Bereans

[Nomad]

For the record, scripture says you wait for the resurrection, not go to heaven.

The body awaits resurrection, but the sou/spirit goes to be with the Lord.

2Co 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Php 1:23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.
Php 1:24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

The body awaits resurrection, but the sou/spirit goes to be with the Lord.

2Co 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Php 1:23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.
Php 1:24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

I understand why you post those verses. That's not the only way to read them. But it's such a ticky tack thing, I don't really care? Is that bad? I don't mean I don't care about your view... Just I see some options that are a debate waiting to happen, but the net gain isn't enough I care to engage?

If you are wanting to go there I will, but..... I'm not dancing to go there....

 

[Nomad]

Lastly, the Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

This is inaccurate.The gathering a Jamnia didn't address the apocrypha because it was never part of their canon as you will see below. They didn't address the NT either as you will see below. Why should we care what the Jews considered OT canon? Paul tells us why. They were entrusted with the word of God.

Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

The fact that Israel as a whole rejected Christ is no excuse for disregarding this. As you can see above, Paul didn't think that was a problem. After all, the NT Church began with a believing remnant of Israel. The unfaithfulness of some does not nullify the faithfulness of God.

Now, let's see what Jamnia really addressed and what it didn't address. Let's also see why it's wrong to include the apocrypha among the canonical books.

"The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about 90 AD goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed (rather more cautiously than has since been the custom) that the Synod of Jamnia led to the closing of the canon. Though others have lately expressed hesitations about the theory, its complete refutation has been the work of J.p. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman. The combined result of their investigations is as follows:

A. The term 'synod' or 'council' is inappropriate. The academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, was both a college and a legislative body, and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.

B. The date of the session may have been as early as 75 AD or as late as 117 AD.

C. As regard the disputed books, the discussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Ecclesiastes alone) make the hands unclean, i.e. are divinely inspired.

D. The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century."

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 7 p. 276

"The decision at Jamnia dealt only with Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs--or, according to Rabbi Akiba, with Ecclesiastes alone. See note #2. How, then, can it have decided the canonicity of books which, as far as we know, the assembly there did not even discuss?"

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 7 p. 275

Note # 2

The record is as follows: 'Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai said, "I have heard a tradition derived from the 72 elders on the day that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed head of the academy, that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes make the hands unclean." Rabbi Akiba said, "God forbid! No man in Israel ever disputed, concerning the Song of Songs, that it does not make the hands unclean, for the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If there was a dispute, it concerned Ecclesiastes only." Rabbi Johanan ben Joshua, the son of rabbi Akiba's father-in-law, said, "According to the words of Ben Azzai, so did they dispute, and so did they decide."'

Mishna Yadaim 3.5


"Now, this so-called council, as far as we can tell, dealt with a disputation over Ecclesiastes and maybe the Song of Songs. There is no evidence that the apocrypha was ever addressed so it's futile to attempt to refer to Jamnia as support for any argument. As a matter of fact, Josephus, writing in the first century, tells us that the Jewish canon contained the same books found in the Protestant canon and none dared to add to them."


"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] *but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them."

Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1 Para. 8

*The 22 books of Josephus' list is equivalent to the 39 books of Protestant Bibles. The difference in enumeration is due to a difference in the 'grouping' of the various OT books.

We are now in a position to list the 22 books , on the basis of the agreed evidence of Josephus, Jerome, and Epiphanius's De Mensuris et Ponderibus, supported to a large extent by Origen. Jerome's order will be followed, as he alone claims to give the order observed by the Jews.

The Law

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy

The Prophets

6. Joshua
7. Judges-Ruth
8. Samuel
9. Kings
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah-Lamentations
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets

The Hagiographa

14. Job
15. Psalms
16. Proverbs
17. Ecclesiastes
18. Song of Songs
19. Daniel
20. Chronicles
21. Ezra-Nehemiah
22. Esther

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 6 p. 254

Notice the absence of the apocryphal writings and Josephus' statement that no one dared to add to this list. We need to get one thing perfectly clear here. Protestants do not rely upon anything that may have taken place at Jamnia. I don't know where you got such an idea. Men like Jerome and others learned directly from the Jews the extent of their canon and the list above is the basic result. Jamnia has nothing to do with this.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

I thought they were called deutercanonical for a reason......

