Luther's was not the first nor was it even close to the best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_German
There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century.[2] In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born, Johannes Mentelin printed the Mentel Bible, a High German vernacular Bible, at Strasbourg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nuremberg.
Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478-1479, two Low German Bible editions were published in Cologne, one in the Low Rhenish dialect and another in the Low Saxon dialect.
In 1494, another Low German Bible was published in the dialect of Lübeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low Saxon Halberstadt Bible was published.
In total, there were at least eighteen complete German Bible editions, ninety editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first published his own New Testament translation. If you have an on-line account for the Encyclopedia Britannica you can also verify this information.
Many, including Luther’s accuser, kept the Apocrypha separate in authority, saying it was NOT useful for doctrine
What is your definition of Many? and please keep in mind that "many" people voted for Obozo, that doesn't mean it was the right choice.
Even the Council of Trent refused to address THAT question.
Because the matter had been settled.
You are incorrect. Luther was not the first, but it was undoubtedly the best and most accessible. IIRC, the High German vernacular version you cite was an edition produced for the rich. And the translation made by Luther exploded among the commoners, with over 100,000 printed and sold by the 1570s. Like Tyndale, he helped shaped the future of the language because his translation won such wide acceptance - and was sold at a price that made it possible for average people to own it.
The Catholic Church often allowed the wealthy vernacular translations, because their money kept them controllable.
As the challenge of the Reformation grew, so did the opposition by the Catholic Church against vernacular translations. The Catholic Church admitted it was because they did not trust commoners to read and understand scripture!
“What is your definition of Many?...Because the matter had been settled.”
From what I’ve read, a majority of scholars may have sided with the Apocrypha being unacceptable for doctrine. And the Council of Trent, as I’ve already pointed out, decided to pass on making a decision. They left the dispute between Jerome & Augustine in dispute, which means the official position of the Roman Catholic Church remains that it is up to the individual to decide if they agree with Jerome, or with Augustine. The Apocrypha has NEVER been declared to be acceptable for determining doctrine.
There is also a difference between the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books. The Council of Trent screwed up. They said the canon inlcuded the old Vulgate books, but then gave a list that didn’t include all the old vulgate books...and in the end, the Catholic Church decided to accept the list as authoritative. Thus for a thousand years, three small part of the Apocrypha had been accepted with all the rest, but the Council of Trent unknowingly rejected them. “Deuterocanonical” was invented to describe the abridged version of the Apocrypha left by the Council of Trent.
So which list was right - the list used for a thousand years before Trent, or the list after Trent?