Louis, this sounds like a conspiracy theory. A huge, controversial claim with misleading points, a belief that everyone is biased yet only you are "looking at the facts", a fervent desire to keep arguing on a technology-focused forum, and an ignorance of the links shared in the thread so far.

If you really want to set the record straight, the place to do so is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books. You can edit the page and see what the theologians and experts on Wikipedia have to say about a frontend enthusiast's view on Biblical Historicity.

What part of that Wikipedia document do you think contradicts what I've said? The lede says:

> Although there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed, some scholars hold that the Hebrew canon was established well before the first century AD – even as early as the fourth century BC, or by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BC). The modern Hebrew canon does not include the seven deuterocanonical books, and this was the basis for excluding them from the Protestant Old Testament.

And:

> Since the 16th century, most Protestant churches have accepted only works in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as the canonical Old Testament, and hence classify all the non-protocanonical books from the Septuagint as apocrypha.

Those two points more or less support the points I'm making. Of course much of this is debatable, I'm not denying that, but I think the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that these books don't belong.

You say the preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that these books don't belong.

Meanwhile Wikipedia says there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed.

Don't you think your statement and Wikipedia's are somewhat in conflict?

It also says some scholars hold that the Hebrew canon was established well before the first century AD – even as early as the fourth century BC, or by the Hasmonean dynasty – but that is just the opinion of some scholars, and other scholars disagree.

Contrary to the opinion of those scholars, I think there is good evidence that the canon was not fixed that early. The fact that Mishnah Yadayim records 2nd century CE Rabbis debating whether Qohelet(Ecclesiastes) and Song of Songs belonged in the canon or not is evidence that the Pharisees did not finish fixing their canon until the 2nd century CE, by which point Christianity had already begun to separate into a separate religion, and most Christians did not feel bound by the Pharisees' decisions.

The fact that the canon wasn't fixed doesn't mean the apocryphal books were part of it. I'm saying there is little evidence to support that, even though the canon wasn't fixed. And again, that's just one of many arguments against the apocrophya.

And that's besides the fact that even if there was some so-called "debate" about it, if the canon didn't actually change as a result of those debates (e.g. Song of Songs and Eccl. are part of the canon), then how can you say it wasn't fixed? I mean, that's just silly.

> The fact that the canon wasn't fixed doesn't mean the apocryphal books were part of it

That's not the point. The point is that there wasn't a single canon, different sects of Jews had different canons. All these canons were overlapping – all Jews accepted the Torah, there was widespread (but not universal) acceptance of the Prophets; the third part of the Jewish canon, the Writings (Ketuvim) saw the most disagreement. And we have evidence that the canon of the Qumran community did include books now considered "apocryphal"–see https://www.jstor.org/stable/24663170

Did some Greek-speaking Jews include "apocryphal" works in their canon, just as the Qumran community did? Well, we have evidence that the Qumran community included Greek-speaking Jews – most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew or Aramaic, but some Greek texts were recovered as well.

We know that many Greek-speaking early Christians accepted some of the pre-Christian Greek "apocryphal"/"deuterocanonical" works as canonical. Why did they do that? Well, a very plausible hypothesis is that some Hellenistic Jews already accepted them as canonical, and Hellenistic Christianity inherited that acceptance from (segments of) Hellenistic Judaism. We don't have direct proof of that, but as a historical hypothesis it is very plausible, especially in light of the evidence from Qumran that some Jews (even Greek-speaking ones) did accept (other) "apocryphal" works in their canon.

> And that's besides the fact that even if there was some so-called "debate" about it, if the canon didn't actually change as a result of those debates (e.g. Song of Songs and Eccl. are part of the canon), then how can you say it wasn't fixed?

The canon did change. In the middle of the second century CE, the Pharisees still had multiple canons – a narrow canon which excluded Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, a broad canon which included them, and also a couple of intermediate canons which included one but not the other. The outcome of this debate was that the broad canon won out over the narrow and intermediate ones, and supporters of those other canons died out.

And, if we consider other Jewish groups such as the Sadducees or the Qumran community, we find even more Jewish canons than that. However, the 1st and 2nd centuries CE saw a great deal of decline in the diversity of Judaism, due to various factors (the trauma of the Jewish-Roman wars, competition from Christianity), and part of that decline in diversity was the reduction of multiple canons to one. But that reduction did not complete until after Christianity had already split off from Judaism, which is why many Christians (both in the early Church, and also today) do not believe that Christians are bound by it.

