Wikipedia sez:
“According to a document appended to some manuscripts of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum or “Gelasian Decretal” and given separately in others, at this council the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal, sometimes referred to as the damasine list. The document was first connected to this council of Rome in 1794, when Fr. Faustino Arevalo (1747–1824), the editor of Coelius Sedulius, expressed his theory that the first three of the five chapters of the Decretum were really the decrees of a Roman council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382.
Arevalo’s conclusions were widely accepted until the early 20th century, but further studies led by Ernst von Dobschütz showed this decretal to be a forgery, probably from a scholar of the 6th century.[1]”
So, you’re now using a known forgery to continue to falsely accuse Luther? If I were you, I’d stop digging this hole already.
I am not accusing Luther of anything. I am only providing the background to the Canon.
However, you should reconsider establishing any firm theological or historical position based only on the Wikipedia or Ernst von Dobschütz.
In 1912 Dobschütz gave his historical rationale for doubting that Damasus made a decree on the canon at Rome in 382 by pointing out that in the Gelasian decree is a quotation from St. Augustine dating from 416. He therefore declares that no other part of the decree could have originally been from Damasus in 382 concludes that the entirety of Damasus' decree has "no historical value." We see, of course, that this is specious reasoning.
In reality Pope Damasus declared a canonical list in 382, and Gelasius in the 5th/6th century added to that a quote from Augustine when he added a list of prohibited books. That would not invalidate Damasus' original declaration.
What you are not addressing is that St. Jerome produced his Vulgate in 405, matching the Canon declared in Rome the same Canon was affirmed in the at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
Peace be with you.
I would suggest not using wikipedia as a source.