The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity

by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Michael J. Kruger

Beginning with Walter Bauer in 1934, the denial of clear orthodoxy in early Christianity has shaped and largely defined modern New Testament criticism, recently given new life through the work of spokesmen like Bart Ehrman. Spreading from academia into mainstream media, the suggestion that diversity of doctrine in the early church led to many competing orthodoxies is indicative of today's postmodern relativism. Authors Köstenberger and Kruger engage Ehrman and others in this polemic against a dogged adherence to popular ideals of diversity.

Köstenberger and Kruger's accessible and careful scholarship not only counters the "Bauer Thesis" using its own terms, but also engages overlooked evidence from the New Testament. Their conclusions are drawn from analysis of the evidence of unity in the New Testament, the formation and closing of the canon, and the methodology and integrity of the recording and distribution of religious texts within the early church.

Genres: Theology, History, Church History, Religion, Christianity, Christian, Biblical Studies

252 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

_The Heresy of Orthodoxy_ sets out to debunk the Bauer-Ehrmann thesis, along the way demonstrating that belief in the theological diversity of the early church is not so much drawn from reliable evidence as it is the commitment in contemporary academic circles to diversity as virtue. (If you're not familiar with the Bauer-Ehrmann thesis, it is, in a nutshell, the idea that early Christianity was not one faith so much as many faiths, all clustering around the person of Christ but not unified by anything approximating orthodox doctrine.) In its first two-thirds, the book thoroughly debunks the geographical and textual evidence mustered for the Bauer-Ehrmann thesis; in the final third, it introduces the reader to the field of textual criticism, so that the reader may be assured that the early copies of Scripture are in fact reliable. Along the way, by implication, the book does in fact convince the reader (at least, it convinced me!) that much of the interest in diversity in early Christianity is not driven by data but only by prior ideological commitments.

An illuminating, well-researched and worthwhile read.

[Todd Miles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kostenberger and Kruger's book is a most-welcome contribution to the scholarship surrounding the reliability of the New Testament. Clearly, Bart Ehrman is squarely in the cross-hairs of this excellent book on the Christian Canon of Scripture. Dr. Ehrman has many things figured out regarding the media, dissemination of ideas, playing on public paranois, and mainstream culture. "The Heresy of Orthodoxy" demonstrates emphatically and sensibly that Dr. Ehrman's scholarship leaves much to be desired.
In the first section, the authors describe the Bauer-Ehrman Thesis (a largely discredited idea promulgated by Walter Bauer during the early 20th century that there were many Christianities in the early church that were all essentially equal in quality but “orthodoxy” won the day through power and politics - this idea has been "rediscovered" and expounded by Ehrman). The authors debunk the idea of orthodoxy being up for grabs early, but make the case that the biblical-theological context gave the early church what it needed to evaluate the truth claims of others.
In the second section, the authors trace the development of the Canon and demonstrate that even though the Canon was only first formally articulated at a council during the 5th century, the early church had a concept of Canon from its founding. In the final section, the authors completely debunk (in my estimation) Ehrman’s logic and position that the textual variations in the NT demonstrate that the NT is unreliable.
"The Heresy of Orthodoxy" is a must read for any curious about the reliability of the New Testament. Its arguments are profound and most sensible. The scholarship is first rate and the historiography avoids the tendentious nature of work prevalent in this debate. Unfortunately, my guess is that Kostenberger and Kroger do not have the same media contacts that Ehrman enjoys, though their scholarship is vastly superior.

[K.M. Weiland · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book wasn’t quite what I expected. It deals with the Bauer-Ehrman thesis that there was never an “orthodox” Christianity, whereas I was thinking it would be more about historical “heresies” in general. Still, it was an interesting look at the historicity and accuracy of ancient documents in general and the New Testament in particular.

[Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aspects of what the authors call the Bauer-Ehrman thesis (There was no one "Christianity" in the early church, the "orthodox" party tampered with the NT text, the selection of NT books was a political move more than anything, etc.) are things that I've heard from most of my friends and acquaintances that have "deconstructed" over the last few years. This book is a relatively accessible response to those ideas.