And why do you dismiss it as 'some so-called "debate"'? It was a real debate, you can read the Mishnah for yourself – https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Yadayim.3.5?lang=bi&with=all... – allow me to quote some of it:

> All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel.

All the Rabbis it quotes are known to have been active in the 2nd century CE. So in the 2nd century CE, there was a real debate among the (successors of the) Pharisees about the canonicity of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.

Furthermore, this passage gives evidence that the same debate was active in the 1st century CE as well (and possibly even the 1st century BCE too), through Rabbi Shimon's reference to Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.

> The point is that there wasn't a single canon, different sects of Jews had different canons.

You're attaching a lot of weight to a lot of different historical viewpoints. Of course you can find different sects of Jews with different canons. You can find different sects of Jews doing a lot of strange things including committing mass suicide.

However, the majority of the most recognized scholars and historians of the first few centuries C.E. do not consider the so-called apocryphal books as part of the Bible canon. Josephus, Jerome, Councils at Laodicea and Chalcedon, as well as numerous church Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Melito, Origen, Hilary, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzus, Rufinus of Aquileia) testify to the closing of the canon outside of the apocryphal books.

> We know that many Greek-speaking early Christians accepted some of the pre-Christian Greek "apocryphal"/"deuterocanonical" works as canonical. Why did they do that?

It doesn't matter. A lot of your arguments hinge on finding obscure debates and controversies. So what if there was controversy among some? The general consensus, however, disagrees with those debates and controversies and finds them irrelevant.

> The canon did change. In the middle of the second century CE, the Pharisees still had multiple canons

You mean the same Pharisees about whom the the Jew, Jesus Christ, said: "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6)

> And, if we consider other Jewish groups such as the Sadducees or the Qumran community, we find even more Jewish canons than that.

Again, do you mean the Sadducees whom Jesus and many first century Jews condemned? It's irrelevant to even consider any canon that contradicts the most well respected historians and scholars of those time periods. You refer to them as "canons" but they are no such thing. The Hebrew canon was well established by the time of Josephus and only a few obscure sources contradict that.

> And why do you dismiss it as 'some so-called "debate"'? It was a real debate, you can read the Mishnah for yourself

I dismiss it because it's irrevelant. In fact, it's about as relevant as you and I having this debate right now, because neither you or I can change the fact that the canon was well established before the 1st century CE.

> All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.

You want me to take seriously a document that says that?

> Furthermore, this passage gives evidence that the same debate was active in the 1st century CE as well (and possibly even the 1st century BCE too), through Rabbi Shimon's reference to Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.

Yes, it was very active -- among people who had no say in the matter and whose opinions didn't mean a whole lot until we decided to throw 20th century criticism into the mix.

> As someone else pointed out, I'm not talking about every individual church as a separate 'Christian church', I'm referring to the primary denominations, so Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox would be two churches. Most of the rest do not accept those books as part of the Bible canon.

Part of the problem with this whole approach is that there is no agreement on how to slice Christianity into "primary denominations". Indeed, most presntations of Christianity – in fields such as comparative religion or church history – don't start with "denominations", they start with branches. Some divide Christianity into two main branches – Western (Catholics and Protestants) and Eastern (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East). And as you can see, each of those two main branches in turn has some major sub-branches. (There are also some hybrid cases which straddle the East-West boundary, most notably the Eastern Catholics.) And then Protestantism in particular is in turn divided into some major sub-sub-branches, such as Anabaptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed, etc. And then in turn those major branches of Protestantism contain denominations within them – for example, the US has three major Lutheran denominations, the mainline-to-liberal ELCA, the conservative LCMS, and the (arguably even more) conservative WELS, along with over 30 minor ones. Now, at which level of this tree do you count? Because if you count at the level of individual denominations, no doubt Protestants outnumber everyone else, simply because they are (by far) the least unified branch of Christianity. But, if you drill up the tree, to the level of major branches, then on many issues Protestants end up being "the odd ones out".

> including Catholicism, which didn't even exist until at least 300 years after Christ

Church history is complicated, and terms like "Catholicism" have multiple meanings. Whether what you just said is true may depend on what exactly you mean by the word "Catholicism".

> The purely historical argument, outside of any denomination makes it clear that the Deuterocanonical books were not considered part of the Bible canon.

I don't agree with you there. I think there is good historical evidence of their acceptance as part of the Bible by many of the Church Fathers.