Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism

by Elijah Hixson (Editor), Peter J. Gurry (Editor), Daniel B. Wallace (Foreword)

Since the unexpected popularity of Bart Ehrman's bestselling Misquoting Jesus, textual criticism has become a staple of Christian apologetics.
Ehrman's skepticism about recovering the original text of the New Testament does deserve a response. However, this renewed apologetic interest in textual criticism has created fresh problems for evangelicals. An unfortunate proliferation of myths, mistakes, and misinformation has arisen about this technical area of biblical studies.
In this volume Elijah Hixson and Peter Gurry, along with a team of New Testament textual critics, offer up-to-date, accurate information on the history and current state of the New Testament text that will serve apologists and Christian students even as it offers a self-corrective to evangelical excesses.

Genres: Christian, Theology, Christianity, New Testament, Religion, Faith, History

387 pages, Kindle Edition

Published November 5, 2019

Reviews

[G0thamite · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that should have been written by an older generation of text-critical scholars, but since it wasn't, I'm glad a younger generation did it. I was at the Providence SBL meeting in 2017 when some of these guys were saying the same things you read in the book, but you could tell there was an attitude of mature scholars versus younger whipper-snappers in the air.

Nonetheless, the authors of these chapters correct an over-zealous generation of Christian apologists who tend to make uninformed statements, inflate numbers generous to their side of the argument and who repeat a past generation's outdated information. It is lazy. It is careless. And in the end, it hurts the case for Christians who try to make a reasoned argument for why we can trust the Bible. It will bite you when people figure out your evidence is not fair and accurate.

Evangelical Christianity has taken a beating lately (some of it deserved) for misrepresenting textual evidence of the New Testament. Just witness the First-Century Manuscript fiasco. We are still stinging from this. At the SBL Annual Meeting just a few days ago I sat in on the panel that lambasted evangelical scholars and institutions for just such a careless attitude (with many of them in the room).

So, if you are interested in making a good case for the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, be sure you know your stuff and are up to date with the latest and most accurate information. Don't overstate, over inflate numbers and hypothesize beyond reason. Be judicious. Be fair and sensible. There's no need to exaggerate any statistics. Get this book and learn from it. End of story.

[Emanuel Elizondo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book for those who wish to know the latest scholarship in the subject. I teach bibliology; I will definitely use some of the data and research shown in this book.

I was challenged to read that some of the data I thought was correct is actually wrong or outdated.

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in textual criticism.

[Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent treatment of issues related to New Testament textual criticism. The arguments and bibliographies are current, and a number of old myths are laid to rest. The authors are honest with the evidence, sometimes even against their own earlier writings. Highly recommended for those dealing with NT text criticism and for those who simply want to more, and more accurately, about how we got our New Testament.

[Anthony Ingram · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well constructed and argued book about the text of the New Testament in relation to apologetics. The book was written to debunk the myths about manuscript evidence and Bart Erhman's claim that the New Testament has been so far corrupted that it is no longer inerrant. However, through the chapters of this book, the authors compile data and scholarship to refute those claims.

Take the L, Bart.

[Alisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who needs to have all the facts this book is one of the best I've read for defending the truth and accuracy of Scripture. It tackles a variety of subjects from the beginning of the manuscripts to their translation and editing for modern day usage. This book highlights that apologetics is indispensable for a balanced and sober judgment. I loved the fact that the authors also rigorously seek to correct former poor arguments and hypotheses by other known scholars. Myths and Mistakes will certainly equip its readers with valuable knowledge and encourage them to leave behind sloppy defenses when it comes to textual criticism.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book does a lot! It is perfect for people (like me) who only knew that textual criticism existed, but didn't really understand the process in broad form. The authors take on 15 different subjects, attempting to reel in Evangelicals and the common (yet false) talking points concerning the field, but to also counter what more liberal scholars (e.g. Bart Ehrman) spout off. What you get is a fantastic introduction to textual criticism that bridges the gap between myth and reality.

