Some critics have questioned the inspiration and authority of the Bible by attacking the process that was used to recognize the books that are inspired, a process called canonization. Since critics have attacked the Bible by attempting to use the books that are called apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, it might be beneficial to look at what these books are, how they are different from the books of the Bible, and why we have the books of the Bible as opposed to some other collection of books.
The apocrypha refer to a series of books that Roman Catholics recognize as inspired, but protestants do not. During the Reformation period in the 1500s, one of the issues debated between Roman Catholics and Protestants were the apocryphal books, and Catholics responded with the statement made at the Council of Trent (1546-1563). Pseudepigrapha are books which claim to be written by a particular author, but were not, and are therefore ‘false writings’. The canon refers to Old and New Testament books accepted by all Christians, catholic and protestant.
One critic referred to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha as “frauds perpetrated by a deceitful lot.” This is an inaccurate representation. First, the apocrypha are rejected because of the lack of inspiration, not because of any fraud. The authorship may be known or unknown, but this does not constitute a misrepresentation. Second, the critics seem to imply that because the authorship is doubtful that the books are therefore factually inaccurate, which is not so. For example, Macabees is one of the apocryphal books. It is an historical account, and very well may reflect accurate history, but it is not inspired. If one were to uncover an ancient Jewish census record, it could be 100% accurate, but not included in the canon because it does not meet the test for canonicity, such as not being inspired and being of unproven authorship. No one ever claimed that all ancient books were in question. Third, while the pseudepigrapha admittedly claim authorship falsely, the process for identifying the true writings of the authors is objective and accurate, and applied by learned men who often knew the original authors and could determine the difference with certainty. Further, as already stated, the apocryphal writings with unknown authorship are not the same as being frauds; they are merely unknown. Fourth, since the pseudepigrapha are clearly identified and not accepted as inspired by catholics or protestants, they are a non-issue in determining whether the canonical books are correctly identified. Fifth, it is not clear as to whether customs of ancient disciples were to write in the names of their mentors as a common practice. While for canonical purposes this makes no difference as to the authenticity (they are still false), it does question as to whether even the pseudepigrapha can rightfully be called deceitful.
Therefore labeling books of unknown authorship or lack of divine inspiration as some sort of deceitful fraud is simply wrong. Suggesting that the process for determining the canon of the Bible is undistinguishable from apocrypha and pseudepigrapha shows a lack of understanding of the process for discovering the canon.
For an excellent series of descriptions relevant to this whole process, including why the apocrypha are rejected by protestants, see A General Introduction To The Bible by Geisler and Nix.