First, my only real criticism of the book. The authors state in their conclusion that their goal was not necessarily to debunk the Baur-Ehrman thesis but to show that its widespread popularity is due to the influence of postmodern adversity to absolutism. I found this claim perplexing because that is decidedly not what the bulk of their book argues. They demonstrate that adherence to the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is driven by ideological commitments rather than historical evidence, but they do not demonstrate what ideological commitments those are. As far as I can tell, there are several options, and they simply assume its the postmodern concept of truth as a power play.

Again, that's my only strong criticism. These two experts on the NT and second-century Christianity show at every turn that the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is untenable and that many of the arguments used to support it are circular and unfalsifiable. These arguments are not argued in full detail but in something a step above summary fashion. This book is really a sort of survey of how scholarship (even Bart Ehrman's own scholarly work!) has disproven Bauer and Ehrman.

The arguments are a mixed bag, not with regard to their strength but to whether or not Christian doctrine serves as a sort of prerequisite. I believe that even if a reader dismisses all orthodox doctrine from the start, they will still come away convinced that the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is deeply flawed. Still, this book will no doubt be more convincing to those who admit of the possibility of Inspiration, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, demonic influence, etc. In all likelihood, other readers will dismiss the entire book because it entertains the idea that Satan exists. I don't think this is a flaw in the book -- I appreciate that the authors are unashamed of their ideological commitments.

I get the impression that the authors were aiming for a middle-ground in terms of writing for laypeople or for scholars. There are copious footnotes citing very scholarly sources, but the text itself is not overly technical and defines every term used. Because of where it sits on that spectrum, I wouldn't recommend it to every "deconstructing" person I know. But I would absolutely recommend that committed Christians read this book in preparation for conversations with the "deconstructing."

[Curby Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoughtful and detailed refutation of Bart Ehrman's attempt to resurrect Walt Bauer's hypothesis that early Christianity was a free-for-all of competing "orthodoxies". Ehrman's shtick is to play the "Could be" and "who really knows what happened" cards over and over in the hope of creating doubt and selling more of his tedious works. Kostenberger demonstrates clearly that there weren't multiple Christianities nor multiple canons and that Rome just happened to win out in a power struggle. There was remarkable unanimity about the person and work of Jesus as well as what books were part of the canon. Of course there were heresies and splinter groups. But that is all they were - splinters.

This book should be part of any person's library who is interested in New Testament studies, early Church history and apologetics.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this piece Kostenberg and Kruger take on a prominent notion in non-Christian thought that heresy, or “Christianities” preceded any form of orthodoxy in the early church. This argument that they critique is often referred to as the Bauer-Ehrman Thesis. This argument was first put forward by Walter Bauer, but is now championed by Bart Ehrman. The early chapters of the book break down Bauer’s incorrect assumptions, before going on to point out the inconsistencies in Ehrman’s argument. While. This book may not be accessible to all, I would argue that Christians in the 21st century should dedicate time to studying the themes of this book. The Bauer-Ehrman thesis isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and Christians must be ready to defend the faith.

[Peter Kiss · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is worth its weight in gold. Probably one of my favorite books that I've read this year, it is an exceptionally written presentation of some of the best scholarship out there, done in a manner to be captivating on every page. Ehrman is exposed for his consistent misrepresentations of truth, while imposing his own standards on the textual field. The arguments given in the book are well thought out and logically rigorous, accomplishing so much in so few pages. Kostenberger is making me like him more every time I read him! I couldn't recommend this book more.

[Neil Kruger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Kruger and Kostenberger take what can be quite a complicated scholarly debate and distill the information in a way that is very informative to the layperson.

Throughout the book they dismantle the Bauer-Ehrman thesis that Christian unity grew out of diversity and that heresy preceded orthodoxy in the early church. They refute the idea that is so common in our postmodern world that all views are considered equal. It is even more damaging when this kind of mindset is applied to the early church. There was no multitude of equally valid expressions of the faith where the 'winners' ultimately decided what is orthodox.

Some of the highlights that point to the usefulness of this book:
- Emphasis on how the disregard of the supernatural can colour your reading of the historical evidence
- A great section looking at the existence of heresy based on what the the New Testament documents combat
- The importance of understanding canon in light of covenant expectations
- How canon is the natural outflow of apostolic authority
- How the core of the canon was received and identified from a very early date
- How the early Christian movement had a reliable culture of transmission of documents

Any person seeking to understand how doctrine developed in the early church will find this book a suitable introduction.