Generally, they talk about the current state of scholarship: how they categorize new manuscripts and why that's not always easily sorted, why there are so many variations in our manuscripts (and why that really isn't a blow to our confidence in the received text), and how manuscripts were copied in the first place. Each author is capable, fair, and humble in their conclusions. But all affirm that the text we have is extremely trustworthy, and they offer great reasons as to why.

I dock it one star simply due to clarity. Overall, the book is relatively easy to read, but there are times I felt where they forget they're writing to those outside the field of textual criticism, and slip into technical jargon from time to time. It's not usually a big deal, but it happened just enough for me to be bothered by it.

I highly recommend this for anyone interested in the field or apologetics, but it is more likely to be enjoyed by someone with seminary-training due to its more-technical nature.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very useful book in clarifying certain issues within the field of New Testament textual criticism. Not only did it clarify, but it also put to rest some of the arguments that have been used by Christian apologists that are either not completely accurate or downright wrong. These evangelical scholars demonstrate that we can defend the integrity of the New Testament text while at the same time being accurate in our understanding of the manuscripts of the NT we possess. Recommended.

[Matthew Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoyed this textbook a lot! Each chapter addresses a different factor or procedure within the field of textual criticism. It is a great introduction and does not shy away from challenging many misconceptions or outright lies promoted in the field. This book poses many questions; perhaps, as is typical of the field, few definite answers are revealed. Instead, it promotes and sparks the curiosity to approach the available manuscripts on their terms through the cultural lens of their own times

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading for those interested in understanding, if you will, the praxis of the field of textual criticism. This ought to be read alongside any standard text of NT textual criticism (e.g., Metzger/Ehrman) as it provides balance and corrective to the field, represents up-to-date scholarship, and suggests on multiple occasions areas where more scholarship is needed. As a bonus, it is clearly written.

[Alex Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing book which is really helpful in showing what Christians can and can't say with regards to historical arguments for the Christian faith. Cannot recommend highly enough.

[Greg Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book intends to set the record straight with respect to New Testament textual criticism. Textual criticism is the art and science of determining what the original authors of the New Testament actually wrote. While we have an abundance of NT manuscripts (with many of them very early), the process of hand-copying manuscripts over a period of 1500 years means there are many variations between the manuscripts. When discussing the reliability of the New Testament text, there is a tendency to land on one of two extremes:

1. Radical skepticism - Some scholars believe that the process of hand-copying the New Testament has caused the text to be corrupted so badly that it is impossible to recover the original wording of the text.

2. Absolute certainty - Many Christian apologists believe that the abundance of manuscripts and translations has provided us with the ability to determine the exact wording of the original NT books.

As you would expect, both of these extremes are incorrect. The truth of the matter is that "we do not have now - in our critical editions or any translations - exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain." However, lest you think that scores points for the skeptical viewpoint, the authors make the point that what we do have is pretty close: "We may not have an absolutely pure text, nor can we have certainty about everything we do have." However, "we believe the textual evidence we have is sufficient to reconstruct, in most cases, what the authors of the New Testament wrote."

The authors of this book are Christians who are also scholars that practice New Testament textual criticism. The target of this book is not really the skeptical crowd but instead Christian apologists who overstate their case when it comes to textual criticism. In surveying Christian apologetic literature, they document cases where apologists have used outdated information, have abused statistics, and have been too selective in their use of evidence. However, this is not necessary. With respect to textual criticism, the authors show that the case for the reliability of the New Testament textual transmission is very good compared to other ancient documents. So there is no need for a Christian apologist to overstate their case. It is better to be honest about what we know and do not know (rather than risk undermining our own arguments by not treating the subject honestly and fairly).

