See the part of your post that I bolded in red: And based on that clarification, I agree. Here is an interesting excerpt from an article on development of the NT canon: Muratorian Canon Main article: Muratorian fragment The so-called Muratorian Canon is the earliest known example of a canon list of mostly New Testament books. It survives, damaged and thus incomplete, as a bad Latin translation of an original, no longer extant, Greek text that is usually dated in the late 2nd century, although a few scholars have preferred a 4th century date. This is an excerpt from Metzger's translation: The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke… The fourth… is that of John… the acts of all the apostles… As for the Epistles of Paul… To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh… once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians… one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy… to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion… the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John… and [the book of] Wisdom… We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently… And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church.—pages 305-307This is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the 27-book NT, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Also in the early 200's it is claimed Origen (c. 185-c. 254) was using the same 27 books as in the Catholic NT canon, though there were still lingering disputes over Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation. A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 160, who refers to it directly. He argued that it was illogical to reject Acts of the Apostles but accept the Gospel of Luke, as both were from the same author."