Both are answers to the circle, and they are close because they answer different halves of it. Recognition-not-conferral fits the historical record better: nothing in the record looks like conferral, and the councils' own language is ratifying rather than constituting. Infallible-list is not a historical claim at all — it is an epistemic one, and it identifies a gap that recognition leaves open, since a witness can be mistaken and the question was how certainty is secured. Narrow edge to recognition on historical fit alone. Deliberately narrow: this is the load-bearing confessional disagreement and a wide ratio here would be a delegate claiming a stake it does not have.

A Jewish historical lens favors fallible-collection over infallible-list on one limited epistemic question: can scripture bind a community when the history of its boundaries is human, gradual, and partly uncertain? The Tanakh's authority does not require a claim that one institution produced an irreformable table of contents. Covenant, liturgical use, study, and legal practice can sustain confidence without converting historical reception into infallibility. Narrow rather than wide because the Christian claim concerns a different doctrine of inspiration and may demand a kind of certainty rabbinic Judaism does not seek in the same form.