You make it sound like there is a consensus that they are Scriptural and that is simply not true.
The Apocrypha were never a part of the Masoretic Text. Early surviving Christian manuscripts don’t all agree on which of these books would be included. The denominations/Christian traditions you cite also disagree as to which “apocryphal books” are acceptable...some have more, some have less.
Luther was very suspicious of these books and took them out of the Old Testament and placed them in only as Intertestamental books...they weren’t part of the Old or New Testament in Luther’s view. The King James (1611) simply followed the lead of Luther. Even the Catholic Church at times has had its own doubts about several of these books.
I’m not saying these are excellent for historical purposes, but there is no way there has ever been a consensus that these are “Scriptural”.
Well, they are scriptural and in the bible and have been in the Bible among the Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Orthodox, Catholics and Assyrians. You may not agree to that, but that’s your choice. However, they are inspiring — reading how Matthias and his sons stood up for their faith is inspiring.
It’s my understanding that even the Roman Catholic Church didn’t officially include the Aprocrypha into the Canon until the mid-1500’s.
The amusing thing about placing them in scripture is that 1 Maccabees freely admits it wasn’t written with prophetic inspiration. Heck, it records that the Maccabees took certain conduct because there were no longer any prophets to tell them what to do. 1 Macc.4:46