I probably am not far from you in my opinion of the so-called deuterocanonical books. The bottom line is that there has always been doubt about their worthiness to be considered part of the Old Testament Scriptures. Your position seems to be, and if I misstate it, please correct me, that they are to be considered part of the Old Testament Scriptures, but not with the same status as, for example, Exodus or Isaiah.
Luther readily agreed that the content of the better of them, for example, the Wisdom of Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, was very valuable both historically and theologically, though more so historically. I think this is right. Whoever wrote them did so in order to bring glory to God, and not to put forth a different theology. And they should be read and honored in that light. However, having read them pretty thoroughly, both in English and Greek, I really don’t think their authors had the idea that they were inspired in the same sense as the writings of Moses or Isaiah. In fact, there seems to be real consciousness that prophecy of that sort had not been present in Israel for a very long time. Take a single example, 1 Maccabees 9:27. It is difficult to read this without drawing from it the conclusion that the author knew that no prophet sent from God had appeared in Israel up to his time, and that he was making no claim himself to be such. And there are other passages that give the same impression.
I think it is very unfortunate that the deuterocanonicals are not included in most English language Bibles today. But, finally, I cannot see where the term canonical, in any sense, can be according them. How could there be two levels of canonicity? Of authority? What can be accorded them rightly is that stand as witnesses that there were faithful in Israel between the Testaments, that the true canonical Scriptures were regarded as the word of God, and that there was a real effort made in those intervening years to preserve and disseminate the Old Testament Scriptures. All of this provides invaluable background for understanding the world in which the ministry of the Christ was carried out.
Your position seems to be, and if I misstate it, please correct me, that they are to be considered part of the Old Testament Scriptures, but not with the same status as, for example, Exodus or Isaiah.
Yes, that would be a good summation. I believe there's ample evidence that the deuterocanonical books have played an important role in the life of the church, but they have not widely been regarded with the same weight as the books you reference. Indeed, I used to attend an LCMS church and I recall the Old Testament lectionary reading one week coming from the Book of Maccabees.
I really don’t think their authors had the idea that they were inspired in the same sense as the writings of Moses or Isaiah.
It's funny you mention this. I hadn't thought of Maaccabees in that way, but I did have precisely that feeling as I was reading the Book of Ezra a couple weeks ago. In some books, there does seem to be an internal recognition that what is being written isn't perhaps as authoritative, or inspired, as other Scripture proclamations.
How could there be two levels of canonicity? Of authority?
This can be sticky, but I do believe the multi-level view of scripture has some merit. For example, the Book of Revelation was not accepted in the East for many centuries after it was written. In the west it was accepted, but with a somewhat lesser authority than that of the epistles. In this sense, I think there is a natural "rack and stack" mentality that goes along with canonization. I believe it was Keith Mathison, author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura, who said that the church has historically believed in a fallible list of infallible books. I think that's probably pretty close to the historical norm, though I'd need him to flesh out his definition of "infallible."