Each chapter in this book focuses on the myths around a particular domain of textual criticism (e.g. the actual New Testament manuscripts that we have, how they are dated, how they compare with manuscripts of classical literature, how New Testament documents were copied by scribes and transmitted, etc.) For example, one chapter deals with the popular myth that, even if we did not have any New Testament manuscripts, we could construct almost the entire New Testament just from quotations by the early church fathers. This particular myth has been touted even by respected Biblical scholars. However, it turns out this is not true. The author of this chapter explores where this myth originated from and shows that it is riddled with problems. And even if it were true, it would not help us because of the circularity of the argument. "We have to know what the text of the New Testament is before we can identify patristic quotations." Based on this, Christian apologists should remove this myth from their arguments for the reliability of the New Testament text.

For me, this was a very informative book. I learned a lot about what New Testament criticism actually is from the authors as they made their cases. However, this book is pretty academic (the footnotes and bibliography literally take up half the book). So I think this book will be too technical for most readers. However, if you are Bible nerd or apologist who is interested in what New Testament textual criticism is, I highly recommend this one.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great, and poor, depending.

There are so many statements that Christians, both theologians and laymen alike, have made about the text of Scripture that are just plain mythical - especially concerning the issue of textual criticism. These types of things are usually put into apologetical books and textbooks and people read them and use that wrong information when they evangelize.

This work takes a look at many of those myths and mistakes from the viewpoint of several authors and shows where the myths came from, how they have influenced textual criticism and apologetics, and what the true information actually shows. Some of these myths were ones that I admittedly believed to be true before reading this work. It was truly interesting.

I'm not a Restoration Textual Critic. I believe that it sacrifices the foundation of scripture at times. I won't go into depth here in this review, suffice to say that as long as you're aware that all the authors are RTC's, this will help you filter out the good from the poor. We can all do textual criticism, but we are going to approach in two different ways. Assuming we have all we need through providential preservation, or that we are still on the hunt for the text of Scripture. The answer should be clear.

In any event, this was a really swell work. And if you have any interest in apologetics and textual criticism, then I do commend this work to you.

[Randy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bad Arguments For (and Against) the Reliability of the New Testament Text

As skepticism has increased in recent decades regarding the reliability of the New Testament (NT), so has the number of books and articles written in its defense. Apologists can’t be expected to be experts on everything, however, so often they rely on the works of others, especially when it comes to issues related to textual criticism. This arcane discipline is the attempt to recover the original text of a writing that has been lost, in this case, the New Testament, where we no longer have the autographs.

The contributing authors of this book are all up and coming textual critics who are concerned to address the prevalence and repetition of certain myths and mistakes that seem to circulate in the writings of apologists and even respected NT scholars.

For example, in my ESV Reformation Study Bible, among the essays in the back there is one by NT scholar Michael Kruger on “New Testament Textual Criticism.” Now Dr. Kruger is a solid authority on issues of the Biblical canon, but that doesn’t make him an expert on textual criticism. And so in this otherwise solid essay he makes three claims that are among those the book identifies as myths and mistakes, claims that are not so much false as they exaggerations. I will list them and then give the authors’ response.

1. The earliest papyrus fragment we have of the Gospel of John, P52, “dates from c. AD 125, only thirty to forty years after the gospel was written.”
2. “There are a countless number of citations of the NT preserved in the writings of the early church fathers – so many, in fact, that we could reconstruct almost the entire NT text just from these citations alone.”
3. “The total for just our Latin manuscripts for the NT exceeds ten thousand copies.”

The first claim regarding P52 is discussed in chapter 5 (‘Dating Myths, Part 1’), which describes how most manuscripts are dated. This is by paleography, which studies handwriting styles as they change and develop over time. Now, it turns out the best precision you can obtain is a 50-year date range. But when P52 was dated in the AD 100-150 range, people would pick the mid-point and give that the impression that it was written close to AD 125, when it is just as likely to have been written at the end of the given date range.

In fact, the general assessment today that P52 is “probably second-century” is more realistic. And we should be aware that currently there are paleographers who would extend the date range into the third century. So though, apparently, there are other grounds for arguing that John’s Gospel was written in the first century, P52 ought not be pressed into service as proof of that.

Chapter 12 (‘Myths about Patristics’) deals with the second claim about the ability to reconstruct almost all the NT from patristic citations. Often, we’ll be given a precise number: “the entire NT except for 11 verses.” In the chapter we learn that this claim is a myth that originated in a second-hand, unpublished study – a journal entry – from the nineteenth century. This is a source which you’d think would carry no weight, and “yet has appeared in literally dozens of current apologetic texts.” Is the claim true? No, it isn’t. When patristic sources are actually studied, it becomes evident that the early Christian writers did not cite Scripture in the precise way that we do. They felt free to be more fluid in their wording when they “quoted” Scripture, not feeling the need for verbatim quotations that we would expect today.

And then the third claim of us possessing 10,000 Latin manuscripts is dealt with in Chapter 14 (‘Myths about Early Translations’). Sometimes a writer will additionally claim 25,000 manuscripts of early translations, which would include not only Latin, but also Syriac and Coptic. These numbers are exaggerations; “it is better to say that there are a few thousand versional manuscripts and leave it at that.”

In addition, for reasons including but not limited to the differences between languages, versions are not helpful in addressing the primary focus of NT textual criticism, which deal primarily with relatively minor differences in the Greek NT text. For example, Latin does not have the definite article, so it cannot speak to textual issues in Greek where the presence or absence of the article is the point at issue. Translations can, however, play a role in the issue of longer variation units such as Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11.

Not all the myths are perpetrated by Evangelicals. One that has fueled a lot of skepticism is that the earliest copyists of New Testament manuscripts were not professional scribes, but zealous amateurs who likely made many more mistakes than the more careful scribes of later centuries. This claim, when combined with the statement that our earliest manuscripts are copies of copies of copies of the originals, gives the impression that those first few centuries, for all we know, were a free-for-all, where copyists could’ve felt free to invent, delete, and alter passages as they saw fit.

Chapter 7 (‘Myths about Copyists’) deals with this and argues that to say that the earliest scribes were not professionals may, strictly speaking, be true. However, the term “professional” is an anachronism in this case, with its connotation of anyone “un-professional” being sloppy and careless. In fact, however, the evidence actually indicates that these early scribes were in fact trained and competent, even if they didn’t use the flowery letters of the professionals.

True, the later scribes may have been better, but it doesn’t follow that this means that the early scribes were bad. There are early manuscripts, such as P72 (3rd/4th century) or Codex Bezae (5th century) that show more “orthodox corruptions” or just plain copying errors, but the fact that these are easily identified as such shows them to be exceptions that prove the rule of a general stability in the transmission of the text over time.

The purpose of this book, then, is to serve as a correction to apologists who, in countering skepticism, have over-stated their case in some instances. This is not to beat up on apologists, because even textual critics themselves can succumb to the lure of these myths and mistakes. It’s easy for Evangelicals to point out the errors of a textual critic such as Bart Ehrman and observe that unbelief has clouded his judgement. But it’s refreshing to see the admission that the shoe can easily be on the other foot, that Evangelical textual critics themselves can be biased.

Editor Elijah Hixson owned up to one such slip-up: in his contributing chapter on dating myths, as we saw earlier, he argued the need to give broad date ranges and not specific dates. In the footnotes he writes: “At this point I must confess my own sins. In 2015, I gave the dates of P46 and P75 as ‘Around A.D. 200’… If I could do it over again, I would give the date ranges of AD 200-300 for P75 and AD 175-250 for P46.”

And Daniel Wallace, who as something of a mentor for many of the authors wrote the foreword, admits to a mistake of his own. In a debate with Bart Ehrman, Dr. Wallace prematurely shared a tentative find of what was thought to be a first-century Mark papyrus, but after proper vetting it later turned out to be second or third-century. So he and some popular apologists who ran with it too early ended up getting burned a bit.

