Indeed, yet, as much as I agree with Bart, he has NO proof that they were written WITHOUT their apporval, simply that they were written by someon else, or perhaps edited.
There was much evidence that many of the ancient book, those included in the canon and others, were not written by who they claimed. Paul's letters are one example where the letters are full of contradictions from other things wrote by Paul. Of course it's all circumstantial, we weren't there. Forged is what it seems to be, however. This is a classic case of counting the hits, ignoring the misses and using interesting leaps of logic and broadening definitions in one case and restricting them in another to reach the conclusion you want.
Point being that the only thing we know is that those letters don't mesh with Paul's other letters and shoudl be viewed as "questionable", but beyond that were are purely speculating.
My point is that you are speculating with a specific bias towards a conclusion you want to be true.
That said, there is NO evidene they were forged and they could have:
That said, absolutely there is and you just don't like it.