Fact-checking Protestant claims about the Old Testament Canon

From Teach The Net
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

Inspired by this blog post.


Have you ever noticed that the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible? You may ask, "Why does that even matter?"

It matters because if those extra Catholic books are part of the Bible, then the Bible supports Catholic doctrines like purgatory and prayer for the dead - which is kind of a big deal for Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura!

Mark Driscoll (Protestant Pastor), in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture?
Among the chief critics was the Catholic monk Martin Luther, who pointed out that praying to saints, paying indulgences to the church, and purgatory were not found in the Bible. In an effort to defend themselves, the Catholic Church... found some support for its unbiblical doctrines in the apocrypha...
GotQuestions (Protestant website): excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?
The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning "saints" in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and "alms giving" atoning for sins.
Bible.org (Protestant website), in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity
The Apocrypha includes some specific Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory and prayer for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), and salvation by works (almsgiving – Tobit 12:9).

So why do Catholics have these extra books in their Old Testament, and Protestants exclude them? How did we get the table of contents for the Old Testament anyway?

Trying to find the answer to such questions can leave your head spinning.

You may have started on the Protestant website, Bible.org, which claims:

Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity
The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) officially recognized our 39 Old Testament books... 

But then as you dug deeper, you'd see Protestant website Answers In Genesis, which notes:

Answers in Genesis, "Why 66? The Canon of Scripture", 10:52 mark in video
 It's now generally accepted that Jamnia actually wasn't a council, it certainly didn't pronounce on the Jewish canon.

As you continue digging, you see popular Protestant pastor Mark Driscoll, who note that Catholics inserted those extra books into their Bible in 1546:

Mark Driscoll, in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture?
Both Jews and Christians rejected any of the apocryphal books as divinely inspired sacred Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546... In an effort to defend themselves, the Catholic Church voted to insert new books into the Bible, more than a millennium after the Old Testament canon had been closed and the apocryphal books had been rejected as Scripture.

But further research leads you to this Protestant website GotQuestions, which notes that those extra books weren't inserted in 1546, but instead were already included in THE bible that Christianity used for over a thousand years prior to the Reformation (the Latin Vulgate), starting around 400 AD.

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible?
However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The Latin Vulgate became the dominant and officially sanctioned Catholic Bible, and remained that way for around 1200 years. Thus, the Apocrypha became a part of the Catholic Bible.

So you browse GotQuestions some more, and see them note that the Jews never accepted these extra books as part of the Bible:

GotQuestions: excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?
The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. 

But then you see Protestant Historian Bruce Shelley say that actually, the Jews outside of Palestine often accepted these books as part of their Bible.

Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Third Edition, page 60
[The] debate centers around the fact that Jews in Palestine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament...

Beyond Palestine, however, Jews were more inclined to consider as Scripture writings not included in this list of books. The Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint was especially influential in making known certain books of the Apocrypha because it included these books along with the Old Testament books accepted in Palestine.

How do you separate fact from fiction?

Does this not leave you scratching your head, echoing Pilate in John 18:38 as he says... "What is truth?"

Let us review Protestant claims about how the Old Testament canon was developed, and why their list without the extra Catholic books is the correct list.

Protestant Claims

Claim: Early Church Fathers did not treat Deuterocanon as Scripture

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?
The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. 
GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible?
Should the Apocrypha be included in the Bible? There was significant debate in the early Christian church, with a majority of the early church fathers rejecting the idea that the Apocrypha belonged in the Bible.
GotQuestions: excerpt from How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?
While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture.
Mark Driscoll, in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture?
These books are also known as the apocrypha... while these books were read by some of God’s people, they were treated like popular Christian books in our own day, such as those by C. S. Lewis; they were never accepted as Scripture, for many reasons... Both Jews and Christians rejected any of the apocryphal books as divinely inspired sacred Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546.
Answers in Genesis, "Why 66? The Canon of Scripture", 16:26 mark in video
Now it's true that some of the early Church leaders beyond the New Testament quoted from the Apocrypha, though compared to their use of the Old Testament very rarely, but there’s no evidence that they treated them as Scripture.
Blueletterbible.org, in Don Stewart, Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?
In the early years of the church it drew up various lists of the books it considered to be Old Testament Scripture. The books of the Apocrypha do not appear on any list until late in the fourth century. This demonstrates the acceptance of these writings was not immediate... While a few of the early leaders of the church accepted some of the books of Apocrypha as Scripture, most of the great church leaders did not-Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few. Many great church leaders spoke out against the Apocrypha. Those who do cite the Apocrypha as Scripture were few in number. It is also worth noting that none of the church fathers that quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture knew any Hebrew.

Fact Check

There is plenty of evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers that they considered the Deuterocanonical books (part of what Protestants refer to as Apocrypha) to be Scripture. The Protestant claims here are demonstrably false from the writings of the Church Fathers themselves.

Clement of Alexandria (~198 AD)

Origen (~240 AD)

Cyprian of Carthage (250 AD)

Basil of Caesarea (~364 AD)

Hilary of Poitiers (~367 AD)

Athanasius (~367 AD)

Gregory of Nazianzus (~390 AD)

Augustine (~390 AD)

Jerome (~390 AD)

Gregory of Nyssa (~395 AD)

Ambrose (397 AD)

Tyrannius Rufinus (400 AD)

John Chrysostom (407 AD)

See more in this appendix.

Claim: Jews never accepted the Deuterocanon as part of the Hebrew Bible

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?
The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. 

Fact Check

Even the Protestant book Church History in Plain Language debunks this - stating that Jews outside of Palestine tended to accept the Deuterocanon.

Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Third Edition, page 60
[The] debate centers around the fact that Jews in Palestine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament...

Beyond Palestine, however, Jews were more inclined to consider as Scripture writings not included in this list of books. The Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint was especially influential in making known certain books of the Apocrypha because it included these books along with the Old Testament books accepted in Palestine.

What was the Hebrew Bible, anyway? The Jews did not declare a canon list until well after the time of Christ. Indeed, many scholars believe the Jews declared their canon list in response to the growing Christian sect, which had adopted the Septuagint as its Old Testament and had begun including New Testament writings as Scripture.

There is evidence that the Jews after the time of Christ may have removed scriptures (such as the Deuterocanon). There are several passages in the New Testament where the author quotes a missing Old Testament passage (James 4:5, John 7:38, Matthew 2:23, 1 Corinthians 15:45, Luke 24:46, Mark 9:12, 1 Corinthians 2:9, Hebrews 11:37). Justin Martyr (~160 AD) gave examples of passages of Scripture that the Jews in his day had removed from their Hebrew Scriptures, but that were still available in the Septuagint (Greek translation) - Justin believed these passages were removed because they pointed to Jesus as Christ. Origen (~240 AD) also noted that the Hebrew Scriptures the Jews had in his day were missing some of the Deuterocanonical books, and particularly were missing any passages that cast the Jewish elders in a negative light - and he accuses them of removing those scriptures. Augustine (~400 AD) notes that the Jews had perverted or omitted passages of scripture that are evidence for the Christian faith. Isidore (~600 AD) also notes that the Jews removed passages of Scripture pointing to Christ. (For more information and citations for the above, review the appendix titled "Missing Scriptures").

Claim: Protestants inherited their OT Canon from the Jews

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible?
The early Protestant Reformers, in agreement with Judaism, determined that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible, and therefore removed the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles.
Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity
The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) officially recognized our 39 Old Testament books...  Josephus, the Jewish historian (A.D. 95), indicated that the 39 books were recognized as authoritative.
Christianity Today, in How We Got Our Bible: Christian History Timeline
[A.D.] 90 and 118: Councils of Jamnia give final affirmation to the Old Testament canon (39 books)
Focus On The Family, in How Did We Get the Bible?
Now the question remains about how the Christian church ultimately put the parts of the Bible together. This really relates to the New Testament, as the Old Testament was already accepted and codified in the books accepted by the Jewish people as divinely inspired.

Fact Check

It's important to ask "which" Jews do the Protestants claim to inherit their canon from?

Bible.org cites Josephus (who was born after Jesus' death) as a witness to their 39 book canon. Protestants argue that Josephus excludes the Deuterocanon as authoritative when he says all prophecy ceased after the time of Artaxerxes (the timing of the book of Esther).

Josephus, Against Apion, 1.41
It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time...

The problem with accepting Josephus here is that both Protestants and Catholics accept the authority of the New Testament, which states Josephus was wrong. John the Baptist was a prophet, and more than a prophet (Luke 7:26). Clearly prophecy did not cease after the time of Esther. Josephus, who denied the authority of the New Testament, has no authority in Christianity.

Bible.org and Christianity Today also cite the Council of Jamnia. For a time, scholars thought this council around 90 AD was where Judaism established their canon. However as Protestant website AnswersInGenesis notes, modern scholars now generally believe that was not the case - this council did not proclaim the canon for the Jews.

Answers in Genesis, "Why 66? The Canon of Scripture", 10:52 mark in video
 It's now generally accepted that Jamnia actually wasn't a council, it certainly didn't pronounce on the Jewish canon.

Nobody knows the exact date the Jews established their canon. Their first five books were clearly established early on, but the rest tended to be a loose collection of writings. The Jews did not have a declared canon before Christ. The Judaism that Protestants claim to have inherited scripture from must be the Judaism from after Christ - the Judaism that rejected Jesus as Messiah and rejected the New Testament books as authoritative.

Protestants are being inconsistent - why accept the authority of these post-Jesus Jews on their shortened Old Testament, but not on their rejection of the New Testament?

Protestants run into a similar dilemma when they talk about their canon of the New Testament. They tend to accept the authority of early church councils on the New Testament Canon:

GotQuestions: excerpt from How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church... The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity
...the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) recognized the 27 books in our New Testament today as inspired.
Christianity Today, in How We Got Our Bible: Christian History Timeline
[A.D.] 397 Council of Carthage establishes orthodox New Testament canon (27 books)
John Piper, in Desiring God's Why We Believe the Bible
The first list known to us with all 27 books is in the Festal Letter of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in ad 367. This list was affirmed by the Synod of Hippo in 393.

But these same councils Protestants use to defend the canon of the New Testament declared the canon of the Old Testament to include the Deuterocanon (which Protestants call Apocrypha). Why do Protestants accept the authority of these councils on the canon of the New Testament, but not on the canon of the Old Testament?

Claim: Protestants inherited their OT Canon from early Eastern Christians

Sources of Claim

Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, Third Edition, page 60
[The] debate centers around the fact that Jews in Palestine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament...

Beyond Palestine, however, Jews were more inclined to consider as Scripture writings not included in this list of books. The Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint was especially influential in making known certain books of the Apocrypha because it included these books along with the Old Testament books accepted in Palestine.

Early Christians also differed, then, over the question of the Apocrypha. Believers in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, nearest Palestine, tended to agree with the Jews in that area. In the West, however, Christians under the influence of Augustine, the well-known bishop of Hippo, usually received the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture. During the sixteenth-century Reformation most Protestants accepted the view of early eastern Christians and rejected the Apocrypha as canonical. The Roman Catholic church, following Augustine, accepted the books. And that is how the churches differ to this day.

Fact Check

Shelley notes the geographical division within Christianity, stating that Protestants inherited their canon from the early Eastern Christians who rejected the Deuterocanon.

This is false. From all the historical records surviving to the present day, there is not a single example of the modern Protestant canon being used until the English civil war in the 1640s, well after the Reformation.

Historical Records diverging from modern Protestant canon

Around 170 AD, Melito of Sardis gives an Old Testament list which excludes Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 26, Section 14)

Also dating from around 170 AD, the Muratorian fragment gives a New Testament list which excludes James, 1 & 2 Peter, Hebrews, and 3 John and includes the Book of Wisdom.

Around 240 AD, Origen gives a New Testament list excluding Revelation (Homilies on Joshua, 7.1), and an Old Testament list for the Jews which excludes the 12 minor prophets and includes the Epistle of Jeremiah - part of the book of Baruch (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 25, Section 1-2).

Around 350 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem gives a New Testament list excluding Revelation, and an Old Testament list including the book of Baruch (Catechetical Lecture 4, sections 35-36).

Around 367 AD, Hilary of Poitiers gives an Old Testament list which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah - part of the book of Baruch, and notes that some accept Tobit and Judith (Expositions of the Psalms, 15).

Also around 367 AD, Athanasius in a letter gives the first full New Testament list comprising all 27 books. He also gives an Old Testament list, including Baruch and excluding Esther. He says Esther, the book of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermes were called non-Canon but profitable for instruction in the word of godliness (Letter 39).

Around 382 AD, the Council of Rome was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Decretum Gelasianum, Damasine List, Section II).

Around 385 AD, Epiphanius of Salamis gave an Old Testament list which included Baruch. He also noted two more books of disputed canonicity, Sirach and the Book of Wisdom - which he later on called 'divine writings' (Panarion viii. 6 and Panarion lxxvi. 5).

Around 390 AD, Gregory of Nazianzus gave a New Testament list excluding Revelation, and an Old Testament list excluding Esther (Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture).

Also around 390 AD, Augustine gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8, Section 13).

Also around 390 AD, Jerome argues the Book of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and 2 Maccabees should be placed among the Apocryphal writings (Prologue to the Books of the Kings).

Note that Jerome did not explicitly exclude Baruch. Indeed, later Jerome quotes from Baruch as a prophet (Letter 77, Section 4). It's reasonable to assume that Jerome included Baruch as tacked on to the end of Jeremiah, a common practice in that day.

Equally important is that regardless of Jerome's private opinions, he submitted to the authority of the church, and included the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) in his Latin Vulgate translation, fully counting them as scripture.

Here's Jerome submitting on Judith based on the authority of the Nicene Council, even if he does not personally approve of the book:

Jerome's Preface to Judith
Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. [...] But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request...

Here's Jerome discussing multiple versions of the book of Daniel that were available, and how he submitted in selecting the one used by the churches - even if he did not believe that translation was good.

Jerome's Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 33
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.

Here is Jerome noting that the Jews of his day exclude Tobit from Divine Scriptures - but then submitting to the authority of the church in including it.

Jerome's Preface to Tobit
...the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops...

Here's Jerome quoting from the Book of Wisdom as Holy Scripture:

Jerome's Letter 51, Sections 6 & 7
For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of His own eternity." [Wisdom 2:23]... Instead of the three proofs from Holy Scripture which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, behold I have given you seven.

And finally, here's Jerome quoting from Sirach as scripture:

Jerome's Letter 108, Section 21
...for does not the scripture say: "Burden not yourself above your power?" [Sirach 13:2]

Around 393 AD, the Council of Hippo was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Canon xxxvi).

Around 397 AD, the Council of Carthage was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Source).

Around 400 AD, Tyrannius Rufinus gave an Old Testament canon list which excluded most of the Deuterocanon - except just like Jerome, note that he did not exclude Baruch (Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, sections 37 & 38). It is likely he included Baruch in his list as tacked on the end of Jerome, a common practice at that time - as he quotes earlier in the same work from Baruch as they sayings of a prophet (section 5).

Rufinus did not count the rest of the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha - rather, he counted them among the scriptures (as part of the Word of God), but he called them "Ecclesiastical" rather than "Canonical". He said they should be read in the churches, though not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. They were separate from the Apocrypha, which were not scriptures, and should not be read in the churches (section 38).

Also, Rufinus argued that removing the Deuterocanonical parts of the scriptures would not be a "correction of error" - which gives us confirmation that he indeed included the Deuterocanon as scriptures that weren't to be cut out.

