Review of Misquoting Jesus - Part 3 (#13)

Chapter 4 - Here Erhman traces "the Quest for Origins" by relating the methods and discoveries of eight theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries. In retrospect I did not interact much with his text in this chapter.
Chapter 5- Here is where I began to have more questions, concerning "Originals That Matter." On p. 129 Ehrman asks, "What if the 5th century manuscripts had been produced from a copy of the 4th century, but the 8th century manuscript had been produced from one of the 3rd century? In that case, the 8th century manuscript would preserve the older reading." That might be true, if you had the 3rd century manuscript, but here he is surmising about a manuscript we do not have. He then describes incidents in Mark, Luke and Hebrews that purportedly have textual issues in how they present Jesus.
On p. 144 he asks, "What then shall we say about our disputed verses? These are the only verses in the entire gospel of Luke that undermine this clear portrayal (22:39-46). Only here does Jesus agonize over his coming fate." He then concludes, "It appears (my emphasis) that the account of Jesus' bloody sweat, not found in our earliest and best manuscripts, is not original to Luke but is a scribal addition to the gospel." My response to his first assertion is, "So?" Perhaps this is the author's prerogative. Perhaps the text accurately recorded this event. Is total agreement within a text necessary? Is it possible that Jesus here in the garden acted "out of character" or "apart from expectation?" Isn't that possible as well?
When Erhman concludes this chapter on p.149 by saying, "There is also the question of why these words came to be changed, and how these changes affect the meanings of their writings," it occurs to me that by the very nature of this subject we submit ourselves to a lot of surmising.
Said another way - he may be right, but he also may be wrong.