 

[epostle1]

This is inaccurate.The gathering a Jamnia didn't address the apocrypha because it was never part of their canon as you will see below. They didn't address the NT either as you will see below. Why should we care what the Jews considered OT canon? Paul tells us why. They were entrusted with the word of God.

Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

The fact that Israel as a whole rejected Christ is no excuse for disregarding this. As you can see above, Paul didn't think that was a problem. After all, the NT Church began with a believing remnant of Israel. The unfaithfulness of some does not nullify the faithfulness of God.

Now, let's see what Jamnia really addressed and what it didn't address. Let's also see why it's wrong to include the apocrypha among the canonical books.

"The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about 90 AD goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed (rather more cautiously than has since been the custom) that the Synod of Jamnia led to the closing of the canon. Though others have lately expressed hesitations about the theory, its complete refutation has been the work of J.p. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman. The combined result of their investigations is as follows:

A. The term 'synod' or 'council' is inappropriate. The academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, was both a college and a legislative body, and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.

B. The date of the session may have been as early as 75 AD or as late as 117 AD.

C. As regard the disputed books, the discussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Ecclesiastes alone) make the hands unclean, i.e. are divinely inspired.

D. The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century."

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 7 p. 276

"The decision at Jamnia dealt only with Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs--or, according to Rabbi Akiba, with Ecclesiastes alone. See note #2. How, then, can it have decided the canonicity of books which, as far as we know, the assembly there did not even discuss?"

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 7 p. 275

Note # 2

The record is as follows: 'Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai said, "I have heard a tradition derived from the 72 elders on the day that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed head of the academy, that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes make the hands unclean." Rabbi Akiba said, "God forbid! No man in Israel ever disputed, concerning the Song of Songs, that it does not make the hands unclean, for the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If there was a dispute, it concerned Ecclesiastes only." Rabbi Johanan ben Joshua, the son of rabbi Akiba's father-in-law, said, "According to the words of Ben Azzai, so did they dispute, and so did they decide."'

Mishna Yadaim 3.5


"Now, this so-called council, as far as we can tell, dealt with a disputation over Ecclesiastes and maybe the Song of Songs. There is no evidence that the apocrypha was ever addressed so it's futile to attempt to refer to Jamnia as support for any argument. As a matter of fact, Josephus, writing in the first century, tells us that the Jewish canon contained the same books found in the Protestant canon and none dared to add to them."


"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] *but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them."

Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1 Para. 8

*The 22 books of Josephus' list is equivalent to the 39 books of Protestant Bibles. The difference in enumeration is due to a difference in the 'grouping' of the various OT books.

We are now in a position to list the 22 books , on the basis of the agreed evidence of Josephus, Jerome, and Epiphanius's De Mensuris et Ponderibus, supported to a large extent by Origen. Jerome's order will be followed, as he alone claims to give the order observed by the Jews.

The Law

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy

The Prophets

6. Joshua
7. Judges-Ruth
8. Samuel
9. Kings
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah-Lamentations
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets

The Hagiographa

14. Job
15. Psalms
16. Proverbs
17. Ecclesiastes
18. Song of Songs
19. Daniel
20. Chronicles
21. Ezra-Nehemiah
22. Esther

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 6 p. 254

Notice the absence of the apocryphal writings and Josephus' statement that no one dared to add to this list. We need to get one thing perfectly clear here. Protestants do not rely upon anything that may have taken place at Jamnia. I don't know where you got such an idea. Men like Jerome and others learned directly from the Jews the extent of their canon and the list above is the basic result. Jamnia has nothing to do with this.

It's Protestants (some, not all) that claim the Jews rejected the Dueterocanoncial books (the proper term, Apocryphal books is a Protestant invention), on the grounds that they were in Greek, and not Hebrew. You should be correcting them. The Jews didn't like them because they were being used by the Christians at the time, and this "school of Javnia" occurred 300 years before the full canon of the Bible had been ratified by Pope Damasus.

The Canon was fixed in the 4th Century when Pope St. Damasus blessed the findings of the Council of Rome in 382.
This was reaffirmed in his letter on the Canon to the Bishops in Asia Minor in 405.
In 418, the canons of the 16 North African Councils were declared official Church teaching by the Pope.
In 787, Nicea II reaffirmed the authority of these councils.
In 1483, Pope Eugenius wrote the Letter to the Jacobites as the closing act of the Council of Florence
and there he affirmed the Canon of Hippo.

