The Bible is not a Catholic manufactured book

Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.

Please notice the following from Catholic sources:

• "If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.
• "If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
• "The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
• "It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible." (The Question Box, p. 46)
• "It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).

The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. "All scripture is inspired of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). "...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). "The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.


It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their "circle reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.

Notice, again, the following from Catholic sources:

• "Because it never was a Bible, till the infallible Church pronounced it to be so. The separate treatises, each of them inspired, were lying, as it were dispersedly; easy to confound with others, that were uninspired. The Church gathered them up, selected them, pronounced judgment on them; rejecting some, which she defined and declared not to be canonical, because not inspired; adopting others as being inspired, and therefore canonical." (What Is the Bible? p. 6). 
• "And since the books of the Bible constituting both the Old and the New Testament were determined solely by the authority of the Catholic Church, without the Church there would have been no Bible, and hence no Protestantism." (The Faith of Millions, p. 10).

In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14). When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers were "catholic" in that sense; they were members of the church universal--the church of Christ which is described in the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16). However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.


The Catholic officials above claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).


The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.


If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?


If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?


The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

• 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
• 2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
• 3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
• 4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
• 5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
• 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
• 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
• 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
• 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
• 10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
• 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
• 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
• 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
• 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Please notice further quotes from Catholic sources:

• "During those early times parts of the Bible were scattered among the various churches, no one of which had the complete Bible as we have it now. Then in A.D. 390, at the Council of Hippo, the Catholic Church gathered together the various books which claimed to be scripture, passed on the merits and claims of each and this council decided which were inspired and which were not. The Catholic Church put all the inspired books and epistles together in one volume and THAT is the Bible as we have it today. The Catholic Church therefore gave to the people and the World, the Bible as we have it today." (From a magazine advertisement published by the Knights of Columbus bearing the title, "Who Gave the Bible to the People?" 

• "It was not until the Council of Hippo in 390 that the Church gathered these gospels and epistles, scattered about in different churches, and placed them within the covers of a single book, giving the Bible to the world." (The Faith of Millions, p. 152). 

• "Indeed, when you accept the Bible as the Word of God, you are obliged to receive it on the authority of the Catholic Church, who was the sole Guardian of the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 68). 
•  
• "When were all these writings put together? The Catholic Church put all of them in one book between the years 350 and 405." (A Catechism for Adults, p. 10).

Thus, Catholics argue that since the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this. First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, "The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.


Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).


Secondly, God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?


Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

• 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
• 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
• 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
• 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
• 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
• 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
• 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
• 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
• Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.

Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).


Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources. A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.


Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.


In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church. Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11; John 11:49-52).


We have studied, therefore, that the Catholic Church argues that since one of its councils in 390 selected the sacred books, one can accept them only on the basis of its authority. We have answered by showing: (1) The Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so but because God made it so. (2) Jesus did not teach the people in His day that they could accept the Old Testament Scriptures only on the basis of those who placed the books into one volume. (3) It is a mere assumption that the Council of Hippo in 390 was a Council of the church which is now the Roman Catholic Church. (4) God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His books only on the basis of councils. (5) The Catholic Church is not solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. (6) The Catholic Church has not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. (7) Even if it could be proven that the Catholic Church gathered the books into one volume, it still remains that it is not following the Bible today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

A Catechism For Adults, William J. Conan, ACTA Publications, Chicago, Illinois, 1959.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Knights of Columbus, (Fifteen Volumes), The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., New York, 1913.
Canons and Decrees of he Council of Trent, H.J. Schroeder, B. Herder Book company, St. Louis, London, 1950.
Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Chevalier Artand De Montor, D & J Stadler & Co., New York, 1869.
Question Box, Bertrand L. Conway, The Columbus Press, New York, N.Y., 1913.
Question Box, New Revised Edition, Bertrand L. Conway, The Paulist Press, New York, N.Y., 1929.
The Bible is a Catholic Book, Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, St. Louis, 1948.
The Faith of Millions, John A. O'Brien, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Ind., 1938.
The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, John Murphy Co., Baltimore, Md., 1917.
What is the Bible? W.H. Anderson, International Truth Society, Brooklyn, New York, 1962.
Who Gave the Bible to the People? Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, St. Louis, 1948.

CATHOLIC TRANSLATIONS

 

Confraternity-Douay Version, Timothy Press, Chicago, 1959
Douay-Rheims Version, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, 1945.
Catholic Edition-Revised Standard Version, Published by Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd for the Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, London, 1966.
By David J. Riggs
Catholics Assembled Canon?

