Skip to main content

BookReview: Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament

Today’s book review book is provided by Kregel Publishers. It’s from their Academic and Professional Line. The title is Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament and it is edited by Daniel B. Wallace. Here’s the cover and Amazon link:

Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Text and Canon of the New Testament)

Wallace is the editor, but the book itself is a collection of six essays regarding the textual basis of the New Testament. These are contributed by Wallace and five of his former academic interns (think something more than a student but less than a one-to-one disciple). Naturally, Wallace has a high opinion of their work and is the key to their involvement in this project. They are not quite as well-known as Wallace, so his credibility is the support of this work.

What is this work about? It is, essentially, a response to the work of Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The former work is based on the latter, drawing from the scholarly evidence there to produce a more accessible wide-market book. The popularity of Dr. Ehrman’s work has caused a stir in theological academics, especially in the field of Biblical Studies.

The first effort of this book is to fairly summarize Ehrman’s position. The work then proceeds to provide evidence and opinions to counter that position. To summarize Ehrman is easy, but to do so fairly might be more of a challenge. A quick summary is this: Ehrman holds that the original text of the New Testament was intentionally corrupted into the form that is available today and that recovery of the original text is impossible.

Wallace disagrees. He holds that effective textual criticism can derive a reliable text for New Testament study. The arguments are presented here in both general form and addressing specific passages.

This book is technical in its approach and is more suited for individuals with at least a passable knowledge of Greek and some basic exposure to the work of textual criticism. While the discussions are likely understandable without that pre-existing knowledge, that information is certainly helpful.

I found the book well-toned for a response book. Often these types of books become personal and vicious in their nature, but I did not find this to be written in that manner. As to the strength of the arguments, I am predisposed to agree with Wallace in the first place, so I found the arguments sound.

The difficulty in textual criticism, though, is that you will often find what you carry into it. Ehrman carried skepticism and found a conspiracy and corruption. Wallace carried trust in the text and found evidence to support it. I carry the same trust in the text and find agreement with Wallace.

Will this book convince a skeptic? I am not certain. I do think it is of value for people like myself who have heard the rumbles of these arguments but lack a good understanding of them. Wallace and his fellow writers provide a good basis for understanding why the text of the New Testament can be trusted.

For scholarly work, a copy of this alongside Ehrman’s works would likely be a good pairing to understand both sides of the issues.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Curiosity and the Faithlife Study Bible

Good morning! Today I want to take a look at the NIV Faithlife Study Bible. Rather than spend the whole post on this particular Study Bible, I’m going to hit a couple of highlights and then draw you through a few questions that I think this format helps with.



First, the basics of the NIV Faithlife Study Bible (NIVFSB, please): the translation is the 2011 New International Version from Biblica. I’m not the biggest fan of that translation, but that’s for another day. It is a translation rather than a paraphrase, which is important for studying the Bible. Next, the NIVFSB is printed in color. Why does that matter? This version developed with Logos Bible Software’s technology and much of the “study” matter is transitioning from screen to typeface. The graphics, maps, timelines, and more work best with color. Finally, you’ve got the typical “below-the-line” running notes on the text. Most of these are explanations of context or highlights of parallels, drawing out the facts that we miss by …

Foolishness: 1 Corinthians 1

In Summary: 1 Corinthians opens with the standard greeting of a letter from the Apostle Paul. He tells who he is with (Sosthenes) and who he is writing to. In this case, that is the “church of God that is in Corinth.” He further specifies that this church is made up of those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints. 
He then expresses the blessing/greeting of “grace and peace” from God. From there, Paul reflects on his initial involvement with the Corinthian people and the beginning of the church. After that, though, there are problems to deal with and Paul is not hesitant to address them. He begins by addressing the division within the church. Apparently, the church had split into factions, some of which were drawn to various personalities who had led the church in times past. There is no firm evidence, or even a suggestion, that Paul, Cephas, Apollos, or anyone else had asked for a faction in their name. Further, the “I follow Christ” faction may not have been any le…