Rather, 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.
Your own Catholic Encyclopedia itself affirms the Palestinian canon as consisting of the same books. “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)
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. (J. N. D. KELLY, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, FOURTH EDITION, ADAM & CHARLES BLACK LONDON, p. 53 )
The ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus only numbered 22 books of Scripture, which is seen to reflect the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus, and corresponding to the 39 book Protestant canon, which divides books the Jews referred to as single works.
Robert C. Newman: 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."
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.
[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).
By "early ekklesia" I presume you mean the early Church. The one founded by Jesus Christ which historically and logically is the Catholic Church.
WRONG: As with a true Jews, spiritual authenticity is not based upon historical lineage but conformity of faith, (Rm. 2:28,29) and the substantiated reality is that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
While those who sat in the seat of Moses certainly had authority (dissent from which being a capital offense: Deuteronomy 17:8-10) , yet 1st c. souls were not even bound by God to submit to all the judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses if in conflict with what was written, much less are we bound to submit to the judgments of Rome, a discredited church.
How did this "recognition" by the Early Church of the canon work,
There simply was no binding, so-called infallible definition of the Biblical canon for RCs until after the death of Luther.
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-canonical” books 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)
“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)
And thus as shown, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
and who had the authority to do the recognizing and make the final determination?
While even secular governments have the right to make laws and judgments, they are not infallible and thus necessarily binding. Nor is a so-called infallible magisterium essential to know what is of God, thus it is abundantly evidenced that an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings ("Scripture," "it is written," etc.) had been established by the time of Christ. The essential basis for this, as with men of God, is that of their unique enduring heavenly qualities and attestation. Which is the essential basis for the quick and long-established 66 book Protestant canon. The "consensus of the faithful" here has worked fine.
Did everyone just kind of vote on it?
Actually, when Rome finally "infallibly" defined its canon, it came 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.
Of course, your leadership also elected Francis.
Where and when did this happen?
It did not, but for Catholics, April 8th, 1546) after Luther died. (February 8,1546)
And how did it become binding on all Christians and by whose authority?
As your premise is false so is your presumption. Unless 1st c. souls should have submitted to all the judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses, esp. as to who was of God.
Non-Catholics, on the other hand, have no real way, other than by the authority of the Catholic Church, to even know definitively what goes in their Bibles.
Non-sense.As said, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings ("Scripture," "it is written," etc.) had been established by the time of Christ, without any infallible decree.
Moreover, to be consistent with the Catholic premise that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God (writings included), then no one could discern that the RCC or the EO church was of God, unless they first discern that they are of God. And around and around we go.
The table of contents in our modern Bibles are added by publishers and are not part of the inspired text. There is no "inspired table of contents." This is an insolvable dilemma for Protestants, especially if one holds to the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Non-sense take two. Sola Scriptura simply does not mean that everything that must be believed is explicitly spelled out in Scripture, but includes what is provdes by way of principle and discernment by the "due use of ordinary means."
And since it is abundantly evidenced that an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings ("Scripture," "it is written," etc.) had been established by the time of Christ, then this supports the establishment of a canon, with its table of contents, which was rather quickly established, and not as following Luther as a pope (who expressed that his judgment was his own, though supported by other Catholic scholars, not some sort of binding decree).
Faulty eisegegis and historical revisionism just won't do on such a critical issue.
Exactly, which is why your position has been nuked,.
In other words, there was not even "unanimous consent" even among Roman Catholics at Trent on their canon!
The closest thing to such a list was the table of contents of the Septuagint...which included the deuterocanon.