Working with Manuscripts: A very brief review (maybe just a note, really)

 

I just finished reading this new book: Liv Ingeborg Lied & Brent Nongbri, Working with Manuscripts: A Guide for Textual Scholars (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2025). It is not a very long or substantial book (179 pages). I read it in a couple of hours on the train to London (and back again). It is very readable, with a good number of photos and illustrations. I think the key thing about it is that it is written as a basic guide for new graduate students, which assumes they've read some texts in a critical edition, but now are thinking about accessing manuscript resources for their research - but don't really know anything about actual manuscripts (see p. 6).  

 

This book, as you can see from the official table of Contents, has chapters on Manuscripts as Artifacts (why looking at manuscripts may be interesting, as well as interesting discussion and definitions of parts of a manuscript book); Finding your Manuscript (how to use a combination of print and online resources to locate a manuscript of interest; and how to decipher the many ways the same manuscript may be referred to); Provenance (thinking about how your manuscript comes to be where it is and the variety of ethical issues which should be considered in researching and publishing on particular manuscripts); Getting Access (how to email a librarian, and other tips); In the Reading Room with your Manuscript (what to actually look for and how to behave around librarians); Back Home - What Now? (how to keep track of your notes and photos); Asking for Help (how to email senior scholars and ask for help); Publishing and Permissions (does what it says on the tin). 

The range and scope of the bibliographies will I imagine help any reader - there are pretty substantial bibliographies for each chapter (I certainly marked up quite a few items to track down and read*); the actual discussion is sometimes pretty basic - but for that reason will be extremely useful for the imagined student reader. There is a lot of good advice here. If you fit the intended reader profile or have students who do, then I'm sure you'll find this book useful. 

 

*Potentially, at some point in the future. Maybe to get a pdf and save it randomly somewhere on my laptop.  

 

 

 

 

Quarles: Introducing New Testament Textual Criticism for the 21st Century

It seems to me that we are due for an up-to-date introduction to NT textual criticism since the standard classic in our field (Metzger-Ehrman) is out of date in some key areas (e.g., re: text-types and computer tools like the CBGM) and since others like Jongkind's and Anderson's are brief by design. That's why I was pleased to see Chuck Quarles's new introduction that came out in March of this year. I asked Chuck if he would mind telling our readers a bit about what motivated him to write it and what distinguishes it. —Peter

---

Several respected introductions to New Testament textual criticism have guided New Testament students in the exercise of restoring the New Testament text for generations. These volumes are generally considered to be “tried and true,” and professors and students may be reluctant to replace them or even supplement them with the latest book on the topic. I sympathize with that sentiment. These trusted volumes have shaped my own approach to the discipline in important ways and I am grateful for them.

However, as I taught master’s courses and PhD seminars in New Testament textual criticism over the last decade, I became increasingly convinced that a new introduction was badly needed. The standard introductions masterfully explain the methods and approaches to textual criticism applied in most of the 20^th century. Yet, these leave readers unaware of some of the sweeping changes that occurred in the field in the late 20^th and early 21^st century.

For example, the standard introductions still affirm the old text-type approach, even though the leading specialists in the field have offered persuasive evidence that the approach is flawed. Among other problems, old theories about the relationships between texts were sometimes based on a relatively small sample of variant units or shared tendencies. However, developments in computer technology enable researchers to track the level of agreement between two texts on every shared variant unit resulting in much more accurate information about the relationships between texts. The data demonstrates that leading representatives of the so-called Western text have greater similarity to representatives of other textual groups than with witnesses supposedly belonging to the same text type! (see Appendix III of the book)

Computer applications made other advances possible too. Westcott and Hort famously argued that “ALL TRUSTWORTHY RESTORATION OF CORRUPTED TEXTS IS FOUNDED ON THE STUDY OF THEIR HISTORY, that is, of the relations of descent or affinity which connect the several documents.” They called for the development of a “genealogical tree of transmission” and stated that the more exactly text critics are “able to trace the chief ramifications of the tree, and to determine the places of the several documents among the branches, the more secure will be the foundations laid for a criticism capable of distinguishing the original text from its successive corruptions.”

A Less Studied Isaiah Scroll

In my own personal study of Isaiah, I’ve come across a less known and less studied Dead Sea Scroll, 4QIsao (4Q68), that preserves some insightful, even peculiar details. It dates paleographically to 100-50 BC which makes it a little younger than the more popular 1QIsaa.

In this photo of 4QIsao, you’ll notice several yellow underlines, two red underlines, and one blue underline. Seven yellow underlines draw our attention to some peculiar uses of a final mem used in non-final position. From my experience, this feature is seldom evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Has anyone seen a comparable text?

The red underlines refer to two orthographic variants. In these two instances, the scribe of 4QIsao transcribes the more common form of “night” לילה for the MT’s less common form ליל. The difference here regards spelling and that of only one letter – a heh – and probably represents a facilitating approach to copying the text since the form of 4QIsao is the more common spelling.

Finally, the blue underline draws our attention to an ancient textual variant. Here is a breakdown of the textual evidence in MT, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsao.

MT (Isa 14:31)		1QIsaa (Isa 14:31)		4QIsao (Isa 14:31)
וְאֵין בּוֹדֵד בְּמוֹעָדָיו	And there is not one who separates in his ranks	ואין מודד במודעיו	And there is not one who measures (out punishment) for his kinsmen	ואין] בודד בםידעיו	And there is not] one who separates among his friends

The witnesses are all genetically related and concern three interchanges: 1) interchange of bet (MT/4QIsao) and mem (1QIsaa), 2) interchange of vav (MT/1QIsaa) and yod (4QIsao), 3) and transposition of dalet and ayin (MT vs. 1QIsaa and 4QIsao). Each of these interchanges is common in the Jewish Square Script. The MT is probably the more original reading with the two Dead Sea Scrolls trying to make sense of the MT’s difficulty. The difficulty of the MT is further evidenced in the Septuagint’s confused translation of καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ εἶναι. Since at least the second century BC, the difficulty of the MT appears to have puzzled scribes and translators. 

Overall, this manuscript stands out for its peculiar usage of final mem in non-final position, a feature that marks it as exceptional among Dead Sea Scrolls. The rest of the scroll is typical for Qumran texts, fragmentarily preserving a biblical text that aligns very closely with Codex Leningrad, matching it at 97.77% when excluding two spelling differences. While it contains one insightful textual variant at Isaiah 14:31, this variant appears to interpret the MT in light of its context. In a small but meaningful way, 4QIsao affirms the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition. Its text is nearly identical to it, and when it diverges, it does so in predictable ways.