Barney Resson writes:  >On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God. >To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha: >1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and >anachronisms.  So do other parts of the Bible when taken literally - i.e. the Psalms saying the Earth does not move, or the implication the Earth is flat with four corners, etc.  The Bible was written to teach salvation, not history or science.  >2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices >which are at variance with sacred Scripture.  What ones?  Paryers for the dead or the intercession of saints? (Which are taught in 2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Tobit)  >3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of >subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.  By your own subjective judgement.  This falling short is your judgement, and you are not infallible - rather the Church of Jesus Christ is (see 1 Timothy 3.15).  >4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine >Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and >poetic and religious feeling.  More subjective feelings.   This is not a proof of anything more than one persons feelings.  >But the problem with this argument lies in the assumption that >the Hebrew canon included the Apocrapha in the first place, and >it wasn't until the sixteenth century that Luther and co. threw >them out. The Jewish council you mentioned previously didn't >accept them, so the reformation protestants had good historical >precedence for their actions. Jerome only translated the >apocrapha under protest, and it was literally 'over his dead >body' that it was included in the catholic canon.  As I have written time and again, the Hebrew canon was fixed in Jamnia, Palestine, in 90 AD.  60 years after the foundation of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.  Furthermore, the opinons of Jerome do not count.  He was neither the Church, or the Pope, or an ecumenical council, or a council in general, or an insturment of the Magisterium of the Church.  He was a private individual, learned admittedly, but subject to erro of opinion.  And in exlcuding the deuterocanon, he erred, as Pope Damsus, and the Council of Carthage, and the tradition of the Fathers, clearly shows, as I pointed out in my previous post.  >How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the >words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to >them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. >And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will >take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the >holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)  I suggest you take heed of the last part of the statement, if you want to take it in the sense you are taking it, that taking away from the book will cause you to lose heaven.  >It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no >argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John >10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus  >that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the  >OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51 >taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say >Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.  The order of the Canon is unimportant, it is the content that matters.  None of Jesus' statments exlcude the deuterocanon, which were interspersed throughout the canon.  And remeber, there are some completely undisputed books, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiatses, Song of Songs, Job, etc. that are not quoted in the New Testament, which is not taken as prejudicial to their being inspired.