Let's start with:
Development of the Old Testament canon.
There is no common agreement as to when the twenty four books of the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible came together. (It's 39 in our Bibles but is the same books collated in a different way.) Either (most likely) it was during the four hundred years between the Great Synagogue (of Ezra's time) and Yahusha being born or at a time in AD usually the second century. Either way, through the early emergence of the Sanhedrin or its later structure after disillusionment of Jerusalem or through a pre-Rome grouping it would have had no right to do so. Nevertheless there would have been some structure of scrolls in operation at synagogues. In Luke 4:17a it says: "And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah." This is biblion meaning a roll: — bill, book, scroll or writing.
Outside Torah and the Prophets which books were agreed on was more fluid - some added, some removed and every combination in between. Everyone to their own taste as the saying goes. Again, if you have anyone in control of a situation they will invariably set up their own rules - it's human nature. The Bible whether Old Testament or New will be changed.
This drives us on to the next question about synagogues.
Who Invented the Synagogue?
There's no mention of synagogues in the Torah. Hmmm. chabad.org, however, says 'The institution of the synagogue is of later, Rabbinic origin. The purpose of the synagogue is to provide a venue to facilitate and enhance the Biblical obligation of prayer by adding a communal element.' There's some truth that prayer is necessary but what we have here is basically a full blown lie to control the ordinary person. That's why the priests set up synagogue! Actually it teaches the truth about religions the whole lot. All set up to control through 'leadership.' All the same too. Just a few elements changed to look different. This crosses a very significant point, however, that prayer is all we should meet to do. No need for meetings and services. Just discipleship as mentioned in the Gospels and do His will. I know I keep going on about this but it's the crux of the matter. Relationship with YAH is fantastic!
Next:
Biblical canon.
Look at this mix of ideas from the Wikipedia article of the same name: 'A biblical canon or canon of Scripture is a list of texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative Scripture. The word "canon" comes from the Greek κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". Christians became the first to use the term in reference to Scripture, but Eugene Ulrich regards the idea as Jewish.' Think Eugene Ulrich is closest to the Truth but let's dissect it. There's no such thing in Heaven as Bible (my suggestion) but canon of Scripture does at least come closer to a truthful answer. (There's no doubt that there are divinely inspired books in the world.) A 'particular religious community' says it all - absolutely no right to do it. Canon comes from a Greek word! If you want to be Hellenistic that's your choice. Greek has no authority as a set apart language. Measuring stick is comparable to plumb line but 'rule' says it all. Christians! We aren't Christians but believers of The Way. Christians was a word best known from Constantine's time. It's derogatory by nature. The term was also used three hundred years before Yahusha was born in Egypt with a character called Soter who was their saviour. On the other hand, Eugene Ulrich has the right idea. Jewish or more properly Israeli or Hebrew are one of the two set apart groups of world history. As already outlined there would have been divinely inspired books at the time of Yahusha which we all know about some.
Let's add a few more thoughts to this. 'The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible.' We already know about canon being Greek so no good there. About the second sentence. Exactly. If it doesn't say then there's no canon. Leave the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures. Of course, we might say that Yah inspired them and then showed man which books should be included. Very good. Show me in Scripture who He showed it to. I'd like to add to separate passages from 1 John 2 to put the point across. (1) 1 John 2:20-21. "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the Truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the Truth." (2) 1 John 2:26-27. "These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is True, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." Quite easy really.
Development of the New Testament canon.
Yet another complete fix but let's read it anyway. 'The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written in the first century.
'For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalised in the Second Council of Trullan of 692. The Catholic Church made dogmatic definition upon its Biblical canon at the Council of Trent of 1546, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393-419. For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.' What's this with New Testament or indeed Old? The only reason Law and Grace were part of Yah's plan was Hebrews wouldn't accept Grace and Gentiles likewise with Law. His plan has been quietly advancing through the prompting of Ruach HaKodesh all along. Where's the Scripture saying someone centuries later (692) will establish a canon for and of Him? Later centuries too with Rome connected in there too pulling the strings through each of these dates until Protestantism appeared through Henry VIII and Martin Luther. I could go on about Protestantism too but will save that for another time.
So, with a little bit of information we see canonisation is giving credit to the imposter (yes, he who created the name Yahweh or YHWH and changed over 7,000 words to Lord meaning the same) to subvert and lead us all into worshipping him rather than Yah. All in the background at a time when Rome had reached full blown effect, after Constantine, and was gradually dominating this time period more and more. Sounds preposterous doesn't it. For me, having a relationship with Yah means everything. He leads me into all the things I discover. I'm as surprised as anyone. Keep close to Him in these end days. AMaN.