I have never given credit to the Church Fathers for putting together the Bible in the sense that the Church Fathers "created the Bible". You just can't tell me that the Deuterocanonical books were not controversial among the Apostolics. Why is there such a thing as the "Deuterocanon"? If Luther had banned the book of John, do you really think a new Council would have had to be called to "reinsert" it? I don't think so.
Now, I must retire from FR for a few hours for a religious experience. :)
The reason there is such a thing as 'deuterocanonical' is that St. Jerome, and Luther after him, mistakenly believed that the redaction of the Old Testament on the basis of the Babylonian Hebrew Text adopted by the Christ-denying Rabbis of the Council of Jamnia was a true reflection of the pre-Christian Jewish Scriptures.
In fact, the only pre-Christian manuscripts we have of the Old Testament Scriptures are the Greek LXX (oldest ms. dates c 250 B.C.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which confirm the LXX, not the Masorete. The oldest extant Masoretic text dates c 1000 A.D.
You keep vainly trying to claim that the Latins 'added' the rest of the Old Testament at Trent. This theory is patently false: the Orthodox, for whom Trent was a conventicle of Latin heretics, regard all of the books you call 'the Apocrypha' and the Latins call 'Deuterocanonical', as part of canonical Scripture on the basis of the Council of Carthage and the Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. We have always used them, just as the Latins did. No books were added at Trent. Luther removed books.
Well, they were the ones who collected, selected and protected the writings you read as the New Testament. They didn't write them, but without them we would have no clue which of the 200-plus scrolls represent the New Testament for sure.
The Apostles did not 'put together' the Christian canon; the Church did. The Apostles wrote it, and we believe that God inspired them to write the truth, as we believe that God guided the Fathers in selecting, recognizing, safeguarding and putting together that which the Apostles wrote into what you now consider God's Word of the New Testament.
As for the validity of the deuterocanonical books, one of the best reasons I can think of why the Church included them is the fact that the concept of the devil as the embodiment of all evil, and of a fallen angel who rebelled against God, comes from them and finds its place in the New Testament.
For sure, such is not the case with the Old Testament. The concept of a 'devil' does not exist in Judaism. The ha-satan of Judaism is a willing servant of God. The Jews deny that an angel – albeit a noëtic being – can have free will and rebel against God..
Thus, throughout Judaism, ha-satan is a loyal angel of God, who was created by God to tempt us. Jews often quote Job (probably one of the oldest books of the OT) where this ha-satan is portrayed as a member in good standing with God.
The concept that satan is the devil appears in the deuterocanonical books and from them in the New Testament, which means that the Apostles used them.
Apply that same logic to the New Testament Deuterocannonicals like 2 Peter, 2 John and Revelation and then ask yourself "why did Luther remove the OT Deuterocannonicals and not the NT Deuterocannonicals?" Are you still willing to deny it had nothing to do with the theology of Martin Luther?
Regards
Nearly all New Testament books were controversial in a similar sense. The point remains, the same people who determined the books that you accept also included as inspired the books that you reject. "All scripture is inspired by God...".