Ok, lets start with some context, the Tanakh is not one book but a collection of books as you probably know. What you may not have known is that copies of these scrolls were rarely kept together in one unalterable collection. The collection as we know it was put together in sometime between the 5th century BC and the 2nd century AD depending on who you ask. This is known as the Second Temple period and is roughly the time between the Jews' return from exile to their expulsion at the hands of the Romans.

During the Second Temple period, at a crossroads of civilizations, politics were influenced by various external and internal factors. As a result various factions emerged, each with their own interpretation of the Jewish faith and therefore what books should be included in the Tanakh.

The first group, the Sadducees were a religious sect who represented the aristocrats and priestly caste. Effectively they were literalist conservatives who believed that the proper way to worship was in the temple, the place of the exact presence of God, and through animal sacrifices, which only priests could perform. Saducees, crucially did not believe in the afterlife but assumed rewards from God came in this life. This is linked to their Hellenistic beliefs, but also considering they were aristocrats, you can understand why they'd want to justify their position. Because many of them were aristocrats, they also supported the resurgence of the monarchy and were often Hellenists, which I will get into further down.

Second were the Pharisees. These were middle-classed educated men who often fulfilled roles of teachers (Rabbis) and lawyers. Pharisees represented the common people in the Sanhedrin, a government formed with the Saducees, and thus were more culturally Hebraist. Their view of scripture, as opposed to the Saducee literalist view, was that similar to a constitution or similar legal document with God so they believed it was open to some interpretation and discretion. The Pharisees also believed in the Talmud, an oral tradition of customs and practices equal to the written scripture.

Finally there were some minor sects such as the Essenes and the Zealots. Essenes' view of scripture was that of 'Inspired Exegesis', they saw scripture as written by man but inspired by God. Zealots put particular emphasis on the coming of the Messiah to liberate them from the Romans.

In addition to the sectarian divisions, as mentioned briefly before, there were two major opinions on the role of culture in Judea at this time. The first was Hellenism, this was the proponents of Greek culture in Israel especially philosophy and art. This was mostly the opinion of those who had either risen to power through the Greek, and later, Roman conquest or those who benefited in some way from the status quo, eg. tax collectors. On the other hand Hebraists saw Hellenists as rejecting their Jewish roots and emphasized the role of Israelite culture in society This was the opinion of a majority of commoners who perceived those who had benefited from conquest as traitors, this is why tax collectors are especially criticized by Jews in the new testament.

Now, Judaism as we know it is Rabbinic Judaism, which doesn't correspond exactly with any of the factions above. Rabinnic Judaism is effectively a descendant of Hebraist Phariseeism in a doctrinal sense. However, Rabinnic Judaism was also a throwback to the days of the Babylonian exile when teachers, Rabbis, kept the religion and traditions of the Jews alive while they waited to return to the homeland. After the destruction of the temple and intermixing of the various tribes in exile, there was no priestly tribe or proper place to worship so Saduceeism died and with it their canon. The Zealots were effectively crushed in their rebellion, but their opinions, especially their view of the messiah, influenced modern Jewish thought. Nobody is quite sure what became of the essenes, or how they affected the modern canon. It is thought, especially after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, that they had an even broader selection of 'inspired' teaching.

This brings us to the status of Jewish scripture, assessed according to one's political, religious and cultural values. The Jews split the Tanakh into 3 sections: the Torah, the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim.

The Torah is the holy and unchangeable books of Moshe, subsequently, they were not altered and have remained unaltered bar a few grammatical adaptations for millennia. All Jewish sects recognized the authority of the Torah, it was written down by Moshe, the first and greatest prophet and copied, tradition states, since the days of Joshua. This was at the time of writing, the only authoritative scripture for Jews. Of course, the different sects had their different interpretations, but the words on the page remained the same and untranslated.

The Nevi'im were the prophets, but not in the way you might recognize them. This includes the historical books as well as the major and minor prophets. This is in 3 sections, the Prophets, the Latter Prophets and the Twelve. The Prophets were books from Israel's kingdom period, pre Elijah and were generally historical writings written to show the development of the relationship between God and his people, rather than recite events in a historical sense. In this the prophets were a distinct group of people holding the kings in check, so their writings were included as canonical. On the other hand the Latter Prophets and the Twelve were tested on whether or not their prophesies came true. That said there are some additional prophet's which aren't included in the Tanakh, I'll address this in a second.

First, however, let's discuss the Ketuvim, the Writings. These included wisdom books, secular history books and even some prophets. The authoritative position of some of were disputed, especially Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. The Mishnah Yayadim records this argument between Rabbis: All the holy writings make the hands impure. The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes make the hands impure.

R. Judah says: The Song of Songs makes the hands impure, but there is a dispute about Ecclesiastes.

R. Jose says: Ecclesiastes does not make the hands impure, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.

R. Simeon says: Ecclesiastes is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai [who say it does not make the hands impure] and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel [who say it does make the hands impure]..

R. Simeon b. Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed R. Eleazar b. Azariah head of the court that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes make the hands impure.

Side note: librarians, annoyed by the the damage done to books by priests eating, declared that holy books "made the hands impure" so one was forbidden to eat and read. Thus to "make the hands unclean" means they are holy.

Now lets address one important sect of Judaism we haven't talked about yet: Christianity! Now, Christianity is the only other branch of Judaism to stand the test of time, and the Christian apocrypha includes, as you note, some additional writings. Because Christianity was exploding at the time of these Jewish disputes to Jews detached from the action in Judea, these Jews retained their old, traditional texts, especially the Hellenists in Greece and Anatolia. I'm going to focus on the Orthodx canon here as it Protestants only use what was endorsed by the Jews themselves, and Catholics generaly have the same but fewer books. As you can tell, the Pharisees would have been hesitant to put Greek books in their Tanakh, but the Greek Christians would have had no qualms about leaving in books such as Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh or Wisdom. Thus we can get an Idea of some of the books the Orthodox Jews considered not to be authoritative.

To conclude, the Tanakh developed over to 1200-2000 years from Moshe's Torah to it's final rendition some time in the Second Temple period. Jews reject the Apocrypha because their authority was always disputed, yet some disputed books did get into the Tanakh. Most of these supported the Hebrew Pharisee position on things such as philosophy, resurrection and the messiah, which was the only position surviving other than the Christian one by the second century.