Textual Criticism - Absolute Certainty Isn't Necessary

I have Ehrman’s book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which is much more nuanced and less sensational than the more popular stuff he is known for. His point about the NT texts being unreliable goes back to this:

• There was no real “orthodoxy” in early Christianity at all. What we now know as “orthodox” is simply the result of one faction eventually triumphing over all the others. There is no rule of faith.
• Therefore, the NT text is unreliable, not because scribes were evil or sinister, but because the presuppositions each brought to the table (wherever that table was) unconsciously influenced them to “re-write” and re-copy texts to fit their understanding
• Ehrman writes, “When we rewrite a text in our minds so as to construe its meaning, we interpret the text; when a scribe rewrites a text on the page (i.e. modifies its words to help fix its meaning) he physically alters the texts,” (p. 35). He summarizes, “… this nexus of [presuppositional] factors does more than influence the way texts are interpreted; it actually produces interpretations,” (p. 34, emphasis his).

I have Misquoting Jesus, but I haven’t read it at all. I think Ehrman basically wears two hats depending on the audience - (1) the popular-level guy who likes to cast doubt on everything in the NT, and (2) the scholarly guy who is much more careful with what he says.