What I have seen from textual studies in college, the manuscripts available today don't vary significantly. We have A & B readings for the great majority of the NT reaching back to the early second century. That the "Fathers" massaged them doesn't really concern me since we are after what the writers themselves intended. The Fathers were all over the map on all kinds of things.
As far as "choosing" what was in the so-called "Canon", read the rest of the 75 or so competitors and notice that there is no comparison. Scripture is as bright as day, the others being abberant and odd (eg. Jesus killing some boys who hurt his bird?). You and I would have spotted the real McCoys right along with those everyday believers who exchanged these letters for decades before the "Fathers" even got their hands on them.
What I have seen from textual studies in college, the manuscripts available today don't vary significantly. We have A & B readings for the great majority of the NT reaching back to the early second century. That the "Fathers" massaged them doesn't really concern me since we are after what the writers themselves intended. The Fathers were all over the map on all kinds of things.changes in meaning in the first 300 years. Kosta has made much more detailed study of some of these changes which have caused distress to some. However, my reply is that I believe that the Holy Spirit has led the Church to make these changes. Led, by the way, not frogmarched. Are Scriptures perfect? No. I believe, though, that the Church interpretation of them is what Christ intended.
As far as "choosing" what was in the so-called "Canon", read the rest of the 75 or so competitors and notice that there is no comparison. Scripture is as bright as day, the others being abberant and odd (eg. Jesus killing some boys who hurt his bird?). You and I would have spotted the real McCoys right along with those everyday believers who exchanged these letters for decades before the "Fathers" even got their hands on them.
Could we? I wonder. The protoevangelium of James and the Shepherd of Hermas were odds-on favorites to make the cut, and Revelation was pretty darn shaky - the East is still iffy, although they accept it as Scripture.
But to put things in perspective, NT Scripture did not occur before the AD 50's to 90's. The later books were written 50 to 100 years after that. And the revisions did not wane until the 300s. Scripture and Tradition went hand in hand, although Sacred Tradition chose Sacred Scripture. Not vice versa.