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:

Apparatus entry for Heb. 5:12 in UBS5

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? 

An important detail that needs adjustment in everyone’s reviews of Hugh Houghton’s Textual Commentary: the original count of 1008 variants reflected the number of entries in the Textual Commentary, but the actual number in UBS6 is 1017 (hence the correction).
This is a misprint that’s important to correct: no, the UBS6 has not reversed their opinion regarding the placement of the αἱ γυναῖκες… passage in 1 Cor 14:34-35. In fact, they have become more “confident” ({A} in UBS6, from {B} in UBS5) regarding the traditional placement of the passage, though unsurprisingly Houghton’s comments themselves have sparked a bit of debate online.
Correction on p. 340: “Add new entry for James 5:20. // 5:20   ἁμαρτιῶν. (of sins.) {A}” A bit ironic that it’s necessary to do some textual criticism on a textual commentary (though in case you’re wondering, the ink is clearly blue and not “apricot”… 😉)
On page 510, Houghton’s entry for the word τινα in Heb. 5:12 begins as follows: 5:12 τίνα (lit. which) {C}. He then provides an interesting text-critical discussion summarising why the UBS Committee has altered the accenting of the word, previously rendered as τινὰ (an indefinite pronoun connected with the previous διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς: ‘someone’ [to teach you]), in favour of the accentuation τίνα (an interrogative pronoun connected with the following τὰ στοιχεῖα: ‘which’ [are the basic elements]).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *