Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Metzger´s commentary revised?

It appears that Roger L. Omanson has produced a work "based on" Metzger´s textual commentary. See here. Will the old one remain in print? How much change is there? Are the works the same in purpose?
[work announced on Wieland Willker´s list]


  1. Here’s an interview with Dr. Omanson on the changes made. In his words, “My edition simplifies and expands.”

  2. Interestingly, in the interview, Omanson recommends that people who find TC annoying and complicated should read Misquoting Jesus to see how significant variants can be.

    I don’t want to get too off topic, but I read Misquoting Jesus this summer, and though I found some of the book exaggerated, I think it’s the best intro to TC I’ve read. What book(s) do you recommend to those with no exposure to TC? I’m reading Wallace’s chapters in Reinventing Jesus right now, and though they make a good antidote to Ehrman’s overstatement, they are just too dense for someone just being introduced to the topic.

  3. For a person with no Greek background at all, I might recommend White's KJV Only Controversy, though with some hesitation as it has been a very long time since I have seen that book and I may change my opinion if I perused it again now. Bruce's New Testament Documents is fine for someone with no Greek background, but it doesn't deal with the process of making textual decision, so it's probably not what you have in mind. For a person with even a little Greek I would recommend either Greenlee's or Black's basic introductory books (the titles of each escape me at the moment).

  4. The interview noted by Peter G. also has the comment that: "I added many places where the segmentation of the text is debated and where the different ways of segmenting and punctuating the text make a difference in meaning and translation."

    This is practically never addressed in Metzger (or the NA generally), and so would be a new element that might warrant getting hold of the book. But it would be interesting to know what resources Omanson used to discuss the segmenting and punctuation of the text. I don't know of any source which collects this sort of information. So does he just discuss editorial differences on such things (as noted in UBS)? Or did he go to the manuscripts?

  5. If he noted where the segmentation "is debated" he must be quoting from previous authors.

  6. Eric, can you give us a summary of White´s book?