Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture?

In his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman asserts as an historical fact that orthodox Christian scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to conform them to orthodox Christian beliefs. Or, put another way, because of various unorthodox views in early Christianity (such as teaching that Jesus was a man and not God), the scribes might alter original passages in order to strengthen the orthodox teaching against heretical teachings. Boiled to its essence, the idea of “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” claims that early Christian scribes made changes, that the changes were deliberate, and that these changes were in favor of orthodoxy against heterodoxy (i.e., heresy).

Consider the New English Translation Bible (NET) footnotes concerning some passages of Scripture.[i]

John 7:8-10 in the NET

You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast[s] because my time has not yet fully arrived.” When he had said this, he remained in Galilee. But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.

NET footnote “s.”

Most MSS (P^66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 ƒ^1,13 M sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupō) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

In contrast to “not go up” in modern translations from the critical text, the King James Bible and Textus Receptus says “not yet” – “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast…” How does the NET footnote explain the variant? By charging most manuscripts with being the victim of “orthodox corruption of Scripture.” Their thought is that οὐκ/not go is correct, and that the most likely explanation of what happened is “that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later.”

So, they say, copyists saw a problem in the meaning of the text. They fixed it. Is that not, in effect, Bart Ehrman’s principle of “the orthodox corruption of Scripture”?

Below see two other examples where the notes in the NET Bible indicate that they think that the Byzantine text tradition was infiltrated by “the orthodox corruption of Scripture.”[ii] 

Mark 1:2 in the NET

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,[d] “Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way,

NET footnote “d.”

“…the reading of the later MSS [“in the prophets”] seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty [i.e. ‘written in the prophet Isaiah’ immediately followed by a reference to the prophet Malachi]”

1 Timothy 3:16 in the NET

And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He[x] was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

NET footnote “x.”

“It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός [God] reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς [who] or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time.”

In both the second and third examples, the NET Bible footnote suggests, at the least, a possible intentional change (“motivated by a desire,” “an intentional alteration”) from the original reading to one that is more “orthodox.” 

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture? Yes. I would say so, that some of them do, based on these representative examples from the footnotes in the NET Bible.

---

[i] Matthew 19:17 is another example of the charge of intentional alteration by scribes: “There is only one who is good…” (NET). They believe that copyists added “God” to the text (although they generally ascribe it to clarification rather than specifically doctrinal reasons). Many other evangelicals make these same kinds of claims. I am using the NET Bible because their notes are online and handy. Positionally, the NET editors are representative of other evangelical scholars. 

[ii] These editors and others are careful how they state their opinions. They are evangelicals who claim to hold the inerrancy of Scripture. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and does not need to appear to support the inerrancy of Scripture. This admits a difference in degree between such evangelicals and Ehrman, but not a difference in kind. Saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes is saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes – regardless of who says it and what explanation give for it after saying it.