1. the Syriac and Coptic versions were translated from the Greek in the second century
2. Latin Version was translated from Greek in the 2nd century in 375 the Gothic Version was translated by Ufilas
3. Jerome stated that in his work of revising the Old Latin he used a Greek Bible which belonged to Origen who lived in the early part of the third century
4. Constantine, the emperor of Rome, at the end of the third century, ordered fifty copies of the Bible transcribed
5. Origen, born A.D. 185 and died A.D. 254, named all the books of the Bible in his writings
6. Eusebius, 270 A.D., lists all of the books of the NT
7. Cyril, 315 A.D. to 386 A.D., lists all NT books, except Revelation
8. Both the Vatican Manuscript and the Sinaitic Manuscript date back earlier than 390 A.D.

Apocrypha is not God inspired Scriptures

 

Apocrypha (‘hidden’, ‘doubtful’) most commonly refers to disputed books rejected by Protestants and accepted by both the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Church. In 1546 the Council of Trent declared the apocryphal seven books and four parts of books in the Old Testament as part of inspired Scripture, stating that anyone who did not accept the said books as sacred.. “Let him be anathema”. (The four parts of books are integrated into Esther and Daniel). Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent but were generally placed in a separate section, as they were not considered of equal credence.

There are several main reasons for the rejection of the Apocrypha.
 

1) Non-acceptance by the Jewish canon. 

The Jewish Canon does not include the Apocrypha. This is significant as it was to the Jews that the OT was entrusted (Rom 3:1,2) and they are the custodians of the limits of their own canon. (Some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek, not Hebrew).

• A) The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (ca. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of divinely inspired canon.    
•  
• B) Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.- A.D. 40) quoted extensively from virtually every canonical book but never once quoted the Apocrypha as inspired.   
 
C) Josephus (A.D. 30-100), a Jewish historian explicitly excluded the Apocrypha, speaking of the number of Jewish books which are divinely trustworthy, not leaving a place for the apocryphal books. . He numbered the OT books as 22 (the equivalent of the 39 books in the Protestant Old Testament). Josephus expressed the common Jewish perspective when he said that the prophets wrote from the time of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, and that no writing since that time had the same authority.       
1. Genesis - 1 
2. Exodus - 1 
3. Leviticus - 1 
4. Numbers - 1 
5. Deuteronomy - 1 (the 5 books of Moses) 
6. Joshua - 1 
7. Judges and Ruth, folded together on one scroll as they were in Josephus' time - 1 
8. 1 and 2 Samuel - also considered one book in Josephus' time - 1 
9. 1 and 2 Kings - Ditto. - 1 
10. 1 and 2 Chronicles - Ditto again. - 1 
11. Jeremiah and Lamentations - also considered as one book at the time - 1 
12. Isaiah - 1 
13. Amos, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Malachi, Jonah, Haggai, Habakkuk, Nahum, Micah, Hosea, Joel, Obadiah - all folded together, as noted above - 1 
14. Daniel - 1 
15. Ezekiel - 1 
16. Ezra and Nehemiah, folded together - 1 
17. Esther - 1 
18. Job - 1 (the 13 prophetic books) 
19. Proverbs - 1 
20. Psalms - 1 
21. Song of Songs - 1 
22. Ecclesiastes - 1. (the 4 instructional books)
  
• D) The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi, both of whom lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ.   
•  
• E) There are several statements by Rabbis that prophecy ceased in the fourth century B.C. acknowledging that the Apocrypha was written in a period when God had ceased giving inspired writings. 

2) Seeming Exclusion by Jesus Himself.

When Jesus or the apostles appealed simply to "the Scriptures" against their Jewish opponents, there is no suggestion whatsoever that the identity and limits of such writings were vague or in dispute.

Jesus seems to exclude the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 - "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation" (NKJV). The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2Chronicles, which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). 
However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was the order recognized by Jesus and his hearers. The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already established in his day.

(The order of books as they appear today is taken from the Septuagint (second century BC Greek translation of the OT).

3) Lack of reference to the Apocrypha in the NT.

While the NT quotes mainly from the Greek Old Testament (LXX) it is uncertain as to whether the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. No direct quotations from any Apocryphal books appear in the NT although they were aware of these books and alluded to them at times. However Hebrews 11:37 may very well refer to 1 Kings 17:22 and not 1 Maccabees, as is often claimed. But none of these allusions rise to the apostles using the Apocrypha as an authoritative source. On the other hand there are literally hundreds of quotations in the NT from the ‘Law and Prophets’ which Jesus called “all the Scripture”. Luke 24:27).
 

[Note: Jesus nor the New Testament authors quoted from 35 of the 39 Old Testament books and, either directly or indirectly, the New Testament quotes the Old Testament over 600 times. However an apocryphal book is not cited by name even once].
 

So with the lack of authoritative quotes from the Apocrypha in the NT, it appears the NT writers, and Jesus Himself, did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Not every book of the Hebrew canon is quoted in the NT (such as the Song of Solomon, or Canticles as it is named in Catholic Bibles). But every section of the OT as Jews divided it is quoted from (i.e. the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings).

