Well... that's not very nice. I've had one or two good ones in my day I'll tell you. :-)
Much of your first few paragraphs seem to confuse the issue (intentionally?) So let's simplify?. We know the Septuagint was in general use in Jesus' time. We know the apostles quoted from it and considered it Scripture. We know that it included books that you would prefer not to see there. The Jews later removed them largely because they were used by Christians - this is not compelling reason for Christians to remove them. Jerome had problems with more than just the Apocrypha (as did Luther and plenty of others) - should we take Jerome's word for what goes in the canon?
So I'll clarify. My point is this. Most of the 39 books of the OT are quoted extensively by the players in the New Testament, and those that are not are certainly doctrinally supported and referenced, either directly or indirectly.
This is not a true statement. Several books are quoted extensively, several a half-dozen times or so and several not at all. Of the ones not quoted, many are not even alluded to (look in you footnotes for the books I listed and see how few references to other Scriptures there are).
The Apocrypha were written at a time when there was no prophetic message, no active prophets speaking the word of the Lord. The time from Malachi to the time of Christ was virtually silent in that regard. To me that is also telling.
See "circular reasoning" in the dictionary for my reply.
Nice try. Exclude does not only mean remove from a position previously occupied. It also means to prevent or restrict the entrance of; to bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion.
Nice try yourself. It can only mean "restrict the entrance of" if there is no evidence that it was there to begin with... again, we know the Septuagint DID include them AND that Jews not represented at Jamnia still use them today. Funny, isn't it, how they AND the Catholics AND the orthodox churches all added them independently AND the earliest protestant Bibles all have them too?
Look, all I want to know is, and I don't believe I've gotten an answer, why did the RCC choose to include the Apocrypha?
Again. Because it was in the Scriptures they received.
why did the Council of Trent call them divinely inspired?
A frequent argument, but Trent is not the first place that they are considered inspired. If so, why would Ethiopian Jews still have them? Why would the Orthodox churches use them (they broke of LOOONG before Trent). The council affirmed their canonicity in the face of challenge.
Of course not.
We know that it included books that you would prefer not to see there.
Never said that.
The Jews later removed them largely because they were used by Christians - this is not compelling reason for Christians to remove them.
Anything to which you can link me that indicates this was the reason the Jews removed them? I haven't read anything of the kind.
Jerome had problems with more than just the Apocrypha (as did Luther and plenty of others) - should we take Jerome's word for what goes in the canon?
Nope, just demonstrating that all was not unified.
See "circular reasoning" in the dictionary for my reply.
I fail to see how that is circular. During the time the Apocrypha were written, there were no prophets in Israel. Period. I think that's telling.
Nice try yourself. It can only mean "restrict the entrance of" if there is no evidence that it was there to begin with.
The Hebrew translations did not include them, so the argument stands.
...again, we know the Septuagint DID include them AND that Jews not represented at Jamnia still use them today.
Doesn't mean they consider(ed) them inspired. There is of course no disputing that they existed and were highly regarded. The dispute is regarding to what extent. And again, why classify them separately if they are/were on equal footing with the earlier books?
Funny, isn't it, how they AND the Catholics AND the orthodox churches all added them independently AND the earliest protestant Bibles all have them too?
Careful, you used the word "added." :)
Again. Because it was in the Scriptures they received.
Disingenuous. The Septuagint included them. The Hebrew translation did not. And besides, a LOT more went into finalizing the canon than "because it was in the scriptures we received."
A frequent argument, but Trent is not the first place that they are considered inspired.
Please cite for me examples of earlier, thanks. Again, honest question - I don't know the answer.
If so, why would Ethiopian Jews still have them? Why would the Orthodox churches use them (they broke of LOOONG before Trent). The council affirmed their canonicity in the face of challenge.
Why wouldn't they have them? Judaism in general still "has them." Question is, do they - the Ethiopians - consider them to be inspired? And you failed to at all address the fact that they are "deuterocanonical" and classified separately by the RCC.
I'm not denying the value of the Apocrypha. I'm trying to track down exactly why the RCC determined those books were as important (or nearly so - can't get past that separate classification) as the other 39. I have read a lot about "how we got our bible." It involved much criteria, some of which we have marginally discussed. What criteria was the Apocrypha measured against in that regard? Was the Apocrypha specifically addressed as a body of books, or were they individually considered along with all the others?
Honestly, I've read plenty on how those books simply do not measure up with regard to historical accuracy, authorship etc. Any thoughts? I'd love to check Catholic sources as well - provide me with links. I've been trying with no avail to get on the Catholic Encyclopedia website for two days now and the pages refuse to fully load, very frustrating.
By the way, thanks for the discussion. :)