[wideawake]

There is an ambiguity in the Articles - it lists the deuterocanonicals and never describes them directly as uncanonical or as not being Scripture. This dovetails with the Book of Common Prayer, which includes liturgical reading of the deuterocanonicals in the service alongside the protocanonicals.

The original criteria for what was considered canonical was whether a book was read publicly in worship - hence the Articles' need to retain some ambiguity.

What was omitted was never considered Scripture.

Ah, but it was - by many. And regardless, the KJV as a complete published work included the deuterocanonicals. Any version that deliberately removes part of that work is an abridged version, by definition. This is like saying that an edition of the Federalist that leaves out the parts that were superseded by subsequent Constitutional amendments is not abridged because it has subsequently been decided by persons who are not the original editors that these portions are no longer relevant.

[Lorica]

good post.

[spunkets]

"There is an ambiguity in the Articles - it lists the deuterocanonicals and never describes them directly as uncanonical or as not being Scripture."

Rubbish. Canon is listed as such, then another list is given that carries the instruction that the books in that list are NOT TO BE USED FOR DOCTRINE.

"The original criteria for what was considered canonical was whether a book was read publicly in worship "

Rubbish, the contents of the list, which is given seperate from Canon carries the label - "NOT TO BE USED FOR DOCTRINE." That means that it's not Scripture.