I thought I read earlier on this thread that there really is no official "canon" in Orthodoxy. And, I didn't think the Deuts were made OFFICIAL canon by any Church until Trent, in response to the Reformation. I think I have heard some Catholics say that it all really was official from 1100 years earlier, but if so, I've never heard what the purpose of the Trent canon (decree?) was, then.
I'll bet a box of Spudnuts cinnamon bearclaws that the Church, as usual: a day late and a dollar short, defined the canon at Trent because somebody else had come up with a, so-to-speak, counter-canon. So, in the usual reactive mode, they said, "No, that's not it. THIS is it."
I cannot stress enough that the Church does not lay stuff down ex nihilo. (We leave that to God.) She says stuff when an issue of contention arises and she has to rear her substantial bulk up and deliver an opinion.
My daughter just called to complain about a "do" where she worships, at the Mission in San Buenaventura, known to the mapmakers as Ventura, CA. Cardinal Mahoney, the great and terrible, showed up for some anniversary or other. She couldn't understand why they did something THIS inefficient way when THAT way would have worked better.
I reminded her that God didn't choose us because we're smart or good, and out behavior continues to provide ample testimony to that simple principle. The maxim is, "I don't believe in organized religion; I'm a Catholic."
So it is with the canon. Somebody says, "Hey, I think I read in the papers that Luther says 'The Song of the Three Young men' is bogus."
"Did he now? Drat! I suppose we'll have to do something. Somebody go wake up the Pope."
(Actually, that's not entirely fair, Apparently Pope St, Pius V (O.P., by the way) was pretty good, though Protestants might not think so. He wasn't idle, anyway.
Or else the Church was just saying, “I really mean it, this time. Don’t make me come up there.”
We didn't have an Orthodox "Trent" and, like the Jews, the Eastern Church never formally canonized the scripture. The scriptures are what the Church, in time, come to regard as canon.
As it turns out, the non-binding local (Third, African) Council of Carthage at the end of the 4th century canonized the books of the Bible which included all the "Apocryphal" books, as well as the books we currently use, including the Book of Revelation and the entire Church accepted this on their own.
The Eastern Church, however, did not accept Revelation until the 9th century. This posed absolutely no problem with the West. No Ecumenical (General, binding) Councils of the Undivided Church (first 11 centuries) ever proclaimed the canon. The first "ecumenical" council that did was the Council of Trent, and it is binding only to the Western Church (for starters, we never used Vulgate).