Interview with Hugh Houghton

Question 1: Professor Houghton, your new book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, has just been published by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. To begin with, what motivated you to write this commentary, and how does it differ from earlier works such as Bruce Metzger’s classic Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament?

Hugh Houghton: The Editorial Committee had long been discussing the desirability of a new commentary to accompany the UBS6 edition. Almost fifty years have elapsed since Metzger wrote his commentary, and there have been major developments in textual scholarship over this time. In addition, the UBS6 edition contains readings and variation units which are not covered by Metzger, so a new volume was necessary. I began the work gradually, but as it went on I grew excited by the opportunity to consider every variation unit in the Greek New Testament and to think about how best to explain these in the light of current scholarly understanding.

Question 2: Could you briefly explain how your commentary is structured and who you had in mind as your main audience? Is it primarily aimed at specialists in textual criticism, or also at theologians, students, translators and other interested readers of the New Testament?

Hugh Houghton: Like the UBS6 edition, my commentary is aimed at students, pastors and translators. Indeed, because I translate all of the different Greek readings into English, it could even be used by those who do not know much Greek. My goal is to explain all the readings at each point of variation: how they relate to each other, why the editorial text has been chosen and which other readings might have a claim to be the earliest form of the text. At the same time, I point towards other, more detailed publications for those who want to explore individual variants further. So although it’s not aimed at specialists, they may find it a useful starting place.

Question 3: The book draws on decades of research in New Testament textual criticism. What methodological principles guided you in compiling this commentary? For instance, how does it relate to approaches such as the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) used in the Editio Critica Maior?

Hugh Houghton: It’s often said that textual criticism is both an art and a science. The traditional approach to evaluating readings consists of balancing external evidence (the number and age of the surviving witnesses) and internal evidence (criteria of style and language). This is known as “reasoned eclecticism”, and can be applied in all biblical books. For those writings for which the Editio Critica Maior is available, we can also consider genealogical evidence. This takes the form of the reconstruction of the textual history using full digital data, which offers indications of the proportions of prior and posterior readings in any pair of manuscripts and how many times a variant may have emerged. I don’t go into the details of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in my book, but I do explain its findings when they are relevant to the choice in the editorial text.

Question 4: Many readers find textual criticism rather technical or even intimidating. How would you explain to a broader audience why this kind of detailed work on manuscripts and variants matters for understanding the New Testament as a whole?

Hugh Houghton: There’s more to textual criticism than just trying to reconstruct the earliest attainable form of the text. The surviving evidence spans the centuries and shows us how the text has been transmitted across generations. So it provides a window onto the history of the New Testament and, indeed, different Christian communities in times gone by. No two manuscripts are the same, and the variations between them remind us of the importance of diversity (and of applying our intellect) in questions of faith.

Question 5: As a member of the editorial committee for UBS6 and NA29, could you give us a glimpse into how decisions about textual variants are made?

Hugh Houghton: Previous editorial committees often voted on which reading to accept, so it was rather unexpected that the current committee managed to make practically all of its decisions by consensus. The decision was taken at an early stage to adopt the new text of books for which the Editio Critica Maior has been published, and to leave the others unchanged but to update the apparatus. When considering which variation units to include, one member provided a preliminary assessment for each book, which was then reviewed by a second person, looking at the existing editions, notes in Bibles, and exegetical commentaries. The whole committee then considered their recommendations for any changes, examining arguments on both sides before coming to a decision.

Question 6: One change in UBS6 and NA29 will immediately be apparent to every reader: the order of the 27 NT writings has changed. How was it changed and why did the editorial committee decide to take this step?

