Jesus had defined the OT and it does not include the books that Rome added at Trent.
We do have a good indication the canon was generally agreed upon by the end of the 2nd century. Some were in question due to authorship, but they were not rejected.
Paul's letters were already recognized as Scripture.
IIRC Athanasius was the first to provide a list of the books in the NT. However, this was recognizing what the church had already recognized. And IIRC, he excluded the books Rome has in the Apocrypha.
ealgeone:
Yes Dogmatically defined means with a Solemn Definition, but it is not a different Canon.
At the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442 in SESSION 11 4 February 1442 we see the canon of 73 books that were again Dogmatically defined at Trent defined here, but without a canon that has an anathema attached to it [which the Council of Trent did]
So at the Counci of Florence in 1442 you have a defined Canon in a Council which would fall under Ordinary and Universal Magesterium and thus is infallible. With Trent you had it with a solemn Dogmatic Definition which is higher level of Magesterium, but it is the same Canon.
That is not true about Saint Athanasius. In the early Church Canon was based on the following Criteria
1] Authorship, who was the author
2]Was it read in the Liturgy of the Church [Eucharist] as there is Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, the Law of prayer and the law of Faith are tied together
3] Was the book used in defining Doctrine or instructing Cathechumens [those to be baptized as adults] in the faith.
So something that clearly met all 3 above, it was received as canon. But some books could be questioned on 1 Authorship, i.e. there was debate early on about who wrote Hebrews. Revelation was questioned by many well into the 4th century per Eusebius Church History circa 325 AD
Regarding Canon n the 2nd Century it was Rome that was the one who started defining a Canon due to Gnostics such as Marcion, who was excommunicated unilaterally by Pope Saint Pius 1 in 144AD, by the 2nd half of the 2nd century, the Muratorian Fragment compiled by the Church of Rome gives us what are 23 of the 27 books that would be Universally accepted in the 4th [Revelation was actually accepted at Rome by then]
Regarding Saint Athanansius, I think you need to read what he actually wrote. Codex Alexandrinus, which is a late 4th century Codex contains all the Deuterocanonicals, i.e. Baruch+Letter of Jeremiah, Danial+Susana+prayer of Azariah, from the LXX, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Macabees, Wisdom and Sirach. It is clear that both the Churches of Alexandria and Constantinople were consulted by the North African Bishops who gathered at Councils in the late 4th and early 5th century. Council of Carthage in 419 AD has the same canon and its decrees were sent to Rome for review and confirmation of Pope Boniface.
So while the Codex likely was bounded after the time of Saint Athanansius, it does show by then what were books to be read in the Liturgy, criteria 2.
Saint Athanasius clearly uses the Deuterocanonical books to teach Doctrine, even though they were not all included to be read in the Church during his time. For example, in his “On the judgement of Dionysius written circa 354 AD, he clearly cites 1 Macabees, Wisdom and Sirach.
In fact, if you read Saint Athanasius Letter 39, he clearly cites Wisdom, Sirach, Esther [which was not included in his Canonical list], Judith and Tobit are books that the Fathers said are to be read by those newly joined to us and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.
One example of how the 7 Deuterocanonical books were used for teaching and instruction. Saint Athanasius in that same 39th letter writes “Well then they do not read the Scriptures in this way, that is to say, who do not chant the divine songs intelligently but simply to please themselves, most surely are to blame for a “hym of praise is not suitable for the lips of a sinner [Sirach 15:9].
If you read is writings against the Arians from 362 AD, he makes frequent use of Wisdom and Sirach as well as the LXX version of Daniel, Baruch
In his writing on the defense of the Nicene Faith, Saint Athanasius cited Baruch as well.
So when we talk about canon, 1] Authorship and then 2] Read in Liturgy and 3] used in teaching Doctrine or Instructing the faith.
Some books were both 2 and 3, some one but not the other, so Canon has to be understood the way it was in the period before the Councils that way.
The Letter of Saint Athanasius that he cited Sirach 15:9 is His Letter to Marcellinus not the Letter 39.
Just wanted to clarify that