“regardless of what you believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus prove”
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the oldest complete LXX manuscripts, and both of them have the apocryphal books. Ergo, I conclude the books were considered to be canonical as early as the Third Century.
“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.
“The LXX does reflect what Jews held as canonical”
Which is why the oldest complete manuscripts we possess do have these books included.
“Jerome is far weightier an authority”
And the Church far weightier still.
“All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin.”
Again, we must rely on extant evidence. The extant evidence demostrates that these books were in fact included.
Is there a first century manuscript of the LXX prior to the Gospels? No. And until one is discovered, all your argument is mere conjecture.
“With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts.”
Are you willing to concede the authority of the Gospels as well? Would you strain out a gnat and admit a camel?
This is the problem. You attack scripture with all the fervor, but fail to notice people looking at the books and asking - “why can’t I simply pick and choose?” Why do I have to accept Romans as authoritative?”
“The manuscripts at the Dead Sea evidence no canonical book”
Contrary to what you would believe - yes, Wisdom of Sirach was found. This is Sirach or Ecclesiasticus. So was Tobit.
Chronicles was not.
Can we thus conclude that Chronicles is acanonical while Tobit and Sirach are?
“Again, we must rely on extant evidence. The extant evidence demostrates that these books were in fact included.”
Included, yes, considered equal to scripture, no. That has already been well established, not just by Jerome and Cajetan, and by Athanasius and “Pope” Gregory the 1st, but by the content of the apocrypha themselves which teach witchcraft and contradict the scripture and history.
“And the Church far weightier still.”
You mean the Church that used to declare that the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome each possessed the Throne of Peter? And the same Church as led by Bishops like Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement who never once referenced any Papal authority, and when referencing Peter only listed him among the other Apostles?
If it’s THAT church, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. The Roman church, on the other hand, definitely not. In fact, if the Roman church knew their history better, they would not have forgotten Jerome’s judgment of the Apocrypha.
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.