Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament:
Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence
Edited by Daniel B. Wallace
Kregel Publications, 2011
Publisher's description
Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament is the inaugural volume of The Text and Canon of the New Testament series, edited by Daniel B. Wallace. This first volume focuses on issues in textual criticism—in particular, to what degree did the scribes, who copied their exemplars by hand, corrupt the autographs? All but one of the chapters deals specifically with New Testament textual criticism. The other addresses textual issues related to an early apocryphal work, the Gospel of Thomas.
The book begins with the full transcription of Wallace’s presentation at the Fourth Annual Greer-Heard Forum, in which he and Bart Ehrman debated over the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts. Adam Messer looks at the patristic evidence of “nor the Son” in Matthew 24:36 in a quest to determine whether the excision of these words was influenced by orthodox Fathers. Philip Miller wrestles with whether the “least orthodox reading” should be a valid principle for determining the autographic text. Matthew Morgan focuses attention on the only two Greek manuscripts that have a potentially Sabellian reading in John 1:1c. Timothy Ricchuiti tackles the textual history of the Gospel of Thomas, examining the Coptic text and the three Greek fragments, using internal evidence in order to determine the earliest stratum of Thomas. Brian Wright thoroughly examines the textual reliability of the passages in which Jesus appears to be called God, concluding that “the textual proof of the designation ?e?? as applied to Jesus in the NT merely confirms what other grounds have already established.”
Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament will be a valuable resource for those working in textual criticism, early Christianity, New Testament apocrypha, and patristics.
Order page from Eisenbrauns.
HT: Brice Jones
This sounds like an excellent read. Wallace is one of the most brilliant textual critics in the evangelical church today. In lieu of the research presented in this book, I do not think Ehrman has much of a "leg to stand on."
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to reading this.