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Albertus Magnus and all of the major fathers of the Middle Ages affirmed the North African Synods, with it's 73 books. The Council of Trent reaffirmed the canon of the Council of Florence, TRENT DID NOT ADD TO THE BIBLE as some ignorant anti-Catholics claim.

And since when did Josephus, commissioned by Ceasar to write on Judaism and current events of the 1st century, and considered an apostate by the Jews, have authority to determine the canon of the Bible?

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Who claims they are canonical? Someone said they are claimed to be canon. I don't know of anyone doing that. Hep a brudder out.

 

[epostle1]

Determining the canon of scripture was a long and complicated process. It took hundreds of years of discernment. The Bible did not fall out of the sky in 33 AD bound in black leather in the KJV. :blink:

The authority that determined the canon of the New Testament is the same authority that determined the canon of the Old Testament, 73 books in all, not 66. This is a historical fact. This FACT was not popular with Martin Luther who decided to throw out 7 books because they did not suit his opinions.

All the arguments that Protestants have been putting forth for the past 500 years have been refuted. The information is there for anyone who wants to see it. In my opinion, it's beating a dead horse. If one doesn't like the deuterocanonical books, then don't read them. It shouldn't be a divisive issue. Like almost all arguments, it boils down to authority. At the end of the day, what matters most about Bibles is the one you read.

The Canon of Scripture, Who Fired The First Shot?

DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS

 

[Nomad]

...Dueterocanoncial books (the proper term, Apocryphal books is a Protestant invention)...,

Incorrect. For example, Jerome and Athanaius both used the term "apocrypha" long before the Reformers.

St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible... New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - Apocrypha

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha. . . The Preface of Jerome On The Book Of Judith - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Athanasius - 39th Festal Letter - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

From Letter XXXIX.—(For 367.) Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church.
…1. They have[sup]4539[/sup] fabricated books which they call books of tables[sup]4540[/sup], in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.
…2. But[sup]4541[/sup] since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians[sup]4542[/sup], some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as some have taken in hand[sup]4543[/sup],’ to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed 552good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the
number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second[sup]4544[/sup] are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and[sup]4545[/sup] the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me[sup]4546[/sup].’

7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

The Canon was fixed in the 4th Century when Pope St. Damasus blessed the findings of the Council of Rome in 382.
This was reaffirmed in his letter on the Canon to the Bishops in Asia Minor in 405.
In 418, the canons of the 16 North African Councils were declared official Church teaching by the Pope.
In 787, Nicea II reaffirmed the authority of these councils.
In 1483, Pope Eugenius wrote the Letter to the Jacobites as the closing act of the Council of Florence
and there he affirmed the Canon of Hippo.

All this proves is that canonical disputes continued right up until Trent, which was the first ecumenical council to address the issue. But, as many in the early church realized, such as Jerome, Athanasius, Origen and others, the church had no business toying with the OT canon as it was recognized by God's intended custodians.

Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

TRENT DID NOT ADD TO THE BIBLE as some ignorant anti-Catholics claim.

Thanks for the ad hominem.

In any case, if denying the canonicity of the apocrypha makes one an ignorant anti-catholic, then what does that make men like Athanasius, Jerome, Origen and others?

And since when did Josephus, commissioned by Ceasar to write on Judaism and current events of the 1st century, and considered an apostate by the Jews, have authority to determine the canon of the Bible?

First, Josephus did not "determine" the canon. He reported what the Jews had always accepted. This is purely a straw man argument.

Lastly, by your own reasoning none of the NT writers should be trusted. They were all considered apostate by the Jews. This is known as a non sequitur.

 

[epostle1]

Incorrect. For example, Jerome and Athanaius both used the term "apocrypha" long before the Reformers.

St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible... New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - Apocrypha

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha. . . The Preface of Jerome On The Book Of Judith - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Athanasius - 39th Festal Letter - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

From Letter XXXIX.—(For 367.) Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church.
…1. They have[sup]4539[/sup] fabricated books which they call books of tables[sup]4540[/sup], in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.
…2. But[sup]4541[/sup] since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians[sup]4542[/sup], some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as some have taken in hand[sup]4543[/sup],’ to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed 552good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the
number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second[sup]4544[/sup] are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and[sup]4545[/sup] the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me[sup]4546[/sup].’

7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

"...and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books;..."

