Nor did the Catholic Church, on the whole. The Apocrypha was held as good for reading, but not authoritative for doctrine by much of the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent overruled that position in the 1500s. That is why Luther’s accuser told the Pope that the Apocrypha was not useful for doctrine.
>>I think you oversimplify and overgeneralize. Some fathers and medieval Western thinkers thought the Deuterocanonicals were of a lower footing than the protocanonical books, but just as many thought otherwise.
You have to concede though, similar things were said about Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, James. So then did the Council of Trent get it wrong when it canonized these book in the New Testament that people like Luther and Tyndale said were not scripture?
What authority did later Protestants have then to say Luther and Tyndale were wrong?
“You have to concede though, similar things were said about Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, James. So then did the Council of Trent get it wrong when it canonized these book in the New Testament that people like Luther and Tyndale said were not scripture?”
Neither Luther nor Tyndale rejected any of the New Testament books as scripture. Both translated and published the entire NT.