You are simply displaying ignorance and invalidating your argument. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from around 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. were found in Eleven caves containing nearly 1,100 ancient documents which included several scrolls and more than 100,000 fragments. 2 Fragments from every Old Testament book except for the book of Esther were discovered. (The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. The oldest known piece of biblical Hebrew is a fragment from the book of Samuel discovered in Cave 4, and is dated from the third century B.C.4) Other works included apocryphal books, commentaries, manuals of discipline for the Qumran community, and theological texts. Meaning they contain Biblical as well as apocryphal works, prayers and legal texts and sectarian documents. For instance, Cave 2 contains much of the Hebrwew canon along with 2Q21: Apocryphon of Moses
2Q22: Aprocyrphon of David
2Q23: Apocyrphal prophecy
2Q24: New Jerusalem
2Q25: Legal documents
2Q26: Enoch Giants
2Q27-33: unclassified
More details here.
Likewise, Cave 4, where fragments of Tobit were found, contain a mixture of parts of some Scripture texts along with other writings, including sectarian documents.
Thus according to your standard, since all such were found along sacred scripture then all must be scripture just as you claim your fable was!
And your own Bible notes themselves (right from the Vatican) affirms that the Book of Tobit "combines specifically Jewish piety and morality with oriental folklore."
Thus your attempt to invoke the DSS as well as any attempt to disparage my judgment of Tobit as a fable is in vain.
" Now you may question which books of the Canon the Holy Spirit got wrong...and which ones were right as decided upon by the Catholic Church..."
Now you are attempting another invalid argument, for there is no imputation of error by the Holy Spirit in my reproof your fable, and that the Catholic Church finally settled the canon rightly is simply begging the question, assuming the very thing you can only wish could be proven, but to the contrary it is not.