I am confused.
On the one hand you point to specific editing, and then you say "text editing in 400 is unfounded." Are you correcting my chronology while also allowing that editing has occurred?
If the bible is god's revealed word, why would any editing take place? I have never understood this part. Bible literalists say the bible should be accepted word for word as god's words, as revealed to prophets and, apparently, good writers. How did the bible acquire its divine status if not by church determination?
I ask this out of sincere curiosity.
The divine status is by the Bible, 2 Timouthy 3:16,17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The Bible gives the instructions for the creation of the church.
I apologize for this sounding critical of the Roman Catholic Church but the church described in the Bible is very different than the Roman Catholic Church.
The original books of the New Testament were written within 50 years of Christ's life here.
The book of Matthew was written within inspiration of God. Technically, written by God. The story about the adultress, also an inspired account of Christ's life, was inserted into the existing Gospel record under God's supervision. I used it as an example of how intact the New Testament is because we can identify where this early account was inserted.
By 400, there were many other books that were not inspired but were being circulated. The canonization was an effort by men to "edit" out the imitation from the inspired writing.
Some books that can be understood as inspired did not make this canon. For instance, I think, the letter to the Hebrews. Yet Hebrews is a very important book in Christian doctrine.