In defense of the Deuterocanon

So, I don't feel like I wrote enough about deuterocanonical books, (wrongly called “Apocrypha” by some Protestants, by the way, some Protestants DO accept these books as scripture, like Socal Preston (https://www.youtube.com/live/O4M_D7HRPUw?si=Op2uVjD48BSZePrQ), I know nothing about him personally, and I would say that I am disappointed with Gary Michuta suggesting anyone check out Sam Shamoun (his arguments against Islam need to be refined, more), but, Gary's stuff is mostly solid.
Anyway, getting back to it, because, I HAVE written about the Deuterocanon, it's just that I don't think that I write ENOUGH about it (if you're curious, Let's talk about the Maccabean revolt, Bringing the Deuterocanon to the masses,Those extra books ain't extra
The real reason that I think the reformers rejected these books (and, it should be noted, they were in their Bibles, The Great Protestant Coverup Part 1), is because they were, well, too Catholic.
See, I find this weird, given that the books were written by Jews.
The preface to Sirach, for instance, even gas a prologue about it being written specifically by a Jew for a Jewish audience, (Sirach Prologue:1).
I also want to mention this,

“You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language “
This is from the prologue for Sirach in the RSVCE. Why does this matter? Because one of the REALLY bad arguments that I have seen that these books can't be scripture is that they aren't in Hebrew. Okay, but, 1) The prologue to Sirach says otherwise (although, it could mean Aramaic), and, 2) The New Testament is in Greek.
By that logic, Christians couldn't accept the New Testament.
No, the reason that the reformers didn't accept these books as being on the same level as other scripture, is because they had issues with the theology.
Prayers for the dead when we've decided that worship can't be a sacrifice?
Well, since prayers for the dead are directly tied to that in the Bible, we can't have that!
(2 Maccabees 12:38-45).
And, which verse mentions sacrifice? I may as well tell y'all. V. 43, “He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of 2,000 drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering”.
Oh, and what about the importance of works? Well,we can't have that!
Or, because Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28. He did. Here it is in Greek.
Romans 3:28
Where's the word “alone”?
Now, that's not to say that translator bias isn't a real thing, even in the Deuterocanon.
The ESVCE rendering of Tobit 12:9 could stand to be refined a little bit,
“Practicing mercy delivers from death, and it purges away every sin. Those who do deeds of mercy will have full satisfaction from life; but those who practice sin and injustice are enemies of their own souls” (Tobit 12:9-10).
So, all this stuff about prayers for the dead and charity, got to Luther. He already made up his mind about what Paul was saying. So, since he couldn't read his theology back into the Deuterocanon, he just got rid of the Deuterocanon.

*All verses from ESV Catholic Edition with Deuterocanonical Books, Copyright 2017 by Crossway.