Actually, that’s not what he’s saying. Remember that along with the Matthew, Mark, luke and John you had the Gospels of Thomas and Philip floating about. You also had very orthodox works like the Sherpherd of Hermas. Would you say any of these were inspired?
My point is that recognition of inspiration, should not be confused with officially declaring, or making something inspired.
Apostolic authority was handed down in written form...therefore books like Shepherd of Hermas (which no one ever claimed had an Apostolic origin—and dates from the mid 2nd Century) which, while good, were never recognized as scripture....at least in any widespread sense.
As for the “Gospels” of Thomas or Philip, they had Gnostic origins, and were no more accepted as scripture by the Church than we accept the Book of the Mormon today (they were from a from a rival religion after all).
In fact, one of the major criteria for the later councils’ recognition, was universal acceptance historically...and none of the books you mentioned was a contender.
My point is, far from being a black and white process where all these books are floating around...and no one knows what is scripture or not, until a council said so...the canonization process was an organic process of growth of certainty.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Acts, having 1st Century, provable, Apostolic origins were pretty well all accepted, by all Church leaders who knew these books...from the beginning. The letters of Paul too, were clearly accepted from the earliest days. The quibbling that did occur was over James, and Hebrews (no one knew for sure who the author was...) 2nd, 3rd John, and (wild & difficult to understand) Revelation—and a few other very small (1 and 2 page) epistles, which make no new doctrinal difference. If you counted the pages of books which were debated, I doubt you’d find much more than 5% of the New Testament.
The core, Paul certain other epistles, the Acts, and the 4 Gospels were, evidence shows, were ALWAYS trusted, and fully recognized as having the high and heavy authority, written down, of the Apostles themselves.
Just look at the dates of the other “gospels,” Gnostic, and other. All of them are 100+ years later—and the scholars of late antiquity were smart enough to know that—and therefore unless you were a Gnostic (that is a member of a counter-Christian cult), you didn’t accept them.
Plus the Church was still persecuted, weak and humble...not an imperial power (or even legal) in the 2nd and 3rd Century—when the canon complete appeared and was recognized. There was no nefarious mysterious power play to choose the books of the bible for some dark reason. The New Testament was the product of the Apostles and recognized by the persecuted Church, not Constantine’s imagined compromised one. It didn’t take a council or two to “create” the bible, it already existed, inspired of the Holy Spirit, for those with the eyes to see, and the ears to hear.