“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.
"Settled" must mean indisputable for it to be included here, but which it cannot mean here, as it simply was not, as abundantly evidenced , while it is becoming consistently evident that you simply dismiss evidence with assertions, in order to defend Rome as you must.
O nce again, contrary to your affirming a settled canon, noted RC scholar Hubert 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.
"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.)
And of whom the CE says, “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)
Some proposed to follow the judgment of Cardinal Caietan and distinguish two classes of books, as, it was argued, had been the intention of Augustine. Others wished to draw the line of distinction yet more exactly, and form three classes, (1) the Acknowledged Books, (2) the Disputed Books of the New Testament, as having been afterwards generally received, (3) the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. (B.F. Westcott, The Bible In The Church, p. 256).
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.
With some adding some. Yet it is you who places undue weight upon them, not me, thus it is you who must show they are determinative of the inclusion of the apocrypha, which greater RC sources than you did not find, and see the Jews of Jesus time as holding to the smaller canon.
More: Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-3 5.
British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)
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.
False, as the LXX is not determinative of the canon, while it is accepted by far weightier sources than you that, as shown, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia The FACT is that if your thesis is correct, then you would not have RCs who were much closer to the composition of the LXX who did not find it determinative of the canon.
Again,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
“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.
You must be understandably desperate to pull that one. The response was obviously in refutation to "the church is greater than.." argument, but which church deceives, while the fact is that as far as RCs are concerned, the magisterium had not infallibly settled the canon, this debate continued into Trent, which is the issue, and which you avoid admitting. This is a significant omission.
In rejecting the authority of the Magisterium (something Jerome did not do), it was novel.
He did not and it was not as regards to the canon, thus that was not a charge against him, but it is a charge against you for teaching he did.
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.
Which (Catejan) is contrary to what has been substantiated, as it is that the canon was settled/indisputable before Trent. But simply deny the evidence with assertions is what a faithful RC must do in such a case. At least you are faithful, and evidence why we should reject Rome.