Yet here we are, even yet, with multiple canons.
I have a different approach to authoritative moves such as "canon," so this is not a good argument to use with me. I accept as canon what everyone accepts (that being the most refined), but not because some authority ordains it is so, but rather, because it is the most agreed upon.
That leaves me in the Protestant Bible, but that does not suppose that it is the ONLY books that are relevant or even God Breathed. I look for the signature of His Prophecy in extant psuedapigraphal books, and consider them on that alone, along with the efficacy of the current extant text against an assumed original.
In that, I find canon (authorized works) to be instructive, and I prove other texts against them, but I do not discount other books strictly because someone told me they are wrongly attributed.
Tradition is the tool the Holy Spirt used to bring together the truly inspired works into one canon.
If that were true, then there would be *no* dispute.
The standard used by the Holy SPirit through the councils was simple: is it in tradition, is it in the orthdox faith? And that's what tool the Spirit used to collect the canon.
Yet the same mechanism was used by Judah - and it failed miserably. And the official Hebraic scribal authority is far more defined than anything noted in the New Covenant. Their mistake? Tradition held to the same level of authority as the Word. Them with eyes, Let them see.
Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture
I could not disagree more emphatically.