How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology)

This book does not actually track the history of the manuscripts.What the book does provide, is opinions on the text itself, by different scholars.It also talks about how the text was accepted.Just beware that it is NOT an actually history lesson on where the texts came from, the change of hands, or how it actually got into the Bible.What it DOES do is talk about how different opinions and the history of that.

This is and incredible book! The footnotes themselves are a wealth of information for further study on the topics this book discusses. This book will give you the current state of affairs for the text, transmission, and translation of the New Testament. You will find that 'yes' you can trust the New Testament. This should be required reading for most Christians, or anyone who wants the facts on these issues!

A short book that concisely rids of common misconceptions and errors about the NT's development. A good supplement to other works on this subject (e.g., those by Wallace, etc.)Would have liked more discussion about the meaning of "published version" of the autographs, since I think we take for granted what that meant in the first century - esp for a collection of writings like the NT.

Apologetics and textual criticism are a sort of hobby of mine. I really enjoyed Mr. Porter's well researched and well documented book. He explores some areas that are somewhat new to me and does so in very undogmatic, thoughtful way. The points he makes are convincing and thought provoking. May not be the best read for someone with no prior knowledge of textual criticism but definitely a book you will want in your collection. Thank you Mr. Porter!

As someone with a basic working understand of NT Textual Criticism, Stanley Porter's unique (and provocative) proposal for textual criticism at the end of this book stood out to me. Essentially he suggests that scholars simply use a historical artifact - an actual manuscript - instead of using a reconstructed critical text when they are interpreting/ commenting upon a New Testament book. While I certainly understand Porter's concerns and his proposal, I do feel that he disrespects the lifetime work of other scholars who have worked tirelessly to produce a critical text. Is their work of little consequence? No one claims that the critical texts (plural) were perfect. Nevertheless, we must concede that they are good texts. To not admit as much seems disrespectful to me (although I am certain that Porter did not mean it that way). Nor do I disregard Porter's approach - but I think that he could have said these things in a different way. It is one thing to humbly suggest a new direction in biblical studies, and it is another to (more or less) dismiss over 2 centuries of textual scholarship without at least thanking them for their service or acknowledging their labor.This criticism aside, I consider this work to be the best book on "How We Got the New Testament" for the "layperson." This should be the first work recommended to the Christian wondering about how they got their New Testament. If you want to know how Paul's Greek letters became your English Bible 2,000 years later, then this book is the one you want. You will certainly be encouraged by reading this book Christian! Pick it up!

How We Got the New Testament by Stanley E. Porter deals with three important issues: (1) the text of the New Testament, specifically, whether it can be reconstructed reliably from the thousands of later manuscripts which are our only record of it; (2) the transmission of the New Testament in its early years; and (3) the translation of the New Testament into languages other than Greek in its early years, as well as into English in the last five centuries.Porter concludes that the New Testament text can be reconstructed reliably, with 80 to 90 percent being “established…regardless of the textual variants present in the manuscript. Moreover, the variants tend—with a handful of notable exceptions—to be minor, neither changing the meaning nor the orthodoxy of the text. With this in mind, Porter takes Bart Ehrman of Misquoting Jesus fame to task for the “unwarranted sensationalism” of that books’ argument.Regarding the transmission of the New Testament, Porter argues that it is possible “to trace the development of the four Gospel and Pauline letter corpora back to the second century.” He argues that there is some evidence that “the remaining parts of the New Testament [e.g., the catholic epistles] were also being gathered during this time.” This has implications for discussions about the canonicity of the New Testament, though Porter doesn’t explicitly discuss issues of canon. The fact that post-Apostolic Age Christians routinely collected the four Gospels and Paul’s letters (and perhaps the other New Testament writings) indicates, in my opinion, that they held these works in particular regard.The final chapter, after briefly surveying the early history of translating the New Testament from Greek into other languages and the more recent history of English translations, surveys various issues in the debate over translation theory. Porter demonstrates that the debate is more complex than formal equivalence vs. functional (or dynamic) equivalence. Evangelicals who are accustomed to the polemics between ESV and NIV proponents will discover how difficult translation really is.In the Introduction, Porter writes, “I conceive of my audience for this book as…an inquisitive and generally well-educated and thinking Christian audience, ideally though not necessarily with some formal theological education.” As an ordained minister with a graduate degree in theology, I think Porter has misestimated his readership. This book will profit theological students and seminarians primarily, though it also makes several proposals scholars might find helpful. Students especially will benefit from the studies Porter so helpfully documents in the footnotes. However, a general Christian audience will likely find themselves unfamiliar with the background knowledge Porter assumes his readers know and some of the terminology he uses, as well as confused by the ins and outs of the academic debates Porter occasionally weighs in on. (Though, as an American, I must concede that general Christian readers in Canada may be better informed than counterparts in the States.)Even with that qualification about readership, however, How We Got the New Testament is a fascinating, erudite study that I enjoyed and recommend.

Very interesting book

Book was reasonably priced, arrived quickly in perfect condition. What more could one wish for?