Another important aspect of this passage is that it calls “all scripture” that Timothy (of mixed Greek and Jewish extraction) “hast known from infancy” is “inspired by God”. That “all scripture” that diaspora Jews knew was Greek Septuagint, and it included the Deuterocanonical books.

I don't know why you continue to ignore the proof provided to you countless times now (even on THIS thread) that:

1. There is no solid evidence the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha books were IN the Greek Septuagint in the first century A.D.

2. Even if they were part of the collection, they never had a Hebrew language origin so would not have had to be translated into Greek in the first place.

3. There is NO evidence ANYONE considered them as Divinely-inspired.

4. If inclusion in the Septuagint is proof to you that they ARE canonical, then why are there only seven of these extra books in the Catholic canon instead of the FIFTEEN that were with the Septuagint?

I have YET to see these questions answered directly. So, what's the deal? You can't give a valid defense? There IS no valid defense? Or, you don't believe the evidence stacked against you?

I have been barely nipping in and out of this thread (which is now approaching 7,000 replies: is that a record?). If I am now neglecting some points made previously, and unnecessarily reasserted others that have already been repeated ad nauseam, I ask only your understanding that I have read only a small fraction of the material on this thread.

Like, I daresay, most of us, I do not do original research in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. I have to rely on others more ancient or more learned.

To simplify the matter, I think you end up having to rely on one of these two authorities for the OT canon, either

the canon developed by post-Temple rabbinical Judaism (the Pharisees), or
the canon accepted by the earliest Christian churches and confirmed by the earliest Christian synods and councils.

My view? That to take the word of those who rejected Christ (the 1st-2nd century Pharisaical rabbis) over the Septuagint used by the Apostles (1st century) and the canon confirmed by the Damasian List (383 AD) and at Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397) by Christian synods, is not reasonable for a Christian.

Christ had stingingly condemned the Pharisees seven-fold (Matthew 23), the number"7" signifying in the Bible a complete and total condemnation. The post-Second Temple Pharisees took up the banner of those who had rejected Christ. I would hesitate to use the canon the post-Temple Pharisaic rabbis developed when they were right in the midst of the bitterest anti-Christian polemic.

Jerome, who spent many years in Palestine and who had engaged Rabbis to teach him the Hebrew language, at first rejected the Deuteros because they were not recognized as canonical by the Rabbis. He was finally converted to the view that he ought to accept them because they had been accepted and received by the Christian Churches. Augustine of Hippo also declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive."

One reason rabbinical Judaism (from Jamnia or wherever they had study-centers) decided to cut the deuterocanon, seems to be that they did not possess an extant copy in Hebrew, which was one of their key criteria. They were struggling to assert Hebrew as the sole Jewish liturgical language, and to delegitimize the Christians, who, like the writers of the NT, overwhelmingly used the (Greek) Septuagint.

That Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, would itself have been a count against it from the Judaizers' point of view. Incidentally, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, it was learned that the Deuterocanonical books were, in fact, in written form in Hebrew during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 A.D.

(I thought that was an real eye-opener when I read that in Jaroslav Pelikan's Biblical research and realized the implications.)

Doctrine comes from the Apostles, and was given to the Church before a word of the NT was ever written. My argument is not that the decision about the Deuterocanonicals was made by one man (Pope Damasus, 383) or by one or two or three church synods or councils (Hippo, Carthage, Nicaea) --- though that sure helps. My argument is that those canons themselves were derived from what the local churches had received as Scripture and were using.

Here's the key: It was not theory. It was practice.

The Reformation period saw the rejection of these books, which entails the rejection of the practice of the oldest local churches. By whose authority did they delegitimize the earliest Christian collections?

That has never been made clear to me, though I've searched high and low. Can you name the 16th / 17th century King, council, synod, or editorial board which had the authority to reject the criterion of "earliest Christian practice"?

And if you can give me that actual name or those names, I have this further question. For Scripture to be inerrant, the selection of the books, 1,000+ years later, would have had to be inerrant. Who made this particular 16th century man, or that particular editorial board, and them alone, inerrant? I'm here to learn.

I have YET to see these questions answered directly.

There is no solid evidence the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha books were IN the Greek Septuagint

Septuagint contains the Deuterocanon. Since there was no single physical book of anything does not mean the complete Septuagint as a manuscript collection does not have them. Remember, St. Paul teaches about "all scripture known" to Timothy, not about some specific codices.

never had a Hebrew language origin<>/I>

Now that we don't know. And it is not important: the entire New Testament in written originally in Greek anyway.

There is NO evidence ANYONE considered them as Divinely-inspired

There is evidence that St. Paul did, for he said "all scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:15-16.