And So It Goes for Centuries

Bart D. Ehrman describes the copying of the New Testament as a chain reaction of error: one scribe changes the text, the next scribe copies those changes and adds more, later scribes attempt corrections that sometimes introduce fresh mistakes, and “so it goes. For centuries.” The description contains a truth that no responsible textual scholar disputes. Hand copying produces variants, and variants propagate when a manuscript becomes an exemplar. Yet Ehrman’s presentation depends on an assumption that is historically false and methodologically misleading. He frames transmission as though the text moved mainly through a single file line, with changes accumulating like interest on debt, leaving readers at the end with an irretrievably corrupted text. The real manuscript tradition does not function like that. It functions like a wide network with many branches, many cross-checks, and many points of contact between communities. That network both produces variants and exposes variants. The very conditions that generate differences also provide the means for correcting them, because readings can be tested against other lines of transmission that did not inherit the same mistake.

The New Testament writings were never intended to sit in isolation. Paul explicitly commanded circulation and public reading, which created multiple local copies early and ensured that the text existed in more than one place at the same time (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). A text that spreads into many congregations quickly becomes resistant to total corruption because no single copying chain controls the whole tradition. Local errors arise and local expansions arise, but other communities retain other exemplars, and comparison becomes possible. This is why the presence of variants, even over centuries, does not entail the loss of the text. It entails the visibility of the text’s copying history, and that visibility is the foundation of textual criticism. The task of the textual critic is not to guess at a lost original. The task is to examine the documentary evidence that remains and to determine which readings best represent the earliest attainable form of the text, which in the overwhelming majority of cases is the original wording.

Ehrman also links his “centuries” narrative to the claim that variants sometimes affect meaning in significant ways. That claim is accurate in a limited sense, because some variants do affect sense at specific places. The misuse occurs when “sometimes” becomes the emotional atmosphere of the entire discussion, as though the whole New Testament stands under a cloud of uncertainty. The New Testament does not stand under such a cloud. The manuscript tradition is extensive and early enough to establish the wording of the vast majority of the text with high confidence, and the smaller set of meaningful variants is both identifiable and bounded. This chapter addresses what Ehrman gets right, what he leaves out, and how the manuscript evidence actually functions across centuries.

The Misleading Picture of a Single Chain of Copies

Ehrman’s scenario works best in the imagination because it is simple. A scribe copies a manuscript, errors enter, the next scribe copies that manuscript, errors grow, and the process repeats until the original becomes unreachable. The simplicity is the problem. The New Testament did not travel through one copying chain. It traveled through many. From the first century C.E. onward, Christian congregations existed in many places, and the apostolic writings were read, exchanged, copied, and taught. A manuscript in one region could preserve a reading that another region did not adopt, and a local corruption could be exposed precisely because other streams did not inherit it. This network reality changes the meaning of “permanent.” An error may be permanent in the single manuscript where it appears, but it is not permanent in the tradition as a whole when other witnesses preserve the earlier reading.

The network reality also changes the meaning of “centuries.” A reading does not have to survive unchanged for centuries in order for us to know it. It has to be attested early enough and widely enough that we can identify it as original when compared with alternatives. In many places, the earliest witnesses converge, and later witnesses show predictable tendencies toward smoothing, harmonization, and expansion. In those places, the centuries of copying do not bury the original; they highlight it by revealing the direction of secondary change. When the evidence is abundant, centuries of copying create more data, not less. The question becomes a question of method: which witnesses carry the greatest weight, and which readings best explain the origin of the others without contradicting strong documentary support.

This is where the New Testament differs sharply from much of classical literature. In many ancient works, the evidence is thin, late, and localized. Editors sometimes must rely on conjecture. In the New Testament, conjecture is rarely necessary because the documentary record is large and diverse. The abundance of manuscripts does not remove the need for careful evaluation, but it does supply the means for careful evaluation. Ehrman’s “centuries” narrative trades on the reader not recognizing the difference between a thin tradition, where errors can dominate unnoticed, and a thick tradition, where errors become visible and corrigible through comparison.

How Variants Multiply and How They Are Contained

Variants multiply in a manuscript tradition for reasons that are ordinary and predictable. Copyists misspell words, confuse similar endings, omit lines when their eyes skip, repeat words, rearrange word order, and sometimes add clarifying phrases. These realities do not require sinister motives, and they do not require an assumption that early Christians were careless. They require only an understanding that hand copying is a human task carried out in varied conditions. Ehrman is correct that an error in an exemplar can be copied by the next scribe and reproduced further. Yet the multiplication of variants has a second side that he consistently underplays. The same multiplication creates the conditions for detection. When multiple manuscripts exist, differences can be seen. Once differences can be seen, they can be evaluated. The more lines of transmission that exist, the harder it becomes for a secondary reading to dominate every stream.

