Precisely! I wonder if our FRoman friends would allow that we can agree with Jerome AND Luther by deeming these extra books as "edifying" but not Divinely-inspired or useful for determining doctrine of the Christian faith? Must we recognize them as from the Holy Spirit when even their authors admit they aren't speaking as God's prophets or do we NOT have that choice since after listing the books which the RCC considers canonical, including the Apocrypha, the Council of Trent declared:
Further reasons for the rejection of the Apocryphal books as Holy Scripture, we should consider:
At least one of the books included in the Roman Catholic canon disqualifies itself from being prophetic in origin. In 1 Maccabees chapter 4, after the temple was cleansed and the defiled altar torn down, we are told that the stones of the altar were stored “until a prophet should come to tell what to do with them” (v. 46). 1 Maccabees 9:27 explicitly states that at the time of the books writing, prophets of God had already ceased to appear:
Geisler and MacKenzie summarize the failure of the Apocrypha as a whole to pass the test of propheticity:
Second, there is no divine confirmation of any of the writers of the apocryphal books, as there is for prophets who wrote canonical books (e.g., Exod. 4:1-2).
Third, there is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha, such as we have in the canonical books (e.g., Isa. 53; Dan. 9; Mic. 5:2) and which is a clear indication of their propheticity.
Fourth, there is no new messianic truth in the Apocrypha. Thus, it adds nothing to the messianic truths of the Old Testament.
Fifth, even the Jewish community, whose books they were, acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written (see quotes above).
Sixth, the apocryphal books were never listed in the Jewish Bible along with the “Prophets,” or any other section for that matter.
Seventh, never once is any apocryphal book cited authoritatively by a prophetic book written after it.
Reason #7: The Apocrypha contains doctrinal and historical errors.
The Apocrypha has been used by Roman Catholics to support certain doctrinal errors, including atonement, purgatory, and prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:45: “Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin”) and salvation by works (Tobit 12:9: “For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin”). This should at least be seen as suspect, especially considering the polemical nature of the Council of Trent and the canonization of the Apocrypha in reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
Furthermore, books such as Judith contain so many historical errors that many scholars conclude it must be a work of historical fiction rather than actual history. If indeed it was intended to be a work of historical fiction, I suppose it cannot be faulted for containing so many historical errors. Bruce Metzger says the following concerning Judith:
Like I already asked, what could possibly be the reason for those who listen to the Holy Spirit's voice in the Scriptures to reject writings supposedly from Him other than His voice is NOT present there? I've read them. I don't hear it or sense the truth revealed through them. What am I missing by not respecting them as Divine?
I would not make that deterministic of a books canonicity, which would eliminate Esther. The essential reason for the establishment of such is the same as for a man of God (why would common people even hold prophets to be of God?), which is their unique enduring spiritual qualities and supernatural attestation, and conflation with what had already been established.
Furthermore, books such as Judith contain so many historical errors that many scholars conclude it must be a work of historical fiction rather than actual history. If indeed it was intended to be a work of historical fiction, I suppose it cannot be faulted for containing so many historical errors. Bruce Metzger says the following concerning Judith: One of the first questions that naturally arises regarding this book is whether it is historical. The consensus, at least among Protestant and Jewish scholars, is that the story is, sheer fiction…the book teems with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright errors. For example, Holofernes moves an immense army about three hundred miles in three days (2:21). The opening words of the book, when taken with 2:1ff. and 4:2f., involve the most astonishing historical nonsense, for the author places Nebuchadnezzar’s reign over the Assyrians (in reality he was king of Babylon) at Nineveh (which fell seven years before his accession!) at a time when the Jews had only recently returned from the captivity (actually at this time they were suffering further deportations)! Nebuchadnezzar did not make war on Media (1:7), nor capture Ecbatana (1:14)…The rebuilding of the Temple (4:13) is dated, by a glaring anachronism, about a century too early. Moreover, the Jewish state is represented as being under the government of a high priest and a kind of Sanhedrin (6:6-14; 15:8), which is compatible only with a post-exilic date several hundred years after the book’s presumed historical setting.http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-the-apocrypha-scripture/#_ftn24
Yes, Judith is certainly manifest as one to be rejected as Scripture. In its intro to Judith even the RC approved NAB Bible discreetly acknowledges the non-historical nature it by saying, ,
"Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail."
The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible (by John J. Collins) is more direct:
"The book is certainly not a historical account...it telescopes five centuries of historical and geographical information with imaginary details."
Likewise Tobit is clearly manifest as a fable, (also) being about a women, Sarah, who has lost seven husbands because Asmodeus, the demon of lust, and "the worst of demons," abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated!
And about a man, Tobias, who was sleeping with his eyes open while birds dropped dung into in his eyes (sound sleeper!) and blinded him. And who later is attacked by a fish leaping out of the river to devour him! But Raphael has him capture it and later he burns the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon Asmodeus away to Upper Egypt [let the Coptics deal with him?], enabling Tobias and Sarah to finally consummate his marriage.
The RC approved NAB Bible says in its intro to Tobit that it is "folklore," as if that was not obvious, and in rejecting this as Scripture, we have not followed "cunningly devised fables", (2 Peter 1:16) thank God, and which reads like so much of the nonsense in the Talmud, but we are "Not giving heed to Jewish fables..." (Titus 1:14)
The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible states:
"Tobit is not a work of history writing. Its author confuses the kings of Assyria, [and] shows an ignorance of the topography of Mesopotamia, and dates Tobit's exile earlier than it could have been."
But if you like fables such proffered literal accounts can be Scripture, while literal historical accounts of canonical Scripture can be called "fables" or "folklore" in Catholic scholarship , which they present as the standard.