If you bother to read your own quote, you will see that the Apocrypha books were not accepted by the Church because of their gnostic content. There were about 12 "gospels" and "15 books of acts" floating around. You are twisting this to suggest that the Apocryphal books and the Deuterocanonical books are one in the same. Your own quote disproves this because the Church did not reject the DCs., they rejected the Apocrypha. It's at least an inaccurate term, and yes, IT WAS INVENTED BY PROTESTANTS. My position stands.

All this proves is that canonical disputes continued right up until Trent, which was the first ecumenical council to address the issue.

This is absurd, and defies everything we know about Christian history. The canon was set by the North African councils and ratified by Pope Damasus. Trent addressed questions raised about the canon, raised by both Protestants and a few Catholic bishops. All Trent did was close the discussion- for good. Trent made no changes to the canon of scripture as anti-Catholics claim.

But, as many in the early church realized, such as Jerome, Athanasius, Origen and others, the church had no business toying with the OT canon as it was recognized by God's intended custodians.

Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

"oracles" does not mean "writings" and you other verses are irrelevant.

Thanks for the ad hominem.

But Nomad, you are an ignorant anti-Catholic. But I apologize. I should be more careful with my facts. Clinging to out-dated prejudices and pre-conceived notions in denial of the glaring truth is worse that being ignorant. It's pride and prejudice. I am not saying that to offend you, but to admonish you. I can't see how these vices you display do your relationship with God and with others do you any good and evidently I am not alone in my opinion.

First, Josephus did not "determine" the canon. He reported what the Jews had always accepted. This is purely a straw man argument.

He reported what the Hellenist Jews accepted, who didn't think much of Greek speaking Jews to begin with, nor did they think much of Christians using Greek OT scripture, as did the Bereans for 200 years before Christ.

Lastly, by your own reasoning none of the NT writers should be trusted. They were all considered apostate by the Jews. This is known as a non sequitur.

I'm not the one trying to validate a canon as reported by Josephus, you are. none of the NT writers should be trusted is a non sequitur.

In any case, if denying the canonicity of the apocrypha makes one an ignorant anti-catholic, then what does that make men like Athanasius, Jerome, Origen and others?

"First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn't defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ's earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea's definition. This doesn't make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile.

Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape—which included the deuterocanonical books — by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn't dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.

And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, , Pope St. Damasus I, the , St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Martin Luther, however, did not. And this brings us to the "remarkable dilemmas" I referred to at the start of this article of trusting the Protestant Reformers' private opinions about the deuterocanon. The fact is, if we follow Luther in throwing out the deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming evidence from history showing that we shouldn't (ie. the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings of councils and popes), we get much more than we bargained for.

For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New Testament. Of James, for example, he said, "I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle," because he believed it "is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works" (Preface to James' Epistle). Likewise, in other writings he underscores this rejection of James from the New Testament, calling it "an epistle full of straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Preface to the New Testament).

But the Epistle of James wasn't the only casualty on Luther's hit list. He also axed from the canon Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, consigning them to a quasi-canonical status. It was only by an accident of history that these books were not expelled by Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the Old. In the same way, it is largely the ignorance of this sad history that drives many to reject the deuterocanonical books.

Unless, of course, we reject the myths and come to an awareness of what the canon of Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books, is really based on. The only basis we have for determining the canon of the Scripture is the authority of the Church Christ established, through whom the Scriptures came. As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition. And the judgment of the churches is rendered throughout history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a council of bishops in union with St. Peter. The books we have in our Bibles were accepted according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ in council and in union with Peter.
The fact of the matter is that neither the Council of Trent nor the Council of Florence added a thing to the Old Testament canon. Rather, they simply accepted and formally ratified the ancient practice of the Apostles and early Christians by dogmatically defining a collection of Old Testament Scripture (including the deuterocanon) that had been there since before the time of Christ, used by our Lord and his apostles, inherited and assumed by the Fathers, formulated and reiterated by various councils and popes for centuries and read in the liturgy and prayer for 1500 years.

When certain people decided to snip some of this canon out in order to suit their theological opinions, the Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in fact, the canon of the Church's Old Testament and always had been.

Far from adding the books to the authentic canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church simply did its best to keep people from subtracting books that belong there. That's no myth. That's history."

