“or the assertion that the Council of Nicea established the books as Canonical”
Really? I understand what Jerome wrote, but can you point to where the Council of Nicea actually established the list? And if they did, why did the Council of Trent need to address the issue in the 1500s, and why did Catholic scholars prior to Trent feel free to debate the canon status of books?
Jesus gave what He considered scripture, and the Glossa Ordinaria agreed with Him and Jerome.
And please remember the Council of Trent specifically and deliberately avoided the issue of the Apocrypha and authority. They listed most of the Apocrypha as canon, but punted on what ‘canon’ meant.
Actually, I have no idea why the Council of Trent felt they needed to address the issue again. Maybe the Council of Nicea failed to anathamatize anyone who disagreed with the list. I don’t much care and can’t for the life of me see how it could matter to the discussion WHY they did. But your assertion, “... Catholic scholars prior to Trent feel free to debate the canon status of books ... “ is at least wrong; Jerome certainly felt obliged to obey Nicea. Perhaps Walafrid Strabo was simply ignorant on the matter because his source for the Nicene Council omitted the list.
But if you’re suggestion is that the Council of Nicea didn’t publish such a list and that St. Jerome, who was intimately familiar with the Council was wrong about it, (it is missing from our currently surviving document) then you are obviously continuing to ignore the Council of Florence, another ecumenical council uniting not just Roman Catholics but Orthodox as well, which held that it was binding doctrine throughout the history of the Church that the deuterocanonicals established necessary doctrine.
>> Jesus gave what He considered scripture, and the Glossa Ordinaria agreed with Him and Jerome. <<
Never. And if you suppose that because Jesus never quoted five of the seven books in question, you should know that he also never quoted nearly half of the Old Testament books, including most of the Khetuvim.
And if you’re thinking that medieval scholars were way too on the ball to allow the circulation of an error like that in the Glossa, the Donation of Constantine has a whopping pile of theological errors which for centuries hobbled the papacy. (Since the forged document claimed that Constantinople was the property of Rome, most people who know of it presume that various Pope’s gullibility was self-serving, totally ignoring the fact that it also falsely purported that the apostles had advocated a highly decentralized ecclesiastical structure, which for five centuries left Rome largely barren of population, broke, and powerless.) People didn’t have the internet back then, and they fastidiously preserved anything; many people who might have doubted Strabo’s assertions would nonetheless never even contemplate “correcting” a historical document.