Likewise it had been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. (Council of Rome -Decree of Pope Damasus, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382) as cited by Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Roy J. Deferrari, trans. (St. Lousis: Herder, 1957) p.33, as cited in Not By Scriptura Alone, contributor, Joseph Gallegos, What Did the Church Fathers Teach? Queenship Publishing Company, Santa Barbara, Ca, 1997, p. 460.

Martin Luther had criticized the Roman Catholic Church for not having scriptural support for such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha, which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:45,46, the Catholic then had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines, Rhodes, p. 32.

As theologian Wayne Grudem puts it, "It is significant that the Council of Trent was the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the teachings of Martin Luther and the rapidly spreading Protestant Reformation, and the books of the Apocrypha contain support for the Catholic teaching of prayers for the dead and justification by faith plus works, not by faith alone", Rhodes, p. 32.

Contrast that to Luther's outlook on what was Scripture. Now, Luther wrote this in reference to James:

in the whole length of its teaching, not once does it give Christians any instruction or reminder of the passion, resurrection, or spirit of Christ. It mentions Christ once and again, but teaches nothing about Him; it speaks only of a commonplace faith in God. It is the office of a true apostle to preach the passion and resurrection and work of Christ, and to lay down the true ground for this faith, as Christ himself says in John 15 [:27], You shall be my witnesses. All genuinely sacred books are unanimous here, and all preach Christ emphatically. The true touchstone for testing every book is to discover whether it emphasizes the prominence of Christ or not.

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,' [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,' [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,' [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

However, the claim that there is no claim in the Deuterocanonicals to be written with the authority of a prophet is false: Let us see the Book of Sirach, 24:32-34:

32 I will again make instruction shine forth like the dawn, and I will make it shine afar; 33 I will again pour out teaching like prophecy, and leave it to all future generations. 34 Observe that I have not labored for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction.

In one key apocryphal book--2 Maccabees, from which Roman Catholics draw support for the doctrine of the Mass --the author concedes that it is an abridgement of another man's works and expresses concern as to whether a good job was done or not (see 2 Maccabees 2:23; 15:38). Such would not be the case had this book been truly inspired by God , Rhodes, p. 34).

Based on the above premise, Rhodes writes:

Ask

--What does it suggest to you that the New Testament writers often quoted from the Old Testament, but never quoted from an apocryphal book?

--In view of the fact that the New Testament writers virtually ignored the Apocrypha, do you think they viewed it as Scripture?, Rhodes, pp. 34-35

Wisdom 2:18-20 18: for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19: Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20: Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'

Here are some other examples of New Testament writers borrowing from the Deuterocanonicals:

James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

Sirach 5:11: Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering

Wisdom 9:13 For what man can learn the counsel of God? Or who can discern what the Lord wills?

Romans 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"

Wisdom 13:1-9:

1: For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists, nor did they recognize the craftsman while paying heed to his works; 2: but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world. 3: If through delight in the beauty of these things men assumed them to be gods, let them know how much better than these is their Lord, for the author of beauty created them. 4: And if men were amazed at their power and working, let them perceive from them how much more powerful is he who formed them. 5: For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. 6: Yet these men are little to be blamed, for perhaps they go astray while seeking God and desiring to find him. 7: For as they live among his works they keep searching, and they trust in what they see, because the things that are seen are beautiful. 8: Yet again, not even they are to be excused; 9: for if they had the power to know so much that they could investigate the world, how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things?

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

Sirach 28:2: Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. 3: Does a man harbor anger against another, and yet seek for healing from the Lord? 4: Does he have no mercy toward a man like himself, and yet pray for his own sins? 5: If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath, who will make expiation for his sins?

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Tobit 4:15: And what you hate, do not do to any one.

Matt 7:12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Wisdom 15:7 For when a potter kneads the soft earth and laboriously molds each vessel for our service, he fashions out of the same clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses, making all in like manner; but which shall be the use of each of these the worker in clay decides.

Romans 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?

Sirach 11:19: when he says, "I have found rest, and now I shall enjoy my goods!" he does not know how much time will pass until he leaves them to others and dies.

Luke 12:18-23 And he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.' 20 But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' 21 So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

Geisler and Rhodes bank their whole argument on the idea that if the Fathers did not put the Deuterocanonicals on the list of the canon that they themselves draw up, ipso de facto, that Father rejected the inspiration of those books: If it is not in the canon, it is not inspirational. However, that is not the case. When the Fathers referred to the canons, in many cases they were speaking about only the Liturgical canon. that is books of Scripture that would be read during the Mass. Not all books of Scripture would be read during the Mass. If these Fathers left off those books from their individual canon, that does not in fact mean that those books are not Scripture.

It has become evident that the Septuagint circulated in Palestine. This inference was suggested to Semler (1771:1.124-128) by the use of the Septuagint in the earliest Christian writings of the New Testament. As noted, Murabaat produced fragments of six Minor Prophets (Micah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephniah and Zechariah) in Greek. Barthélemy has shown that the text of these fragments, assigned to the end of the first century C.E., is most probably a recension of the Septuagint and is very similar to Justin's Old Testament quotations (Barthélemy 1953). This shows that a Greek text type used among Christians of the second century was current among Jews in Palestine in the first century C.E. Similarly, K. Stendahl (1954:177-180) has provided support for Swetes suggestion that the venue for the text of the New Testament quotations from the Old is to be found in a Palestinian Septuagint tradition. Pfeiffer was probably right saying that the Christians took their Old Testament in Greek before the closing of the canon at Jamnia. But the implication of the above is that the Greek Old Testament adopted by the Christians was received from Palestinian rather than Diaspora Judaism (Cross 1995:128, n. 2).

There are evidences of a continued use of this apocryphal literature in rabbinic literature of later times. Sirach is quoted three times in the Talmud as scripture. It is twice quoted with the introductory formula, "for so it is written in the Book of Ben Sira."35 Ben Sira is also sometimes quoted as "Writings" when the rabbis were proof-texting, e.g., "This matter is written in the Pentateuch as written. . . , repeated in the Prophets, as written. . . , mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written, (here Sirach 12.15 is quoted), it was learned in the Mishnah, . . . ."36

This is understandable in view of the fact that there were no Jewish prophets that lived during the 400-year period between the Old and New Testaments...Then Rhodes approvingly quotes H.E. Ryle "Philo makes no quotations from the Apocrypha; and he gives not the slightest ground for the supposition that the Jews of Alexandria, in his time, were disposed to accept any of the books of the Apocrypha in their Canon of Holy Scripture," Rhodes, p. 36

According to the consensus, these were completely ignored (except for Daniel) by the rabbinical leaders. However, they enjoyed great popularity among some circles. Clearly, the writers and readers of these books did not hold that inspiration had ceased. Also for Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, especially in Alexandria, the canon was thought to have been considerably enlarged. The influence of these additional writings circulating in Alexandrian and Diaspora Judaism was greatly felt in early Christianity.

There are two ways to address this. First off, there are archaeological and historical errors, or at a minimum, apparent historical errors in the Protocanonicals, despite Rhodes protestations to the contrary. For example, the book of Esther, nowhere quoted in the New Testament as Scripture, also contains "historical and geographical errors." No Queen Esther or Mordecai is known to history. Queen Ahasuerus is not noted as being deposed. The Land of Agag is unknown at that time...

1) He attacks 2nd Maccabees because sins are forgiven when offering sacrifice. He gives Hebrews 7:27 as a citation to show sacrifice is no longer necessary. Let us look at the context of that verse, Heb. 7:25-8:3:

25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever. Hebrews 8 1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer

Heb. 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Mal. 1:11: For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Heb. 13:10 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

1 Cor. 10:16-17 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Here are some examples from the first two centuries. We see in the letter of Barnabas, in the First century:

For the prophet speaks against Israel, "Woe to their soul, because they have counselled an evil counsel against themselves, (Isa. 3:9) saying, "Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us." (Wis. 2:12) And Moses also says to them, "Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord swore [to give] to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey." (Exo. 33:1) Barnabus, The Letter of Barnabas, 6,7 ANF, vol. 1, p. 141 [AD 74].

Next, let us look at Clement of Rome, in an undisputed first century letter to the Corinthians

Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. "Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done?" or, "Who shall resist the power of His strength?" (Wis 12:12). When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away (Mt. 24:35). Pope Clement of Rome, (Letter to the Corinthians 27 [ca. A.D. 80], Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts, 1995, p. 12. [70 AD]

You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

When you can do good, defer it not, because "alms delivers from death" (Tob. 12:9, 4:10), Be all of you subject one to another (1 Pet. 5:5), having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles," (1 Pet. 2:12). Polycarp of Smyrna, (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]), Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts, 1995, p. 35.

