So I take it there was no formal canonization then, at least not in Jesus' time? Okay, got it, it was by popular opinion. Tell me then, which canon was used in Jesus' time and most often quoted from by him and his apostles?
Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint.
Some outtakes of the links I've previously included:
Ankerberg: "the mere fact that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint says nothing about the canonical status of the Apocrypha. Certainly, they used Hebrew Manuscripts or compilations that did not contain the Apocrypha as well. Also, what proof exists that the Septuagint of the first century contained the Apocrypha?
Does the fact that apocryphal books were included in some
Greek manuscripts prove the early church considered them Scripture? Are the decrees of all church councils infallible?
Is it really the Protestants who removed Scripture or have Catholics decreed non-canonical writings into Scripture?"
"First, how can the Apocrypha possibly be considered God’s Word when everyone, Protestant and Catholic, agree it contains demonstrable errors? This thoroughly undermines the crucial doctrines of divine inspiration and inerrancy.
To our way of thinking, this single fact alone forever disqualifies the Apocrypha from canonical status."
"Neither Jesus nor the New Testament authors ever quoted from it (the Apocrypha books) by way of the Septuagint
(abbreviated LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament). This is so in spite of their quoting from 35 of the 39 Old Testament books. Indeed, directly or indirectly the New Testament quotes the Old Testament over 600 times
, but an apocryphal book is not cited by name even once
. This speaks volumes as to the New Testament authors’ view of the Apocrypha. Because the Jews, Jesus and the Apostles clearly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, the burden of proof must be met by Catholics to show that the reasons for its rejection were spurious and that it deserved canonization.
This is something the Catholic Church can never do."
"... it is crucial to recognize that these books (the Apocrypha) were Jewish books compiled before the birth of Christ. Therefore, evaluating the disposition of the Jews regarding their canonicity is paramount.
The importance of the following fact cannot be underestimated: “Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have ALWAYS rejected the Apocrypha."
"the fact that Bibles such as the Septuagint and the King James Version included the Apocrypha as relevant historical materials says no more about their inspired status than the inclusion of historical introductions in modern study Bibles says about their inspired status. Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce supplies several examples of the inclusion of the Apocrypha in different Bibles— but these Bibles also observe that the Apocrypha was not to be considered Scripture
"In essence, the fact that some in the early church accepted the Apocrypha, that some books were included in some canonical lists and manuscripts, that the Catholic church officially declared it Scripture in the mid 1500’s
or that many Protestant versions contained the Apocrypha are still not proof that the Apocrypha was divinely inspired."
"The canon of the Jews (limited to the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament) was clearly the canon Jesus and the apostles accepted
. This means that Jesus and the apostles never accepted the Apocrypha as God’s word:
“...Christ and the apostles used and believed the groups of books accepted in the Hebrew canon, and NONE others
. For those who find their authority in Christ and His apostles, this would seem to be enough.”