Rufinus' Apology Against Jerome, 2.33
In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated?

Around 419 AD, another Council of Carthage was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Canon 24).

During this period of time, for about a thousand years Jerome's Latin Vulgate (which included the Deuterocanon) was the bible of Christianity.

Somewhere between 600-1000 AD, the Jewish Masoretes publish their text + canon. This canon matches the modern Protestant Old Testament canon - though these Jews reject the entire New Testament as authoritative.

Around 1442 AD, the Council of Florence was held which gave the full New Testament list, and gave an Old Testament list including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (Session 11-4 February 1442).

Around 1534 AD, Protestant Martin Luther published his Bible translation. In it, he moves Deuterocanon to the end of his Old Testament and labels them "Apocrypha" (Apocrypha introduction, Luther’s Bible). Similar to his Old Testament Apocrypha, he was skeptical of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, and stuck them at the end of his New Testament, saying "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation" (Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews). He also notes that in his judgment, Esther deserves to be excluded from the Old Testament canon more than the rest of the Deuterocanon (Bondage of the Will, Section XLVI).

Even with Luther being against these Old Testament and New Testament books, he didn't remove them from his Bible translation - he just shifted them to the end of each Testament.

Around 1546 AD, the Catholic Council of Trent was held, which again proclaimed the canon including the full Deuterocanon (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, etc) (The Fourth Session, DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES).

Around 1547 AD, John Calvin blasted the Council of Trent, including their proclamation of canon. Calvin says that Catholics give full authority to the Deuterocanonical books, which lets them "prove Purgatory", "the worship of saints", and "exorcisms". He identifies the Deuterocanon as "ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine", as he says Ruffinus and Jerome did. He also notes that he is not "I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books" (Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, ON THE FOURTH SESSION).

Note that in Calvin's list of ecclesiastical but not canonical books, he lists the Deuterocanon... but leaves off Baruch. Ruffinus and Jerome (whom Calvin quotes) likewise leave off Baruch. This is intriguing because Calvin quotes from Baruch, calling him a prophet - just like Ruffinus and Jerome. Calvin even goes so far as to say that it is likely Paul, in his letter 1 Corinthians, borrowed from Baruch (Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1, 1 Corinthians 10:19-24, Section 20). From this evidence, it appears Calvin accepted Baruch as canon as part of Jeremiah.

Around 1572 AD, the Protestant Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles gave an Old Testament list that put the Deuterocanon not on the same level as the rest of the canonical books - the Deuterocanon was to be read for example of life and instruction of manners, but not used to establish doctrine (Article 6). The Deuterocanon was however still a part of the Holy Scriptures, and was included in the Church of England's King James Bible of 1611.

Around 1642 AD the English Civil War broke out, and it lasted until 1649 AD. The Long Parliament of 1644 decreed that only the Hebrew Canon would be read in the Church of England, and in 1647 the Westminster Confession of Faith was issued which decreed a 39-book Old Testament, with the Deuterocanon excluded completely from the Bible.

With the restoration of the monarchy to Charles II of England (1660-1685), the Church of England was once again governed by the Thirty-Nine Articles, and thus emphatically maintained that the Deuterocanon is part of the Holy Scriptures and is to be read with respect by her members (but not used to establish any doctrine).

The modern Protestant bible most widely in use by Presbyterians, Baptists, and many other groups is descended from the Church of England's temporary list, propagated during their civil war in the 1640s. Never before then had a Christian had a collection of the Holy Scriptures that matched the modern Protestant list.

Claim: New Testament never quotes from or alludes to the Deuterocanon

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?
The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. 
Mark Driscoll, in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture?
While the Old Testament is quoted roughly three hundred times in the New Testament, none of the apocryphal books are ever quoted in the New Testament or even alluded to, with the exception of a very debated section of Jude.
Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity
The Apocrypha is never quoted as authoritative in scriptures. (Although Hebrews 11:35-38 alludes to historical events recorded in 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42).
John Piper, in Desiring God's Why We Believe the Bible
According to one count by Roger Nicole, the New Testament quotes various parts of the Old Testament as divinely authoritative over 295 times, but not once do they cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha or any other writings as having divine authority. (“New Testament Use of the Old Testament” in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl Henry [London: Tyndale Press, 1959], pp. 137-141)
Blueletterbible.org, in Don Stewart, Why Were the Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha Rejected as Holy Scripture by the Protestants?
Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the Apocrypha as being God's Word... If the writers of the New Testament considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture, we would certainly expect them to refer to it in some way. However we find no direct quotations. This is in contrast to over 250 quotations from the authoritative Old Testament Scriptures. The fact that the present canon was repeatedly quoted as being divinely authoritative as well as the absence of any direct quote is another indication of the extent of the canon - it did not include the Apocrypha.

Fact Check

If absence of New Testament quotations is intended to prove the Deuterocanon as non-canonical, then the same logic suggests the absence of New Testament quotations of Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, Esther, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes proves those books are also non-canonical.

This is nonsense, and neither Catholics nor Protestants would accept this argument against the canonicity of Esther / etc.

Regardless, the Deuterocanon is actually referenced numerous times in the New Testament. The Protestant King James Bible (1611), which includes the Deuterocanonical books, even included these cross-references.

  • Sirach 7:14 and Matthew 6:14-15/Mark 11:25
  • Wisdom 2:15-22 and Matthew 27:41-43
  • Tobit 4:15 and Luke 6:31/Matthew 7:12 (see citation in scan of original 1611 KJV here)
  • Tobit 4:7 and Luke 14:13
  • 1 Maccabees 4:59 and John 10:22 (The feast of dedication mentioned in the Gospel of John was established in the time of the Maccabees, and is known today as Hanukkah.)
  • Romans and the Book of Wisdom, clay and the potter (Wisdom 12:12 -> Romans 9:20, Wisdom 15:7 -> Romans 9:21, Wisdom 12:20 -> Romans 9:22)
  • Wisdom 9:13 and Romans 11:34
  • Sirach 35:8 and 2 Corinthians 9:7
  • Wisdom 7:26 and Hebrew 1:3
  • 2 Maccabees 7:7 and Hebrews 11:35 (This is the only example in the Greek Old Testament of people experiencing torture and not acceptable deliverance for hope of a better resurrection)
  • Tobit 12:15 and Revelation 8:2 (Seven angels standing before God is not mentioned anywhere else in the Greek Old Testament except this passage in Tobit)

Claim: The Deuterocanon denies being inspired

Sources of Claim

Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity
The Apocrypha never claims to be inspired (“Thus saith the Lord” etc.) – In fact, 1 Maccabees 9:27 denies it.

Fact Check

1 Maccabees 9:27
There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people.

From this verse, Protestants argue that Maccabees identifies itself as uninspired, since prophets ceased to appear and thus Maccabees wasn't written by a prophet.

The problem with this argument is that by the same logic, the Psalms and Lamentations aren't inspired.

Psalm 74:8
They said in their hearts, ‘Destroy them all! Burn all the shrines of God in the land!’ Now we see no signs, we have no prophets, no one who knows how long...
Lamentations 2:9
Sunk into the ground are her gates; he has removed and broken her bars. Her king and her princes are among the pagans; priestly instruction is wanting, And her prophets have not received any vision from the LORD.

This argument is invalid - Protestants and Catholics both agree Psalms and Lamentations are inspired.

Claim: Catholics inserted books into the Bible at the Council of Trent in 1546

Sources of Claim

Mark Driscoll, in How Were the Old Testament Books Chosen as Scripture?
Both Jews and Christians rejected any of the apocryphal books as divinely inspired sacred Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. At that time, the Catholic Church was facing a growing protest movement (now known as Protestantism) that denounced some of the church’s teaching as unbiblical. Among the chief critics was the Catholic monk Martin Luther, who pointed out that praying to saints, paying indulgences to the church, and purgatory were not found in the Bible. In an effort to defend themselves, the Catholic Church voted to insert new books into the Bible, more than a millennium after the Old Testament canon had been closed and the apocryphal books had been rejected as Scripture. Why? Because it found some support for its unbiblical doctrines in the apocrypha and, rather than changing its doctrines, it instead chose to change its Bible.
Bible.org, in HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE: Canonicity
The Apocryphal books are 15 books written in the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew. They record some of the history of that time period and various other religious stories and teaching. The Catholic Bible (Douay Version) regards these books as scripture. The Apocrypha includes some specific Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory and prayer for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), and salvation by works (almsgiving – Tobit 12:9). Interestingly, the Catholic Church officially recognized these books as scripture in A.D. 1546, only 29 years after Martin Luther criticized these doctrines as unbiblical.

Fact Check

Even GotQuestions, a Protestant website, establishes this claim as rubbish. As GotQuestions notes, these books were included in the Bible for over a thousand years prior to the Council of Trent.

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible?
However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The Latin Vulgate became the dominant and officially sanctioned Catholic Bible, and remained that way for around 1200 years. Thus, the Apocrypha became a part of the Catholic Bible.

The Latin Vulgate was the bible of Christianity for over a millennia. Catholics inserted nothing, they merely formally accepted what had been the standard of the Church for over a thousand years.

Claim: Jerome proved that the Apocrypha should not be part of the Bible

Sources of Claim

GotQuestions: excerpt from What is the Catholic Bible?
However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The Latin Vulgate became the dominant and officially sanctioned Catholic Bible, and remained that way for around 1200 years. Thus, the Apocrypha became a part of the Catholic Bible.

Fact Check

Jerome believed in the "Hebraica Veritas" - the truth of the Hebrew Scriptures. By his day, the church was primarily using the Septuagint (Greek translation of Old Testament made before the time of Christ). When Jerome obtained the Hebrew Scriptures from the Jews of his day at great cost, he was surprised to find that there were numerous differences.

For example, Jerome saw that Psalm 8:2 in the Jew's Hebrew Scripture said "Out of the mouth of babes and infants you have ordained strength", while in the Septuagint the Christian Church was using it said "Out of the mouth of babes and infants you have ordained praise". Jerome concluded that since the original Old Testament was in Hebrew, the difference must be attributable to an error that popped up in the translation of the Septuagint - thus the superiority of the Hebrew Scriptures over the Septuagint.

As Jerome continued in his translations of the books of the Bible, he noted several instances of this occurring - and each time, he found the Hebrew Scriptures to be superior. This led him to proclaim the following challenge:

And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.
- Jerome, in his Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 34

Modern scholarship has shown Jerome was wrong, and his challenge was met. The New Testament authors (and Christ himself) accepted the Septuagint as authoritative and used it frequently. We know this because the Septuagint, in addition to including the Deuterocanon, has numerous minor textual differences from the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jews (the Masoretic Text).

  • In Matthew 21:16, Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2 saying "Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have ordained praise". In the Septuagint translation, Psalm 8:2 also says "ordained praise". However the Hebrew Scriptures (Masoretic Text) says "ordained strength".
  • 1 Peter 4:18 quotes the Septuagint Proverbs 11:31 as "If the truly righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?". The Hebrew says, "If the righteous is repaid on earth, how much more the wicked and the sinner!"
  • Hebrews 11:21 quotes the Septuagint Genesis 47:31 with Jacob bowing in worship over the head of his staff, while the Hebrew has Jacob bowing over the head of his bed.
  • Hebrews 10:5-7 quotes the Septuagint Psalm 40:6-8 as "a body have you prepared for me", while the Hebrew reads as "you have given me an open ear".
  • Acts 13:41 quotes the Septuagint Habakkuk 1:5 starting with "Look, you scoffers", while the Hebrew starts with "Look among the nations".
  • Acts 7:42-43 quotes the Septuagint Amos 5:25-27 as "You took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan", while the Hebrew reads as "You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god".
  • Acts 8:32-33 quotes the Septuagint Isaiah 53:7-8 as "In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.", while the Hebrew reads as "By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living".
  • James 4:6 quotes the Septuagint Proverbs 3:34 as "opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble", while the Hebrew reads similarly but with different underlying word-concepts as "scorns the scornful but he gives grace to the lowly".

In the book "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey" (pages 25-32), by Protestant authors G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, we see that of the 386 times that the New Testament explicitly quotes from the Old Testament, 340 of those are from the Septuagint translation. [Another resource.]

Jerome was but a single man and missed these examples, while we've had countless scholars pore over the texts to find these. Jerome, based off what he found, determined the Septuagint to be an errant translation of the Hebrew Scriptures he obtained from the Jews. Because the Deuterocanonical books were found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Scriptures he obtained from the Jews, he doubted the authenticity of the Deuterocanonical books.

With the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, we've learned even more new details. Jerome had thought the Septuagint was a bad translation of the Hebrew Scriptures he obtained from the Jews, which he thought were closer to the original because they were in the original language. From the Dead Sea scrolls, we've learned that the Septuagint was not a bad translation of an ancestor of the Masoretic Text, but a good translation of the Pre-Septuagint Hebrew text - one of several Hebrew text traditions of the Old Testament we've found remnants of in the Dead Sea scrolls. More information on this available in the appendix on the Pre-Septuagint.

Regardless of Jerome's beliefs, he did submit himself to the Church, and accepted the Deuterocanon as scripture. He included the Deuterocanon in his Bible translation, quoted from the Book of Wisdom and Sirach as scripture, and quoted from Baruch as a prophet.

Archibald Alexander: Influential Presbyterian from the 1800s

Book: Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions

In "Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions", we see a work by 19th century Presbyterian theologian, Archibald Alexander that has become a common reference for modern Protestants on Old Testament canon.

In this work, Alexander makes the argument that "these books [the Deuterocanon] were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal." Let us examine his specific claims in support of this statement.

Note that being Protestant, he refers to the Deuterocanon as the Apocrypha - but his use of the term Apocrypha is meant to describe the Deuterocanonical books, and was not intended to include the many other works that are Apocrypha.

Here is the relevant section from his work, quoted in full. Following the quotation of his work, we will examine the validity of his claims.

Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions
SECTION IV.

TESTIMONIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, AND OF OTHER LEARNED MEN DOWN TO THE TIME OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, RESPECTING THE APOCRYPHA.

THE fourth argument is, that these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal.

Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book.

The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testament which we have, after the times of the apostles, from any Christian writer, is that of Melito, bishop of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which is preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows: "Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since you have often earnestly requested of me, in consequence of your love of learning, a collection of the Sacred Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects their number and order, I have used diligence to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and your earnest desire to become acquainted with the word; and that striving after eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer these to all other things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to the very place where these things were published and transacted, and having made diligent search after the books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send you the following catalogue:--"Five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."

Origen also says, "We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet." Then he sets down, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew.

Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, "All the Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired; neither are they indefinite in their number, but determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old Testament are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel."

Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, and resided in France, has numbered the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following manner: "The five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh of Judges, including Ruth, the eighth of first and second Kings, the ninth of third and fourth Kings; the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehemiah;) the twelfth, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; the twelve Prophets the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, including Lamentations and his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full number of twenty-two." And in his preface he adds, that "these books were thus numbered by our ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them."

Gregory Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study the sacred books with attention, but to avoid such as were apocryphal; and then gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, and according to the Jewish method, makes the number two-and-twenty. He complains of some that mingled the apocryphal books with those that were inspired, "of the truth of which last," says he, "we have the most perfect persuasion; therefore it seemed good to me to enumerate the canonical books from the beginning; and those which belong to the Old Testament are two-and-twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, as I have understood." Then he proceeds to say, "Let no one add to these divine books, nor take any thing away from them. I think it necessary to add this, that there are other books besides those which I have enumerated as constituting the Canon, which, however, do not appertain to it; but were proposed by the early Fathers, to be read for the sake of the instruction which they contain." Then, he expressly names as belonging to this class, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. 

Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive: "Which," says he, "we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit."

Epiphanius, in his book concerning Weights and Measures, distributes the books of the Old Testament into four divisions of five each. "The first of which contains the law, next five poetical books, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; in the third division he places Joshua, Judges, including Ruth, first and second Chronicles, four books of Kings. The last five, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then there remain two, Ezra and Esther." Thus he makes up the number twenty-two.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, exhorts his catechumen diligently to learn from the church, what books appertain to the Old and New Testaments, and he says, "Read nothing which is apocryphal. Read the Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which were translated by the seventy-two interpreters." And in another place, "Meditate, as was said, in the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, and if you wish it, I will give you their names." Here follows a catalogue, agreeing with those already given, except that he adds Baruch to the list. When Baruch is mentioned as making one book with Jeremiah, as is done by some of the Fathers, it is most reasonable to understand those parts of Jeremiah, in the writing of which Baruch was concerned, as particularly the lii. chapter; for, if we understand them as referring to the separate book now called Baruch, the number which they are so careful to preserve will be exceeded. This apocryphal Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never mentioned separately by any ancient author, as Bellarmine confesses. This book was originally written in Greek, but our present copies differ exceedingly from the old Latin translation.

The Council of Laodicea forbade the reading of any books in the churches but such as were canonical; and that the people might know what these were, a catalogue was given, answering to the Canon which we now receive.

Origen barely mentions the Maccabees. Athanasius takes no notice of these books. Eusebius, in his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Maccabees, and adds, "These books are not received as divine Scriptures."

Philastrius, an Italian bishop, who lived in the latter part of the fourth century, in a work on Heresy says, "It was determined by the apostles and their successors, that nothing should be read in the Catholic church but the law, prophets, evangelists," &c.--And he complains of certain Heretics, "That they used the book of Wisdom, by the son of Sirach, who lived long after Solomon."

Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the knowledge of the Scriptures, declares, "That all the divine books of the Old Testament were originally written in the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were received." Hom. 4. in Gen.

But Jerome, already mentioned, who had diligently studied the Hebrew Scriptures, by the aid of the best Jewish teachers, enters into this subject more fully and accurately than any of the rest of the Fathers. In his general Preface to his version of the Scriptures, he mentions the books which he had translated out of Hebrew into Latin; "All besides them," says he, "must be placed among the apocryphal. Therefore, Wisdom, which is ascribed to Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and Pastor, are not in the Canon. I have found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew, (Chaldee;) the second in Greek, and, as the style shows, it must have been composed in that language." And in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah, (always reckoned one book by the Jews,) he says, "Let no one be disturbed that I have edited but one book under this name; nor let any one please himself with the dreams contained in the third and fourth apocryphal books ascribed to this author; for, with the Hebrews, Ezra and Nehemiah make but one book; and those things not contained in this are to be rejected, as not belonging to the Canon." And in his preface to the books of Solomon, he speaks of "Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; the former of which," he says, "he found in Hebrew, (Chaldee,) but not the latter, which is never found among the Hebrews, but the style strongly savours of the Grecian eloquence." He then adds, "As the church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so, also, she may read these two books for the edification of the common people, but not as authority to confirm any of the doctrines of the church."

Again, in his preface to Jeremiah, he says, "The book of Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is not read in Hebrew, nor esteemed canonical; therefore, I have passed it over." And in his preface to Daniel, "This book among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the Song of the three Children, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained lest we should appear to the unskilful to have curtailed a large part of the Sacred Volume."

In the preface to Tobit, he says, "The Hebrews cut off the book of Tobit from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures." And in his preface to Judith, he says, "Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among the Hagiographa, which are not of authority to determine controversies."

Rufin, in his Exposition of the Creed, observes, "That there were some books which were not called canonical, but received by our ancestors, as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the Son of Sirach; of the same order are the books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees."

Gregory the First, speaking of the testimony in the Maccabees, respecting the death of Eleazer, says, "Concerning which thing we do not act inordinately, although we bring our testimony from a book which is not canonical."

Augustine is the only one among the Fathers who lived within four hundred years after the apostles, who seems to favour the introduction of these six disputed books into the Canon. In his work On Christian Doctrine, he gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, among which he inserts Tobit, Judith, the two books of Maccabees, two of Esdras, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus. These two last mentioned, he says, "are called Solomon's, on account of their resemblance to his writings; although it is known that one of them was composed by the son of Sirach: which deserves to be received among the prophetical books." But this opinion he retracted afterwards.

Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and Latin Bibles, in which those books had been introduced, and we must suppose, unless we would make him contradict himself, that he meant in this place merely to enumerate the books then contained in the sacred volume; for in many other places he clearly shows that he entertained the same opinion of the books of the Old Testament as the other Fathers.

In his celebrated work of "The City of God," he expresses this opinion most explicitly--"In that whole period, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, after Malachi, Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, they had no prophets, even until the time of the advent of our Saviour. As our Lord says, the law and the prophets were until John. And even the reprobate Jews hold that Haggai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Malachi, were the last books received into canonical authority."

In his commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, "If any adversary should say you have forged these prophecies, let the Jewish books be produced--The Jews are our librarians." And on the lvi. Psalm, "When we wish to prove to the Pagans that Christ was predicted, we appeal to the writings in possession of the Jews; they have all these Scriptures."

And again, in the work first cited, "The Israelitish nation, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, never confounded false prophecies with the true, but all these writings are harmonious." Then in another work, in speaking of the books of the Maccabees, he says, This writing the Jews never received in the same manner as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gave testimony as by his own witnesses." And frequently in his works, he confines the canonical books to those properly included in this threefold division. He also repeatedly declares that the canonical Scriptures, which are of most eminent authority, are the books committed to the Jews. But in the eighteenth book of the City of God, speaking of Judith, he says, "Those things which are written in this book, it is said, the Jews have never received into the Canon of Scripture." And in the seventeenth book of the same work, "There are three books of Solomon, which have been received into canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; the other two, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, have been called by his name, through a custom which prevailed on account of their similarity to his writings; but the more learned are certain that they are not his; and they cannot be brought forward with much confidence for the conviction of gainsayers."

He allows that the Book of Wisdom may be read to the people, and ought to be preferred to all other tracts; but he does not insist that the testimonies taken from it are decisive. And respecting Ecclesiasticus, he says when speaking of Samuel's prophesying after his death, "But if this book is objected to because it is not found in the Canon of the Jews," &c. His rejection of the books of Maccabees from the Canon is repeated and explicit. "The calculation of the times after the restoring of the temple is not found in the Holy Scriptures, which are called canonical, but in certain other books, among which are the two books of Maccabees. The Jews do not receive the Maccabees as the Law and the Prophets."

It may be admitted, however, that Augustine entertained too high an opinion of these apocryphal books, but it is certain that he did not put them on a level with the genuine canonical books. He mentions a custom which prevailed in his time, from which it appears that although the apocryphal books were read in some of the churches, they were not read as Holy Scripture, nor put on a level with the canonical books; for he informs us that they were not permitted to be read from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures, but from a lower place in the church.

Innocent the first, who lived about the same time, is also alluded to as a witness to prove that these disputed books were then received into the Canon. But the epistle which contains his catalogue is extremely suspicious. No mention is made of this epistle by any writer for three hundred years after the death of Innocent. But it is noways necessary to our argument to deny that in the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, some individuals, and perhaps some councils, received these books as canonical, yet there is strong evidence that this was not the opinion of the universal church; for in the council of Chalcedon, which is reckoned to be oecumenical, the Canons of the council of Laodicea which contain a catalogue of the genuine books of the Old Testament, are adopted. And it has been shown already that these apocryphal books were excluded from that catalogue.

But it can be proved that even until the time of the meeting of the Council of Trent, by which these books were solemnly canonized, the most learned and judicious of the Popish writers adhere to the opinions of Jerome and the ancients; or at least make a marked distinction between these disputed books and those which are acknowledged to be canonical by all. A few testimonies from distinguished writers, from the commencement of the sixth century down to the era of the Reformation, shall now be given.

It deserves to be particularly observed here that in one of the laws of the Emperor Justinian, concerning ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, "That the Canons of the first four general councils should be received and have the force of laws."

Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, in a work on the Creation, makes "the number of books which God hath appointed for his Old Testament" to be no more than twenty-two; although he speaks in very high terms of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.

Leontius, a learned and accurate writer, in his book against the Sects, acknowledges no other canonical books of the Old Testament, but those which the Hebrews received; namely, twelve historical books, five prophetical, four of Doctrine and Instruction, and one of Psalms; making the number twenty-two as usual; and he makes not the least mention of any others.

Gregory, who lived at the beginning of the seventh century, in his book of Morals, makes an apology for alleging a passage from the Maccabees, and says, "Though it be not taken from the canonical Scripture, yet it is cited from a book which was published for the edification of the church."

Isidore, bishop of Seville, divides the canonical books of the Old Testament into three orders, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and afterwards adds--"There is a fourth order of books which are not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament." Here he names these books, and says, "Though the Jews rejected them as apocryphal, the church has received them among the canonical Scriptures."

John Damascene, a Syrian Presbyter, who lived early in the eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, numbering only two-and-twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith and Tobit, he says not one word; but he speaks of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as "elegant and virtuous writings, yet not to be numbered among the canonical books of Scripture, never having been laid up in the ark of the Covenant."

Venerable Bede follows the ancient method of dividing the books of the Old Testament into three classes; but he remarkably distinguishes the Maccabees from the canonical books by classing them with the writings of Josephus and Julius the African.

Alcuin, the disciple of Bede, says, "The book of the son of Sirach was reputed an apocryphal and dubious Scripture."

Rupert, a learned man of the twelfth century, expressly rejects the book of Wisdom from the Canon.

Peter Mauritius, after giving a catalogue of the authentic Scriptures of the Old Testament, adds the six disputed books, and says, "They are useful and commendable in the church, but are not to be placed in the same dignity with the rest."

Hugo de S. Victore, a Saxon by birth, but who resided at Paris, gives a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which includes no others but the two-and-twenty received from the Jews. Of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit and Judith, he says, "They are used in the church but not written in the Canon."

Richard de S. Victore, also of the twelfth century, in his Books of Collections, explicitly declares, "That there are but twenty-two books in the Canon; and that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, are not esteemed canonical although they are read in the churches."

Peter Lombard, in his Scholastic History, enumerates the books of the Old Testament, thus--Five books of Moses, eight of the prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa, which leaves no room for these six disputed books; but in his preface to Tobit he says expressly, that it is "in no order of the Canon;" and of Judith, that "Jerome and the Hebrews place it in the apocrypha." Moreover, he calls the story of Bel and the Dragon a fable, and says that the history of Susannah is not as true as it should be.

In this century also lived John of Salisbury, an Englishman, a man highly respected in his time. In one of his Epistles, he treats this subject at large, and professes to follow Jerome and undoubtedly to believe that there are but twenty-two books in the Canon of the Old Testament, all which he names in order, and adds, "That neither the book of Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Pastor, nor the Maccabees, are esteemed canonical."

In the thirteenth century, the opinion of the learned was the same, as we may see by the Ordinary Gloss on the Bible, in the composition of which many persons were concerned, and which was high approved by all the doctors and pastors in the western churches. In the preface to this gloss, they are reproached with ignorance who hold all the books, put into the one volume of Scripture, in equal veneration. The difference between these books is asserted to be as great as between certain and doubtful works. The canonical books are declared, "To have been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but who were the authors of the others is unknown." Then it is declared, "That the church permitteth the reading of the apocryphal books for devotion and instruction, but not for authority to decide matters of controversy in faith. And that there are no more than twenty-two canonical books of the Old Testament, and all besides are apocryphal." 6Thus we have the common judgment of the church, in the thirteenth century, in direct opposition to the decree of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth. But this is not all, for when the writers of this Gloss come to the apocryphal books, they prefix a caution, as--"Here begins the book of Tobit, which is not in the Canon;"--"Here begins the book of Judith, which is not in the Canon," and so of every one of them; and to confirm their opinion, they appeal to the Fathers.

Hugo, the Cardinal, who lived in this century, wrote commentaries on all the Scriptures, which were universally esteemed; in these he constantly keeps up the distinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical books: and he explicitly declares that "Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are apocryphal,--dubious,--not canonical,--not received by the church for proving any matters of faith, but for information of manners."

Thomas Aquinas also, the most famous of the schoolmen, makes the same distinction between these classes of books. He maintains that the book of Wisdom was not held to be a part of the Canon, and ascribes it to Philo. The story of Bel and the Dragon, he calls a fable; and he shows clearly enough that he did not believe that Ecclesiasticus was of canonical authority.

In the fourteenth century no man acquired so extensive a reputation for his commentaries on the Bible, as Nicholas Lyra, a converted Jew. In his preface to the book of Tobit, he says, " That having commented on all the canonical books, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, his intention now was to write on those books which are not canonical." Here he enumerates Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees; and then adds, "The canonical books are not only before these in time but in dignity and authority." And again, "These are not in the Canon, but received by the church to be read for instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding controversies respecting the faith; whereas the others are of such authority that whatever they contain is to be held as undoubted truth."

The Englishman, William Occam, of Oxford, accounted the most learned doctor of his age, in his Dialogues, acknowledges, "That that honor is due only to the divine writers of Scripture, that we should esteem them free from all error." Moreover, in his Prologues, he fully assents to the opinion of Jerome and Gregory, "That neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Maccabees, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, is to be received into the same place of honour as the inspired books; "for," says he, "the church doth not number them among the canonical Scriptures."

In the fifteenth century, Thomas Anglicus, sometimes called the Angelical Doctor on account of his excellent judgment, numbers twenty-four books of the Old Testament, if Ruth be reckoned separately from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah.

Paul Burgensis, a Spanish Jew, who, after his conversion to Christianity, on account of his superior knowledge and piety, was advanced to be bishop of Burgos, wrote notes on the Bible, in which he retains the same distinction of books which has been so often mentioned.

The Romanists have at last, as they suppose, found an authority for these disputed books in the Council of Florence, from the Acts of which they produce a decree in which the six disputed books are named and expressly said to be written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Though this Canon were genuine, the authority of a council sitting in such circumstances, as attended the meeting of this, would have very little weight; but Dr. Cosins has shown that in the large copies of the acts of this council no such decree can be found, and that it has been foisted into the abridgment by some impostor who omitted something else to make room for it, and thus preserved the number of Canons unchanged, while the substance of them was altered.

Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila, who, on account of his extraordinary learning, was called the wonder of the world, has given a clear and decisive testimony on this subject. This learned man declares, "That these controverted books were not canonical, and that the church condemned no man for disobedience who did not receive them as the other Scriptures, because they were of uncertain origin, and it is not known that they were written by inspiration." And again, "Because the church is uncertain whether heretics have not added to them." This opinion he repeats in several parts of his works."

Cardinal Ximenes, the celebrated editor of the Complutensian Polyglot, in the preface to that work, admonishes the reader that Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, with the additions to Esther and Daniel, which are found in the Greek, are not canonical Scriptures.

John Picus, the learned count of Mirandula, adhered firmly to the opinion of Jerome and the other Fathers on the subject of the Canon.

Faber Stapulensis, a famous doctor of Paris, acknowledges that these books are not in the Canon.

