"Silly boy, it's all about trust."

[Ninurta]

Sorry that does not really make sense. The Ethiopian church is in possession of the oldest bible in the world and this bible gives a different narrative. It evidently has a different idea of official Canon(s)
meaning it is not as clear cut as you are making it out.

Heck didnt the church remove even more books when they translated it into English. Was that grass roots and organic too. 

• 1 Esdras
  
• 2 Esdras
  
• Tobit
  
• Judith
  
• The rest of Esther
  
• The Wisdom of Solomon
  
• Ecclesiasticus
  
• Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah
  
• The Songs of the 3 Holy children
  
• The history of Susana
  
• Bel and the dragon
  
• The prayer for Manasses
  
• 1 Maccabees
  

https://consciousreminder.com/2017/03/12...ible-1684/

In reality the Canon is not set in stone and differs from Catholics / protestants etc.  Your nonsense filter is just controlling the narrative by different groups.

 :-)

No. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. I have a 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible within 5 feet of where I am sitting right now, and every one of those books is in it. The Vatican has NEVER removed any of those books - they are still in the Catholic Bibles to this day. from the Douay-Rheims Bible (the first Catholic Bible in English) right up through the Jerusalem Bible, all imprimatured by the Vatican. They were also included in the Protestant Bibles as originally translated, such as the great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible.

Even the Catholic version of the Living Bible, which is not a translation at all, it is a paraphrase, included them to this day.

Now, the Geneva Bible was not the first English Bible, but it was way back when, during the period you are questioning, and it still contains those books, collectively known as the "Apocrypha". Likewise, the first "King James" Bibles (aka "authorized version of 1611") also included them. In both of those Bibles, they are gathered together into a single section situated between the Old and New Testaments, In the KJV, they were eventually removed and bound into a volume of their own, but are still available in the KJV version, just as a separate volume.

The first translation into English, the Wycliffe Bible translated into Middle English (Chaucer's English) from the latter half of the 1300's DID omit the Apocrypha, I believe, but that isn't surprising since it also omitted the entire Old Testament. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate of the Catholic Church, rather than the original languages as all modern bibles are translated.

I think a deep dive into the history of the Bible texts would do a world of good to dispel the mythologies you appear to be laboring under.

Note also that there is a difference between the Apocrypha, the books you mention in this post, and the Pseudepigrapha, such as the Book of Enoch you mentioned previously.

ETA; Here is a section of II Esdras, chapter 6, in the Geneva Bible:



It's still there.

.