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, 


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.


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?'


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)


Is this the principle: 'Any (BC) text not quoted by Christ cannot
be counted as Scripture' ? Think well about this- Job, Ruth...?

 		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 		which in many parts are superceded by the NT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:
 

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_?


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.


This is contrary to fact.


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.


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: