CSNTM Text & Manuscript Conference

As with its predecessors, Hugh Houghton’s recently published Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament aims to “focus on the most important variants for translation and exegesis” (32*).  For Acts (along with Mark, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation), the commentary focuses on the reconstructed “initial text” of the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), which is now published as part of the sixth edition of the UBS Greek text. The ECM text of Acts differs from the UBS5 in fifty-two passages (with an additional 155 variant units designated as “split readings”). Houghton’s new Textual Commentary, however, discusses only twelve of these fifty-two variants. One could account for these omissions by arguing that the other forty changes are not important for “translation and exegesis.” After all, Houghton and the committee omit from Metzger’s second edition nearly 300 variant units in Acts 1-14 alone, presumably based in part on the conclusion that they were not important for interpretation. Houghton’s Textual Commentary, however, also retains/adds variants that do not appear to be consequential for translation and/or exegesis (e.g. Acts 2:31 on pg. 283).

Klaus Wachtel’s ECM Textual Commentary is not readily accessible (by cost and distribution) to many of those who teach (or preach) the book of Acts. Thus, in our opinion, the readership of Houghton’s Textual Commentary would have been better served if the rationale for the other forty changes had been discussed in this more readily available format, especially in instances where the UBS6 committee apparently disagrees with the ECM’s proposed reading (e.g. Acts 13:33 on pg. 32*). In this paper, we examine some of the more significant changes in the ECM of Acts for translation and interpretation through the lens of the Textual Commentary tradition.