[Mad Dawg]

but they were not making up anything new; rather, like the counsels that discussed the NT canon in the fourth century, they were merely ratifying and passing on what was already long-established by their time.

About how long, do you figure?

[Buggman]

Well, what I figure and what I can prove are two different things.

To take the NT example, "I figure" from the moment the Apostles put pen to paper their writings were received as Scripture by the congregations who first read them. What I can prove, going to the ECF, is that the vast majority of the NT canon, including all four Gospel accounts, Acts, all of Sha'ul's letters, 1 John, 1 Peter, James, and the Revelation, were accepted as canon by the second century, with 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Hebrews being widely quoted, though with some debate.

Now, I know from reading the Judaica that the Torah, being the foundational Scripture, has never been in doubt. Neither have any of the books listed as being "the Prophets": Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the Twelve. Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles were also universally accepted, even though they came at the tail-end of the prophetic period. Lamentations was accepted due to its prophet author (Jeremiah), the Psalms were universally accepted both as Israel's hymnbook and as prophecy, and the Proverbs as the pre-eminent "wisdom liturature" by Solomon, who like his father was a Prophet-King (albeit not a very good one).

The other Writings were occasionally disputed. For example, Esther was disputed on the basis that it did not contain the Name of God (which it actually does in its original language--in acrostic form; this feature is lost in the LXX), but was broadly accepted and read yearly on Purim. Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes were the only two other books that were disputed, but were accepted on the basis of being Solomon's work.

I've so far left out Daniel, not because it was disputed as canon, but because there was dispute over whether it belonged in an honored position among the Prophets, or a less-honorable but still canonical position in the Writings. I won't go into that debate here; suffice to say that I regard Daniel as among the most important of prophets.

Now, among the Apocryphal books, I've already noted that no pre-Christian or Apostolic contemporary quoted from any of them with the usual formulas to indicate that they were quoting Scripture--nor for that matter do any of the NT authors. In fact, these books disqualify themselves!

For example, just as New Testament books were accepted or rejected on the basis of their Apostolic authority--this is why, for example, Polycarp's account of the Gospel, while considered excellent history and not conflicting with any Scripture, is not given the status of canon--the books of the Tanakh were accepted or rejected on the basis of their Prophetic authority; that is, they had to be written by a prophet or by the prophet's authority.

Shortly after the completion of the Second Temple, the prophetic Spirit ceased to move in Israel. This was in accordance with Amos 8:11--"'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord GOD, 'That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD.'"--and is acknowledged in the very intertestimal books themselves. For example, 1 Maccabees 4:46 speaks of the Jews storing away the stones of the defiled altar until "should come a prophet to tell what to do with them." In other words, they were acknowledging that there was no prophet among them.

No prophet, no Scripture. Useful history and to be studied, certainly, but definitely not canon.

Josephus' list of 22 books, as well as the contemporaneous Council of Jamnia and the quotations from the pre-Christian rabbis (Philo, Hillel, etc.) are all in perfect agreement that the Apocrypha were not accepted as canon by any Jewish authority before the time of the Messiah Yeshua, and His own choice of books to quote from as well as that of His Apostles confirms the rabbinical selection. Frankly, even the later Catholic Church has had questions about the Apocrypha, naming them the "Deutero-canon"--a "second" canon--and with an authority as well thought of as Jerome protesting their inclusion in the Vulgate, and relegating them to their own section, apart from either Old or New Testament. Therefore, they may be quoted on their own merits, as either history or wisdom, but cannot be used to determine doctrine.