I see zero evidence of that. And again, wonder if that is true by NO JEW since the First Century has accepted ANY of these whichever-they-are books. I realize SOME Christians quoted from SOME of "them" (Whichever books "them" are) but that does not mean they saw them as Scripture or inerrant or inspired or norma normans or equal to say the Epistle to the Romans.
I think you are reading WAY TOO MUCH into the quote. Luther includes them in his TOME, the collection. But that does not mean he accepted it a canonical (ie, divinely inspired, inerrant, norma normans) - he clearly accepted NONE of the unique "set" he (and he alone) listed as "apocrypha".
The books Luther included in his translation into German were not the LXX - FAR from that. He included books that were common in the Catholic lectionary at the time (one MORE book than the Council of Florence recognized) and he never claimed they were Scriptures in the usual sense of that. But again, his translation was NOT in any sense that of the LXX.
Wrong. 2 Maccabees is IN his German translation; in the tome. I've got it right in my copy of Luther's Bible at home. I've read it from that tome.
He never accepted ANY of these books as canonical; he shared his PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL, OPINION (very common in his day) that these his included (because they were in most of the lectionaries used in Germany in the 16th Century) that they are useful for reading but NOT canonical - not to be used as a source or norm for doctrine, not to be used for theology; not inspired, not inerrant, not the equal in every sense of say Luke or Romans. In his preface to the unique "set" Luther includes, he writes,
“These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading.” Again, WHICH books? Luther doesn't say why he included the ones he did, but we know they were commonly found in 16th Century lectionaries commonly used in Germany at that time.
Luther officially rejected ONE book. It's the book the Catholics mean when they insist that he "REMOVED" a book from the Bible for his German Translation. Few Catholics today actually realize what book that was because they've never seen Luther's translation Most Catholic tomes at the time had 28 books in the NT. Luther's had 27. AH, one less! The Catholic ones had the Epistle to the Leodiceans, Luther's did not. THAT'S the ONLY book Luther has "missing." The ONLY one commonly found in Catholic tomes of his day NOT found in Luther's translation. But Luther insisted he never "removed" it since it was never actually included - tomes and lectionaries back then often had additional resources in them. Friend, there could not be a preface to 2 Maccs if he didn't include it in his tome. But did he PERSONALLY, in his own OPINION accept ANY of "these" books (which ever "these" are) as CANONICAL - ie divinely inspired, inerrant, norma normans? NO, he rejected them all in that sense - while including them in his tome as useful resources, acknowledging them as common in lectionaies (some Lutheran lectionaries to this day also include SOME of "them" - whatever "then" are). He could not be clearer when he wrote in the precise to these, " These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading.”
Your point about Luther 'denouncing books that didn't agree with him", that's the entirely debunked rantings of Catholic apologist Gary Mochuta for the past decade or so. It's a very recent "fave" point of some Catholics with NOTHING to support it and everything to reject it. Don't just swallow it.
See...
https://els.org/resources/answers/apocrypha/
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/did-luther-accept-apocrypha-early-in.html
http://lutherantheologystudygroup.blogspot.com/2011/06/did-luther-believe-in-apocrypha.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-luther-removed-2-maccabees-from.html
.
)
