Nope, their foolishness didn't emerge until later.
The Scriptures were well established by 150 AD the only controversies were concerning the last few books. We've gone over this numerous times and it really is misleading to imply that the Canon was formed by the RCC. The RCC didn't make any official declaration until Trent. The EO were a lot quicker to declare what they believed the Canon to be, but even then it was more than 200 years after the fact.
Why not just admit what everyone who looks at this topic already knows. The Holy Spirit led the first generation of Christians following the end of the Apostolic Era to compile the Canon.
Yes, and that Holy Spirit lead enterprise was and is the Catholic Church. Even though it was in its infancy and lacked some of the structure and richness of the Tradition that was still forming, the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession is alive, vibrant, and infinitely verifiable to those willing to see.
Well, a couple of hedges and cavils and squirms.
First, as a rule, things don’t get addressed in councils or by the Pope unless there is a controversy. The Catholic Church is way more bottom up than the other side understands.
So a quick tour through the relevant wiki pages leads one to think that there never was a need for a pronouncement from on high. Augustine of Hippo promulgated a canon for his diocese in 393, which was, as far as I can tell, the Catholic Bible as it is today. Pope Damasus MAY have done the same in Rome in 382. But in any event, not counting the Marcionite canon, there wasn’t a need for an ‘official’ pronouncement.
But the ‘foolishness’, especially about what came to be called ‘the Real Presence’ arose at least by the 2nd century.
I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. I am saying that IF one takes a view of the Catholic Church as a top down dictatorial sort of thing, then one would expect that there would be pronouncements and decisions all over the place and scribes to keep track of them — and that this would have started right away — or, say, by the end of the first century.
But my untutored impression is that it’s quite different. Sometime it would be nice to have a few control freaks at the helm. But it really seems to be more a case of the “higher ups” shuffling as much as they can DOWN the line. This is even true in our parish where the past two priests allegedly in charge of our RCIA program sort of showed up now and again, but mostly left it all to the DRE and a little to me.
My point (and I do have one) is the absence of a Papal declaration or a conciliar constitution doesn’t mean a thing hasn’t been resolved. It may be evidence that it was so well resolved that there was no need for an official statement.
They were written by that time. That's all. Canonization did not take place until the end of the 4th century because many apologists and churches used additional books.
There is no doubt that most churches used pretty much the New Testament as we know it today, but only in addition to many other brooks now no longer considered acceptable. And this is the crux of the matter.
The Holy Spirit led the first generation of Christians following the end of the Apostolic Era to compile the Canon.
This is such clero-romnticism! Then who told them 200 years later to get rid of the books they were using all along supposedly under the Holy Spirit's guidance, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Book of Enoch, the Epistle of Barnabas, the various Apocalypses, and various Gospels, etc.?