5 myths about 7 books

 

[Nomad]

You are twisting this to suggest that the Apocryphal books and the Deuterocanonical books are one in the same. Your own quote disproves this because the Church did not reject the DCs., they rejected the Apocrypha. It's at least an inaccurate term, and yes, IT WAS INVENTED BY PROTESTANTS. My position stands.

I'm afraid you're the one who has failed to read carefully. The apocrypha and deuterocanonical books are the same -- even according to your own sources. Pay close attention to the bold type.

"St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures — one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church — applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ "deuterocanonical" to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the "Apocrypha"."

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - The Apocrypha

You also missed my quote of Jerome's preface to Judith. I'll post it again.

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha. . . The Preface of Jerome On The Book Of Judith - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

He says that the Jews classified Judith as apocrypha. Obviously this is long before the Reformers used the term. You also missed where I quoted Athanasius using the term apocrypha right before he lists the 22 books of the Jewish canon which is the same as the 39 books of the Protestant canon. It's long so I'm not going to re post it. It can be found in my post #28.

You position falls -- again. The term apocrypha was not invented by Protestants. It was in use long before the Reformation.

 

[epostle1]

I'm afraid you're the one who has failed to read carefully. The apocrypha and deuterocanonical books are the same -- even according to your own sources. Pay close attention to the bold type.

"St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books. and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures — one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church — applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ "deuterocanonical" to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the "Apocrypha"."

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - The Apocrypha

So what. Jerome was wrong.

You also missed my quote of Jerome's preface to Judith. I'll post it again.

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha. . . The Preface of Jerome On The Book Of Judith - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Judith was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Among which Jews? The Hellenists who didn't like Greek Jews because they weren't Hebrew enough and rejected the message of the New Testament? Apocrypha means "hidden" if memory serves correctly. They can call them "among the comic books" for all I care, they have no authority over Christians.

He says that the Jews classified Judith as apocrypha. Obviously this is long before the Reformers used the term. You also missed where I quoted Athanasius using the term apocrypha right before he lists the 22 books of the Jewish canon which is the same as the 39 books of the Protestant canon. It's long so I'm not going to re post it. It can be found in my post #28.

So what. Jerome was wrong, and so were the reformers, who had an agenda.

You position falls -- again. The term apocrypha was not invented by Protestants. It was in use long before the Reformation.

It doesn't matter if it was used by 2 or 3 ECF's. it was never used by the Church to refer to the DC. Funny how you agree with your selected snippets about what the ECF's said about one single word, but disagree with everything else they taught. Can you spell s-e-l-e-c-t-i-v-i-t-y?

It's hair splitting and not worth discussing. Catholics prefer the proper term, while Protestants prefer the inaccurate term. It doesn't necessarily mean one is "right", but it is evident that Protestants use "apocrypha" and the reason is one of propaganda. GENERALLY SPEAKING, apocrypha is associated with uninspired books that the Catholic Church rejected.

The term "apocrypha" is also used in some Catholic bibles, like this one:
http://quod.lib.umic...rsv/browse.html
Just because its found in a list heading of a Catholic Bible doesn't make the canon wrong, it just means that particular heading title of a list is using an inaccurate term. You don't need to get a spiritual hernia over the usage of a single word. That's pharisee-ism.

Your harping about Jerome shows you have reading comprehension issues. This is what you ignored:

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing:

"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us"
(Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

you follow mere human opinion of the reformers , not the judgement of the 4rth century churches on the full canon of scripture (including the New Testament) whose protection from error was guaranteed by Jesus Himself.

 

[Nomad]

"oracles" does not mean "writings" and you other verses are irrelevant.

"Oracles" or "logion," which is a cognate of 'logos," is just another designation for scripture.

Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God.

So what. Jerome was wrong.

Jerome being right or wrong wasn't the point. You claimed that the term "apocrypha" was an invention of the Reformers. I quoted Jerome and Athanasius using that very term long before the Reformers. Your assertion has been proven false. That's the point.

You also claimed that the apocrypha and deuterocanonical books were not the same. Your own CATHOLIC encyclopedia says different. Once again, your assertion has been proven false.

Judith was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Among which Jews? The Hellenists who didn't like Greek Jews because they weren't Hebrew enough and rejected the message of the New Testament?

What??? A Hellenist was one who embraced Greek culture. The Jews you refer to were Hellenized Jews. Basically you just said that they didn't like themselves. You need to get your facts straight.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hellenist

 

[epostle1]

"Oracles" or "logion," which is a cognate of 'logos," is just another designation for scripture.

Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God.

It doesn't matter how you interpret "oracles". You ignore "you need someone to teach you" in the verse which refutes sola scriptura.

Jerome being right or wrong wasn't the point. You claimed that the term "apocrypha" was an invention of the Reformers. I quoted Jerome and Athanasius using that very term long before the Reformers. Your assertion has been proven false. That's the point.

Let me rephrase my claim. The term "apocrypha" is a term used elusively by the reformers, by most Protestants, and some Catholics to refer ONLY to the DC's when in fact the term was originally used EXCLUSIVELY to refer to the many books that were deemed uninspired by the Catholic Church. Using the term "apocrypha" to describe the DC's does happen, but it is inaccurate.
The reformers changed the wording to associate the DC's with books the Catholic Church rejected as a means of propaganda. So what. "Roman" Catholic is an inaccurate term used to describe all Catholics, but we don't get all nit picky about it.

You also claimed that the apocrypha and deuterocanonical books were not the same. Your own CATHOLIC encyclopedia says different. Once again, your assertion has been proven false.

So what. It doesn't prove the DC's to be uninspired. And if you are going to ignore what was said about Jerome, I am going to ignore you.

What??? A Hellenist was one who embraced Greek culture. The Jews you refer to were Hellenized Jews. Basically you just said that they didn't like themselves. You need to get your facts straight.

http://www.merriam-w...nary/hellenist

I stand corrected on the Hellenist issue. But good bye anyway. I refuse to debate with someone who repeats the same drivel and pretends everything I post isn't there. Another reason I am putting you on ignore is you chronically take things out of context and twist it to fit your opinions. Here is what I mean:

Etymologically, the derivation of Apocrypha is very simple, being from the Greek apokryphos, hidden, and corresponding to the neuter plural of the adjective. The use of the singular, "Apocryphon", is both legitimate and convenient, when referring to a single work. When we would attempt to seize the literary sense attaching to the word, the task is not so easy. It has been employed in various ways by early patristic writers, who have sometimes entirely lost sight of the etymology. Thus it has the connotation "uncanonical" with some of them. St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures — one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church — applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ "deuterocanonical" to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the "Apocrypha". (See CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.)
Catholic Encyclopedia

BIBLE TRADITION CANON INDEX OF ARTICLES

May God be with you in your search.

 

[neophyte]

Nomad,claiming to be inspired is a different thing from really being inspired. The 'Book of Mormon' claims to be the Word of God, but isn't; the Gospel of John doesn't, but it is. To determine inspiration, one must use an external authority for verification, and the Church is the only institution that can be that external authority.Because only the Catholic Church follows the teachings of the apostles ,as we find here in Luke 10:16 and Jesus tells them the following : " Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" [ Matthew 28:20 ] " As the Father has sent me , I also send you " [ John 20:21 ] and also here [ Matthew 28: 18-20 ] the Catholic Church alone was given the authority to compile which Books enter between it's covers.[ 1 Tim.3: 14 ]. No where can any Protestant show me where Jesus gave His Authority to any of your Protestant founders.Only to His apostles was this power and authority given and they are the nucleus of His One True Church only Christ's Catholic Church follow both Holy Scripture along with Holy Apostolic Tradition that comes directly from the Word made Flesh.
The Holy Bible proves Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.Hallelujah, for only God Himself would make His Church a Faith of more than just a Book, Only the Christian Faith' alone' is more than just a book religion, all other world religions are of a book alone.i.e. Mormonism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism etc.

 

[Nomad]

Your harping about Jerome shows you have reading comprehension issues. This is what you ignored:

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuter-ocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing:

"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us"
(Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Above we find material that Kepha has ripped off from a RC apologist named Mark Shea. I say ripped off because he failed to provide a proper citation, making this material appear to be his own. Unfortunately for Kepha, Mr. Shea was dead wrong about Jerome changing his mind on the Apocrypha. Below is a link to a very informative blog article on James Swan's blog, demonstrating this fact. FYI, James Swan is a contributor to James White's blog Pros Apologian.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

 

[neophyte]

Nomad, a few things need to be said here. First of all, the seven books in question--Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch--are properly called the deuterocanonical books.
Second, the label "unscriptural" was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. The truth is, portions of these books contradict elements of Protestant doctrine (as in the case of 2 Maccabees 12, which clearly supports prayers for the dead and a belief in purgatory), and the "reformers" therefore needed some excuse to eliminate them from the canon. However, these books are "unscriptural" only if misinterpreted. It should also be noted that the first-century Christians--including Jesus and the apostles--effectively considered these seven books canonical. They quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that contained these seven books. More importantly, the deuterocanonicals are clearly alluded to in the New Testament.
Third, the canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.
By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
One of the two "pillars" of the Protestant Reformation (sola scriptura or "the Bible alone") in part states that nothing can be added to or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.

