Sunday, March 7, 2021

Fact checking Politifact.com: Jerry Nadler didn’t say ‘God has no authority in the House of Representatives’ (Daniel Funke)

On February 26, 2021, seeking to further its liberal cause, Politifact presented a fact check (for which it gets checks) labeling a the Facebook statement as false but which in essence means Politifact labels as false,. while also imputing a perverse contextual reason for it which the source did not express.

The statement at issue was one from a Facebook poster, "‘God has no authority in the House of Representatives,’" which was a summation of what Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. said in response to Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla. (who criticized the Equality Act during the House debate, saying it violates Christian beliefs), "Mr. Steube, what any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress."

Since the Facebook statement was stating in essence what Nadler expressed, I went to Politifact's page which invites us to suggest an item to fact check, suggesting it check itself:

Politifact lists a summary statement as false but which in essence means what Nadler said, while Funke also argues for a justification for it, one which is a partisan perverse interpretation.

Asserting that “What any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress,” is short for "God’s will is no concern of this government's legislative body" since "any religious tradition" covers all known express revelation of Divine will (and contextually the source was responding to one) while "Congress" includes the House (where the debate too place) as the other branch of the government's legislative body.

Certainly the Facebook post (and social media posts should be the last place you should expect veracity) technically erred in stating "House" (which is where the debate took place) instead of "Congress" and should not have placed its accurate summation in quotes, yet according to your own criteria for fact checking you are supposed to consider whether there is "another way to read the statement"/whether the statement is "open to interpretation" And it should be easy to see that the Facebook caption is expressing what was said in essence.

Moreover, Funke's assertion that Nadler's statement was a reference to the constitutional separation between church and state can only be presumed, while that would be a interpretation in any case. And a perverse one since the First Amendment certainly did mean that the Founders had absolutely no regard for the will of God from any source (es. the Bible so many often quoted), nor that it prevented general affirmation of religion and appeal to its morality, which will so many Founders appealed to.

Thus we rate this statement as MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth (as regards precise words) but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

But now that you have labelled this essentially accurate statement as false, your MSM friends can shoot down anyone who charges Nadler with saying what he did indeed express.

And which practice of focusing on one technicality in order to impugn the overall truth of statement is consistent with the liberal bias of PF, in contradiction of its professed "commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness."

Finally, we hope you will not reject the expressed will of God for us according to the Bible, of repentance and faith in the Son sent by the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14), Jesus Christ. Thank you. 

 Here is a picture of the   fact checkers:  

https://static.politifact.com/CACHE/images/politifact/photos/PolitFact_group_photo_-_Feb_2020_-_resized/fab8deeae7522a2abccd6c74580e1224.jpg

Friday, February 19, 2021

Lying and misleading headlines: "Researchers find face masks don't hinder breathing during exercise:" Science past and present - and common sense:

Lying and misleading headlines: "Researchers find face masks don't hinder breathing during exercise:" Science past and present - and common sense:

Usually citing one superficial study of just 14 persons and which simply tested blood and muscle oxygen levels after a short workout, we see headlines as below:

www.sciencedaily.com › releases › 2020/11 ...Face masks don't hinder breathing during exercise, study finds

Nov 5, 2020 — A new study has found that exercise performance and blood and muscle oxygen levels are not affected for healthy individuals wearing a face ... The study evaluated use of a three-layer cloth face mask... involving 14 physically active and healthy men and women..required to do a brief warm-up on a stationary bike. The exercise test involved a progressive increase in the intensity on the bike while they maintained a required pedal rate. Once they could not sustain the pedal rate the test was over. “Usually a participant reaches exhaustion on this test in six to twelve minutes depending on their fitness level,”

--------------------------------------------------------------

However, even if the above is true, the trumpeted "face masks don`t hinder breathing" headlines that abound (see further below) are lies at face value, since even a Kleenex hinders breathing, while otherwise they are misleading, for even if oxygen levels do not decrease with the use of masks, past studies find it takes more work for the body to deal with the impairment of breathing fresh air.

Thus any mask does indeed "hinder" breathing, especially the breathing of fresh air and oxygen, even if (as the test at issue claims) not necessarily changing the amount of O2 or CO2 in the blood during the period of testing. 

And, among other issues, N95 masks are also found to have a detrimental effect on nasal resistance after removal. 

Note that I am not saying that masks are not effective in reducing viral transmission and the need for such among the ages and unfit and unhealthy inside, which is common sense, but I oppose the extremes this has led to, from required masking whenever outside to even advocating two or three masks. 

People should get outside more, and healthy and fit persons should be able to work and play together (if the get Covid-19, such almost always recover and then have a lasting effective immune repose to reinfection), while the lack of fitness and health (42% Americans obese, 73% overall are overweight, 45% age 18 and older estimated to have high blood pressure) is actually the real cause behind so many Covid-assigned deaths (it is not the extra load in a car that usually causes its failure but it underlying problems). And which pandemic - and the extreme response to it - is a judgment upon a nation that has increasingly forsaken God and hearkened unto lies (see ARE YOU SAVED OR LOST? ).

  • Evaluation of N95 Respirator Use with a Surgical Mask Cover ... academic.oup.com › annweh › article by EJ Sinkule · 2013 · Cited by 47 — breathing resistance, effects from using N95 respirators, extending N95 ... dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss have been reported (Sayers et al

The differences in inhaled gas concentrations in FFR+SM and FFR-only were significant, especially at lower levels of energy expenditure. The orientation of the SM on the FFR may have a significant effect on the inhaled breathing quality and breathing resistance, although the measurable inhalation and exhalation pressures caused by SM [surgical mask cover ] over FFR [ N95 filtering facepiece respirators] for healthcare users probably will be imperceptible at lower activity levels.

Previous studies have reported elevated concentrations of inhaled carbon dioxide (CO2) and decreased concentrations of inhaled oxygen (O2) associated with wearing FFRs (Sinkule et al., 2003). ..

The increased inhaled CO2 concentrations and decreased inhaled O2 concentrations within the breathing zone of negative-pressure air-purifying respirators, including FFRs, are directly related to dead space.

The effects of wearing FFRs and other types of respiratory protection have been widely studied using a variety of measurement methods (Li et al., 2005; Radonovich et al., 2009; Roberge et al., 2010). Some of these investigations have been quantitative (e.g., levels of inhaled CO2), qualitative (e.g., levels of fatigue), or can reflect characteristics that range from inconvenient (e.g., decreased levels of comfort) to potentially hazardous (e.g., decreased inhaled levels of O2). The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance (Yang et al., 1997), modified exercise endurance (Raven et al., 1979), headaches and dyspnea (Raven et al., 1979). The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, and increased irritability (Sayers et al., 1987); with CO2 at 7–7.5%, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss have been reported (Sayers et al., 1987; Compressed Gas Association, 1999).

Subjects performing physical activity while breathing decreased O2 concentrations (17%) produced higher levels of lactic acid accumulation at lower levels of energy expenditure as compared with normal O2 concentrations (21%), in addition to achieving lower levels of peak exercise performance (Hogan et al., 1983). Increased breathing resistance with respirators has been identified as the cause of respiratory fatigue and impaired physical work capacity, a shift to anaerobic metabolism from an increased rate of O2 debt; and, early exhaustion at lighter workloads....

In a field study, smaller healthcare workers (e.g. women) were more probable to experience intolerance for wearing FFRs before the end of the shift (Radonovich et al., 2009)...

. Other NIOSH research has indicated significant elevated inhaled CO2 associated with various respirators. Sinkule et al. (2003) ..

Using the same six levels of energy expenditure as the present investigation, FFRs (type was not stratified) produced the highest levels of average inhaled CO2 concentrations and lowest average inhaled O2 concentrations for all levels of energy expenditure as compared with all other respiratory protective devices examined...

At levels of energy expenditure of 1.5 l·min−1 or lower, most average inhaled CO2 concentrations appeared above 2.0% for all FFRs and more so at the lowest level of energy expenditure (rest). The recognizable effect of inhaled CO2 is the stimulating action upon respiration, i.e. respiratory removal of CO2 occurs through the increase in ventilation rate. Respiratory rate, tidal volume, and alveolar CO2 become elevated with inhaled CO2 concentrations above ambient (Schneider and Truesdale, 1922; Consolazio et al., 1947; Patterson et al., 1955). These physiological responses occur to compensate for abnormal diffusion of CO2 from the blood, due to a decrease in the ratio of alveolar to capillary CO2 (Schulte, 1964).

In addition to the increased rate and depth of breathing, cardiac output will increase to compensate for the additional CO2 (Schulte, 1964). While inhaling 1–2% CO2 for 17–32min, slight increases have been reported in systolic and diastolic blood pressures (Schneider and Truesdale, 1922). Exposures of increased inhaled CO2 between 2 and 3% have been known to produce sweating, headache, and dyspnea for some subjects at rest after several hours (Schneider and Truesdale, 1922). If inhaled CO2 concentrations are between 4 and 5%, dyspnea can occur within several minutes and increased blood pressure, dizziness, and headache can occur within 15–32min (Schneider and Truesdale, 1922; Patterson et al., 1955; Schulte, 1964).

If inhaled CO2 exposures are at 5%, mental depression may occur within several hours (Consolazio et al., 1947; Schulte, 1964). As noted in several of these studies, headaches have been reported at inhaled CO2 concentrations similar to those found in this investigation. This is consistent with one study which found that 37% of healthcare workers surveyed reported headaches following FFR use (Lim et al., 2006).

