My position is that the 66 book bible corresponds to the Hebrew Palestinian canon and the ancient 27 book canon.
Which is entirely your opinion, and contrary to what is contained within the Septuagint, and what Jerome used to compose the Vulgate.
Rather, as mostly said and shown, Jerome and others distinguished between Scripture proper and the apocryphal books, while there is no known 1st century LXX manuscripts with the apocrypha, and what we do have varies much and evidences to be of Christian compilation. And the Vulgate is understood to be a compound text that is not entirely the work of Jerome, (Grammar of the Vulgate, W.E. Plater and H.J. White, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1926) including as what was to be included.
Against Jerome’s advice the apocryphal parts of Daniel and Esther were accepted as integral parts of those books, the Song of the Three Children being inserted at Daniel 3:23, the Story of Susanna forming chapter 13, and Bel and the Dragon being chapter 14. The additions to Esther are linked on to the end of Esther. In conclusion, the present Vulgate, as Westcott remarks, is a composite of elements belonging to every period and form of the Latin version, including (1) the unrevised Old Latin (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Baruch); (2) the Old Latin corrected from the Septuagint (Psalter); (3) Jerome’s free translation from the original (Job and Judith); (4) Jerome’s translation from the original (the Old Testament except the Psalter); (5) the Old Latin revised from Greek manuscripts (the Gospels); and (6) the Old Latin cursorily revised (the rest of the New Testament). — http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html
Jerome as well as Rufinus
. . . were crystal clear on the matter [of not considering the apocryph canonical] but their reaction to the pressure exerted on them indicates that many leaders thought the additional books ought to be recognized as inspired. . . Jerome yielded to the popular request in furnishing a translation to the church at large but never permitted his scholarly convictions to yield to the point of recognizing these books as canonical. — http://bible.org/article/content-and-extent-old-testament-canon
Also, besides the prologues were the “Glossa ordinaria,” an assembly of glosses (brief notations of the meaning of a word or wording in a text) in the margins of the Vulgate Bible states in the Preface that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith. It prefixes an introduction to them all saying, 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees...” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html)
Trent did not even settle the question as to which version of the varying Vulgate editions it affirmed, thus requiring a thorough revision, as there was no single authoritative edition at that time, and resulting in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate, while the Vulgate Codex Amiatinus contains the pesky "Prologus Galeatus" of Jerome to the Books of the Kings and other prefaces which reminds us of the distinction between Scripture and the apocryphal books. — http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html
More will be said below, and i will posit that none of the arguments on either side are conclusive as concerns arguments for or against the inclusion of the apocrypha, and which is why debate continued, but you come in here dismissive of the abundance of substantiated scholarship which took hours to provide, that affirms that the Protestants have ancient support in dissenting from the apocrypha and for their Bible, in addition to ecclesiastical consensus by which Old Testament texts had come to be established (as is evidenced) as Scripture by the time of Christ, due to their Divine qualities and attestation, and that there was no infallible, indisputable canon that the Prots removed books from, and thus dissent continued right into Trent.
And which fact remains indisputable no how many affirmed those books. You cannot have ongoing debate about an official canon among principal scholars, and notes rejecting the apocrypha as Scripture right in the Vulgate, unless you are willing to sanction this today on that level. Nothing more really needs to be said on this, but as some Catholics refuse to see it, and suppose the case is about Catholic support for the apocrypha and that our canon depends upon the Roman sanction, i shall once again work to reiterate and expand more in response to the assertion of another, by God's grace.
You argue for ancient support for the apocrypha, with unsubstantiated assertions about a uniform Vulgate, and dismiss all debate and the Prologues of Saint Jerome and other sources which distinguish the apocrypha from Scripture proper, yet again, the issue is not whether Rome had support for her canon, but that the Prots did for theirs. And which you say is “entirely my opinion,” when in reality that is the opinion of far weightier sources than you. And if you disagree with the Catholic ones them then it testifies to the confusion within Rome, and how RCs must engage in their own interpretation and can reject other Catholic sources.
In addition, as most of the Biblical writings were established as Scripture before there was a church in Rome, as seen by well over 200 direct quotes (and the manner in which authorship and or authority is often clearly ascribed) from all but 6 books (but which were part of the “writings” which is referenced) — and which establishment SS materially provides for as previously explained — then there is no problem even if there was an infallible canon prior to the Reformation, as it is not what Rome decrees that establishes the canon, but evidences in text and in power that warrant excluding the apocrypha books as lacking plenary Divine inspiration, versus the other Old Testament books being what the Lord referred to as Scripture in establishing his claims, “the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms," (Luke 24:44) And which does not reflect the apocrypha, most of whom were written after Malachi, but the tripartite Hebrew canon.
Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture, even though they were aware of these writings and alluded to them at times (e.g., Heb. 11:35 may allude to 2 Maccabees 7, 12, though this may be a reference to the canonical book of Kings; see I Kings 17:22). Yet hundreds of quotations in the New Testament cite the Old Testament canon. The authority with which they are cited indicates that the New Testament writers believed them to be part of the "Law and Prophets" [i.e., whole Old Testament] which was believed to be the inspired and infallible Word of God (Matt. 5:17-18; cf. John 10:35). Jesus quoted from throughout the Old Testament "Law and Prophets," which he called "all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). — Dr. Norman Geisler, The Apocrypha - Part Three http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD3W0602.pdf
Remembering that the Jews were both the instruments and the stewards of Divine revelation, “because that unto them were committed the oracles of God oracles of God,” (Rm. 3:2) and who thus should know where the oracles were, and that Lord never faulted the Jews on what they referred to as Scripture, nor did they fault Him on the same, but who never quoted from the apocrypha, we see evidence that what was held authoritative as Scripture by Him and those who sat in the seat of Moses (to whom general obedience was enjoined, Mt. 23:2, but not as above Scripture, which Rome's presumes for herself), did not recognize the apocrypha as Scripture.
1st century Josephus, using the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, held 22 book as Scripture, which (due to combining books, which later varied) supports the 39 book Protestant canon over the 73 book Roman Catholic one.
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.. — Against Apion 1.8.
Josephus divided the books into three sections: the Law of Moses, the Prophets and what he called 'hymns to God and precepts for human life,' also referred to as the Writings or the Hagiographa.
He states that the twenty-two books were written in the specific span of time from Moses to Artaxerxes and no books written after this time were considered inspired. He mentions other books written after the prophets, which were not considered by the Jews to carry the same authority, that is, they were not inspired and were, therefore, not canonical.
[Herbert Edward] Ryle, states,
Josephus probably refers to exactly the same documents as the twenty-four of the traditional Jewish reckoning, Ruth being counted as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. His three divisions might be called the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. His first division comprises the same five books as the first division of the traditional arrangement. But his second division has thirteen books, not eight, the additional five being perhaps Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. The four books of the third division would then be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. — F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 33-34.
Jesus can be seen affirming the 22 book Hebrew canon in Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35. “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.”
"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers." — Greg Bahnsen,
The Concept and Importance of Canonicity, http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/bible/bahnsen_canon.html
Webster adds,
It is significant that Philo [who died about 50 A.D] coming from Alexandria, where the Septuagint originated, never quoted from the Apocrypha. Herbert Edward Ryle makes these observations on Philo and his relationship to the Apocrypha:
To him, as to other Alexandrine Jews, the Law alone was in the highest sense the Canon of Scripture, and alone partook of divine inspiration in the most absolute degree. Philo's writings, however, show that he was well acquainted with many other books of the Old Testament besides the Pentateuch. He quotes from Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Ezra. According to some scholars he is said to show acquaintance with books of the Apocrypha. But this is very doubtful; and, even if it be granted, he certainly never appeals to them in support of his teaching in the way that he does to books included in the Hebrew Canon, and never applies to them the formulae of citation which he employs, when referring to the acknowledged books of the Jewish Scriptures. By comparison with his quotations from the Pentateuch, his quotations from the other sacred writings are very scanty; but it is observable that even in these few extracts he ascribes an inspired origin to Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Zechariah.
