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.
Jerome, despite his misgivings about the source material and lacking hebrew originals, still chose to include the books in the Canon. Thus, he’s not the evidence you are looking for to justify excluding books from the Canon.
That being said, I’m not even sure in the case of Macabbees that there is a hebrew original. It is the latest of the books, and written at a time when Greek was predominent. Jerome, only writing 400 years later doesn’t even know the answer to this question, and he’s much closer to the source material than we are.
“We can agree that you can find church fathers on both sides of canonicity.”
WRT to the NT. yes. On the OT, they all pretty much say the same thing. They use the Septuagint. We see it in Sinaiticus. We see it in Vaticanus. Even Jerome who is your strongest source (which is why you are using him), includes them. The first person to exclude them from the Canon, is none other than Luther.
“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?”
Given that the Jews wrote and published the Septuagint, I don’t see it as a compelling argument that they considered these books to be out of the canon. I don’t see them arguing back in 30BC that these books ought to be excluded.
“Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are really topics for textual criticism, not for discussions on the canon.”
They are concrete evidence that the early Church did in fact use these books, and include them.
“I go for the Textus Receptus anyway because they agree with the Masoretic Text; but its a texual criticism issue.”
The reason you don’t like Vaticanus or Sinaiticus is that they are evidence in opposition to the Masoretic text. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older than the Masoretic text.
“The early church rejected the apocrypha, as did the Hebrews.”
Which is why the Jews wrote the Septuagint?
“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.”
Sola scriptura + a canon without some books are contradictory. Either accept all the books or deny Sola Scriptura. The argument seems to be ‘books which I don’t like ought to be tossed out’, which is hardly an argument for Sola Scriptura.
“Finally, Jesus himself authenticated the OT canon. That is the best argument.”
Which is why he left us a list of books...