It is often the case that we read something in the scripture and not fully know the context; yet we obey the scripture as written, including admitting that if some detail is not provided then it is not necessary. The exact composition of “the scripture” is not given by St. Paul, but the qualification “known to thee since infancy” is given. Therefore, however imprecise the composition of the Septuagint was copy to copy (remember, they were not physically one object as modern books are), what was important to st. Paul is that the Septuagint is inspired in any of its configurations.
The issue of canon of the Old Testament did not concern the Church till about 3rd century. we see some fathers approve of the Deuterocanon and others disapprove. Prior to that, the Church was mostly concerned with the provenance and authenticity of the New Testament books. When the Church concerned herself with this issue, she worked out the canon by the early 5 c. The Council of Carthage is evidence that the matter was settled.
Paul WAS quite specific with Timothy concerning Scripture when he said:
What OTHER sacred writings do we have that were "inspired by God", that Timothy could have know "since infancy" and can give one the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? Even Peter clarified that the Scripture they both meant was that which, "never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). Though there is question whether Timothy learned the Scriptures from the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint, Paul clearly is speaking of ONLY that which was God-breathed, sacred Scripture. Like I've said already, if some wish to believe God breathed the words of the Apocrypha, they will have to explain how the Holy Spirit could have possibly made so many mistakes and contradicted Himself like these books often did.
The issue of canon of the Old Testament did not concern the Church till about 3rd century. we see some fathers approve of the Deuterocanon and others disapprove. Prior to that, the Church was mostly concerned with the provenance and authenticity of the New Testament books. When the Church concerned herself with this issue, she worked out the canon by the early 5 c. The Council of Carthage is evidence that the matter was settled.
The church was mainly concerned with spreading the gospel and leading souls to saving faith in Jesus Christ. The local churches received the letters of the Apostles and their disciples, copied them, read them, learned them and obeyed them based on the authority of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. That was all they needed to know and, because these words were Holy Spirit inspired, their power to change lives and raise up Godly men to carry on the teachings was evidence that they indeed came from God.
I had hoped by now, after so many times this contention has been dismantled, that it wouldn't be brought up again - and in the same thread, yet - but we already have proof that these "councils" did no such thing. We already know it was STILL being contested into Trent and that was a thousand years AFTER Carthage. If Roman Catholics want to assert the Apocrypha were read by some in the early church, I won't argue. But, if they want to assert these books were placed with the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament along with those that made up the New Testament, and called the Christian "canon" (which means "rule of faith", BTW), and then insist this conferred those books as ALL God-breathed Scripture and every Christian MUST accept them that way, then we have a problem. I respect the word of God too much to believe humanly devised myths, fables and legends deserve equal consideration.