OS, I hope you know this is an incomplete (and possibly misleading) statement. Those books were readily available to the Church, but that doesn’t mean they were universally accepted, or that they weren’t the only ones that were used by the Church.
Revelation, Hebrews, and the Catholic Letters were a long time coming in the “universally accepted” realm. Other books were accepted in various regions - Clement’s Epistle to Corinth and the Shepherd of Hermas just to name a couple.
BTW, do you understand what the word “Canon” means? It boils down to what books are allowed to be read in the Catholic Liturgy, or what books are allowed to be read in Mass.
The lists you mentioned were many and varied until the 4th century.
Your definition of “Canon” must be a special definition of the RCC only. In fact, it is defined as:
“The books of the Bible recognized by any Christian Church as genuine and inspired, officially recognized as sacred books, the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding on Christians. Once a Canon has been declared, it is closed and not subject to any additions or deletions.”
Your history of the Canon should tell you that We have much more evidence that a list of New Testament books existed long before any evidence of any one called a pope existed, and hundreds of years before the church became the Roman Catholic Church, with a pope as leader.
Marcion had a list of canonized books…
Justin Martyr, 150 A.D. had a list of canonized books.
Origen established a Canon of books in his time, 185 - 254 A.D.
The Canon of Eusebius of Caesarea 265 - 340 A.D.
The Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem 350 A.D.
Clement of Alexandria had a Canon 180 - 211.
Hippolytus 170 - 235.
Irenaeus used the same Canon during his time in 130 - 202 A.D.
Cyprian of Carthage had a list converted in 246 A.D.
The Muratorian Canon is also dated to the end of the second century.
Athanasius of Alexandria set forth a NT Canon with a listing of books identical to those we have today.
While a few of the books were not accepted ab all until later, they were certainly all in circulation and the 27 we have today were already accepted by most from very early on.
While some of the books you mentioned, and others, were often read in the churches from time to time, they were never accepted as authoritative or inspired and were read the same way we read them today, for historical and reading purposes—not for anything authoritative because they are spurious.
It was because of such books as these that the church decided to declare an official Canon that everyone would agree on and of course, it was the 27 books already accepted, nothing else. All the leaders of the churches that were truly Christian Churches used the same 27 books and the disagreements were mostly from those who were attempting to change the gospel. The 27 books we have today were always the ones most believed and taught from. Where do you see the early church leaders quoting from the apocryphal books or any of the others not accepted? While there may be a few quotes, it is said that the writings of the early church leaders have fully constituted the New Testament in their writings and if you read their writings you will virtually all the New Testatmen there, word for word, as they quoted it.
