Actually, since the discovery of the multiple Hebrew text variants (including Pre-Septuagint) found in the Dead Sea Scrolls invalidated Jerome's argument against the Deuterocanon, I have yet to see a valid reason against their inclusion stand up against inspection.
Reviewing yours:
> * They were never included as part of the Hebrew canon of books
There is no evidence that there was a closed Hebrew Canon prior to the time of Jesus.
The Hebrew scriptures were divided into three parts - The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. While it's true the Law and the Prophets had solidified by the time of Jesus, there is no evidence that the Writings were closed, and every reason to indicate that they weren't (see Rabbi Akiba and his comments regarding Sirach, Esther, and the Gospels around 100 AD).
> * There is no evidence that they were included in the original versions of the Septuagint
I'm not sure why you think that is relevant?
> * Historian Josephus made clear that those books were not part of the canon
> * Not one New Testament writer quoted from the Deuterocanon
Numerous Old Testament books, like Esther, that Protestants believe to be inspired are not quoted in the New Testament - does that make them not canonical?
Numerous non-canonical works, like the Book of Enoch, are quoted in the New Testament - does that make them canonical?
And anyway, it's interesting to know that the original KJV of 1611 (which included the Deuterocanon) included 11 cross-references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books, where it believe New Testament authors were quoting from or alluding to parts of the Deuteronincals. [https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6316/what-d...]
> * Early church fathers did not consider them part of the Bible canon
> * John Wycliffe, a catholic who included these books in his translation, still did not consider them of the same authority as the rest
"As Jerome saith" echoed down through history. Jerome, around 400 AD, mistakenly had some doubts, and those same doubts reverbated over the next thousand years. Both of Jerome's two core reasons for his doubts are now known to be wrong.
> * Even the council of Trent did not accept all the “apocryphal” books (e.g. 1 and 2 Esdras were excluded)
> * The content of the books testifies against themselves with their inaccuracies, contradictions, and other problems that are not found in the traditional Bible canon
Actually that's not the case - their "problems" are the same as those from the rest of the Protestant canon. See https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=651
> There is no evidence that there was a closed Hebrew Canon prior to the time of Jesus.
If that's the case, then any argument that predates Jesus in favour of the Deuterocanon would also be invalid.
> I'm not sure why you think that is relevant?
My argument against the Septuagint is relevant because it's often used as an example of why the Deuterocanonical books should be included in the Bible canon. The Septuagint is a direct translation of the Hebrew books (i.e. what would eventually become the Hebrew canon). If the Hebrew canon (even if it was just a loose canon at that time) never included the Deuterocanonical books, then there is no reason to assume the Septuagint would suddenly include them in its first copies.
> Numerous Old Testament books, like Esther, that Protestants believe to be inspired are not quoted in the New Testament - does that make them not canonical?
No, of course not. I provided a body of evidence against the Deuterocanon. This is just one part of that argument. The argument is strengthened by all the points, not just one of them.
> Numerous non-canonical works, like the Book of Enoch, are quoted in the New Testament - does that make them canonical?
No. Again, same as above. The point alone isn't extremely meaningful until you consider all the evidence.
> And anyway, it's interesting to know that the original KJV of 1611 (which included the Deuterocanon) included 11 cross-references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books, where it believe New Testament authors were quoting from or alluding to parts of the Deuteronincals.
I think the key word there is "believe". Unless a writer says something along the lines of 'the prophet says...' then the argument is weak at best.
> This is inaccurate, look at the historical record:
Well, according to Wikipedia: "Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon, whereas Augustine and others preferred the wider (Greek) canon."
So it's certainly debatable, but there's much evidence to support what I said, as far as I can see.
> Actually that's not the case - their "problems" are the same as those from the rest of the Protestant canon.
Examples: Tobit claims to have seen events in his lifetime that cover more than 250 years, but Tobit 14:1-3 says he died at 102 years of age. Judith contains geographical oddities that can't be resolved except with miraculous assumptions. Ecclesiasticus 25:33 blames Eve for human sin instead of Adam, which contradicts Apostle Paul's writings. Baruch says the Jewish exile would last '7 generations', contradicting the Bible canon which says it would be 70 years. That's just a small sampling.
Reviewing yours:
> * They were never included as part of the Hebrew canon of books
There is no evidence that there was a closed Hebrew Canon prior to the time of Jesus.
The Hebrew scriptures were divided into three parts - The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. While it's true the Law and the Prophets had solidified by the time of Jesus, there is no evidence that the Writings were closed, and every reason to indicate that they weren't (see Rabbi Akiba and his comments regarding Sirach, Esther, and the Gospels around 100 AD).
> * There is no evidence that they were included in the original versions of the Septuagint
I'm not sure why you think that is relevant?
> * Historian Josephus made clear that those books were not part of the canon
https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=2678
> * Not one New Testament writer quoted from the Deuterocanon
Numerous Old Testament books, like Esther, that Protestants believe to be inspired are not quoted in the New Testament - does that make them not canonical?
Numerous non-canonical works, like the Book of Enoch, are quoted in the New Testament - does that make them canonical?
And anyway, it's interesting to know that the original KJV of 1611 (which included the Deuterocanon) included 11 cross-references in the New Testament to Deuterocanonical books, where it believe New Testament authors were quoting from or alluding to parts of the Deuteronincals. [https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6316/what-d...]
> * Early church fathers did not consider them part of the Bible canon
This is inaccurate, look at the historical record: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80280/which...
> * John Wycliffe, a catholic who included these books in his translation, still did not consider them of the same authority as the rest
"As Jerome saith" echoed down through history. Jerome, around 400 AD, mistakenly had some doubts, and those same doubts reverbated over the next thousand years. Both of Jerome's two core reasons for his doubts are now known to be wrong.
> * Even the council of Trent did not accept all the “apocryphal” books (e.g. 1 and 2 Esdras were excluded)
Not exactly. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/06/1-esdras...
> * The content of the books testifies against themselves with their inaccuracies, contradictions, and other problems that are not found in the traditional Bible canon
Actually that's not the case - their "problems" are the same as those from the rest of the Protestant canon. See https://youtu.be/tRmlW954PwI?t=651