You intended to write canonicity I take it..?
Limited to the Temple Jerusalem in the OT case, as you say.
That is the very point of the matter.
What came to be called deuterocanon does not later become "inspired" text 1500 years later ---when according the Jews themselves the particular written works here under dispute were not recognized at "the Temple Jerusalem".
Josephus in AD 70 did not include any of the books here under dispute as being included in what was then regarded as Holy Writ -- according to the Jews.
Melito confirmed the same thing near the year AD 180 or so.
At many junctures along the way in this 1500 year period, those of the Church knew the written works here under dispute were not regarded as included by the Jews, at the time of Christ and afterwards -- as part of the corpus of writings entrusted to them as the oracles of God, even as those same books we are continuing to dispute canonicity of were widely and long regarded as 'ecclesiastical' writings --- not fully "inspired" thus not Holy Writ -- but still useful.
As Jerome warned --- those writings not to be basis for doctrine. (CAN'T YOU READ?!?) How many times must we go over this??? Must links to the same information be given in every posted comment, on each thread where this has been gone over hundreds of times? Can you not remember what it is that has been set before you? Try reading it the next times the links are provided -- before responding! If you were to do so, it could save us all a lot of time.
All evidences point away from Greek scrolls (thus 'Septuagint' -- which precise contents vary widely in regards to these very additional disputed books) being read from in the Temple, at the time of Christ.
That means --- , despite the (stupid?) Jews who had wandered back to Egypt, and lived for centuries under Greek rule may or may not have been a bit confused as to what their own holy writ consisted of, the Jews of Jerusalem did not have that same problem, and did not accept the so-called deuterocanon.
Jerome it can be seen in various ways, much concurred with the last, above statement. You talk about "church fathers" but seem to neglect that particular biblical scholar. Why?
There is zero evidence the Jews Christ Himself appeared to, had forgotten their own language and used Greek 'Septuagint' even though many who were in Egypt for the most part HAD forgotten their own language, which condition is what led to the original translation effort of the Torah, or Pentateuch into Greek, which translation was known as Septuagint, that name coming from the number of translators.
That led to the set of questions I posed to you THREE TIMES already -- but which you have continually either dodged/avoided, or possibly not understood.
You answered NOTHING, substituting nothing more than the same initial (and unproven) assertions repeated.
If that is "to your knowledge" than your so-called knowledge is less than worthless.
Review your own comments and those made towards you if you would care to see the questions again -- as those were framed.
Not so, St. Paul writes that "all scripture" known to St. Timothy "from his infancy" is inspired. Council of Carthage lists the Deuterocanonical books as canonical, too.
Regarding "temple Judaism" I meant it to refer to the period in Judaism before the killing of Christ and the destruction of the Second Temple foreseen by Him. Temple Judaism is not the same as rabbinical Judaism since then on. I did not make a claim that the temple worship was ever conducted in Greek; I am pretty sure it was not.
Regarding "set of questions", please make a precise reference and I'll try again.