This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. That without a church council, we would not know what books are inspired.
The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are REGIONAL church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage).
But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but AFFIRMED the books they believed had functioned as FOUNDATIONAL documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN, not the way they wanted them to be.
Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.
This raises an important fact about the New Testament canon that every Christian should know. The shape of our New Testament canon was not determined by a vote or by a council, but BY A BROAD AND ANCIENT CONSENSUS.
I don’t usually agree with the Higher Critic Bart Ehrman.
However, I agree with at least this one statement of his -— “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.”
This historical reality is a good reminder that the canon is NOT JUST A MAN MADE CONSTRUCT. It was not the result of a power play brokered by rich cultural elites in some smoke filled room. It was the result of many years of God’s people reading, using, and responding to these books.
The same was true for the Old Testament canon.
Jesus himself used and cited the Old Testament writings with no indication anywhere that there was uncertainty about which books belonged.
In fact, He held His listeners accountable for knowing these books.
But, in all of this, there was no Old Testament church council that officially picked them (not even Jamnia). They too were the result of ancient and widespread consensus.
In the end, we can certainly acknowledge that humans played a role in the canonical process. But, not the role that is so commonly attributed to them. Humans did not determine the canon, they RESPONDED to it. In this sense, we can say that the canon and recognition of these as such were chosen because the Holy Spirit guided Christians of all ages to recognize them.
>>This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. That without a church council, we would not know what books are inspired.
I think you present an interesting theory, but it deemphasizes the fact that during and after the apostolic era there were many writings which were thought to be, and were claimed to be inspired, and therefore worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament. The “regional” councils to which you refer distinguished which were truly inspired and which were not. The first sentence of your third graph does not conflict with what I’ve just stated. The second sentence of that graph is an example of circular reasoning.
That's all any legitimate council ever does.
And the fact remains that there were people within the Church who were not on-board with the final NT canon, right up until the end. Typically this meant that they accepted other books in addition to the usual ones. So, some of "us" knew exactly which books were inspired, but others of "us" didn't.
BTW, your observation really doesn't change anything. Who, in your view, is authorized to recognize that "broad consensus" and make it binding on every believer? In the view of the ancient church, that "who" was a council.