But as the expression goes, “faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Proverbs 27:6). Better for Evangelicals to own these mistakes themselves than to have the Bart Ehrmans of this world call them out on them. This book demonstrates that the reliability of the NT text can stand up to critical scrutiny just fine without the “help” of bad arguments and data.

[Andy Efting · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not an expert in this space by any means, but it is an area of great interest to me and one in which I have devoted quite a bit of time. I am very thankful for this book for trying to set the record straight on a variety of text-critical topics. As believers who desire to be Christlike in our apologetics, communicating the truth regarding these matters should be a priority, not just because doing otherwise will hurt our credibility but because Jesus is the Truth (Jn 14;6). If our position cannot stand without exaggeration or fudging facts, then perhaps it is not worth defending. These authors have shown, though, that the case for textual confidence is still high when truthfully and fully presenting the reality of the data.

This book is basically to textual criticism what D. A. Carson's book, Exegetical Fallacies, is to hermeneutics.

[Steve Stanley · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars

Justin Taylor’s takeaways from the book here:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...

[Nicholas Campbell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had the pleasure of receiving, “Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism” for free in exchange for a review and I will start off by saying, this book does not pull punches and it does not disappoint.

The bible is quite remarkable and because of that we often see the facts of the bible used in apologetics. As an example, when comparing the manuscripts of the bible with classical works we can see how amazing the bible’s preservation is. The New Testament has 5800 Greek manuscripts and Caesar’s Gallic Wars only has 10! Or Homer’s Iliad? It only has 643! It sounds fantastic. So fantastic that it has been republished over and over again to this day. The problem is that it isn’t accurate any longer. Caesar’s Gallic Wars has at least 251 manuscripts to date and Homer’s Iliad has 1,900 plus. Not only this, but the number of Greek manuscripts (5800) is wrong, and misleading in many regards! The fundamental argument for comparing the New Testament with Classical works rings true – it is amazing how many manuscripts we have, but it is typically built upon old data that needs to be updated if we are to have integrity in apologetics. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism takes many examples used by apologists and corrects them for this very purpose.

Within this book we see various popular views and presentations challenged, in great detail, and with great explanation. Not only are claims of skeptics addressed, but claims from apologists are addressed. This adds an amazing objective element to the book. Some examples of topics this book covers consists of myths about the autographs, how many manuscripts we have, myths about copying, myths about variants, and even myths about translations. Each chapter makes it clear what will be addressed, it puts forth argumentation, and has a key takeaway section. Within the chapters we also see ideas and suggestions put forth on how to better use textual criticism in apologetics, if at all, and how to avoid being dishonest in our apologetic encounters.

The importance of this book is hard to stress given the amount of works producing copies of the myths presented. If you take for example the point I began with (Classical works compared to the New Testament) you can see this on display. Looking at my book shelf, I have four apologetic books that contain this myth, all of which are fairly recent. Not only that, but one of them was a book I used in undergrad and have on my recommendation page, “From God to Us” by Geisler and Nix (it is still a good book except with its employment of some of these myths). When you google something along the lines of “New Testament manuscripts vs classical works” or “the historical reliability of the New Testament”, you’ll find a plethora of images and articles putting forth old information. Not only that, but some of the best apologetic websites out there are putting up this information. Why is this a problem? Simply put: Integrity and Credibility. When reading through this book I had realized that I had also “regurgitated” some of these myths, and as I was being corrected, I realized how many like me probably have this information in their heads because of how often many of these myths and mistakes have been republished.

Myths and Mistakes should be read by all pastors, ministers, or apologists who are informed in textual studies. It should also be read by anyone seeking to better understand textual criticism and employ it in apologetic discussions. Not only will you leave this book with corrected mistakes, but you’ll leave with the same assurance regarding the text of the New Testament as well as more information about textual criticism. All in all, this book is great, and it will be added to the book recommendation page.

