Really? Did not know, thanks. Oh, what was Luther's reasoning for removing those books?
For the most part, he followed St Jerome's reasoning. Whereas most of the church fathers were inclined to accept everything that was in the Septuagint (a few went so far as to claim that God originally gave the scriptures in Greek and the Hebrew and Aramaic texts were later forgeries) into the Old Testament, Jerome wanted only to accept the texts that the Jews considered sacred. He acquiesced to the authorities and included the rest in the Vulgate too, but still expresses his opinion in the prefaces which were included in almost every medieval copy of the Vulgate.
Luthor of course did try to remove several books from the New Testament because he disagreed with their doctrines. His opposition to James and Revelation are the most well known, but I believe there were at least 3 more which he originally wanted removed before changing his mind.
The additions to Esther and Daniel were always dubious. They are not found in any manuscripts in the original languages and absent from many Greek versions as well. St Jerome was strongly opposed to their inclusion. When I read them in my Vulgate I found a very obvious change in tone and had trouble taking those sections seriously.
The Books of Tobit and Judith are basically just historical novels, works of fiction that are not even particularly good. Judith is especially full of anachronisms. Tobit includes a lot of superstition about angels and demons. It may be useful for understanding the mindset of certain groups of Pharisees, but that is about it.
Maccabees I is a very useful historical document. Although we don't have extant copies in the original language, translated idioms and general knowledge about the region show it is almost certainly genuine. It is not completely free of errors (some of its history of the Roman Republic is wrong), but is of higher quality than most histories of the time period. It may not count as divinely inspired, but it is certainly worth reading.
Maccabees II is not so valuable. It was originally composed in Greek, and its authors apparently failed geography. It is basically an attempt to reinterpret history in such a way as to support the positions of the Pharisees. It is perhaps best known as being the only scriptural support for the doctrine of Purgatory, even though it doesn't really support it. All that verse says is that it was considered pious to pray for the dead because that showed a belief in the resurrection. It says nothing about the condition of a soul awaiting judgement day.
I personally have quite like the books of Baruch, Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon, and am inclined to accept them. It is true that there are no extant copies in the original language, but the first two were certainly Hebrew at one point. Wisdom was likely originally written in Greek, and technically is not a Pseudepigraph because it was actually only claimed to have been written by friends (or admirers) of King Solomon rather than Solomon himself.
)