 

[Nomad]

Nomad, a few things need to be said here. First of all, the seven books in question--Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch--are properly called the deuterocanonical books.

1. I'll never call them deuterocanonical because they're not canonical in any sense of the word.

2. They are properly called "apocrypha." According to Jerome that's exactly what the Jews called them because they didn't consider them inspired. I quoted Jerome in one of my previous posts.

Second, the label "unscriptural" was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century.

Wrong. I already demonstrated that Jerome, Athanasius, and the Jews did not consider the apocrypha canonical. This is no different than if they used the exact term "unsriptural." All of this was long before the Reformation. I'm not going to reproduce those canon lists again as they already exist in previous posts. I will add a few items that I did not post.

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." Jerome, Prologue to the Books of Solomon

"By the time of the captives' return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings. 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which (Jews) reckon as five are double. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these sacred books taught (them) Judaism and Law's observances till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1-46): Translated by Frank Williams (Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 26.

Old Testament list preserved in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History iv. 26.

"But in the Extracts made by him the same writer [i.e. Melito] gives at the beginning of the Introduction a catalog of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows: "Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting! Since you have often, in your zeal for the Word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire Faith, and have also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient books, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the Word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went to the East and reached the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, [sup]1[/sup] two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs or Wisdom, [sup]2[/sup] Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, [sup]3[/sup] the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. [sup]4[/sup] From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Such are the words of Melito."

1. That is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings.
2. According to Eusebius, Proverbs was sometimes called "Wisdom" (Ecclesiastical History 4.22.9.)
3. Including Lamentations, presumably. It was not the custom of the times to mention it separately.
4. Ezra and Nehemiah, counted as one book, was sometimes called simply Esdras (Greek for Ezra)

Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25.

When expounding the first Psalm he gives a catalog of the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: "It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two, corresponding with the number of their letters." Farther on he says: "The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Breshith, which means 'in the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'these are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'and he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim 'these are the words'; Joshua the son of Nun, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the first and second of Kings, among them one, Samoel, that is, 'the called of God'; the third and fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'the kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the first and second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, 'records of days'; Esdras, first and second [sup]1[/sup] in one, Ezra, that is, 'an assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther."

NOTES
1. That is, Ezra and Nehemiah.

Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419).

Formally identified? Not quite. The councils you list are regional councils. They didn't have the authority to fomally identify anything for the entire Church. Only ecumenical councils have such authority. The first ecumenical council to rule on the extent of the canon and include the apocrypha as Scripture was the johnny-come-lately council of Trent in the 16th century. Trent was the 19th ecumenical council in Church history. If the apocrypha was generally accepted as you seem to think, the issue would have been settled by ecumenical council long long before Trent. All of this combined with the protests and canon lists of various fathers/ecclesiastical writers demonstrates and highlights the conflict that continued over the apocrypha for a millennium and a half.

 

[neophyte]

Nomad , in a nutshell, since when do Christians give a hoot what the Judaic Religion accepted or didn't accept , we are Christians not Jews.

 

[Nomad]

Nomad , in a nutshell, since when do Christians give a hoot what the Judaic Religion accepted or didn't accept , we are Christians not Jews.

Even though I've been over this already, I'll bite again. Paul tells us exactly why we should "give a hoot" when it comes to the canon of the OT.

Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

*Note on my previous post: The last two quotes are from Melito of Sardis and Epiphanius respectively. I failed to make that clear.

 

[epostle1]

There was no fixed OT canon at the time of Paul. He was beheaded in 67 AD, and the Jewish school of Javnia which determined the JEWISH canon did not occur until some 30 years later.

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures.​

This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.​

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).​

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh.​

First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ.​

Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church -- the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament.​

Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life -- the Septuagint.​

source​

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.​

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.​

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.​

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.​

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.​

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.​

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.​

source​