[Jon Patterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

The idea that orthodoxy consumed the diverse "Christianities" has large implications and is very attractive to our current pluralistic society. In this book, Kostenberger and Kruger take this idea head on and show how heresy did not proceed orthodoxy, but rather an orthodox understanding of Christ has been present in the Christian message from its first proclamation.In other words, orthodoxy wasn't decided by the church, rather the church submitted to the authority of the orthodox scriptures.

If you wrestle with the concept of the canon or the authority of the scriptures and an orthodox understanding of Christianity, this book is worth taking a look at. It is a very helpful read and a great example of how Christians should interact with other views. Kostenberger and Kruger are gracious and yet direct in their interaction with the Bauer-Ehrman thesis. The result is a very thoughtful and readable work that points out our modern bias towards plurality.

[Robert Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book, rejecting the Bauer/Ehrman thesis: that there were many "Christianities" and that the one "Christianity" we have today is just the one which happened to win. This is founded on bad scholarship and rejection of evidence.

I liked this book, but it's not the kind of thing I would ever give to a non-Christian, which is a shame.

[David J. Harris · Rating 5 out of 5]

The massively influential notion about church history designated by Köstenberger and Kruger as the Bauer-Ehrman thesis suggests that in the early church, pluralism was the norm, and what later became known as orthodoxy was only an off-the-cuff selection of doctrinal positions of a marginal group confined to Rome that came to prominence on the other side of a power struggle in which they suppressed other once-legitimate forms of Christianity. Simply stated, the Bauer-Ehrman approach to the early church assumes heresy preceded orthodoxy, rather than the other way around. Any clear evidence to the contrary (i.e., the widespread independent development of orthodox theology, the early rejection of heretics as such, etc.) can be interpreted, amusingly, as just "more evidence" for the theory it defeats("look at all the orthodox-sounding stuff fifth century theologians must have planted: this conspiracy is bigger than we thought!) The book demolishes this largely circular argument by demonstrating that the very earliest Christians saw their theology in exclusivist terms - there was one body of faith given from the apostles to the churches, one right way to understand the main tenets of the faith - and that orthodoxy represented the widespread faith of Christians, not a hijacking by the winners who wrote history. It turns out, church history, historical theology and the early New Testament documents of the first centuries of the faith are believable, and not the product of revisionism by theological innovators centuries later.

A painstakingly thorough but important book for those who wish to better communicate to non-Christians whose big beef with following Jesus is a well-worn but quite implausible conspiracy theory about ancient Christianity.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Andreas J. Köstenberger (professor of NT at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Michael J. Kruger (professor of NT at RTS in Charlotte, NC) team up to combat the Bauer-Ehrman hypothesis in The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity.

Köstenberger-Kruger (KK) deal with three major arguments in the Bauer-Ehrman theory (BE). The first leg of the argument is that according to BE there were multiple ‘Christianities.’ Said in another way, there was a “diversity of equally legitimate beliefs” (p. 33). KK reasons that while there was diversity, it was minimal. Rather a unity around key doctrines like monotheism, Jesus Christ as Lord, and the message of the Gospel was the norm. KK goes on to demonstrate that all centers of Christianity in the Mediterranean World were more likely orthodox than heterodox. KK operates on the assumption that the NT is authentic in its authorship, so the actual books of the NT themselves combat heresy and the themes of orthodoxy prevail.

The second argument revolves around the assumption that books were picked to be in the canon, based on the superiority of the choosers. In discussing the concept of the canon, KK brings in literary criticism to bolster his argument. He suggests that Ancient Near East covenants predate the 4th Century and the written documents that accompanied those covenants were expected. Thus it would be no different for the New Testament introduction of the New Covenant. This argument may have appeal to the postmodern. While provocative, I’m not sure it was his best argument because it still does not solve the issue of the affirmation of the written documents entirely. However, the nature of the OT and NT in the overall unity of God’s plan is seen. The historical evidence proposed in chapter 5 was more convincing than that of the covenant community paradigm. He argues that the NT canon was complete at the end of the apostolic age and it was some time before spurious books by real heretics were written. A “closed” verses “open” canon is integral to BE theory. KK argues that “closed” is integral to redemption itself and to the apostolic witnesses.

