Thursday, September 19, 2013

Best Commentaries for Textual Criticism

21
I thought it would be a good idea to draw up a list of the best commentaries for textual criticism. And to keep this on top occasionally until we finish it!!! Which commentaries show real independent thought about the text of the text they are treating? (We won't bother here with those which may be excellent in other respects but which merely rehearse Metzger)
I'm looking for help here from the studio audience, which I will update regularly:


Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans Robert Jewett (Hermeneia, 2007) [also Gamble's monograph]

1 Corinthians Gordon D. Fee (NICNT, 1987)

2 Corinthians Murray J. Harris (NIGTC, 2004)

Galatians Richard N. Longenecker (WBC, 1990)

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1&2 Thessalonians

Pastoral Epistles

Hebrews

James

1 Peter Paul J. Achtemeier (Hermeneia, )

2 Peter

Johannine Epistles

Jude


Revelation D.E. Aune (Word, 3 vols, 1997-1998)





Supporting Evidence is in the comments

21 comments :

  1. The NIGTC commentary on 2 Corinthians by Murray Harris (a former Warden of Tyndale House, if I recall correctly)is an outstanding text-critical resource (full disclosure: Harris was my very first sem prof, and all the Greek courses I took at TEDS I took from Harris.) He discusses every variant in the apparatus to NA27, and often reaches independent judgments. One could say that what Aune is for Revelation, Harris is for 2 Corinthians.
    Mike Holmes

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Mike, yes Murray Harris was warden when I first came to Tyndale House in 1985 for an interview with him before they let me in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1985 seems like a long time ago when it is written down like that and compared with 2013!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I look forward to tracking this thread to see what others mention for various NT books.

    Regarding Aune, his work is also highly commendable for his listing of the Rev mss (pp. cxxxvi-cxlviii), which is a whole diff ballgame than other NT books. It needs a few minor corrections (re: 886, 1668, 1774, etc) and updates (205copy=2886; 2036copy=2891, Lembke's analysis of 2846, etc.). But still it is one of the best resources for a list and description of the Rev mss.

    Btw, what is the proper way to pronounce Aune's last name?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ropes' commentary on James would have to be right up there.

    But sometimes he sounds a lot like Metzger.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like Paul J. Achtemeier on 1 Peter in the Hermeneia series. His commentary text is two column, and the opening of each section presents his translation in the left column, and his textual critical notes in the right column. A great format.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I haven't checked it myself, but Jewett's commentary on Romans in the Hermeneia series was heavily edited by Eldon Epp (editor of the series) who I think spent hundreds of hours on the textcritical stuff (because it was necessary). So I expect those notes to be of high quality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the old commentaries were generally stronger in textual notes: e.g. both the MacMillan series with Lightfoot et al, incl. Ropes on James; and the old ICCs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Peter on the older commentaries, and fear this lack of textual discussions on so many modern commentaries is based on a faulty (advertised) assumption that the NA is the original text with no need to deal with text-critical issues. Now, we as textual scholars know that's not the case, but how many non-textual scholar cares about it? I suspect, aghast, not too many, though exceptions exist. Or am I too negative here?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tommy, on Jude what would we say? Bauckham is probably still the best all round commentary, and does deal with textual details. Here as well we have your monograph.

    ReplyDelete
  12. On the Johannine Epistles we noted Yarbrough's commentary previously: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/yarbrough-on-johannine-epistles.html

    Does anyone have a vote for a commentary better than Yarbrough for TC?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I know it's quite dated, but what about Raymond Brown's 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel in the Anchor Bible (or in addition, his Birth/Death of the Messiah)?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Longenecker, ICC galatians

    Fee gives some independent, if at times a bit idiosyncratic, tc judgement in his 1 Cor commentaty

    ReplyDelete
  15. On Galatians, Burton ICC is still a must. Of the modern ones, Longenecker is near the top of an unimpressive pack, as is Buscemi if you read Italian. Older German commentaries such as Sieffert, Zahn, and Zimmer are still very useful.

    For a textual commentary on the Pauline Corpus, I strongly recommend Bernhard Weiss, Textkritik der paulinische Briefe (TU 14.3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1896).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jewett on Romans: good intro to textual criticism of Romans (pp. 4-18); many many notes on text (augmented by E.J. Epp acc preface, p. xvi); independent: 26 differences from NA27 - p 14f (including restoring 16.24) (does accept conjecture at 7.25)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fee on 1 Corinthians is independent. PMH: regular discussion of variants in the notes, longer section on (against) 14.34-35 (pp. 699-708)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Longenecker on Galatians ("near the top of an unimpressive pack" SC): no section on text in the introduction, but lots of textual notes before each section and discusses major variants in the commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Aune’s commentary on Revelation has excellent brief discussions of the textual issues at practically every point. He proposed 34 improvements to the NA27 text in his commentary, most of these reflect a different perspective on the internal evidence:

    1.6; 2.15; 4.4, 7, 8; 5.6 (2), 10; 6.17; 7.10 (kra/zousi, not listed in NA27 app.); 9.6; 10.6; 11.16; 14.13, 16, 18 (2); 16.4, 6 (2) (pei=n, not listed in NA27 app.); 17.3 (2); 18.2, 3; 19.6, 7, 9, 11, 17; 20.11 (au0tou= after prows=pou, not listed in NA27 app.); 21.16, 22, 27; 22.11 [[Aune claims 40 improvements (pp. clix-clx), but the variant at 9.9 doesn’t exist (duplication); 17.10 is an error for 7.10; and at 18.16; 19.5, 12; 21.12 he actually agrees with the NA27 text (and simply proposes deleting square brackets); at 20.4 he also agrees with the NA27 text (and has mistakenly represented it)]]

    ReplyDelete
  20. I guess some independent text-critical judgement is in Attridge's Hermeneia commentary on Hebrews, but overall it probably doesn't deserve to be included.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In addition to Ropes' commentary on James, I nominate my own commentary, embedded in "The Letter of James: Translation, Commentary, and Greek Text" (a Kindle e-book).

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    ReplyDelete