Thursday, July 18, 2019

Textual Criticism and Other Areas of New Testament Studies: A Bibliography

1
Back in May I noted David Parker’s comments on the significance of the move away from the TR on New Testament studies. That got me thinking about how textual criticism more broadly has affected New Testament studies and that led to the start of a bibliography. I’ve copied it below and would like to expand it with readers’ help.

Textual Criticism and Other Areas of New Testament Studies

Aland, Kurt. “Glosse, Interpolation, Redaktion und Komposition in der Sicht der neutestamentlichen Textkritik.” Pages 35–57 in Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes. ANTF 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967.
Bird, Michael F. “Textual Criticism and the Historical Jesus.” JSHJ 6.2 (2008): 133–156. A look at the perils of ignoring textual criticism in the study of the historical Jesus. Summary here.
Dormandy, Michael. “How the Books Became the Bible: The Evidence for Canon­Formation from Work-Combinations in Manuscripts.” TC 23 (2018): 1–39. A detailed look at the question of what manuscript contents might tell us about canon formation. Cf. to Mead and Schmidt below. Online here.
Head, Peter M. “Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 115–156 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem. Oxford Conference, April 2008. Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett, edited by P. Foster, A. Gregory, J. S. Kloppenborg and J. Verheyden. BETL 239. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. A thorough look at the importance of textual criticism for the synoptic problem.
Epp, Eldon J. “Issues in the Interrelationship of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon.” Pages 485–515 in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. A survey of how textual criticism impinges on questions of canon including order of books, contents of manuscripts, variants, etc.
Malik, Peter M. “Whose Fathers? A Note on the (Un-)Johannine Echo in the Egerton Gospel.” Early Christianity 9 (2018): 201–211. Offers critical interaction with Francis Watson’s argument in Gospel Writing that the Egerton Gospel is a source for John’s Gospel based on the scribal correction of the phrase “(y)our fathers.”
Meade, John D. “Myths about Canon: What the Codex Can and Can’t Tell Us.” Pages TBD in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, forthcoming. Argues that the contents of our codices are not a good guide to questions of canonicity.
Porter, Stanley E. and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. “The Implications of Textual Variants for Authenticating the Words of Jesus.” Pages 97–133 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. New Testament Tools and Studies 28.1. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
———. “The Implications of Textual Variants for Authenticating the Activities of Jesus.” Pages 121–151 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. New Testament Tools and Studies 28.2. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Schmidt, Daryl D. “The Greek New Testament as a Codex.” Pages 469–484 in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. A survey of NT manuscript contents and the possible implications for canonicity. Cf. to Dormandy and Meade.
Shin, H. W. Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem in Historical Jesus Research: The Search for Valid Criteria. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 36.  Leuven: Peeters, 2004. A comparison of text-critical criteria to those of the historical Jesus. Reviewed by Peter Head in JSNT 27.5 (2005): 47–48.

1 comment