Ludovicus Vives, one of the most learned men of his age, in his commentaries on Augustine's City of God, rejects the third and fourth books of Esdras, and also the history of Susannah, and Bel, as apocryphal. He speaks in such a manner of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as to show that he did not esteem them canonical; for he makes Philo to be the author of the former, and the son of Sirach of the latter, who lived in the time of Ptolemy about an hundred years after the last of the Prophets; and of the Maccabees, he doubts whether Josephus was the author or not; by which he sufficiently shows that he did not believe that they were written by inspiration.

But there was no man in this age who obtained so high a reputation for learning and critical skill as Erasmus. In his exposition of the Apostles' Creed and the Decalogue, he discusses this question respecting the canonical books, and after enumerating the usual books of the Old Testament, he says, "The ancient Fathers admitted no more;" but of the other books afterwards received into ecclesiastical use, (naming the whole which we esteem apocryphal,) "It is uncertain what authority should be allowed to them; but the canonical Scriptures are such as without controversy are believed to have been written by the inspiration of God." And in his Scholia on Jerome's preface to Daniel, he expresses his wonder that such stories as Bel and the Dragon should be publicly read in the churches. In his address to students of the Scriptures, he admonishes them to consider well, "That the church never intended to give the same authority to Tobit, Judith and Wisdom, which is given to the five books of Moses or the four Evangelists."

The last testimony which we shall adduce to show that these books were not universally nor commonly received, until the very time of the Council of Trent, is that of Cardinal Cajetan, the oracle of the church of Rome. In his commentaries on the Bible, he gives us this as the rule of the church--"That those books which were canonical with Jerome should be so with us; and that those which were not received as canonical by him should be considered as excluded by us." And he says, "The church is much indebted to this Father for distinguishing between the books which are canonical and those which are not, for thus he has freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say that we had framed a new Canon for ourselves." For this reason he would write no commentaries on these apocryphal books; "for," says he, "Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the additions to Esther are all excluded from the Canon as insufficient to prove any matter of faith, though they may be read for the edifying of the people."

From the copious citations of testimonies which we have given, it is evident that the books in dispute are apocryphal, and have no right to a place in the Canon; and that the Council of Trent acted unwisely in decreeing, with an anathema annexed, that they should be received as divine. Surely no council can make that an inspired book which was not written by inspiration. Certainly these books did not belong to the Canon while the apostles lived, for they were unknown both to Jews and Christians. Sixtus Sinensis, a distinguished Romanist, acknowledges that it was long after the time of the apostles, that these writings came to the knowledge of the whole Christian church. But while this is conceded, it does not terminate the controversy, for among the many extraordinary claims of the Romish church, one of the most extraordinary is the authority to add to the Canon of Holy Scripture. It has been made sufficiently manifest that these apocryphal books were not included in the Canon during the first three centuries; and can it be doubted whether the Canon was fully constituted before the fourth century? To suppose that a Pope or a Council can make what books they please canonical, is too absurd to deserve a moment's consideration. If, upon this principle, they could render Tobit and Judith canonical, upon the same they might introduce Herodotus, Livy, or even the Koran itself.

Historical Claims reviewed

Claim: Justin Martyr does not cite from the Deuterocanon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The first piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Justin Martyr.

Archibald
Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book.

With this logic, a book not quoted by Justin Martyr (~160 AD) would not be considered canonical. In Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1, reviewing Schaff's Index of Scripture References for those cited by Justin Martyr, we see Justin Martyr quoted from only 24 Old Testament books and 13 New Testament books. Are we to argue for a 37 book Bible canon?

Alexander also fails to note that Justin Martyr identified that believers of Christ use the Septuagint (which includes the Deuterocanon), but Jews have started using a smaller set of passages of Scripture (the Hebrew texts) in which they have removed many Scriptures.

Justin Martyr
But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.'
- Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 71

Finally, Alexander is being extremely selective. While focusing on just Justin Martyr's (~160 AD) lack of quotes from the Deuterocanon, he fails to acknowledge that Justin's predecessors and contemporaries explicitly did quote from the Deuterocanon.

Clement of Rome (~80 AD) quotes from the deuterocanincal Book of Wisdom in his Letter to the Corinthians 27:5

Clement of Rome
By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12 / Wis. 11:21]

Polycarp of Smyrna (~135 AD) quotes from the deuterocanonical Book of Tobit in his Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 10

Polycarp of Smyrna
Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. [...] When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!

Irenaeus (~189 AD) quotes from the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch in his Against Heresies 4:26:3

Irenaeus
Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, 'Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west... God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him' [Baruch 4:36 - 5:9]

Claim: Melito does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Melito of Sardis.

Archibald
The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testament which we have, after the times of the apostles, from any Christian writer, is that of Melito, bishop of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which is preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows: "Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since you have often earnestly requested of me, in consequence of your love of learning, a collection of the Sacred Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects their number and order, I have used diligence to accomplish this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and your earnest desire to become acquainted with the word; and that striving after eternal life, your love to God induces you to prefer these to all other things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to the very place where these things were published and transacted, and having made diligent search after the books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send you the following catalogue: - "Five books of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."

This quote comes from a secondary source dated ~324 AD, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 26, Section 14.

Melito's list, preserved by Eusebius, does indeed exclude the Deuterocanon. However, it also excludes Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther - are we to argue that those three books are not canon?

Both Protestants and Catholics can agree that Melito's list was not complete.

Claim: Origen does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Origen.

Archibald
Origen also says, “We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he sets down, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew... Origen barely mentions the Maccabees.

This quote also comes from the same secondary source dated ~324 AD, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 25, Section 1-2. Let us review the quote in full.

Origen
The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, 'These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.

First, note the end of the quote, where Origen includes some of the Deuterocanon with his statement "besides these there are the Maccabees." Archibald writes this off as Origen barely mentioning the Maccabees, but it's significant.

Second, note the beginning of the quote, where Origen identifies the list as "the twenty-two books of the Hebrews." The Hebrews was referring to the Jews of his day, who had rejected Christianity and Jesus.

Origen knew that the Jews of his day had an Old Testament which had some differences to the Christian text - indeed, his most significant work was a book identifying those differences (see Appendix Origen's Asterisks). In his letter to Africanus, Origen notes that every Church of Christ use the Septuagint and include the Deuterocanon, but that the Jews are missing the Deuterocanonical books. Origen has made careful study of this, so in his debates with the Jews he ensures he only quotes to them from the scripture they accept. For his part, Origen thinks the elders of the Jews (who rejected Jesus) removed every passage of scripture that cast them in a negative light.

Excerpts from Letter from Origen to Africanus
    In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. [...]
    And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. [...]
    Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. [...]
    What I have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by those who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but removed by these rulers of Sodom, as the Spirit would call them. [...]
    Where you get your lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the streets, I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says...

As for Origen himself, he clearly believed the Deuterocanon were scripture - he explicitly quotes them multiple times, identifying them as holy scripture.

Origen, in De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 5
But that we may believe in the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where [...] she says, "I ask of you, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist." [2 Maccabees 7:28]
Origen, in On Prayer Chapter 6
For the Scripture says that after they had prayed, the prayers of them both were heard in the sight of the glory of the great Raphael, and he was sent to heal them both [Tobit 3:16-17].
Origen, Homily 20 on Jeremiah, 7.3
I want to give an example from Scripture of righteous lack of faith in an agreement in order to demonstrate that man can call upon faithlessness in act. Judith made an agreement with Holophernes that though she would leave for certain number of days to pray to God, she also would present herself after these days at the marriage bed of Holophernes.
Origen, in Homily 16 on Jeremiah, 6.2
But we reproach both those who repent and those who convert, though the Scripture says: 'Do not reproach a man who turns away from sin.' [Sirach 8:5]
Origen, in Homily 1 on Leviticus, 1.3
...But it is time for us to use the words of holy Susanna against these wicked presbyters, which indeed those who deny the story of Susanna excise from the list of divine books.  But we both receive it and aptly use it against them...

So while Archibald holds up Origen's list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Origen was merely identifying the list of the Jews of his day, and fully believed in the Deuterocanon as holy scripture.

Claim: Athanasius does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Athanasius.

Archibald
Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, "All the Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired; neither are they indefinite in their number, but determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old Testament are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel." [...] Athanasius takes no notice of these books [the Deuterocanon].

Archibald attributes this list in a work called The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture to Athanasius, though scholars now generally agree it was written in the 6th century by a clergyman.

However in Athanasius's Letter 39, sections 4 and 7, we see another list. Note that in this list, Athanasius includes the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch. He excludes Esther, as well as the rest of the Deuterocanon, from canon - though he notes that they are appointed by the Fathers to be read for instruction in the word of godliness (and thus not to be removed from the Bible).

Athanasius, Letter 39
    There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament...
    But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read...

So while Archibald holds up Athanasius' list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Athanasius included Baruch, excluded Esther, and did not completely discard the rest of the Deuterocanon as modern Protestants do. It's a far cry from his statement that 'Athanasius takes no notice of these books'.

Claim: Hilary does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Hilary of Poitiers.

Archibald
Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, and resided in France, has numbered the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following manner: "The five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh of Judges, including Ruth, the eighth of first and second Kings, the ninth of third and fourth Kings; the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehemiah;) the twelfth, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth; the twelve Prophets the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, including Lamentations and his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full number of twenty-two.” And in his preface he adds, that "these books were thus numbered by our ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them."

Again Archibald cuts the quote short. Here is the quote in full:

Hilary of Poitiers, Expositions of the Psalms (Tractatus super Psalmos), 15
The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: the books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles make ten, the words of the days of Ezra the eleventh, the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, then Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of the books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome.

Note that the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is part of the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch, is included. Also note at the end he says "to this some add Tobit and Judith", another two Deuterocanonical books. Add to this the fact that elsewhere Hilary quotes from Deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees explicitly as scripture.

Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book IV, Section 16
Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture. "For all things", as the Prophet says [2 Maccabees 7:28], "were made out of nothing"

So while Archibald holds up Hilary's list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Hilary actually believed much of the Deuterocanon was scripture.

Claim: Gregory Nazianzen does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Gregory Nazianzen.

Archibald
Gregory Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study the sacred books with attention, but to avoid such as were apocryphal; and then gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, and according to the Jewish method, makes the number two-and-twenty. He complains of some that mingled the apocryphal books with those that were inspired, "of the truth of which last," says he, "we have the most perfect persuasion; therefore it seemed good to me to enumerate the canonical books from the beginning; and those which belong to the Old Testament are two-and-twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, as I have understood." Then he proceeds to say, "Let no one add to these divine books, nor take any thing away from them. I think it necessary to add this, that there are other books besides those which I have enumerated as constituting the Canon, which, however, do not appertain to it; but were proposed by the early Fathers, to be read for the sake of the instruction which they contain." Then, he expressly names as belonging to this class, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit.

This quote is from Gregory Nazianzen's poem, Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture. Again, let us review the full quote.

Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture (poem)
    The divine oracles should always on the tongue and in the mind be rehearsed. For God will indeed give a reward for this labor, so that you may obtain light from anything hidden, or, what is far better, that you may be spurred by God to greater purity, and thirdly, be called away from the cares of the world by such study. But let not extraneous books seduce your mind. For many malignant writings have been disseminated. Accept, o friend, this my approved number. These are all twelve of the historical books, of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: First there is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus too. Then Numbers, and the Second Law. Then Joshua and Judges. Ruth is eighth. The ninth and tenth books [are] the acts of Kings, and [the eleventh is] Chronicles. Last you have Ezra. The poetic books are five: Job being first, then [the Psalms of] David; and three of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Proverbs. And similarly five of prophetic inspiration. There are the Twelve written in one book: Hosea and Amos, and Micah the third; then Joel, and Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum also, and Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, Haggai, then Zechariah, and Malachi. All these are one. The second is of Isaiah. Then the one called as an infant, Jeremiah, Then Ezekiel, and the gift of Daniel. I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters.
    Now count also those of the new mystery. Matthew wrote the miracles of Christ for the Hebrews, Mark for Italy, Luke for Greece; John for all, the great herald, who walked in the heavens. Then the acts of the wise apostles. Of Paul there are fourteen epistles. And the seven catholic, [which include] one of James, two of Peter, three of John also; and Jude is the seventh. You have them all. And if there are any beyond these, they are not genuine.

Note that in addition to the Deuterocanon, Esther is missing from the Old Testament list, and Revelations is missing from the New Testament list.

Additionally, elsewhere Gregory Nazianzen quotes from the Deuterocanonical book of Judith explicitly as scripture.

Quote from Judith as Scripture
Then the last and gravest plague upon the persecutors, truly worthy of the night; and Egypt mourns the first-born of her own reasonings and actions which are also called in the Scripture the Seed of the Chaldeans [Judith 5:6] removed...
- Oration 45, Section XV

So while Archibald holds up Gregory Nazianzen's list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Gregory Nazianzen had an incomplete list (missing Esther, Revelation, and the Deuterocanon), and elsewhere quoted from the Deuterocanon explicitly as scripture.

Claim: Jerome does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Jerome.

Archibald
Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive: "Which," says he, "we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit."

It is true that Jerome personally disliked much of the Deuterocanon, for a simple logical reason. He noted that the Septuagint Text used by the churches and the Hebrew scriptures used by the Jews in his day had differences - and since the original texts were written in Hebrew, he assumed the superiority of the Hebrew scriptures of the Jews, and that error must have crept in in the translation of the Septuagint. Specifically, he thought the Septuagint was a bad translation of the Hebrew scriptures of the Jews of his day. Thanks to the dead sea scrolls, we now know the Septuagint was rather a good translation of a different tradition of Hebrew scriptures, but we'll dive into that more later.

For now, let us just note that Jerome believed in the superiority of the Hebrew scriptures used by the Jews in his day. However, whatever his personal feelings, it's important to note that Jerome submitted to the church, which had accepted the Deuterocanon as scripture.

Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. [...] But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request...
- Preface to Judith
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.
- Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 33
...the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops...
- Preface to Tobit

When Jerome published his latin translation of the Bible, he included the Deuterocanon. This Bible was then used by the church for over a thousand years.

Additionally, Jerome quotes from the Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom as Holy Scripture, and from the Deuterocanonical Baruch as a prophet.

Quote from Wisdom as Holy Scripture
For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of His own eternity." [Wisdom 2:23]... Instead of the three proofs from Holy Scripture which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, behold I have given you seven.
- Letter 51, Sections 6 & 7
Quote from Baruch as prophet
...those of Baruch, "Arise, arise, O Jerusalem," and many other proclamations made by the trumpets of the prophets.
- Letter 77, Section 4

So while Archibald holds up Jerome's list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that while Jerome personally did not like them, he accepted them as scripture, submitting himself to the church.

Claim: Epiphanius does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Epiphanius.

Archibald
Epiphanius, in his book concerning Weights and Measures, distributes the books of the Old Testament into four divisions of five each. “The first of which contains the law, next five poetical books, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; in the third division he places Joshua, Judges, including Ruth, first and second Chronicles, four books of Kings. The last five, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then there remain two, Ezra and Esther.” Thus he makes up the number twenty-two.

Again, Archibald is selectively quoting to paint a narrative. In Epiphanius' Panarion, he includes Deuterocanonical Baruch as canon, and notes two more books of disputed canonicity, the Deuterocanonical Sirach and the Book of Wisdom.

Epiphanius, Panarion (also called Against Heresies) viii. 6
By the time of the captives' return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings. 1 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 2 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which (Jews) reckon as five are double. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these sacred books taught (them) Judaism and Law's observances till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Later on, in Epiphanius' Panarion, he goes even farther and counts Sirach and the Book of Wisdom as "divine writings" alongside the rest of the New and Old Testaments.