Thus, the Septuagint, by the quotations of these Fathers, where they are treated in the exact same fashion as the rest of Scripture, includes these books, and any attempt to say that the Septuagint does not include them, ignores the witness of the Fathers, who had access to the Septuagint in the first century. Thus, these quotation from the Church Fathers conclusively prove that Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals. The Fathers who existed quoted them, so even if there is not a large body of manuscripts of the first century that still remain, those manuscripts existed, with those books. If they did not exist, the 1st Century Church Fathers, could not have quoted them, along in the same manner as the rest of Scripture. But Rhodes assertion that there is no evidence from the first few centuries that the Deuterocanonical were included in the Septuagint is also denied by the following:

Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963) At first the LXX [Septuagint] was highly regarded by all the Jews; it spread from Egypt to the whole Jewish Diaspora and became the official Bible Greek-speaking Judaism. The New Testament writers, writing in Greek for Greek-speaking people, usually quoted from the OT according to the LXX [Septuagint]. Naturally, therefore, the LXX also became the official Old Testament of the early Church, and it is still the official Old Testament of the Greek Church, of both the Uniate and the Schismatic Christians. However, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., when Jewish opposition to Christianity became more pronounced and Judaism crystalized in its rabbinical form, the LXX [Septuagint], though originally made by Jews for Jews, was frowned on by the Jews as a quasi-Christian book."

Portions of the LXX were found in Judea among the Dead Sea Scrolls... which dated to before 70 A.D. Some examples are those found in Cave 4, 119LXXLev. 120papLXX Lev. 121LXXNum. 122LXXDuet. And then there is Q9 [a unidentified Greek LXX text], found in Cave Nine....

It is important to note that in the caves of the Qumran [the "Dead sea scrolls" findings] was found copy [scroll 2QSir] a of the book of Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of ben Sira) in the Hebrew . Also A fragment [scroll 4Q551] The Story of Susanna [ch. 13 of the book of Dan.] in the Hebrew. And in cave four of the Qumran. fragments of the "Apocrypha" book of Tobit were found in Cave four. These fragments of the book of Tobit are in Aramaic [scrolls 4Q196-9] as well as Hebrew [scroll 4Q200]. It should be noted that the Qumran caves are not the only place in Judea where some of the "Apocryphal"" books have been found. Another example is the copy of the book of Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of ben Sira) in the Hebrew was also found in the ruins of Masada. This scroll fragment dates from the early first century BC.

Now, in reference to human beings being fallible, and only Scripture is infallible. That is a nice theory thrown out to rationalize the Sola Scriptura position. The apostles themselves were fallible. They were sinners, as evidenced in any reading of the gospels. However, that did not stop some of them from writing Scriptures. Scripture itself shows that fallible people, if guided by the Spirit, can be infallible. Otherwise Scripture would not be inerrant. If God could protect humans through the Holy Spirit from making errors when writing, why could He not, through the Holy Spirit do the same through His Church? If we are going to be sure on what the Scripture is, we would want an infallible Church to assure that what we have is Scripture. And that is exactly the way that Christ did it. We do know even in Scripture, that a Church Council, guided by the Holy Spirit, can be infallible. We see for example, on the doctrinal issue on the necessity of circumcision, headed by Peter, (Acts 15:6-13), the Church came to the infallible decision that circumcision was not necessary. And the Church in Council said that it was guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:25-29, especially v. 28) in making both infallible doctrinal decree (that circumcision was no longer necessary (v. 10-12, v.19), and necessary rules that were not infallible (by abstaining from food offered to idols, etc. vs. 20, 28-29).

Some of the councils, such as the local councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa, were heavily influenced by Augustine, the most powerful voice of ancient times that accepted the Apocrypha. However, Geisler and MacKenzie have provided strong evidence that shows how ill-founded Augustine's position was. Among other things, they note that Augustine was fully aware that the ancient Jews rejected these apocryphal books. Further, Augustine felt the apocryphal books belonged in the Bible because of their mention “of extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs,” which is hardly a criteria for canonicity. Further, Augustine seems to have accepted the apocryphal books as canonical largely based on the fact that these books were contained in the Septuagint of his day. As we have noted, though, there is evidence to suggest that the original Septuagint did not contain the Apocrypha, Rhodes, p. 40.

In his History of the Church, Philip Schaff makes the following comment about the canons promulgated by this council:
These things produced a change in the opinions of [Pope] Zosimus, and about the middle of the year 418, he issued an encyclical letter to all the bishops of both East and West, pronouncing the anathema upon Pelagius and Coelestius (who had meanwhile left Rome), and declaring his concurrence with the decisions of the council of Carthage in the doctrines of the corruption of human nature, of baptism, and of grace. Whoever refused to subscribe to the encyclical, was to be deposed, banished from his church, and deprived of his property.

