Print

Print


From: "Paul Meahan" <[log in to unmask]>


> > The Catholics also have a set of apocryphal books,
> > not
> >     usually included in the printed version. Protestants call those
books
> > pseud-epigrapha
> >    (falsely written?).
>
> I would say "falsely ascribed to" in the sense that the Pseudepigraphia
are
> "supposedly" written by some high-profile Prophets, but are only extant in
LXX
> Greek, not in Hebrew.
>
> Of course, one could then argue that many canonical books of the Old and
New
> Testament are pseudepigraphical, though that may be taking us too far
afield in
> this discussion.
==========================================
A discussion of prophecy and/or of Eliot's thoughts on the Bible WOULD be in
order.
If we get involved in what are or are not canonical books, and what
justifications
from within the texts itself justify the canon and the interpretive
approach, we would
probably get in up to our ears if not over our heads in controversy,

As a matter of info only, I can indicate that St. Augustine, in his
CONFESSIONS
I believe, did provide one of the earliest lists of the canon, and of the
successors
of St. Peter as Pope.

Cheers,
Peter