The arguments started many years ago. A Committee determined what went in and what went out. The word determined by committee.
Canonology (my made up word) is the study of the origins of different bible canons.
This discussion would benefit by recognizing that the discussion spans three different groups of texts and origins. There is the Old Testament, the New Testament and a group that for a lack of better term, I will call “Other”. It is also good to identify what is agreed upon in addition to identifying differences.
The OT is the Hebrew canon and can be shown that the canon was closed about 400 BC. This “Hebrew bible” is for the most part, accepted and agreed upon by all major Christian denominations. There are some minor variations in how the texts are divided - for example, is it just one book of Chronicles or is it 1st and 2nd Chronicles.
The 27 books in the NT are also agreed upon by most major Christian denominations. In fact, there is almost universal acceptance of the NT books.
As for the Others, they consist of different works classified as either the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic or individual works. In fact, the major differences to the different bibles can be narrowed down to these “Other” works. Why they are either included or excluded has been and continues to be, a mater of debate within the Christian community.
The primary question facing anyone who is deciding on what to include and exclude from the canon is: What books are so core to the faith that they must be studied in order to understand that faith (ie doctrine or dogma). Other books may be helpful, but are not necessary. For example, I like several of the books that Billy Graham has written. However, I do not consider them doctrine.
Some take a more restrictive view, others a more liberal view.
The arguments started many years ago. A Committee determined what went in and what went out. The word determined by committee.
I like how you stated your position. I agree with it.
In seminary, we had the Revised Standard Version that included the Apocrypha (though it is not recognized as Scripture by my denomination). It was included for historical reference purposes. I’ve read some of the Apocryphal books and my own take was that they always, for lack of a better word, sounded “odd” to me. Some had really bizarre creatures, sayings, etc. On the other hand, I found the books of the Maccabees interesting as they did include some historical narrative. How accurate they are I have no idea.
I think we should focus on the books that all agree upon and leave the “controversial” books up to the other denominations to decide what they want to use.
I’m not suggesting you do this, but it would be interesting if someone documented what doctrinal changes would have to be made (if any) by a given flavor of Christianity, should they accept or reject a book in the “other” category.