1) Trent was not about canonization. Do you really want to assert Trent was about further canonization of new books to the established catholic Bible? Re:
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established. [Emphasis mine]
And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.
Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment..."
2) I admit surprise regarding various orthodox canon and admit I was mistaken in a certain fundamentalist assumption of catholic monolithic usage throughout Christendom. Having lived the past 20 years in a fundamentalist mentality, thinking my KJV Bible was complete and everyone followed the same book, I was surprised in this first year of relearning to find various "tweaks" in several versions. I assumed that all fell into a catholic canon, the Jewish canon, and the Protestant reformed canon. Call it western bias, I suppose, but I never focused on EO, assuming they followed the RCs lead. However, it is clear that the orthodox canon adds certain texts to their
canon. I admit that on this point I was mistaken and admit error. Eureka, I've learned something new.
3) IRC Luther originally desired the Book of James removed. However, later BoJ remained in the Bible. My point is that redaction was on the mind of many reformers. I was also thinking of Thomas Jefferson's personal version of the Bible.
Why are we quibbling when it seems apparent that Adams assertion that canon was set and there were no conspiring forces was false. Further, the idea that canonization was not politically inspired and that gnostic scrolls were dismissed, teachings removed, and teachers/ disciples were killed and forced underground is ludicrous. Redaction occurred in the Bible. Adams was wrong on this point. Whether Dan Brown was correct on any other point Adams contended with was not my focus.
"Do you really want to assert Trent was about further canonization of new books to the established catholic Bible?"
No, and I didn't. You said..."the Catholic church canonized the New Testament officially in the 4th century." I merely stated that Trent must have been an exercise in redundancy if that were really the case.
"I never focused on EO, assuming they followed the RCs lead."
I think that is a pretty common misunderstanding since I frequently hear and read statements from Catholics claiming that their Canon is and was THE Canon until Luther came along and ruined everything. That clearly isn't true, as even the document you included in your post indicates that leading into Trent there was more than one version "of the sacred books" in circulation. Now, please understand that I'm not saying misunderstandings like that are unique to Catholics. They obviously aren't. In fact, despite being an active and devoted Christian for almost my entire life, I was 30 before I learned the Catholic Church had a different Bible than the one I'd been studying for decades. I guess the learning process is never ending. Actually, it seems like the more I learn, the more I find out how little I really know.
"However, it is clear that the orthodox canon adds certain texts to their canon."
In the context of what we've already talked about, that statement is factually incorrect. It is more correct to say the Catholic Church has removed books from the Septuagint, which is what it bases its Old Testament Canon on. The irony is, that is the same "crime" many Catholics are so eager to pin on Luther.
"My point is that redaction was on the mind of many reformers."
That is much different than saying "Luther did not accept the Book of James into his New Testament". Again, a common misunderstanding is that Luther autonomously constructed his Biblical Canon without input from other Biblical experts (including many Catholic scholars). His efforts weren't some kind of Joseph Smith moment. They were open debates on a topic that truly hadn't been set in stone by anyone, including the Catholic Church.