The third argument revolves around the copying of manuscripts and textual transmission. This is the best-argued section. He wrests the argument that variants are significant away from Ehrman, by pointing out that they are actually confirmation that we have the original in the multitude of manuscripts. There is safety in the thousands of manuscripts that can be compared. On page 229, KK quotes from Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus, “‘If [God] really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he miraculously inspired them in the first place.’ In other words, if God really inspired the New Testament there would be no scribal variations as all. It is his commitment to this belief—a theological belief—that is driving his entire approach to textual variants.”

The rapid acceptance of the Bauer-Ehrman position comes from an uncritical willingness to believe. It resonates with the philosophy of our day. While it nearly died on the vine in the first part of the previous century, it has made major head way today.

I would recommend this for the truly thoughtful person, who was open-minded to possible criticism of their postmodern position. That being said, sometimes it is easier to disbelieve an abundance of evidence that is contrary to one’s own desired position.

[Pastoralmusings · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! That is what I must say about this book.
As one who is interested in apologetics and New Testament studies, I was interested in writing a review of this book. I approached it as one would approach a textbook: with trepidation. I felt it would be scholarly- it is; I felt it would be dull- it is not. This book is well written, interesting, scholarly, and all in all a very good book.
The authors are men who are convinced that the Bible is God's Word and reliable and take great care in demonstrating this while going against the current of popular culture and so-called scholarship.
The main issues with which the book deals are the issues of orthodoxy, the development of the NT canon, and textual transmission. They show us from Scripture itself, the early church fathers, and other sources that there was indeed a standard of faith that was held to in the early church. There was variation, but there was a standard of truth. There was orthodoxy in the early church.
They move from the issue of orthodoxy vs heresy to showing that the canon was not something that was decided upon in the fourth century by certain power mongers and then imposed upon everyone else. In fact, the authors demonstrate that the NT writers themselves understood that they were writing Scripture. The churches recognized that the four gospels were authoritative proclamations of the truth and also acknowledged the various epistles and apostolic works as being of God. This happened gradually as the various books were written and traveled from place to place, but it happened in the late first century and early second century. They explain that the process of canonization was not a decree that was passed, or the decision of a council, but a general receiving of the NT by the churches and their accepting the NT as inspired of God and authoritative.
Finally, the authors show that the NT has not been lost in transmission. Far from being lost, we have an embarrassment of riches in NT studies because of the multitude of manuscripts that we possess today. Though there are a few places where textual variant leave us in doubt of the exact text of Scripture, we know that we have a reliable NT text today. In fact, we can be assured that our Bible is the Word of God and is essentially the same as it was in the days of the early church due to the excellent manner in which God providentially preserved it for us.
I am convinced that this book will stand the test of time. Though written as a response to some particular voices of today, this book's worth is seen in that it defends and upholds the timeless Word of God. Bauer is gone, and Ehrman shall soon be gone, but God's Word lives forever. So, too, will this book abide as an excellent defense of the authority and reliability of the NT.

[Timothy Decker · Rating 5 out of 5]

So good, I'm assigning my students to read it.

[Donald Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is one of those written in reaction to Bart Ehrman, but isn't simply about him. Kostenberger and Kruger do a good job putting the challenges posed to Christianity by radicals who claim what we now consider orthodoxy was simply one of several strains of Christianity that "won out" and dominated and excluded other, equally valid versions. These ideas began with Walter Bauer, but have recently been dressed up again by men like Ehrman. The modern version has a definite postmodern tinge to it.

The authors show how the Bible itself proves the "orthodoxy" of orthodoxy and gives a survey of canonical issues that give us confidence in the Bible itself. There are a couple of chapters dealing with the basics of textual criticism as well.

The book is a good beginning and would be especially helpful for people new to these concepts. I found it strongest in the areas of canonicity, but that is an area relatively new to me.

So, all in all, a solid effort and a good spot for someone to begin in these areas.

[Joshua Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is written with a strong academic tone. There are some really good canonization points made in this book as a response to Walter Bauers thesis. It also highlights some of Bart Ehrman’s pushback on the authority of Scripture. This should be a slow read to digest the material!

