Jesus' Words Only

Proof Canon Was Not Settled As Of 340 AD- Epistle of Barnabas

It is the view of the Epistle of Barnabas that God intended the law of sacrifice to be “annulled” so that a “new law of our Lord Jesus Christ” would provide “an oblation not made by human hands.” (Epistle of Barnabas 2:6. See also 2:4-2:9.) This Epistle was canon at the time of the Sinaiticus of 340 AD—appearing at the end of what otherwise is the New Testament. (Some scholars do not believe the author of this epistle was even a Christian.) The Epistle also appeared in “the Latin list of canonical works in the 6th century Codex Claromontanus.”

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas

Although the work is not gnostic in a theological sense, the author, who considers himself to be a teacher to the unidentified audience to which he writes (see e.g. 9.9), intends to impart to his readers the perfect gnosis (special knowledge), that they may perceive that the Christians are the only true covenant people, and that the Jewish people had never been in a covenant with God. His polemics are, above all, directed against Judaizing Christians (see Ebionites, Nazarenes, Judaizing teachers).

In no other writing of that early time is the separation of the Gentile Christians from observant Jews so clearly insisted upon. The covenant promises, he maintains, belong only to the Christians (e.g. 4.6-8), and circumcision, and the entire Jewish sacrificial and ceremonial system are, according to him, due to misunderstanding. According to the author's conception, Jewish scriptures, rightly understood, contain no such injunctions (chapters 9-10). He is a thorough opponent to Jewish legalism, but by no means an antinomist. At some points the Epistle seems quite Pauline, as with its concept of atonement.

The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah. For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full: likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied. Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner, and the prohibition on eating weasel is actually to be interpreted as a prohibition of oral sex, based on the mistaken belief that weasels copulate via the mouth.^[1]

So if everyone concedes this epistle does not belong, but was canon as of 340 AD, how was this decision made? Who made it? Isn't the truth this proves canon was far from settled, and perhaps the meaning of canon -- a listing of edifying and inspired materials combined -- is the true nature of canon as of 340 D?