Epiphanius, Panarion (also called Against Heresies) lxxvi. 5
If you had been begotten by the Holy Spirit and instructed in the prophets and apostles, you must have gone through (the record) from the beginning of the genesis of the world until the times of Esther in twenty-seven books of the Old Testament, which are (also) numbered as twenty-two, also in the four holy Gospels, and in fourteen epistles of the holy apostle Paul, and in the writings which come before these, including the Acts of the Apostles in their times and the catholic epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, and in the Revelation of John, and in the Wisdom books, I mean those of Solomon and of the son of Sirach - in short, all the divine writings...

So while Archibald holds up Epiphanius's list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Epiphanius definitely included Deuterocanonical Baruch and seemed to personally approve of Deuterocanonical Sirach and the Book of Wisdom.

Claim: Cyril of Jerusalem does not include the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Cyril of Jerusalem.

Archibald
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, exhorts his catechumen diligently to learn from the church, what books appertain to the Old and New Testaments, and he says, "Read nothing which is apocryphal. Read the Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which were translated by the seventy-two interpreters." And in another place, "Meditate, as was said, in the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, and if you wish it, I will give you their names." Here follows a catalogue, agreeing with those already given, except that he adds Baruch to the list. When Baruch is mentioned as making one book with Jeremiah, as is done by some of the Fathers, it is most reasonable to understand those parts of Jeremiah, in the writing of which Baruch was concerned, as particularly the lii. chapter; for, if we understand them as referring to the separate book now called Baruch, the number which they are so careful to preserve will be exceeded. This apocryphal Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never mentioned separately by any ancient author, as Bellarmine confesses. This book was originally written in Greek, but our present copies differ exceedingly from the old Latin translation.

The full text Archibald is quoting is this:

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 4, Section 35 & 36
    Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle ; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament...
    Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself, as you have heard me say.

As Archibald admitted, Cyril of Jerusalem included Baruch in his Old Testament canon. He also excluded Revelation from his New Testament canon. We see elsewhere he freely quotes from the Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom, Sirach, and additions to Daniel.

Quote from Book of Wisdom
The Divine Nature then it is impossible to see with eyes of flesh: but from the works, which are Divine, it is possible to attain to some conception of His power, according to Solomon, who says, "For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen." [Book of Wisdom 13:5] 
- Catechetical Lecture 9, Section 2
Quote from Sirach
If any man attempt to speak of God, let him first describe the bounds of the earth. You dwell on the earth, and the limit of this earth which is your dwelling you know not: how then shall you be able to form a worthy thought of its Creator? You behold the stars, but their Maker you behold not: count these which are visible, and then describe Him who is invisible, Who tells the number of the stars, and calls them all by their names. Violent rains lately came pouring down upon us, and nearly destroyed us: number the drops in this city alone: nay, I say not in the city, but number the drops on your own house for one single hour, if you can, but you can not. Learn then your own weakness; learn from this instance the mightiness of God: for He has numbered the drops of rain, which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. "Seek not the things that are too deep for you, neither search out the things that are above your strength: what is commanded you, think thereupon" [Sirach 3:21-22]
- Catechetical Lecture 6, Section 4
Refers to Susanna (Additions to Daniel)
He endued with wisdom the soul of Daniel, that young as he was he should become a judge of Elders. The chaste Susanna was condemned as a wanton; there was none to plead her cause; for who was to deliver her from the rulers? She was led away to death, she was now in the hands of the executioners. But her Helper was at hand, the Comforter, the Spirit who sanctifies every rational nature. Come hither to me, He says to Daniel; young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth; for it is written, God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling ; and nevertheless, (to pass on quickly,) by the sentence of Daniel that chaste lady was saved.
- Catechetical Lecture 16, Section 31

So while Archibald holds up Cyril of Jerusalem's list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Cyril accepted and quoted from some of the Deuterocanon, and was missing some books from his list (like Revelation from the New Testament).

Claim: Council of Laodicea does not include the Deuterocanon in its list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of the Council of Laodicea.

Archibald
The Council of Laodicea forbade the reading of any books in the churches but such as were canonical; and that the people might know what these were, a catalogue was given, answering to the Canon which we now receive.

Again, let us review the full quotation.

Council of Laodicea
    These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read:  1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.
    And these are the books of the New Testament:  Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

First, note that the council is a regional council, and thus not authoritative. Also note that the authenticity of this 60th canon of the council which lists these books is believed to not be genuine but a later addition, as it's missing from various Greek manuscripts.

Finally note that even if it is genuine, it includes the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch, and excludes Revelation.

So while Archibald holds up this canon list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that some of the Deuterocanon was included in the list, and some canon Protestants and Catholics alike accept were excluded.

Claim: John Chrysostom only accepted OT books originally written in Hebrew tongue - and thus considered the Deuterocanon to be Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of John Chrysostom.

Archibald
Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the knowledge of the Scriptures, declares, "That all the divine books of the Old Testament were originally written in the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were received." Hom. 4. in Gen.

Unfortunately this resource is not online, so I cannot see the full quotation Archibald is referring to. However, in this case there is no need.

John Chrysostom regularly quoted from the Deuterocanon in his homilies, and even explicitly identified Sirach as Holy Scripture.

Quote from Sirach as Holy Scripture
Let us then repeat to ourselves soothing charms drawn from the holy Scripture, and say, "You are earth and ashes." "Why is earth and ashes proud?" [Sirach 10:9], and, "The sway of his fury shall be his destruction" [Sirach 1:22]: and, "The wrathful man is not comely." [Proverbs 11:25, Septuagint]
- Homily 48 on the Gospel of John, John 7:8, Section 3
Quote from Wisdom
Wherefore we must cast out all wickedness from our souls, and never more contrive any deceit; for, says one, "To the perverse God sends crooked paths" [Proverbs 21:8, Septuagint]; and, "The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding." [Wisdom 1:5]
- Homily 41 on the Gospel of John, John 5:45-47
Quote from Tobit
And again; "Do not to another what you hate." [Tobit 4:15]
- Homily 13 on the Statues, Section 7
Quote from additions to Daniel
And again, "I have become old in the midst of all mine enemies." [Psalm 6:7 Septuagint] And again, "O you that are become old in evil days." [Daniel 13:52. Hist. Susan]
- Homily 15 on First Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Section 10

So while Archibald holds up John Chrysostom's statement as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal", instead we see Chrysostom regularly quoted from the Deuterocanon as scripture.

Claim: Rufin (Tyrannius Rufinus) excludes the Deuterocanon in his list of canon - and thus considered them Apocrypha

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Tyrannius Rufinus.

Archibald
Rufin, in his Exposition of the Creed, observes, "That there were some books which were not called canonical, but received by our ancestors, as the Wisdom 53of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the Son of Sirach; of the same order are the books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees."

Again, let us review the full quote.

Tyrannius Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed / The Creed of Aquileia, Sections 37 & 38
Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.

But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches.

Note first that Rufinus did not completely exclude the Deuterocanon - he believed they should be included as part of the Bible and read in the Churches, but not used for confirmation of doctrine. These books were distinct from Apocrypha, which should not be read in the churches.

Also note that Rufinus does not exclude the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch from his list, but rather seems to include it as part of Jeremiah. Indeed later on he quotes from Baruch as the sayings of a prophet.

Tyrannius Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed / The Creed of Aquileia, Section 5
Which also the Prophet foretold when he said, "This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He showed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men." [Baruch 3:35-37]

So while Archibald holds up Rufinus' list as proof that "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" - we instead see that Rufinus explicitly believed these books were not apocrypha, and indeed likely included Baruch as full canon.

Claim: Augustine did not put the Deuterocanonical books on the same level as the genuine canonical books

The next piece of evidence Archibald exhibits in support of his statement "these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal" is that of Augustine.

Archibald
    Augustine is the only one among the Fathers who lived within four hundred years after the apostles, who seems to favour the introduction of these six disputed books into the Canon. In his work On Christian Doctrine, he gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, among which he inserts Tobit, Judith, the two books of Maccabees, two of Esdras, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus. These two last mentioned, he says, "are called Solomon’s, on account of their resemblance to his writings; although it is known that one of them was composed by the son of Sirach: which deserves to be received among the prophetical books." But this opinion he retracted afterwards.
    Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and Latin Bibles, in which those books had been introduced, and we must suppose, unless we would make him contradict himself, that he meant in this place merely to enumerate the books then contained in the sacred volume; for in many other places he clearly shows that he entertained the same opinion of the books of the Old Testament as the other Fathers...
    [...]
    In his commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, "If any adversary should say you have forged these prophecies, let the Jewish books be produced—The Jews are our librarians." And on the lvi. Psalm, "When we wish to prove to the Pagans that Christ was predicted, we appeal to the writings in possession of the Jews; they have all these Scriptures."
    [...]
    It may be admitted, however, that Augustine entertained too high an opinion of these apocryphal books, but it is certain that he did not put them on a level with the genuine canonical books. He mentions a custom which prevailed in his time, from which it appears that although the apocryphal books were read in some of the churches, they were not read as Holy Scripture, nor put on a level with the canonical books; for he informs us that they were not permitted to be read from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures, but from a lower place in the church.

First, let us just note what Archibald acknowledged - Augustine gave a list of canon, and it included the Deuterocanon.

Following this, Archibald attempts to portray that Augustine gradually grew and changed his mind, and came to think of the Deuterocanon as less than normal canon. To support this idea, Archibald quotes from numerous works of Augustine. A common thread in all of them is Augustine noting that Christianity inherited its canon from the Jews.

Archibald's error here is in ambiguity of terms. When Augustine spoke of Christianity inheriting scriptures from the Jews, who were our librarians, he was speaking of the seventy Jewish translators of the Septuagint - which included the Deuterocanon.

Augustine, in The City of God, Book 18, Chapter 43
...yet the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other.

Augustine made a big distinction between the Septuagint Jewish translators from before Christ, compared to the Jews of his day who had rejected Christ and removed scriptures. We see this in his letters to Jerome.

Jerome, in Augustine's Letter 75
...In my attempt to translate into Latin, for the benefit of those who speak the same language with myself, the corrected Greek version of the Scriptures, I have labored not to supersede what has been long esteemed, but only to bring prominently forward those things which have been either omitted or tampered with by the Jews, in order that Latin readers might know what is found in the original Hebrew.

Augustine, in Letter 82
As to your translation, you have now convinced me of the benefits to be secured by your proposal to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew, in order that you may bring to light those things which have been either omitted or perverted by the Jews. But I beg you to be so good as state by what Jews this has been done, whether by those who before the Lord's advent translated the Old Testament--and if so, by what one or more of them--or by the Jews of later times, who may be supposed to have mutilated or corrupted the Greek Mss., in order to prevent themselves from being unable to answer the evidence given by these concerning the Christian faith. I cannot find any reason which should have prompted the earlier Jewish translators to such unfaithfulness. I beg of you, moreover, to send us your translation of the Septuagint, which I did not know that you had published.

So, rather than accepting the authority of the Jews in his day who denied Jesus was Christ and had a truncated canon, Augustine rather supported the larger Jewish Septuagint canon from before the time of Christ.

Indeed, we see Augustine refer to the Deuterocanonical book of Tobit as angel's testimony.

Augustine, in The City of God (Book I), Chapter 13
And Tobit, according to the angel's testimony, is commended, and is said to have pleased God by burying the dead. [Tobit 12:12]

Augustine also referred to the Deuterocanonical Maccabees as books held as canonical, not by the Jews of his day, but by the Church.

Augustine, in The City of God (Book XVIII), Chapter 36
From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church...

And finally, Augustine gives a resounding defense of the Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom, saying that it needs to be heard by all Christians with the veneration paid to divine authority.

Augustine, in On the Predestination of the Saints (Book I), Chapter 27
And since these things are so, the judgment of the book of Wisdom ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops downwards, even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority...

So while Archibald attempts to use a plethora of quotations to indicate Augustine did not believe the Deuterocanonical books were part of canon, we instead see Augustine is their great defender.

Appendix: Historical Usage of Deuterocanon as Scripture

~80 AD: Clement of Rome

  • Quotes from Book of Wisdom
By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. 'Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12 / Wis. 11:21]
- Letter to the Corinthians 27:5

~135 AD: Polycarp of Smyrna

  • Quotes from: Tobit
Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. [...] When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!
- Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 10

~160 AD: Justin Martyr

Identifies that believers of Christ use the Septuagint (which includes the Deuterocanon), but Jews have started using a smaller set of passages of Scripture (the Hebrew texts) in which they have removed many Scriptures.

But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.'
- Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 71

~170 AD: Melito of Sardis

  • OT LIST: excludes Lamentations, Nehemiah, Esther and Deuterocanon [Secondary source from ~324 AD]
Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Such are the words of Melito.
- Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 26, Section 14

~170 AD: Muratorian Fragment

  • NT LIST: Excludes James, 1 & 2 Peter, Hebrews, and 3 John - but includes Book of Wisdom
Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; and [the book of] Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.
- The Muratorian Fragment, 68-72

~189 AD: Irenaeus

  • Quotes from: Baruch and Daniel 13 (additions to Daniel)
Quote from additions to Daniel
Those... who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart' [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, 'You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous' [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7] 
- Against Heresies 4:26:3; [Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible]
Quote from Baruch
Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, 'Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west... God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him' [Baruch 4:36 - 5:9]
- Against Heresies 5:35:1; [Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here]

~198 AD: Clement of Alexandria

  • Quotes explicitly as Scripture: Sirach and Tobit
  • Quotes from: Wisdom and Baruch
Quote from Sirach as Scripture
At this stage some rise up, saying that the Lord, by reason of the rod, and threatening, and fear, is not good; misapprehending, as appears, the Scripture which says, “And he that feareth the Lord will turn to his heart;” [Sirach 21:6] and most of all, oblivious of His love, in that for us He became man.
- The Paedagogus (The Instructor), Book I, Chapter 8, Section 1
Quote from Tobit as Scripture
[...] having heard the Scripture which says, “Fasting with prayer is a good thing.” [Tobit 12:8]
- The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter 12, Section 7
Quote from Book of Wisdom
For it is said, "Let the children whom You have loved, O Lord, learn that it is not the products of fruits that nourish man; but it is Your word which preserves those who believe in You." [Wisdom 16:26]
- The Paedagogus (The Instructor), Book II, Chapter 1, Section 4
Quote from Baruch
He invites us to knowledge also, when He says by Jeremiah, "Had you walked in the way of God, you would have dwelt for ever in peace" [Baruch 3:13]
- The Paedagogus (The Instructor), Book I, Chapter 10, Section 3