A striking unanticipated finding among the horizontal flat-fold FFRs was a reduction in the average inhaled CO2 concentration when an SM was applied as an additional layer of protection at graphic of 1.0 and 1.5 l·min−1 (Table 3)...

Like the unanticipated change that occurred among the horizontal flat-fold FFRs, where a reduction in the average inhaled CO2 concentration was observed when an SM was applied as an additional layer of protection at graphic of 1.0 l·min−1 and 1.5 l·min−1, an increase in the average inhaled O2 concentration also occurred for this select subset of FFRs....

The average inhaled CO2 concentrations were lower (P < 0.05) among horizontal flat-fold FFRs with SM as compared with horizontal flat-fold FFRs alone at V.O2 of 1.0 l·min−1 and 1.5 l·min−1

[Now note the summary conclusion:]

Results: Generally, concentrations of average inhaled CO2 decreased and average inhaled O2 increased with increasing O2 consumption for FFR+SM and FFR-only. For most work rates, peak inhalation and exhalation pressures were statistically higher in FFR+SM as compared with FFR-only. The type of FFR and the presence of exhalation valves (EVs) had significant effects on average inhaled CO2, average inhaled O2, and breathing pressures. The evidence suggests that placement of an SM on one type of FFR improved inhaled breathing gas concentrations over the FFR without SM; the placement of an SM over an FFR+EV probably will prevent the EV from opening, regardless of activity intensity; and, at lower levels of energy expenditure, EVs in FFR do not open either with or without an SM. (https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/57/3/384/230992)

[Basically what this is saying it the more restrictive masking one wears - and the flatter it is, reducing dead space, then the less inhaled CO2 [carbon dioxide] occurs and increasing O2 [oxygen] consumption. This is despite the study showing that average inhaled CO2 concentrations increased with the use of FFRs, and common sense tells us that a mask restricts inhalation of oxygen and increases inhalation of carbon dioxide then. Though a flat mask would be better than a cup type.

The only way then that concentrations of average inhaled CO2 can decrease and average inhaled O2increase is a result of the body working harder, as the study says, "respiratory removal of CO2 occurs through the increase in ventilation rate...In addition to the increased rate and depth of breathing, cardiac output will increase to compensate for the additional CO2 " and with slight increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressures.

And that "At levels of energy expenditure of 1.5 l·min−1 or lower, most average inhaled CO2 concentrations appeared above 2.0% for all FFRs and more so at the lowest level of energy expenditure (rest)... Exposures of increased inhaled CO2 between 2 and 3% have been known to produce sweating, headache, and dyspnea for some subjects at rest after several hours." "one study which found that 37% of healthcare workers surveyed reported headaches following FFR use."

More trumpeted "face masks don`t hinder breathing" headlines below, with excerpts of other research cited in response.

Researchers find face masks don`t hinder breathing during . .. A new University of Saskatchewan (USask) study has found that exercise performance and blood and muscle oxygen levels are not affected for healthy individuals wearing a face mask during strenuous workouts... the study, published Nov. 3 in the research journal International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health...indicate that people can wear face masks during intense exercise with no detrimental effects on performance and minimal impact on blood and muscle oxygenation..

Researchers find face masks don't hinder breathing during ...

Face Masks Don't Hinder Breathing During Exercise, USask ... new University of Saskatchewan (USask) study has found that exercise performance and blood and muscle oxygen levels are not affected for healthy individuals wearing a face mask during strenuous workouts.

Wearing Face Masks During Exercise Don't Hinder Breathing . ..

There are two basic principles relevant to respirator use:

Protective masks and clothing generally shorten the time that a particular activity level can be sustained...

1. Work cannot usually be performed as long or as hard while wearing a respirator compared to when respirators are not worn. Wearing protective clothing plus respirators makes this situation even worse. Either more time must be allowed for a particular task or more workers must be assigned to the same task.

There is a great deal of wearer variability. Some wearers can tolerate respirator high inspiratory or expiratory resistance or pressure levels, while others cannot. Some wearers are much more anxious about wearing respirators than others. Some wearers can tolerate hot, humid conditions inside respirators, whereas others cannot. Because of this variability, each wearer must be treated as an individual...

Buffering the blood against lactic acid formation during anaerobic respiration produces extra carbon dioxide that can be exhaled. This extra carbon dioxide acts as a respiratory stimulant that leads to hyperventilation, or harder and deeper breathing.

All these processes proceed each time a person moves actively. They are much more efficient for younger people than for older people. Maximum oxygen uptake for 20 year olds is about 2.5 l per minute, but declines nearly linearly to about 1.7 l per minute at age 65 [17]. Well-trained individuals can have maximum oxygen uptakes up to twice these values. In addition, the maximum oxygen debt that can be incurred by an individual declines with age and is also affected by training [12].

Metabolic responses during exercise, and especially during emergencies, are modified by the release of the adrenal hormones adrenalin (epinephrine) and cortisol. These hormones increase metabolic rate, increase the rate and force of heart contractions, enhance the availability of blood glucose, reroute blood from the gut to the muscles, and mobilize the nervous system. The combined actions of these hormones can affect physical, emotional, and cognitive functions.

Muscular strength declines with age, making task performance less efficient when more muscles must be recruited to perform a task. Muscular power can be restored relatively rapidly with strength training. Drugs and medicines can also affect body metabolism, as can illness. Products of cigarette smoking and caffeine also affect metabolic rate [65]...

Inhaled air is oxygen rich and carbon dioxide poor. Exhaled air is oxygen poor and carbon dioxide rich. Because air flow in the airways is bidirectional, the first air that reaches the alveoli is the same as the last air that was exhaled during the previous exhalation. This is an indication of the dead volume of the lung, or that volume that stores carbon dioxide from the previous breath. Dead volume for average adults is about 180 ml, but dead volume of respirators can add to the effective dead volume of the respiratory system and affect performance [52].

Inhaled air is oxygen rich and carbon dioxide poor. Exhaled air is oxygen poor and carbon dioxide rich. Because air flow in the airways is bidirectional, the first air that reaches the alveoli is the same as the last air that was exhaled during the previous exhalation. This is an indication of the dead volume of the lung, or that volume that stores carbon dioxide from the previous breath. Dead volume for average adults is about 180 ml, but dead volume of respirators can add to the effective dead volume of the respiratory system and affect performance [52].

Carbon dioxide is a very powerful respiratory stimulant. Increasing the concentration of inhaled carbon dioxide increases lung ventilation much more than does oxygen deficiency. Metabolically-produced carbon dioxide is even more effective than inhaled carbon dioxide at stimulating respiration. This is critical for additions of external dead volume, which transforms exhaled metabolic carbon dioxide into carbon dioxide inhaled during the next breath. Once the anaerobic threshold is reached, blood buffering makes it appear that metabolic carbon dioxide increases, and respiration is stimulated so much that lung ventilation increases dramatically as work rate intensifies... (Fig. 3).

Respiration does not usually limit work performances of healthy individuals, but respiration can limit work time when respirators are worn [44, 51]. The most important function of the respiratory system is the removal of carbon dioxide from the body. Adjustments during exercise increase depth and rate of breathing in order to expel this gaseous end-product of aerobic metabolism. Exercise exhalation becomes actively supported by the abdominal muscles, spewing carbon dioxide at faster rates as exercise intensifies. At some point, the rate at which air can be exhaled becomes limited by the distensible airways in the respiratory system. Any further increase in abdominal pressure cannot increase expiratory flow rate.

Thus, for normal individuals, there is a limitation when exhalation time decreases to one-half second or so [22, 24]. Carbon dioxide cannot be expelled any faster than this minimum exhalation time allows. Additionally, some people suffer from respiratory impairments that limit maximum pressures that can be generated by the respiratory muscles when they breathe through external resistances or against external pressures [59]. Respiratory-limited work usually lasts 5–20 min.

Respirator effects...

Extra inspiratory resistance [38] promotes hypoventilation [2–4, 6, 16, 39, 50, 60] of the wearer (lower volumes of air breathed and smaller amounts of oxygen used). This can result in an earlier transition from aerobic (using oxygen) to anaerobic (no oxygen needed) respiration [10, 32], and faster progress toward the maximum tolerance for exercise (maximum oxygen debt).

Facepiece dead volume accumulates exhaled carbon dioxide in the voids between the respirator and the face and returns it to the respiratory system during the next inspiration. This carbon dioxide then acts as a respiratory stimulant. Because carbon dioxide is a psychoactive gas, dead volume may also produce discomfort and a performance decrement at low-intensity work. A typical value for full-facepiece APR [Air-purifying respirators] respirator dead volume is 350 mL. Such a dead volume is expected to reduce performance time by 19 % at a work rate of 80 to 85 % of maximum oxygen uptake [52].

Intense exercise above the anaerobic threshold uses more air than does moderate exercise, and because very intense exercise metabolism has a higher anaerobic component than does moderate exercise, the air that is used is not consumed as efficiently as it is at lower intensity [43]. The net result is that SCBA tank air depletes much more rapidly at high work rates than at moderate work rates...

Use of respirators in hot conditions leads to several difficulties. Discomfort has been related to facial temperatures inside the facepiece. Facial skin temperatures are more important for comfort than skin temperatures in other parts of the body...

