Critique of Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption"

Over at Verily, Verily Rafael Rodriguez offers a critique of Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture concerning his remarks on anti-adoptionistic corruptions of Scripture.

Lecture on "Christology and Textual Transmission" in Norway

Yesterday evening I arrived here in Kristiansand in Norway. I am here as a guestlecturer as part of the Erasmus “Lifelong learning program” for exchange of teachers, staff and students and I will be teaching for two days at Ansgarskolen.

Today I taught on Paul’s theology in the Bachelor program. Tomorrow I will lecture for three hours on “Christology and Textual Transmission” in their master program for Biblical Studies, and among the texts I have read by way of preparation there is a particular article, “Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic Gospels” published in Novum Testamentum XXXV, 2 (1993) by a certain Peter M. Head (then London). Interestingly, this article came out the same year as Ehrman’s “Orthodox Corruption.”

I think the article is balanced and well written (some minor details need revision, e.g. the date for P72, on p. 113 “ca 200” which should rather be ca. 300).

In the conclusion of the article (pp. 128-29) the author says:

“It is noteworthy that in the scribal tradition this ‘adaptation’ [as observed in the article] is much more conservative than in the production of apocryphal gospels. The scribes were interested in ‘transmission’ of texts, rather than in the creation of new texts. Nevertheless the transmission of gospel texts should not be seen as a neutral activity. The scribe of the NT was a participant in the life of the church, and this life and faith clearly influenced the processs of transmission. . . . It is to their [the early scribes] credit that, with some exceptions, most of them withstood the temptation to ‘improve’ the Gospel texts. The ‘improvements’ examined here have not affected the general reliability of the transmission of the text in any significant matter; they do, however, point to the scribe’s involvement in his work as an act of devotion to the divine Christ.”

Now, it would of course be interesting for me (and the readers) if the author could comment very briefly on how he regards this subject in general and his article in particular in retrospect after almost 15 years. Is there something he would modify, etc?