order in Luke 11:51
is weak at best; he is not quoting scripture, but telling a chronological
story.  And, as mentioned above, the Hebrew canon (especially in the
present order) did not exist as such in Jesus' day.

revdak@netcom.com