~204 AD: Hippolytus

  • Quotes from: Baruch, Book of Wisdom
  • References: Tobit, Susannah (additions to Daniel), and Maccabees
Quote from Baruch
Thus it is written: "This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of Him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant (son), and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men." [Baruch 3:35-37]
- Against Noetus, Section 2
Quote from Book of Wisdom
I produce now the prophecy of Solomon, [...] for the prophet says, "The ungodly said, reasoning with themselves, but not aright," that is, about Christ, "Let us lie in wait for the righteous, because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings and words, and upbraids us with our offending the law, and professes to have knowledge of God; and he calls himself the Child of God." [Wisd. 2:1,12,13] And then he says, "He is grievous to us even to behold; for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are of another fashion. We are esteemed of him as counterfeits, and he abstains from our ways as from filthiness, and pronounces the end of the just to be blessed." [Wisd. 2:15,16]
- Expository Treatise Against the Jews, Section 9
Reference to Tobit
"For even now the angel of God." He shows also, that when Susannah prayed to God, and was heard, the angel was sent then to help her, just as was the case in the instance of Tobias and Sara. For when they prayed, the supplication of both of them was heard in the same day and the same hour, and the angel Raphael was sent to heal them both.
- Commentary on Daniel, 6, section 55
Reference to Susannah
"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings... Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" 
- Commentary on Daniel, 6 (beginning at section 61)
Reference to Maccabees
But they said, "We will not come forth: neither will we do the king's commandment; we will die in our innocency: and he slew of them a thousand souls." The things, therefore, which were spoken to the blessed Daniel are fulfilled: "And my servants shall be afflicted, and shall fall by famine, and by sword, and by captivity." Daniel, however, adds: "And they shall be helped with a little help." For at that time Matthias arose, and Judas Maccabaeus, and helped them, and delivered them from the hand of the Greeks.
- Commentary on Daniel, Second Fragment, section 32

~240 AD: Origen

  • Quotes explicitly as Scripture: 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Susanna (additions to Daniel)
  • Quotes from: Baruch, Wisdom
  • Notes that the "Greek copy" of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) "is found in every Church of Christ". He refers to this copy as "our Scriptures."
  • Also makes a point to know exactly what is (and isn't) in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament the Jews of his time used, so in his controversies with them he doesn’t quote something not in their Hebrew copy. Implies Jews established Canon by this time.
  • OT Hebrew (Jewish) Canon List: In this list for the Jews of his day, Origen identifies Maccabees as "beside" the rest of the canon. He also appears to exclude the 12 minor prophets (transcription error?) and the Deuterocanon, but does include part of Baruch (Letter of Jeremiah) [Secondary source from ~324 AD, recorded by Eusebius]
Hebrew (Jewish) Canon List
It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters. [...] The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, 'These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.
- Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 25, Section 1-2
Quote from Maccabees as Scripture
But that we may believe in the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where [...] she says, “I ask of you, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.” [2 Maccabees 7:28]
- De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 5
Quote from Tobit as Scripture
For the Scripture says that after they had prayed, the prayers of them both were heard in the sight of the glory of the great Raphael, and he was sent to heal them both [Tobit 3:16-17].
- On Prayer Chapter 6
Identification of Judith as Scripture
I want to give an example from Scripture of righteous lack of faith in an agreement in order to demonstrate that man can call upon faithlessness in act. Judith made an agreement with Holophernes that though she would leave for certain number of days to pray to God, she also would present herself after these days at the marriage bed of Holophernes.
- Homily 20 on Jeremiah, 7.3
Quote from Sirach as Scripture
But we reproach both those who repent and those who convert, though the Scripture says: 'Do not reproach a man who turns away from sin.' [Sirach 8:5]
- Homily 16 on Jeremiah, 6.2
Susanna (additions to Daniel) is received
...But it is time for us to use the words of holy Susanna against these wicked presbyters, which indeed those who deny the story of Susanna excise from the list of divine books.  But we both receive it and aptly use it against them...
- Homily 1 on Leviticus, 1.3
Quote from Baruch
When someone becomes a worshipper in the land, God has arranged that someone rejected from their own and came to the land about which it is written: Hear Israel.  "Why is it that you are in the land of enemies, that you are counted among those in Hades?  You have forsaken the fountain of life, the Lord.  If you have walked in the way of God, you would have dwelt in peace forever." [Baruch 3:9-13]
- Homily 7 on Jeremiah, 3.3
Quote from Book of Wisdom
For the plan of the world is said to be contained in the clothing of the high priest, as we find in the Wisdom of Solomon, where he says, "For in the long garment was the whole world." [Wisdom 18:24]
- De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 3, Section 6
Excerpts from Letter from Origen to Africanus
    In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. [...]
    And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. [...]
    Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. [...]
    What I have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by those who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but removed by these rulers of Sodom, as the Spirit would call them. [...]
    Where you get your lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the streets, I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says...

~240 AD: Tertullian

  • Quotes from: Baruch & Book of Wisdom
Quote from Baruch
For they remembered also the words of Jeremias writing to those over whom that captivity was impending: "And now you shall see borne upon (men's) shoulders the gods of the Babylonians, of gold and silver and wood, causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware, therefore, that you also do not be altogether like the foreigners, and be seized with fear while you behold crowds worshipping those gods before and behind, but say in your mind, Our duty is to worship You, O Lord." [Baruch 6:3]
- Scorpiace, Chapter 8
Quote from Book of Wisdom
Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." [Wisdom 1:1]
- Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 7

~250 AD: Cyprian of Carthage

  • Quotes explicitly as Scripture: Wisdom, Sirach, and Tobit
  • Quotes from: 1 Maccabees and Daniel 14 (additions to Daniel)
Quote from Book of Wisdom as Inspired
And moreover, also, the Holy Spirit teaches by Solomon, that they who please God are more early taken hence, and are more quickly set free, lest while they are delaying longer in this world they should be polluted with the contagions of the world. "He was taken away," says he, "lest wickedness should change his understanding. For his soul was pleasing to God; wherefore hasted He to take him away from the midst of wickedness." [Wisdom 4:11]
- Treatise 7, Section 23
Quote from Sirach as Holy Scripture
Holy Scripture teaches and forewarns, saying, "My son, when you come to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation." And again: "In pain endure, and in your humility have patience; for gold and silver is tried in the fire, but acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation." [Sirach 2:1,4-5]
- Treatise 7, Section 9
Quote from Tobit as Holy Scripture
And thus Holy Scripture instructs us, saying, "Prayer is good with fasting and almsgiving." [Tobit 12:8]
- Treatise 4, Section 32
Quote from 1 Maccabees
Of this same thing in the Maccabees: "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness?" [1 Maccabees 2:52]
- Treatise 12, Third Book, Section 15
Quote from additions to Daniel
So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, [...]  broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, 'I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth' [Dan. 14:5]
- Letters 55:5

~325 AD: Council of Nicaea

  • Voltaire (1700s) popularised a fictitious anecdote that the canon was determined at this council by placing all the competing books on an altar during the council, and then keeping the ones that did not fall off.
  • Nothing we have from the Council of Nicaea indicates they gave any rulings on canon, contrary to popular belief
  • Except... Jerome (~382 AD) noted the Council of Nicaea counted Judith (one of the Deuterocanon) among the number of the Sacred Scriptures.
Judith as Sacred Scripture
Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request...
- Jerome's Preface to Judith

~326 AD: Alexander of Alexandria

  • Quotes from: Sirach
Not that the Son of God is unbegotten, for the Father alone is unbegotten; but that the ineffable personality of the only-begotten God is beyond the keenest conception of the evangelists and perhaps even of angels. Therefore, I do not think men ought to be considered pious who presume to investigate this subject, in disobedience to the injunction, 'Seek not what is too difficult for you, neither enquire into what is too high for you.' [Sirach 3:21]
- Ecclesiastical History (Theodoret), Book I, Chapter 3, Paragraph 5
- Also attributed to Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius, Sections 4-5

~350 AD: Cyril of Jerusalem

  • OT LIST: Includes Baruch
  • Quotes from: Sirach, Book of Wisdom, Susanna (additions to Daniel)
OT List
Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle ; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.
- Catechetical Lecture 4, Section 35
Quote from Sirach
If any man attempt to speak of God, let him first describe the bounds of the earth. You dwell on the earth, and the limit of this earth which is your dwelling you know not: how then shall you be able to form a worthy thought of its Creator? You behold the stars, but their Maker you behold not: count these which are visible, and then describe Him who is invisible, Who tells the number of the stars, and calls them all by their names. Violent rains lately came pouring down upon us, and nearly destroyed us: number the drops in this city alone: nay, I say not in the city, but number the drops on your own house for one single hour, if you can, but you can not. Learn then your own weakness; learn from this instance the mightiness of God: for He has numbered the drops of rain, which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. "Seek not the things that are too deep for you, neither search out the things that are above your strength: what is commanded you, think thereupon" [Sirach 3:21-22]
- Catechetical Lecture 6, Section 4
Quote from Book of Wisdom
The Divine Nature then it is impossible to see with eyes of flesh: but from the works, which are Divine, it is possible to attain to some conception of His power, according to Solomon, who says, "For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the Maker of them is seen." [Book of Wisdom 13:5] 
- Catechetical Lecture 9, Section 2
Refers to Susanna (Additions to Daniel)
He endued with wisdom the soul of Daniel, that young as he was he should become a judge of Elders. The chaste Susanna was condemned as a wanton; there was none to plead her cause; for who was to deliver her from the rulers? She was led away to death, she was now in the hands of the executioners. But her Helper was at hand, the Comforter, the Spirit who sanctifies every rational nature. Come hither to me, He says to Daniel; young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth; for it is written, God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling ; and nevertheless, (to pass on quickly,) by the sentence of Daniel that chaste lady was saved.
- Catechetical Lecture 16, Section 31

~364 AD: Basil of Caesarea

  • Quotes explicitly as Scripture: Sirach
  • Quotes from: 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom
Quote from Sirach as Scripture
What Scripture says is very true, "As for a fool he changes as the moon." [Sirach 27:11]
- Hexaemeron, Homily 6, Section 10
Reference to Maccabees
The mother of the Maccabees saw the death of seven sons without a sigh, without even shedding one unworthy tear.
- Letter 6, Section 2
Quote from Book of Wisdom
The Lord orders "all things in measure and weight," [Wisdom 11:20] and brings on us the temptations which do not exceed our power to endure them…
- Letter 219, Section 1
Quote from Baruch
Standing and sitting, I apprehend, indicate the fixity and entire stability of the nature, as Baruch, when he wishes to exhibit the immutability and immobility of the Divine mode of existence, says, "For you sit for ever and we perish utterly." [Baruch 3:3]
- De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter 6, Section 15
Quote from Judith
So as Judith says, "You have thought, and what things you determined were ready at hand." [Judith 9:5-6]
- De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter 8, Section 19

~367 AD: Hilary of Poitiers

  • OT LIST: Includes Epistle of Jeremiah (part of Baruch), and says "to this some add Tobit and Judith"
  • Quotes explicitly as Scripture: 2 Maccabees
  • Quotes from: Wisdom, Baruch, and additions to Daniel
OT List
The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition: the books of Moses are five, Joshua son of Nun the sixth, Judges and Ruth the seventh, first and second Kings the eighth, third and fourth [Kings] the ninth, the two of Chronicles make ten, the words of the days of Ezra the eleventh, the book of Psalms twelfth, of Solomon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs are thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets sixteenth, then Isaiah and Jeremiah (with Lamentations and the Epistle) and Daniel and Ezekiel and Job and Esther complete the number of the books at twenty-two. To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome.
- Expositions of the Psalms (Tractatus super Psalmos), 15
Quote from 2 Maccabees as Scripture
Such suggestions are inconsistent with the clear sense of Scripture. "For all things", as the Prophet says [2 Maccabees 7:28], "were made out of nothing"
- On the Trinity, Book IV, Section 16
Quote from Book of Wisdom
Then, while the devout soul was baffled and astray through its own feebleness, it caught from the prophet's voice this scale of comparison for God, admirably expressed, "By the greatness of His works and the beauty of the things that He has made the Creator of worlds is rightly discerned." [Wisdom 13:5]
- On the Trinity, Book I, Section 7
Quote from Baruch
As you have listened already to Moses and Isaiah, so listen now to Jeremiah inculcating the same truth as they: "This is our God, and there shall be none other likened unto Him, Who has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward did He show Himself upon earth and dwelt among men." [Baruch 3:35-37]
- On the Trinity, Book IV, Section 42
Quote from Susanna, additions to Daniel
They say that the Father has prescience of all things, as the blessed Susanna says, "O eternal God, that know secrets, and know all things before they be" [Daniel 13:42, deuterocanonical additions to Daniel]
- On the Trinity, Book IV, Section 8

~367 AD: Athanasius

  • OT LIST: Includes Baruch & excludes Esther. Says Esther & the rest of the Deuterocanon were called non-Canon but profitable for instruction in the word of godliness
  • Quotes explicitly as Scripture: Book of Wisdom
  • Quotes from: Sirach, Tobit
OT List
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
- Letter 39, Section 4
Esther & Deuterocanon (minus Baruch)
But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read
- Letter 39, Section 7
Quote from Book of Wisdom as Holy Scripture
...they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture; 'A false witness shall not be unpunished' [Proverbs 19:5] and 'The mouth that belies slays the soul' [Wisdom 1:11]
- Apologia Contra Arianos (Part I), Chapter 1, Section 3
Quote from Tobit
Let your Majesty ask the opinion of such: for it is written of the other, 'The foolish person will speak foolishness ;' but of these, 'Ask counsel of all that are wise.' [Tobit 4:18]
- Apologia ad Constantium, Section 17
Quote from Sirach
And they are memorials and records against the Arian heresy, and the wickedness of false accusers, and afford a pattern and model for those who come after, to contend for the truth unto death [Sirach 4:28]
- Apologia Contra Arianos (Part II), Chapter 6, Section 90

382 AD: Council of Rome

  • OT LIST: Included Deuterocanon
THIS IS THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings four books, Chronicles two books, 150 Psalms, proverbs, ecclesiastes, song of songs, The same of Wisdom, ecclesiasticus

LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE PROPHETS: Isaiah, Jeremiah, with Cinoth i.e. his lamentations , Ezechiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE HISTORIES: Job, Tobit, Esdras two books, Ester, Judith, Maccabees two books

- Decretum Gelasianum, Damasine List, Section II

~385 AD: Epiphanius of Salamis

  • OT LIST: Includes Baruch as canon, and notes “two more books of disputed canonicity”, Sirach and the Book of Wisdom. Later on he calls Sirach and the Book of Wisdom 'divine writings'.
By the time of the captives' return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings. 1 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 2 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which (Jews) reckon as five are double. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these sacred books taught (them) Judaism and Law's observances till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- Panarion (also called Against Heresies) viii. 6
If you had been begotten by the Holy Spirit and instructed in the prophets and apostles, you must have gone through (the record) from the beginning of the genesis of the world until the times of Esther in twenty-seven books of the Old Testament, which are (also) numbered as twenty-two, also in the four holy Gospels, and in fourteen epistles of the holy apostle Paul, and in the writings which come before these, including the Acts of the Apostles in their times and the catholic epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, and in the Revelation of John, and in the Wisdom books, I mean those of Solomon and of the son of Sirach — in short, all the divine writings...
- Panarion (also called Against Heresies) lxxvi. 5

