Corrections welcome, but I don’t think that the early church fathers had the Holy Bible as we know it today. The Holy Bible was a later development.
Again, corrections welcome.
They had the books of the Holy Bible, which all existed, but at first they weren’t all together in one volume. The various books of the Bible circulated among the churches in individual scrolls. In the second century the Codex (a modern book style) was invented, and within a couple of centuries they were putting all the books together in a codex.
Progressive revelation of Holy Scripture continued from Jesus' ascension throughout the ministry of His Apostles who were the personally supervised and taught practitioners of the discipline of Jesus--God manifest in the flesh--until Beloved John put down his pen at the end of his life, about 65 years after his training under the Messiach of Israel.
At that time, the giving of Holy Scriptures was completed, never to be supplemented by those who were not eyewitnesses and companions of The Christ, to whom His authority was firectly delegated.
However, the Scriptures as we know them were then in the possession of the churches, though the straining out of imitations, corruptions, and post-Johannine additions were not yet complete; nor was consensus as to the selection of writings (affirmed as inspired and plenarily delivered, being traceable to witnesses of the original autographs) was not yet fully settled.
But the churches did possess the complete canon of all the written teachings of the New Covenant. Of them God has promised to preserve the texts authored and delivered through His witnesses. This transmission has by faith taken place through faithful copies of the autographs, distributed widely to the new churches, taking the form of the Byzantine/Majority Textform.
In comparison, no reliance should be placed on the Critical text synthesized out of three basic corrupted codices by Brooke Foss Westcott and his protegee Fenton John Anthony Hort. Inasmuch as it never existed and was never-before seen in the human community of churches until their presentation of it to the nineteenth-century scholastic guilds, it is not really representative of the autographs. Lacking forensic continuity-of-evidence traceability and admitted imperfections, this eclectic "Critical" text is constantly, continuously being changed, so it cannot be the Word of God.
It is especially inferior when being interpreted in the dynamic-equivalency hermeneutic, because it defrauds the sincere spiritual God-seeking Bible student of his right to accessing the mindset of the first-century speaker of the Koine Greek, for whom no translation nor exegetical labors were needed, and in whose framework the New Testament Scriptures were written, primarly to and for Gentiles.
So, yes, if one is reading the New International Version and wondering if it is the same Scripture as inspired and written down by the holy men of old, the answer is "No." Only the text-form transmitted through the Byzantine churches, gathered by Desiderius Erasmus, printed by Stephanus, and translated by martyrs of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, do we have a faithful English translation polished by James Stuart's scholars, and presented to the English-speaking world by authorization of the Crown, in whose copyright the text still resides.
It is free for the taking, and it is the foundation by which many plow-boys, cowboys, milk-maids, and bar girls have escaped the clutches of Satan's minions, and found their way to God's Eternal Life, and union with their Savior.
Just an observation --