Your point that the lack of direct quotes is not a criteria against canonity would have some merit except for the fact that the Old Testament books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews—where the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon, and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says:
“”Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Rom. 3:1-2).
A point I did not touch on in my last post to you is this:
Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.” (Luke 11:51).
The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order—placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (Jeremiah 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.
This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement to which Jesus was referring when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed—as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.
Related to this point is also Jesus’ reference to the scriptures as a whole in Luke 24:44.
“Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
I have read where Catholic apologists say that the Old Testament is referred to, by the Jews, in three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings - which is true, and it is also true that it is within these writings that are sometimes found books of the Apocrypha. But this designation is not used by Jesus. On the contrary, as you just read, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms—not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It looks like a deliberate omission by Jesus of any reference to the Apocyrpha.
I think you are way too casual in glossing over the fact that many of the Church Fathers strongly objected to the Apocrypha as being scripture. Jerome only included it in his translation because he was forced to over his objections. He rejected it because he believed the Jews established and recognized the proper canon of the Old Testament.
I disagree with you that omitting Revelation would have no bearing on the doctrine of the Bible. As to Philemon, possibly, except for the fact that we KNOW Paul wrote the letter and his writings have been considered scripture within a few years of their being written.
Look, if Catholics want to consider the Apocyrpha as scripture, that’s your affair. Go for it.
I read your post twice and I appreciate your tone.
the one factor I did not see is - what role does the Holy Spirit play in preserving the Word of God.
I think we both would agree the Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures.
I would go a step further and declare He is also the guardian of the Scriptures.
what good would the Scriptures be if they could be lost, corrupted or ADDED TO WITH OTHER BOOKS.
so when the canon of the OT and NT was being decided by the Church in the 4th century, what role did the Holy Spirit play, if any?
“it seemed good to the Holy Spirit..........”
did the Holy Spirit care if the correct canon was arrived at?
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father in his name to lead us to ALL TRUTH.
did this truth include the canon of Scripture?
all the factors you mentioned were known to the fathers and bishops in the 4th century and yet, they still came up with 46 OT books and 27 NT books.
for you to be correct that they got it wrong and 1,100 years later “protestants” would get it right, one of the following must be true:
1. the Holy Spirit was indifferent to the canon. so leaving up to fallible men, they got it wrong.
2. the Holy Spirit wanted them to have 66 books canonical, but the Holy Spirit was not powerful enough to work His will.
which of the two do you hold to?
the Catholic position is the Holy Spirit does care that the Word of God is protected, He did lead the bishops to truth in deciding the canon, and 90-95% of all people claiming a belief in Christ since Pentecost have used the 73 book Bible.