Keith Elliott has reviewed a collection of essays edited by Daniel Wallace entitled Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence here.
To give you a flavour of the review and of Elliott's tone (behind the American copy-editing), I paste below the beginning and end.
For some years many of those who present themselves as “evangelicals” have felt obliged to tackle several of Bart Ehrman’s publications, notably his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (now about to reappear in an expanded form) and Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (inexplicably published in England under the bland title Whose Word Is It? The Story behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why). Some of his pronouncements about the reasons why certain changes found in manuscripts of the New Testament were made, and the seeming impossibility to restore the supposed original text, have ruffled fundamentalists’ and evangelicals’ feathers. His are books and conclusions that such apologists cannot neglect or ignore. Ehrman’s wellknown opinions, especially in the United States, have resulted in many attempted counterarguments. We have one such book here that has succumbed to the pervasive Ehrman influence.
[snip]
Ph.D. theses and students’ first publications, especially those by recent graduates in the United States, typically carry in a foreword overblown thanks especially to long-suffering family members and a justification of their own impeccable religious convictions. Such self-publicizing sanctimoniousness is usually cringe-making and toe-curling in its indulgence. Aficionados will find some plum examples of this risible genre here; almost all of the current essays include fulsome acknowledgements, and one (220) is ungrammatical. Perhaps the time is ripe to suggest a moratorium on such publicly paraded private sentiments. Mature scholarship and academic publications (especially those originating in Europe) tend to avoid such trivia and the wearing of a heart on the sleeve. To set an example, this review carries no dedications.
The preface itself tops all such acknowledgements, concluding as it does with a reflex-action piety, proclaiming that the essays here are offered to “our Lord Jesus Christ” and with the hope that “he be pleased and magnified by our efforts.” Like Harry Hotspur’s skepticism at Glendower’s claims in Henry IV Part 1, act 3, we too have no means of measuring if such a wish be granted, but this reviewer can express his own satisfaction that the editor’s aims seem to have been fulfilled to the extent that they expose impressive and promising work from students under his direction. This Wallace Collection, like the London Gallery of that name, contains some real gems. We congratulate Daniel Wallace for his pedagogical success, as evidenced now by his encouraging future scholars to participate in this book and the new publishing venture.
To give you a flavour of the review and of Elliott's tone (behind the American copy-editing), I paste below the beginning and end.
For some years many of those who present themselves as “evangelicals” have felt obliged to tackle several of Bart Ehrman’s publications, notably his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (now about to reappear in an expanded form) and Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (inexplicably published in England under the bland title Whose Word Is It? The Story behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why). Some of his pronouncements about the reasons why certain changes found in manuscripts of the New Testament were made, and the seeming impossibility to restore the supposed original text, have ruffled fundamentalists’ and evangelicals’ feathers. His are books and conclusions that such apologists cannot neglect or ignore. Ehrman’s wellknown opinions, especially in the United States, have resulted in many attempted counterarguments. We have one such book here that has succumbed to the pervasive Ehrman influence.
[snip]
Ph.D. theses and students’ first publications, especially those by recent graduates in the United States, typically carry in a foreword overblown thanks especially to long-suffering family members and a justification of their own impeccable religious convictions. Such self-publicizing sanctimoniousness is usually cringe-making and toe-curling in its indulgence. Aficionados will find some plum examples of this risible genre here; almost all of the current essays include fulsome acknowledgements, and one (220) is ungrammatical. Perhaps the time is ripe to suggest a moratorium on such publicly paraded private sentiments. Mature scholarship and academic publications (especially those originating in Europe) tend to avoid such trivia and the wearing of a heart on the sleeve. To set an example, this review carries no dedications.
The preface itself tops all such acknowledgements, concluding as it does with a reflex-action piety, proclaiming that the essays here are offered to “our Lord Jesus Christ” and with the hope that “he be pleased and magnified by our efforts.” Like Harry Hotspur’s skepticism at Glendower’s claims in Henry IV Part 1, act 3, we too have no means of measuring if such a wish be granted, but this reviewer can express his own satisfaction that the editor’s aims seem to have been fulfilled to the extent that they expose impressive and promising work from students under his direction. This Wallace Collection, like the London Gallery of that name, contains some real gems. We congratulate Daniel Wallace for his pedagogical success, as evidenced now by his encouraging future scholars to participate in this book and the new publishing venture.