It is commonly said during apologetical disputes on the internet that the 1st century Jewish Council of Jamnia rejected the Greek Septuagint (and therefore the Apocrypha) because it supported Christian claims, and instead chose a strictly Hebrew canon. It is then implied or explicitly stated that usage of "the Hebrew canon" is therefore unChristian.
At first glance this can sound persuasive to a Christian, given the hostile state of Jewish and Christian polemics at the time, and that early Christians (such as St. Justin Martyr) accused the Jews of purposely changing the Scripture to cover up prophecies about Jesus Christ. However, such claims about Jamnia seem to reach a bit; and furthermore, the claims about the "the Hebrew canon" seems to contradict the tone of early Christian thought on the canon.
Regarding Jamnia, here is what Orthodox Theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos and Protestant Theologian Bruce Metzger have said:
"The second difference is that the early Christians adopted a larger number of Jerish writings than the official list complied by rabbinic teachers at Jamnia or later. These additional books were in circulation from pre-Christian times in the Greek language among Greek-speaking Jews who regarded them as valuable. These books express the diverse beliefs, practices, and hopes of many Jews during the time of the Greek and Roman dominance of the ancient world. However, because they carried neither sufficient antiquity nor authority in the Jewish tradition, they were left out of the Hebrew canon by rabbinic leaders who intended to unite and consolidate Judaism after the desastrous wars with Rome during the first and second centuries." - Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective; Volume 1: Scripture, Tradition, Hermeneutic, (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2002), p. 22
"At the close of the first Christian century ['the writings,' ie. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles] had come to be so highly regarded among the Jewish people in general that the Jewish Assembly or Council of jamnia (A.D. 90) made an official pronouncement of canonicity, recognizing all of the books now in each part of the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible. Though the right of several books... to remain in the canon was discussed by Rabbinical scholars at this time (and even later), such debates are thought to have been largely academic. The Hebrew canon had been determined by long and approved usage of the books, and the Assembly of Jamnia merely ratified what the most spiritually sensitive souls in Judaism had been accustomed to regard as holy Scripture." - Bruce M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, (Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 8
Coming from different perspectives, these two theologians see the Council of Jamnia slightly differently. What they agree on, however, was that the Council had a positive, rather than negative tone: the Jews were trying to "unite and consolidate," as Mr. Stylianopoulos put it, having been scattered and banned from entering Jerusalem about two decades beforehand (when the Temple and Jerusalem itself was almost completely destroyed, and was thereafter only a small gentile town for centuries). Noted Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce's view on the matter closely resembles that of Bruce Metzger:
"Some of the discussions which went on at Jamnia were handed down by oral transmission and ultimately recorded in the Rabinnical writings. Among their debates they considered whether canonical recognition should be accorded to the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and Esther. Objections had been raised against these books on various grounds... We should not exaggerate the importance of the Jamnia debates for the history of the canon. The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were generally accepted, although questions were raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia,' as J.S. Wright puts it, 'was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" - F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), pp. 97-98
Whatever might have happened at Jamnia, the Church Fathers did not seem to take such a disliking of the "Hebrew canon" as some modern people. In fact, it was commonly stated in the early Church that, because there were twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet, there were twenty-two Old Testament books. This idea makes no sense if the Church Fathers rejected the Hebrew canon as totally worthless. Yet, Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory the Theologian, Rufinus of Aquileia, Epiphanius of Salamis, Bl. Jerome, and St. John of Damascus, all reject some or all the apocryphal books, and all of these writers mention the Hebrew canon to some extent when they are giving their own canon.
This is not to say that these Fathers routinely used the translations passed down by Rabbinical Judaism: certainly there is no argument that the Church Fathers, for the most part, used the Greek Septuagint. However, it does not follow from this that they therefore rejected the (supposedly) "truncated" Hebrew canon. In a word, it is simply incorrect to say that everyone accepted every book in the Greek Septuagint as canonical until the Protestant Reformation switched back to the Hebrew canon. And, this does bring up an interesting question about what exactly it meant to the early Church Fathers that something was "canonical" or "scriptural".