Featured Books on Textual Criticism

It certainly does matter. I'd be happy to discuss the reasons it matters on a new thread if you are so inclined as to start one.

 

To get back to the OP, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., by Bruce M. Metzger, is an essential book for anyone studying textual criticism. It is a companion text to the UBS Greek NT. My only problem is that it is too short, and I've often looked up textual variations hoping to see why the critical omits or changes various readings only to be disappointed.

Of course it goes without saying that a knowledge of Greek is essential for understanding this book and, as I've been saying all along, textual criticism. Each entry has a verse number and then the Greek reading in question. Anyone here on the BB who is interested in textual criticism could learn Greek if they are willing to put forth the time and effort.

A textual commentary gives notes about the variations in the mss, anywhere from a sentence or two to a short paragraph to several pages (5 1/2 on the ending of Mark). This one also has a useful introduction describing the canons (rules) and process of eclectic textual criticism.

 

Correction of self: the empty space at the end of Mark is in Vaticanus, not Sinaiticus.

 

I have a book by Bruce Metzger that is a little unique: Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. The subtitle is "An Introduction to Greek Paleography." This is the study of the actual manuscripts and their production. The preface says that "the present volume aims to acquaint the beginner in paleography with the habits of scribes and the difficulties they faced in copying manuscripts" (p. v).

Metzger discusses everything from what the early Greek alphabet looked like to how to collate mss. The best thing about the book are the copious plates of various mss, which takes up more than the second half of the book. This excellent book has been reprinted and is available, but one reviewer notes that the plates are not as good in quality as the 1981 copy I have.

 

I'll not argue with this post. But if the longer ending of Mark is part of Scripture as I believe but is rejected as such, then a part of God's revelation is thus lost to the doubter.

 

The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry Sturz is a must for any library on textual criticism. For the record, Sturz did not hold to the Byzantine-priority position nor any similar position. However, his research (much of which is included in the appendices) showed that the Byzantine text-type is at least as old as the Alexandrian, and that makes his work critical for anyone attempting to understand textual criticism. Thus, he ended up with a position that gives equal weight to the Alexandrian and Byzantine.

Interestingly enough, the body of the book only goes to p. 131, and then the appendices start, ending on p. 230: various lists and tables comparing readings of mss of the different text-types. Note: a knowledge of Greek is essential to understanding the appendices. These are followed by the best bibliography on the subject that I've seen anywhere, pp. 231-274.

At the end of the body of the book, Sturz writes: "Contrary to what WH held, distinctively Byzantine readings of every kind have been shown to be early" (p. 130; emphasis by Sturz). He then concludes with the statement that "it appears reasonable to conclude that the Byzantine text should be given equal weight, along with the Alexandrian and 'Western' texts, in evaluating internal evidence for reading" (ibid).

 

I'll agree with that.

 

A well-known Greek scholar recently donated some books to our college library, and one of them was Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, by Ernest C. Colwell. I immediately grabbed it from the box in my son's office and plan to read it when I can. This is a very important book for the study of textual criticism, especially for the Byzantine-priority position, though that is not Colwell's position that I know of.

In his preface, Colwell states that this is a book of essays he has written over time "for the most part concerned with external evidence, with the appraisal of manuscripts as manuscripts." Since Byzantine-priority places heavy value on external evidence, this book is thus important.

Chapter Eight is significant: "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits." In this chapter he evaluates especially the habits of the scribes of p45, p66 and p75. In this chapter he humanizes the ancient scribes. He shows that they (especially the p66 scribe) often made "nonsense readings" and other errors. The scribe of p45 was also often quite free with word order. One lesson: simply because a document is ancient does not make it authoritative.

 

I'm mostly done here. I have some other pamphlets and books on textual criticism, but nothing significant and most older stuff. I'll just mention two that have been influential. These are more technical, so unless you're just really into the subject you won't need these.

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, by Fredric Kenyon (1951 reprint of the 1895 original)

The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, by B. H. Streeter (1964 reprint of 1930 revision of 1924 original)

 

Actually, I need to mention one other book. The Identity of the New Testament Text (revised) by Wilbur Pickering. This one helped me come to a majority text position back in the day. The revision is copyright 1980, so it is out of date in terms of Byzantine/Majority scholarship, and Pickering is sometimes careless in his language, but it is worth a read.

Another book worth a read is Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, by well-known Reformed scholar Gordon Clark. Caveat: he is not a textual critic and admits as much on p. 10, but he is a thinker. (I have his textbook on logic.)