Clearly. But that’s an irrelevant truism when the point is that the accounts of the individual who was most familiar with Jesus’s teachings wasn’t included.
Honestly, the reason they weren’t included isn’t even relevant when the point is about the authenticity of the book. I just bought them into the conversation to add some context for those who might not have been aware.
> So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it?
I have read it.
> There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat).
It’s not that impressive of a feat.
> And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man?
I’d already answered that question.
> Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors?
My point is that those collating it are not the authors. Ie the narrative is defined by doctrine centuries after the original authors. This, in my opinion, compromises the authenticity of the book. You seem to disagree though, which is fine.