Because you say so?
the apocryphal books were never part of the Hebrew scripture.
Yes, they were, up until Jamnia. They were part of the Septuagint. It was not until Jamnia that the Jews had a "canon" to speak of. Until then, they used the books that were in the Septuagint, including those erroneously called 'apocryphal.'
We're not talking about non-Messianic, Jewish opinion on NT. That is obvious.
It is inconsistent to use the opinions of the Jews to judge the OT without using it to judge the NT. After the beginning of the Christian era, I don't much care about non-Messianic, Jewish opinion on the OT either.
We're talking about catholic modification of the OT in spite of it being a Jewish compilation.
No, we're not. See above.
H-E-B-R-E-W S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E
ie Tanakh; pre-dates Septuagint. Apocrypha books and batteries NOT included.
“According to the Talmud (Bava Basra 14b-15a, Rashi to Megillah 3a, 14a), much of the contents the Tanakh were compiled by the Men of the Great Assembly (”Anshei K’nesset HaGedolah”) a task completed in 450 BCE, and have remained unchanged since that date. Modern scholars are less certain, but believe that the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between 200 BCE and 200 CE[citation needed]. Both the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi’im) appear to have been codified by the time of the composition of the book of Sirach, c. 180 BCE; but the Writings (Ketuvim) may not yet have become an identified unit by this date[citation needed].
Formal closure of the canon has often been ascribed to Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Heinrich Graetz proposed in 1871 that it was concluded at a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew), some time in the period 70–90 CE. However, this view has fallen from favour since the 1960s, and it now questioned whether such a “council” ever occurred. However, Rabbinical writings seem to indicate that certain books were disputed as accepted canon (such as Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Esther), it may not necessarily be the case. The implication of the Talmud indicates that the books themselves were already accepted canon, but may have been misunderstood on philosophical or ecclesiastical grounds. The Talmud eliminates this misunderstanding.
The twenty-four books are also mentioned in the Midrash Qoheleth 12:12. A slightly different accounting can be found in the book Against Apion, by the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus, who describes 22 sacred books. Some scholars have suggested that he considered Ruth part of Judges, and Lamentations part of Jeremiah; as the Christian translator Jerome recorded in the 4th century CE. Other scholars suggest that at the time Josephus wrote, such books as Esther and Ecclesiastes were not yet considered canonical.”
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh