The OT for sure. The NT is different, there’s decent evidence the NT was substantially completed in the first century with minor edits in the second. (Wholesale rewrites in the first century totally on the table, though unlikely)
As a secular scholar I’d point to the lack of substantive differences between the versions used by the widely dispersed church fathers in the early second century, their preoccupation with pointing out error, and their lack of having to tackle massive differences in the text when they tackled lots of other problems and heresies
Most of the work on the Bible was done in a committee hundreds of years after the alleged events. So most probably just plain old fashioned alcohol.
The OT for sure. The NT is different, there’s decent evidence the NT was substantially completed in the first century with minor edits in the second. (Wholesale rewrites in the first century totally on the table, though unlikely)
As a secular scholar I’d point to the lack of substantive differences between the versions used by the widely dispersed church fathers in the early second century, their preoccupation with pointing out error, and their lack of having to tackle massive differences in the text when they tackled lots of other problems and heresies