>> It says the church does not read them as canonical <<
As Jerome himself indicated, he did not mean that they were not part of the Catholic Holy Scriptures, but rather that they were not part of the canon of the Jews.
>> and the church themselves does not put them forward as a confirmation of the faith <<
He did not state that they do not contain necessary doctrine, but rather that they do not provide proof, in themselves, the Christian faith to the Jews, simply because the Jews do not recognize them as the Word of God.
>> My quotes are from the Symbol and the preface for Kings. What would something in the preface of Judith matter? <<
Nothing, if they were written by two different people capable of holding two different opinions. But since they were written by the same person as part of the same work, any interpretation must reconcile both portions.
As for the preface to the Book of Kings, Jerome quite plainly, in this instance, is describing the contents of the JEWISH canon, and even emphasizing that the various groups of Jews don’t even agree.
>> As for Baruch, many church fathers quote all sorts of works. It does not change that he called them noncanonical. <<
Jerome doesn’t just QUOTE the deuterocanonicals; he QUOTES them AND CALLS THEM HOLY SCRIPTURE. It does not change that he calls them non-canonical, since the canon he refers to is THAT OF THE JEWS.
“As Jerome himself indicated, he did not mean that they were not part of the Catholic Holy Scriptures, but rather that they were not part of the canon of the Jews.”
Except that the quotes you keep bringing are on a topic totally separated from the ones I supplied. They are from the Symbol and the preface to Kings. Not Daniel or Judith. And from the two sources of mine, there is no mention of Jews, or anything else. And the quotes themselves immediately say “the church does not” such and such. Not Jews.
You keep making this point, over and over again, but it seems to me you are talking to someone else.
“He did not state that they do not contain necessary doctrine,”
He says they are not canonical. And if not canonical, they do not contain necessary doctrine. For how does one get doctrine from a book, for example, that teaches magic?
Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”
Or that one can be forgiven of sins by giving alms?
Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”
The scripture is clear, it is the blood of Christ which purges away all sin.
Or what doctrine can Judith hold, when it falsely claims that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians?
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Or what of Baruch, which incorrectly states that the Babylonian exile was for seven generations, and not 70 years as is correct?
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”
For good cause, therefore, does Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril of Jerusalem reject many, if not all, of these books as canon.
“any interpretation must reconcile both portions.”
No random interpretation can reconcile the clear words “The Church” and “not canon” in two separate quotes, speaking of the Church’s view, and not the Jewish view. Albeit, the Jewish view is worthwhile too, since the oracles of God were originally given to them, and for good reason they rejected these books. They were all written during the period wherein no Prophets had risen up. There was no one inspired who could have written them at all. And for that reason you have so much funky dogma and false teaching and historical facts.
You’re convoluting reality is quite tiresome.
” QUOTES them AND CALLS THEM HOLY SCRIPTURE.”
Jerome did not call Baruch scripture. He quoted from it, but he did not say “The Prophet Baruch, who doesn’t know that the Jews only spent 70 years in Babylon, and not 7 generations, said such and such.” It was simply a quote from Baruch, which Jerome never denied was useful for edification, but not part of the scripture.