Adam - I replied the way I did partly because I’m convinced there is no rationally convincing answer to your question - otherwise someone would have found it by now.

Well, maybe that’s a slight overstatement. I’m not really qualified to answer your question anyway, but the little I have read of non-canonical texts suggests to me very good reasons why they were not included in the primary canon of biblical literature: the gospel of Thomas was illustrated in this way on this site by a previous contributor; Tobit being blinded by sleeping with his eyes open and sparrows depositing bird droppings on his eyes is another; one could go on. So often the non-canonical texts exhibit the fabulous and fantastic in a way that the biblical texts do not. Occasionally there are texts which might have slipped in (Wisdom?) - but largely on account of their correspondence or similarity to canonical texts, rather than any outstandingly unique contribution to the canon. Or maybe someone could correct me?

The responses I was giving in a previous post are serious and need serious consideration. First - what do we mean by ‘the word of God’? How has that come to be applied to the books of the bible, OT & NT, rather than its more specific meaning as used within the bible, OT & NT? What actually is ‘the word of God’?

Second, it’s not just the Holy Spirit in an abstract sense who ‘superintends scripture’ - it’s the verdict of people, and that is the people of faith communities, who read the material, and take on what is felt to be useful, having a divine imprimatur about it, and reject, or relegate to different categories what is not.

Third, there have been suggestions made on the site, which I take seriously, that the canonical texts be released from their canonical status, and be allowed to rest alongside other ancient texts without the one being set over the other in advance.

If this third suggestion were to be taken seriously, one would expect more discussion of ancient texts outside the bible in attempts to gain access to the authentic historical roots of the faith. This is in fact an important method, especially in historical critical scholarship. But few scholars seem to accord these texts the same status as the biblical texts. And on this site, we continue, by our practice, to accord greater authority to biblical than non-biblical texts.  I don’t think the argument that this is simply through force of habit is very covincing.