You wrote ""Thus, while the Catholic could have reasonable assurance of what the Biblical canon consisted of prior to Trent" is a complete admission against self interest. From Carthage to Trent there was acceptance of the canon as promulgated in Carthage/Hippo as evidenced by its 1100 years of acceptance . So much for your reliance on some official definitive list which in light of the canon's historical constancy from Hippo/Carthage until today renders your contentions irrelevant.r
Mentioning the existence of scholarly debate concerning the canon proves nothing as no changes were effected by either the Church or the Orthodox. Ever wonder why this is so?. Mention of Jerome's doubts is laughable as he included these works. So much for doubt
The canon debates were not major factors from Carthage to the reformation as attested to by secular historians who mention many contentious areas but pay scant attention to the almost non existent canon debates.Your self serving sites do not refute constancy of the canon.No empirical evidence of any change to the canon condemns your rant to the dustbins of history. Concentrate on the "de facto not the de jure" .
Trent served only to perfunctorily act on what had been decided in Hippo/ Carthage and served as its seal of approval. The fact that both the Church and Orthodox accept the work of Hippo/ Carthage renders your infallible fetish moot. Therein lies the problem in that you focus on the de jure not the de facto.
In your extensive report of the debates at Trent it is interesting to note you mention Hubert Jedin an accepted historian. However, you rely on Alpha Omega Ministries site and it hired gun James Swan to take Jedin's comment and color them. This renders this entire section of your rant somewhat intellectually dishonest as what Jedin states in his work and what is reported by Alpha has some variances. Suggest you read these historians youself and not rely on the editorial chicanery of evangelical types to flavor facts.
If debate over books to include in scripture was so important to protestants why then did they retain these "Questionable " works in their own bibles until the 19th cent when they were excised, not by theologians but by British publishers to save printing costs?.
Most of today's non catholic objective historians accept the decisions of Hippo and Carthage in establishing scripture and why not since Trent's activities were perfunctory. Scholars as Elaine Pagels of Princeton in her PHD dissertation "Gnostic Gospels" blame the Church for compiling scripture in Hippo/Carthage which she deems counter cultural. The focus is on content.
Read historians as A Toynbee, George Weigle Steven Runciman, Eamon Duffy, Martin Gilbert as they are recognized as the scholars who are most knowledgeable about church history. You need to stick with objective in depth historical analysis and comprehend complex processes which can not be easily explained in superficial sites which cater to those seeking cheap discounted historical knowledge.
Bronx2, to be blunt, you cannot have this certitude in Rome if something is still a matter of debate, which the canon was, without those that did dissent being disallowed at Trent or disciplined at all. This was because it yet lacked infallible definition, as substantiated, and which is what disallows any dissent, and your attempt to defend yourself is simply another attempt at sophisticated sophistry in lieu of a real argument, which in quality and quantity was presented to you.
If you disagree that Trent provided the first infallible definition and which precludes further dissent, then you can argue with those of your own who state this.
“If debate over books to include in scripture was so important to protestants why then did they retain these “Questionable “ works in their own bibles until the 19th cent when they were excised, not by theologians but by British publishers to save printing costs?.”
Great point.
I think the subject is quite interesting and however we view the canon selectivity process, I think we would all agree that, since God was the inspire-er, what we consider inspired Scripture should meet certain criteria. If God did inspire the books, then it's only logical that we can't argue he only inspired certain books but then allowed us to mix in books that were not inspired. The conflict we have to address then, since we all agree on the 66 books we have in the Bible, is to answer what about those "extra" books that are in dispute.
The church councils did NOT, as some assume, have the role of choosing what was Scripture and what was not of hundreds of choices, but they did nothing more than confirm what was already believed by the church at large. When Paul, for example, wrote his letters to various local churches they copied them and additional copies were sent to other churches throughout the empire and beyond. The same thing with the accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. They were considered "Scripture" because they came from the Apostles or their designated disciples. It was enough that the books were authorized by those who were taught directly by Jesus and the teachings they contained touched the hearts and lives of those who heard them. The Holy Spirit at work within those who had committed their lives to the faith, and the truth was confirmed in them. They also had the precedent of the established Old Testament canon as an example for gathering and establishing what writings would become universally recognized as Holy Scripture for the new church age.
I believe the fact that the Jews from the time before Christ did not include the extra - apocryphal - works as part of their canon is certainly a factor in determining their relevance as authoritative to us. The early church was not unfamiliar with these works and others like them, but as far as claiming they were authoritative, there were criteria that had to be met before they were accepted as Scripture. I believe a chief one must be that they do not contain error - because God would not contradict himself nor allow error to be taught by his Word.
I do not think you can locate any early church father who considered the apocryphal works as equal to the already established Jewish Scriptures and the fact that they did not choose to make them part of the New Testament, speaks that they did not consider them in the same light as the writings of the Apostles and those to whom they had given authority. Although some of these books were found with some of the Old Testament books in the Dead Sea area, they still were not considered as authoritative as from God. They may have been considered "useful" within the church, but not in the same light as infallible revelation from God.
From http://bible.org/article/how-many-books-are-bible we read:
The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.
What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.
These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.
Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon. "Christ referred specifically to the content of the Hebrew canon when he said:
Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:34-35)
In the Hebrew canon, the first book of the Bible was Genesis, where the death of Abel is recorded, and the last book was 2 Chronicles where near the end of the book the murder of Zechariah is described (24:21). In between these two events lay the entire content of the Old Testament. He assumed it ended with the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Apocrypha.
The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number."