This is why the claim “mistakes multiply” is not the same as the claim “the text becomes unknowable.” Mistakes multiply in any hand-copied tradition. The question is whether we possess enough early and diverse witnesses to identify the most primitive reading. In the New Testament, we do. The evidence does not merely show that variants exist; it shows that variants are distributed in ways that reveal their history. A reading confined to a narrow cluster, especially a cluster known for freer paraphrase, carries less weight than a reading found in early witnesses across more than one line of transmission. A reading that looks like an expansion motivated by liturgical usage or harmonization is less likely original than a reading that is shorter and more consistent with early attestation, when external evidence supports it. The practice is not guesswork. It is documentary analysis.

The New Testament itself also creates a climate that resists uncontrolled drift. Public reading requires a stable text that can be read aloud and recognized. Paul’s insistence that his letters be read and exchanged implies that congregations would hear the same apostolic instruction and that differences would be noticed when letters were compared (Colossians 4:16). The exhortation to “hold firmly to the pattern of sound words” and to guard the deposit assumes that the message is stable enough to be preserved and transmitted faithfully (2 Timothy 1:13–14; 2 Timothy 2:2). These texts do not describe scribal habits in technical terms, but they describe a community posture toward apostolic teaching that is incompatible with indifference. The manuscript tradition reflects that posture through widespread copying, correction activity, and the emergence of controlled textual streams early in the documentary record.

Correction, Control, and the Reality of Scribal Oversight

Ehrman acknowledges that scribes sometimes correct what they perceive to be errors, and he correctly states that a correction can itself be mistaken. That is true, and it is precisely why textual criticism does not treat any single correction as decisive. What Ehrman omits is the scale of scribal oversight and the evidence of controlled copying. Correction activity is not merely a source of additional variation; it is also evidence that many scribes cared about accuracy and that manuscripts were compared, reviewed, and adjusted toward perceived better exemplars. A tradition in which no one cared about accuracy would not produce systematic correction at all. It would produce uncontrolled divergence. The New Testament tradition does not display uncontrolled divergence across its whole span. It displays remarkable stability in the vast majority of its wording and a bounded set of places where differences cluster and can be examined.

The practical effect of correction is that the manuscript tradition contains layers. Some manuscripts preserve earlier readings with minimal smoothing. Some reflect later tendencies toward harmonization and clarification. Some show a mixture, because scribes sometimes copied from one exemplar and corrected with another, or because a manuscript was used and corrected over time. This layered reality is a strength for reconstruction because it provides multiple points of comparison. A correction does not automatically improve a manuscript, but the presence of correction frequently reveals what later scribes thought was problematic and how they tried to resolve it. When a “problem” is resolved in a way that matches known scribal tendencies, such as expanding a text to make a doctrine more explicit or smoothing a harsh phrase, the correction itself can become evidence of secondary development.

This is also where the fear that “there is no guarantee” becomes emotionally potent but logically weak. In historical reconstruction, absolute guarantees are not the normal standard. The normal standard is the best explanation grounded in the best evidence. Scripture itself praises careful examination rather than fear-driven retreat. The Bereans were commended for examining what they heard to see whether it was so (Acts 17:11). Christians are told to “make sure of all things” and hold fast what is fine (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Those principles harmonize with the documentary method: examine the evidence, test readings, and embrace the conclusion the evidence supports. A manuscript tradition does not need a guarantee of perfect correction in order to yield a recoverable text. It needs enough witnesses, early enough, diverse enough, and sufficiently stable in their agreements that secondary readings can be identified. The New Testament has precisely that.

When Meaning Is at Stake and What That Actually Means

Ehrman states that in some instances “the very meaning of the text is at stake,” and he later expands this into a broader claim that textual decisions can affect the interpretation of an entire New Testament book. The first statement is accurate in a narrow sense. Some variants do affect how a sentence is understood, and a small number of variants affect whether a longer passage belongs in the text at all. Yet it remains necessary to place this in proportion. Most variants are spelling differences, minor word-order changes, or small grammatical adjustments that do not alter meaning. A smaller subset affects meaning at the level of nuance. A still smaller subset involves longer additions or omissions that are obvious to the reader because modern translations signal them openly. The existence of such variants does not place the New Testament in doubt. It identifies the limited places where careful evaluation is needed.

The second claim, that textual decisions affect the interpretation of an entire book, is often used to create the impression that the New Testament is unstable at the level of its overall message. The documentary evidence does not support that impression. Even when a longer interpolation is identified and removed from the main text, the teaching of the New Testament remains coherent and substantially unchanged because New Testament doctrine is distributed across many passages and expressed repeatedly in different forms. The resurrection of Jesus does not depend on one disputed ending because it is proclaimed across the Gospel tradition and grounded in apostolic testimony (Luke 24:6–7; 1 Corinthians 15:3–8). The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not introduced by a late Trinitarian-sounding expansion because Scripture teaches their relationship and activity across multiple secure texts (Matthew 28:19; John 14:26; 2 Corinthians 13:14). Baptism and faith do not depend on an isolated later confession verse because the New Testament repeatedly joins repentance, faith, confession, and baptism in its teaching (Acts 2:38; Romans 10:9–10). Meaning can be “at stake” at a specific variant unit without the entire New Testament or an entire book collapsing into uncertainty.

