Thanks for the clarification, Sir Oracle.
For some reason, I had not previously seen the need to properly distinguish between the two words 'disciple' and 'apostle', foolishly thinking that the former was descriptive of them following Jesus around and the latter was what they were labelled after they'd written their memoirs of him.
Now that you've set the time frame of 96AD, it suddenly became clear to me that it was acceptable, to the Roman church, to add writings to the Bible from authors who had never so much as set eyes on Christ.
This certainly explains why there is the insistence that the human writers of biblical texts were "channeling God", to put it in modern parlance.
Religious precepts based on the utterings of handfuls of psychics and mediums though? Strange how spiritualism, divination and so on, came to be outlawed by the church in the centuries that followed, given their importance in the early stages.