[Mad Dawg]

My understanding is that Trent accepted it because it was under attack. Is there a previous conciliar accepting of the agreed upon parts of the OT?

I havn't done any work on the LXX. The little work I have done on the NT leads me to believe that there are significant variations in texts, the most notorious being the endings of Mark and the "Woman Taken in Adultery", which at least one major text of John does not have. (from memory, I'm supposed to be doing something else now.)

[OLD REGGIE]

My understanding is that Trent accepted it because it was under attack. Is there a previous conciliar accepting of the agreed upon parts of the OT?

Well, it was under attack by the "Protestants" who were fighting what they believed were unscriptural passages in the "apocrypha" which were being used, among other things, to raise money thru indulgences. Until the Reformation "Apocrypha" hadn't really been an issue or had been canonized by an Ecumenical Council. The Reformation forced the issue and was the direct cause for the action of Trent.

I havn't done any work on the LXX.

I have done very little myself. It becomes apparent right up front that the entire story of the LXX is legend with no basis in fact. Further, the idea of "A" Septuagint is fantasy. No such animal exists. Apologists from both camps make arguments on both sides of the fence. Choose your poison.

The little work I have done on the NT leads me to believe that there are significant variations in texts, the most notorious being the endings of Mark and the "Woman Taken in Adultery", which at least one major text of John does not have. (from memory, I'm supposed to be doing something else now.)

It has long been my opinion that no such thing as a "perfect" Bible exists. I am satisfied; however, that each of the Bibles used by Catholics and Protestants is sufficiently correct.

2 Timothy 3:
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,