I thought the thread was about which books are Scriptural. Sorry, if I read into your post that because these men believe Judith to be fiction, it means that they also considered it not to be Scripture.
As per your response, it seems that is your opinion. What about it being fiction nullifies it being Scripture?
“What about it being fiction nullifies it being Scripture?”
Well, if it is filled with “historical and geographical errors,” there’s no good reason to think that it is binding on doctrine or the Christian conscience. It can be brought forward for the “edification of the faithful,” in the same way Narnia is, but certainly not for the “confirmation of doctrine.” For its former use, I have no problem. The problem is the RCC wants to put forward the apocrypha for the latter use.