No, the Truth (not an argument) is that there were TWO canons of the Old Testament in common usage among Jews and Christians in the early centuries of Christianity.
The narrower of these (the Masoretic Canon) excludes what are called Apocrypha because those who favored the Masoretic Canon doubted that the Apocrypha were the inspired Word of God on such grounds as that they may not have been written in the Holy Land or did not sufficiently reference Torah (the Pentateuch) or similar reasons. The Masoretic Canon was published in Hebrew. Today, the Masoretic Canon is favored by Reformed Christian Churches. Luther preferred the narrower Masoretic Canon for whatever reason.
The more inclusive Canon was the Septuagint developed by Greek speaking Jewish scholars at Alexandria and which included the Apocrypha as the inspired Word of God along with the undisputed books. The Septuagint has always been preferred by the Roman Catholic Church (including all churches in communion with Rome) and by the Eastern Orthodox Churches whose differences with Roe are on matters other than Scripture. Some differences between the Canons are the Septuagint's inclusion of First and Second Maccabees, (and the Eastern Orthodox inclusion of third and Fourth Maccabees), Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, certain parts of Esther and Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
The Septuagint was compiled by the end of the second century B.C. It was the preferred canon of those who spoke Greek including many Jews who were not also Catholic and was compiled by 70 Jewish scholars. The Dead Sea Scrolls (apparently collected and stored by Jews (not Catholics and certainly not reformed Christians) roughly contemporary to Jesus Christ's life on earth, include much from both canons.
The differences between the two canons are probably on 5% of the total and undeserving of the extravagant attention they get.
A remaining question: Did Luther choose the Masoretic Canon over the Septuagint because his religious beliefs disagreed with SOME aspects of SOME of the Apocrypha. That question's answer must come from those far more scholarly than I. Luther clearly had serious problems with the New Testament Epistle of James (on the matter of the necessity of works) but he did not presume to exclude the Epistle of James from the New Testament. That leads me, at least, to credit Luther with integrity and to note that he simply chose the Masoretic Canon for other likely respectable reasons.
You are more scholarly than many of us but: scholarly and wrong is less right than less scholarly and right. You are also generally tussling beyond FR with the 20 centuries of quite scholarly Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and the quite scholarly tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy.
No, the Truth (not an argument) is that there were TWO canons of the Old Testament in common usage among Jews and Christians in the early centuries of Christianity.
I am not sure how you are disagreeing with my post, and thanks for your civil response, but see on the Septuagint here by the grace of God.
Note also that the Lord seems to refer to the tripartite divisions of the proposed Palestinian canon in Lk. 24:44, while none of the OT books quoted or referenced by the Lord were a manifest issue of dispute with those who sat in the seat of Moses.
A remaining question: Did Luther choose the Masoretic Canon over the Septuagint because his religious beliefs disagreed with SOME aspects of SOME of the Apocrypha.
This should be of help, and here for more on "Luther quoted, by Gods grace.