Hugh Houghton: There are two changes to the sequence. First, the Catholic Epistles (James, Peter, John and Jude) now come immediately after the Acts of the Apostles. Then, within the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews has been moved to between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy. The latter is a traditional sequence, which groups the ten letters to communities before the four letters to individuals. The committee’s motivation was to reproduce the order in the oldest Greek Bibles, such as the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus. Early manuscripts are surprisingly consistent in supporting these changes: the ‘standard’ order of books actually stems from Latin Bibles in the early days of printing and has no claim to antiquity. So we decided to reorder the books in this Greek edition to follow the earliest surviving sequence, a practice which is seen in a number of other scholarly editions.

Question 7: Is there a textual change (or even several) in UBS6 that you consider particularly controversial or of special relevance to biblical interpretation?

Hugh Houghton: In some places, the text will be shorter, because it has been decided that some phrases are later additions. For instance, in Mark 3:14 and 3:16, the words “whom he also called apostles” and “and he appointed the Twelve” have been removed on the grounds that they are expansions. Likewise, much of Revelation 20:5 is not included in the editorial text because the reference to the dead not rising for a thousand years seems to be a secondary gloss. The two most important changes for interpretation, to my mind, is the confirmation that the designation of Jesus Christ as Son of God is unambiguously present in Mark 1:1 (setting the tone for the rest of the Gospel) and a change at Revelation 21:6, which now reads “I have become the Alpha and the Omega”. At Acts 5:33, the editorial text now indicates that “they plotted to kill” Peter and the apostles rather than simply that “they wished to kill them”. Although there are over 160 changes to the text, most of them are very minor and quite a few do not even affect the translation.

Question 8: Both UBS6 and your commentary on it will no doubt be of interest to translators as well. In what ways might these works influence future Bible translations or revisions?

Hugh Houghton: Translators will find the commentary useful in explaining the differences in the underlying text of earlier, influential translations compared with modern ones. I also include some suggestions for translators, or highlight difficulties posed by certain readings. Our hope, as a committee, is that translators will adopt the editorial text of UBS6 as the basis for future translations based on Greek, as this is now the most up-to-date scholarly text.

Question 9: Looking to the future, what do you see as the next frontiers in New Testament textual criticism? How might, e.g., developments in digital humanities, AI, or interdisciplinary research change the field?

Hugh Houghton: The arrival of computers and the internet have already resulted in remarkable changes to the field in recent decades. It’s easier than ever before to view complete manuscripts online, and to handle large amounts of data. Each volume of the Editio Critica Maior is based on electronic transcriptions of over 150 manuscripts, but this is only 10–20% of the total and I imagine that, over time, the remaining documents will be added to these. Tools such as algorithms and AI offer new ways of examining and organising the data, and may point us towards new insights. Even so, it’s worth emphasising that all the decisions for the Editio Critica Maior and the hand editions are made by the editorial team, and can be tracked at each stage. Because our editions are founded on the historical data of the witnesses which have been preserved, I think it’s very important that we are able to demonstrate the chain of continuity between these and the text reconstructed by the editors, and digital editions make this straightforward.

Question 10: Finally, what advice would you give to theology students or interested lay readers who want to begin exploring the world of textual criticism? Where should they start, and what mindset would help?

Hugh Houghton: The first step is to learn how to use an apparatus to see the different readings. The UBS6 edition is ideal for this, as it provides the full attestation of all selected witnesses in variation units which are of particular significance for translation or exegesis. What is more, each is explained in my Textual Commentary, which also has an introduction setting out the principles of textual criticism. The next stage is to go online, perhaps to the New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room or the Center for the Study of New Testament manuscripts, to find images of the documents in order to see and try to understand the readings in context. Good proficiency in Biblical Greek will help with this. Maybe try to transcribe a page, to experience the task faced by copyists. (The International Greek New Testament project has a training programme for volunteers who are interested in contributing towards the Editio Critica Maior.) There’s always something new to find when working with primary sources, but do ask for advice or guidance if there’s anything you don’t understand and make sure you read the introduction of the edition itself. It can be very easy to be led astray by misunderstanding the conventions, but with practice you’ll find that they open up a rich tradition of manuscripts reflecting centuries of history.