That the Septuagint actually is? What is this? Must I assume you now arguing along lines of "if it was in the Septuagint then it was Hebrew holy writ"? Is that it?
That make no sense whatsoever. Do you even read what is sent to you???
Here, again, you do need to establish (rather than merely assert or assume) that the Jews either;
OR changed what that consisted of some time soon after the overthrow of the Temple.
Is your own thinking actually that shallow?
And I haven't re-invented the wheel (again!) on this thread, either!
I already touched upon how the Septuagint came into being -- as have others who have pinged you directly also.
It began as translation of the Pentateuch. Other 'books' as it were, were added later. Surely you know this?
We do not know what the contents were at the time of Christ.
And even though it likely there were they duetercanonical works associated with it (bearing in mind it was for a long time not in codex form, but a collection of scrolls) there is no reason to equate the presence of whatever was there, of these works which have been otherwise well enough established to have not EVER been considered by the religious authorities (those who did in fact sit in Moses's seat) to have been part of their holy writings -- to be so simple because Greek translators had put them there.
Why must I repeat every blasted thing I ever say to Roman Catholics on this forum? It's all there in black and white.
Did Jesus read from Greek language scrolls in the Temple in Jerusalem? Or did he read from Hebrew scrolls?
As another forum participant mentioned -- Paul was well versed in Hebrew Law. He WAS a Pharisee. He was by his own description "a Pharisee of Pharisees".
Do you actually suppose that Paul read and studied the collection of what the Jewish religious authorities recognized as Hebrew holy writ -- in Greek???
If so, then you must establish WHY -- rather than have me guess about it.
This showing why (or how) must use sources near as contemporary to time of Christ and the Apostles as is possible.
I say that for reason you do seem to have been ignoring all of those.
But I'm expected to ignore those too, and go instead with whatever "the Church" decided hundreds of years later -- even as it flies in the face of multiple sources and evidences (which may not have been as easily available to Church Councils as they are today, curiously enough...)
I don’t respond to attempts at vague irony. If you have a direct and plain question, I’ll answer.
The Septuagint was created as the necessary reading for Jews who find it easier to read in Greek. It included the Deuterocanon. St. Paul, no matter what his personal background was, chose to write in Greek as well. So did the Evangelists, and Peter, and James. Clearly, Greek was to them the language of the Church. The Deuterocanon was a part of the Christian Scripture at the time of St. Paul’s writing, and he said “all scripture” is inspired.