Depending on how craven you want to attribute them to be, the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, which essentially built the Bible, could well have had writings of Jesus himself and dismissed them. If that did happen, maybe they considered the writings to be forgeries, or maybe they didn't serve the purpose of the church. How do we know Jesus was literate, though?
First off, that's not how Nicaea worked nor was that what it was about. Unfortunately the DaVinci Code's success has spread that false info everywhere. Second, Jesus probably was educated. In order to teach in the Temple, which Jesus is documented as doing (regardless of your view of his existing or as a fabled character), he would have been trained in the Temple. That means reading and writing. The Bible was never voted upon, not in the way a lot of people attribute incorrectly to Nicaea which was about a type of heresy and church unity. A repost from what I shared at RR:
~110 AD - Ignatius of Antioch quotes from Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians. This means that *some* Christian communities had copies of these letters as early as and beginning of the 2nd century.
~140 AD - Marcion (later deemed a heretic but important to point out for historical reasons) has a canon of 10 Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Marcion. Marcion's canon includes all the Pauline books except for the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) and Hebrews, which is pretty much universally accepted as being non-Pauline in authorship anyways.
~150 AD - Polycarp, in his writings, is quoting from Matthew, Mark and Luke, Acts, Phillipians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Timothy, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 & 3 John.
~150 AD (+/- 10 years) - Justin Martyr, who is in Rome, directly quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians. He does talk about "Christian prophecy by John" which most interpret to be a reference to the Apocalypse of John but he never quotes it. Regardless, most agree that he is referring to Revelation.
~167 AD - Tatian is the first 2nd century author to explicitly call out the book of John. He actually promotes a single gospel (as in combining everything in Matt/Mark/Luke/John) using John as the "boilerplate". He also calls out Acts and actually compiles 15 Pauline Epistles (we only count 13 in our NT) but those DO NOT include the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon.
~180 AD - Irenaeus the first author to clearly spell out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the foundation for the NT (essentially canon) and that all other gospels are heretical works. He doesn't do the same for the other 23 books of the NT but it's important because from this point on, within proto-orthodoxy, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the ONLY gospels in use (with the exception of a handful of cases of the use of Thomas). He does, however, enumerate the "sacred texts" that were being used in Rome at this time: Matthew, Mark ,Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, Revelation to John (or 21 of the 27 books we call the NT today).
~190 AD (+/- 10 years) - Clement uses quotes from all NT books EXCEPT for 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Philemon and James. However Clement does quote other non-canonical books as well so just be aware of that if there is a retort about him being a dubious individual....
~ 215 AD (+/- 15 years) - Origen quotes from all the NT books EXCEPT for Hebrews, James, 3 John, 1 & 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of John. Also note that Origen is using some non-canonical works in his works as well.
Taking a quick break, it's important to note the locations of some of these folks. Some are in Rome, some are in Asia Minor, some are in Palestine/Egypt (Jerusalem/Alexandra). This means that other than the Gospel of John, the Pastoral Epistles and the books including and after Hebrews in our NT today, many of the books were already in circulation. They weren't referred to as Canon but their use was fairly widespread. Once you get into the 3rd century, it gets a bit messy due to the sheer volume of the various forms of Christianity and sects as well as how widespread it had become within the Empire, particularly with the middle class which was the "meat & potatoes" of the Christian faith. Now as far as the Gospels go and their usage, from historical references we know the following:
Mark and Matthew were in use within Palestine and Egypt early in the 2nd century.
Mark and Luke were in use within the Empire proper (Rome, maybe as far east as Athens) early in the 2nd Century.
John, however, doesn't appear until the mid 2nd century as it is never quoted or referred to until then. The earliest anyone can reliably date the book being "referenced" is ~150AD based on some of the language that Justin Martyr uses. Justin doesn't actually quote anything from John but his (Justin's) understanding of a higher, more complex Christology, represents that which is found in John. Regardless, named and quoted references to John first appear in Syria (by Tatian) and then quickly spread through the proto-orthodox church throughout the Empire. It's roughly safe (but not absolute) to say that Justin was probably aware of John, however, given his speech/dialogue and the timing between him and Irenaeus.
