Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence

by Daniel B. Wallace (Editor), Brian J. Wright

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 "theos" 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.

Genres: New Testament, Christian, Religion, Christianity, Biblical Studies, History, Nonfiction

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 31, 2011

About the author

Wallace was earned his B.A.(1975) from Biola University, and his Th.M. (1979) and Ph.D. (1995) in New Testament studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. He also pursued postdoctoral studies in a variety of places, including in Cambridge at Tyndale House, Christ's College, Clare College, and Westminster College, and in Germany at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, University of Tübingen, and the Bavarian State Library. Wallace, along with DTS colleague Darrell L. Bock, has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit conservative evangelical views of Jesus—including the writings of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman.

Reviews

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

In his scholarly tome, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, and his more popular treatment, Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman has argued that the Biblical text that we have is deeply mired by tampering of scholars for theological reasons. In Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic and Apocryphal Evidence, the inaugural volume of the Text and Canon of the New Testament Series (from Kregel Publications), Dan Wallace has edited a volume which takes Ehrman to task. Wallace’s introductory chapter, is an expansion of a paper he delivered in 2008 as part a dialogue with Ehrman over the Corruption of the New Testament. The subsequent chapters are each written by former academic interns and ThM students of his at Dallas Theological Seminary. Individually, each essay presents a strong case; cumulatively they systematically demolish Ehrman’s arguments. For the most part, the author’s are judicious in their analysis (I only can think of one or two places which felt like over reaching to me) and each chapter evidences copious research. While the authors are all theologically conservative and take issue with many of Ehrman’s claims, this book is not a smear-campaign either. They respect Ehrman’s scholarship and confirm his findings where they feel it’s warranted, but it is clear that they find his premise wanting.

In Chapter 1, Dan Wallace presents a brief, accessible apologetic for the reliability of the New Testament, taking specific aim at Ehrman’s arguments. Next Philip Miller examines Ehrman’s methodology and reveals that Ehrman is committed to the premise that the least orthodox readings are closer to the original text, regardless of whether the textual evidence and scholarly consensus supports him. These two chapters provide a more general overview of the issue. Matthew Morgan and Adam Messer provide a more detailed account by each examining a specific text which are asserted to be ‘corrupt’ by Ehrman and others (John 1.1c and Matthew 24:36, respectively). They each demonstrate the spurious nature of Ehrman’s claims Tim Ricchuiti examines the text-critical transmission of Thomas showcasing where theological interests effected the transmission of that text in line with the theology of the Nag Hammadi writings. In the final chapter, Brian Wright examines the textual evidence for the equation of Jesus as God in the New Testament. Wright demonstrates that such claims are not a result of corruption, but are original to the first century Christian community.

This book is written for a scholarly rather than popular level (and is endorsed by an impressive stream of theological conservative scholars). Certainly students engaged in Biblical studies or textual criticism would benefit from reading this book. Yet, this book is also of value beyond the walls of academia. Giving the ubiquity of Bart Ehrman on college campuses, the New York Times best sellers list, and numerous television appearances, serious engagement with ideas is a necessary apologetic task. A book I read by Sam Harris, one of the so-called New Atheists, recommended Misquoting Jesus because of the way it undermines Christian truth claims and casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible. This book reveals the places where Ehrman’s assertions do not stand up to examination. Some of this book, will be too technical for popular consumption, but the book would make a good addition to a pastoral library and Dan Wallace’s and Philip Miller’s essays certainly are accessible to an educated layperson. I think the arguments in this book will remain significant for the Evangelical community at large.

Thank you to Kregel Publications for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for this review.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much of technical argument is above my pay grade, but from a trial lawyer's perspective, Wallace dismantles Bart D. Ehrman as an expert witness under the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony. While Ehrman has educational qualifications, his handling of the data and his conclusions are mere ipse dixit. There is no peer review and his arguments are not connected with the data sufficiently to support his conclusions. In other words, in court, he would not be allowed to testify and his proffered testimony would not be considered evidence at all. This is of course a lawyer's attack on Ehrman based on legal evidentiary rules. But, the criticism is still valid, because making unsubstantiated arguments, even in academia and not the courts, basically moves Ehrman to the side of the debate. But, because of modern publicity machines and the Internet ("it is on the Internet so it must be true"), Ehrman continues to be sought out and heard.

For anyone who wants another take on How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, this book provides a full response.

[Todd Bryant · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let me begin by saying that I am thankful to God that men like Daniel Wallace are doing the work they are doing - somebody certainly needs to be doing it. Men like Bart Ehrman are constantly attacking the veracity of the New Testament. Men like Daniel Wallace are on the front line of the battle fighting men like Ehrman.