Also (briefly),
Origen, who had contact with Jews wrote that the number of canonical books handed down by them was twenty-two. Other fathers who listed the number of books as twenty-two were Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, who was a native of Palestine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Rufinus, while Jerome gave numberings of both twenty-two and twenty-four. The pseudepigraphal work, Jubilees, found among the Essene community at Qumran, also numbered the Old Testament books at twenty-two and was likely the earliest witness to the number of books that comprised the Hebrew canon, predating Josephus. More
Also, Cyril of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century, gave a complete catalogue of the canonical Old Testament books received by the Church of his day in his Catechetical Lectures. As pointed out previously, he mentioned the Jewish numeration of twenty-two books and gave a list of the specific books which comprise the canon.64 There are a number of important facts to note in Cyril's comments. First of all, he states that this listing is the authoritative canon which was handed down by the Church. Secondly, he states that the canon he gave came from the Septuagint, but it excluded most of the books of the Apocrypha. The only Apocryphal books he listed were those of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah which he mistakenly thought to have been part of the original canonical Jeremiah. More
And Jerome, in his prologue to book of Kings, lists the books in the Hebrew canon and states,
And thus there are likewise twenty-two books in the Old Law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the Hagiographa. Although some may write Ruth and Cinoth among the Hagiographa, and think of counting these books among their number, and then by this to have twenty-four books of the Old Law, which the Apoclypse of John introduces under the number of twenty-four elders worshipping the Lamb and offering their crowns, prostrated on their faces, and crying out with unwearying voice: “Holy, holy, holy Lord God almighty, Who was and Who is, and Who will be.”
This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is to be set apart among the apocrypha. — http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?page_id=2183
Apocryphal Writings at Qumran. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd
However, you absolutely refuse to allow the Protestants any basis of antiquity for their canon, and even dismiss the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement that “The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants,“ by saying the use of the conventional word protocanonical is a “conventional dating no earlier than the 19th century,” as if that invalidates it. I am sure you do not feel the same way about the “Transubstantiation” or similar doctrinal terms used by Rome, while the fact remains that proto means first, and protocanonical accurately refers to books that were first accepted, and which also applies to New Testament books. Your rejection requires that all enjoyed the same status from the beginning, which they did not, and the Protestant canon reflects the ancient Hebrew canon.
Another Catholic source, which argues for the apocrypha, concurs, “Protocanonical books are the twenty-four books of the Jewish scripture, re-arranged into thirty-nine books by separating Samuel, Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles into two books and the Twelve Minor Prophets into twelve books.” — http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/CanonOfTheOldTestament.aspx
There are bibles (Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus), from the 3rd century which have the books of the apocrypha in them. If the ‘ancient canon’ was precisely what you say it was, then why are the only bibles extant from that time testifying just the opposite?
Here you suppose that establishing support for the apocrypha from two 4th century manuscripts negates support from the Hebrew canon, but the reason why they contain the apocrypha is because they are of the later Septuagint which contain books which no early manuscripts of the Septuagint are known to have, and Josephus (with his 22 book tripartite canon] and others evidence they did not. The first occurrence of some apocryphal books is first seen in 4th century manuscripts, but not all apocryphal books are contained, nor are the manuscripts all uniform or the same as that of Trent, and contain books she rejects.
As Jerome in the 4th century stated (in his prologue to Ezra), “the variety of the texts of which shows them torn and perverted.” And again, other Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/bible/prologi.shtml
“manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.” (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church)
And while you invoke Vaticanus dated palaeographically to the 4th century, and Sinaiticus for support of Trent, neither is identical to Trent's canon, as the former excludes 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), and Sinaiticus (found by a Protestant purportedly in a rubbish basket) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome). Thus the three earliest MSS or the LXX show uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.
Thus if these support Rome they also support other canons, but which does not seem to be much of an issue as long as they are Catholic, while earlier testimony indicates an exclusion of the apocrypha.
There WAS no official canon prior to Jerome, and the official canon set down by Jerome included all the books of the apocrypha. Full stop.
The “full stop” is one that you need to do by stop parroting aged inhouse Roman Catholic polemics, which have long ago been refuted. Jerome did not set down an official canon with the apocrypha as Scripture, and instead he was one of many who rejected the apocrypha, though the Vulgate contained it, but often with his prologues noting distinction, besides the Glossa ordinaria and other testimonies to an unsettled status of the apocrypha as Scripture.
And again, we can see that it was not simply language that was behind Jerome's exclusion: the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase...(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
And as for an official canon, the point was that there was no official, uniform dogmatic canon that required assent till Trent, and even to this day the canon differs among Catholics, reflective of early differences and the local nature of early councils. And neither do these establish which writings are Scripture, and evidentially most of which writings were recognized as such before there ever was a church in Rome, and without an assuredly infallible magisterium. And as all Catholic churches also teach extraBiblical doctrines such as praying to the departed, we look at the evidence for what the Lord regarded as Scripture, and will allow Catholics to fight between themselves concerning which canon to follow. Yet i have never seen them do it or make it an issue, nor condemn Catholic dissenters on the apocrypha before Trent, and instead nonconformity with the RC canon only seems to made a real issue against Protestants, as the only reason it was an issue in the 16th century and that it is one now is because it serves as polemic against their real competition, those who rightly hold Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority, which Scripture abundantly evidences it is.
