In 397 AD a council in Carthage ratified a canon of 73 books as being the books read in the churches. A few years earlier a council in Hippo listed the same 73 books as canonical scripture. There were well attended (several hundred bishops) councils but they were nonetheless local/regional and not ecumenical. The East had its own business to attend to, problems with Arianism and a number of variant heresies occupied the attention of the bishops there.
Here is what
Orthodoxy has to say on the canon, in summary form,
The Canon of Scripture
Jews & Protestants:
Old Testament Identical
Catholic & Orthodox add:
1) Tobit
2) Judith
3) Additions to Esther
4) 1 Maccabees
5) 2 Maccabees
6) Wisdom of Solomon
7) Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
8) Baruch
9) Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah
Additions to Daniel =
10) Susanna
11) Song of the Three Children
12) Bel and the Dragon
Orthodox only:
1) 1 Esdras
2) some claim - 2 Esdras
3) Prayer of Manasseh
4) Psalm 151
5) 3 Maccabees
6) 4 Maccabees (in appendix)
7) some claim - The Book of Odes
Protestant, Catholic & Orthodox:
New Testament = books identical.
Technically the Book of Odes is canonical, in that the Nine Odes are nine canticles, including two evangelical canticles from Luke, Benedicite Omni Opera, and so on, all of which are found in Scripture. Of course, they are taken from the Septuagint editions, and some people regard Benedicite Omni Opera as apocryphal despite its immense beauty and immediate relevance to the Daniel narrative.
That said, the idea of a Book of Odes is technically redundant, since they are already in Scripture, but for ease of use, some Greek Bibles have it. The way the Canon, the principle hymn at Orthodox Matins and several other services work, is that based on each of the canticles of the Odes, a new ode is written that combines the thematic content of that Ode with the theme of the feast being observed. So having the Book of Odes provides a convenient place to reference the original nine canticles as they appear in Scripture, as opposed to the Odes based on them, which are numbered the same way. But it is not a distinct book of Scripture by any means, rather being a collection of some of the canticles.
Likewise, the Coptic liturgy has a similar system of Odes and Canticles, but the original Canticles their Odes are based on are four in number and include some of the Psalms.
The Syriac Orthodox (and presumably the Maronites*) also really like the format of the canon, and in addition to having translated many of the Greek canons and incorporated them into their liturgy, also wrote a number of Qanones (as the word is spelt in Syriac Aramaic) of their own.
*at least before their liturgy was devastated post-Vatican II, being one of three liturgies, along with the Roman and Ambrosian rites, which was modified in a way that greatly exceeded what the Council had actually called for, by Msgr Annibale Bugnini, and others inspired by him, not limited to the Catholic church, for the hugely problematic Revised Common Lectionary has become predominant among Protestant churches; Year D,** proposed by a Professor Slemmons of a Presbyterian university, would fix it by restoring much of the missing content that is included in the Anglican and other one year lectionaries it replaced, while also adding a year focused on the Gospel of John, but few churches have taken this up, and in another sense it compounds the problem by stretching it out to four years. But the real solution is to redo the Roman, Ambrosian and Maronite liturgies so that they have one year lectionaries and conform to the actual instructions of Vatican II, as opposed to the ideas of Bugnini and company, and also for Pope Francis to rescind what I regard as an arbitrary and unpleasant revocation of Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum. I probably would have joined the Roman Catholic Church if Pope Francis hadn’t done that, and also had refrained from abolishing the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
**Partially in jest, as a fun thought experiment, I am working on a Year E based on the Synoptic verses of the Gospel of Thomas and the Passion and Resurrection narrative of the Gospel of Peter, and other NT apocrypha which is either not heretical or which has obvious heterodox interpolations which can be excised. I have an interest in releasing an orthodox-compatible recension of the NT apocrypha, so that those apocryphons which contain material that could lead Christians astray but are not dominated by it and may have had legitimate origins, as well as those which are in no respect heterodox, such as the Protoevangelion of James and the Shepherd of Hermas, can be presented, to divert Christians away from the heretical material, and Year E arranges this material.