Wallace is not actually the author of this entire book. This is a series of essays written by several men to respond to Ehrman and his work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

I am a pastor. And, pastors need to know a little bit about everything. Our young people are being presented Ehrman's work in educational settings and many are being led astray by it. That's why I read this book (and other books like it).

Parts of this book I greatly enjoyed, as I love the study of textual criticism, at least on surface level. Though, this book is well beyond my abilities in places. It is very scientific and specific - which I admit is necessary. But, such reading isn't for the faint of heart. The chapter on the Gospel of Thomas interested me very little and was by far the most difficult 40 pages of reading I may have ever read in my entire life. That said, Chapter 1 (Lost in Transmission) and Chapter 6 (Jesus as Theos) couldn't have been more enjoyable. I enjoyed other spots as well.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and helpful volume. I would recommend Dan Wallace's opening essay to anyone looking for a popular level response to many of the issues Bart Ehrman raises in his methodology; very little text critical background is needed.

The remaining essays are far more technical and focus on more minutia, which, while interesting in their own right, are probably of no interest to the average person.

[Nate Claiborne · Rating 3 out of 5]

hough originally released in 1993, a new edition just came out this summer and given Ehrman's rise in popularity in the last 20 years, more people might find his arguments compelling. Certainly skeptics who read Ehrman's more popular level works will gravitate towards his more academic treatment. To respond, and in a devastating manner, all you need is this collection of essays edited by Dan Wallace.

Originally, I had thought this was a new book by Wallace, having failed to notice the fine print on the cover that says "Editor" (different than pic shown). Instead, this collection of essays actually date back to 2008, and were written by interns of Wallace in the Th.M program at Dallas Seminary. Interestingly, as you might recall, 2007 was when I started my time at Dallas, so these essays were written by guys a few years ahead of me in the program and New Testament majors instead of Systematic Theology majors.

However, don't let the fact that these essays were written by Dan Wallace's former interns fool you. The paper were so well written they were actually allowed to be read at the annual Evangelical Theological Society conference in November 2008. These guys were also Wallace's interns who went with him to the debate he had with Bart Ehrman in April 2008 (which has been published as The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue). I didn't go to the debate myself, but being that it took place down the road in New Orleans during my second semester at Dallas, I heard quite a bit about it. One thing in particular that I remember hearing about it was that Wallace's interns seemed to know more of the ins and outs of Ehrman's argument than he did, and he was quite embarrassed at the debate.

For more, see the full review on my blog

[G. A. Dietrich · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this volume Daniel Wallace edits a series of articles combined to form Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. This work is the first volume in a new series called "Text and Canon of the New Testament," which Kregel just started. If this first volume is any indication of how this series will serve the academy, I think the series will be very helpful.

The topic and tone of the articles are clearly academic and meant to serve the scholar more so than the pastor or the layman. Those contributing articles are Philip Miller, Matthew Morgan, Adam Messer, Tim Ricchuiti, Brian Wright, and the editor, Daniel Wallace. Coming into this book I was only familiar with Wallace, all of the other men are new to me...likely because most of them were interns for Wallace during their Th.M's.

I found that I could not improve on Kregel's explanation of the book: "In recent years popular culture has experienced a revival of interest in the early church and the beginning of the canonizing of Scripture. Extremely critical of the nature of the New Testament canon, however, many writers have suggested that the New Testament authors “interrupted” Jesus and misquoted His message. This scholarly book presents a strong case for the historicity and accuracy of the Bible, refuting the accusation that the Bible is unreliable."

Overall I see this book as a help to the academy and to seminarians, however, it is not one that I would direct a typical pastor or laymen to. The terminology and subject are quite advanced and serve a niche.

FTC Rhetoric: I do not receive payment for my book reviews. I do sometimes receive free review and giveaway copies from authors, publishers, and publicists. My first responsibility is to my readers, therefore, I am committed to honest reviews.

[Herb Hunter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will be a helpful read to those who are familiar with Bart Ehrman's theory of textual transmission and development. The arguments in these essays (the book is actually a collection of essays edited by Wallace, not a book written by Wallace himself) are tightly woven and can be a challenging read for someone not familiar with the field of textual criticism. In chapter 5, near the end of the book, I found myself skipping over the pages of charts which compare two texts of the Gospel of Thomas. They just were not that helpful to me. However, the constant reference to the mistakes a scribe might make in copying a text were a helpful reminder of the challenges in copying, and a useful tool in remembering how variants came about in the first place. If you are interested in textual criticism, and Bart Ehrman's textual theory, you will likely love this book. But, if not, I wouldn't buy it!

[P. Es · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth it for Wallace alone piece alone.

[Brian LePort · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nice collection of essays on textual criticism. Worth reading alongside a book by Bart Ehrman.