I guess the point I am trying to get across is that there was no set canon outside the Torah
IMO, this seems to be the point you are missing.
For the JEWS, prior to the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, only the "Books of Moses" (the first 5 OT books) were universally seen as CANON (the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the rule/canon/norm for faith and practice. But there was an ever-growing number of other books that many Jews read and used in SOME way for SOME purposes - in SOME cases, perhaps seeing such as canonical and in others not. This issue was formally, officially, authoritatively "resolved" and determined at the Jewish Council of Jamnia. And for the Jews, the case was closed. Any others than these 39 books (by our count) simply fell out of use and among them disappeared. But this was a JEWISH meeting. To what degree early Christians considered it is largely unknown.
For CHRISTIANS there has never been an ecumenical/universal, binding, authoritative determination about what is and is not canonical Scripture. Friend, it has not yet happened. Yes, we have SEVERAL men sharing their opinions and observations .... we have 3 or regional, nonecumenical, non-authoritative meetings in the late 4th Century primarily concerned with the Lectionary (readings for the Sunday worship service) - we know that was a major issue at the time, what books should and should not be included in that - but NONE of the Seven Ecumenical Councils ruled on this (or even discussed it!!!). NEVER - not in 2000 years - NEVER has their been ANYTHING authoritatively or universal about this matter.
Just hasn't happened.
Friend, what
Christians have is very different than in the case of the Jews. What Christians is an INFORMAL, NON-OFFICIAL, NON-BINDING, NON-AUTHORITATIVE Tradition and consensus in popular opinion and use around 66-74 books. This consensus was mostly in place by the end of the Second Century BUT was not "solid" for a LONG time.... Many Catholic tomes included the Epistle of the Leodiceans (in many Catholic tomes for over 1000 years), and while all tomes included the 66-73 or so books, others ebbed and flowed, sometimes present and sometimes not, sometimes used and sometimes not. NONE of this official! The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (that one, singular denomination) was the first to officially rule on this at the Council of Florence but that wasn't until the 15th Century and wasn't binding (it thus had to repeat the action a century later at Trent, to make it authoritative and binding) - but this wasn't until the 15th or 16th Century and for just that ONE denomination (BTW, it was mostly ignored for many years - Catholics using books not mentioned at Trent long after that determination). Calvin personally gave his opinion in the 16th Century and this was officially, authoritatively incorporated into the Reformed Confessions, but again, this was not until the 16th Century and ONLY for that ONE denominational family. The Anglican Church also did this in the 16th Century and did so authoritatively in its 39 Articles but again not until the 16th Century and ONLY for that one, singular denominational family. And
these 3 denominations all disagreed with each other on this matter. Lutheranism never made any official determination here but Luther's own view was still different again from the others. The LDS would later rule on this too but again not until late (19th Century) and ONLY for that one denomination. Friend, there is nothing universal or authoritative here.... this is a matter of Tradition and not universal consensus.
And
there's other points IMO you are missing. Many do.
1 Including a book in some tome.... including a book in the Lectionary.... even calling a book specifically "CANONICAL" or "SCRIPTURE" did
NOT mean all were considered
equal. Yes, this whole point largely disappeared AFTER the 16th Century, but it was a factor for 1500 years. There was a "ranking" (just as the Jews did - and still do with the OT). Until the 17th Century, Christians spoke of the 66 books and saw them in at least two categories: Spoken In Favor and Spoken Against (all based on how early and strong the embrace). There were also books spoken of as DEUTEROcanonical (UNDER the canon, LESS than the canon) - used, read, quoted, preached on, perhaps included in tomes and lectionaries but not really canonical.
Some "canonical" "Scriptures" (the 4 Gospels, Acts, all Paul's books, 1 John, 1 Peter) were simply seen as MORE canonical than books such as James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation) for example - all seen as CANONICAL SCRIPTURE but not seen as equal. When theologians noted some Scriptures seemed problematic in view of others, they employed this principle. In Luther's early years, when he felt James taught justification by works, he simply employed this - Romans is "spoken in favor" and James is "spoken against" and so James must be understood to agree with Romans - it was the common approach that no one questioned (Later, Luther correctly understood James and this argument is dropped). My point? For 16-17 centuries, EVEN IF a book was universally accepted specifically "canonical Scripture" did NOT mean they were seen as equally authoritative.
2. AND there were other books OFTEN quoted, OFTEN used, that were typically NOT specifically called "canon" or "Scripture" but clearly were UNDER the "spoken against" books - but still QUOTED and USED, including as sermon texts. These are usually referred to as "DEUTEROcanonical." Catholics today have forgotten it, but for over 1000 years, the Epistle to the Leodiceans was not only READ and QUOTED and USED but often actually appeared in Catholic Bibles. But you'd be hard pressed to see it referenced as "canon" or even used as a rule/canon/norm equal to say the Epistle to the Romans or First Peter. We have 66 books (
maybe 73 or 74) that ARE typically seen as "canon" but some MORE so than others (some subject to others), but there are others USED - read, studied, quoted, preached on - that really weren't seen as canonical IN USE at all - less than the "Spoken Against" books. WHY? Well, it seems it was mostly a case of Tradition, how FIRM and EARLY and UNIVERSAL was the embrace? Theology may have played a role in WHY we have different levels of embrace (Paul's Epistles seem to have been the core, the starting point, the primary determination here) but it seems historically, HOW books were embraced (canonical - spoken in favor, canonical - spoken against - deuterocanonical but good to use) seems to have simply been a matter of consensus and tradition, and this was not universal or consistent.
3. The Reformation and the printing press (and existence of printed books, often
denominationally approved books) changed this. In part because of the RCC's dogma of Purgatory, the FUNCTION of these deuterocanonical books became an issue (as well as WHAT books are to be included in approved printed tomes). Luther gives his OPINION in his very popular German translation (the very common opinion of the day - including among Catholics)... Calvin gives his rather radical opinion and it's put in the Westminister Confession and required in Reformed Bibles.... The Anglican Church gives its radical opinion and puts it in the 39 Articles (and required that in the original AV of 1611).... suddenly, we had printed books that were OFFICIALLY different. But friend, NONE OF THIS impacted the 66 - or even the "spoken against" books of this 66, it only impacted the books typically embraced as DEUTERO (secondary, under the canon).
A blessed Epiphany season to you and yours...
Josiah
.