There can be a considerable amount of discomfort associated with wearing respirators, gloves, boots, and protective suits. Those individuals prone to anxious feelings may have their anxieties made worse during periods of inactivity. Anxieties are the most important threat to protective equipment wear, and extremely anxious people should not be asked to wear respirators, if possible.

Studies have shown that anxiety level is a very reliable indicator of difficulty encountered while wearing a respirator. Extremely anxious individuals do not perform for as long or at the same work rate as low-anxiety wearers [28, 61].

For those who can tolerate the discomfort and claustrophobic feelings when wearing respirators, there will nonetheless be physical effects of prolonged wear [54, 57]...

Physiological limits to long term exercise deal with limitations on blood glucose levels and muscle glycogen stores. Dehydration or electrolyte depletion may occur [17]. These are difficult to quantify for any individual, but frequent eating and drinking can deter them from happening [30]. Psychological effects are also important. Feelings of fatigue are common, as are feelings of anxiety and discontent [54, 57]...

Rest times are also dependent on the intensity of the task and the maximum oxygen uptake of the individual [17]. In general, the more intense the work, the longer will be the recovery time, but the relationship is nonlinear. A task that can be performed for an hour requires at least a 10 min rest period. More intense tasks (with shorter performance times) require longer rest times.

Face Masks Do Not Impair Breathing for People with COPD ...

Paul Chinn/The Chronicle.. People with breathing problems (ironically) are discouraged from wearing a mask without getting a doctor's recommendation. In one statement, CA Dept. of Public Health writes, "Wearing a mask may actually be harmful to some people with heart or lung disease because it can make the lungs work harder to breathe." A doctor will look at the patient's condition, ability to draw in air, and guide them on how to make it fit right if recommended.

Small children should not wear masks. California's Dept. of Public Health points out, "Children should not wear these masks – they do not fit properly and can impede breathing. If the air quality is poor enough that a child requires a mask, the child should remain indoors, in a safe place, and evacuation should be considered."

Recordings of 429 infants were included (median (IQR) gestational age of 28+6 (27+1-30+4) weeks). In 368/429 (86%) infants breathing was observed before application of the face mask and 197/368 (54%) of these infants stopped breathing following application of the face mask. Apnoea occurred at a median of 5 (3–17) seconds after application of the face mask with a duration of 28 (22–34) seconds of the first minute. In a logistic regression model, the occurrence of apnoea after face mask application was inversely associated with gestational age (OR = 1.424 (1.281–1.583), p < 0.001). Infants who stopped breathing had a significantly lower heart rate 82 (66–123) vs 134 (97–151) bpm, p < 0.001) and oxygen saturation (49% (33–59) vs 66% (50–82), p < 0.001) over the first minute after face mask application, compared to infants who continued breathing.

Wearing Face Masks During Exercise Won't Hinder Breathing ... The Saskatchewan study , published Nov. 3, 2020, in the research journal International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, evaluated the use of a three-layer cloth mask.

Despite the protective function, the effects of mask wearing on respiratory microclimate, respiratory functions and individual sensations are important as well. It was reported that facemask caused less subjective discomfort feeling, lower perception of humidity, heat and breathe resistance than N95 respirator. 10 Wearing masks could affect the wearer’s whole body thermal sensation. 11

Long- duration wearing of N95 respirator may induce physiological stress on the wearer, making regular tasks more challenging, and causes headaches among healthcare providers. 12 These effects might be due to the respiratory microclimate change surrounding the masks. For example, wearing surgical facemask and N95 respirator was found to induce different temperatures and humidification on outer and inner mask surfaces 10. These differences are attributed to different material properties of the masks, such as lower air permeability and water vapor permeability in N95 respirator. 13 While the N95 respirator would physically increase the nasal resistance more than 100% compared to the condition without respirator, 14 the presence of exhaled moisture or concurrent wearing of surgical facemask has limited effect on breathing resistance.... 15,16

Conclusion In conclusion, there is an increase of nasal resistance upon removal of N95 respirator and surgical facemask after 3hours wearing which potentially due to nasal physiological changes, instead of the size of nasal airways. The nasal resistance was not recovered even after 1.5hours removal of respirator/facemask. In addition, the N95 respirator caused higher post-wearing nasal resistance than surgical facemask with different recovery routines.

Working Out With a Face Mask Doesn't Hinder Breathing ...Researchers measured oxygen levels in the blood and muscles of 14 physically active and healthy participants during an aerobic fitness test...The data showed no evidence that breathing was hindered during the workout.

Face Masks Don't Inhibit Breathing or Performance During ...

Our study revealed a decrease in the oxygen saturation of arterial pulsations (SpO2) and a slight increase in pulse rates compared to preoperative values in all surgeon groups. The decrease was more prominent in the surgeons aged over 35.. Considering our findings, pulse rates of the surgeon's increase and SpO2 decrease after the first hour. This early change in SpO2 may be either due to the facial mask or the operational stress. Since a very small decrease in saturation at this level, reflects a large decrease in PaO2, our findings may have a clinical value for the health workers and the surgeons.



Monday, February 15, 2021

Why conservatives (esp. Christian ones) vote Republican (until a fully conservative party becomes a viable alternative), by way of analogy

 

You are at a port along with many other people, whom you want to see follow a tried and true course set forth a long time ago by wise men who well knew the dangers of the journey. This periodically means changing ships, and at this juncture  you have a choice between two companies, ships, captains and crews.

The ship on the Left has a destination quite different than where you want to go live, with its course being plotted by Hell, and insists on engaging in perverted non-traditional social engineering and policies of perversions of what the Creator of all ordained - despite the ever-increasing cost in souls, lived and money. The captain of this ship, owned by Soros and company foreign enterprises, is a “woke” supporter of said policies and of mostly peaceful protesters and those who are ever conscious of their racial color in order to appropriate privilege and impute guilt and discrimination based on this.

He (or “she” or “they” as the entity may choose to I.D. as), is as member in good standing of this pro-LGBTQ, NWIMBY (no windmills in my backyard) company, and abhors those “deplorables” who “cling to guns and religion“ as anti-life, and supports a women's right to kill the unborn, and for self-identified men to use a bathroom with your wife or daughter, while seeking to increasingly control industry and censor all the politically incorrect speech of others more. In short, the captain, reflecting company policy, is ever striving to fundamentally transform the society which produced the U.S. Constitution and reflects Biblical values and principles.

In that interest, the captain informs you that on this ship there are many ever-increasing polices to be followed, which have been adopted from practices, principals or proposals of many elite liberal institutions of “higher” education. Which means:

• This ship plans to fly the flag of Sodom as well as  other nations opposed to the God of the Bible, and requires signifying support (no kneeling) for the nation for which it stands, and any opposition will be considered evidence of homophobia, or transphobia, or misogyny, or Islamophobia (others to be added as needed) , and any of which is profoundly intolerable. Those found guilty of such can face severe economic sanctions. Or more severe measures.

• The choice of which bathrooms one uses is to be determined by whatever gender one feels comfortable with (at least at the moment). To be fair, objections to this will be penalized in accordance with a scale based upon race.

• Fornication is to be encouraged and fostered, but life-committed marriage and being a father to children is not. Any babies that may happen to be born during this journey should be disposed off if unwanted by the mother, even up to an possible after birth, rather than the this tissue being a burden to any woke, welfare and reparations promoter mother and community. Any who actually believe that human life begins as conception are to accept when it ends at Planned Parent-hood, so that only one of out two come out alive.

• This ship will be escorted by Greenpeace activists to warn whales of our approach, while representatives of PETA will be onboard to ensure a vegetarian diet is followed (no eggs!). However, feeding sharks with the flesh of the unborn can be implicitly sanctioned.

• This ship is a gun free zone, including toys and mere replicas, and our policy in case of encounters with those whom conservatives sees as enemies, such as pirates or communist “guerrillas,” will be to assure them we have no intent or means to harm them, and thus we expect they will reciprocate in kind. We can then smoke organic weed together, educate them on how to receive government benefits in California, and explain to them how they became “radicalized” by conservatives who oppose them and their tactics. .

• Consistent with this, corporal discipline of children that may actually survive a pregnancy and birth is forbidden, lest they learn there can be physical consequences to disobedience (such as we plan for peaceful dissenters). Likewise all contact sports are forbidden, even the watching of them, but indoctrination by watching MSNBC or listening to NPR 5 hours a day will be required, after first reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of Sodom.

Students will be tested on such issues as how many problems can be blamed on Climate Change, and why Christian conservatives are dangerous racist homophobes, but how liberals are objective/fair-minded and should be in control as being the elite minds. And how to engage in intimidation against those who disagree.

Among the types of speech that are to be progressively censored is that which expresses any doubt of past or present warnings regarding liberal social policies, the degrees of unending Covid-19 restrictions and those for combating Climate Change, and any conclusions of evolutionary science, or liberal politics in general. And of course (as if we have to say it), any speech, oral or written, including songs, promoting Judaeo-Christian morality, or celebrating Christian beliefs, especially if conveying any official sanction. This is critical in order to foster our desired tolerance and diversity.

• The crew has been hired based upon the merit of race/racial quotas (with sexual orientation qualifying as race) rather than merit of character and ability being determinitive. Although this means that the best qualified person may not be hired if he or she is of the wrong race or self-identified gender, this is necessary in order to avoid discrimination.