This is where Ehrman’s framing becomes a pastoral problem. He invites readers to treat the existence of meaningful variants as evidence that Scripture’s message cannot be known. Scripture itself calls believers to confident instruction grounded in God’s Word, not to a posture of permanent doubt. Timothy was told that the sacred writings are able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, and that Scripture equips the servant of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15–17). Those statements depend on the practical reality that Scripture can be known and taught. The existence of variants does not undo that reality; it defines the limited places where careful textual work clarifies what the text says.

A Test Case for Ehrman’s Method: Mark 1:41

Ehrman uses Mark 1:41 as a vivid illustration because it presents two sharply different readings. One reading states that Jesus, moved with compassion, touched the man and healed him. Another reading states that Jesus, moved with anger, did the same. Ehrman’s rhetorical goal is not merely to discuss a variant. His goal is to create uncertainty about Jesus’ character and to suggest that textual decisions can reshape how readers view an entire Gospel. A responsible evaluation begins exactly where the documentary method begins: with external evidence, not with dramatic internal speculation.

The reading “moved with compassion” is supported by the earliest and most reliable Greek witnesses for Mark at this point, including the premier fourth-century codices that preserve the Gospel text with exceptional care. The alternative reading “moved with anger” is confined to a narrow line of transmission associated with freer paraphrase and greater willingness to alter wording. That distribution matters. A sharply divergent reading preserved only in a limited and characteristically expansive stream does not outweigh the broad and early support for the other reading. The documentary conclusion is firm: the original text at Mark 1:41 states that Jesus was moved with compassion.

Internal considerations also support that conclusion when they are used properly, as secondary confirmation rather than as the driver of the decision. The context explains why a Western scribe introduced “anger.” Mark includes a stern warning by Jesus immediately after the healing, and that sternness can be misunderstood as anger at the sufferer rather than urgency about secrecy and obedience. A scribe influenced by the tone of the warning could reshape the earlier emotional description in verse 41 to match what he thought the narrative required. That kind of alteration is consistent with the documented tendencies of freer-text streams. The key point remains that the evidence decides the question. The variant does not demonstrate that Mark’s Gospel is unstable. It demonstrates that a narrow stream sometimes produced vivid but secondary alterations, and that the wider and earlier evidence preserves the original wording.

Ehrman also emphasizes that for some passages in Mark we do not possess extant Greek manuscripts as early as we would like. That observation is true for specific verses, including Mark 1:41. Yet the observation is regularly misused. A later date for the earliest surviving witness at one verse does not mean the text at that verse was invented late. It means that the surviving artifacts are incomplete, and Mark’s opening chapters happen not to be preserved in the earliest papyrus fragments we possess. The same manuscript tradition that lacks one early fragment preserves many other early fragments elsewhere, and those early fragments repeatedly confirm the stability of the text and the antiquity of the textual streams represented in later codices. The responsible conclusion is not that “centuries” have swallowed Mark’s original text. The responsible conclusion is that the surviving evidence, even when later at a specific unit, remains sufficient to establish the reading by weighing the best witnesses and their textual character.

This test case also exposes a habit in popular presentations. When external evidence is strong, the sensational alternative is elevated by internal speculation. When internal speculation is used to create doubt, the reader is led away from the documentary anchors. The documentary method does not ignore internal evidence. It refuses to let internal evidence overrule decisive external evidence. That discipline is essential, because internal arguments can be spun endlessly when a writer is trying to create emotional uncertainty. A congregation deserves better than endless spinning. It deserves the stable facts: the best evidence preserves “moved with compassion,” and the alternative reading is secondary.

The Truth Behind “And So It Goes for Centuries”

Ehrman’s phrase lands because it suggests an unstoppable drift away from the original. The manuscript tradition does not support that picture. Drift occurs in local lines. Drift is exposed by other lines. Secondary readings arise. Secondary readings are detected because the tradition is broad. Corrections occur. Corrections are evaluated by comparison with other witnesses. The result is not a text dissolving into unknowability. The result is a tradition with enough redundancy that the earliest attainable text can be established with high confidence.

This is also why modern New Testament editions and translations can be transparent about the limited number of larger disputes without undermining confidence. Where a longer passage is not part of the earliest text, the evidence is strong enough to say so. Where a verse contains a later expansion, the evidence is strong enough to identify it. Where a reading affects nuance, the evidence is strong enough to show why one reading is preferred. The existence of an apparatus and footnotes is not proof that the text is unstable. It is proof that the discipline is honest and that the evidence is sufficient to disclose where variation occurs. A tradition too thin to evaluate would produce the opposite result: confident ignorance, because no one would even know where differences existed.

Scripture’s own posture reinforces the proper response. Believers are not called to panic. They are called to diligence, discernment, and faithful handling of God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). The manuscript tradition, taken as a whole, supplies the means for such diligence. “And so it goes for centuries” is true if it means that copying continued for centuries and variants continued to arise. It is false if it means that centuries of copying made the original text unreachable. The evidence shows that the New Testament text remains accessible, recoverable, and stable in its substance, with identifiable and bounded places where the documentary method clarifies what scribes added, omitted, or altered.

You May Also Enjoy

Answering Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman: Jesus Never Calls Himself God/a Divine Being—A Rebuttal

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS