“To say that Jerome didn’t state clearly that the Apocrapha wasn’t part of the canon, is to either (1) be ignorant of a fact, or (2) to lie.”
I never said that he didn’t say this. I simply argued that we have evidence these books were used as seen in the Codex Vaticanus. The Codex Vaticanus includes all of these books, save Maccabees.
“That is where Sola Scriptura comes from.”
Which is why you are arguing with me about Jerome. Jerome has zero argument wrt NT canon. He also provides zero evidence that the Church did not have the authority to determine which books ought to be included in the NT Canon.
Fr’instance, Sinaiticus includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd. Books that didn’t make the cut.
Look back at your post. You stated that “all Jerome argued” was that their were no Hebrew translations of the Apocrapha.
That is unfactual. Wikipedia isn’t going to help you, you have to go deeper. We can agree that you can find church fathers on both sides of canonicity. So that may not be as helpful as many would claim: so we have to turn to facts.
Since the Jews were the custodians of the OT Scripture, don’t you think that no Hebrew translations are a MAJOR indicator they were not accepted?
Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are really topics for textual criticism, not for discussions on the canon. I go for the Textus Receptus anyway because they agree with the Masoretic Text; but its a texual criticism issue.
The early church rejected the apocrypha, as did the Hebrews.
Review all of the early church rejections: it doesn’t leave room for the Council of Trent in 1546 to recognize them because the canon was already closed.
If you researched how the aprocypha is at odds with Scripture, it would be an interesting study. Sola Scriptura is only possible via a normal plain interpretation.
Finally, Jesus himself authenticated the OT canon. That is the best argument.