I find it ironic that atheists (and other non-Christians) will often try to argue that since we don’t have the original autographs of the Gospels, they could have been altered. What this argument fails to consider is that since we don’t have the original autographs, they could be identical to what we now have.
Both of these things are making an argument from silence. We don’t have the original texts of the Gospel. But simply because something is possible does not mean it is probable.
Which of these two views is actually supported? Is it more likely to think that the Gospels that we have now are substantially different from the original Gospels that were written, or is it more likely to think that they are substantially the same? A little common sense in this area goes a long way.
If one wants to argue that the Gospels have been changed, one must be able to demonstrate that there are previous versions of the Gospels that are different from what we currently have. Non-believers will often argue that the texts must have been changed because the supernatural claims would “obviously” not have actually been believed by the authors (which, of course, is predicated on the belief that the supernatural is impossible in the first place and also ignores the fact that there were many authors of text with supernatural claims who were still taken seriously aside from the Christian authors). But if this argument is to be taken seriously, one must demonstrate a copy of the Gospel of Luke (for example) that does not contain any of the supernatural references.
The Gospels were most certainly copied and widely spread throughout the known world during even the first century. We have proof that copyists generally tried to copy as accurately as possible. What we do not have is any proof that the original text of Luke or John was significantly different from what we have now. Thousands of manuscripts from all ends of the Middle East say virtually the same thing.
It seems to me that it is far more likely that the Gospels we have are true to the original manuscripts than it is that the Gospels were somehow altered hundreds of years after they were first written. The argument from silence ignores the fact that the texts we do have are deafening in their agreement.
