Is the Apocrypha inspired revelation?
According to the first completed Canon of Scripture at the Council of Carthage in AD 419, the apocryphal books were adopted as biblical. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html Why do not the protestant Churches consider them scriptural? Most contemporary Bibles exclude the apocryphal books but even the original King James Version included them. Are they any less inspired than the other books of the Bible?
Dan please provide quotations...
of the OT books that I contend are not quoted in the NT. Please provide chapter and verse where even a single quotation of these books are to be found. Once again, the books that I contend are not quoted directly are these: Song of Songs, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemia, Esther, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations. Remember they must be direct quotations since you do not recognize analogous ideas as Michael demonstrated with the use of the apocrypha in the NT. You did not really respond to my contention that if your method of denoting inspiration is to be followed, we must accept the LXX and reject the MT, since the LXX is quoted and the MT didn't exist at the time.
You seem to miss what I was saying in regards to Qumran. The amount of copies indicates the level of inspiration they gave to these writings. There are NO copies of Esther, while there are a number of copies of 1 Enoch. The ideas in 1 Enoch are displayed in their own sectarian writings, demonstrating that they accorded this book high inspired status (as did many early Christians). Questions of canon would be anachronistic so we must go by evidence of high regard. I think it should be obvious that they held apocryphal books in greater esteem than some (now) canonical books. You cannot provide proof that Jews of Jesus' day only considered 39 books to be inspired. Jamnia is implied in your argument because of this canonical presumption and lack of evidence supporting it. There is way more proof to the contrary. This is certainly not a fight but it is a theological debate that has some importance in terms of it's implications.
I accept the apocrypha as a Protestant for reasons I stated above:
1) Luther had no authority to meddle with the canon, the fact that Calvin and the Calvinistic Puritan Anglicans followed him in this proves nothing in regards to their inspiration. Almost all Protestant denominations in the West have their roots in Lutheranism and Calvinistic Puritanism (i.e. Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans etc), so I am not surprised most Protestants in America reject the apocrypha.
2) As a Protestant I am in good company in accepting them. Wyclif, Huss and the Anabaptists all accepted them.
3) They were accepted at all the early councils including Carthage and they were quoted as scripture for 1500 years by theologians e.g. Orthodox, Catholic and yes, even Protestants.
4) There has never been given a single sufficient reason for their rejection and the undoing of 1500 years of church tradition.