~390 AD: Gregory of Nazianzus

  • OT LIST: Excludes Esther and the Deuterocanon (as well as Revelation from his NT list)
  • Quotes explicitly as Scripture: Judith
  • Quotes from: Wisdom, 2 Maccabees
OT List
The divine oracles should always on the tongue and in the mind be rehearsed. For God will indeed give a reward for this labor, so that you may obtain light from anything hidden, or, what is far better, that you may be spurred by God to greater purity, and thirdly, be called away from the cares of the world by such study. But let not extraneous books seduce your mind. For many malignant writings have been disseminated. Accept, o friend, this my approved number. These are all twelve of the historical books, of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: First there is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus too. Then Numbers, and the Second Law. Then Joshua and Judges. Ruth is eighth. The ninth and tenth books [are] the acts of Kings, and [the eleventh is] Chronicles. Last you have Ezra. The poetic books are five: Job being first, then [the Psalms of] David; and three of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Proverbs. And similarly five of prophetic inspiration. There are the Twelve written in one book: Hosea and Amos, and Micah the third; then Joel, and Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum also, and Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, Haggai, then Zechariah, and Malachi. All these are one. The second is of Isaiah. Then the one called as an infant, Jeremiah, Then Ezekiel, and the gift of Daniel. I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters. 
- Concerning the Genuine Books of Divinely Inspired Scripture (poem)
Quote from Judith as Scripture
Then the last and gravest plague upon the persecutors, truly worthy of the night; and Egypt mourns the first-born of her own reasonings and actions which are also called in the Scripture the Seed of the Chaldeans [Judith 5:6] removed...
- Oration 45, Section XV
Quote from Wisdom
And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written "Do not I fill heaven and earth? Says the Lord," [Jeremiah 23:24] and "The Spirit of the Lord fills the world." [Wisdom 1:7]
- Second Theological Oration (Oration 28), Section VIII
Quote from 2 Maccabees
...the just man in the den, restraining the lions' rage, [Daniel 6:22] and the struggle of the seven Maccabees, [2 Maccabees 7:1] who were perfected with their father and mother in blood, and in all kinds of tortures.
- Oration 43, Section 74

~390 AD: Augustine

  • OT LIST: Included Deuterocanon
  • Identified the Septuagint as that Old Testament that the Church has received
OT List
Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:— Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles— these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:— Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.
- On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8, Section 13
Septuagint received by Church
...yet the Church has received this Septuagint translation just as if it were the only one; and it has been used by the Greek Christian people, most of whom are not aware that there is any other.
- The City of God, Book 18, Chapter 43

~390 AD: Jerome

  • In his infamous helmeted preface, Jerome says that Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and 2 Maccabees should be placed among the Apocryphal writings, as he did not have a Hebrew version of them to translate into his Latin Vulgate. Note that Baruch is missing from that list, as are the additions to Daniel and Esther.
  • And yet, we see him quote from the Deuterocanon, calling Wisdom “Holy Scripture”, quoting from Sirach as scripture, citing the words of Baruch as from a "prophet", and referring to a story in additions to Daniel.
  • So what's going on?
  • Jerome, at great pain and cost, obtained the Hebrew scriptures from the Jews
  • He notes that in the Church, the Seventy (Septuagint, Greek translation of OT) has achieved inspired-level status among the Early Church, so his going back to the Hebrew is interpreted as an attack on the validity of the Septuagint.
  • To counter this zealous devotion to the Septuagint, he argues that Jesus (and the apostles/evangelists) quote from the Hebrew, not the Septuagint. Particularly, he posits that wherever the Septuagint disagrees with the Hebrew, the Apostles of Christ quote from the Hebrew - and their authority is superior to that of the seventy translators.
  • He then issues a challenge - let his accuser show anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint, but which is not found in the Hebrew, and he will end the controversy (the implication being he will cease pushing for the superiority of the Hebrew texts)
  • As proven elsewhere here, the New Testament actually quotes from the Septuagint (against the Masoteric) many times!
  • So... Jerome personally preferred the Hebrew text & canon over the Septuagint, primarily because he believed that the Apostles and Christ quoted from the Hebrew (and their quotes are mangled in the Septuagint).
  • Even with Jerome’s personal preference, he notes that he does not condemn the Septuagint, and submits himself to the church.
  • In his Latin Vulgate (latin translation of Old & New Testaments), he both translated and included the deuterocanon as part of the Canon
  • In the prefaces to his translation, he included his personal reservations - but the prefaces were written not so much as prologues than as cover letters to specific individuals to accompany copies of his translations, and were not intended for a general audience.


Helmeted Preface
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
- St. Jerome's Prologue to the Books of the Kings
Quote from Wisdom as Holy Scripture
For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of His own eternity." [Wisdom 2:23]... Instead of the three proofs from Holy Scripture which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, behold I have given you seven.
- Letter 51, Sections 6 & 7
Quote from Sirach as scripture
...for does not the scripture say: "Burden not yourself above your power?" [Sirach 13:2]
- Letter 108, Section 21
Quote from Baruch as prophet
...those of Baruch, "Arise, arise, O Jerusalem," and many other proclamations made by the trumpets of the prophets.
- Letter 77, Section 4
Reference to additions to Daniel
And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age.
- Letter 58, Section 1 [Reference to deuterocanonical additions to Daniel]
Obtained Hebrew Scriptures from the Jews at great cost
...my own familiar friend should frankly accept from a Christian and a friend what he has taken great pains to obtain from the Jews and has written down for him at great cost.
- Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 35
I am forced, through each of the books of Divine Scripture, to respond to the slander of adversaries who accuse my translation of rebuking the Seventy translators...
- Preface to Job
I have received letters... entreating me to put our friends in possession of a translation of the Pentateuch from Hebrew into Latin. The work is certainly hazardous and it is exposed to the attacks of my calumniators, who maintain that it is through contempt of the Seventy that I have set to work to forge a new version to take the place of the old. They thus test ability as they do wine; whereas I have again and again declared that I dutifully offer, in the Tabernacle of God what I can, and have pointed out that the great gifts which one man brings are not marred by the inferior gifts of another...
- Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 25
The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Savior himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words "He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," and in the words used on the cross itself, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," which is by interpretation "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" not, as it is given by the Septuagint, "My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?" and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. 
- Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 34
And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.
- Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 34
Hear, therefore, O rival; listen, O detractor! I do not condemn, I do not censure the Seventy, but I confidently prefer the Apostles to all of them. Christ speaks to me through their mouth, who I read were placed before the prophets among the Spiritual gifts, among which interpreters hold almost the last place.
- Preface to Pentateuch
By all this it is made clear, first that the version of the Seventy translators which has gained an established position by having been so long in use, was profitable to the churches, because that by its means the Gentiles heard of the coming of Christ before he came; secondly, that the other translators are not to be reproved, since it was not their own works that they published but the divine books which they translated; and, thirdly, that my own familiar friend should frankly accept from a Christian and a friend what he has taken great pains to obtain from the Jews and has written down for him at great cost.
- Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 35

Submitting himself to the Church

Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. [...] But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request...
- Preface to Judith
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.
- Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Section 33
...the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops...
- Preface to Tobit

393 AD: Council of Hippo

  • OT LIST: Included Deuterocanon
  • Noted for being the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon identical to the modern Roman Catholic canon. The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage (397) pending ratification by the "Church across the sea", that is, the See of Rome.
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. 

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, iv. books. The Chronicles, ij. books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, ij. books. Macchabees, ij. Books. [...]

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

- Canon xxxvi

~395 AD: Gregory of Nyssa

  • Identifies the Book of Wisdom as Scripture
If she were, in some fit of weakness, to admit the defilement to her heart, she would herself have broken the covenant of her spiritual marriage; and, as the Scripture tells us, "into the malicious soul Wisdom cannot come." [Wisdom 1:4]
- On Virginity, Chapter 15

~397 AD: Ambrose

  • Quotes from Sirach and Tobit, explicitly calling them Scripture.
  • Also quotes from Baruch, 2 Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, and additions to Daniel.
Quote from Sirach as Scripture
Wherefore the Scripture says well: "A wise man will keep silence until there is opportunity." [Sirach 20:7]
- On the Duties of the Clergy, Book I, Chapter 2, Section 5
Quote from Tobit as Scripture
And what safety can there be for us unless we wash away our sins by fasting, since Scripture says that fasting and alms do away sin? [Tobit 12:8-9]
- Letter 63, Section 16
Quote from Baruch
And the Lord bids them lay aside the garments of mourning, and to cease the groanings of repentance, saying: "Put off, O Jerusalem, the garment of your mourning and affliction. and clothe yourself in beauty, the glory which God has given you for ever." [Baruch 5:1]
- Concerning Repentance, Book I, Chapter 9, Section 43
Quote from 2 Maccabees
They who were with holy Nehemiah called it Naphthar, [2 Maccabees 1:36] - which means cleansing - by many it is called Nephi. 
- On the Duties of the Clergy, Book III, Chapter 17, Section 10
Quote from Judith
But in order to learn the dispositions of ripe widowhood, run through the course of the Scriptures. From the time when her [Judith’s] husband died she laid aside the garments of mirth, and took those of mourning… So then, holy Judith, strengthened by lengthened mourning and by daily fasting, sought not the enjoyments of the world regardless of danger, and strong in her contempt for death. In order to accomplish her stratagem she put on that robe of mirth [Judith 10:3]
- Concerning Widows, Chapter 7, Section 38
Quote from Wisdom
Nor do I allege any opinion of my own, but I repeat that which the Holy Spirit spoke by the prophet: "Blessed is the barren that is undefiled." [Wisdom 3:13]
- Concerning Virginity, Book I, Chapter 7, Section 35
Quote from additions to Daniel
For when Susanna, assailed by the conspiracy of the elders, saw that the mind of the people was moved by consideration for the old men, and destitute of all help, alone among men, conscious of her chastity she prayed God to judge; it is written: "The Lord heard her voice, when she was being led to be put to death, and the Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young youth, whose name was Daniel." [Daniel 13:44-45]
- On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 6, Section 39

397 AD: Council of Carthage

  • OT LIST: Included Deuterocanon
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees.[...]

So let the church over the sea be consulted to confirm this canon. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.

Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.

- Sections 16, 18, 20

~400 AD: Tyrannius Rufinus

  • OT LIST: Excluded Deuterocanon (except Baruch)
  • Called Deuterocanon “Ecclesiastical” but not “Canonical” - they would have been read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. Separate from Apocrypha, which would not have been read in the Churches.
  • Quotes from Baruch as saying of prophet, may have included it in OT LIST under Jeremiah
  • Explicitly denies that removing the Deuterocanonical parts of Daniel would be a "correction of error" as Protestants claim
OT List
Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.

But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches.

- Commentary on the Apostles' Creed / The Creed of Aquileia, Sections 37 & 38
Quote from Baruch as saying of a prophet 
Which also the Prophet foretold when he said, “This is our God: no other shall be accounted of in comparison of Him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved. Afterward He showed Himself upon the earth, and conversed with men.” [Baruch 3:35-37]
- Commentary on the Apostles' Creed / The Creed of Aquileia, Section 5
Denies that removing the Deuterocanonical parts of Daniel would be a "correction of error"
In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated?
- Apology Against Jerome, 2.33 as quoted in Gary G. Michuta's "Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.", original source not available online

~407 AD: John Chrysostom

  • Quotes from Sirach (calling it holy Scripture), and from Wisdom, Tobit, and additions to Daniel
Quote from Sirach as Holy Scripture
Let us then repeat to ourselves soothing charms drawn from the holy Scripture, and say, "You are earth and ashes." "Why is earth and ashes proud?" [Sirach 10:9], and, "The sway of his fury shall be his destruction" [Sirach 1:22]: and, "The wrathful man is not comely." [Proverbs 11:25, Septuagint]
- Homily 48 on the Gospel of John, John 7:8, Section 3
Quote from Wisdom
Wherefore we must cast out all wickedness from our souls, and never more contrive any deceit; for, says one, "To the perverse God sends crooked paths" [Proverbs 21:8, Septuagint]; and, "The holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding." [Wisdom 1:5]
- Homily 41 on the Gospel of John, John 5:45-47
Quote from Tobit
And again; "Do not to another what you hate." [Tobit 4:15]
- Homily 13 on the Statues, Section 7
Quote from additions to Daniel
And again, "I have become old in the midst of all mine enemies." [Psalm 6:7 Septuagint] And again, "O you that are become old in evil days." [Daniel 13:52. Hist. Susan]
- Homily 15 on First Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Section 10

419 AD: Council of Carthage

  • OT LIST: Included Deuterocanon
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, iv. books. The Chronicles, ij. books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, ij. books. Macchabees, ij. books. [...]

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

- Canon 24

~600 AD: Isidore of Seville

  • OT LIST: Included Deuterocanon
 We also have a fourth class: those books of the Old Testament that are not in the Hebrew canon. Of these the first is the Book of Wisdom, the second Ecclesiasticus; the third Tobit; the fourth Judith; the fifth and sixth, the books of Maccabees. The Jews hold these separate among the apocrypha (apocrypha), but the Church of Christ honors and proclaims them among the divine books.
- Etymologiae, Book VI, Section 9 (English) (Latin)

~600-1000 AD: [Judaism] Masoretes publish their text + canon

  • OT LIST: Excluded Deuterocanon
The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and their precise letter-text, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah.
- Wikipedia Article

1442 AD: Council of Florence

  • OT LIST: Included Deuterocanon
It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; 

- Session 11-4 February 1442

1534 AD: Martin Luther

In 1534, Luther’s Bible translation was published.

  • In it, he moves Deuterocanon to the end of his Old Testament and labels them "Apocrypha"
Luther's preface to his Apocrypha
These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read
- Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) introduction, Luther’s Bible
  • In his judgment, Esther deserves to be excluded from OT Canon, more than the rest of the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon)
First of all, we have that of Ecclesiastes (Sirach) 15:15-18 [...] Although I might justly refuse this book [Ecclesiasticus/Sirach], yet, nevertheless, I receive it; lest I should, with loss of time, involve myself in a dispute concerning the books that are received into the canon of the Hebrews: which canon you do not a little reproach and deride, when you compare the Proverbs of Solomon, and the Love-song, (as, with a double-meaning sneer, you call it,) with the two books Esdras and Judith, the History of Susannah, of the Dragon, and the Book of Esther, though they have this last in their canon; although, in my judgment, deserving, more than all the rest, to be excluded. 

- Bondage of the Will, Section XLVI
- Note: The 1823 Henry Cole translation reverses this, saying Esther deserved more than all the apocrypha to be included in the canon. All other translations I’ve seen have the original wording with 'excluded' being the concept
  • Similar to his Apocrypha, he was skeptical of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, and stuck them at the end of his New Testament, saying "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."
Luther's preface to his Antilegomena

Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation... This seems, as it stands, to be against all the Gospels and St. Paul’s epistles... [The Epistle to the Hebrews] we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.
- Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews

...I do not regard it [the epistle of St. James] as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow. In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works... He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture... Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books
- Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude... it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.
- Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)

About this book of the Revelation of John... it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic... I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
- Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)

As Luther noted in his preface to James, the book of James was "flatly against" faith alone. For the books that were problematic to his doctrines, he wrote off their importance - his Apocrypha in the Old Testament and his Antilegomena in the New Testament. Of the books that remained, he saw fit to make their support of his beliefs more explicit, as in his translation of Romans 3:28, in which he added the word "alone" (allein in German) so that it read: "So now we hold, that man is justified without the help of the works of the law, alone through faith."

1546 AD: [Catholic] Council of Trent

  • OT LIST: Included Deuterocanon
(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both [...] And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.
- The Fourth Session, DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

1547 AD: John Calvin

  • Says Catholics give full authority to the Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical) books, which lets them “prove Purgatory”, “the worship of saints”, and “exorcisms”
  • Identifies the Deuterocanon as “ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine”, as he says Ruffinus and Jerome did.
Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books

Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine. I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine...

- Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, ON THE FOURTH SESSION

Thus, he concedes the following:

  • If Catholics are right about the Deuterocanon, then they’re also right about Purgatory, praying to (not worshipping) the Saints, exorcisms, and so on.
  • As these books pre-date Christ, those doctrines (i.e. Purgatory) are beliefs thousands of years old
  • While not all the Church Fathers agreed these books were Canonical, NONE of them believed they were heretical.
  • Calvin acknowledges that both St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. took the same position on the Deuterocanon that the Council of Trent did.

