I have sent you a long letter detailing the research that I have come up with. You will find the evidence is clear that:
1. With the exception of Jerome, NO ONE mentions that the Deuts are not Scripture or inspired.
2. As time moves on, more and more of the Deuts are explicitly mentioned as being Scripture.
3. Those Fathers who leave off some of the Deuts, such as Athanasius and Cyril of Jersualem, explicitly then go on to name a few of these as Scripture. This indicates that the definition of canon is NOT the same as inspired Scripture, as we hold today.
4. Based on the evidence, there is no evidence to assert, as you so boldly did, that the Church were either liars, or were poorly informed. These statements were made before the research was done.
"...your continued insistance on telling me what my point of view is..."
You have made this charge to me before, but it doesn't stick. Why? It is not necessary to explicitly make a statement to determine what you actually believe. When one holds inconsistent or contradictory positions, as I have pointed out repeatedly, one can assuredly draw the conclusions that I have made.
I have asked on various occasions for clarification on such contradictions, but you refuse to answer. Ignoring these implications only has lead me to believe the obvious that I see in your writings. It is unfortunate that our discussion ended as it did. I think it is because you saw the writing on the wall and do not want to admit the obvious - your strict requirements of what is an OT Deut to you will fail when applied to the NT Deut! You continue to ignore this, even now! I have already done the studying, and you will find that there was not universal acceptance for the NT Deuts. So again, for the umpteenth time, what is your basis, besides philosophy, for this inconsistent behavior? You keep telling me that "I'm drawing conclusions not mentioned", etc., but really, am I? Do the research. You have had the time. What have you come up with?
"I can only assume you intentionally make statements like you've opened your last post with to provoke a reaction. I don't have the time, nor the desire engage you in that type of discussion"
I have no intentions on provoking a reaction. Why would I want to sit and write for 2-3 hours with someone I already have disengaged conversation with earlier? Send me an e-mail once you discover what I have been telling you from the beginning - the Church calls particular books "Deuterocanonical" (OT or NT) for a reason. You will not discover anything different regarding the OT vs the NT. Your charge against the Church of 380-400 is totally false and by not adding the 7 books to your Bible, you are inconsistent regarding the NT Deuterocanonicals, books determined as Scripture at the SAME COUNCILS!
Rather than charging me with "presuming to know what you believe" and so on, prove your consistency. At least Luther wanted to remove the NT Deuts as well. Which will you do?
Regards
Your very first statement concerning Jerome being the sole exception is in error. That you cannot accept Athanasius' very clear statement on what is and isn't Scripture is a clear enough example of why I felt our previous discussion was doomed to an endless tailchase. You are very devoted to your beliefs, but as I pointed out previously, not even the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with your position. So forgive me if I continue to question the rest of your assumptions and decide to examine the facts for myself. And as I stated previously, once I have done that, I will be happy to share with you what I have concluded.
In case anyone is interested in what the Church Fathers thought about the OT Deuterocanonicals, here is my research where they mention explicitly alongside other Protocanonical Scripture, thus, considering the former the inspired Word of God.
OT Deuterocanonicals explicitly accepted as Scripture
Epistle of Barnabas Wisdom
Clement of Rome Wisdom
Didache Sirach
Polycarp Tobit
Melito of Sardes gives a list including Daniel and Wisdom, possibly Baruch
Irenaeus Daniel (*see below) and Baruch
Tertullian Wisdom, Daniel, and Baruch
Muratorian Fragment gives a list including Wisdom in the NT
Clement of Alexandria Sirach, Baruch, Tobit and Wisdom
Hippolytus (** see below)Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch and Daniel
Origen Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Cyprian Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Dionysius the Great Wisdom, Sirach
Lactanius Sirach
Alexander of Alexandria Sirach
Aphraates the Persian Sage Maccabees and Sirach
Cyril of Jerusalem includes a “canon” list with 2nd Esdras Daniel and Baruch. He later calls Wisdom Scripture, indicating that canon does not equal Scripture, as we define it. Canon means those books to be proclaimed at Mass.
Athanasius Baruch, Daniel, Sirach and Tobit he calls Scripture explicitly. He also lists Wisdom, Judith, Tobit as among those to be read for new converts. Note Tobit is on both lists, so he, like Cyril, does not equate canon with Scripture as we do today. The second list are not to be proclaimed during the Liturgy.
Basil Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Sirach
Hilary of Poitiers Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom. He also lists Tobit and Judith in his list of Scripture.
Gregory of Nazianzen Daniel, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith
Gregory of Nyssa Wisdom, Daniel
Ambrose Wisdom, Judith, Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, Tobit and Sirach
Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382). All Deuterocanonicals of Roman Catholic Church included.
John Chrysostom Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Daniel
Jerome lists 1st Maccabees and later Sirach (called “Parables” in Hebrew form) as Scripture and discounts the other Deuterocanonicals SOLELY on the grounds that there are no Hebrew versions of them (this is why he includes 1st Maccabees and later Sirach). He also equates Baruch with Scripture right along with Ezekiel.
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).
* (all references to Daniel refer to the longer Septuagint, not Hebrew version.)
** (all references to Maccabees refers to in most cases either 1st or 2nd Maccabees, although a couple explicitly considered both)
I stop at 400 AD. The above shows that there was a developing idea of these books and whether they were inspired works of God. As time continues, we see more of the Deuterocanonicals were declared as inspired Scripture, right alongside other Protocanonicals. A Father’s failure to mention a book as Scripture is not evidence of his exclusion. Also, there is NO evidence to suggest, besides Jerome, that ANY Father thought that the Deuterocanonicals were NOT inspired or Scripture. I have not found one instance of this negative being mentioned explicitly (besides Jerome, whose basis is whether something is in Hebrew. considering he was writing in Judea surrounded by Jewish influence, is this surprising?). With the evidence, it becomes clear that we can safely conclude that the Catholic Church correctly decided to incorporate the Deuterocanonicals into the Bible and declare all books thus as Scripture and inspired by God. We have no reason to believe that they were poorly informed or purposely mislead the future Church on the subject of what was Scripture.
It becomes apparent that continuing to hold to this idea shows a philosophy without justification.
Regards