This is a very ingenious, convincing, but misleading statement to which I refer our readers: Deuterocanonical Books" (click here), from which this definitive selection comes:
"The deuterocanonical books (from the Greek meaning 'belonging to the second canon') is a term adopted in 16th century by the Roman Catholic Church to denote those books and passages of the Christian Old Testament, as defined in 1546 by the Council of Trent, that were not found in the Hebrew Bible."My advisedly choosing of the word "deuterocanonical" rather than "apocryphal" is correct. These books were not in the Hebrew Bible and not inspired. They are not of the same quality as the Solomonic books.
. . . in the Jewish Septuagint which Jesus and the Disciples referred to . . .
Being a translation, the Septuagint (LXX) cannot be inspired, because: (1) it is a man-made translation, (2) reference to it by Jesus and the Disciples/Apostles is an unproven theory, and (3) it was discarded by Jerome as useless for the translation into the Latin of the Vulgate.
Apparently you are either not aware, or not disclosing that while the Torah books were a fairly good translation, the LXX was mostly in the care (or even created by) the Christian community. Many of the early Gentile Christians had not the same standards of preservation as the scribes of the Hebrew texts.
I have read in scholarly accounts that many of the LXX passages that conflict with the Hebrew were copied back into the LXX from the Koine New Testament by such translators, and thus cannot be used to validate the idea that the NT speakers/writers used (hence authorized) the LXX as the source. Circular argument.
More true is that (as in Ps. 40:6-8, cf. Heb. 10:5-7) the use of the OT passage was, by the speaker/writer of the New, of the nature of an oral mishrah-type interpretation/application of the inscripturated principle. Less obvious is the fact that this was a customary method for a rabbi to teach his disciples, but being written down, it became a part of the Hebrew Oral Torah (TaNaKh). So, when such a passage was interpreted by Jesus or an Apostle to teach The Word, and was written down, it became a part of the Sacred Inspired Writings as prompted by the Holy Spirit. One needs to see such a passage in the context of rebbinical teaching to understand that Jesus or Peter or Paul were not quoting the LXX, they were creating the equivalent passage that later appeared in the imperfectly preserved LXX.
In fact 2 Maccabees 7 is what Hebrews 11:35 refers to (among many cases where they are referenced in the NT
I don't think so. The uninspired pious historical text Maccabees is probably extracting terms from the preexisting inspired texts of Ezekiel 26:7, Daniel 2:37, and Ezra 7:37, which spikes your theory.
The remainder of this reply is quaint, but it does nothing to advance the point that the cited DC books were just that, not counted by the Biblicists under the Old Covenant as God-breathed. Cited for history, perhaps; but parts of them were so lurid and fantastic that they could not be accepted as spiritual guides. Binding them in published Bibles says nothing about establishing their 100% throughout authenticity, in my opinion, nor in Jerome's, as well as that of those to whom the costs of including them did not make sense to the publishers when the Gutenberg revolution introduced competition in the marketplace, where non-essential items could be lopped off.