my dads helpful email.

Emily,

Good questions.  The first thing I'll say is that being on an archeological
dig hardly qualifies one for making assertions about Canon formation, since
the Canon is not an archeologically determined object, but the assessment of
the Church regarding its Scriptures. No one just dug up the Canon.  

I would assume he is misunderstanding his teacher because nobody would say
something like that.  The formation of the Canon happened gradually over
several hundred years.  When he says at Constantinople, what is that
supposed to mean? Is he suggesting that the emperor picked what would go
into the canon?  That would be absurd.  The Canon was largely settled by
that time.

That said, the gospels and letters of Paul were excepted very early, perhaps
by 130.  But the final list was later, the earliest actual list of the same
books we accept is not until 367 by Athanasius.  

But the canon was not really "closed" in the sense that someone gave a list
with finality until the Reformation.  It was the Reformers who rejected the
Apocrypha, but then the Catholics in a backlash excepted them.  This all
happened in the 1400-1550 time frame.

The Apocrypha are not consider on equal footing with Scripture by
Protestants but are by Catholics.  Even though disputed though, they are
ancient books with a venerable history, accepted by some and not other
Christians.  You can read them without worrying about your soul, and who
knows, perhaps the Spirit will speak to you through them.  If the Spirit can
speak through contemporary music perhaps through an ancient book is possible
too :)  I have no issue with reading them, but I just wouldn't quote it as
scripture.

Here is an excerpt on Canon Criteria from my e-library:
3.3. Criteria of Canonicity. Beyond the historical forces that were at work
in the formation of the canon, certain theoretical considerations were also
adduced, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries, by way of judging the
suitability of writings for inclusion in the canon, most especially of
writings about which there was some uncertainty. These so-called criteria of
canonicity were mainly traditional use, apostolicity, catholicity and
orthodoxy (Ohlig).
3.3.1. Traditional Use. As previously indicated, the primary basis for the
inclusion of any document in the canon of the NT was its longstanding,
widespread and well-established use among Christian communities. Such
traditional usage was a matter of fact before the church began to reflect on
its historic practice and made it an explicit criterion for canonical
standing. Certain writings, including the Gospels and Paul's letters, had
been used so widely and so long that there could be no question about their
place in the canon. But if customary use was a clear prerequisite, it was
not in every case sufficient by itself. Some documents that adequately met
this standard were not finally included in the canon (e.g., Shepherd of
Hermas, Didache and 1 Clement). Other criteria were of a more theoretical
sort.
3.3.2. Apostolicity. From an early time Christians considered their
Scriptures to be apostolic. This did not necessarily mean that authoritative
documents must have been written by apostles, though from an early time
apostolic authorship was valued. This is shown not only by the general
authority that quickly accrued to Paul's letters but also by the development
of traditions attributing certain anonymous Gospels (Matthew and John) to
apostolic authors or at least to apostolic sources (Mark and Luke) by the
use of apostolic pseudonymity (e.g., 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles,
Barnabas), and by the disuse that affected some writings by reason of doubts
raised about their apostolic authorship (Revelation, Hebrews). Yet some
documents explicitly claiming apostolic authorship either failed to gain
canonical standing (e.g., Didache, Barnabas, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of
Peter) or gained it only with difficulty (e.g., 2 Peter, Jude). Thus the
criterion of apostolicity in the narrow sense of authorship was hardly
decisive. In fact, the conception of apostolicity was elastic and might
refer, beyond direct authorship, to indirect authorship, derivation from the
apostolic period or conformity of content with what was generally understood
as apostolic teaching.
3.3.3. Catholicity. Catholicity was another consideration: in order to be
authoritative a document had to be relevant to the church as a whole and
even intended to be so by its author. Writings addressed to only small
groups or having a narrow purpose were accordingly devalued. Most of the
writings that became canonical were originally intended for limited
constituencies, and some even for individuals. Hence they failed to meet
this criterion, but this was not so obvious to the ancient church or was
counterbalanced by other factors. What is at work in the ideal of
catholicity is a preference for broad accessibility and general usefulness,
as against private, idiosyncratic or esoteric resources.
3.3.4. Orthodoxy. It was a largely tacit judgment that for a writing to be
authoritative, let alone canonical, it must be orthodox; that is, its
content had to correspond with the faith and practice of the church as that
was generally understood. Such a judgment presupposes that what the church
took to be its proper teaching was somehow available independently of
Scripture, namely, in the rule of faith (regula fidei), a terse, traditional
summary statement of principal convictions (cf. Irenaeus Haer. 3.4.1-2;
Tertullian De Praescr. 8-12). Since the rule of faith was itself understood
to be a summary of apostolic teaching derived through apostolic tradition,
there could scarcely be discord between it and Scriptures that were also
taken to be apostolic.
These criteria were variously applied in the history of the canon, but
rarely with systematic rigor. The Gospel of Peter was removed from use in
Rhossus by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, because of doubts about its
orthodoxy (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.12.2-6), in spite of its putative
apostolic origins. The Shepherd of Hermas, though catholic, orthodox and
widely used, suffered because it did not derive from the time of the
apostles (Muratorian Canon, ll. 73-80). The epistle to the Hebrews was
ultimately accepted as canonical in the West in spite of persistent
uncertainty about its authorship. Once established in general use, the
catholic status of Paul's letters was taken for granted in spite of their
particularity.

Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans, Dictionary of New Testament Background
: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, electronic ed. (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).