A catalogue is no evidence of the detail of contents, so that's a non-starter. You also ignore the power of authority. We know of Arius and the so-called Arian heresy because proponents of what became the orthodox creed and canon have told us of him--few records remain which are not hostile. Were dedicated christian scholars intent upon assuring the establishment of an orthodox canon, it would be a small matter to rid libraries of conflicting texts. Origen mentions about a dozen "gospels" and testamentary tracts--but only bits and pieces of them remain to this day. Books in those days, such as they were, were all hand-copied. Few copies were ever made, and most were quickly collected by scholars. Most early bishops of the primitive church were accorded those dignities because they were the scholars--this was certainly the case with Eusebius, who was not personally very popular in his own time. How easy for scholars possessing such a concentration of authority to assure that the canon go unchallenged.
I see no reason to assume that contradictory texts would survive from before the time of Origen.
(Edit: I have mentioned above, or possibly in another thread, that the Dead Sea Scrolls do hint that such a thing might be found. I don't consider it impossible--i do consider it improbable. Note that Tacitus, one of the best of Roman historians, and a very popular author in his time and in the age of the Antonines, only survives in two complete works--Germania and Agricola--and in fragments of The Annals of Imperial Rome and The History of Imperial Rome. This is not an uncommon circumstance. The destruction of the library at Alexandria was a great blow, as texts had been assiduously collected there, for many of which no other known copies were being kept elsewhere.)
One of several early catalogs predating Origen is the fragment discovered by L. A. Muratori and published in 1740. Called the Muratorian Fragment, it predates Origen by at least 50 years.
I will accept the possibility of a conspiracy if you will understand that I believe it to be wholly remote, especially since there is really no demonstrable difference between the gospels and so-called 'Paulian doctrine'.
Actually, there is an important distinction--Pauline texts (and the Catholic encyclopaedia has a fascinating page on Pauline apocrypha) very likely pre-date the canonical gospels--and certainly predate anything resembling their current form, and possibly even the form in which Origen had them. As for Pauline doctrine, i haven't a clue what you intend by that.
I know what you mean about "rid libraries of conflicting texts." I was at my local little library this morning after getting my hair done trying to find something about the early translations and that Origen guy, no luck to say the least.
I read a good deal from the link you left and I have more questions than I did before. From what I could tell he mostly just commented on scriptures already written rather than translating (unless I misunderstood which is a highly likely.) I have a feeling that if I really want to learn in depth about it, I would have to take a course somewhere.
Didn't mean to kill the board with inanities. Hate being the last one to post for several days.