• Likewise, penalties for infractions by crew or any passenger will be determined by a scale based on racial status, with those of the politically incorrect race being penalized the most, at least by writing an essay confessing to their guilt by being born as part of the race, those of the politically incorrect race need to atone for this non-choice, and with any blame and no credit is to be imputed to the same.

• Consistent with this, those who purchased first-class accommodations and benefits, regardless of how many years they labored to attain them, are to be compelled to share what they acquired with all others, regardless of whether they be stowaways, those engaged in the street-level pharmaceutical trade, or students in the elite art of protesting injustice (including having to pay back student loans) while living off their parents.

• Sharing wealth as being an expression of mercy and grace is not condoned: instead, obtaining what others earned is to be considered a Right as Victims of those who obtained benefits by honest labor, and the latter are to be increasingly penalized for gaining wealth, and for presuming to share such as acts of Mercy and Grace and not Justice, lest gratitude be shown for charity and betterrment be inspired, versus perpetual protesting of injustice and the conditions the latter foster.

• This divestiture will first be for and through the captain and his elite administration, who uniquely may enjoy without guilt greater benefits they attained as elite saviors of the perpetually oppressed, who are to remain dependent upon their exalted leaders. This is necessary in order to maintain a class-less society in which the goal is for all to share an equal level of poverty prosperity (except for their elite comrades). At the ships final destination of Venezuela this goal will hopefully be realized.

• Cultural appropriations by certain races are prohibited, such as Europeans wearing Hawaiian shirts or cooking General Tso’s chicken (even if virtually unheard of in China). However, use of everything from European origin is never to be criticized since liberals never have double standards.

• Freedom of speech is also not to be tolerated for anyone who has ever been banned by Facebook, or supports any organization promoting traditional moral values, and or has been censored by the $outhern Poverty Law Center, or voted Republican. The Terms of Service on your boarding pass provides more specific details of what may be judged offensive (note “otherwise objectionable” and “violative of any law”) by politically correct police - at their discretion.

• If you have any doubt as to what may be considered offensive behavior, the general rule is that the perversions of traditional Judaeo-Christian morals and principals are to be followed. For instance, expressing that such things as idolatry, profanity, disrespect to parents and elders, abortion, theft (via welfare state), unmarried consensual sexual relationships (though a formal consent form may be required) are sin will and not be tolerated. However, such actions as using politically incorrect speech (including "all lives matter) or eating meat are a mortal sin.

• Although extensive efforts have been made to prohibit intolerance, in case of violations, real or perceived, there are assigned Safe Places on every deck for those who feel offended by politically incorrect speech, or suspected microaggressions. 

The ship on the Right is one whose captain and policies support Biblical precepts and policies, at least to varying degrees, and if lacking a  stronger third option, thus which ship and captain should be chosen is clear,  by the grace of God.



Friday, January 22, 2021

Infallibility and the Roman Catholic Canon, its formation and evidence against the Apocrypha (PeaceByJesus.net)

 Infallibility and the Roman Catholic Canon, its formation and evidence against the Apocrypha

This is provided in response to the Roman Catholic polemic that the canon was settled until Luther came along and rejected some books, resulting in the Protestant canon, which is a distortion of facts which will be provided below. And which helps answer the question as to the who and how the books of the Bible were determined. For a list of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible (and brief description of each), see here.

Contents

Preface

The apocryphal books

The canon prior to Luther and Trent canon

The antiquity of the 39 book O.T. canon

The LXX (Septuagint)and DSS

Council of Jamnia

When was the first “infallible” Roman Catholic definition of the Biblical canon?

Prior lists were by councils that were not ecumenical/infallible

Dissent before and in Trent

Is the canon of Trent the same as that of Hippo and Carthage?

Essential means of establishment of Scripture

Preface: The issue of the Catholicism and the canon of Scripture is an issue of authority and determination of Truth, and thus this preface is provided. It is also often asserted by Roman Catholics that they gave the world the Bible and thus they are the infallible interpreters of it, but even if it could be said that the Catholic church of Trent was the same as that of the first century (which it clearly deviates from), this logic would require us to submit to Judaism. For (unlike the Roman church) the Bible clearly affirms that the Jews, over which were the Scribes and Pharisees who “sat in Moses' seat,” (Mt. 23:2) were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, as “unto them were committed the oracles of God,” and more, and “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.” (Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5) But it is evident that neither a commission to teach, nor formal decent of office or promises of preservation (Gn. 28:15; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; 31:6,8; Num. 23:19,23; Josh. 1:5; Neh. 9:31; 1Sam. 12:22; 1Ch. 28:20; Ps 37:25,28; 89:31-37; Isa 41:10; Jer. 23:39; Mal. 3:6) meant that they were assuredly infallible, and both men of God and writings of God were established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium. (Lk. 24:44)

Therefore first century souls recognized a holy man in the desert and an itinerant Preacher as being of God even though the Jewish magisterium rejected them. (Mk. 11:27-33) And thus Christianity began in dissent from those, who like Rome, presumed of themselves more than what was written, (cf. 1Cor. 4:6), including assured veracity, and thus they were reproved from Scripture by Christ and His apostles for teaching as doctrines mere traditions of the elders, (Mk. 7:2-16) while the Lord established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, as did the apostles and early church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

True men of God, writings of God, and thus the books of the Bible, became established as being of God in the light of their Heavenly qualities, virtues and the manner of Divine supernatural attestation often afforded them,. While the powers that be were to affirm such as being of God, yet they were so even if the magisterium failed to do so. And thus the church began.

Going back further, God supernaturally affirmed the faith of Abraham, and the same God confirmed that faith in providing undeniable attestation to Moses, who apparently wrote most of the Torah. And as written, Scripture became the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . And as Scripture attests to writings being recognized and established as being of God, then Scripture provides for a canon.

Protestants are attacked as having no certitude of doctrine, because although they have an infallible authority (Scripture), they do not have an assuredly infallible interpreter which Roman Catholics claim is needed for determining what Truth is, and what it means. (For unlike what Rome as well as cults effectively do, Protestant magisteriums do not claim assured infallibility for whatever they teach on faith and morals to the church universal.) But this Roman and cultic basis for determining Truth would preclude souls from having assurance of truth before the church Rome presumed she was necessary for it, while the Protestant disallowance of assured infallibility does not mean they cannot realize infallible truths (even “there is a Creator” would qualify) or have Scriptural assurance of Truth insomuch as the Scriptures promise assurance, based upon conformity to Scripture and the manner of attestation it affirms. (1Jn. 5:13)

Moreover, the basis for assurance for a Roman Catholic that Rome is the One True infallible Church magisterium is the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome. And as Rome has presumed to infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, this renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, including which books belong in the Bible. And by which circular reasoning Roman Catholics have assurance, and which infallible teaching they are required to give implicit “assent of faith” to. (Realizing the circularity of their polemical claims, Roman Catholic apologists attempt to argue for the necessity of the Roman magisterium by appealing to Scripture simply as if a reliable historical document that they argue supports Rome. But if a soul can judge Scriptural books as being persuasive reliable historical documents, then they can also realize that an assuredly infallible magisterium was not necessary to know which books are Scripture, nor was such a magisterium necessary or the basis upon which the NT church began. Thus the goal of RC apologists is to convince souls they must see all evidence through the eyes of Rome.)

Yet while Roman Catholics are to give the highest level of assent of faith to infallible pronouncements, which ones and which parts of teachings are infallible out of potentially hundreds is itself also a matter of fallible interpretation, with only a few being settled, and it is also held that the “guarantee” of infallibility does not extend to the reasons and arguments behind it. Nor do RCs know for sure what magisterial level many other teachings fall under, and thus whether they can dissent from them.

Furthermore, while Catholics claim a supreme infallible interpretive authority, they have not only made a fallible decision to trust in their purportedly “infallible” authority, but they also do not have an infallible interpreter of their infallible authority, and thus engage in fallible interpretation of its teachings. In addition, much or most (depends upon RC interpretation) of what Roman Catholics believe and practice comes from the Ordinary magisterium, in which are teachings which can allow for some error and for more interpretation and some possibility of some degree of dissent. And in practical effect what is manifest is that Catholics vary in their understanding of Catholic doctrine (as well as disagree with it). Thus what level a magisterial teaching belongs to, and the meaning of such to varying degrees, and what degree of dissent may be allowed, is much a matter that is left to fallible judgment.

Finally, the unity that results from implicit assent to an assuredly infallible magisterium is that which cults effectively practice, and is inferior in quality to that which is based upon the supremacy of Scripture, and its means of “manifestation of the truth,” by which the apostles persuaded men, by the Scriptures and the power of God. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10) The more this is a manifest reality, then they more unity, and thus the level of unity of the NT church was under manifest apostles, “in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..,” (2Cor., 6:4) And the greater the claim to authority, then the greater the attestation must be, and by which Rome is disqualified as warranting faith in all her claims, which include those that even apostles did not make.

And instead of the books of the Bible owing their establishment to her “infallible decree, they were essentially established upon the same basis as souls of recognized men of God as being so, and the Son of God as being so, and upon which the church began.

