“The Apocrypha proper are not scripture. You probalby want, since you seem to attempt a serious discussion, are talking about the Deuterocanon.”
From Wikipedia: “Deuterocanonical is a term first coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament whose canonicity was explicitly defined for Catholics by the Council of Trent, but which had been omitted by some early canon lists, especially in the East.”
As best I can figure it - and I admit I may be all screwed up on this - the Apocrypha covers what was found in the old Vulgate as ‘scripture’. However, the Council of Trent didn’t list 3 books (3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses), although it said “it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.”
So scripture or not? The old Vulgate, held to be authentic, had the entire Apocrypha. The Clementine Vulgate, in the 1590s (from Wikipedia):
“The Clementine differed from the manuscripts on which it was ultimately based in that it grouped the various prefaces of St. Jerome together at the beginning, and it removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them into an appendix...The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.”
So as best I can figure it, prior to the Council of Trent, the APOCRYPHA was held to be scripture by the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent introduced uncertainty, and in 1556 a Catholic theologian coined the term “Deuterocanon” to describe the reduced Apocrypha.
This raises the question, why were they ‘scripture’ from 397(?) AD until the Council of Trent, but not afterward?
“That is a part of the Septuagint, the Greek scripture. St. Paul also wrote the Epistle in Greek. If St. Paul wanted to make distinctions between parts of one fixed set of Greek books, he would have.”
The Septuagint was a collection of religious writings translated into Greek. All the indications from Jewish sources that I’ve seen are that the Apocrypha was considered good books for reading but not authoritative - and this was PRIOR to the birth of Jesus. That was Jerome’s understanding as well, which is why he objected to putting the Apocrypha into the Vulgate. He was overruled, but many followed his lead in considering the Apocrypha to be good for illustration, but not for doctrine (which would make it not scripture, since ALL scripture is good for...).
After Martin Luther, the Council of Trent made a ruling that sort of included the entire Apocrypha, but only listed by name what is now referred to as the Deuterocanon - the term invented to describe the reduced Apocrypha. Meanwhile, the Orthodox continue to use all of the Apocrypha.
So it is a bit of a mess, particularly for Catholics. The Protestants are consistent in rejecting all of the Apocrypha, as did the Jews. The Orthodox are consistent in accepting all of the Apocrypha, as did the Catholics prior to Trent. The Catholics accepted the Apocrypha until Trent, and then accepted part and rejected part...which is not consistent.
Of course, I could be all screwed up- on this, so I’m willing to be set straight. This is well outside my normal reading.
It depends which Orthodox Church. The Ethiopian (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church actually counts the Book of Enoch as canon. Also, I believe the Russian Orthodox Church (which represents over 80% of the world Orthodox believers) has one extra book.
The simple fact remains that the Deuterocanon — the seven books that were excluded by the leaders of the Reformation — were always included in what was referred to as simply The Bible by both the Catholics and the Orthodox. The Apocrypha, — such as the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas — were well read but not included.
Trent simply responded to the Reformation by an infallible statement, but the canon was unchanged.
The other books that you mention, — 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses — never were a source of any theological controversy, so we should not be distracted by it.