For what it is worth, early local Councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa did affirm the apocrypha, chiefly due to following Augustine (354-430) who favored them, perhaps believing the legend of how the Septuagint was written, over others who opposed them. However, their lists were obviously not conclusive in the light of the continued debate by scholarly Catholics (not the Hans Kung types).
Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Roman Catholic historian and expert on Trent (four volumes) Hubert Jedin explained. “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin writes that his position was
► “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)
►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)
Cardinal Cajetan himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.
►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church..." Metzger, Canon of the New Testament
Theologian Cardinal Cajetan also stated,
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.” — Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)
Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm
And just prior to Trent, The Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and soon received papal sanction. B.F. Westcott [1825 – 1901) was a British bishop, Biblical scholar and theologian, comments:
At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation (B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 478).
“Luther produced his own Bible in 1534 but following ancient precedent”
He tore out the books that he did not like, and upended 1100 years of biblical manuscripts to produce his own bible.
So goes the Catholic canard, but as is clearly substantiated, he certainly has Catholic precedent and company right into Trent, as well as scholarly reasons for his rejection.
Besides what has already been put forth is this additional testimony form Jerome in his prologue to the Books of Chronicles:
Certainly, whatever is witnessed by the Savior to be written, is written. Where is it written? The Seventy do not have it; the Church ignores the apocrypha; thus is the turning back to the Hebrew books, from which the Lord spoke and the disciples took forth texts. http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?page_id=2183
“But that there was no indisputable canon before Trent is the main issue.”
Which is why Trent corresponds (besides Baruch) with Amitianis, the most ancient Vulgate that we do possess? ;)
An infallible canon cannot differ from another indisputable infallible canon, and which besides Baruch (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=521306&page=3), also includes the contentious issue of non-canonical Second Esdras, of Trent omitting the Septuagint I Esdras. While (again) the most ancient Vulgate still “contains St. Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm) and prefaces, in which, after listing the books of the Hebrew canon, Jerome states, “This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings.” — http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII6-17.TXT
Seems to me the evidence is solidly against you that there wasn’t an ‘official canon’. If there was not an official canon after Jerome and the publication, we would expect to see variations in the books included in the ancient Vulgates. Nor would we expect that the most ancient of them to correspond so closely with Trent.
Unfortunately for you, the Vulgates all have the same books in them, dating back to the 8th century that we do have, and evidence abounds demonstrating that the Vulgates from before them all include the ‘apocryphal’ books. At least since Pope Damasus. We have things like the Book of Kells that attest to the canon.
Rather, it seems to me the evidence is solidly against you that there was an ‘official canon,' as you dismiss fact that substantial debate existed right into Trent, without penalty, regardless of the Vulgates, and which differed from the canon of Trent, while the problem remains that the best copy retains Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus” which reckons non-Hebrew books as not being Scripture proper. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? " (1 Corinthians 14:8)
“In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation”
Then why does every published Vulgate from the period include them? Clearly they were considered to be Sacred Scripture and were included along with the rest. If there was hesitation, it was insufficient to remove them from the canon. You’ve overstated your case.
Rather, it was clear they were included but that the old division was held by many. It is you is overstating your case by minimizing debate, as if that could continue right into Trent if the canon was officially settled, and maximizing the Vulgate which contains the apocrypha but also the Jerome's "Prologus Galeatus,” which along with others, distinguished between the apocryphal book and Scripture proper. A historical practice, seen even in early KJV Bibles, and Luther's as well, was to contain the apocryphal books, but which were not held as Scripture. Such were considered edifying - not because they were inerrant. — 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
According to you then, Catholics are quite free to dissent from official doctrine.
“St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus.”
When all the sources discussing their hesitation all quote Jerome, that doesn’t reinforce your argument that their doubts were based on anything other than Jerome’s opinion. Jerome’s opinion, if you go on to read it is because he lacked Hebrew originals for these books.
So now the judgment on what is Scripture according to the preeminent esteemed Bible scholar Jerome on must be disparaged. Even so, all the sources excluding apocryphal books do not reference Jerome, while it is quite unlikely “Hebrew originals” existed for many books at that time, and almost all the apocrypha was written in Greek, while the LXX that contained is understood to be of Christian origin. Nor was the Hebrew the only reason, but as stated,
the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase...(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
Some of these books, didn’t even HAVE hebrew originals, because they were originall written in Greek. Just because they were written in the Greek doesn’t make them less reliable. Jerome didn’t know what we know today, that the Greek was the original, and there was no cause to oppose the manuscript evidence available.
