“At worst, Origen believed in too many books”
Thank you for proving my point.
“Thank you for proving my point.”
So far, I’m not even convinced you know what your point is.
That "point", if it is reliant upon Origen, does not extend towards the OT, for that collection was in no way in flux, according to Origen. For him, that was settled enough.
That many others also considered additional post Apostolic works as "divinely inspired" (not to be confused with fully infallible, perhaps) as far as what was by then spoken of by some as "New" Testament, gives strength to the listing of OT "books" Origen documented as being what was at his own time (and place) regarded as being what the Jews themselves, and those original Apostles (who were Jews) regarded as aligning with the idea of "canonical". I have to say it like that, for although the Jews had the concept of "canon", they didn't quite have a word that translates directly enough for it.
Would what Paul considered as 'canon' when Christ hung on the cross, be what teachings, knowledge & prophecy Christ came to fulfill? Or...can "Christians" coming along later, themselves not Jews, somehow know better than Jews what was the holy writ of the Jews? It matters not, that many did not recognize him. That too, was prophesied. But not all failed to see him for who he was, even from time of his confirmation (at 8 days old) at the Temple.
As to the proper contents of the OT, prior to Origen, Melito confirmed Josephus. Melito related he traveled from Sardis (in present-day Turkey) to Jerusalem to find out...since by his time, there was already some circulation of dispute.
But in Caesarea, it is doubtful there was ever any dispute (as to proper OT canon). There wasn't later, in Origen's time.
Basing OT on what was in LXX continually begs the question (oft asked but NEVER ANSWERED), which version of LXX? Besides, as it has been pointed out more than once, the original work of the 70, was only those books of the Law, or as otherwise known, the books of Moses. Some Jews called that "Torah", putting the books of the prophets, and other writings (like Psalms & Proverbs) somewhat aside as not to be held in as high regard, not to be confused with any other which had been directed by God for them to have written upon their hearts.
You do know the citations for that "written upon their hearts" idea? That is much the origin of sola scriptura principle, for it was tradition among the Jews from ancient times.
Aah, but what have we, but those who would set that "tradition" fully aside, even while pointing at their own traditions said to have come from Christ & the Apostles. There is a glaring inconsistency in the RCC, right there...