The ‘corruption’ of the Bible is one of those modern memes that is generally accepted without question by those who choose to do so. Again, the Bible covers such a vast range of narrative genres, and covers such a vast timescale, that blanket statements along these lines really don’t carry any weight. Nor do blanket statements like ‘it’s all myth’ etc. When it comes to the New Testament, the ranges narrow considerably. However, when asked to supply evidence in support of the corruption assertion, not much is forthcoming. Personally I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest corruption. It’s fashionable at the moment to insist that Christianity is the Hellenisation of a Hebrew teaching, but again there is no scholar that makes such a claim, as far as I know. The web is awash with subjective opinion about how it’s been misrepresented, misinterpreted, mistranslated, etc., etc., … so much so that one wonders if any of it survives … but when it comes to scientific methodology … the case has yet to be made, I think. Whilst there are those who criticise how the books of the NT were selected and brought together, what is not offered is a process those same critics would find acceptable. The compilers selected those documents which to their best knowledge had a reliable train of transmission, and rejected many of the apocryphal texts on the grounds that they didn’t. Those who find critical fault with the orthodox texts, in my experience, rarely if ever apply the same critical rigour to the apocryphal texts. Whilst scholarship takes great interest in the apocrypha, there is no suggestion that such texts are any more ‘authentic’ or ‘reliable’ expression of Christianity, over and above the canonical, but there seems to be the assumption that apocryphal texts somehow offer an authentic insight into an ‘alternative’ Christianity that was suppressed by orthodoxy. Again, the broad consensus of scholarship doesn’t make such claims. That the text has been redacted is not disputed, but that in itself does not comprise ‘corruption’. Scholars have gone through the various extant versions of the text and whilst differences can be noted, there is no significant theological diversion. Archeological finds continue to support the idea of an uncorrupted text. The DSS etc., the Diatessaron of Tatian, and a host of references in the writings of the early Church Fathers are often so voluminous that near-complete synoptic gospel texts can be put together from these citations. Again, what texts were considered authentic and what were not, or what comprise revelation and what don’t, can be discerned in the writings of the Fathers. Thus we have utterly orthodox documents like the Letter of Clement of Rome was not considered canonical, whilst on the other hand such dogmas as the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin are asserted in apocryphal texts, but not in the orthodox canon … If anyone has material evidence of corruption, then I’d be interested.