I note with satisfaction that this reviewer "found the approach and format of Wasserman’s essay to be the most clear of all the essays." However, the most interesting aspect of the review is that Jones identifies a theological agenda behind two of the articles (Charlesworth and Kruger): "In sum, it seems apparent that there is a theological agenda behind both Kruger's and Charlesworth's articles. The conservative and apologetic undertones in their arguments are clear."
Kruger's co-editor C. E. Hill also gets his share in the summary:
Overall, this book is an important addition to our field and thus is to be recommended to anyone interested in the text of the New Testament, in spite of the apparent apologetic predispositions on the part of the editors.
Go ahead and read the whole review here and welcome to comment!
Update: I just went through the typos that Brice Jones identified in my essay, and this makes me so disappointed with Oxford University Press – they are responsible for all the typos.
In any case, the most embarrasing thing is that OUP has managed to duplicate my chart for P77 and insert it under P70 (including a typo).
So, here is the correct chart for P70 (p. 97) which any owner of the book can print out and insert.
Textual analysis
Text | Var.-units in NA27 | Extra var.-units | Ratio of deviation | Type of deviation | Singular readings |
2:13–16; 2:22–3:1; 11:26–27; 12:4–5; 24:3–6, 12–15 | 6 | 4 | 7/10 (70%) | 1 x O 6 x SUB | 3 x SUB |
At some point someone made a mistake. Unfortunately, I did not read the proofs as I should have! (why don't I learn the lesson).