You refer to the Deuterocanonicals. They were written by Jewish people during the 400 year gap between the last of the OT prophetical books and the time of Christ. They contain a lot of history about the Macabees, who resisted Hellenization by invading armies. They also contain some fanciful stuff that, in many places, is at odds with what the older Hebrew scriptures state.
So although the historical parts are useful and give us valuable insights, there is a clear difference between the Deuterocanonicals and what has come to be recognized as scripture inspired by God. The Jewish people themselves did not include them as canonical. At the Jewish Council of Jamnia, 100 AD, they were not included. Also, here is what Philo says:
"Flavius Josephus, the famous Jewish historian, a priest and a nobleman, wrote an important treatise in defence of the Jews. It was entitled 'Contra Apionem', and is dated circa AD 100" and quotes parts related to the canon [of Hebrew scriptures]. It deduces from this that "There are several things to note from these remarks of Josephus. (i) For him the canon whose verbal form was inviolable was closed and in fact had been closed from the time of Artaxerxes (465-425 BC) - essentially the time of Malachi. "The number of 'reliable' books which allow for no alteration and are the code on which Jewish life is based... is final... and a sharp line is drawn between them and the numerous records of the period after Artaxerxes which cannot be fully trusted" (Katz, p.76). (ii) This closed canon was a canon of 22 books arranged in three parts - 5 books of Moses, 13 of the prophets and 4 of hymns and practical precepts... his OT canon would be identical with ours irrespective of how he arranged the books within it." (p.28).
This is the historic evidence BEFORE the Catholic church was established. The Protestant view includes as canonical those Hebrew books that were quoted from in the NT. This is another reason for the Protestant OT canon differing from the Catholic OT canon, for the Catholics were happy to use material that was never referred to in the NT. In a nutshell, Flavius Josephus's writing about the Hebrew [OT] canon, circa AD 100, is what Protestants go by.
This canon was closed around 400 years before Jesus was born. The only issue is whether post-Malachi writings should be included - Catholicism says 7 of them should. But neither Catholics nor Protestants decided the original canon of the OT. The Jewish nation had that sorted before Christianity ever began!
Further, Protestant founder Martin Luther included those 7 in his German translation. It wasn't until a few hundred years later that other Protestants reasoned that, as they were never in the inspired canon of Hebrew scriptures, they should not be included. Finally, do note that a translation is distinct from an interpretation about what has been translated. Translations need to be done from the biblical languages of ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, not much later Latin.