“By definition if this were so we wouldn’t be having this argument. :)”
Okay, perhaps self-evident is not exactly the correct term. Self-revealing is a better representation of what I mean.
The Word reveals itself, to whom God wills to reveal it. It’s a good thing too, that God did not rely on His Word being proved by the evidences of man, otherwise the Bible would have no more claim to authority than any other book written by men but claimed to be divine.
“Unsurprisingly the list of books that you regard as ‘self evidently true’ coincides with the list of books that you regard as authoritative.”
Of course it’s unsurprising. It would be surprising if I put my faith in books that seemed to be quite obviously not the work of God. That would be foolishness.
The inspired writings of God were essentially established as being so like unto true men of God were, that being due to their Divine qualities and attestation. And which would also manifest there were no more books like them (though by making nebulous Cath. Tradition equal to Scripture and enjoining obedience to extrabiblical laws, with Rome being supreme, she is essentially adding to Scripture.)
In both cases the powers that be should recognize and affirm such as being of God, but sometimes they are not, yet are what they are regardless.
An infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture, and nor does being the steward of Scripture and inheritor of Divine promises and having historical descent make such infallible.
I understand your skepticism. It’s just - we know what the bible was like prior to Luther. The books were in the Gutenberg bible. They were in the Vulgate.
They have been in both for over a millennium before Luther came on the scene. I cannot see the justification for taking them out just because Luther said so. It stands to reason that if Daniel is inspired, then the entire book is inspired, not just ‘Daniel minus certain parts’.