I already recognized that SOME of them are debatable, but clearly some of the ways you excuse some of them away simply don’t hold up.
In nearly all cases, the Khetuvim books are merely referenced if referenced at all in the New Testament. By this standard, most of the ones I’ve cited hold up at least as well as the Khetuvim books of the Protestant canon. But look at Wisdom 3:6, for instance: Yes, a similar metaphor is used in Proverbs, but the New Testament uses the same metaphor in the same way as Wisdom.
Or consider Hebrews 11:35. Yes, Widows received back their dead sons in other places in the bible. But Hebrews specifically states that “others were tortured, refusing to be released that they may gain a better resurrection.” That’s what’s unique about Maccabees: a widow explicitly formulates a belief in a worldly resurrection of the dead, wherein her son will be returned to her having gained a better resurrection for having been tortured for the sake of God. That’s not in any of the sources you cited.
Or take Genesis 5:24: In the light of Hebrews, one can suppose that “God took him” certainly did mean that God lifted him to Heaven. But that’d be Paul begging his own source! If Paul is to know that Enoch went into Heaven ... not merely speculate ... than he can look only to the non-Canonical book of Enoch, or to Sirach, which states this explicitly, before the Book of Enoch.
So you basically threw spaghetti on the wall from some website (I know because I saw the same list on another forum) and hoped it would pass muster. Well it didn't.
You can keep posting Heb 11:35 as Maccabees, but it breaks with the other references all coming from the Law, Prophets and Psalms.
You will also note I only posted a few verses on the Wisdom claims. I have many other verses from Proverbs, Job et al.
If Paul is to know that Enoch went into Heaven ... not merely speculate ... than he can look only to the non-Canonical book of Enoch, or to Sirach, which states this explicitly, before the Book of Enoch.
What is the speculation? Everyone else in the genealogy dies and Enoch is taken. For clarity look at the Orthodox Jewish Bible:
22 And Chanoch walked with HaElohim after he fathered Metushelach three hundred shanah, and fathered banim and banot; 23 And all the days of Chanoch were three hundred sixty and five shanah; 24 And Chanoch walked with HaElohim; and he was not; for Elohim took him.
There is not much speculation there. Plus we both miss the point that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. In addition, the key words "And Chanoch walked with HaElohim" is the focus of Epistle.
Your reference to Hebrews 11:35 when put in context with the entire passage tells us who the author of Hebrews is addressing. Here it is in context and you can look up examples of each claim in 2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings:
32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated 38 (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.
The women received (past tense) their children by resurrection. This happened with Elijah and Elisha (I gave you the references). The "they might obtain a better resurrection" refers to all of the above mentioned.
The Apocrypha argument is becoming a bit threadbare like my 1986 NY Mets World Series Champions T-shirt.