Good discussion and the post avoids a lot of the popular level apologetics I see. However, I disagree for the following reasons:
-first, Jesus mentions the Jewish canon which was not as much in question as later writings might have us believe.
….from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Lk 11:51.
Abel is slewn in the first book Genesis and Zechariah is killed in the last book of the Jewish ordering 2 chronicles.
The Jews were charged with keeping the oracles of God:
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Ro 3:1–2.
Yet Jesus observed Hanukkah which is not found in the Jewish canon.
Josephus mentions I believe 22 books. Other Jewish writers mention 24 books. The difference is what you do with Ruth and lamentations. They were often attached to Judges and Jeremiah respectively.
There was an academy at Jamnia That met in the mid to late second century that is often referenced to as establishing and closing the Jewish canon. However, this hypothesis is now largely rejected because the academy did not discuss any of the books of the apocrypha but rather discussed Esther or perhaps the Song of Songs. Add to the matter the discussion was whether those books made the hands ceremonially unclean. And the larger part of the OT had already been laid up in the temple. Therefore there was no discussion if other books were to be admitted. Lastly the academy did not have any authority to make a new Canon.
Athanasius actually mentions 67 books as he includes Baruch which was often attached to Jeremiah in the LXX (Septuagint). It is likely he did not know that Baruch was not considered as part of Jewish canon. While Athanasius rejected the apocrypha as canon (he would not have used that term as it is a later adjective) he thought they were useful for reading and instruction. Which I would add is the Lutheran and Anglican position of the apocrypha. Our liturgies use the Song of the Three Children in Matins and the classic books of common prayer at morning prayer.
Jerome rejected the apocrypha as well stating “. . . And here begins the book of Judith. It is not to be counted as scripture”. Yet, as one can tell he included the apocrypha in his translation, the Latin Vulgate.
The LXX originally meant the Torah. There is not a singular LXX of the prophets and writings that I am aware of. It is true that when the NT quotes the OT it is usually from a version of the LXX. The LXX is believed to reflect an older textual tradition than the Masoritic text. Yet it would be inaccurate to state that the MSS invented a new text. Rather they standardized a system of vowel pointing since semetic alphabets do not have vowels. This was probably to save space. Add to that there are quotations of the Ot in the NT that appear to come from the Targum, which are a syriac paraphrase.
So in conclusion the issue of the apocrypha is a bit complicated. Luther never removed books but rather regulated them to an appendix. He was hardly alone as he was following Jerome, Athanasius and his contemporaries such as cardinal Carjetan to name a few. So if one is concerned that their Bible is somehow altered it is not. Read the apocrypha for yourself. There is useful instruction to be found. Yet even Rome knows these books are inferior and that is why they refer to them as Deuterocanon meaning second canon. Or you can just refer to them as I do as pious writings.
Fun fact, the KJV included the apocrypha in an appendix until the mid 19th century. Cambridge still publishes a version with the apocrypha to this day.
