You are still avoiding the issue that despite your opinion, RC scholars did not see the canon as settled, while you also must disagree that Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
“The LXX does reflect what Jews held as canonical” Which is why the oldest complete manuscripts we possess do have these books included.
As the context should tell you, the word "not" is missing in "The LXX simply does reflect what Jews held as canonical, being so varied, as Jerome understood, stating, in the 4th century stated (in his prologue to Ezra), “the variety of the texts of which shows them torn and perverted.” -http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra_e.htm; http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html
“Trent was the first infallible and indisputable list of the canon.” If you read Trent, Trent explicitly says that it is simply a confirmation of what already existed.
Of course it claimed that (and it also ascribed questionable authorship to books), and Rome also invokes unanimous consent of the so-called church fathers when it was not unanimous , yet it did confirm what existed, but which not the only understanding of the canon, prior lists not being by ecumenical councils. . That it was yet open to some debate is the issue, and Luther's dissent was by no means novel in scholarship.
“Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
“Jerome is far weightier an authority” And the Church far weightier still.
The latter is the issue, as you speak for yourself, while if the church had settled the canon as you suppose, then there would have been no debate among RC scholars even in Trent, regardless of your denial of it.
In addition to what has been said, In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia [the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible, which was sanctioned by Pope Leo X.]. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. —
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1877 The Zürich Bible (The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee".1529–30) they are placed in an Appendix. They include 3 Maccabees, along with 1 Esdras & 2 Esdras.
The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee." — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Other_early_Bible_editions
And then there is the confusing and contentious issue of non-canonical Second Esdras (two by that name) also known as 3rd (or Esdras A) or 4th Esdras (as in the Vulgate) , also called Apocalypse of Ezra.
“RC scholars did not see the canon as settled”
The issue of the canonicity of these books was settled by Pope Damasus and the publication of the Vulgate. Catejan confirms this to be the case.
“Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty”
Oh sure, they don’t have all the OT books. Neither do they have all the NT books either. What is significant is that they make no distinction between the two.
If, as you argue, there is a distinction made between these two sets of books, then we should see this distinction in the earliest manuscripts. We do not. Ergo, I can only conclude that there is no distinction made. At least not in the 3rd century.
Now, if your thesis were in fact correct, we would expect to see none of these books appear, and the precise list of Luther appear. We do not. Ergo, your assertion that the Catholic church added books to the canon is incorrect.
“Rome also invokes unanimous consent of the so-called church fathers when it was not unanimous”
Ohoho, you just stated that RC scholars said the issue was not settled. Now you are saying that, according to the Church, it was settled. Thank you. This is a significant admission.
“Luther’s dissent was by no means novel in scholarship.”
In rejecting the authority of the Magisterium (something Jerome did not do), it was novel.
“The latter is the issue, as you speak for yourself, while if the church had settled the canon as you suppose, then there would have been no debate among RC scholars even in Trent, regardless of your denial of it.”
Again, Catejan states the truth - that the Canon was set by Pope Damasus. Trent says the same and simply affirms that the Magisterium was in agreement. And had always been in agreement.
That some Catholic scholars like Luther were in dissent doesn’t change the truth. That Luther rejected the authority of the Magisterium doesn’t change that Luther
was in dissent.