*... but, how about this excerpt via the author of the article tho? admittedly, there does seem to be an overall anti-apocryphal flavor to his article, no doubt about that. (...oh yeah, no offense taken unworthy. like i said, as far as my opinion goes, the cononical jury is still out. i read and use them in my own bible studies. i have found them quite useful at times...)
7. ARGUMENTS FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE APOCRYPHA
The following arguments are most generally advanced for granting the Apocrypha canonical authority:
a. The New Testament alludes to Apocryphal events.
Hebrews 11:35 is thought to refer to II Maccabees & and 12. (In actual fact, it is referring to I Kings 17:22 and II Kings 4:35.
Jude 14 cites the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch. Does it? It cites Enoch, whose words the Holy Ghost knew.
II Timothy 3:8 is also supposed to refer to some Apocryphal literature. Again, the Holy Spirit can reveal the names of the Egyptian magicians when He chooses.
b. Early Manuscripts include the Apocrypha.
More will be said about this later...
c. Early Christian art includes Apocryphal scenes.
d. Early Church Fathers cited them and listed them as Canonical.
PS... the KJV of the bible contained them until the American and British bible societies responsible for the publishing and distribution of the scriptures decided to exclude them, somewhere around the mid 1880's or so, if i'm not mistaken... i have a 1611 reprinted edition of the KJV, and it does, in fact, contain them...
*... cheers! rev. tetra