[Michael Philliber · Rating 5 out of 5]

It could be a sign that I have crossed the threshold into the bleary realm of being eccentric and idiosyncratic. Honestly, I wholly expected to be bored to tears. But somehow reading about ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, codices, fragments and variants was enjoyable! Editors Elijah Hixson, junior research associate in New Testament Text and Language at Tyndale House, Cambridge, and Peter J. Gurry, assistant professor of New Testament and codirector of the Text and Canon Institute at Phoenix Seminary, have enlisted a team of knowledgeable and engaging authors in their new 400-page paperback, “Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Not written for technicians, but rather for pastors, apologists, seminarians, and congregants, this volume intelligibly hits the mark.

The editors and contributors seek to accomplish several things. They address grandiose claims about the New Testament manuscripts from both friends and foes. The essayists show, whenever they can, where friend and foe are correct, and clearly where they are wrong. Further, the writers walk their readers through the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, explaining what the variations are across textual “families,” how these affect our understanding of the diffusion of early New Testament documents, why they matter, and how they broadcast to us – against the claims of some – a strong textual stability and reliability. Though addressing and answering the claims and assertions of Bart Ehrman and Kurt Eichenwald is not the primary task of the volume, the authors do engage with them at important places.

I found the book helpful at numerous places and learned better ways of understanding how we came to have our New Testament Scriptures today. I also walked away with an even greater assurance at the reliability and stability of our New Testament, especially in the face of elaborate and alarming claims floating in popular culture. In several places I learned new factors I had never known before, such as the early practice of scribes abbreviating important names as they copied manuscripts, commonly called nomina sacra. Or, how the copyists who transcribed the New Testament evidenced in their copies some clear skills at transcribing, but also various aspects of quality assurance, so that “among the early manuscripts we find a wide range of skills and abilities, but still a significant majority (of copyists) appear to be competent transcribers” (142). This volume was filled with a trove of valuable explanations and research!

Hixson and Gurry should be applauded for, both, pulling together a sharp crew of contributors, and for having this topic covered so well. “Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism” is a keeper! This is a volume you will want on your shelf to refer to time and again. It would make a super gift for your pastor, Bible Class teacher, or favorite seminarian this holiday season. Without hesitation, I strongly recommend the book.

I am ever grateful that IVP Academic answered my request for a copy of this book used in the above analysis. And I’m thankful that all they asked of me was an honest review. Consequently, my evaluation is freely made and freely given.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

How reliable are the ancient manuscripts we have of the New Testament? Were thousands of unintentional errors made in copying? Did scribes also willfully make hundreds of changes to conform to their theological biases? If so, does that bring the whole of the Christian faith into question?

The truth is that exaggerated and false claims have been made by those seeking to discredit the New Testament, those seeking to defend it, and those simply trying to do solid academic work in a challenging field. I was very impressed with the clarity, care, and objectivity that the authors of this volume employ to unpack answers to all these questions and many more. They skillfully lay open the problems perpetuated by scholars and apologists of all stripes.

These include the use of outdated information, abuse of statistics, and selective use of evidence. Sometimes the quality, age, length, and provenance of ancient manuscripts are not sufficiently differentiated. All ancient texts are not equal and shouldn’t be lumped together as if they were.

Chapter by chapter the authors consider myths about the number of ancient texts, about comparisons to other ancient literature, about dating, about corruption for theological reasons, about the nature and impact of copying errors, about how the church fathers can and can’t help us, and much more.

For example, Bart Erhman, a scholar who is famous for his work debunking the reliability of the Scriptures, claims there are about 400,000 variants in the ancient manuscripts. The authors of this volume think this figure is too low. After careful analysis, they suggest that half a million is probably a better estimate.

Yet largely this does not cause the authors to join Erhman in his doubts. Why? For many reasons. For one: often variants are corrections of obvious mistakes scribes made in the copying process. For another: dozens of new new papyri have been discovered in the last century, yet this has not resulted in major changes, testifying to the reliability of the documents we already had available.