The absent of any quotes from any of the Apocryphal books is rather striking. This is especially so given that many of the OT quotes in the NT were actually taken from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew text (It is for this reason that if you compare OT quotes in the NT with their OT counterparts they don't match up exactly). In any case, what this means is, the Bible text the NT authors had before them had the Apocrypha in it; but they seem to have completely ignored the Apocrypha when they were looking to support a statement with an authoritative source.

So the evidence of the NT strongly suggest the writers of the NT did not accept the Apocryphal books as canon.

4) Rejection by many early church fathers.

Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and The great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.

In 382 Bishop Damascus had Jerome (the greatest Bible scholar of the early Medieval period) work on a Latin text to standardize the Scripture. 

The resulting Vulgate was used throughout the Christian world though Jerome himself separated the Apocrypha from the rest. He stated the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners”, but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”. More damning was his statement that “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture” (Preface to Vulgate Book of Solomon,) He initially refused to translate the apocrypha into Latin but later made a hasty translation of a few books. 

But Augustine (c. 400 AD) did recognize the Apocrypha. So it was mainly from his influence that the Apocrypha eventually became accepted. However, the Catholic Church itself did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the council of Trent in the 1500's. (Called as a response to the Protestant heresy by the Catholic Church) 

Before that, there was always debate as to their inspiration. Some of the Church Fathers, for instance, quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture but others didn't. But however it is looked at, the official acceptance of the Apocrypha occurred well after the NT was written and the final canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews. 

The reformers were also forced to face the Canon issue. After the Reformation the books of the canon were widely agreed on. Instead of the authority of the Church, Luther and the reformers focused on the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

5) Test of Propheticity.

One of the tests of whether writing was seen as inspired or not was propheticity. God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. 

Only books written by a prophet or accredited spokesperson for God belong in the canon. The people to whom the prophet wrote knew which of the prophets fulfilled the requirements for god’s representatives and authenticated the writings by accepting them. Moses’ books were accepted and stored in a holy place (Deut 31:26) as was Joshua’s writings (Joshua 24:26). 

Daniel already had a copy of Jeremiah and Peter had a collection of Paul’s writings, equating them with the OT as Scripture. False prophets were weeded out if their prophecy did not come true (Deut 18: 20-22) and alleged revelations that contradicted previously revealed truths were rejected as well. (Deut 13:1-3.).

Additionally Moses’ writings are cited through the OT beginning with Joshua all the way to Malachi. (E.g. Josh 1:7, 1 Kings 2:3, Ezra 6:18, Jeremiah 8:8, Malachi 4:4.
Later prophets cite earlier ones (E.g. Jer 26:18, Ezek 14:14, Dan 9:2, Jonah 2: 2-9). 
On the NT Paul cites Luke (1Tim 5:18), Peter recognizes Paul’s Epistles (2 Peter 15-16)
Revelation Is filled with imagery largely from Daniel.

On the other hand no Apocryphal book claims to be written by a prophet and there is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha. Not once is a an Apocryphal book cited authoritatively by a prophetic book written after it, nor is there any supernatural confirmation of the writers of the Apocrypha as there is for prophets who wrote the canon.

6) Errors in the Apocrypha

The books of the Apocrypha abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors. For instance, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.), despite the fact that his lifespan was only a total of 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! 

Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7). Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)! 

The theological errors are equally significant. Wisdom of Solomon teaches the creation of the world from pre-existent matter (7:17). II Maccabees teaches prayers for the dead (12:45-46), and Tobit teaches salvation by the good work of almsgiving (12:9) -- quite contrary to inspired Scripture (such as John 1:3; II Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11).

Conclusion.

The apocryphal books were sometimes highly regarded or cited for their antiquity or for their historical, moral, or literary value, but the conceptual distance between "valuable" and "divinely inspired" is considerable. Roman Catholic apologists sometimes jump to canonical conclusions from the simple fact that the books of the Apocrypha were copied and included among ancient manuscripts or from the fact than an author draws upon them. But obviously a writer can quote something from a work, which he takes to be true without thereby ascribing divine authority to it (for instance, Paul quoting a pagan writer in I Corinthians 15:33).

Roman Catholic apologists often misunderstand the Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha, thinking it entails having no respect or use for these books whatsoever. Calvin wrote, "I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books"; his objection was to "placing the Apocrypha in the same rank" with inspired Scripture ("Antidote" to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68). Likewise, Luther placed the Apocrypha in an appendix to the Old Testament in his German Bible, describing them in the title as "Books which are not to be held equal to holy scripture, but are useful and good to read."

To sum up, Jews, apparently the NT writers and Jesus, some Church Fathers, and Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha all of which is strong evidence against the inclusion of the Apocrypha.

WHEN IS THE TIME WHEN THE APOCRYPHA WAS INCLUDED IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE:

Not all Canon from the Septuagint are in the Catholic Bible

The Catholic Defenders' accusations that Protestants reduced the Canon of Scriptures is also their doing.