The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach was written in the early part of the 2nd century B.C.E....this puts it out of time with Josephus 1st century CE statement about the Jewish canon being closed in the 5th century.
Nonetheless, whatever Josephus says, the early Talmud authors included it as "Scripture".
'Against Apion, I, 41-43 (8).: “From Artaxerxes (4th/5th century BCE) to our own time (1st century CE) the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them.”
Looks like Josephus was unaware of the dispute over Ecclesiastes to begin with, one must wonder if he was being entirely truthful here or if he was going by a traditional Sadducee idea.
Esdras is the greek name for the book of Ezra.
No, 1 Esdras is one of the Apocryphal works. It is like Ezra, but contains extra stuff. (2 Esdras is much different, one of my favorite books). But Josephus still makes use of it. Thus, the material in 1 Esdras may have been the original Ezra, if Josephus is any indication.
It is an inspired scripture. Originally it was combined with Nehemiah to form one scroll as it is in the Babylonian Talmud, but since the 16th century, Hebrew Bibles separated them into two books.
I think its only the Douay Version where its called Esdras 1 & 2 and these books correspond with the books of Ezra and Nehemiah
No, 1 Esdras is a totally different "version" and has DSS evidence to back it.
Was 1 Esdras First?: An Investigation Into the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras - Lisbeth S. Fried - Google Books
The exact number of books in the Hebrew Scriptures is not important because some books were originally together as one scroll...
He still says there are FOUR books of Psalms and Proverbs-type writings. At best I can think of 3. Where's the 4th? And what else besides Nehemiah-Ezra has been said to be bound together as one book?
The only important detail is exactly what books were included. there have always been efforts to include other writings by various individuals, but there was always resistence to do so. In fact this led to the two Jewish councils held at Yavne or Jamnia, in 90 CE and 118 CE. Both times the jews expressly excluded all Apocryphal writings from the canon.
There is no proof whatsoever for a Council of Yavne/Jamnia, none. It is purely Jewish legend as far as evidence is concerned. And by the fact that the Talmud calls Sirach scripture, looks like such a council didn't happen til centuries later.
i think there most likely was an accepted cannon...the jewish priests not only copied the sacred writings but they also protected them with their lives
.
Their version of it. The Dead Sea Scrolls authors may have said differently. The Pharisees may have said differently even.
they were not wishy washy when it came to sacred writings and they did not accept the writings of even the prophets until the prophecies came true...so all the writings they accepted had the evidence of being truly inspired and that is why they classed them as sacred writings.
Considering the argument over Ecclesiastes earlier, there's no telling what was considered Inspired by all parties. It seems the Sadducees may have had good reason for their own canon.
among the dead sea scrolls were numerous non-Biblical religious writings such as the Mishnah, which was a listing of the Jewish traditions.
Nonetheless, they kept the Apocryphal writings in addition to their own private collections of writings that were obviously for their own use, one way or another, it proves that at least some groups felt them to be worthy of keeping.
These are a collection of various writings by various people... not necessarily prophets but everyday priests or leaders who made their own records of every day life.
But you can't really compare the Apocryphal books to such records.
firstly, it was not written while the apostles were alive.
Which apostles? Matthew was not likely written by Matthew but is a later editing and redaction of ideas from the "Gospel to the Hebrews". Was Luke an apostle? The Pastoral Epistles were most likely written after Paul was dead. This logic is not consistent. There's no reason to believe that the Shepherd was not Inspired just because it was written after the original Apostles were dead.
The Muratorian Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book,
A non-Roman-approved Biblical book you mean? Why should the Gospel of Peter be considered non-biblical? A bit circular, no?
the Shepherd, and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ Shepherd between 140 and 155 C.E.
Scholars also date the Pastorals to around that time. What now? Why would it be uninspired even if its by that late of dating? Don't you believe what Paul said about there being prophets?
Now for a scripture to be considered inspired of God, it must come from Gods appointed servants.
Who are you to say who was and wasn't G-d's appointed servants? The Roman Church?
The apostles of the first century were the ones Jesus chose to establish the christian faith and they were given powerful works to prove they had Gods authorization upon them.
Why would such inspiratiion stop with them? Why couldn't future apostles and prophets write works such as this? The Ethiopian Bible considers Clement's writings as Inspired. Why are they wrong?
Only writings that were written by them, or authorized by them can be considered part of the Christian cannon. That is the key.
Says you? Why can't later apostles have authorized writings? Why do you accept that Hebrews is Inspired?
everyone had the original teachings
.
Who is "everyone"?
The writings of the gospels accounts and the writings of the apostles and Paul served to lay the basis for true doctrine.
Why would Paul's writings have true doctrine but Clement's and Justin's wouldn't?
but it was those who broke away and began to write their own 'christian' doctrines that left the true doctrine. this is why apochryphal writings are kept separate...they contradict the writings of the apostles.
Who are you to say who broke away and who was original? Why didn't Paul break away?
the Apocalypse of peter is a 2nd century writing...it cannot be canonical.
Says who? The same scholars that date the Pastoral Epistles to the 2nd century? Why would Clement consider it Inspired if it wasn't known about until his time?
If you look at its content, you'll find a 'fear factor' in there about hellfire and being tortured for disobedience and everlasting torments in a burning hell etc etc...
The same "Fear factor" is rife in Jesus' teachings in the Gospels you accept. Apparently it's only metaphorical there but literal here? Where do you draw the line in the difference?
i would say that clement used that book as a way to keep people in line.
Ah, why wouldn't Paul use his own epistles to keep people in line? Why wouldn't they use the GOspels that say things like "It's better to chop your hand off than have two hands in the fire" for the same effect? Why is it different when Jesus uses the same concept?
More honest priests rejected it as they rightly should have.
Please prove any "honest priests" that reject the concept of hellfire.
The maurtorian fragment even mentions that it would not be read in church
"We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church."
"Some of us." Likewise, many would not accept 2 Peter, but I doubt you have a problem with 2 Peter. Same with the Pastorals.
the 2nd century became rife with apostolic impersonators...there are heaps of writings claiming to be divinely authored but they prove themselves not to be, not only because of the time they were written, but because their content contradicts the apostles teachings.
I disagree, I think much content in the "Apocryphal" NT directly supplements what is told in the Gospels. But that's a good topic for itself as you say.
i think a new thread for this topic would be interesting. there is a lot of new testament apocryphal works out there and it is interesting to compare them to the canon to see where they differ
Indeed, I should get around to making a new thread. Or you can if you want, I'll chime in and we can get into the details.
How many? 
(Posted in wrong thread)