On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:34, Chris Little wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Leon Brooks wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:40, Chris Little wrote:
>>> I'm less concerned about apocryphal/pseudepigraphal literature that is
>>> either Christian in nature or profitable for providing biblical
>>> background but that does not support other religions or cults.
>> Hmm. Do I tread on this mine, or not? (-: Let's try tiptoeing around it
>> :-)
>> Including _The_ Apocrypha, at least without significant notice that it is
>> indeed aprocryphal, favours Roman Catholicism, excluding it favours
>> Protestantism. Whether one or the other of these are `other religions or
>> cults' is the question that I'm not going to face.
> Including the Apocrypha allows us to serve two of the three major branches
> of Christianity better than we currently do, including the one to which
> about half of all Christians belong. I don't think their inclusion is any
> kind of offense against Protestants, many of whom read the Apocrypha
> themselves at some point in their lives.
>> Apocryphal stuff like the Book of Jasher and so on is a different story.
> Yes. I still believe we should make pseudepigrapha like this, biblical
> cognates, and other ANE literature available, provided we make it clear
> that it is not scripture and is, quite frequently, not even true.
Well... _The_ Apocrypha fall into this category as well. For example:
"Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena; that is again, be not an
adulterer, nor a corrupter of others; neither be like such. And
wherefore so - Because that creature every year changes its kind
and is sometimes male and sometimes female." 8:8
Cheers; Leon