The apocryphal books, mainly referred to as deuterocanonical books by Catholics (or 'Deuteros" for short)

While the 27 books of the New Testament had ancient support is not in dispute between Catholics and Protestants, the Apocrypha refers to extra books included in Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, though their lists are not quite the same, but which are not contained in the Protestant (and most popular) canon of inspired Scripture, as they are manifested to be of an inferiorquality or questionable integrity, the Wisdom of Solomon perhaps being the best, although for much of Protestant history they were typically printed in a separate section of their Bibles. The Roman Catholic books are: Tobit; Judith; Additions to Esther (Vulgate: Esther 10:4-16:24); Wisdom; Sirach (also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus); Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint); Additions to Daniel, which are the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (which in the Vulgate was Daniel 3:24-90) and Susanna (Vulgate: Daniel 13, Septuagint: prologue) as well as Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate: Daniel 14, Septuagint: epilogue); 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees. The Greek Orthodox adds 1 Esdras, 3 +4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.

The apocryphal books are relatively obscure, and one of their notable accounts is the tale of Tobit, which concerns a women, Sarah, who has lost seven husbands because Asmodeus, the demon of lust, and ‘the worst of demons,’ abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated!

And about a man, Tobias, who was sleeping with his eyes open while birds dropped dung into in his eyes (sound sleeper!) and blinded him. And who later is attacked by a fish leaping out of the river to devour him! But the angel Raphael has him capture it and he later burns the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon Asmodeus away to Upper Egypt, enabling him and Sarah to consummate their marriage.

Which story is like that of Jewish fables and commandments of men, (Titus 1:14) found in the Talmud, such as “He who drinks in pairs, his blood is upon his own head,” as one can be possessed by demons by drinking an even number of cups of wine, versus an odd number. One man who was thus possessed hugged a palm tree to deal with it, and the tree cried out and the man burst. [Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 110a; http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Pesachim.pdf]

^

The canon prior to Luther and Trent

Overview:

While Roman Catholic apologists often argue that the canon was indisputably settled from the 4th century onward until Luther changed it, this is contrary to what research reveals.

Luther was not alone in questioning or rejecting certain books, and his views (like early church leaders) were part of a process of development, and had the support of scholarly principles, and that of substantial Catholic scholarship from antiquity and right into Trent over the certain books, especially those of the apocrypha. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent: St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947; pp. 278, 281-282. More)

Luther and the Reformers (overall) treated the Apocrypha as many others did, which was that these books were not to be held as equal to the Scriptures, but were useful and good to read, but not for establishment of doctrine. Luther's Bible included almost all the apocryphal books of the Catholic canon, wanting them to be available despite not being qualified to be classed as Scripture, and therefore he placed apocryphal works between the Old and New Testaments following the ancient practice of Jerome, who had separately placed such at the end of the Old Testament. (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, by Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, p. 457) In addition, Luther also doubted the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John, but did not call them apocryphal. (The Esoteric Codex: Old Testament Apocrypha by Julius Allsop, p. 2) Luther expressed that his canon was his own non-binding judgment, and his views (which he prefaced them with) on some of these books may have changed in later years, and the 66 book Protestant canon is not exactly the same as Luther's. However, it is more ancient than that of Rome's, reflecting a more ancient canon held by Palestinian Jews from before the third century, and which is affirmed in Catholicism: “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)

Thus, together with the 27 book N.T. canon that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism hold in common, and which was overall settled early in church history, the 66 book canon of Protestantism clearly has ancient support. This does not mean that the apocryphal book are of no value, and but they can be edifying, if not equally so, and I would say that the Wisdom of Solomon would be the one that comes closest to being like Scripture, yet it wrongly (apparently) ascribes itself to being from Solomon, and its possible dating by scholars can extend to just after the resurrection.

Decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below) apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

This definition, coming over 1400 hundred years (April 8th, 1546) after the last book was written — and after Luther died (February 8,1546) — was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation, and in so doing, it not only went against a tradition of substantial weight in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be uninspired, but there is even confusion over whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo. Thus , if the canon list was dogma prior to Trent, then there were many Catholics throughout history who would have been de facto excommunicated. More. (Also, some of the books of the Pseudepigrapha were invoked by some church fathers, and found their way into other canons of various Eastern churches, which also differ with that of Rome, but which is seldom made a major issue by Roman Catholic apologists, unlike as with Protestants).

In addition, present Roman Catholic liberal scholarship impugns the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and its official Bible for America relegates numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, etc. (as shown below).

Two worthwhile pages to see on Luther and the canon are here and here. (Note that inclusion of any link cannot infer complete affirmation by me of all that a site may contain, but that they at least substantiate what is claimed, and usually more pertinent information.)^

The antiquity of the 39 book O.T. canon versus the inclusion of the apocrypha

The strongest evidence shows the apocryphal books were not included in the Hebrew Canon of Jesus day. The Palestinian canon from before the earliest (late century) conciliar lists Roman Catholics point to is held by many as being identical to the Protestant Old Testament, differing only in the arrangement and number of the books, while the Alexandrian canon, referred to as the Septuagint is seen as identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Ancient evidence as well as the Lord's affirmation of a tripartite canon in Lk. 24:44 weighs in favor of the Palestinian canon — if indeed there was a strict separation — being what He held to. Note that the so-called “Council” of Jamnia, and see below, is considered to be theoretical, and with some scholars arguing that the Jewish canon was fixed during the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.), - though not universally (nor is it today). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon)

"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49) By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015)

Knowledgeable [if liberal] New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman also finds,

Most scholars agree that by the time of the destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E. most Jews accepted the final three-part canon of the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim.... This was a twenty-four-book canon that came to be attested widely in Jewish writings of the time; eventually the canon was reconceptualized and renumbered an that it became the thirty-nine books of the Christian Old Testament. But they are the same books, all part of the canon of Scripture. (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)

The evidence clearly supports the theory that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century AD, more than likely as early as the fourth century BC and certainly no later than 150 BC. A major reason for this conclusion comes from the Jews themselves, who from the fourth century BC onward were convinced that "the voice of God had ceased to speak directly." (Ewert, FATMT, 69) In other words, the prophetic voices had been stilled. No word from God meant no new Word of God. Without proph-ets, there can be no scriptural revelation. Concerning the Intertestamental Period (approximately four hundred years between the close of the Old Testament and the events of the New Testament)

Concerning the Intertestamental Period (approximately four hundred years between the dose of the Old Testament and the events of the New Testament) Ewert observes,

In 1 Maccabees 14:41 we read of Simon who is made leader and priest "until a trustworthy prophet should rise," and earlier he speaks of the sorrow in Israel such "as there has not been since the prophets ceased to appear to them." "The prophets have fallen asleep," complains the writer of 2 Baruch (85:3). Books that were written after the prophetic period had closed were thought of as lying outside the realm of Holy Scripture. (Ewen, FATMT, 70)

Bruce affirms that The books of the Hebrew Bible are traditionally twenty-four in number, arranged in three divisions." (Bruce, CS, 29) The three divisions are the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Here are the main categories of the Hebrew canon found in modern editions of the Jewish Old Testament.

The Law (Torah): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy . The Prophets (Nebhim): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings (former prophets), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve (latter prophets) , The Writings (Kethubhim or Hagi-ographa [Greek]): Psalms, Proverbs, Job (poetical books), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesi-astes (Five Rolls [MegillothD, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles (historical books)

Christ's Witness to the Old Testament Canon

Luke 24:44: In the Upper Room Jesus told the disciples "that all things most needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me" (Asv). With these words Jesus indicated "a threefold categorization of the sacred Scriptures [the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings), the third part of which is identified by its longest and presumably most important book, the Psalms." (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)

John 10:31-36; Luke 24:44: Jesus disagreed with the oral traditions of the Pharisees (Mark 7, Matt. 15), but not with their concept of the Hebrew canon.

Luke 11:51 (also Matt. 23:35): "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah." With these words Jesus confirms his witness to the extent of the Old Testament canon. Abel was the first martyr recorded in Scripture (Gen. 4:8) and Zechariah the last mar-tyr to be named in the Hebrew Old Testament order, having been stoned while prophesying to the people "in the court of the house of the LORD." (2 Chr. 24:21). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and Chronicles the last. Jesus, then, was basically saying, "from Genesis to Chronicles," or, according to our order, "from Genesis to Malachi," thereby confirming the divine authority and inspiration of the entire Hebrew canon. (Bruce, BP, 88)

Philo "Around the time of Christ, the Jewish philosopher Philo made a three-fold distinction in the Old Testament speaking of the '[1] laws and [2) oracles delivered through the mouth of prophets, and [3) psalms and anything else which fosters and perfects knowledge and piety (De Vita Contemplativa 3.25)." (Geisler and Nix, BFGU, 103) (Last 10 excerpts above transcribed from "Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World," By Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, pp. 34-36)

"The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible..."

"The desire to supplement Scripture was part of a general tendency in the Greco-Roman period toward 'rewritten Bible.' In such works the authors, out of reverence for the Bible, sought to extend the biblical tradition and often applied it to the issues of their own day. ..."

1 Baruch "is a hortatory work which was treated as a supplement to Jeremiah. It is a pseudepigraphon, purporting to have been written by Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah... The first part had to have been written by the onset of the first century B.C.E., but the date of the second half cannot be established. It may postdate the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E." From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 12-,121, 123,125, 126, Lawrence H Schiffman, PH D, Sol Scharfstein, Ethel and Irvine Edelman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies; KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1991)

The latter aspect means that Baruch (along with some other books of the apocrapha) may not have been written until after the completion of the Jewish LXX in 132 BC.

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself affirms the Palestinian canon as consisting of the same books. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

That there was an established, if limited body of writings of God by the time of Christ is manifest by the frequent quotes or references to them as authoratative by the Lord Jesus and the NT writers. Which was never manifest as being an issue with the Scribes and Pharisees whom the Lord affirmed sat in the magisterial seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) to whom conditional obedience was enjoined. And it was they who held to a conservative number of Scriptural writings.

J. N. D. Kelly states,

For the Jews of Palestine the limits of the canon (the term is Christian, and was not used in Judaism) were rigidly fixed; they drew a sharp line of demarca- tion between the books which 'defiled the hands', i.e. were sacred, and other religiously edifying writings. The oudook of the Jewish communities outside Palestine tended to be much more elastic. "While respecting the unique position of the Pentateuch, they treated the later books of the Old Testament with considerable freedom, making additions to some and drastically rewriting others; and they did not hesitate to add entirely new books to the permitted list. In this way 1 (3) Esdras, Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees came to be included among the histories, and Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three Holy Children, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon (these last three 'the Additions to the Book of Daniel'), and the Prayer of Manasseh among the poetical and prophetic books. FONT FACE="Arial, sans-serif">(J. N. D. KELLY, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, FOURTH EDITION, ADAM & CHARLES BLACK LONDON, p. 53 )

The ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus only enumerates 22 books of Scripture - though according to Jerome, a minority of of Jewish opinion counts them as 24 (Gallagher and Meade: The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity) which 4 Ezra does - which is seen to reflect the Jewish Palestinian canon at the time of Jesus, and corresponding to the 39 book Protestant canon, (which divides some books Jews referred to as single works).

Other researchers also state,

By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." Ancient Jews did not have a council in the way that the Christian did, and while the Temple in Jerusalem kept some scrolls, it did not do so to prescribe the books of the canon. (Timothy Lim. University of Edinburgh; https://www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2015/12/1/understanding-the-emergence-of-the-jewish-canon)

[Josephus] also limits his books to those written between the time of Moses and Artaxerxes, thus eliminating some apocryphal books, observing that "(Jewish) 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."

Also in support of the Jewish canon excluding the apocrypha we also have Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-AD 40) who never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired, though he prolifically quoted the Old Testament and recognized the threefold division

While other have different opinions, in the Tosfeta (supplement to the Mishnah) it states, "...the Holy Spirit departed after the death of Haggai, Zecharaiah, and Malachi. Thus Judaism defined the limits of the canon that was and still is accepted within the Jewish community." Once that limit was defined, there was little controversy. Some discussion was held over Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, but the core and bulk of the OT was never disputed. (Tosfeta Sota 13.2, quoted by German theologian Leonhard Rost [1896-1979], Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html)

The available historical evidence indicates that in the Jewish mind a collection of books existed from at least 400 B.C. in three groups, two of them fluid, 22 (24 by another manner of counting) in number, which were considered by the Jews from among the many other existing books as the only ones for which they would die rather than add to or take away from them, books which they considered veritably from God...The Apocrypha are not included. (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rev-henry/11_apocrypha_young.pdf)

Those who bring more than twenty-four books [the standard number in the Hebrew Bible[ bring confusion [Hebrew mehumah] into their house.(Qoh. Rab. 12.12 - Rabbinic commentary (Kohelet Rabbah, in the Midrash Rabbot) on Ecclesiastes (kohelet; qohelet) 12:12, cited in "The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books," by Michael David Coogan, Marc Zvi Brettler, p. 453)

"And further, by these, my son, be admonished," saith God; 'Twenty-four books have I written for you; take heed to add none thereto.' Wherefore? Because of making many books there is no end. He who reads one verse not written in the twenty-four books is as though he had read in the 'outside books'; he will find no salvation there. Behold herein the punishment assigned to him who adds one book to the twenty-four. How do we know that he who reads them wearies himself in vain? Because it says, 'much study is a weariness of the flesh' (Eccl. xii. 12), from which follows, that the body of such a one shall not arise from the dust, as is said in the Mishnah (Sanh. x. 1), 'They who read in the outside books have no share in the future life'" (Num. R. xiv. 4; ed. Wilna, p. 117a; compare also Pesi?. R. ix. a and Yer. Sanh. xxviii. a. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon). Note that rabbinic commentary often contains much superstition and nonsense, but historical statements such as these testify to a Jewish 24 book canon (which combines many books listed seperately in the 39 book O.T. Protestant canon) being held as authoratitive).

Although some apocryphal books contain a few texts which correspond to New Testament ones, this is also true of some works which are found outside the apocrypha, which the Bible sometimes quotes from. (Acts 17:28; Jude 1:14) Texts from the apocrypha were occasionally quoted in early church writings, and were considered worthy reading even if not included as Scripture, but the apocrypha was not accepted in such early O.T. lists as that of Melito (AD 170) bishop of the church in Sardis, an inland city of Asia Minor, who gives a list of the Hebrew canon, minus Esther, and makes no mention of any of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books:

Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms1 two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon's Proverbs or Wisdom,2 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah,3 the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.4

1. 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings.

2. Proverbs was sometimes called "Wisdom" according to Eusebius, (Ec clesiastical History 4.22.9.)

3. Understood to include Lamentations, not being the custom of the times to list it separately.

4.Ezra and Nehemiah were then counted as one book, and sometimes was called simply Esdras (Greek for Ezra). (http://www.bible-researcher.com/melito.html)

Origen in the 2nd century (c. 240) rejected the apocrypha as he held to the Palestinian canon (plus the Letter of Jeremiah), and likewise Cyril of Jerusalem (plus Baruch), but like St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) and Rufinus who also rejected the apocrypha, Origen used them or parts thereof , as others also did with these second class books.

Jerome (340-420), the preeminent 3rd century scholar rejected the Apocrypha, as they did not have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and were not received by all, and did not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." His lists of the 24 books of the O.T. Scriptures corresponds to the 39 of the Protestant canon,

Jerome wrote in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings,

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)

J. N. D. Kelly finds,

"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine."Kelly, [J. N. D. (1960). Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco, USA: Harper. p. 55.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (in the face of ancient opposition) states,

An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Like as Luther's inclusion of books in his Bible which he disallowed as canonical, the apocryphal books had been disallowed by Jerome as properly canonical even though they were included in them.

It is argued that Jerome later accepted the apocrypha due to him later translating them and including them in his Latin Vulgate, but what he translated with certainty only includes a couple (Tobit and Judith), and which was due to a request in the later case and (likely) pressure in both, and which he could allow due to some Catholic sanction. Regarding Judith he states, “But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request.” And as regards Tobit: “But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.”

These do not reflect his own judgment on them as inspired Scripture, but that of a church yet in flux as regards the status of all the apocrypha. Some think Jerome later defended the apocrypha based on comments about Daniel, but which is countered here

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 367), excluded the Book of Esther (which never actually mentions God and its canonicity was disputed among Jews for some time) among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria#New_Testament_canon)

Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.

The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults

John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.

The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html)

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)

His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.

Likewise Rufinus:

38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.

With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.

These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html)

Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) ^

The LXX (Septuagint) and Dead Sea Scrolls

The Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, beginning in the 3rd century B.C. and thought to be completed (as regards Jewish translators) early in the 2nd century A.D. The title LXX refers to the 70 scribes, and with “Septuagint” from “septuaginta” denoting 70 in Latin (In his City of God 18.42, while repeating the story of Aristeas with typical embellishments, Augustine adds the remark, "It is their translation that it has now become traditional to call the Septuagint" — The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, p. 72).

As for type of translation, it was more a paraphrase,

It was not a literal translation, however, since it incorporated commentary in the text, consciously attempting to harmonize biblical and Greek thought and to include halakhic and aggadic ideas which were current in Palestinian commentary. Some interesting features of the text are its deletion of all anthropomorphic expressions and the provision of many readings of the text which are different from the standard masoretic version. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_12632.html

The Septuagint was favored by the principal force behind early acceptance of the apocrypha, that being Augustine, who believed the miraculous legend of its translation. According to one account from the Talmud, (BT Megillah 9a, Of 3.) and which contains many strange ideas, Philadelphus [Ptolemy II] sent for seventy-two Hebrew scholars, six from each tribe of Israel, to undertake the work. He secluded these men on the island of Phares, where each worked separately on his own translation, without consultation with one another. According to the legend, when they came together to compare their work, the seventy-two copies proved to be identical.

This story, while highly unlikely, convinced many that the Septuagint had a supernatural quality which helped gain its acceptance for several hundred years, until the time of Jerome some four hundred years after Christ. (http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/lxx.html)

The story of the origin of the LXX was embellished as time went on and is considered a fable by scholars, and Jerome chided Augustine for criticizing his differences from it and misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html).

Greek was the common language in the Roman empires, and the N.T. does reference the LXX heavily, which certifies that at least these parts of the Torah (see below) were faithful translations, while this was followed by the Hebrew Masoretic translations (due to Jewish doubt on the LXX) and which Jerome affirmed, and which all major Bible translations translate the O.T. from.

