I thought it would be a good idea to draw up a list of the best commentaries for textual criticism. 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, but I am going to begin with one contribution to the list:
Up-date:
2 Corinthians Murray J. Harris (NIGTC, 2004)
Revelation D.E. Aune (Word, 3 vols, 1997-1998)
Supporting Evidence:
MH: Harris on 2 Corinthians 'discusses every variant in the apparatus to NA27, and often reaches independent judgments'.
PMH: 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:
I'm looking for help here from the studio audience, but I am going to begin with one contribution to the list:
Up-date:
2 Corinthians Murray J. Harris (NIGTC, 2004)
Revelation D.E. Aune (Word, 3 vols, 1997-1998)
Supporting Evidence:
MH: Harris on 2 Corinthians 'discusses every variant in the apparatus to NA27, and often reaches independent judgments'.
PMH: 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)]]