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
Revisiting The Corruption Of The New Testament
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Deacon, Oct 13, 2011.
-
-
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! -
Sincerely,
Jonathan -
Hi Jonathan, I think I have found the whole chapter on line. Here is the link:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Revisiting_the_Corruption_of_the_New_Tes.html?id=838A8BDUI5kC
After you get to the page, enter Chapter 4 in the search inside box, then click search.
Then click on page 127. Then just scroll down to read the whole chapter. -
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 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 -
-
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.