Does it really useful in determining the canonicity of Ecclesiastes over, say, the book of Wisdom?
>#2, no one disputed their testimony successfully or proved it wrong in the same period they wrote those words. This would, ironically, serve equally well as an argument for the inspiration of the Donation of Constantine. >History, not a mystical tradition, attests to the veracity of the gospel’s claims. The term “mystical” is yours, not mine. But you speak of history, you are speaking of the testimony and tradition of the Church. >#3, from beginning to end, Scripture, not Scripture together with any unwritten tradition, consistently and congruously proclaims the Good News, without contradiction. I agree that Scripture does not contradict itself. But it requires the sacred Tradition of the Church to see how this is so. See page 63 and 64 of my book. >No tradition is needed to see this. Assertion is not argument. >To see his distorted understanding of Scripture I point out that, in chapter 3, when listing off a bunch of humiliating recorded facts about the apostles, Shea includes Paul’s
