Thank you for sharing this and for your thorough scholarship. Humbly, I challenge your broad assertion that all non-canonical early writings are difficult to read. Agreed that the Shepherd of Hermas is a challenge, but the Didache (c. 75), First Clement (c. 95), or the Apocalypse of Peter (c. 130) are all quite readable. Second, the process was not nearly as fast as was implied. Read Eusebius' History of the Church, Book III, Ch. 25, which was written c. 313. He lists 5 disputed books plus the Apocalypse of John, which he says some reject and others accept. Clearly there wasn't universal acceptance yet. Thank you again for sharing. I know UA-cam comments can be a cesspool. I pray my words are read in the same humility with which they were written. God bless
Thank you for sharing this and for your thorough scholarship. Humbly, I challenge your broad assertion that all non-canonical early writings are difficult to read. Agreed that the Shepherd of Hermas is a challenge, but the Didache (c. 75), First Clement (c. 95), or the Apocalypse of Peter (c. 130) are all quite readable.
Second, the process was not nearly as fast as was implied. Read Eusebius' History of the Church, Book III, Ch. 25, which was written c. 313. He lists 5 disputed books plus the Apocalypse of John, which he says some reject and others accept. Clearly there wasn't universal acceptance yet.
Thank you again for sharing. I know UA-cam comments can be a cesspool. I pray my words are read in the same humility with which they were written.
God bless