At 10:23 am 06/10/2005 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> Indeed, the particular collection was selected by a committee, and to
> this day there doesn't seem to be complete agreement on which books
> should be included in the Canon -- Wisdom and Maccabees, in particular,
> are included in the main body in some versions and relegated to the
> apocrypha in others, IIRC.
As far as I recall Maccabees was rejected by Protestants at the reformation
because it implied the existence of purgatory. I don't know who rejected
Wisdom or why.
However, once one rejects the apostolic succession and ceases to see it as
divinely guided there in no reason why one should not pick and choose whatever
bits of the bible suits your present mood. Indeed, the very word heresy means
one who chooses....
==========================================
[Middle English heresie, from Old French,
from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek
hairesis, from Greek, a choosing, faction,
from haireisthai, to choose, middle voice
of hairein, to take.]
==========================================
....which is why of course protestantism keeps breaking up into smaller
and smaller fractions who are only united by their detestation of
Chelsea Football Club's doppelganger ;-)
> Jewish tradition is somewhat more explicit about this, with the books of
> scripture divided into several categories depending on various factors,
> including whether the book's presence in scripture has been challenged
> (the category of books which have been challenged is the "antilegomena",
> which, ironically, includes Ezekiel, which one could argue is among the
> most important books of the OT, but so it goes, humans rarely agree
> completely about anything).
.....and even catholics are only required to agree with the limited canon
of defined doctrine and morals. 8-)
For example, they have to believe in the existence of hell but (as
modernists never tire of pointing out) they don't have to believe that
anyone goes there.
Cheers,
Frank
