The codices of the LXX that have the deuterocanonicals were the not the immediate product of the Jewish magisterium, but were apparently the result of 4th-5th Century Christian scholarship. See Roger Beckwith here (also see his book, “The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism”):
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/04-1_012.pdf
So Timothy’s OT was, best we know, absent the deuterocanonicals, and your claim for their inspiration cannot be substantiated.
Peace,
SR
Yes.
That's one for the library (I would like to have). Can we copy and paste here book reviews from Amazon.com? I gave the like above in the [above] exclamative. yes, I was yelling...though if I could come across a hardbound copy (some place other than Amazon), I do think I would prefer that. ;^')
Linking to the book itself as offered on Amazon, and to the reviewer also [as follows] I'm helping Mr. Bezos in doing so, perhaps?
Here we go, from Fr. Charles Erlandson;
Roger Beckwith's "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church" is a magisterial work on the issue he pursues. He has a masterful command of the material at hand and along the way provides the reader with an education in the fallacies of other works dealing with this issue; witnesses to the Canon; the facts of the Canon; the structure of the Canon; and the identity of the Canon. It's not an easy read, but if you're interested in issues related to how we got the Bible, the Canon, the Apocrypha, and the early Church's use of the Old Testament, then this is an important work that should be consulted. Canonical studies are making a comeback, and so revisiting Beckwith's work is a very worthwhile pursuitAs a matter of fairness, I should state that Roman Catholic readers will not agree with all of his conclusions, especially regarding the Apocrypha (even though I find his arguments persuasive on this point). Both Protestants and Catholics, however, should welcome Beckwith's work on account of its careful scholarship, even if one doesn't agree with all of his conclusions.
Other reviewers have covered some of Beckwith's material in detail, so I'll conclude with a list of his major conclusions:
1. Standard titles in the canon, a standard structure, a standard order and two standard counts (these are all interrelated) can probably be traced back to the second century B.C.
2. Disputes about 5 of the Old Testament books were only of limited scale and significance and probably arose out of exegetical work on books already ranked as canonical.
3. There was no wider Alexandrian (Greek) canon which accepted the Apocrypha, and even if there had been a distinct Alexandrian canon, it is the Palestinian one the first Christians would have taken over and used.
4. Pseudepigrapha were placed in a separate category from canon.
5. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were only included later, and not in an agreed way, by Christian Gentiles after the church's breach with the synagogue, among those whose knowledge of the primitive Christian canon was becoming blurred.
6. The three Jewish schools of interpretation all essentially agreed about the canon.
7. There is a general correspondence between the Christian canon and the Jewish. Christian evidence from New Testament endorses the Jewish titles for canon, their 3-fold structure, the traditional Jewish order, and possibly one or two standard Jewish numerations of the books. 8. On the question of the canonicity of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the truly primitive Christian evidence is negative.
While Beckwith's word on the Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church may not be the last word, it is a very weighty one that any serious scholarship will have to contend with.
I notice there in the next review yet another "Catholic" (likely not a priest?) disparaged the work with vague allegation, then changed the subject! How so very typical of the fearful...
I have the immense luxury of having had my own faith built up supernaturally -- by the Author and finisher of our faith.
If that were not so, then no earthly 'authority' could do so, including Scripture itself (if we can call that earthly...being as it is in physical form, so to speak) even though I do more than hold that the Scriptures are true --
Here's a blurb mentioning a few statements of Beckwith's outside of his writings per se;
After dinner, Dr. Roger Beckwith continued with a second session on The Bible and Higher Criticism, showing why human reason cannot be made the measure of all things. Dr Beckwith spoke of how Essays and Reviews published in 1860, shook Britain by introducing Liberalism and destructive Higher Critical theories, but its message was penned by men whose strength did not lay in source and text critical studies and was condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England Synod. Nevertheless, Essays and Reviews sold 22,000 copies in two years, which was more than Darwin’s Origin sold in twenty years. However, many complained that the national church ought not to proscribe doctrinal belief and the Bible was subject to individual scrutiny. The cry went up that Moses had never existed but one of equal powers must have done his work. Such ‘rationalism’ brought scholarship nowhere. Dr. Beckwith showed how Biblical prophesy cannot be dated after the events as Liberal theology supposes. Many prophesies extend beyond even the late dates given them by Liberal critics. His conclusion was that archaeological evidence overwhelmingly supports the Biblical accounts. The day’s sessions were closed by Evening Prayer.[bolding added]
The Deuterocanons were known to Sts. Justine Martyr, Hippolytus and Irenaeus, and to Origen, who counted them among other canonical books. See details in The canon of the Old Testament in the Church of the first three centuries
I suspect all this "scholarship" is just another Protestant attempt to rewrite history.