Why would I? They were long accepted books of the Jewish canon and are not in dispute. Whereas the Apocryphal books ARE and for good reason. I wonder, if they didn't hint at prayers for the dead and Purgatory, would the Catholic Church have made such a big stink over them? Up until Trent, they were consider "helpful" or a good read and maybe had some historical info missing of the time period of the last few centuries pre-Christian Era. But it seems like it took the Reformation to get the "powers that be" to get around to demanding them be considered equal to Divinely-inspired Scripture. Somehow, I don't think the motive was holy.
Why would I? They were long accepted books of the Jewish canon and are not in dispute.
They existed in the Septuagint 300 years before Christ.
Whereas the Apocryphal books ARE and for good reason. I wonder, if they didn't hint at prayers for the dead and Purgatory, would the Catholic Church have made such a big stink over them?
The Orthodox have them as well, and most of the great theologians and doctrinaries came out of the East in the first millennium. So did most of the great heretics, but they were dealt with in due fashion.
But it seems like it took the Reformation to get the "powers that be" to get around to demanding them be considered equal to Divinely-inspired Scripture. Somehow, I don't think the motive was holy.
Since the Orthodox are not under the authority of Trent and they most certainly include them, I do not think that your conclusion is valid.