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. --Chris
