More Text-Critical Commentary
For those able to handle Koine Greek, there is an additional resource dealing with text-critical matters, Wieland Wilker’s “Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels,” here. Like the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (edited by Metzger) mentioned in an earlier posting, Wilker provides details and analysis. But “online” means that Wilker didn’t have to deal with space/page limitations, and so he provides a much fuller presentation of the data, such as full quotations from early Christian writers (“Church Fathers”).
And his judgements broadly reflect those of the great majority of scholars who have worked with the relevant data. I think that James Snapp was unkind and inaccurate to describe the Metzger textual commentary as “terrible” in the way it handles the questions about the ending of Mark a recent comment. But it is limited, mainly by the purpose of the commentary, which was essentially to give the basic data and the rationale of the committee in judging which variants to print as primary and which as secondary.
P.S. After Snapp protesting that in his statement that the Metzger commentary was “terrible”he meant to say that it was “terribly one-sided and selective,” I modified this posting. But he still objects that I’m somehow distorting him. I’ll let people read his comment to this posting and judge. “Terrible” or “terribly one-sided and selective,” both seem rather unkind and inaccurate. But, for the record, Snapp meant to say “terribly one sided and selective.” OK.