“It is true, then, that most variants do not affect the meaning of the text or the Christian faith in general. A few dozen do, however, and some of these are theologically important, as in Mark 1:1; Luke 23:34; and John 1:18” (p. 210). Yet even if “Son of God” was not in the original autograph of Mark’s gospel, that does little to alter how the sonship of Jesus is presented in Mark or in the Christian faith more broadly.

I highly recommend this book for its clarity, readability, and fairness, for all those interested in how we got the New Testament.

[Barry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This excellent book contains a series of essays from specialists in the surprisingly broad field of biblical textual criticism. As the editors note, no one person can be expected to be an expert on all of the topics covered in the book, so they had the good sense to invite in those specialists to cover the topics in which the editors themselves are knowledgeable, but not experts. Such humility!

As a result, each chapter is packed with knowledge, loads of data, and wisdom in how to interpret the data. Ordinarily this might be a recipe for information overloading, but the authors mostly do a good job of not doing that. It's there occasionally, but it's easy enough to skim through sections if you get bogged down.

This book in essence is academic writing combined with popular writing, so we get the heavy academic research translated into readable prose. As a result, readers become privy to the behind-the-scenes of New Testament textual criticism approaches that reveal a more accurate picture of the texts and fragments that scholars have access to. In turn, this enlightens the readers from an apologetic standpoint - something the editors and writers have firmly in mind as they write.

As much as I liked this book, there are a couple of negatives. 1) The aforementioned too-much-information-syndrome found in places, few though they were, detracted from their respective chapters; and 2) there is a refute-Bart Ehrman vein running through the book. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it did give the slight appearance of it being a grudge/vendetta book. I understand that they used Mr. Ehrman as a foil because of his popularity and influence, and I don't think that attacking his ideas was one of the reasons behind the book.

All in all, this book is highly educational and very well worth the time it takes to read it. If you have an interest in biblical textual criticism you will not be disappointed with this excellent volume.

[Alfie Mosse · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the introduction to this book, Dr Wallace says, “One word kept coming to mind as I read this book: nuance.” I agree and I love the nuanced approach and careful argumentation of each of the authors. As I read this book I would add at least two more catch phrases. The phrase "course correction" and "level up" also kept coming to my mind. I am not an expert in New Testament Textual Criticism, but I know more than probably the average pastor. It is a bit of a hobby and I find it fascinating. So, I took my time reading each article thoroughly enjoying the fresh content. In fact, this book will serve as an exact reference book. Perhaps every 15 or 20 years a book like this should be written correcting courses and updating ministers with fresh, nuanced information and trends so they can level up their abilities. Wallace gives an excellent overview in his introductory comments, so I will not do that here. Each chapter is written by a recent Ph.D recipient or someone in the dissertation process. Each author is writing in the field of his expertise, so the information is up to day and fresh. Also helpful is that at the end of each chapter is a list of “Key Takeaways”. This is an easy way to review the material and/or reference the main points covered in the chapter. I recommend this book to anyone who takes seriously and/or practices NT textual criticism, NT studies or NT apologetics. I also recommend this book to pastors as a reference and/or an opportunity to level up and, for the same reason, to any Bible student. This is not an easy read, but, in my view worth the effort. If fact, it will be a multi-read in my life.

[Logan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent, thoughtful collection of essays aimed primarily at Christian apologists who use statistics about the New Testament manuscripts as part of their arguments. The essays plead with the readers to be fair in their evaluation and not simply to repeat numbers or phrases that have been heard before. For example, "over 6,000 manuscripts" can be misleading because that simply means anything that has been catalogued, including fragments of a single verse! There is ample evidence for the accurate transmission of the Greek New Testament without stretching the facts to fit the case.

The essays deal with issues such as claims of "Orthodox corruption", how much of the text can be reconstructed from the quotations in the patristics, and a host of other topics. I found it very enlightening and edifying.

