I found this here:
http://www.churchhistory.net/documents/canon.html Development of the New Testament Canon
1000-50 BC: The Old Testament (hereafter "OT") books are written.
C. 200 BC: Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.
AD 30-100: Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.
C. AD 100: So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.
C. AD 51-125: The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).
C. AD 140: Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul
C. AD 200: But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter
AD 367: The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]
C. AD 400: Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.
AD 904: Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order
AD 1442: At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.
AD 1536: Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to German. He assumes that, since Jews wrote the Old Testament, theirs is the correct canon; he puts the extra 7 books in an appendix that he calls the "Apocrypha."
AD 1536: In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.
AD 1546: The Catholic Council of Trent reaffirms the canonicity of all 46 books.
AD 1546: At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.
A couple of things come to mind.
C. 200 BC: Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.
Rabbis translated the first 5 books, but Alexandrian Jews translated the rest.
AD 30-100: Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.
I think the above may be speculation. Why would Jerusalem Jews use a Greek translation instead of their own Hebrew scriptures? Also:
Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
'Jot' and 'tittle' are markings used in Hebrew writing. Since the verses above refer to these 'markings', it would seem that they were using the Hebrew scriptures and the people to whom they were speaking were probably using the Hebrew scriptures as well, otherwise the people wouldn't have understood what 'jot' and 'tittle' meant.
When Jesus or the apostles spoke of scripture, they were talking about the OT since the NT didn't exist yet. It just seems to make more sense that Jesus would use the Hebrew scriptures that he was most familiar with, and grew up with. imho
Regarding the rest, it would seem that if the Holy Spirit were inspiring the compilers of the NT, that there shouldn't have been so much difficulty over which books to include, then leave out, then include, then leave out again????