BTW in addressing one of Rhodes' other objections, that Augustine was wrong because the Jews rejected the Deuterocaonicals, that is totally irrelevant. The Jews were in a state of flux on the status of the canon, at the time of Christ, on whether the Deuterocanonicals were Scripture or not. They had not finalized the canon of even the protocanonical books. In any case, Jesus gave his authority to 'bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loose on heaven' to the Church to the Church (Mt. 16:18, 18:18), not to Christ rejecting Jews.

Of course Rhodes repeats the theory that the 1st Century Septuagint didn't include the Deuterocanonicals, and thus St. Augustine was mistaken. However, as already noted, the Church Fathers quoted from the Septuagint the Deuterocanonicals in the first century so that is proof that Rhodes theory is incorrect in and of itself. St. Augustine was right, and not mistaken.

1) Who is Rhodes to determine what a prophet is? Where does the Bible say that in order to be Scripture, it must be written by a prophet? He gives a citation of Deuteronomy 18:18, which only says that one can find out who a prophet is, if what they predict comes true. It doesn't say Scripture is Scripture only if written by a prophet. Where is Esther mentioned as a prophet? Is there any hint that 1st and 2nd Chronicles are written by prophets? Where does Ecclesiastes come off as 'prophetic'? Mark and Luke were neither prophets or apostles, so that would eliminate some New Testament books as well. Besides that, the Book of Wisdom, one of the books that Rhodes rejects as non-prophetic, specifically prophecies how Christ would be killed and he would be taunted by his enemies as one who claims to be the Son of God:

Wis. 2:18-20 18 for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him (See Mt. 27:43) from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

Besides that, as we have seen, many of the Fathers that Rhodes allege deny the Scriptural status of the Deuterocanonicals, speak of the writers of these books as 'prophets', and verify their Scriptural status.

2) What objective criteria does Rhodes use to say that these books do not ring with the sense of 'thus saith the Lord'? When one reads 2nd or 3rd John, or 1st and 2nd Chronicles, or the letter of Philemon, or Ecclesiastes does one just say, "This is definitely God's Word"? No, it is only one's tradition that one has come to believe in, that says that this is God's Word, and this is not. Rhodes grudgingly borrows from the Catholic Church. Otherwise, the Rhodes approach is pure subjectivism based on feelings alone. This 'criteria' is similar to the Mormons 'burning in the bosom' mentality of identifying Scripture (which they use to 'validate' the Book of Mormon.) No one can honestly say, "Well, this feeling comes to me, when I read the Letter of Paul to Philemon, it rings: 'thus saith the Lord.' " When one reads the book of Numbers, and all the dietary laws that are there, or the genealogies, where does one get a feeling this says 'thus saith the Lord?' This is purely a subjective bias of Rhodes with no objective criteria given.

3) The idea that the Deuterocanonicals contradict Scriptural Doctrines is another purely subjective assertion by Rhodes. Any criteria applied to the Deuterocanonicals as contradicting other Scriptures can be applied to other New and Old Testament books. In fact there are many books written by Protestant Scholars who will recognize 'apparent' contradictions within the New and Old Testament 66 books. They will rightly say that they are only 'apparent contradictions', not real contradictions. Books have been written by Protestants (and Catholics as well) to explain why one Scripture does not contradict another one both in fact and in doctrine. For example, James 2:24 and Romans 4:3 seem to teach different doctrines on salvation and whether one is saved by faith alone or by faith plus works. However, all Christians recognize the fact that both James and Romans are Scripture, and there must be a way to reconcile those Scriptures. One can find many things in Scriptures that can appear to be contradictory. Christians make an attempt to reconcile, or explain how the various Scriptures can be reconciled. The style of writing must be taken into account when studying the biblical texts. However, when it comes to the Deuterocanonicals, Protestants will see one passage that they can jump on and automatically say "See, that is not Scriptural and it contradicts other Scriptures. Therefore it is not Scripture." They make no effort at all to see how the Deuterocanonical passages that they claim contradict other passages can be reconciled while at the same time they will jump hoops to reconcile apparent discrepancies between non-Deuterocanonical books. Protestants will often times even misrepresent what the Deuterocanonical book teaches, misrepresent the teaching on the matter in the New or Old Testament, and then say 'voila', the "Apocrypha" contradicts Scripture. (In fact that is what Rhodes did in his book, p. 38) This proves nothing against the Deuterocanonicals.

4) The idea that in order to be Scripture it must transform the lives of believers is another subjective criteria. If I look at 2nd Maccabees 7, we see heroic displays of virtue, where those who knew what God's laws were, and refused to violate the laws that God had given them, instead of violating that law subjected themselves to torture and eventually death, with their Mother also refusing to violate God's law. They looked forward to the 'resurrection of life'. That is a very New Testament concept. I have never been called to that type of thing, and I hope to never have to, but this example is transformative to me. I go through nothing like that, but nonetheless that example encourages me to do what God wants me to do. The book of Wisdom's prophecy of Christ in Wisdom 2:12-20 encourages me with even further evidence that Christ fulfills prophecy. The example of Judith helps to transform my life. The book of Wisdom and Sirach gives further evidence of good wisdom that transforms lives. True, not all portions of the Deuterocanonicals transform lives. That is like many portions of the rest of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes ("all is vanity"), Philemon, the portions of Scripture that have lots of names without commentary, rules about dietary laws, in and of themselves don't seem to transform lives. That does not mean that if books of Scripture does not transform lives, it is not inspired Scripture.

5) The idea that Rhodes gives that God's people would automatically receive the words as God's word is not true. The idea that he inferred by saying that the Deuterocanonicals were not accepted by the people of God is mistaken. Some protocanonical books were written a long long time before they were accepted. The Jews, who were God's people had many factions, as mentioned before, and there was no agreement on what was the Jewish Scriptures. For example, the song of Solomon, written about 1000 years before, was still in question on its status during even after the Council of Jamnia which was 60 years after the Church was established. Esther, for the portions that Rhodes has, does not even use the term God (the Deuterocanonical portions of Esther that Catholics use, does use and refer explicitly to God). Many Jews who had the Septuagint, accepted the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. They were much more askance on these books after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. For the Church, in the New Testament, James, Hebrews, 2nd & 3rd John, Philemon, Revelation was in dispute until the late 4th century when the Church's Councils in the late 4th century, ratified their canonicity. Now, despite the fact that this premise was incorrect, (that it must be practically unanimously considered by the people of God immediately in order for it to be Scripture), even if that premise was correct, he would be incorrect on this issue. Why do I say that? Because the people of God did accept these books from the beginning. We have seen that the Church Fathers did accept them, in fact almost unanimously!! Even the Fathers that Rhodes trotted out saw these books as inspired Scripture. J.N.D. Kelly, respected Anglican historian notes this about the first few centuries of the Christian Church:

It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" Early Christian Doctrines, p. 53-54.

a)Women received their dead by resurrection. b)Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life

2: One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, "What do you intend to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers."
8 He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, "No." Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. 9: And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."
12 "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!" 13 When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. 14 And when he was near death, he said, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"
Even the mother saw this hope:
22 "I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. 23 Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws."
29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers.
35 You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God. 36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everflowing life under God's covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. 37 I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God.

Thus, in the context of the many references in Hebrews 11 that specifically points us to Scripture, without actual citations, 2nd Maccabees is unquestionably referred to in this passage. Just as Heb. 11:35 in the first part of the verse refers to 2nd Kings, the second part of this verse refers to Maccabees on the same level as 2nd Kings. It is irrelevant that it is not a specific citation.

Now, back to Rhodes point, there is no, 'even if', Hebrews 11:35 is unquestionably referring to 2n Maccabees 7.

Then Rhodes other statement about 'there is not a single clear quotation in the New Testament of any apocryphal book. This is completely unlike the Old Testament books, for these books are quoted consistently throughout the New Testament' is absolutely false. The following books, almost 1/3rd of the number of books of the Protestant Old Testament are nowhere quoted or even alluded to in the New Testament: Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Nahum. If Rhodes had that standard for these books, his canon would have 27 instead of 39 books. Of course he doesn't mention that.

Also note that even if there were a citation of an apocryphal book in the New Testament, that in itself does not prove the apocryphal book belongs in the canon of Scripture or that it is inspired by God....We must keep in mind that the Bible even alludes to pseudepigraphal books (pseudepigrapha means "false writings") such as the "Bodily Assumption of Moses" (see Jude 9). Even Roman Catholic reject that book as belonging in the canon. The Bible also quotes from pagan poets and philosophers (see Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12; 1 Corinthians 15:33), but that does not mean these writings are inspired or belong in the canon, Rhodes, p. 35.