If you're looking for material in the "Critical Text" vs the "Textus Receptus", this is not a book that deals with that at all, except for general knowledge about transmission and the state of manuscripts. But for that, I think both sides of the debate would do well to read this in order to know the facts more accurately to put to rest oft-repeated "myths".

[Paul Gibson · Rating 4 out of 5]

]I'll preface this review of Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism by stating I have no training in textual criticism, or even Greek. I write a blog about the Bible and I'm trying to learn a bit about textual criticism (and Biblical manuscripts in general) for a series of articles I'm working on. I will state it didn't hold my attention, but I suspect that has more to do with an overload of textual criticism studying on my part, rather than the quality of the writing. None of the myths presented were surprising to me, and quite a few of them I was at least vaguely aware of. The opinions presented seemed to be more consistent with other books I've read which were published recently. Where it conflicted with what I'd read previously, I believe it was with older books. The field of New Testament Textual Criticism seems to be moving towards a more liberal understanding, and I think this book follows that pattern. I'm not surprised these areas are called myths, as some of the conflicting ideas have likely been taught for decades. I can recommend reading this book, but it's not for everyone. I would not recommend it for someone who just wants some introductory knowledge in textual criticism (Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results and Black, David Alan. New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide are good introductions). This book assumes the reader knows why TC is done, and how it's done, so it's for a more advanced audience who want to improve their understanding and skills.

[Patrick Allen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hang on to your hat as you read this compilation of essays from Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson. It is not for the faint of heart. One needs a sufficient background in New Testament Textual Criticism to gain the most out of this volume. But, having said that, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism is very readable. Each essay delves into a few of the time-worn "myths" in this discipline. Each article does not shy away from exposing rumors and "urban legends" when it comes to the use of textual criticism in the area of apologetics. Yet, they leave the reader with the sense that the Bible we currently have is one on which faith can rest.

[Dominic Venuso · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I first looked at reviews on this, I thought, "Yeah, I think most interested ministers know this by now." But as I looked at the specifics, and recently had occasion to look at some of my old lessons on this, I realized I had still been guilty of some of these mistakes. If you've done apologetic lessons on textual criticism or plan to, this book is worth reading. In fact, if you do any lessons on apologetics in general, this is a reminder to try to be careful to not just confidently repeat things your professor taught you or that your favorite older book claims just because they sound good.

[George Sr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent series of essays on the arcane topic of textual criticism written for the apologist. Seeks to steer apologists clear of faulty arguments and equip them with answers to the criticisms of New Testament nihilists who claim the text is so corrupted that the original words of the New Testament documents can never be recovered. An honest appraisal of the current state of textual criticism. The essays are somewhat uneven, and some of them are downright soporific; but it is worth the effort to slog through even the most turgid essays.

[Paul Willweber · Rating 5 out of 5]

While this is not a primer in New Testament textual criticism, it probably should be read after reading a primer on TC. The value of this book is to assess the arguments people make about the manuscripts of the NT and how they make the arguments. We will have a better understanding of the transmission of the Bible and how to defend it as the Word of God if we make our arguments sound and according to the actual evidence.

[Joshua Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every chapter was a delight. There were some real challenges to how I've presented the fruits and facts of text criticism in the past, particularly the oft-quoted statistics about the terrible state of other works of antiquity (James Prothro's chapter is excellent on this).

I'm so glad this was written by fellow evangelicals as a brotherly-corrective before the skeptics had a chance to present the same corrections in a wholly different tone.

[Jake Auxier · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book provides a good corrective for both conservative/apologists and skeptics. Everyone interested in NT textual criticism should read this book. It is highly accessible for any layperson. One of the best features are the “Key Takeaways” at the end of each chapter.

[A.J. Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book for anyone interested in New Testament textual criticism. I found Chapter Twelve (Myths About Patristics, by Andrew Blaski) especially insightful and thought provoking.

[Andy Herman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very helpful book!