Replies

I did.

Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, which proves that that particular quote came from the actual antediluvian prophet, and that at least part of that book is true--however, one can argue about whether the whole of the book should therefore be included in the canon. I say not, on the basis that we don't have it in the original Hebrew, but I can handle disagreement there.

The supposed "allusion" to the Ascension of Isaiah cannot be proven to have come from that book, since we have no precise quote to compare--it could just as easily have come from an oral tradition or another source that we don't have.

Likewise, the author stretches their point, claiming that Matt. 27 alludes to Wisdom, since there are other passages that call the Messiah the Son of God (e.g., Ps. 2:7). There is no direct quote here, which again affirms my point.

Indeed, Catholics continually say, "Well, such and such includes a clear allusion here . . ." So what? Sha'ul (Paul) makes clear allusions to Greek philosophers in some of his letters (e.g., Tit. 1:12)--that's not the same as quoting them directly and calling them Scripture.

For the other books of the Tanakh (the OT) not quoted, frankly, I do include them, because they were part of the nominal canon in the first century, as this article explains. Further, I include many of them on their own merits: Nahum, and Obadiah contain prophecies which have been proven by history to be true, and are in accord with the rest of the Scriptures. 1 Chronicles is in reality one and the same with 2 Chronicles, which is quoted. Lamentations was written by Jeremiah, a prophet, etc.

But if a person wanted to exclude any of them, so what? I do not need them to prove any of my theologies, as I can point to a myriad of other sources within the Scriptures that say the same things. If someone wants to regard Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther, etc. as merely good historical accounts (as I do the books of the Maccabees, for example), what theology do I possess that I require them to defend?

Which leads directly into my second point: If the apocryphal books were truly inspired, the Catholic wouldn't need them. For example, why do you need 2 Macc. to prove prayer for the dead? Shouldn't you be able to find such a teaching spread throughout the other Scriptures?

No major, and darn few minor, teachings of Scriptures rely upon the existance of any particular book. God is far too careful and meticulous for that.