As other posters have mentioned, there are a number of lists of NT canon in the writings of the ANFs, some with slight variation. The subject was debated apparently outside of any council for years. The fact that any council approved the canon is actually the weakest arguement for the listing. If you were really interested in knowing the standards used to define the canon you would be asking that question instead of trying to make the case that because a group of bishops in Asia Minnor in the 4th century voted on a list of NT books to be considered the canon and therefore anyone who claims to be a Christian better be subject to the Roman Pope today.
This argument might make sense from a protestant perspective because your tradition has bucked all authority, but it just doesn’t jive with history. Agustin in the fourth going into fifth century wrote Jerome about the books
now called canonical. Think about this for a minute, it took
that long for anyone to start calling any book canonical. There’s something else implied here, that after the first 3 councils (which Jerome and Agustin were contemporary with) people stopped questioning which books were canonical. That is to say, the issue was settled then. So much for bucking the importance of a group of Bishops in Asia minor.
The reason why I say you are not listening is not to be mean and nasty. Martin Luther translated the NT from the Greek to German. Interesting fact, Luther was not the first to translate the Bible into German but his was the first to be sucessful and was read by a wide range of Germans. Anyway, we know this, Luthers Bible included all of the 27 books including James and Hebrews. If he wanted to eliminate them he would not have gone to the trouble of translating them and putting them in his edition of the Bible. So, there has to be more to the story than what you are saying. But I understand you need a reason to argue your case and you feel that you are making hay with this line and so be it.
Technically Luther included all 73 books, but the 7 OT Duetero’s + James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation were all seperated from the books Luther accepted as canonical because he was interested in his followers stopping reading those books. He also included introductory paragraphs like this RE James:
"I do not look upon it as the writing ot any Apostle, and this is my reason. First of all, because in direct opposition to St. Paul, and to all the other Scriptures, it (the Epistle of St. James) attributes justification to the works, and says, Abraham was justified by his works when he sacrificed his son. Whereas St . Paul, Rom. 4, on the contrary, teaches that Abraham was justified without works, through his faith alone Secondly (
I reject the Epistle), because it professes to instruct Christians, and in such a long treatise (lere), it does not even mention the Passion, the Resurrection, the Spirit of Christ . Whatever does not teach Christ, that is not apostolic, even if Peter or Paul were to teach it . Whereas, whatever teaches Christ, that is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod were to do it. But this James does nothing else but drive on to the law and to its works, and he mixes up things in such disorder, that I should say he was some good, pious man, who had heard certain sayings from the disciples of the Apostles, and then committed them ,vo paper; or perhaps it (the Epistle) has been taken from
his own discourse by some one else
Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible in the number of the truly principal books: but I will not forbid any one to place him and to keep him as he pleases.
"
The argument that Luther was not interested in changing the NT canon is refuted by his own pen.
