I think one point of misunderstanding (misunderstood by some Catholics, too, as well as by some others) arises when people don't distinguish between "Traditional" and "Defined Dogmatic". Much of the certain Tradition of the Church is not formulated as a dogmatic definiton until some challenge or crisis requires precise argument and formal restatement.
A formal, painstaking recapitulation of what the Church holds, does not mean the Church has just invented or imposed it on the spot. It means that the ancient truths have been (again) iterated in a clear pronouncement.
Examples abound. For instance, the Church always had an Incarnational and Trinitarian understanding of Christ; but one wouldn't find those exact, precise words used much before the early Ecumenical Councils. This doesn't indicate that the Church "didn't believe" in the Incarnation or the Trinity before the 4th century; it just indiates that the explanations became sharper and clearer: often in response to the goad of controversy.
This issue arises when we speak of the canon of Scripture. Some claim that the Church did not authoritatively define the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent and, since that Council was a reaction to the Reformation, the deuterocanon can be considered an “addition” to the original Christian canon. This is not correct.
Regional councils of the early Church had enumerated the books of the Bible time and again prior to the Reformation, always upholding the current Catholic canon. Examples include the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418). All of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon.
If you can find one Christian Council that lists only a short, 39-book O.T. Canon in the 4th or 5th centuries, I would be interested in hearing of it. It would be news to me.
Yes, it could be argued that the "short list" comes to us from a council --- but not a Christian one! It comes from the ca. 100 AD Jewish scholars of Jamnia (Yavne), who were reacting against the successful Christian use of the Septuagint in gaining Jewish converts to the Gospel of Christ.
So either way (39-book or 46-book) you have to depend on a council: but why a Christian would want to revert to the authority of an anti-Christian rabbinical council, puzzles me.
To be sure, there was plenty of discussion and some dissent on such things, even among churchmen. But the Christian Councils were unanimous. Even a thousand years later, while seeking reunion with the Copts, the Church affirmed the same canon at the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
True, it was when the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, that the Council of Trent "dogmatically defined" the full, 46 book O.T. Canon. But it was same Canon that the Church had traditionally and consistently taught for more than 1,000 years.
It is disputed that this Jamnia council ever took place.
Those scholars who delve into such things, cannot precisely and irrefutably agree exactly when and where the Hebrew "canon" was closed, even as the idea of "canon", though not a word of their making, can be shown to be a principle of their own making.
What can otherwise be found, is of course the historian/explainer Josephus, pointing to those number which later are known to us as what is contained in the present Hebrew canon, with quite early on Melito agreeing, followed by Jerome, whom confirmed Melito.
What comes earliest, should be given great consideration.
We see too, that the apocrypha doesn't quite fit. It is neither "Law", the history related to the giving of the Law, including the consequences for both obeying or disobeying, nor is it Psalms, nor books of the minor prophets.
What is of no slight consideration, is just what the Sanhedrin held as being canonical, at the very moment when Jesus stood in the flesh before them.
Nothing else counts. Who else but the Pharisees in Jerusalem were the "foremost"? Would Christ have come and showed himself to any lessor? That was the Jewish religious "Supreme Court". There was no higher authoritative body on earth at the time, in matters regarding the religion of the Jews.
Pointing to the Septuagint as "end of story" is quite problematic, for a host of reasons. First, could be "which version"? Then one would need to irrefutably show that the foremost Jewish authorities, those in Jerusalem, accepted that translation and collection as being canonical. Such has not been accomplished.
Since it is in dispute that this precise Jamnia council even took place (though something of the sort quite possibly did) by what authority can it be claimed that they
hence by implication, that was the motive behind their removal of what should have been known to them as "Scripture" from that work?
If not arguing "perfidious Jews" perfidious even to their own collection of Covenant with G-d, guided by G-d;
Here one must argue "stupid Jews" coming from what is now Israel, stupid since they didn't know what their own Holy Writ contained, and what it did not.
But on the other hand, "smart, well informed Jews" living for enough generations back in Egypt to have all but entirely lost their ability to understand Hebrew, as the ones who were "smart".
Just the symbolism alone of such an idea is problematic, and that before delving into whether or not those Jews whom were actually adequately informed among the Egyptian Jewry, themselves accepted the work without reservation. I do seem to recall there being found in the historic record, some quibbling regarding this very thing, there in Egypt at that time, but have lost the thread, mentioning it here as something for other readers and searchers to be on the lookout for.
Is there something "the Jews" would see magical in the apocrypha, that does the trick, turning people into Christians? Were those books in and of themselves the key to it all? Would "the Jews" be motivated to meddle with their own Holy Writ, just to meddle with and/or "get back at" early Christians in some way?
What a preposterous proposition, but one found hidden in the mention of "Jamnia" and vague allusion to nefarious motives attributed to those dad-gum, perfidious Jews of Israel who "edited out" what is still here now in dispute... and what was long termed 'apocrypha', even by early Catholic scholars.
By What logic would Jewish scholars of that time, those whom actually knew the Hebrew, and were well apprised of tradition, knowing what was considered to be properly seen as Scripture, and what was not --- throw out portions of what was Holy to themselves?
Along those lines, why would later Hebrew language scholars do the same?. Answer that please, but show it from tracing through the most ancient Hebrew sources available, while also explaining why Josephus got it wrong (but certain details of Christ correct!) along with why Melito and later Jerome, should not be seen as authoritative and best informed, coming as they did before the later councils (which you seem to favor).
Why would they do such a precise thing, rejecting certain late-in-the-making written works, (and other works considered by them to be spurious?). Would they do so just to frustrate those irritating Christians? To confuse Jewish converts to Christianity, even at the cost of confusing wider Jewry, by removing the "rabbinical period" and other writings, which otherwise should well enough have been considered by themselves to be sacred, set apart from all else?.
If we are to make assumption concerning the issue, it is much more logical to assume (if Jamnia occurred) they were making clear statement to the Jews in Egypt and elsewhere, to not use the Septuagint unreservedly, for it was contaminated to a degree, in and of itself. The spread of Christianity undoubtedly highlighted the use of that work, possibly contributing to a sense of urgency in their own work aimed at correcting the Septuagint. (not only are they converting to that cult of Christ, but they are perverting our own Scriptures while they are at it!).
It is no wonder then, that there would have been those Jewish scholars, from those whom were left alive after the destruction of the Temple and their Institutes of Learning, whom would desire strongly to set the record straight. Their point of view at that juncture of history, as to what Holy Writ was, and was not, is not to be taken lightly.
Jews truly "in the know" one can surmise, would desire very much to reestablish proper canon, for reasons contained within Judaism, itself.
To argue that the Hebrew canon (what can be properly considered to be what we know of today as the Old Testament) should unreservedly be some version of the Septuagint, is an argument one should take up with Jewish scholars.
Good luck with that.
I think the point is that the Apocrypha was long considered unacceptable for matters of doctrine. And even the Council of Trent didn’t care to open that can of worms. While it affirmed some of the Apocrypha as being ‘canon’, it didn’t tackle if the Apocrypha had authority “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”.
The Council of Trent also screwed up its list of books, dropping 3 small parts that had long been considered canon - since they were part of the Apocrypha. That is why the term “deuterocanonical” was coined - to describe what was left of the Apocrypha after the Council of Trent dropped part of it out.