The Canon recognized what the Church was already using...notice 2 Peter mentions the writings of Paul as Scripture, while Paul quotes Luke as Scripture.
Nothing against the Old Testament, but the church did NOT wait 400 years before using the New as Scripture. Most of the 27 book canon was accepted without question, but about 5 books were in doubt - and several other possible candidates were considered (and thus, being used by some congregations at that time).
You said Peter, Paul, AND Jesus, man. The only WRITTEN scripture when Jesus walked the earth was Septuagint Hebrew Scripture.
I am not going to argue that the Gospels existed prior to the end of the first century, nor the Epistles. Of course they did.
But the Canon of New Testament Scripture wasn’t finalized. You can’t change history, Fred.
“Nothing against the Old Testament, but the church did NOT wait 400 years before using the New as Scripture. Most of the 27 book canon was accepted without question, but about 5 books were in doubt - and several other possible candidates were considered (and thus, being used by some congregations at that time).”
Actually, more than several, and a number of the contending canons were quite short. The best story revolving around the canon concerns the widespread adoption of Hebrews and Revelation. The East accepted Hebrews early on. The West soundly rejected it. Similarly, the East rejected Revelation. There was a deal of sorts whereby the East promised to accept Revelation if the West accepted Hebrews. The West accepted Hebrews and we waited until the 8th century to accept Revelation and even at that we never use it.
You don't know what the the original said. The oldest copy of 2 Peter is P72 (or Bodmer VIII), placed at around AD 300 (beginning of the 4th century).
Modern biblical scholars (Haines-Eitzen , Gamble, Ehrman, Gregory, etc.) have shown that "free dissemination" of Christianiy by non-professional scribes has resulted not only in errors, but in deliberate alterations of the manuscripts to fit the evolving doctrine of the Church. This type of "harmonizing" of the scriptures makes any reference to NT books as "true" copies utterly unreliable.
Besides, there is every reason to believe that 2 Peter was written long after Peter was dead.