Apocrypha

“Throughout Augustine’s works, the disputed books are used as nothing less than inspired canonical Scripture indistinguishable from the other books of the Bible, save only that they are not accepted by the Jews. Augustine’s positive viewpoint was later enshrined in the decrees of the councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage I (AD 397) in which he participated” (Michuta, pp. 159-160).

Augustine believed the Apocrypha should be considered part of the Bible's canon, advocating for their inclusion based on the Church's use of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament translation) and their role in edifying the faithful, a view influential in later Church councils, though he differed from Jerome who saw them as less authoritative than the Hebrew texts, a debate that shaped views until the Reformation. 

Augustine argued that books found in the Septuagint, including the Apocrypha (like Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach), should be treated as inspired Scripture because the Church used them that way. That was the precedent!!!!

He believed the Church's practice and tradition held significant weight in determining the canon, overriding Jewish tradition for the Hebrew text. Like Paul he refused to kneel to the Law.

His perspective was affirmed by councils like Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage I (397 AD), which he attended, leading to the Apocrypha's place in the Latin Vulgate Bible. 

Then came Jerome the judaizer..

Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, distinguished between fully canonical books (from the Hebrew) and "ecclesiastical" books (the Apocrypha) that were good for reading and edification but not for establishing doctrine. So one guy essentially decided for us... I don't think so. Infact Augustine's view prevailed for centuries, solidifying the Apocrypha's presence in Christian Bibles, though debate continued until the Council of Trent officially declared them fully canonical for the Roman Catholic Church. 

There were church fathers who didn’t accept the book of revelation, who had doubts about Hebrews, doubts about the letters of John. So if we try to apply doubts about the deuterocanon in the Apostolic period to account against its canonicity, that would apply to some New Testament works as well.

What if the apocrypha is the real Bible, what if the dead sea scrolls or the nag hammadi? If the canon isn't divinely inspired if the church fathers aren't prophets then there is flexibility in the church to have these things no??