Numerous skeptics assert that modern Bibles are the result of a succession of copies of copies of copies of copies, implying that across centuries of transcription, translation, and interpretation, or possibly due to motivations to promote certain narratives, the original text might have been altered, distorted, or even lost. This skepticism arises from concerns regarding the reliability and accuracy of ancient manuscripts, as well as the methodologies employed in their preservation and transmission over time.

In the context of defending the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, particularly focusing on the gospels, are there any renowned books that challenge this skepticism? Do they provide arguments for the faithful preservation of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in our modern Bibles compared to the manuscripts originally penned by the gospel authors?

Note. This question follows up on previous questions I have recently asked:

What lines of evidence and arguments refute the notion that the gospels are nothing more than dismissible 'reports of reports of reports of reports'?

How do Christians address the "Bigfoot" analogy presented by skeptics in relation to the resurrection of Jesus?

  • 1
    I am not clear as to what you want. One of the tags is 'Textual Criticism' but the question does not appear to be about that subject, whereas I would have expected it to be. The original four autographs no longer exist, nor would one expect them to. What we have is 5,500 codices (uncial and miniscule) 96,000 Patristic Citations, many versions (translations such as Old Latin and Syriac and Coptic) and many Lectionary references (orders of service quotations). Is this what you are asking about ?
    – Nigel J
    Commented Apr 21 at 2:32
  • 1
    I would ask this question at hermeneutics.stackexchange.com they are more interested in the technicals of translation and know more about dead sea scrolls and all that stuff.
    – Mike
    Commented Apr 21 at 6:09
  • @NigelJ See the comments below this answer. (Read the answer as well.)
    – Mark
    Commented Apr 21 at 11:17
  • 1
    @Mark - I just find the topic too boring so I doubt I can be of much use to you. Problem is that I have never encountered any serious dsicrepency all my years of reading bible commentaries that often deal with specific problems. Howver I see someone asked the same question on reddit and someone left what looks like a good list of books you could read, one of which was written by one of the translators for the ESV, so I suppose he would be knowledgeable,. reddit.com/r/ChristianApologetics/comments/17rj24p/…
    – Mike
    Commented Apr 21 at 12:27
  • 1
    @NigelJ, this may be partly my fault for introducing "textual criticism" to the conversation, but my understanding is that TC is concerned with evaluating what and how much error has "crept in" as a result of transcription, which to me seems certainly relevant. That is, TC is the means by which we know that skeptics are wrong about the text having been radically altered. There are many articles addressing such issues; it seems unlikely to me that no one, ever, has written a whole book on the subject.
    – Matthew
    Commented Apr 22 at 15:39

1 Answer 1


I have not personally read any such books, therefore this list should be taken with a large grain of salt. This is a list of books that seem relevant based on their description (and also based on Amazon's "also recommended" algorithms):

It is probably worth noting that Bart Ehrman is a prominent critic of Scriptural accuracy; therefore, any book that specifically mentions being a response to or refutation of Ehrman is likely to be relevant. 🙂

  • 1
    the last book Myths and mistakes is not meant for that purpose as the rest. It rebuts and corrects some popular mistakes and exaggerations in the TC, some of them against the Christian apologists. You should also mention that the apologetic books are also vulnerable to be exaggerations in some areas, this is why one must read Ehrman's books as well and not just follow the popular level books.
    – Michael16
    Commented Apr 22 at 17:42
  • 1
    Also, it's been many yrs since Ehrman stopped attacking the NT as corrupted and lost. He always points to its great and primacy historicity for Jesus and that how solid are the NT mss evidence are in all his scholarly books. So, in reality one don't need apologists books but his books like Text of the NT with Metzger is also sufficient as its without an agenda.
    – Michael16
    Commented Apr 24 at 4:14
  • Note: more books have been cited in response to this question.
    – Mark
    Commented Apr 25 at 9:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .