[bronx2]

Even the secular humanistic agnostic historians agree with your article as being the standard history of biblical formation. Those who are deniers of the article are akin to "Holocaust deniers" who would revise history to suit their agendas.

If one were to read the Princeton historian Elaine Pagels book, The Gnostic Gospels, she excoriates the Church of forming the canon of scripture to ensure the domination of Catholic/Orthodox positions at the expense of the Gnostics.

Thus, your article reflects the standard non Catholic historical analysis accepted as fact by most objective historians and used by the secular types to attack Catholic/Orthodoxy.. The reformation types operate in a world of historical fiction but they can be amusing.

[Theo]

This article says that Luther “took the seven books that were contested and he called them apocryphal, which means false or spurious.”

And I’m like a “holocaust denier” because I point out that Jerome came up with the term “Apocrypha” in the 5th century?

This “history” is quantifiably false. It can’t even get the original of “Apocrypha” correct. Roman Catholics may affirm like this article, but they do so out of allegiance to Rome, not allegiance to the truth.