Didn't a bunch of individuals get together and just agree on what books to add, or not add? If so, then there was no 'original text'. Not like the book just fell out of the sky complete.
>> Didn’t a bunch of individuals get together and just agree on what books to add, or not add? If so, then there was no ‘original text’. Not like the book just fell out of the sky complete. <<
I meant the original text of the Book of Kings, which is several centuries older than the chapter known as the Testament of Solomon.
If you’re curious about “a bunch of individuals,” the Orthodox Old Testament consists of those books which had been translated from Hebrew to Greek about two centuries before Christ. The Jewish bible consists of those selected by the Council of Jamnia, a few decades after Christ. The Protestant bible follows the Council of Jamnia. The Catholic bible follows those that the Council of Trent must be defended, which is very similar to the Orthodox bible, but excludes a shorter version (called Greek Esdras or 3 Esdras) of Ezra (1 Esdras) and Nehemiah (2 Esdras), which was allowed to fall into disuse because it contained no new information.
No. Both men of God (such as prophets like Isaiah and John the baptizer) as well as writings of God were established as being so essentially due to their uniquely heavenly qualities and attestation. While councils are to ratify this overall "best sellers list" of the Godly, that is not what the establishment of these was due to.
Thus the NT church began actually began in from those who were the supreme judges of what it of God, who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the covenantal promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lev. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; 2 Samuel 7:15,16; 2 Samuel 23:5; Psalms 11:4,9; Psalms 89:20-37; Psalms 111:5,9; Is. 41:10,; Isaiah 54:10; Jer. 7:23; Jer. 33:20,21) </p><p>
Instead of implicitly affirming their judgment, Truth-loving souls people held John the baptizer to "be a prophet indeed," (Mark 11:32) a they did in following an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium also rejected. For the Messiah reproved the latter from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
To God be the glory, and of such testimony we (and I) need to show more of.
For an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) And which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church.
And which canon is what the 39 OT Prot. canon conforms to. The establishment of NT writings followed the same pattern.