Well if Greek was what Moses and David etc. spoke, then that certainly is advanced scholarship! But it would be news that any of the Hebrew canon was originally written in Greek, in contrast to most of the apocrypha, except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a portion of Judith and Tobit.
If we are to accept Jerome’s opinion, why then do you dismiss Damasus? He was the one who decided on what the Vulgate canon would be in the first place, and he chose to keep the books. If you are arguing for the hesitation, why did the church decide to include them? They didn’t include the Shepherd.
Or better yet, if these books were unreliable, why do they appear in the LXX?
As for Damasus, i have no reason to esteem a pope over a Bible scholar, and Jerome made his exclusion of the apocrypha clear to that pope, and received no censure from him. Nor was the of Damascus identical to Trent, and the claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and the former depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa. More
As for the LXX, , as said, there is no manuscript evidence that early copies contained the apocryphal books, and the earliest "complete" manuscripts of the LXX and which abound in corruption are from the 4th century AD, and indicate a Christian origin, and which also lacked books Trent affirms or contained books which Rome rejects. Thus if the LXX reflects all that is reliable, then it is to be followed, and Rome is wrong.
“the dissent by Roman Catholic scholars”
But what does the Church teach? You can find dissent on anything - doesn’t represent what the Catholic church believes.
Again, what you are avoiding is that this debate was not akin to some schismatics rejecting Vatican Two, or minor bishops debating if women priests are allowed, but debate by substantial scholars call to settle a question and reflecting an ongoing centuries-old unsettled issue, and which was not a problem until one who held Scripture as supreme forced Rome to dogmatically settle the issue. And as that was the official canon, then debate ceased.
Finally, if non-conformity with Rome on the canon is such a major issue, then they should be at war with other Catholics whose canon is different, it matters little whether by one book or several. At least the SS type Prots are the most devoted readers of Holy Writ, and more conservative, as compared to their Catholic counterparts.
Sorry for the length, but this is not a simple issue, and while more could be said, this must suffice.
I’m cutting all the rest of your post to highlight this point.
“In addition, as most of the Biblical writings were established as Scripture before there was a church in Rome”
When was this?
When did the Roman Catholic church begin?
I think you have summed up beautifully what the TRUE dispute is here. Some Roman Catholics are absolutely convinced, beyond ANY possible evidence to the contrary, that whatever they are told by Rome is THE truth and any and all attempts to pry them away from the breast of the "Mother Church" will be seen as tantamount to Satanic activity. Yet, here we are - those who once DID suckle at that breast - weaned and matured enough to recognize the truth of God's word supersedes what men can devise no matter how pure and holy they may try to appear.
As you brought out, the issue of an "Official" canon did not become important enough to the Papal powers until others challenged their professed antiquity of doctrine and forced them to take a stand about an area they had not deemed essential enough before. That the Roman Catholic Church taught the existence of "Purgatory" without ANY Scriptural proof, was only one of many such dogmas that were contradicted by Holy Scripture. Yet some obscure passage in a non-canonical book was offered as such proof and that made the inclusion of that book mandatory into the Divinely-inspired collection of Holy Scripture.
Praying to the dead was another such dogma that a fishing expedition in the Apocrypha turned up a "sorta", "maybe", "could mean" type of reference. All other universally undisputed Scriptures that condemned contacting the dead were ignored in favor of a passage that pretended to pass muster. I wonder why, if Rome considered herself infallible, her hierarchy even thought they NEEDED to prove their doctrines by Scripture. Hadn't they already placed themselves ABOVE the Scriptures anyway?
I don't know about you, but this whole Apocrypha vs. Canon argument smells like three-week old pizza forgotten and left out in the sun. It is just another example of how the enemy of our souls likes nothing better than subterfuge and distraction. Anything to get us away from talking about the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. The "simplicity that is in Christ" is obscured by all the needless and silly disagreements that place more importance on the myriad possible things that can be argued about than the one thing that is and should stay inarguable - that God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.
Thank you for your patient and scholarly input. It has reinforced what I know God's word really is - infallible and Divine. The saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.", seems apt here. We can only hope a few "horses" are thirsty enough, but all we can do is lead them to the water. Once the water of truth is tasted, it is only right that the more we drink the more we will want to remain at that spring of eternal life.