Note that in his list of “ecclesiastical books”, he lists the Deuterocanon... but leaves off Baruch. Ruffinus and Jerome (whom he quotes) likewise leave off Baruch.

Also, Calvin quotes from Baruch, and calls him a Prophet (again, Ruffinus also quoted from Baruch as a prophet). Calvin even goes so far as to say that it is likely Paul, in his letter 1 Corinthians, borrowed from Baruch.

It is certain from the Prophet Baruch, (4:7,) that "those things that are sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to devils" (Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 96:5.) In that passage in the writings of the Prophet, the Greek translation, which was at that time in common use, has δαιμόνια — demons, and this is its common use in Scripture. How much more likely is it then, that Paul borrowed what he says from the Prophet, to express the enormity of the evil, than that, speaking after the manner of the heathen, he extenuated what he was desirous to hold up to utter execration!
- Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1, 1 Corinthians 10:19-24, Section 20

1571 AD: [Protestant] Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles

  • OT LIST: Excluded Deuterocanon, said Deuterocanon should be read for example of life and instruction of manners, but not used to establish doctrine.
  • The original King James Bible of 1611 (made for the church of England) included King James Version Apocrypha
In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Of the names and Number of the Canonical Books: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy; Joshua; Judges; Ruth; The I Book of Samuel; The II Book of Samuel; The I Book of Kings; The II Book of Kings; The I Book of Chronicles; The II Book of Chronicles; The I Book of Esdras; The II Book of Esdras; The Book of Esther; The Book of Job; The Psalms; The Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher; Cantica, or Songs of Solomon; Four Prophets the Greater; Twelve Prophets the Less. And the other Books (as Heirome [The Old English form of Hieronymus, or Jerome...] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following: The III Book of Esdras; The IV Book of Esdras; The Book of Tobias; The Book of Judith; The rest of the Book of Esther; The Book of Wisdom; Jesus the Son of Sirach; Baruch the Prophet; The Song of the Three Children; The Story of Suzanna; Of Bel and the Dragon; The Prayer of Manasses; The I Book of Maccabees; The II Book of Maccabees. All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical. 
- Article 6 of the 1801 American revision, "Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation"

1642-1649 AD: English Civil War and Westminster Confession of Faith

  • The English Civil War broke out in 1642 and lasted till 1649

The Long Parliament of 1644 decreed that only the Hebrew Canon would be read in the Church of England and in 1647 the Westminster Confession of Faith was issued which decreed a 39-book OT and 27-book NT, the others commonly labelled as "Apocrypha" were excluded. Today this decree is a Protestant distinctive, a consensus of Protestant churches, not limited to the Church of Scotland, Presbyterianism, and Calvinism, but shared with Baptist and Anabaptist confessions of faith also.

  • End of Civil War

With the Restoration of the Monarchy to Charles II of England (1660–1685), the Church of England was once again governed by the Thirty-Nine Articles, and thus emphatically maintained that the Apocrypha is part of the Bible and is to be read with respect by her members (but not used to establish any doctrine)

Appendix: Pre-Septuagint

The original Old Testament is comprised of numerous books, written over thousands of years, all the way up to a few hundred years before Christ. For the sake of clarity in what follows, we will refer to this as the original Hebrew Text for the Old Testament.

In the mid 1900s, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and changed our understanding of history. Dated to a few hundred years before Christ, these scrolls were associated with an ancient Jewish sect widely believed to be the Essenes.

Emanuel Tov, the chief editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project, identified five broad variation categories of Dead Sea Scroll texts: Proto-Masoretic, Pre-Septuagint, Pre-Samaritan, Qumran "Living Bible", and Non-Aligned.

The Proto-Masoretic Dead Sea Scroll texts show that the Masoretic Hebrew text (published 700-1000 years after Christ) remained faithful to the Proto-Masoretic Hebrew text which existed 1000 years previously.

The Pre-Septuagint Dead Sea Scroll texts show that the Greek Septuagint (published a few hundred years before Christ) was NOT a bad translation of the Proto-Masoretic Hebrew text; rather, it was a good translation of the Pre-Septuagint Hebrew text.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Jews had different Hebrew text traditions a few hundred years before Christ, of which we are concerned with the Pre-Septuagint and the Proto-Masoretic.

The Pre-Septuagint served as the foundation of the translation of the Greek Septuagint. See the appendix Septuagint Origin Stories for the various recorded historical tales of how the translation was made, but in summary the king of Egypt requested the translation be made, and 72 Jewish scholars (6 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel) independently translated identical versions of the entire Hebrew canon.

Why does all this matter? The Old Testament canon could not have been closed before all its books were written, so the earliest it could have been closed is a few hundred years before Christ.

The Protestant Old Testament canon descends from the Masoretic text canon declared by the Jews between 700-1000 AD, who inherited from the Proto-Masoretic Text which was at least as old as a few hundred years before Christ.

The Catholic Old Testament canon descends from the Septuagint text canon, translated a few hundred years before Christ from the Pre-Septuagint Hebrew text.

From Wikipedia

The Biblical manuscripts found in Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), have prompted comparisons of the various texts associated with the Hebrew Bible, including the Septuagint. Peter Flint cites Emanuel Tov, the chief editor of the scrolls, who identifies five broad variation categories of DSS texts:

1) Proto-Masoretic: This consists of a stable text and numerous and distinctive agreements with the Masoretic Text. About 60% of the Biblical scrolls fall into this category (e.g. 1QIsa-b)

2) Pre-Septuagint: These are the manuscripts which have distinctive affinities with the Greek Bible. These number only about 5% of the Biblical scrolls, for example, 4QDeut-q, 4QSam-a, and 4QJer-b, 4QJer-d. In addition to these manuscripts, several others share distinctive individual readings with the Septuagint, although they do not fall in this category.

3) The Qumran "Living Bible": These are the manuscripts which, according to Tov, were copied in accordance with the "Qumran practice" (i.e. with distinctive long orthography and morphology, frequent errors and corrections, and a free approach to the text. Such scrolls comprise about 20% of the Biblical corpus, including the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a)

4) Pre-Samaritan: These are DSS manuscripts which reflect the textual form found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, although the Samaritan Bible itself is later and contains information not found in these earlier scrolls, (e.g. God's holy mountain at Shechem rather than Jerusalem). The Qumran witnesses—which are characterized by orthographic corrections and harmonizations with parallel texts elsewhere in the Pentateuch—comprise about 5% of the Biblical scrolls. (e.g. 4QpaleoExod-m)

5) Non-Aligned: This is a category which shows no consistent alignment with any of the other four text-types. These number approximately 10% of the Biblical scrolls, and include 4QDeut-b, 4QDeut-c, 4QDeut-h, 4QIsa-c, and 4QDan-a.

From Emanuel Tov

Emanuel Tov, in "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" (Third Edition, page 107), says:

Due to the absence of objective criteria for classifying the Qumran scrolls, they are classified here according to their textual character. Only 121 of the 210-212 biblical scrolls can be classified in this way. In this classification, an attempt is made to characterize and analyze three groups and a cluster of texts, three of which were unknown before Qumran discoveries (2, 3, 4)...

In the 46 Torah texts that are sufficiently extensive for analysis, 22 (48%) are Masoretic-like (Proto-Masoretic) (or, in a few cases, are equally close to the Masoretic and the Pre-Samaritan Text), 5 exclusively reflect the Pre-Samaritan Text (11%), one reflects the Septuagint (2%), and 18 are non-aligned (39%). In the remainder of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture, in the 75 texts that are sufficiently extensive for analysis, 33 texts (44%) are Masoretic-like (Proto-Masoretic) (or, in a few cases, are equally close to the Masoretic and the Septuagint), 5 reflect the Septuagint (7%), and 37 form a cluster of non-aligned texts (49%). 

Proto-Masoretic Text: e.g. 1QIsab

Pre-Samaritan Text: 4QpaleoExodm, 4QExod-Levf, 4QNumb, 4QRPa (4Q158), and 4QRPb (4Q364) reflect the characteristics of the Pre-Samaritan Text... and was popular in Palestine.

Texts close to the Hebrew Source of the Septuagint (called Pre-Septuagint Texts):

  • 4QJerb,d bears a strong resemblance to the Septuagint in characteristic details (ch. 7B1)
  • Similarly close to the Septuagint, though not to the same degree, is 4QDeutq (ch. 4, Table 8, page 249-250) [agrees with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text in the addition of two significant stichs in Deut 32:43...]
  • Similarly close to the Septuagint, though not to the same degree, is 4QSama (close to the Septuagint and the SeptuagintLuc; group 4 in book)
  • Similarly close to the Septuagint, though not to the same degree, is 4QSamb
  • Similarly close to the Septuagint, though not to the same degree, is 11QPsa Psalm 151
  • Occasional agreements with the Septuagint, but being close to the Pre-Samaritan Text, is 4QNumb
  • 4QJosha agrees with the Septuagint in two details and its reconstructed text lacks most of 8:11b-13, as does the Septuagint.

Unaligned texts:

Many Qumran texts are not exclusively close to the Proto-Masoretic Text, the Pre-Septuagint Text, or the Pre-Samaritan Text and are therefore considered non-aligned (indicating they follow an inconsistent pattern of agreements and disagreements with the Proto-Masoretic Text, the Pre-Septuagint Text, and the Pre-Samaritan Text).


Digging into Proto-Septuagint text 4QJerb,d:

From pg 286, chapter 7B1:

Noted by Origen in ad Afric. 4, where he mentioned the distinctive nature of the Septuagint-Jeremiah, in which he found many deviations from the Hebrew text known to him... The question that has pre-occupied scholars is whether the translator changed his Vorlage, or whether he had a different Hebrew text of the book before him. With the discovery of 4QJerb and 4QJerd, which, though fragmentary, reflect the two main editorial characteristics, of the Septuagint, this question has been solved, especially in studies by Janzen*, Tov 1985-199, and Bogaert* 1981-1994. It seems very likely that the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text that was very close to these two Qumran texts.

More info on the above on Emanuel Tov's The Qumran Hebrew Texts and the Septuagint: An Overview

  • The Septuagint in these texts is shorter by one-sixth, which is reflected in 4QJerb,d
  • The Septuagint deviates from the order of the Masoretic in several sections and chapters. The Masoretic 23:7-8 are found in the Septuagint after 23:40, and the internal arrangement of 10:5-12 in the Septuagint and 4QJerb differs from the Masoretic.
  • The most striking difference in this regard pertains to the chapters containing the prophecies against the nations, which in the Masoretic are found at the end of the book in chapters 46-51, before the historical "appendix," ch. 52, whereas in the Septuagint they occur in the middle, after 25:13.
  • Verses 10:6-8, 10 are lacking in this scroll as in the Septuagint. In spite of the fragmentary condition of the scroll, Tov, DJD XV (1997) 173 and Saley* 2010 showed that the order of the verses in 4QJerb cannot be reconstructed in any way other than that of the Septuagint, i.e., 3, 4, 5a, 9, 5b, 11.

Jeremiah throughout history:

Noted by Origen in ad Afric. 4, where he mentioned the distinctive nature of the Septuagint-Jeremiah, in which he found many deviations from the Hebrew text known to him... The question that has pre-occupied scholars is whether the translator changed his Vorlage, or whether he had a different Hebrew text of the book before him. With the discovery of 4QJerb and 4QJerd, which, though fragmentary, reflect the two main editorial characteristics, of the Septuagint, this question has been solved, especially in studies by Janzen*, Tov 1985-199, and Bogaert* 1981-1994. It seems very likely that the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text that was very close to these two Qumran texts.
- Emanuel Tov
Besides this, the order of visions, which is entirely confused among the Greeks and Latins, we have corrected to the original truth. And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews
- Jerome, preface to Jeremiah

Appendix: Missing Scriptures

Indeed, there are also many things quoted as scripture in the New Testament that don't appear in the Old Testament at all. Early church fathers believed the Jews of their day who denied Christ had deleted things from scriptures, and these quotations from the New Testament (with no corresponding Old Testament passage) seem to support that.

James 4:5
Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?
John 7:38
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'
Matthew 2:23
And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.
1 Corinthians 15:45
Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Luke 24:46
As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, "Peace to you!" [...] Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. [...]"

- Some claim this is a vague allusion to Hosea 6:2, which says "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him."
Mark 9:12
And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?"

- Some say this is a vague allusion to Isaiah 53
1 Corinthians 2:9
But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"

- Origen (~240 AD) says the quote comes from the Apocalypse of Elias in his Commentary on Matthew 27:9
- Jerome (~390 AD) found the words in the Ascension of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Elias
- Some say this is a paraphrase of Isaiah 64:4, which says "From of old no one has heard or perceived by the ear, no eye has seen a God besides you, who acts for those who wait for him." The words are similar, though the concept is different.
Hebrews 11:37
They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated...

- There's no reference in the Old Testament to a good man being sawn in two.
- An ancient tradition, mentioned both by Jewish and by early Christian writers, relates that Isaiah was thus put to death by order of Manasseh.

~160 AD: Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 120
But since what follows indicates that the reference is to Christ (for it is, 'and He shall be the expectation of nations'), I do not proceed to have a mere verbal controversy with you, as I have not attempted to establish proof about Christ from the passages of Scripture which are not admitted by you which I quoted from the words of Jeremiah the prophet, and Esdras, and David; but from those which are even now admitted by you, which had your teachers comprehended, be well assured they would have deleted them, as they did those about the death of Isaiah, whom you sawed asunder with a wooden saw.
~160 AD: Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 72
    Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Savior and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' [Jeremiah 11:19] And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'
~160 AD: Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 71
    But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof...
~240 AD: Origen in his Letter to Africanus
    In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behooves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. [...]
    And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. [...]
    Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. [...]
    What I have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by those who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but removed by these rulers of Sodom, as the Spirit would call them. [...]
~400 AD: Jerome & Augustine in their letters to each other

Jerome, Letter 75: ...In my attempt to translate into Latin, for the benefit of those who speak the same language with myself, the corrected Greek version of the Scriptures, I have labored not to supersede what has been long esteemed, but only to bring prominently forward those things which have been either omitted or tampered with by the Jews, in order that Latin readers might know what is found in the original Hebrew.

Augustine, Letter 82: As to your translation, you have now convinced me of the benefits to be secured by your proposal to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew, in order that you may bring to light those things which have been either omitted or perverted by the Jews. But I beg you to be so good as state by what Jews this has been done, whether by those who before the Lord's advent translated the Old Testament--and if so, by what one or more of them--or by the Jews of later times, who may be supposed to have mutilated or corrupted the Greek Mss., in order to prevent themselves from being unable to answer the evidence given by these concerning the Christian faith. I cannot find any reason which should have prompted the earlier Jewish translators to such unfaithfulness. I beg of you, moreover, to send us your translation of the Septuagint, which I did not know that you had published.
~600 AD: Isidore of Seville
As a certain one of those who know has recorded, the Hebrews received this work (Wisdom) among the Canonical Scriptures. But after they had seized and killed the Christ, remembering the most evident testimonies concerning Christ in that same book, in which it is written: ‘The impious said among themselves, ‘let us seize the just,’ etc., taking counsel lest we might lay upon them such an evident sacrilege, they cut it off from the prophetic volumes, and prohibited its reading to their people.
- Isidore of Seville, as quoted by Andrew Edward Breen in his A General and Critical Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture. Original source not identified.