In the next two weeks, some of the best and brightest New Testament scholars will be descending upon Boston, Massachusetts for the ETS and SBL Annual Meetings. For a certain group of Bible nerds, the highlight of the event will undoubtedly be the Monday 24 November all-day feast of sessions relating to New Testament textual criticism (NTTC). There’ll be an important update on ECM Matthew, and one of the TC sessions will be completely focused on discussing the contents and impact of one book – A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Hugh Houghton. Why?
Anyone who’s read a UBS Greek New Testament will have at some point come across the seemingly arcane collection of letters and symbols at the bottom of each page. For example:
Hugh Houghton’s book patiently walks through over 1000 of these textual unit variations, and gives a reader-friendly summary of why the UBS text printed has been chosen, what are other possible options regarding the earliest text, and what issues to consider in order to discern the most appropriate translation of the NT text there.
The last Textual Commentary like this was written by Bruce Metzger (1st edition 1971, 2nd edition 1994), and is still the go-to resource for almost every serious student, pastor and scholar interested in the Greek New Testament. Indeed, Houghton has published a once-in-a-generation commentary full of helpful, up-to-date insights that will shape biblical studies in the decades to come.
But… I don’t think you should buy it just yet.
Not because it’s no good. It is excellent! From what I’ve read so far, it certainly is a worthy successor — and in many places, I dare say an improvement — over Metzger’s textual commentary. Even Houghton’s introduction alone (pp. 1*–36*) is worth the price of the book, and ought to be essential reading for anyone engaged in biblical studies. In less than 40 pages, he provides an excellent summary of everything related to establishing the New Testament text, in language that’s not overly technical, and abreast of the latest research and advances in textual criticism. In places, there are even some helpful correctives for much of the prevailing scholarship in support of a thoroughgoing alteration or “orthodox corruption” of the NT text in the earliest manuscripts (e.g. Bart Ehrman).
Unfortunately though, there’s a growing list of all kinds of errors scattered throughout the 1st edition (currently the only available edition worldwide). As of today, there’s already 30 different items on the list of corrigenda (things to be corrected). And on that basis, I would actually suggest Greek NT students and translators etc. wait until a corrected edition (in print or digital form) comes out before purchasing a copy. You can read more details and some examples in the following short note (also available on my Academia page) – and I’ll add a few screenshots below of corrections I’ve had to make to my personal copy.
What are your thoughts? What have you seen in Houghton’s new textual commentary that excites or concerns you?
W, thanks for your insights about this commentary.
I’m curious if you would recommend this (if corrected) or Omanson’s Textual Guide? I have NA28/apparatus and SBL’s GNT, but no UBS or NA29. I also can only “read” Greek at this point, and have no vocab or grammar. However, I am interested in having a resource that discusses textual variants and why one was chosen over another. Will Houghton’s Commentary be useless to me if I don’t have UBS6? Is Omanson’s Guide also outdated if Metzger’s is at this point? Thank you for any thoughts you may have!
Hi Colin, Houghton’s commentary has the editorial text of UBS6 (and NA29) in mind, which means that from your NA28 there will be textual changes in Mark, Acts and Revelation (the ECM volumes that have been completed since then). Some discussions give a bit of an insight into further changes in other volumes, so Houghton has tried to pre-empt those in a sense (e.g. in the Pauline epistles). Also Houghton’s style of textual commentary is slightly different to Metzger, and doesn’t directly discuss what the Committee decided and why. Nelson Hsieh has a good overview (https://www.nelsonhsieh.com/p/initial-impressions-on-hugh-houghtons).
I personally still find Omanson’s textual commentary helpful (especially his discussion on unit segmentation differences) but it uses the traditional idea of Alexandrian / Western / Caesarean text types, which Houghton has argued should be retired in light of newer findings.
Hope this helps!