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read!

[Evan · Rating 5 out of 5]

really good

[Max Beitel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book, accessible yet thorough. Didn't read chapters on textual criticism so can't speak for those.

[Dwain Minor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kostenberger and Kruger do an incredible job of looking at modern accusations that the beliefs of the Early Church was actually quite diverse. The claim is that it wasn't until the 4th century that what we claim to be orthodox actually was solidified. But, Kostenberger and Kruger take a look at the information we have within Scripture itself, and from the writings of the Early Church to show that these claims are not at all based in history, but rather are conjectures that ignore the historical data.

I don't believe that the importance of this topic can be overrated. Around Christmas and New Year every year these ideas are broadcast on television. This idea, called the Bauer thesis, is growing in popularity and panders to our culture's mindset. In a time and place where the very idea of truth is considered ludicrous, even a thesis based upon conjecture that lacks historical backing will be very appealing. And so, if we are going to actually understand what is going on with media darlings like Bart Ehrman, then we need to investigate his claims. That is exactly what the authors do in this book.

Kostenberger and Kruger take a look a historical look at the claims of diversity of the Early Church. First they look to see just how diverse the Early Church actually was and whether or not the claims of the Bauer thesis are true. The insights gained from this are quite remarkable. It reveals that the Bauer thesis is simply not true. The authors also take a look at the idea that the canon was wide open until around the 4th century and reveal that from very early on, even before 100 AD, the canon was in a sense closed admitting only certain works to be called Scripture. And, they also do a very good job of looking at the reliability of the New Testament texts. Here Bart Ehrman seems to again not be dealing in historical reality, but rather his own conjectures from faulty logic. The authors show that we really can trust the Bible that we have today.

If you are a person who is curious about historical Christianity and the reliability of the New Testament texts, which is a topic that comes up often, then I think you would do well to read this book. I would also argue that if you are a pastor or other leader in your church, you would do well to read and understand the topic of this book. Because the media has loved to move these ideas into the limelight there are many people in our congregations who likely have questions concerning this topic.

[David Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

The idea of diverse beginnings in the Christian faith which were later suppressed by 'the winners' i.e. orthodox Christianity is an idea that has gained a good deal of traction in recent years both at an academic and popular level. This book takes on this trend head on by dealing with many of the ideas that underpin the thesis. The case that we can trace orthodox Christian belief back to the early church is presented cogently and compellingly. If you are a Christian and haven't had this debate with someone you will, so this is well worth your time.
The one area where I was not convinced was with the NT as covenant document thesis. I'm not saying that it is wrong but I will need to think about it a bit more.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a rebuttal to the Walter Bauer thesis as expanded on by Bart Ehrman. The Bauer thesis, developed and promulgated by Walter Bauer in the 1930s, posits that Christianity began with a diversity of versions. Over time, one version, which we consider the orthodox viewpoint, became dominant and, as the victor, chose which writings to canonize as scripture and controlled the writing of church history. More recently, Bart Ehrman has championed a position that places early apocryphal writings such as the gospel of Thomas on equal footing with orthodox scripture and which challenges our ability to even know the original orthodox scriptures as written because we don’t have access to the autographs. With good reason, Dr. Kostenberger and Dr. Kruger have issues with these positions and have drafted a rebuttal that acknowledges its moderate to high level nature on account of space considerations. That said, the book includes a thorough bibliography for anyone desiring to further explore this topic. The rebuttal includes the following points:

