>>13725595>>13725596I looked this up a bit because I was curious. There's a lot of information in
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-Tobit-and-Judith-removed-from-the-Bible?share=1which the main answer covers a lot more than Tobit and Judith.
Of interest, this schism comes from whether the absent books had hebrew originals or if they were only found in the greek Septuagint copy. Anything without a hebrew original was removed. However, as we've recently found, the Dead Sea Scrolls presented a hebrew original for "most" of the things thought to only be present in the Septuagint (link says only the extended book of Esther wasn't found). As for Luther and the NT books he disputed, no one followed, but I imagine it's because these NT books present "canon" of things already disputed from OT, for example Book of Enoch, which we can see in Hebrews 11:5 (a book Luther disputed) and Jude 1:14&15 (another book Luther disputed).
As I recall, Book of Enoch was taught in Judaea at the time of the Christ, and it is also present among the DSS. However, even the Catholic Church disputes Book of Enoch (despite accepting Jude who quotes it). In my personal unprofessional opinion, I agree with the Catholic Church on this. Enoch isn't presented in a way that seems divine inspired, or possible (pre-flood book? before Abraham the Hebrew and God's approach of him?) but aspects of it could be, so there may have been an original that was lost and the modern book (at the time of the Christ) was built upon older sources, with things lost in time.
Anyways, in short
>Septuagint had 9 more books and 3 extended books with no hebrew originals (known at the time)>Catholics kept them all>Orthodox added 4 more books and 1 extended>Ethiopian Orthodox (and Ethiopian Jews) added 7 more books (including Enoch)>Martin tried to cut those without hebrew originals and things referencing those cut>After Martin, "no hebrew originals" were cut but those referencing them (NT) were kept 