However, Philo of Alexandria (1st c A.D.) states that only the Torah (the first 5 books of the O.T.) was commissioned to be translated, leaving the rest of the O.T. following in later centuries, and in an order that is not altogether clear, nor do all LXX manuscripts have the same apocryphal books and names.

For many reasons (and see note on Jamnia) it is held that the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha.

For while Catholics argue that since Christ and the NT quotes from the LXX then we must accept the books we call the apocrypha. However, this presumes that the Septuagint was a uniform body of texts in the time of Christ and which contained all the apocryphal books at that time, but for which there is no historical evidence. The earliest existing Greek manuscripts which contain some of them date from the 4th Century and are understood to have been placed therein by Christians.

Furthermore, if quoting from some of the Septuagint means the whole is sanctioned, then since the Psalms of Solomon, which is not part of any scriptural canon, is found in copies of the Septuagint as is Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees (Vaticanus [early 4th century] does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus [early 4th century] includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus [early 5th century] includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon), then we would be bound to accept them as well.

Also, Scripture can include an inspired utterance such as from Enoch, (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9) but the book of Enoch as a whole is not Scripture. (Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys: 7:12-15; 86:1-5.)

Addressing the theory that the first century Septuagint contained the the apocryphal books, we have such scholarly testimony as the below:

The Septuagint is a pre-Christian Jewish translation, and the larger manuscripts of it include various of the Apocrypha. Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, where the theory was first propounded, was based upon the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus.

However, as we now know, manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era," and since, in the second century C.E., the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint in favour of revisions or translations more usable in their controversy with the church (notably Aquila's translation), there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century, are all of Christian origin.

An indication of this is that in many Septuagint manuscripts the Psalms are followed by a collection of Odes or liturgical canticles, including Christian ones from the NT. Also, the order of the books in the great fourth and fifth-century Septuagint codices is Christian, not adhering to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon; nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha to include. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus all include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and integrate them into the body of the or rather than appending them at the end; but Codex Vaticanus, unlike the other two, totally excludes the Books of Maccabees.

Moreover, all three codices, according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt," yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, ex-cluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. Mulder, M. J. (1988). (Mikra: text, translation, reading, and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Phil.: Van Gorcum. p. 81 )

Edward Earle Ellis writes, No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.

Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)

Likewise Gleason Archer affirms,

Even in the case of the Septuagint, the apocryphal books maintain a rather uncertain existence. The Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks [besides 3 and 4] 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)

The German historian Martin Hengel writes,Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas, Alexandrinus 1 and 2 Clement.” “Codex Alexandrinus...includes the LXX as we know it in Rahlfs’ edition, with all four books of Maccabees and the fourteen Odes appended to Psalms.” “...the Odes (sometimes varied in number), attested from the fifth century in all Greek Psalm manuscripts, contain three New Testament ‘psalms’: the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis from Luke’s birth narrative, and the conclusion of the hymn that begins with the ‘Gloria in Excelsis.’ This underlines the fact that the LXX, although, itself consisting of a collection of Jewish documents, wishes to be a Christian book.” (Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture [Baker 2004], pp. 57-59)

Also,

The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. “Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382. The two most complete targums (translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which date from the first century to the Middel Ages) contain all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel.

And Cyril of Jerusalem, whose list rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html) ^

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran,

these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd ^

Council of Jamnia

Many refer to a Council of Jamnia as authoritatively setting the Hebrew canon around 100 A.D., but modern research research no longer considers that to be the case, or that there even was a council, while some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.). — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

Robert C. Newman writes,

Among those who believe the Old Testament to be a revelation from the Creator, it has traditionally been maintained that the books composing this collection were in themselves sacred writings from the moment of their completion, that they were quickly recognized as such, and that the latest of these were written several centuries before the beginning of our era.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest extant witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti- Semite Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he says:

We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” — Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)

On the basis of later Christian testimony, the twenty-two books mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as our thirty-nine,2 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being counted as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a unit, and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamentations each being taken as one book. This agrees with the impression conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Palestinian Jewish community in general seem to understand by the term "Scripture" some definite body of sacred writings."

"...the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D. 1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's time."

Newman concludes,

"In this paper we have attempted to study the rabbinical activity at Jamnia in view of liberal theories regarding its importance in the formation of the Old Testament canon. I believe the following conclusions are defensible in the light of this study. The city of Jamnia had both a rabbinical school (Beth ha- Midrash) and court (Beth Din, Sanhedrin) during the period A.D. 70-135, if not earlier. There is no conclusive evidence for any other rabbinical convocations there. The extent of the sacred Scriptures was one of many topics discussed at Jamnia, probably both in the school and in the court, and probably more than once. However, this subject was also discussed by the rabbis at least once a generation earlier and also several times long after the Jamnia period. No books are mentioned in these discussions except those now considered canonical. None of these are treated as candidates for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be testing a status quo which has existed beyond memory. None of the discussions hint at recent vintage of the works under consideration or deny them traditional authorship. Instead it appears that the rabbis are troubled by purely internal problems, such as theology, apparent contradictions, or seemingly unsuitable content...

But no text of any specific decision has come down to us (nor, apparently, even to Akiba and his students). Rather, it appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of the category called Scripture, so that even the author of 4 Ezra, though desiring to add one of his own, was obliged to recognize this consensus in his distinction between public and hidden Scripture." — Robert C. Newman, "THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON," Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348. ^

When was the first “infallible” Roman Catholic definition of the Biblical canon?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),

► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

"The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.(Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;

► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.

The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

"...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).

As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)

The question of the “deutero-canonicalbooks will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value. (George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17)

It may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,” or official list of books of the Bible, was not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century though there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century. (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p. 21)

"For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

"in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291) ^

Prior lists were by councils that were not ecumenical/infallible.

► “...at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense...” (The Catholic encyclopedia, http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6099)

► “Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize Rome or Carthage or Hippo as Ecumenical in their list.” http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils#List_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils.

► “The Council of Florence (1442) contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

► “The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.101 Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102 Thus indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html)

The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

Therefore what can be said is that although the Roman Catholic canon was largely settled by the time of Carthage, it was not infallibly defined (thus disallowing dissent), and thus substantial disagreement did exist even in the deliberations of Trent, despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence. The canon of Trent was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation, apparently, as said, after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

While Roman Catholics often charge that Luther excluded some books as being Scripture due to doctrinal reasons, Rome can be charged with the same motivation for adding apocryphal books, while Luther did have some scholarly reasons and concurrence in Rome (see below) for his exclusions. ^

Dissent before and in Trent

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained,he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:

►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836

Theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ):

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” . ("A Disputation on Holy Scripture" by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. Cf. Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine. Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978). See also Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)

Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

In more detail,

►“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. The books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong to the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.”

“Two questions were to be debated, namely, should this conciliar decision be simply taken over, without previous discussion of the subject, as the jurists Del Monte and Pacheco opined, or should the arguments recently advanced against the canonicity of certain books of the Sacred Scriptures be examined and refuted by the Council, as the other two legates, with Madruzzo and the Bishop of Fano, desired? The second question was closely linked with the first, namely should the Council meet the difficulties raised both in former times and more recently, by distinguishing different degrees of authority within the canon?

With regard to the first question the legates themselves were not of one mind. In the general congregation of 12 February, Del Monte, taking the standpoint of formal Canon Law, declared that the Florentine canon, since it was a decision of a General Council, must be accepted without discussion. On the other hand Cervini and Pole, supported by Madruzzo and a number of prelates familiar with the writings of the reformers and the humanists, urged the necessity of countering in advance the attacks that were to be expected from the Protestants by consolidating their own position, and of providing their own theologians with weapons for the defence of the decree as well as for the instruction of the faithful...The discussion was so obstinate that there remained no other means to ascertain the opinion of the Council than to put the matter to the vote. The result was that twenty-four prelates were found to be on Del Monte's side, and fifteen (sixteen) on the other. The decision to accept the Florentine canon simpliciter, that is, without further discussion, and as an article of faith, already contained the answer to the second question.” — Jedin,, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 55,56

The late (if liberal) British bishop and Scripture scholar B.F. Westcott reported, “Some proposed to follow the judgment of Cardinal Caietan [as sometimes spelled] and distinguish two classes of books, as, it was argued, had been the intention of Augustine. Others wished to draw the line of distinction yet more exactly, and form three classes, (1) the Acknowledged Books, (2) the Disputed Books of the New Testament, as having been afterwards generally received, (3) the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. (B.F. Westcott, The Bible In The Church, p. 256)

Another argument for the canonicity of the apocryphal books is that some were used by some early church leaders, yet some of the books of the Pseudepigrapha were also invoked by some church “fathers,” and found their way into other canons of various Eastern churches. And since Jude 1:14 evidently quotes from the Book of Enoch 1:9, then according to the logic of this argument that book would be Scripture also, even though Enoch also states in section 7:1-4 (in a section of the Book of Enoch dated to about 250 B.C.B.) that the "giants" mentioned in Genesis 6:4 were 300 cubits (or about 450 feet, though i think i read somewhere that an Egyptian manuscripts makes it more like 40 feet). The apostle Paul even quoted truth uttered by a pagan prophet, (Acts 17:29) but such does not sanction the whole source.

While some ancients reference texts from (what we call) the apocryphal books, texts from books of the Pseudepigrapha and otherwise non-canonical books (as per Trent) were also referenced or alluded to by some church “fathers”, and books which also found their way into other canons of various Eastern churches.

