New Testament

===Origen (3rd century)===
By the early 200s, [[Origen]] may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, II Peter, II John and III John and the Book of Revelation,<ref>Noll, Mark A. (1997). ''Turning Points''. Baker Academic. pp. 36–37.</ref> known as the [[Antilegomena]]. Likewise, the [[Muratorian fragment]] is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.<ref>de Jonge, H. J. (2003). "The New Testament Canon". In de Jonge, H. J.; Auwers, J. M (eds.). ''The Biblical Canons''. Leuven University Press. p. 315.</ref> Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the [[Early Church]] over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the [[Christianity in the 3rd century|3rd century]].{{sfn|Ackroyd|Evans|1970|p=308}}

Origen was largely responsible for the collection of usage information regarding the texts that became the New Testament. The information used to create the late-4th-century [[Easter Letter]], which declared accepted Christian writings, was probably based on the ''Ecclesiastical History'' (HE) of [[Eusebius of Caesarea]], wherein he uses the information passed on to him by Origen to create both his list at HE 3:25 and Origen's list at HE 6:25. Eusebius got his information about what texts were then accepted and what were then [[Antilegomena|disputed]], by the [[Early centers of Christianity|third-century churches throughout the known world]], a great deal of which Origen knew of firsthand from his extensive travels, from the library and writings of Origen.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bateman |first=C. G. |title=Origen's Role in the Formation of the New Testament Canon |date=3 August 2010 |ssrn=1653073}}</ref>

In fact, Origen would have possibly included in his list of "inspired writings" other texts kept out by the likes of Eusebius—including the [[Epistle of Barnabas]], [[Shepherd of Hermas]], and [[1 Clement]]. Notwithstanding these facts, "Origen is not the originator of the idea of biblical canon, but he certainly gives the philosophical and literary-interpretative underpinnings for the whole notion."<ref>McGuckin, John A. (2003). "Origen as Literary Critic in the Alexandrian Tradition". In Perrone, L. (ed.). ''Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, Vol. 1''. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 164. Leuven: Leuven University Press. pp. 121–37.</ref>