One last important person to call out is Eusebius who enumerates in the early 4th century (315 AD +/- 10 years): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, all 13 Pauline Epistles, 1 John and 1 Peter. All of these books are CLEARLY undisputed and given the previous history of said books, there's never been much question about them. He does call out the debate on Jude, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, the Apocalypse of John and Hebrews. Other than Revelation, the issue was authorship, late arrival and some of the content of the books, especially 2 Peter (one has to read it in Greek to understand the issue). However, he also indicates that all of these books, save 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of John are being used in a majority of churches at this time, and that the dissenters are not the majority. When and how majority agreement on these few books came about is not detailed in history. It's important to note that. That means it's never being reported on as an issue of voting...EVER. Regardless, sometime between Eusebius and 367 AD (see below), the issue is resolved amongst a very overwhelming majority of the churches. Also to note, most of the "Gnostic" texts and extra-canonical NT texts were rejected by this time, at least as Eusebius writes with the exception of Shepperd of Hermes, Apocalypse of Peter, an extant version of the Epistle of Barnabas and Teachings of the Apostles. All 4 are "disputed" but none are outright rejected at this time. Again, no word between here and 367 as to how the church reached a concensus but again, NO VOTE IS EVER RECORDED.
Now, as far as "voting" goes, this is just silly and again courtesy of books like "The DaVinci Code" (entertaining read, 95% fiction mixed in with 5% fact though, even non-Christian scholars cringe over the misinterpretation of history that it introduces). Here's how the Councils go and what they wanted to achieve:
325 AD - Council of Nicaea. The goal is to agree on the Trinity (as in put Arianism to rest and officially call it heretical), define the date for what we call Easter today (no bunnies and eggs back then, I promise), deal with a schism, discuss if baptisms by heretics still count and what to do about those not saved during the persecution by one of the emperors (not Nero, I forget who). They also developed the Nicene Creed at this time.
359 / 360 AD - First Council of Constantinople. Was an abject failure as few of the Western and Alexandrian/Syrian Bishops attended. Was pretty much an Eastern Church love fest. Not much was done other than to still call Arianism heretical.
363 AD - Synod of Laodicea. Probably the closest thing to a vote and the only ammunition a Bible denier has on canonization. The goal of this meeting was to determine which books could be read aloud within a church service. It agreed that only canonical books could be read in a service but it failed to list which books. The point was, only canon books could be read, not which books. It didn't explicitly condemn or endorse any book. However...there was a later meeting between here and Second Council of Constantinople (381) that did submit a list of 26 New Testament books (only excluding the Apocalypse of John) that is attributed to this meeting. That list cannot be proven to this meeting but it's the ONLY document that details something resembling a "vote" on the books in the canon. Using Eusebius' list and other earlier church fathers, however, only the disputed books would really fall into this vote and not anything by Paul or the Gospels (or 1 John/Peter). The document is called "Canon 60" and we know this came after Laodicea because the last recorded canon at this meeting was "Canon 59".
367 AD - Athanasius, (he was the Bishop of Alexandria at this time) explicitly calls out the 27 books we have today as scripture in his Easter address. He's actually the first to use the term "canon". By this time, however, most churches are using the 27 books we have today with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermes still in use in most places, the Book of Enoch was still canon in Alexandria and most points south and the Apocalypse of Peter replaced John's version in the Eastern (Asia Minor, Athens and what we call Ukraine and Russia today) Church.
381 AD - Second Council of Constantinople. More condemnation (with much greater success this time around) of Arianism which unified Christian theology about the Trinity. It reconfirmed the Nicene Creed and Theodosius pretty much called orthodox Christianity (not to be confused by Catholicism or Eastern Rites, that happens shortly after this though) the state religion which pretty much is the last nail in the proverbial coffin for dissenting/heretical Christian views. After this, any non-orthodox church/beliefs were attacked and eventually dismantled (leading to the abuses that give rise to Catholicism),
382 AD - Council of Rome declares the canon closed and the Western Church agrees with the Alexandrian canon with the exclusion being the Shepherd of Hermes and Enoch. Those two books are permanently removed from the Western Church.
383 AD - Jerome writes the Vulgate (for better or for worse...) which contains the exact 27 books we use today.
397 AD - The Council of Carthage concurs with the Western Church, removes Shepherd and Enoch (although the Ethiopian Church is disconnected by this time due to the war within the Empire and still uses Enoch today).
So the earliest one can claim there was a "vote" on the Bible was 363 AD. Regardless, by this time most of the Churches were using the same canon with few differences (as noted above). There were still some folks arguing against 2 Peter, Hebrews, 3 John, James, etc but they were in the minority by this time (but a vocal one). I need to stress, there was no "vote" at all recorded. There were earlier groups that debated individual books and used early forms of textual and higher criticism but for the larger canon (4 Gospels, 8 of the Pauline Epistles and a few other books) there official status were never once questioned.
PS: Sorry I haven't posted in awhile. I started my doctorate program (History, not pastoral or science related) back in September after getting engaged re: Historical Jesus. I'd like to start posting here again however I'm taking my two kids to DisneyWorld tomorrow morning for the next week. So please excuse me for doing a drive-by post and then pulling a vanishing act for a week. It's unintended. I've been lurking in the forums for the past 3 weeks but just never found the time/desire to post.
