Oh, you caught me... In repeating the same argument so many times, my memory glossed over a distinction: The quote from Jerome refers not to the whole of the deuterocanonical books, but merely to the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel.
But it’s a distinction without a difference: Those portions of Daniel are the ones Protestants and Jews malign as “apocryphal,” and which Catholics call “deuterocanonical.” So the Protestant position that Jerome sides with them is sunk. Further, Jerome’s explanation, in full context, extends to the complete list of deuterocanonicals, even if Rufinus only attacked Jerome on the case of Daniel.
But why would Rufinus attack on Daniel, rather than the whole of the Deuterocanonicals? Does that suggest that Rufinus only objected over Daniel, allowing us to discern through Rufinus that at least some early Christians didn’t accept the Deuterocanonicals? Hardly. It means Rufinus thought that his attack over Daniel was stronger, since Daniel was regarded as a prophet; the other dueterocanonicals were regarded as Khetuvim. (Here, however, Rufinus had fallen into a trap, since the Jews regarded Daniel as Khetuvim, like Job, even though he was a prophet.)
But it’s a distinction without a difference: Those portions of Daniel are the ones Protestants and Jews malign as “apocryphal,” and which Catholics call “deuterocanonical.” So the Protestant position that Jerome sides with them is sunk. Further, Jerome’s explanation, in full context, extends to the complete list of deuterocanonicals, even if Rufinus only attacked Jerome on the case of Daniel.
But why would Rufinus attack on Daniel, rather than the whole of the Deuterocanonicals? Does that suggest that Rufinus only objected over Daniel, allowing us to discern through Rufinus that at least some early Christians didn’t accept the Deuterocanonicals? Hardly. It means Rufinus thought that his attack over Daniel was stronger, since Daniel was regarded as a prophet; the other dueterocanonicals were regarded as Khetuvim. (Here, however, Rufinus had fallen into a trap, since the Jews regarded Daniel as Khetuvim, like Job, even though he was a prophet.)
FYI:
Rufinus of Aquileia (340-410) was a friend of Jerome, and, like Jerome, he departed from Italy to live in the East. For many years he lived in monasteries in Egypt and in Palestine, acquiring the learning of the Eastern churches. Towards the end of his life he returned to Italy and occupied himself in translating works of the earlier Greek Fathers into Latin. His Exposition of the Creed was an original work, but it shows the influence of the Greek church (and of Jerome) in several places. In his discussion of the canon, reproduced below, he follows the Greek Fathers and Jerome in excluding the Apocrypha from the canon of Scripture.
36. [I say] then it was the Holy Spirit who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, and in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. For which reason the apostle also says, “All scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction.” And therefore it seems proper in this place to specify by a distinct enumeration, from the records of the fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, in accordance with the tradition of our ancestors, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the churches of Christ.
37. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, 2 which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, 3 which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, 4 which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
Of the New Testament there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, which was written by Luke; fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the apostle Peter, one of James, the brother of the Lord and an apostle, one of Jude, three of John, and the Revelation of John.
These are the books which the fathers have included in the canon; on which they would have us establish the declarations of our faith.
38. But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees. With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter. 7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine.
The other writings they named "apocrypha," 8 which they would not have read in the churches. These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking.