The below image represents the first 3 sigma bands of the normal curve. Now, if I were to test 10,000 students, I could statistically be confident that the grades of 9,973 of them would fall somewhere into the 3 bands of this grading category. So it would be fair for me to say that "almost all" of the students tested would be in this 3 sigma band of grades. Conversely, it would also be apropos to state comparatively that "very few of the students" would be normally or typically be outside this band.
The point is that the present modern text of the NT, which utilizes the wealth of the many, many Greek Manuscripts in our possession is able to determine the most accurate text. The modern reconstruction of the NT would better this statistical rating given above and shown below by about another sigma band.
2
The Context for "Cool" I believe is in reference to a previous post about the eventual approval of the canonical New Testament; to which I mean to add some qualifiers relative to the integrity of the Scripture of the NT which we are able to derive from our earliest copies.
So what books were eventually accepted as Canonical, and as originating from the hand of an apostle, eyewitness, or the scribe of an eyewitness or apostle, is a very different question than asking do we have or can we determine the original text of the New Testament. I would further state that modern translations, in light of the wealth of early texts within our possession, do in fact statistically and in all probability, falls somewhere within a normalcy of 4 to 5 sigmas; this approximately with respect to representing the original copies (i.e the autographs). Lastly it can be proven that it is a blatantly false assertion that any councils on doctrine altered or purposefully corrupted any of the text in order to espouse supposedly 'new' or so called 'evolving' doctrines.
Hence posts listing all the various councils up to the 4th century really have nothing to do with manuscript (MS) text modifications, which by all accounts were already firmly established centuries before they took place. We also have in our possession many early Greek and Syriac manuscripts substantiate this.
So really conspiracy theories relative to NT Texts have no basis in fact, especially relative to councils, and moreso posts which illustrate these doctrinal councils were at the end of the 4th century or later.
Regards, Pat
Here is a collection of early Papyrus which has been used in recovering and hence restoring the text with integrity.
MS
Matthew P1, 19, 21, 25, 37, 45, 53, 64, 67, 70, 77, 101, 103, 104
c. 150–250 (2nd–3rd century)
Large fragments
Mark P45c. 250 (3rd century)
Large fragments
Luke P4, 69, 75, 45
c. 175–250 (2nd–3rd century)
Large fragments
John P6, 22, 28, 39, 45, 52, 66, 75, 80, 90, 95, 106
c. 125–250 (2nd–3rd century)
Large fragments
Acts p29, 38, 45, 48, 53, 74, 91
Early 3rd century
Large fragments
Romans p27, 40, 46
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
1 Corinthians p14, 15, 46
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
2 Corinthians p46
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
Galatians p46
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
Ephesians P46, 49
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
Philippians P16, 46
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
Colossians p46
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
1 Thessalonians p30, 46, 65
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments P30
2 Thessalonians
c. AD200-225 Early 3rd century
Fragments
1 Timothy
א
c. 350 (4th century)
Complete
2 Timothy
א
c. 350 (4th century)
Complete
Titus p32
c. 200 (late 2nd – early 3rd century)
Fragment
Philemon p87
3rd century
Fragment
Hebrews p12, 13, 17, 46
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
James p20, 23, 100
3rd Century
Fragments
1 Peter p81, 24, 72
c. 300 (late 3rd – early 4th century)
Fragments
2 Peter p72
c. 300 (late 3rd – early 4th century
Fragments
1 John p9
3rd century
Fragment
2 John
א
c. 350 (4th century)
Complete
3 John
א
c. 350 (4th century)
Complete
Jude p72, 78
c. AD 300 (late 3rd or very early 4th century)
Fragments
Revelation p18, 24, 47, 98, 115
c. 150–250 (mid 2nd to mid 3rd century)
Fragment
P90 (Oxyrhynchus)
John 18.36-19.7
Date of Autograph :96 AD
Date of Actual: 150-200 AD
Timespan: 50-100years
P104 (Oxyrhynchus)
Matthew 21.34-37, 43, 45
Date of Autograph: 60-65 AD
Date of Actual: 150-200 AD
Timespan: 90-140 years
P98 (IFAO)
Revelation 1.13-2.1
Date of Autograph: 90 AD
Date of Actual: 150-200 AD
Timespan: 50-100 years
P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus)
Romans 5.17-6.3, 5-14; 8.15-25, 27-35; 10.1-11.22, 24-33, 35; 16.1-23, 25-27; Hebrews; 1 & 2 Corinthians; Ephesians; Galatians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 Thessalonians 1.1, 9-10; 2.1-3; 5.5-9,
23-28
Autograph: 50’s-70’s AD
Copy: 200 AD
Timespan: 150 years
P66 (Bodmer Papyrus)
John 1.1-6.11, 6.35-14.26; fragment of 14.29-21.9
Original 90’s AD
Copy 200 AD
Timespan 110 years
P67
Matthew 3.9, 15; 5.20-22; 25-28
Autograph: 60-65 AD
Copy: 200 AD
Timespan: 140 years
We have far, far many more copies of early MS than any other historical literary work in existence. Yet you do not hear skeptics claim we do not know about the Caesar or the Roman Emperors that followed him. This abundance means we can reconstruct the text of the MT within 4 sigmas. This is better than the normal curve shown at the top of this post. So it can confidently be stated that our modern translations faithfully reproduce the original texts and teachings of Jesus and that any deviation from the original texts have either highlighted in footnotes or extracted. In short any suppose deviations from the original text would be relegated to an obscure outlier with respect to the text we have in our possession.
Cheers, Pat
