Um.......what? I gave you solid evidence that the apocryphal books were NOT part of scripture and you come back with that?
Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
See that? NOT the Catholics. The Jews did NOT consider those books to be scripture. The Catholics added them.
Now I suppose you also think having a daughter is a disgrace as it says in your apocrypha? How about burning fish hearts to chase away demons? Do you also do that? Maybe smearing fish guts on someone’s eyes to get rid of cataracts? That's your scripture ey?
On below - which of the ancients are you referring? The Sadducees, who believed only the first five books of the Bible were inspired? Or the Jewish authorities who translated the Bible into Greek - which as you know Our Lord often quoted from? The one with Macabees? The version you are referring to is from after Our Lord, and frankly, many scholars think they found some of the books left out problematic in part because of the power of Christians. Also, remember Mark 7:6-8 - Our Lord there is quoting text not found in the scripture as codified by certain Jews in 90-120 A.D. Thus, clear that basing “scriptural” on a compilation of 90A.D. that had in part issues of dealing with growing Christianity is not a sound practice.
Also, issue was praying for the dead being pagan. As I say, the case is clear re scripture of Macabees, but even if not, as a religious text its existence is irrefutable and as such, shows praying for the dead was indeed a non-pagan practice.