I’m often a member of that club.=in_servitude;10016555]Please accept my apology. I was careless in my wording.
Luther set them between the Ot and NT, which I have no problem with, considering the historic debate about them. as is often pointed out, scripture didn’t come with a table of context.Yes, I do get that the deuteros were included them in Luther’s publications - but they were set off, I think, as being not of the Old or New Testament.
Previously, you JonNC said:
I’m asking about this once again because there is something that I have not connected yet, and I get the sense that once I put the right 2 and 2 together, I’ll have a big ah-ha! moment. So, please be patient with me on this.
Well, yes, though not defined as such by the universal Church. that’s why there are varying canons, even before the Reformation. And Florence, Hippo, Carthage, etc, did not end the debate about certain books in the western Church. This is my point, Luther was not novel either in his questions about these books, or in his consideration of them to be, as you said before, “not on a par” with the attested books.You are saying that there was a “western canon” prior to Luther’s work on discerning sacred scripture? I’m trying to understand where this comes from, especially in light of the Florence Council.
And also with you.Peace!
Jon