See what I mean? Ehrman is happy to make sweeping claims like that the NT text was heavily modified between the 1st and 2nd centuries and we don't know what it originally said. But if you ask him what part has been changed, he can't show you. He simply claims he knows it's been changed because of the existing textual variants. One might remind him that most Scholars agree that the existing textual variants represent the original text and errors in transmission including all the changes from the first to second centuries. Ehrman thinks the changes from the first-to-second century are invisible because the "original text" doesn't exist in any copies! One might remind him that not a single line of text has been removed from the NT - that is, no early manuscript contains something that isn't found in the later manuscripts. Compare this to the Hebrew scripture which we know for certain has some missing text (and the text should be found in an earlier copy than what we have).
We shall wait and see what text the newly discovered first-century Mark fragment has. Undoubtedly it won't contain any "new reading" not already found in the various variants of the text that we already have, unlike what Ehrman would expect.
We shall wait and see what text the newly discovered first-century Mark fragment has. Undoubtedly it won't contain any "new reading" not already found in the various variants of the text that we already have, unlike what Ehrman would expect.
