“That’s based on the Decretum Gelasianum”
Then why do the Vulgate manuscripts such as Codex Amitianus contain the same list of books as Trent? Is this a coincidence?
No, it’s not. It’s concrete evidence that the Canon was in fact exactly what we say that it was.
Now, I suggest you actually try refuting the evidence presented rather than evidence you would prefer. Again - wikipedia is not a reliable source on these matters either.
The booklist of Codex Amitianus is not difficult to find either. Since I’m sure you’d rather fact check it yourself rather than relying upon my citation - have a look see.
“The apocrypha was not settled”
Then why do the Vulgates of the time after Jerome and prior to Luther and Trent contain the same lists of books? Again - this is concrete evidence that asserts that the canon of the Catholic church was set.
“therefore differentiated from the regular scripture.”
Were they considered canonical? Yes. That’s the dispute here. You are claiming that you have the authority to remove books from your bible based on your disagreement with the contents of scripture. This is identical to the position of Marcion.
“There are quotes ranging across 2,000 years, not limited to the church Fathers I have quoted”
Wonderful, but this dodges the essential point. Does the opinion of an individual bishop supercede the entire magisterium? No. And that is the point we are trying to tell you.
“If it was such settled dogma for so long, the RCC would never have needed Trent to respond to the Reformation.”
If it were novel dogma, then why does Gutenberg’s bible contain the exact same list as Trent a century afterwards?
“The great problem, of course, is that the Dead Sea scrolls contain many books not included as “inspired scripture” of the Catholic church.”
Ok. So how then can one determine with certainty that the Jews did not consider Tobit, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus as canonical? You lack sufficient information to determine this. I, however, can state that Qumrun proves that these three books in particular were in use by Jews prior to Christ.
“They even contain books which do not refer to the apocrypha as scripture”
That’s going to earn a [[citation needed]].
“The fact that these books are found in Greek, rather than Hebrew, also doesn’t lend support for your cause.”
Only if one already presupposes that canonicity is only found in Hebrew. This is begging the question.
“whether the Jews considered them inspired. In this case, I have to side with Josephus”
And again - there is substantial evidence that while not all Jews considered them canonical that many Jews did. Once again this raises the question, “who has the authority to determine the canon?” The question you cannot answer save with ‘myself’. And thus we have personal canons to support a personable age.
“The Jews only report translating the first four books of Moses into the LXX.”
This is false. One, there are 5 books in the PENTATEUCH.
Two, the Jews report the translation finished by 130 BC in it’s entirety. At the time, the book became the version of the bible for the Jews around the time of Christ.
It wasn’t seriously questioned until after Christ - which is significant evidence in it’s favor. If it were true that it wasn’t a reliable source for the Jews - we would see evidence against it prior to it’s use by the Christian church. This we do not see.
If you’re arguing that Jamnia is sufficient evidence to merit their exclusion - then the harsh reality is that you’re also in favor of removing essential christian testimony from the Old Testament.
“Now, I suggest you actually try refuting the evidence presented rather than evidence you would prefer.”
You haven’t provided anything that disputes what I have put forward.
“The booklist of Codex Amitianus is not difficult to find either.”
It’s missing Baruch, which you say is part of the canon. The copies of the Vulgate circa 1,500 had Baruch, and still separated the apocrypha from the rest of the canon as not inspired writings. Such was the opinion of the Latin Church for most of the middle ages, due to the scholarship of Jerome and many others, until the Reformation.
“Wonderful, but this dodges the essential point. Does the opinion of an individual bishop supercede the entire magisterium?”
Yes, since they WERE the Magisterium. Are you telling me a Pope, teaching theology, is going against the beliefs of his own church? Were Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Ximenes and all his associates, excommunicated for denying the divine dictate of the RCC? Was Athanasius excommunicated? “Pope” Gregory the First rebuked by this almighty Magisterium, floating in the background? Was Cyril of Jerusalem and Ephiphanius burned at the stake? What about John of Damascus or Nicephorus? Were they condemned by the universal rage of the “thousands” of people who think Nebuchednezzer is King of the Assyrians? I could go on.
I’m sure you’ll find me where and when the “Magisterium” condemned all these people for their heresy.
“Were they considered canonical? Yes. That’s the dispute here.”
So far, the only person I’ve quoted from that considered them canonical was Cajetan, and he said they were not inspired writings and therefore “canonical” only in a certain manner of speaking, as Ecclesiastical works to be brought forward for instruction in piety, but not for church doctrine as the regular Old and New Testament. If that’s how you want to have it, I am perfectly okay with that! You’ll find Protestants in general to be quite pleased with the idea.
“Two, the Jews report the translation finished by 130 BC in it’s entirety.”
What “Jews” were reporting that? No such information exists. Even the tale of the 72 translators is itself a legend, and a legend at that that only covers the Books of Moses.