I am not arguing that the apocrypha has a universally accepted bounds. There is certainly variance regarding what was considered apocryphal, no question. Howev

I am not arguing that the apocrypha has a universally accepted bounds. There is certainly variance regarding what was considered apocryphal, no question. However, regarding whether the Tanakh in the inter-testamental period, namely those books that were "laid up" in the temple at Palestine: We have no evidence or reason to suspect that the canon preserved by the Masoretes, was in some part different from the Tanakh. We know of the dispute between Jerome and Augustine, which appears to be due to ignorance on Augustine's part, who thought the Jews counted the apocryphal books as part of the Tanakh. He was obviously wrong. Jerome's opinion was shared by Gregory the Great, and even, somewhat ironically, by Cardinal Cajetan in Luther's day. Luther simply followed the best scholarship of his day.