The devil is not in the details, but in the underlying motive of those who have a bias they desire to promulgate.
Interesting anecdote: in my own studies of these historical documents (which have always been available, not "hidden" as the program deceptively portrays), I came across one of the epistles of Clement. Reading it, I thought that it would have fit rather nicely with the rest of the New Testament letters. The tone and content was very much like those letters attributed to Paul. However, the early church fathers rejected the epistle for inclusion into the canon of scripture. Why? Depends on your view, I guess. My view is that if God is as real and active as the books of the New Testament claim, then it stands to reason that He also guided those men to choose the correct books.
But why not include the Epistle of Clement? Well, contained within is a comparison to the phoenix arising out of its own ashes, not in an illustration, but speaking of it as true and factual, that this bird really exists and this is how it lives. I can imagine that if the Bible contained this story today, then it would be useless, for everyone now knows that there has never been such a creature in reality, and anyone could then point to a part of the Bible that is clearly and unequivocally false.
As it stands, now, no one can do that. People can and do offer their opinions and interpretations, but excluding recorded miraculous acts there is nothing so easily debunked in the Bible as an analogy using a completely fictitious creature.
People who disbelieve in the Bible have pretty strong opinions, sometimes. But their arguments are entirely unconvincing, to me. They're going to have to do a lot better than digging up old books and presenting them as if they were just discovered, and tinting the exposition with conspiracy. So very lame.