• Professor Bauer had argued that heresy preceded orthodoxy in the major urban centers where Christianity was found. Acknowledging that the early second century evidence regarding heresy is scanty, the authors conclude based on their review of the available evidence that “in all the major urban centers investigated by Bauer, orthodoxy most likely preceded heresy or the second-century data by itself is inconclusive.” In other words, the dogmatism of Bauer’s conclusions was unsupported by the available evidence.
• In a review of the patristic fathers, the authors develop a timeline arguing that the apostles promulgated an orthodoxy that was further propagated by the apostolic fathers. After they died out, orthodoxy continues to be mainstream, but various heresies that had begun to organize during their lifetimes became more developed. As orthodoxy becomes solidified in the creeds, various forms of heresy continue. In other words, the orthodoxy of third- and fourth-century creeds have a continuity with the orthodox writings of the first and second centuries.
• While various epistles in the New Testament address heresy, these heresies appear to have been local and fragmented. The only group of early Christians demonstrating theological unity was the movement represented by the New Testament writers. There is no available evidence to suggest unified and wide ranging heretical movements.
• Building on the foundation of the written covenantal structure of the Old Testament, which featured written documents following God’s redemption of Israel from Egyptian slavery, the early Christians would have expected new written covenantal documents following God’s decisive act of redemption in Jesus Christ. As a result, canonical books would have been recognized at an early point well before they were formally recognized in the creedal period.
• The early second-century writings of apostolic fathers such as Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias either directly cite or allude to various epistles and gospels as authoritative. Furthermore, the Muratorian Fragment of the late second century recognizes as canonical all four gospels, all thirteen epistles of Paul, Acts, Jude, at least two of the Johannine epistles and Revelation. Given the evidence of the apostolic fathers, it appears that the Muratorian Fragment is not defining the extent of the canon but recognizing it as a fait accompli from prior acceptance in the church.
• Various apocryphal epistles and gospels that have been trotted out as alternatives to the New Testament and championed by Bart Ehrman lack the historical credentials of the canonical books and appear to be little more than later and secondary sources.
• Proponents of the Bauer thesis argue that the church did not define and restrict the New Testament canon until the fourth century. From a review of the writings of various second- and third-century church fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Dionysius of Corinth and Gaius), it appears that the canon was viewed as already closed in their time.
• Early on in church history, Christians had an interest in written scripture and “a relatively well-developed scribal network whereby those books could be copied, edited, and disseminated throughout the Empire.” In other words, the evidence is that the early church had adequate means for reliably transmitting scripture.
• While there were copy errors in the transmission of the New Testament and even the occasional scribal change in an effort to settle a theological dispute, the wealth of available manuscript evidence gives us confidence that the original text has been preserved in the overall manuscript tradition. Furthermore, the vast majority of textual variants are insignificant in nature (spelling, word order, etc.), and the text-critical methodology enables scholars to better distinguish between original and secondary readings when the variants are significant in nature. As a result, we can have confidence that the New Testament text we have is the original text or very close to it.

As I noted earlier, the points are made at a moderate to high level; each one could be supported by an entire book or set of books.

So, why the title, The Heresy of Orthodoxy? In our cultural milieu that idolizes diversity and dogmatically asserts that any dogmatic truth claim is verboten, the absolute truth claims of orthodox Christianity are heretical, it takes moral and intellectual courage to defend those truth claims. For this reason, I applaud the courage of Dr. Kruger and Dr. Kostenberger in taking this stand and hope that their book both inspires and equips other Christians to take a similar stand.

[Kelle Craft · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book. Köstenberger and Kruger are remarkable scholars and have done a great job at not only refuting The Bauer/Ehrman thesis, but also shown the theological biases and lack (rather a denial of) the historical evidence that come from those in support of their claim. In a society fascinated with diversity, K&K hold true to the Christian faith, showing overwhelming evidence to support the validity, accuracy, and trustworthiness of the New Testament, despite Ehrman's erroneous claims.

[Chet Duke · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for any student of religion, New Testament, theology, Christian history, etc. Kostenberger is extremely organized in the way he lays out the book. One of the best books I've read on the issues associated with the reliability of the NT.

[Shane Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid rebuttal to the weak arguments of Bauer and Ehrman and others. Solid resource of the serious student of Biblical theology as well as for the lay person....exposes nicely the axis of Walter Bauer and his minions by referring to the early sources and manuscripts of the early Church!!

[Parker Ambrose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Totally wrecks the Bauer/Ehrman thesis that dominates modern critical studies of the New Testament. This is a must-read, because Western culture has adopted a view of the New Testament which is both false, and demonstrably so; and so the authors write: they set forward a more coherent view.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. If you are looking for a book that deals with Early Christian orthodoxy, issues in New Testament Canon, and the reliability of the NT text, this book is for you.

[David Smithey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really liked this book. It's amazing the lengths that people go when they refuse to believe!

[Kyle Grindberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

An exceptional analysis!

[Johnny Zacchio jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

AMAZING!!!