Yes, I believe that what is considered the "Protestant" canon is the correct one. However, the only caveat is that what you want to call the "Protestant" canon really only applies to the books that comprise the Old Testament and recognizes that canonicity SHOULD comport with the belief that the books are God-breathed Scripture as Paul spoke of in II Timothy 3:16. This viewpoint was hardly a novel or Reformation devised view, but was one that had ALWAYS been held by the Jewish people, who Paul, if you recall, said had been given the "oracles of God". If the Jewish religious leaders had NEVER accepted the Apocryphal books as inspired by God on par with the others (the Laws of Moses, The Prophets and the Psalms) and which has been abundantly proven here, then why would we change that?
These extra books are what most people think of when we refer to the Apocrypha. In Judaism, they were classified as, “writings which do not defile the hands”. The term was applied because the books were not considered scripture, and therefore handling them did not cause ones hands to be defiled. (see reference below for cite)
Jesus affirmed the same view as found in Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:55 when he refers to the “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” affirms the first book of the Hebrew scripture as Genesis, and the last book as II Chronicles. This affirmation demonstrates the Hebrew “Canon” was closed by the time of Malachi in 425 B.C. Jesus also referred to the 3-part division of Hebrew scripture in Luke 24:44, referring to the, “Law of Moses.. the prophets …the Psalms”. This reference confirms the current division of Hebrew canon, which excludes the books known as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals. (http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm
“Yes, I believe that what is considered the “Protestant” canon is the correct one”
So why argue for a canon that you believe is incorrect? Makes no sense to me.
Even if that canon were the correct one (and I can see a solid argument behind it), it doesn’t advance your thesis that the protestant church is correct in this.
“This viewpoint was hardly a novel or Reformation devised view, but was one that had ALWAYS been held by the Jewish people”
The first Jewish document which supports this argument is the Leningrad Codex dated to the 11th century. Earlier documents argue otherwise that the Ketuvim included these books.
“If the Jewish religious leaders had NEVER accepted the Apocryphal books as inspired by God on par with the others (the Laws of Moses, The Prophets and the Psalms) and which has been abundantly proven here, then why would we change that?”
Evidence abounds from the period in question that they did consider the ketuvim contained these books. The septuagint contained them. Arguing that the second century BC Septuagint should take a back seat to the 11th century Masoretic text is no different than arguing that the 4th century Vulgate should take a back seat to the 16th century Erasmus bible.
In history - the earliest document is considered to be the more reliable source.