Actually, what I think b-d described was the Jewish forefathers (Christians) opinion of the Canon. Who cares what the Saduccees thought because, as our Lord Jesus told them, they "knew neither the scriptures nor the power of God". So that would raise the question why their opinion would count.
(1) For the books of the Old Testament were not given to the Christian church by stages, in temporal succession or through parts of the church, but all books belonging to it were received from the Jews at one and the same time written in one codex, after they had received unquestioned authority, which was confirmed by Christ himself and by the apostles. But the books of the New Testament were written separately in different times and places, and gradually collected into one corpus. Therefore, some of the later books, which came later to some churches, especially in remote areas, were held in doubt by some, until their authenticity gradually became known. (2) Although some Epistles and the Book of Revelation were questioned in some churches, yet there were always many more that accepted them. But there was never any disagreement over the apocryphal books, because they were always rejected by the Jewish church. - The Canonicity of the Apocrypha
Jesus said that to the Pharisees, as well. I think after Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, the only group of religious left were the Pharisees, so naturally, it would appear that early Christians agreed with them. However, the Septuagint already included what we would now call the Old Testament. Christians didn't have to rely on the Jews to tell them the Canon - the first Christians WERE Jews!
As to this:
But there was never any disagreement over the apocryphal books, because they were always rejected by the Jewish church
SO WERE THE GOSPELS... Have you torn them out of your Jewish Bible yet?
Quite simply, the reason the OLD TESTAMENT Deuterocannonicals are not in the Protestant Bible is because of theological points, not the Jews...
Regards