No, anything that was in the church that quoted Christ's teachings was considered a "Gospel" (Good news). The authors were unknown because non of those books was signed.
Today, we know that many of the NT books are not written by the people who were traditionally credited as authors. These include the half of +Paul's Epistles, the Acts, Gospel of John, the Apocalypse of John, 1 Peter and 2 Peter deutero-canonicals, etc.
There is much reason to doubt the book of Daniel, the Torah's authorship and so on. The only books that have some historical and other eivdence are the historical books, but then they have also been shown to be extremely exaggerated. king david's 'vast' kingdom was anything but that, etc.
By the time of Irenaeus us, who, though a native of Asia Minor, was bishop of Lyons in Gaul about AD 180, the idea of a fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic in the Church
Agreed. But that axiomatic 'knowledge' was based entirely on trandition of men, not any solid evidence of authroship.
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirec
Well, I have no objection to that...except I would say overvhelmingly more indirect than direct.
The Gospels had headings 'according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Today, we know that many of the NT books are not written by the people who were traditionally credited as authors. These include the half of +Paul's Epistles, the Acts, Gospel of John, the Apocalypse of John, 1 Peter and 2 Peter deutero-canonicals, etc.
'We' know nothing of the kind.
Those are ill conceived opinions by higher critics.
There is much reason to doubt the book of Daniel, the Torah's authorship and so on.
Once again, there is no legitimate reason to doubt any of the Old Testament books or their authors.
The only books that have some historical and other eivdence are the historical books, but then they have also been shown to be extremely exaggerated. king david's 'vast' kingdom was anything but that, etc.
No, actually David's Jewish empire did span a very great area.
By the time of Irenaeus us, who, though a native of Asia Minor, was bishop of Lyons in Gaul about AD 180, the idea of a fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic in the Church Agreed. But that axiomatic 'knowledge' was based entirely on trandition of men, not any solid evidence of authroship.
It was axiomatic because of the authorship.
No book of the New Testament would be accepted unless the authors could be identified as either an apostle or close to one.
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirec
Well, I have no objection to that...except I would say overvhelmingly more indirect than direct.
I think you mean 'unofficial' rather than 'official'