Revisiting The Corruption Of The New Testament

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Oct 13, 2011.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,969
    Likes Received:
    128
    Revisiting The Corruption Of The New Testament:
    Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence


    Edited by Daniel B. Wallace
    Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids
    October 2011
    Paperback, 284 pages

    This book was compiled as a scholarly evangelical response to Bart Ehrman’s, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture : The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (1996) and the popular (?) Misquoting Jesus (2007).


    Contents
    Preface / 9
    Series Preface / 13
    Abbreviations / 15

    Chapter 1 – LOST IN TRANSMISSION: How Badly Did the Scribes Corrupt the New Testament Text? / 19 (Daniel B. Wallace)
    Chapter 1 provides a basic but unique introduction to textual criticism.

    Chapter 2 – THE LEAST ORTHODOX READING IS TO BE PREFERRED: A New Canon for New Testament Textual Criticism? / 57 (Philip M. Miller)
    Chapter 3 – THE LEGACY OF A LETTER: Sabellianism or Scribal Blunder in John 1:1c? / 91 (Matthew P Morgan)
    Chapter 4 – PATRISTIC THEOLOGY AND RECENSION IN MATTHEW 24:36: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Text-Critical Methodology / 127 (Adam G.Messer)
    Chapter 5 – TRACKING THOMAS: A-Critical Look at the Transmission of the Gospel of Thomas / 189 (Tim Ricchuiti)

    Chapter 6 – JESUS AS ΘEOΣ: – A Textual Examination / 229 Brian J. Wright
    Scripture Index / 267
    Ancient Sources Index / 273
    Person and Subject Index / 279
     
    #1 Deacon, Oct 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2011
  2. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0

    Looks like another book will be added to my library!
    Dr wallace is well qualified to address and answer biblical those who would belive that the Lord was NOT able to perserve the texts for us today, nor was able to have the HS make sure there was no erronous beliefs/doctrines 'forced" into them!
     
  3. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't currently have access to this book. I'm interested especially in chapter 4. I wonder if Rob, or anyone else here who has this work, could post a summary of Adam Messer's argument with pertinent excerpts. Thanks!

    Sincerely,

    Jonathan
     
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
  5. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    My particular concern is whether some early orthodox would have been more concerned to add the phrase "neither the Son" to Matt 24:36 either due to its presence in Mark 13:32 or, more likely in my opinion, to magnify the humanity of Jesus. For example, observe Hippolytus in the early 3d century (Noet. 18 [ANF 5:230]):

    The earlier non-orthodox views in the time of our concern, the 1st and 2d centuries, leaned more toward maximizing Jesus' divinity by lessening his full humanity. Warnings against this early false doctrine are already seen in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7. Part of a good apologetic in favor of Christ's humanity would be to produce places that show his human traits, including his apparent ignorance of certain things. Since Matthew was a primary Gospel in the early church, it seemed unfortunate to some that a primary passage for the Son's humanity via his apparent ignorance should be neglected merely because Matthew chose not to include the phrase. So the phrase "neither the Son" was added by an orthodox leader here and there, their conscience soothed by the fact that the phrase was present in Mark and thus obviously inspired.

    The real difficulty for those who argue that the phrase was omitted in Matthew is that no manuscripts before the 10th century tamper with the supposedly unorthodox phrase in Mark 13:32, even though the four-Gospel codex was actively being copied and in use from the 2d century. Thus if the presence of the phrase in Matthew is autographic, its omission for orthodox reasons had to have occurred in some copies of Matthew circulating before the production of the canonical edition (which I equate with the initial text or father of all current manuscripts). In such a scenario, I still find it remarkable that the originator of the canonical edition in the 2d century would prefer the omission in Matthew (it is present in 93.8 percent of the surviving manuscripts and all Syriac and Coptic witnesses) and leave alone the addition in Mark.

    Sincerely,

    Jonathan
     
    #5 jonathan.borland, Dec 6, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2012
  6. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
  7. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    If my preliminary hypothesis is correct, it would mean that the corruption of the NT, including that of its earliest witnesses, truly needs to be revisited, since I often find that its earliest witnesses, especially those with Old Latin and Egyptian connections, appear to be corrupt on a habitual basis.
     

Share This Page

Loading...