As Jerome explains,

In his famous ‘Prologus Galeatus’, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament)

The distinction then is that while “good,” they were not for doctrinal use. As the above source states regarding St. Athanasius, “Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage.

An excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria (an assembly of “glosses,” that of brief notations of the meaning of a word or wording in the margins of the Vulgate Bible) expresses this distinction:

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention,or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. (note 124, written in AD 1498, and also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century... http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphaendnotes3.html)

Also, among other authorities, different canons were sanctioned by the Council in Trullo (Quinisext Council) in 692 and the seventh Ecumenical Council (787)

And just prior to Trent, The Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and soon received papal sanction.

In addition,

►“Luther's translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther also translated and included the Apocrypha, saying, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." He expressed his thoughts on the canon in prefaces placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. In these prefaces, he either questioned or doubted the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (his Catholic contemporaries, Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, likewise questioned the canonicity of certain New Testament books). Of his opinion, he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. Of the four books, it is possible Luther's opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Luther was of the opinion that the writers of James and Jude were not apostles, therefore these books were not canonical. Still, he used them and preached from them.” (Five More Luther Myths; http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2089)

Regarding James and Hebrews,

Most writing from before 200 do not mention the Epistle of James. One significant text does quote James: The Shepherd of Hermas, written before 140 M66. The theologian and biblical scholar, Origen, quotes James extensively between 230 and 250. He mentions that James was Jesus' brother, but does not make it clear if the letter is scripture M138. Hippolytus and Tertullian, from early in the third century, do not mention or quote James. Cyprian of Carthage, in the middle of the third century, also makes no mention. The "Muratorian Canon," from around 200, lists and comments on New Testament books, but fails to mention James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. Yet by 340 Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Christian historian, acknowledges that James is both canonical and orthodox, and widely read. However, he categorizes it, along with the other catholic epistles, as "disputed texts" M203. Two Greek New Testaments from that time each include James, along with the other catholic epistles M207. In 367 Athanasius lists the 27 New Testament books we presently use as the definitive canon M212. But the battle for James was not won. Bishops in 428 and 466 rejected all the catholic epistles M215. Early bibles from Lebanon, Egypt, Armenia, India and China do not include James before the sixth century M219. A ninth century manuscript from Mount Sinai leaves out the catholic epistles and the Syriac Church, headquartered in Kerala, India, continues to use a lectionary without them still today M220. (James and Canon: The Early Evidence: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/Canon.htm

Another researcher states,

He [Luther] had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."'

And on James, he states in his preface,

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients,1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15.”

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.” (Antilegomena; http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html )

But Luther's rejection of these does not mean he did not include them in his translation, and thus some may think he held them as inspired Scripture, which he did not, and as he did also did with the apocrypha (in a separate section as in ages past), but this not make them inspired Scripture.

In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha

Likewise the Apocrypha:

The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’

It also should be understood that as with early church fathers, Luther was working his way through his theology and the canonization of Scripture. Also of note is that the words “canon” and “Scripture” could be used less formally sometimes than they would be later on. (And it would not be until the year of Luther's death that Trent presented its finalized canon.) The canon which Protestantism came to hold is that of the ancient 39 book Old Testament and the 27 book New Testament canon. Which, like authoritative Old Testament writings by time of Christ, came to be accepted due to their qualities and other Divine attestation through the consensus of the faithful, without a purportedly infallible conciliar decree.

Two worthwhile pages to see on Luther and the canon are here and here.

Here is information as regards Eastern Orthodox Acceptance Of The Hebrew Canon

Information on the formal criteria and processes of acceptance of books can be seen here.

Webster provides substantial works on the unsettled status of the apocryphal books prior to Trent, such as seen here, here and here.

See a list and basic summary of the 66 books of the Bible, and more links on the exclusion of the apocrypha here. ^

Is the canon of Trent the same as that of Hippo and Carthage?

Not only was the canon not settled before Trent, with Trent arguably following a weaker scholarly tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired, but it is a matter of debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils:

The claim that Hippo & Carthage approved the same canonical list as Trent is wrong. Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) received the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras [Ezra in the Hebrew spelling] as canonical Scripture, which Innocent I approved. However, the Vulgate version of the canon that Trent approved was the first Esdras that Jerome designated for the OT Book of Ezra, not the 1 Esdras of the Septuagint that Hippo and Carthage ( along with Innocent I) received as canonical. Thus Trent rejected as canonical the version of 1 Esdras that Hippo & Carthage accepted as canonical. Trent rejected the apocryphal Septuagint version of 1 Esdras (as received by Hippo and Carthage) as canonical and called it 3 Esdras.” More

Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, states,

"This is a matter of record, not of interpretation. On March 29, 1546 the Council Fathers took up the fourth of fourteen questions (Capita Dubitationum) on Scripture and Tradition. At issue was whether those books that were not included in the official list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence.

It is a historical fact." Responding to this, Protestant apologist James Swan states,

► “Let's grant Michuta's assertion that Trent passed over in silence on the book of Esdras in question. This means in the Roman system, as interpreted by Michuta, the possibility exists that the book in question is canonical, but not currently in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. In which case, their arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles. It would also possibly mean, the canon is still open. Michuta notes that 42 people at Trent voted to pass over the book in silence. If Michuta is correct on his interpretation of Trent, these 42 people solved the problem of the contradiction between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, but created the problem of an unclosed canon, and thrust Catholics into uncertainty.”

It was Jerome, who is considered the only Church father who was a true Hebrew scholar, who was responsible for separating Ezra and Nehemiah to be designated as 1 and 2 Esdras respectively as separate books in an official Bible and who relegated 1 Esdras of the Septuagint to a noncanonical status which later became designated as III Esdras. He did this because he followed the Hebrew canon.” (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1911)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states concerning the status of 1 Esdras among the fathers who followed the 'Septuagintial plus':

"The origin of 3 Esdras cannot be adequately explained....Until the 5th century, Christians very frequently ranked 3 Esdras with the Canonical books; it is found in many LXX MSS [Septuagint manuscripts] and in the Latin Vulgate (Vulg) of St. Jerome. Protestants therefore include 3 Esdras with other apocrypha (deuterocanonical) books such as Tobit or Judith. The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon." (New Catholic Encyclopedia; New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume II, Bible, III,pp. 396-397. http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407700673/apocrypha.html).

As for the Vulgate, the apocrypha was included, apparently after Jerome died, but not universally in all versions:

► “At the end of the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the most learned biblical scholar of his day, to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate). In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures.” (http://www.gnte.org/ecopub/apocrypha.htm)

"In his famous 'Prologus Galeatus', or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament). http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1948

The “Glossa ordinaria,” an assembly of glosses (brief notations of the meaning of a word or wording in a text) in the margins of the Vulgate Bible states in the Preface that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It prefixes an introduction to them all saying, 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees...” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html) ^

Essential means of establishment of Scripture

Finally, it is should be stated that, as helpful as they are, ecclesiastical decrees themselves are not what established writings as Scripture (much less can Rome declare that it is assuredly infallible, whenever she speaks in accordance with her supposedly infallibly defined formula), but as with true men of God, writings which were wholly inspired of Him became progressively established as being such due to their conflation and complementarity to what was prior manifest as being from God, and by unique enduring qualities, (Ps. 119) and the holy effects and other supernatural Divine attestation which results from trusting and obeying the Word of God. (1Thes. 2:13) In contrast, the Sadducees erred, “not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Mt. 22:29)

To reiterate what was expressed at the beginning of this section, Abraham's faith and morality was supernaturally attested to by God, as was that of Moses, whose writings further expanded and defined the faith and morality which was of God, which became the standard by which further revelation would be tested and substantiated by. (Is. 8:20) The writing of the word of God being normally written, immediately or afterward, and becoming the authority for faith and doctrine, is a principal continuously seen in Scripture for establishing truth claims as being of God.* (Mt. 22; Jn. 5:36,39; 14:11; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2;11; 28:23; Rm. 15:19) True men of God themselves, especially those who added new teaching to to Scripture, were established as being of God by a holiness and doctrine which conformed to that which was written, and the effects of believing, which in turn affirmed the veracity and Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. And to be the church of living God so must we, in proportion to grace given and our claims (and i sadly yet come much short of what I could be, yet I look in faith to Ps. 138:8).

More on the canon and the apocrypha here and here. Here is more in the formation of the canon, and here as regards Luther overall.

*Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, substantiating the claim that as they were written, the written word became the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims. The following rarely includes simple allusions to Scripture, which are abundant, but supplies a multiplicity of references to what was written or quotes thereof: Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,43,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25,-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, i know of no place where the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” manifestly refers to unwritten revelation that was not subsequently written down. Note also that establishing truth claims is shown to be done both by way of doctrinal conformity to what had been written, and secondarily by the manner of effectual and often manifest supernatural attestation by the power of God which Scripture reveals the Truth of God being given (and most overtly to the authority of those who added new teachings to Scripture), and obedience to it, to the glory of God, though the many references to this aspect, such as Josh. 3:7 (cf. Is. 63:12); 2Ki. 18:6,7; Mk. 16:20; Jn. 5:36; 14:11,12; Acts 4:33; 15:7-18; Rm. 15:19; Gal. 4:6; 1Thes. 1:3-10, Heb. 2:3,4, are not provided here).