Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jim West <jwest AT Highland.Net>]

At 12:01 AM 12/27/99 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>Undoubtedly the NT and OT both cite 'non-canonical' literature/sources.  But
>explain please how and why this means that they were considered scripture.

You missed the point.  They were NOT considered scripture because there was
no "Scripture" in the modern sense of the word.


>Paul quotes his opponents, for instance, in 1 Cor, as perhaps does Isaiah.

so?

>Even approving citations are only evidence that the author of the (now
>canonical) book accepted the opinion of the writer of the earlier source,
>not that they were ever considered scriptural in any sense of the word.  Too
>much supposition going on here.

Yes, you have supposed I was saying something that i did not say.


Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
jwest AT highland.net
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest