This surprises me because it contradicts a large number of biblical historians who make a strong case, supported by actual manuscripts, for a line of formally maintained texts dating from before 220 AD through the seventeen century (after the printing press made transcription obsolete), with fewer than about15 exceptions (none of which affect doctrine), show only slight variations (different words but same meaning).  What evidence do you offer that Bart Ehrman is correct where several hundreds of historians were incorrect? 


Isn’t it correct to say the earliest COMPLETE manuscript is almost 200 years after . . . ?   Isn’t it correct to say that the earliest OT is much older and dates from 300 BC and that letters and Gospels date from 120 AD with NT fragments as old as about 70 AD?

How can you know (since you stated it as if it was fact) that the 220 AD manuscript is heavily edited and patched together since it compares favorably to the partial writings dating back to 70 AD and there is nothing?  Did Bart mention that the earliest complete manuscript does not deviate from the partial manuscripts?  Since there is no significant variation would it be more correct to say the available evidence indicates concordance and no heavy editing evident?


Were these changes and edits carried forward by the organized church hierarchy or were they isolated from the officially maintained manuscripts?  My understanding is that they are isolated and with only a few exceptions not carried forward.


Every major current biblical translation mentions this and three other “possible additions” as compared to earliest manuscripts.  Bible publishers are transparent on this point.  How does this change the theology, … I think you mean, doctrine?  The context is the same and most biblical scholars indicate that there exists much stronger evidence that the apostles proclaimed the resurrection long before Mark was first penned, making this passage superfluous to doctrine.

What direct evidence does Bart offer that the apostles did not immediately proclaim and teach the resurrection?  Letters written by the apostles and retained by the churches and testimony from Luke provides direct evidence that they did.  What direct evidence does Bart offer that this Q writer existed?


Some transcriptions were indeed very poor, but my understanding is they were not carried forward (for very obvious reasons).  Bart’s challenge is to show that these errors  evolved Christian doctrine.  It should be clear to all that do the research that it did not since all current translations are based on the oldest manuscripts and compare very favorably to the King James Version (1610) that was based on manuscripts from around 1200.


What makes you say that the 220 AD manuscripts is not the ”real bible”?  Is this fact or speculation?  Available direct evidence indicates that it is the real bible since it is consistent with the earlier partial manuscripts.  How do you know that the truth is obscured?  What standard do you compare the 220 AD manuscript to conclude it is short of “truth”?  If you say there are no standards and that is the point, then you admit that you don’t know if it is true or not.  If on the other hand you accept Christian tradition and older partial manuscripts then the manuscript concords and is best described as the “real bible”.

I would think that you would be able and willing to support the claims you made in your post and that you would be anxious to discuss them in detail.  If your purpose was to make a book recommendation, I would think there are better venues.

Should the reader conclude that you are unable to support your claims?  Should we conclude that Bart Ehrman has no physical evidence supporting your claim that the earliest manuscript was patched together and heavily edited?

It seems, based on your response, that indeed your claims are merely speculation.

In the absence of better evidence it seems more reasonable to conclude that the apostles taught doctrine substantially in concordance with modern biblical teaching.