Keith Elliott has reviewed a collection of essays edited by Daniel Wallace entitled Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence here.
To give you a flavour of the review and of Elliott's tone (behind the American copy-editing), I paste below the beginning and end.
For some years many of those who present themselves as “evangelicals” have felt obliged to tackle several of Bart Ehrman’s publications, notably his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (now about to reappear in an expanded form) and Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (inexplicably published in England under the bland title Whose Word Is It? The Story behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why). Some of his pronouncements about the reasons why certain changes found in manuscripts of the New Testament were made, and the seeming impossibility to restore the supposed original text, have ruffled fundamentalists’ and evangelicals’ feathers. His are books and conclusions that such apologists cannot neglect or ignore. Ehrman’s wellknown opinions, especially in the United States, have resulted in many attempted counterarguments. We have one such book here that has succumbed to the pervasive Ehrman influence.
Ph.D. theses and students’ first publications, especially those by recent graduates in the United States, typically carry in a foreword overblown thanks especially to long-suffering family members and a justification of their own impeccable religious convictions. Such self-publicizing sanctimoniousness is usually cringe-making and toe-curling in its indulgence. Aficionados will find some plum examples of this risible genre here; almost all of the current essays include fulsome acknowledgements, and one (220) is ungrammatical. Perhaps the time is ripe to suggest a moratorium on such publicly paraded private sentiments. Mature scholarship and academic publications (especially those originating in Europe) tend to avoid such trivia and the wearing of a heart on the sleeve. To set an example, this review carries no dedications.
Update: The grammatical error Elliott refers to is on p. 229 ("continues" for "continue")