Phil,

I understand your questions about the canon and I understand it is difficult to talk about those legitimate questions in an evangelical surrounding without becoming marginalized.

I think one way to answer your question is to raise the question of what the canon ment for those who ‘finalized’the count or however you want to call it. I think evangelicals might hold quite a different view of the Bible as those ‘scriptural fathers’. Evangelicalism in its reaction against and tradition of enlightment view the Bible and its text more like a lawyer reads it: word by word, very literally. All statements must be ‘true’. In my understanding the canon was composed to say something like: this is the books the church should stand on. It was a reaction agains spreading heresies. it didn’t say: the books we chose are ‘word by word inspired’, or ‘in harmony with each other’, or ‘infallible’ or ‘all other books have no authority at all when it comes to Christ’ or something like that. It did state: those books are the ones we consider as most relevant for the church.

With this in mind, i think, there might be a way or path towards answering your question. If the Bible not anymore is ‘just true and all other books are just wrong’, but the Bible as Andrew very well pointed out is read in its context of other literature of its time and the evangelical understanding of Bible of the 19 th and 20 th century is put aside, then the borderline between the books that are in and out doesn’t become too big but is reduced to the original intention of the canon and not of what is ‘inspired’ and what not.
I hope I could contribute some to your question.