On Oct 2, 8:29*am, Mark wrote:
On Oct 2, 8:14*am, Mark wrote:



On Oct 2, 12:01*am, Jared wrote:

On Oct 1, 2:57*pm, Mark wrote:
[...]

Now apparently, the Sources Theory is being questioned
and disputed, as per the link in my OP.

I am pretty certain that the theories you've mentioned are
oversimplified, because it's clear from reading the thing that the
Bible has been revised extensively by one or more committees, more
than once.- Hide quoted text -

[...]
Burrows also says that the texts "have been transmitted with
remarkable fidelity, so that there need be no doubt whatever regarding
the teaching conveyed by them."

I believe one can logically conclude from the perspective of literary
evidence that the New Testament's reliability is far greater than any
other record of antiquity.

If there are a lot of versions and not much difference between them,
that doesn't prove the source became static at the time it is supposed
to originate from. Maybe one of the committees I mentioned succeeded
in eradicating other variants, in which case there's no telling
whether one of them was more true to the earlier manuscripts.