Citation please.
The first attempt to create Chrsitian 'canon' was made by none other than Marcion (the heretic some Baptists like to call their own) in the 2nd century, so your sources are 'beliefs' as you say (probably without relaizing it):
Marcion was the first to make an offical Canon, rejecting the Old Testament for the new.
The Canon was well known before Marcion made his.
His heresy only spurred the 'offical' listing of canonical books, not the acceptance of them by the individual churches, which had already occured.
He believes (emphasis added) that the gospels originally circulated individually yet rapidly, so that by the early second century (emphasis added) they were present together in church librries of major centers There was no Christian canon in those days. That's some woodoo scholarship you are citing. The fact is that even Athansius whom you love so much believed at least two apocryphal books to be scripture. But that was two hundred years after the fanatasy you quoted about the early 2nd century. At that time, all sorts of books were being read as scripture in early churches.
What was being read was scripture and it was recognized as scripture.
The only churches that had a time disquiquishing the correct Canon were the Alexandrian churches, of which Athanasius was a Father of.
It was the Alexandrian churches who long held to the Apocrypha books in both Old and New Testaments, as shown by their acceptance in their manuscripts, A,B and Aleph.
One Clement (96 AD) paraphrases the book of Hebrews but does not cosnider it scriptutre. the only thing he considers scripture is the Old Testament. That's because the Gospels were still being written.
The Scriptures were finished by 90AD and all of the NT accepted by the local churches by 100-150AD.
And that includes the Book of Hebrews, which was viewed as being written by Paul.
It was the 'offical' listing of the Canon that called into controversy some books, not the acceptance of them by the individual churches.
You will just have to do your own research, FTD. This is a neat trick in order to have someone else do the work for you. But, I will give you some leads. For the last 150 years of active (indeed, intense even) archaeological digging, there is no evidence of any Davidian "empire." Rather it was more like two dozen villages, with few thousand inhabitants (See Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p132, 142-143 and Marcus, The View from Nebo: p125 )
Charles Warren's (1867) (see Keller, The Bible as History: p190-191), which claimed to have discovered the water shaft purportedly used by David to attack his enemies has been debunked when it was established that it is a natural fissure that contains nothing even close to Davidian times, but rather much older Canaanite and much younger Israeli artifacts. (see Sturgis, It Ain?t Necessarily So: p143-144)
In fact, there is not a single mention of any of the surrounding settlemts and kingdoms of any powerful king by the name of David, or his "vast empire." The Tel Dan Stela fragments (late 800's BC) discovered in 1993, seem to suggest (without universal agreement, however, because of the poor match of the two fragments suggesting they were not of the same origin) the existence of Davidian offspring.
Truly, so much power and so little written about him. History has no problems recording powerful leaders great empires and significant events with utmost pedantry, except when it comes to Israeli claims.
Extensive redactions and machinations about David can be traced to the 7th c. BC Israeli king Josiah. Davidian myth grew proportionally as more time elapsed after his death. Too bad, archeology doesn't seem to be able to find anything even close to the myths we find in the Bible about David, mainly contained in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.
All these myths, beginning with Genesis (which clashes with anthropological evidence) and Exodus (which lacks any archaeological evidence of that ever happening), are part of oral tales that were passed on from one generation to another, with obvious variations, exaggerations and alterations. As such they are man-made received text that was carefully and deliberately doctored to create a providential message.
There is a strong probability that Jerusalem did not even exist during the time of David (11th c. BC) and that it became a more prominent place some 300 years later. (see Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p132)
The first and extensive redactions and machinations about David can be traced to the 7th c. BC Israeli king Josiah. Davidian myth grew proportionally as more time elapsed after his death. Too bad, archeology doesn't seem to be able to find anything even close to the myths we find in the Bible about David, mainly contained in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.
I wish it were otherwise, but even the Bible uses "miracles" as "proof" to make believers; taking someone's word just doesn't seem to cut it even in the Bible. An ap priori acceptance of something that has so much evidence of human tampering is only fit for the gullible who confuse their wishes as reality, and man-made traditions with divinity.
You are making things up, FTD.
Here is a list that suggests otherwise:
Red entries indicate the writer makes no mention of the book or has some doubt about it.
| Athanasius (b. 296) |
Origen (b. 185) |
Irenaeus (b. 130) |
Marcion* (b. 85) |
| Matthew | Matthew | Matthew | |
| Mark | Mark | Mark | |
| Luke | Luke | Luke | Luke |
| John | John | John | |
| Acts | Acts | Acts | |
| Romans | Romans | Romans | Romans |
| 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians |
| 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians |
| Galatians | Galatians | Galatians | Galatians |
| Ephesians | Ephesians | Ephesians | Ephesians |
| Philippians | Philippians | Philippians | Philippians |
| Colossians | Colossians | Colossians | Colossians |
| 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians |
| 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians |
| 1 Timothy | 1 Timothy | 1 Timothy | |
| 2 Timothy | 2 Timothy | 2 Timothy | |
| Titus | Titus | Titus | |
| Philemon | Philemon | Philemon | Philemon |
| Hebrews | Hebrews | Hebrews | |
| James* | James | James | |
| 1 Peter | 1 Peter | 1 Peter | |
| 2 Peter | 2 Peter | 2 Peter | |
| 1 John | 1 John | 1 John | |
| 2 John | 2 John | 2 John | |
| 3 John | 3 John | 3 John | |
| Jude | Jude | Jude | |
| Revelation** | Revelation | Revelation |
* Marcion's views were peculiar to his sect. He was aware of the fact that many of the other books were read as scripture in most churches.
** The Revelation of John was first received and then rejected by many churches in Asia Minor.
Marcion rejected the OT and accepted basically +Paul.
Notice how the "knowledge" of what consitutted canon grew proportionally as centuries elapsed. The longer the time period, the more complete the canon list was. Obviously, your statement that the canon was known from the beginning is nonsense.