Scott1
Well-Known Member
Just remember that Revelation was not even included in many biblical canons for some 500 years!:It could have just referred to John's passages or John could have had the insight to the Bible's eventual compilation.
"While II Peter previously was the most disputed book, by this point, it was less controversial to the Christian mainstream. For instance, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) and St. Gregory Nazianzus (329-389) accepted all 27 books except Revelation. On the other hand, in 405, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter which affirms a 26 book canon that excluded Hebrews. Clearly, it took some time to achieve universal acceptance among the Orthodox for Hebrews in the West, and Revelation in the East.
The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the canon, and it accepted the 27 book canon, allowing only them to be read in church under the name of canonical writings. It ``permitted, however, that the passions of martyrs, be read when their [martyrdoms'] anniversaries are celebrated.''
In the early fifth century, the Pe****ta became the official text of Syriac-speaking churches. It replaced the Diatessaron with the four gospels. It contained the 22 books of our New Testament other than II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation.
Source: The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
... in light of this, I really can't see that John meant to bind a set group of books in the Bible.
Hope that helps,
S