Cold Steel,
There is no universally accepted Bible. Do not bring in irrelevancies.
With the OT, some bodies accept the MT, others the LXX, while we have many other sources, such as Symmachus, Symmachus and Theodotian; there is no agreement between the Church of Rome and Protestants, and you can throw the Orthodox into the mix. Consider also the TANAKH.
Differences exist with the NT, where some swear by the Textus Receptus, others accept Westcott-Hort, others take on an eclectic mix (e.g., the NIV). Add to that the books still accepted by some Christian Churches, including the Orthodox. I believe I am correct in saying that Codex Siniaticus includes Barnabas, and the early church accepted other writings as Scripture until the Paulines dominated and accepted only their own writings as sacred.
The Roman Catholics are the only Church to vote on which books were sacred and hence constitute the Bible. They conducted that vote at the Council of Trent in the 15th century. Ironically, Protestants accept the list of books based on Tradition.
While it is instructive to note the writings that the early church rejected, it is also significant to note the extensive use of apocryphal writings throughout the NT. Read the book of Enoch, for example, to see its influence on the ideas of Son of Man or on the Millennium that figures in Revelation.
Doug