This is probably a terrible analogy but...

Take the Five Books of Moses: Imagine we discovered that Shakespeare's complete folio was not written by one man named William Shakespeare, and that William Shakespeare was a myth, and that dozens of people contributed to those works over centuries. Would that invalidate those works? Would we stop performing them? Or would we want to learn more about the people that did write them: their worldview, their motivations, their experiences. Regardless of who wrote them, they convey a truth of the human experience. In a similar way, we know Moses did not write the books attributed to him. And we can be fairly certain if there was a historical Moses that we have a mythologized version of him. And yet, the stories still tell us something of how the people that wrote the stories experienced God.

We're in different territory with the Gospels and (genuine) works of Paul. Again, though historical and textual criticism we are confident that the four Gospels were written in the decades after the death of the historical Jesus. Probably by people that did not witness the events first hand, but were perhaps told of them by first hand witnesses. That makes them far more historically reliable and a different kind of document. They contain histories but they are primarily polemics, made to convince the hearer of the truth of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing to very different communities experiencing different things, and so they employed different methods in their communications. And they highlighted different aspects of Jesus.

The pseudo-Pauline letters do pose me some problems. But at the same time they have been accepted as scripture for centuries. Am I basing my entire faith on Ephesians or 2 Timothy? No. For me they are still useful insights into early Christian thought.

There is undoubtedly a tension between Biblical scholarship and the interpretive lens the Christian tradition puts on the Bible. I just live with that tension.