I would rather people organically draw their own conclusions from their own research. If I plainly say what I have found they react by trying to force me into an ideological box with the intent to brand me some or other ad hominum. If they contend with the information and discuss it on a first principles basis then they are on a level where they can challenge me in debate or discussion from a position of understanding and conviction. I don't want to try and debate semantics with anyone who nonchalantly thinks they have a grasp on the topic of discussion and I have to assu,e no one knows what they are talking about until they prove that they are willing to discuss ideas without malice. Were you referring to the book of maccabees? Apochrapha is a word much like the word canon. I don't believe in either. History is history. Some is true some is false. We should not fear testing the veracity of historic manuscripts just because it has been bundled with other books some more or less useful to our growing understanding. Test and discard, keep what is good.

One of my pet peeves is that people love to read books about people, but for some reason they do not manage to go to the source to determine what all the fuss is about. Autobiographies and direct personal accounts are the best place to draw conclusions from.