Having been out of town on a business trip since Monday I do not have access to my actual books. I am sorry you feel the need to misinterpret that as obfuscation.
As a matter of practical principle it is a waste of your time an mine to attempt to refute the decisions of the Magisterium with errant sources and published opinions. The 73 book Canon of the Bible was affirmed by the Church in 382 and reaffirmed multiple times since. That is all I require.
Peace be with you
Regarding "I am sorry you feel the need to misinterpret you," I am sorry that you are back to your usual self in plainly attributing ill motive, such as was so often seen before (and worse ) before telling the RM to delete your account due it becoming a "cesspool."
And I fail to see where i interpreted your brevity as obfuscation, unless you think my taking issue with your description of Jerome's stance as stating that he "knew of no Jews who considered the Deuterocanonical books as a part of Jewish canon or Scripture," rather than denying canonicity of DC books.
Or my critique of the attributions of Jerome being shown referencing DCs as Scripture, which i affirmed he did, but stated, as shown, that this was a being a matter of interpretation as to whether this amounted to an affirmation of unquestioned full divine inspiration on his part, contradicting his earlier claim.
And to that i will add that, having look at some of the references, sometimes an expression is referenced to DC books which is not referenced in the original and which can be to Scripture or a Scriptural truth, and that otherwise Jerome is using the term "Scripture" in its broad sense, if he is not contradicting his earlier claims in which he clearly disallowed DC books as being canonical, which change i allow is possible, even if not formally stated.
As a matter of practical principle it is a waste of your time an mine to attempt to refute the decisions of the Magisterium with errant sources and published opinions. The 73 book Canon of the Bible was affirmed by the Church in 382 and reaffirmed multiple times since. That is all I require.
And as the latter is the case for RCs, they cannot concede any evidence as impugning Rome in such an issue as this, but it is they who typically launch the attack by asserting Luther was a maverick in dissenting from an indisputable canon, which thus results in countering evidence, and more denials by RCs that there was scholarly debate, and that had some substantial company. Etc.